Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:02, 11 June 2008

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

I am the banned user Flameviper.

I was banned in '07 following a long string of nastiness and broken edits. I came back under a couple other accounts (user:Two Sixteen and this one). As Two-Sixteen, I was blocked after Jpgordon did a checkuser and confirmed my identity; I created this account to see if I could truly contribute productively or whether I was really just a bad person. I leave my fate in your hands, Wikipedia. Can I stay here and edit? Or should I be banned? Ziggy Saw dust 00:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For further reference, this link is a previous digression on my ban.

Seems fine to me. John Reaves 00:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I should note that Nick and I are not the biggest fans of Flameviper and have dealt with him considerably). John Reaves 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Nick (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support an unban, though on some sort of probation where people keep an eye on you and admins will more readily block for infractions. If you screw up this time, though, you probably won't get another chance, so use it wisely. --Rory096 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you are already banned, so the question "should I be banned?" doesn't apply here, but rather if said ban should be enforced. A more pressing matter is the fact that we seemed to have skipped a step here. Where is the community discussion that decided Flameviper could come back and edit? It's clear at least some admins already knew you are Flameviper well before this revelation.--Atlan (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's referring to his current account, I suppose- and this is the unban discussion. --Rory096 00:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand this is an unban discussion. The point is, why did this discussion not take place much earlier, when admins were already aware of his identity? I like to know why admins helped Flameviper violate his ban.--Atlan (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do not support this user returning, especially because of the immaturity that is still showing. Edits like this, this, this, and all his recent edits with "~desu" in the summary are totally immature. Metros (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the ~desu was a modification of Twinkle - no more intrusive than "TW". Ziggy Saw dust 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It links to a completely unrelated article. "TW" does not. I can imagine this confuses inexperienced users. It's entirely unhelpful.--Atlan (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's exactly what I mean. You think it's perfectly cool and kosher to link to that. And the fact that "desu" is a 4chan meme is just a strange coincidence? Metros (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it's a chan meme? Does this have any relevance to the discussion at hand? Ziggy Saw dust 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pertinent to your behavior, which is no doubt the most important aspect of an unban discussion.--Atlan (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorical oppose. This editor is asking us to validate the violation of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK. I categorically refuse to send a mixed message. Despite productive contributions from one individual, too many banned users who are incapable of contributing positively under any account or persona violate the same policies, and their collective disruption to the site is considerable, and their abuse would only increase if we validate that abuse of policy by sometimes granting it legitimacy. I wish Ziggy had instead demonstrated the ability to contribute positively in a wiki environment on any of the other hundreds of Wikimedia projects where he or she is not sitebanned. Should this person wish to do so, I volunteer to be his or her mentor on any other project where I am active and, after a sufficient interval, I will open an unban discussion on this noticeboard myself. Yet for now, under these circumstances, absolutely not. Please retire this account and contact me; I would like to help you. Durova^Charge! 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts

It looks like the bulk of his sockpuppetry ended in September 2007, over 8 months ago. He tried to evade the ban in late January as Lumberjake but that only lasted 3 days. Three other accounts confined their edits to their user and user-talk pages and administrative pages, which is only a minor sin. We should treat him as if his ban started on February 2, the last time he tried to edit an article. That was only 4 months ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Oops, forgot to check his current account, which started February 6. And the clock start... NOW. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My love of Suiseiseki notwithstanding, I'm going to oppose an unban right now. In addition to the problems with user contributions noted above, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ziggy Sawdust raises a whole new set of red flags for me. --jonny-m t 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others

- Just a quick procedural note as well, but isn't this discussion more appropriate for WP:AN? Or does it matter? --jonny-m t 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apoplexic Dude and Ilfird the Third are not me. Ziggy Saw dust 01:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note I've blocked the account as a sockpuppet. There's no reason to let a banned user continue editing like this. If unban is called for by consensus, go ahead and unblock whichever account is decided upon, but, for now, he's blocked as per his ban. Metros (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support both a block on the latest account and not removing the ban. Daniel (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. naerii - talk 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some general comments:

Without reading or commenting on Flameviper's situation, I generally believe in second chances. The purpose of a ban is to discourage future behavior and provide a disincentive for others who would do the same thing.

Before unbanning any editor, he would need to 1) address each and every issue that led to the ban to the satisfaction of those who banned him, be it arbcom or the community, 2) promise to abide by the same rules as everyone else, 3) wait a suitable cooling-off period with zero edits, not even anonymous ones. The cooling-off period is to prove to himself that he isn't a Wikiholic, or if he is, to give himself a start at recovery. I recommend at least 30 days but up to a year if it's a 3rd- or 4th-chance.

Any non-office-related ban (e.g. threats of legal action) for more than a year, i.e. "indefinite," should be summarily lifted if the person asks politely and promises to live by the rules. This only applies if the person has honored the ban for at least a year. Office actions are outside of our control.

Since this editor has a history of sockpuppetry extending past his last block, I recommend he: 1) go 60 days without any involvement with Wikipedia except maybe reading it, 2) use the mailing lists or IRC to request his user_talk page and mail privilages be unblocked, 3) create an article requested on WP:AFC on his user_talk page to show he is serious about editing, and 4) request that this article be reviewed and moved to the main space and that he be reinstated on parole. The terms of the parole would be related to the reasons for his initial and subsequent bans. Finally, I recommend he try to be the next Valiant Return Triple Crown winner.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Valiant Return triple crown is available only to editors who make a legitimate return to editing, which this person has not (so far). In fairness, we need a better structure for people to return to good standing. That's an area where I've been putting some focus lately and I'd be glad to put my head together with more people on both sides of the fence. If you can edit legitimately right now and are interested in sharing ideas please post to my user talk. I may open a subpage to discuss a better framework. If you happen to be sitebanned and want to participate, please use the e-mail function to contact me: I ask that you respect the spirit of the ban while welcoming input and feedback. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the ban, too many productive editors are banned these days, and the treatment of some of them is appalling really (see Metros's talk page for a shining example of good commmunication skills from an admin). As long as he promises not to sockpuppet, there's no need to keep banning. Bans are just a completely negative way to go about things and makes the atmosphere worse than it already is. Al Tally ^talk 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep banned. Unlike in real life, on Wikipedia it is possible to start fresh, with no baggage from previous dramas. Anyone who is truly reformed would be ashamed of their previous indiscretions, and would embrace the opportunity to disassociate themselves from their previous identity. Conversely, anyone who would come here to boast of their previous banishment, and the fact that they have successfully evaded the consequences, is not reformed. Hesperian 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some subscribe to the philosophy that the first step in reforming is to publicly admit your sins. That's not the same as bragging, but it is the opposite of hiding under a new name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unban, but with hefty probation - oddly for exactly the reasons that Hesperian is using for his !vote on continuing the ban. Yes, on Wikipedia it is possible to start afresh, and that is exactly what ZS seems to be trying to do. Rather than dissociating himself from previous indiscretions, which would be to attempt to hide them from others as well, he has chosen to make it clear to us exactly what his past has been and request the opportunity for a second chance. I don't see it as boasting, but as an attempt to come clean. Consider the other thing that could have happened. ZS could have kept quiet, and eventually might have been found out. That would have led to a permanent ban on ZS. Or he could have boasted about it on some blogsite somewhere. By admitting to his past on AN/I - not boasting about it in a chat room, but formally stating it to those who have the power to ban him - I see a genuine attempt to ask for some form of forgiveness. I'd suggestan unbanning with some six months or more of "parole" in which problem editing is more likely to result in severe consequences (rather than the usual slap-on-the-wrist of a 24 hour block). Grutness...wha? 02:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, this thread that exposes rather than dissociates ZS comes 11 minutes after his previous identity was disclosed on his (now closed) current request for adminship. I'd like to AGF, but the timing of his desire to come clean doesn't sit well. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a bit more clarity, he's stated that the reason he started that RfA (which he must have known was doomed to fail) was as a means of revealing his identity. --Rory096 03:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There would be far better ways to reveal his identity with the hopes of gaining the trust of the community, but, for clarity, where exactly is it stated that the reason he started the RFA was to expose himself? --Onorem ♠Dil 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, IRC, I thought I wrote that. My bad. --Rory096 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Onorem. With all the RFAs he's had in the past, I really think he just highly desires being an administrator. He has mentioned in the past, though, that he really wanted to pass an RFA and then, basically, say "Ha, I just got adminship and now I'll reveal that I've been Flameviper all along!" I'll see if I can find a quote/link later. Metros (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that he seriously thought he could have won with barely a few months experience, 1000 edits, terrible question answers, etc. --Rory096 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AN#user:SwirlBoy39 unban proposal, a concurrent thread on WP:AN, for how an unban request should work. A previously agreed-to mentor takes the lead, no dishonest RfA that surprises the admin who was aware that they were trying to come back, no lulz-inspired goofing around. I suppose if you can find someone willing to mentor, I'd support an unban with a similar very tight leash. Otherwise, no. I do, however, support the general idea of unbanning rather than quietly sneaking back without telling anyone, per Grutness. --barneca (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn. I'd like to think that people can come back from being banned, and my first response was that Ziggy had made a good effort to demonstrate that he could do it right this time around. However, then johnny-mt posted the link to the recent RfA, where it was apparently necessary for Ryan Postlethwaite to "unmask" Ziggy. This puts things into a very different light from my first impression - that the creation of this thread was entirely voluntary. Some of Ziggy's over-zealous actions in AfD, which I was inclined to write off as good-faith newbie inexperience; I'm now not so sure about. I think Durova makes a very good point too. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, some extremely prominent users have given banned users the advice to "come back, don't go back to the same misbehavior, don't edit the same areas, and we'll never have to know it's you" - no-one ever disagreed with people giving that advice either. In light of this, I cannot agree with the people who are opposing solely on the grounds of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK. Don't forget, we recently let the original Willy on Wheels come back. --Random832 (contribs) 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to give that same advice. Could you link that WoW discussion? I missed that one. --Geniac (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the block - FlameViper has his share of compulsive edititis, and his effervescent sense of humor can certainly grate on the nerves, but even at his most annoying, he's just on a level with your average outspoken radical inclusionist on AfD. I'm not a fan of the "Admin Cabal" style of argument, but in the case of FlameViper, it seems that from the start certain folk were so annoyed by his presence as to take positively baffling leaps and jumps to paint his admittedly-less-than-stellar edits in a malicious light. Annoying? Sure! Malicious? Get real. His worst edits deserved a patient, level-headed explanation of what exactly was wrong - not this hyper-militant power trip that he got. I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not a baby-sitting service, but this isn't baby-sitting - it's being a functional, communicative community. The bitching and moaning over his infamous edit to ElaraGirl's talk page was the utter nadir of this juvenile Wiki-policing - ElaraGirl herself, the "wronged" party, understood the tone in which it was intended, but this couldn't, wouldn't, and didn't satiate the thirst for blood on the Votes for Banning of the time. The failure of most of Wikipedia's most trusted faces to even acknowledge his goofiness, treating him (in some gross sort of manifestation of the total travesty that is Zero Tolerance) like some sort of serious threat, is, ironically, itself rather immature. This is a community that bent (and still bends) over backwards to extend last chances to completely useless ~~trolls~~ human beings such as the great Mantanmoreland and the positively unforgettable Gordon Watts (not to mention the excessive outpouring of oral-testicular manipulation that the departure of Everybody's Favorite Tenured Professor inspired). Does anyone have even the slightest inkling how positively humiliating the demands for baby-sitting and nannying must feel to Flame? It's no small wonder that he'd sooner start from scratch with a new sock-puppet than subject himself to what, no matter how it actually is in practice, is always expressed in the most petty, tin-pot dictatorship terms. Yes, he does head-scratchingly dumb things sometimes (I certainly cringe at the edits to jp gordon down-up-down-up's talk page), but when he feels - and more rightfully so than not, really - persecuted to such a ridiculously petty degree, what do you expect him to do? Handle it rationally? There are grown adults who can't remain completely stable under stressing circumstances like those. He's a kid. Kids are more transparent about their panic. Kids do stupid, stupid things when they panic. Kids also, however, have pride. No matter how much he reminds us of ourselves in that eternally awkward, embarrassing stage of our lives, he deserves the fair break and respect that we ourselves wanted when we were "back there". Maturity does not spontaneously occur in a void. The "vocal minority" of the community approaches him in about as flat-out wrong a manner as can possibly be accomplished. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Flameviper is dishonest about pretty much every aspect of why he's been banned. He's wasting our time, again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for similar reasons to Durova and well, Jpg. Heard it before from this user then find out he's yanking our collective chains. If I recall correctly, the last time he pulled this exact same stunt, even convinced an established admin to mentor him, he used another sockpuppet in the very unban discussion...Please... enough time wasted. Sarah 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lots of kids can behave "grown up" on Wikipedia, some can't. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this justifies the nasty manner in which he is constantly and consistently dealt with? I'm not the biggest fan of linking WP:CIVIL by any means, but in this case, I think we could really do without the upset ruffled-feather shenanigans. Give him a chance to learn from the graceful example of the Wikipedia community, if nothing else. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per various arguments above. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeplenty of users above have noted that the problems which led to the ban in the first place haven't been resolved. I would like to add that under this new account he has made inappropriate GA promotions which were reverted and has used inappropriate edit summaries. Durova is correct that we shouldn't be condoning violations of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK either. Hut 8.5 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per durova and diffs provided by Metros. On 22 May, even, this editor was using edit summaries such as [1] which includes the words "I suck c**ks" (his version didn't have asterisks.) This would merit at least a warning/advice not to do so in intself, and that he is a blocked user too does not bode well. Here he was on AN/I asking to be unblocked when only the week before he made edit summaries such as that, which he must've thought people might've considered when viewing his contribs due to his starting this discussion. Sticky Parkin 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, kind sir, those two asteriks saved me a world of psychological upheaval. Were it not for them, I do not know how I would cope with seeing the letter "c" next to the letter "ocks" on a computer screen. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've been watching this user for some time, wondering when the block would be coming. Aside from the diffs already supplied, I'll supply a personal observation, which is that the user seems to be attention-seeking, pushing things further and further until, failing to get the attention they crave, they actually come here and blurt out "look at me". This doesn't seem like someone who has the intention of contributing to the project. And I do apologise for commenting on the user rather than the contributions, but I think it's a pattern of behaviour that is likely to continue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I disagree with Durova's position (I feel forgiveness is always an option, no matter what WP:BAN and WP:SOCK might say, as long as the user demonstrates a genuine desire to contribute constructively), the diffs provided by Metros, all of which occurred in the last five days, are a deal-breaker. Flameviper is asking to come back, with the understanding he'll be on a very short leash -- but he's already biting the leash. While those diffs might only result in a civility warning for a new user, for a previously-banned user they are the kiss of death. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.[reply]
Oppose For the reasons given above. Also, a banned used should request unbanning via e-mail, not on-wiki. _{1 != 2} 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock. Flameviper has been the subject of numerous admin discussions (including 1, 2, 3; there are many others in the AN and ANI archives). He resorted to sockpuppetry in order to seek an unblock. He's been given many chances, and he openly admits here that he enjoys seeking attention. If he were truly interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, he would just do it without all this disruptive behaviour. --Kyoko 15:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah I can't even spend a week away without being dragged back by something like this! Curse the global login cookie. Anyway, I support unblocking. Why? I supported the same for Cream (formerly known as w00t, see archives), and things have turned out well there. The key thing to do is, now that Ziggy has "come clean" about his identity, is to nurture him around to being a productive contributor. This means defining the limits. Saying "he's already blown his chance" doesn't fly with me. He was never given a chance - he was constantly hiding and hoping not to be "outed" by any of those he had confided in. Banning a user repeatedly is useless. They come back angry and cause issues. It doesn't work. No point bearing a grudge, even if "policy" "says" we should. Urging reconsideration and care, Martinp23 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did not "come clean", he tried to become an admin and was unmasked. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I love about this place. There's so much assumption of good faith. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. He's not the bloody Phantom of The Opera being "unmasked" (or something - I'm not a great dramatist (honest)). He's a real person, like you or me. Now think about that. He's real - he's like you, sat here behind a computer. Now tell me that you can honestly make a judgment like that based on the prejudice of actions of a year ago, simply because of the WP:BAN tag? If you can, then I despair. The point is - if a user is coming back again and again despite a ban, then they want to be here (more than I do, frankly). Why should we stop them when we can put in a bit of effort to turn them around into useful contributors, and save ourselves the pain the the future? Martinp23 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really do try to assume good faith and if you honestly think I've failed to do so, please point out how / where. All I said was that ZiggySawdust filed an RfA and RyanPostlethwaite pointed out his former identity. If he had not filed the RfA, and had announced of his own volition who he was, I'd be urging that he be unbanned - just as you are. But that did not happen. All I've said, really, is that a confession loses some of its moral value when one's hand is caught in the cookie jar. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unban and move on with your lives. By creating this account, he took a huge risk, and I for one admire Flameviper for admitting that and risking making his situation worse. He wants to edit here, so as long as he's not causing any trouble and being monitored to check he's doing fine, everything will be fine. Good luck. Qst (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Causing trouble like creating nonsense redirects you mean?? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD it if it's so evil. Martinp23 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's not "evil", but neither is it productive or helpful. Nor is this. I don't feel like trolling through the contributions to find more examples, but they are there. What I honestly don't see is the evidence of reform. I don't think anyone is suggesting it's not possible, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or "testing" like this: [-Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive418#Need_an_admin_to_reverse_pagemove]=? Metros (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried talking to him about your concerns before jumping to block? I'd honestly like to see more admins do that for serious cases - if you can talk the user out of being a dick (if he/she is being one), then the problem is resolved much for satisfactorily for all than using the buttons. Martinp23 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. It was a silly move which wasn't the best for his reputation, but its not the end of the world. Qst (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support unban. This is ridiculous. Ziggy is annoying, but in no way harmful. He is not Greg Kohs or Don Murphy and does not deserve to be banned. howcheng {chat} 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely support unban - this user is certainly not the worst member of our project, we've probably unbanned far worse users before. This latest account of Flameviper is far better than previous accounts, and has done some fantastic work here. I see no reason to reblock him (yeah, I'm aware it's already been done) for actions that happened relatively long ago. I'll certainly offer to mentor him, I think that could help and I'd welcome thoughts on some editing restrictions. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw anything too problematic from the Ziggy Sawdust account, and he seemed like a productive editor. I'd support giving him a chance and unbanning him. I'm very disappointed that he's been blocked so quickly too, rather than being allowed to talk here. Acalamari 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not now. He's shown too much annoyance, both on and off wiki. We've been here before, where he promises to do good, then ultimately fails. ~~My decision stands.~~ Oppose an unblock. -Pilotguy contact tower 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest- have many people received mails from this person in response to this thread? Not that I minded it- it's always nice to get mail :) and it wasn't particularly abusive, however I was careful (I hope) and used the 'email this user' function to respond, rather than revealing my email addy. (No disrespect meant to Ziggy and I'm not trying to say he's a wrong'un or anything like that - I just try to be cautious online.) Sticky Parkin 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, Flameviper emailed me, too. Just so you know, I believe that the "email this user" function does reveal your email to the recipient, so that they can reply. Someone please correct me if this isn't the case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the case. Speaking as someone who uses the email function often, sending an email to someone reveals your email addy to them so's they can reply. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No email here - I don't even think I have that option turned on. At least I hope to God I don't. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No real strong opinion on Flameviper himself, but the fact that he socked again to get around his ban doesn't sit too well with me and makes me none to quick to think we should unban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I'm willing to consider the unban, but on a short leash after a month or so long wait. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unban. This discussion is disappointingly filled with the idea that the user is an unreformed scoundrel, needs to repent, needs to abstain from improving the encyclopedia as some kind of gesture of goodwill. It appears that this user has been editing in a mostly constructive fashion and wants to continue doing so, but feels that his participation should have the approval of the community. I find all that to be very encouraging. Everyking (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unban - I hate to sound like I'm not showing good faith, but AGF says "assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary". I have reviewed the edits of all the accounts in this saga and I am not convinced that unbanning this account, the latest in a long line of socks (some of which were used to support his last blocking request, others of which even fairly recently were simply vandalism-only accounts) will have any net benefit for the encyclopaedia. Others such as Poetlister and Moulton that we've unblocked are potentially strong contributors capable of improving the encyclopaedia, and any controversy surrounding their edits did not extend to living Wikimemory of the unblock requests. It's very easy to stay under the radar simply by sticking to speedy deletions and script warnings. From the last two weeks alone - unhelpful edits like [2] and [3] suggest someone will have to spend a lot of time running after him fixing up, and needlessly offensive edit summaries [4] and [5]. I'm not seeing the "constructive editing", sorry. Orderinchaos 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unban per Durova. I think Ziggy should try to contribute positively in other Wikimedia projects where s/he is not sitebanned. If Ziggy can show that he is capable of working in a wiki environment, s/he should be given another chance. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If unbanned

If this user is unbanned, what kind of restrictions/policing/guidelines do those who say "he needs to be put on a short leash" believe need to be put into place? I don't believe that he should be just "turned loose" without any structure to guide his actions and an understanding of what would happen with disruptions. So for those of you who support an unbanning, what do you feel needs to be done after the unbanning to prevent any of the issues that led to the banning and the issues that occurred under this account. Metros (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we really must unban; immediate short blocks in response to any unnecessary use of foul language or other obscenities which aren't in a context that could be construed as necessary or relevant for building an encyclopedia. Including edit summaries. Sticky Parkin 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foul language is not grounds for blockings. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky Parkin is correct, it can be evidence of incivility. Kbthompson (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then block for incivility, not for a few f-bombs. "Evidence of incivility" - if you find yourself needing to play Sherlock Holmes or start a spreadsheet to determine whether or not a user is being incivil, it's a good sign you're looking far too fucking hard. Best - --Badger Drink (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a user demonstrates an inability to distinguish between when profanity is acceptable and when it is incivil, I think it is entirely appropriate to prohibit them from using profanity altogether, as a purely preventative measure. This is not about censorship; this is about helping people be civil. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.[reply]

Whoa. Strongly disagree with a general profanity ban, although I agree with everyone's points about it being innapropriate in certain places. When a rule like this is cooked up, people have to realize how hard it is to enforce. If he uses profanity in a mild way, it would be ridiculous to then block/ban because of this rule. If he uses it in an incivil way, deal with that, no need for such a wide-ranging rule. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every dog has their day (in court), which is why I say evidence. It's usually enough for someone to be on a behavioural probation for them to concentrate on avoiding such situations. Kbthompson (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We never ever ever should block someone for incivility. (policy states, last I checked) Martinp23 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not, and in fact policy states the opposite, right in the 3rd paragraph:

The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern. A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, one single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or extreme profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough to result in a block without any need to consider the pattern. (WP:CIV, 3rd paragraph)

I really have no idea where you get that from, to be honest... Incivility is probably the most disruptive problem the project faces. Vandalism is easy, you just RBI. Otherwise productive editors who are incivil, on the other hand, are a serious quandary. You hate to block them, but then how many countless productive editors have left the project because they got sick of taking shit from incivil arrogant (but otherwise productive) editors?? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.[reply]

Jay, plenty have left indeed. Me included for most purposes. I don't know where I get that from - I seem to remember some discussion concluding that it was a bad idea to do "block per WP:CIV", if there is no personal attack or sustained disruption. Looking at the quote above this does indeed still seem to be the case, hence my opposition to a block for a single bit of incivility. Ah - I remember now. "Cool down" blocks are a bad thing, and this is effectively what a "short block for incivility" is, if not a punishment, and blocks are not for punishment. Yes, a sustained pattern of issues after his "probation" proper starts would call for a block, but being imperfect does not warrant a sanction like that. Do you see what I mean? Martinp23 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say that we cannot block editors for persistent refusal to comply with an established policy is equivalent to saying that the policy is without force and void. At some point, sufficiently egregious violation of any policy – including WP:CIV] – will draw a block. It's also worth noting that the ArbCom has imposed civility paroles on editors before, recognizing that persistent incivility is harmful and disruptive to a constructive and collaborative working environment. (See for example [6], [7], [8].) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I worded my comment badly due to not having been active. Persistant inciv. can result in a disruption block, but isolted incidents shouldn't do so. More incivility is likely to result from such a block (for most people (I don't say that lightly)), so a block only on the basis of saying a swear word or whatever is stupid. Martinp23 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that when I proposed prohibiting Flameviper from using profanity, I did not mean that a single "damn" should result in a block, far from it. I just meant to make it clear that, unlike other users who are trusted to use their own judgment as to when profanity is acceptable, this user should be asked to refrain from it altogether, and understand that if he uses profanity it will be automatically considered incivil. This is actually intended to help the user -- since he obviously can't tell when it's okay to swear or not, if he just assumes it's never okay, then by definition he'll never "accidentally" use profanity inappropriately. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between profanity and incivility, I think, so we ought not make a "profanity=incivil" judgment, rather look at any issues on a case by case basis. But yes, I think he can expect that he will inevitably be held to a higher standard than others (much as I personally dislike the fact, I can see why it is the case, given a degree of mis-trust and, perhaps, anger). Martinp23 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan has offered to mentor the user - I think this would be great. Limits do need defining - I'd suggest basically, in a nutshell: "avoid personal attacks, remain civil, and don't mess about too much ["too much" because a bit of fun is good]. Try to work on building the encylopedia". Thanks, Martinp23 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an opinion on the issue yet but i am still studying it. JeanLatore (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and Ziggy Sawdust/Flameviper are a lot alike in your flippancy and love of the help desks, so I'm interested in your conclusion of what reasonable limits might be. I don't support unbanning for reasons stated earlier, but how would you feel, if you were the user, about a ban on participating at the help desks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Ryan wants to mentor, I've no particular objection. But my first introduction to this person was as a drama-seeking child with little self-control; this entire theater piece is an example of that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we way too often give attention-seekers what they want. This keeps them coming back for more. Can we find a way to ship this kid off to some other website or chat room or something where such behavior is a better fit for the environment? Friday (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Flameviper has another sock, KONATA KONATA KONATA (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) as confirmed in this diff.

I'm not personally convinced that Flameviper has reformed, but if Ryan is still willing to mentor him, fine. I do hope that he can become a productive contributor and win the community over. I have seen it happen before, rarely. If Flameviper is unbanned, I strongly encourage him to refrain from any profanity and even heated remarks, and furthermore, I hope he avoids any situations where he might be tempted to say something regrettable. --Kyoko 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for unbanning

I think it would be good to put everyones cards on the table and I'd like to offer some proposed community sanctions should he be unbanned....

"Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked and is allowed to resume normal editing, under a community editing restriction. He is placed under community civility parole. Should he make any comments which are personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or any other comment which is perceived to be incivil, he may be blocked for up to one week. He is also banned from editing any reference desk, or help desk pages indefinitely. Ziggy is permitted to use just one account and any further instances of sockpuppetry will lead to his ban being reinstated. Further to these restrictions, he is placed under the mentorship of Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)."

Any thoughts on this? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very important point: no more socks. --Kyoko 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, forgot to add that in. Now done. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is acceptable to me with one reservation: That the user (Ziggy/Flamewiper) be placed on something of a "probationary" period for one year, under my or someone else's supervision, where the user be required to make at least 100 contributions (edits) to wikipedia articles a month. The contributions may either be substantive or minor, but the total must exceed 100 a month. If at the end of any month the user's article edits are less than 100, the "probation" will be revoked and the user perma-banned. That way we can not only rehabilitate this user, and monitor him, but also get some productive work out of him in building the encyclopedia. JeanLatore (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems awfully strict. It would be better if we eased him into articles, which I could do with mentorship. I don't see this probation as productive - it essentially says that he should be banned if he doesn't do enough graft in one month as a volunteer - that's not right. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's unreasonable to demand an edit quota out of someone. This is a volunteer project. Making 50 (or five) good edits a month is something to be applauded, not something that a person should be banned for. Everyking (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Any good contributions are good contributions and are welcome. Wikipedia is not about racking up a high score. Friday (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I wasn't assuming good faith, I might think this was a deliberately ridiculous proposal by someone trolling ANI (again). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope it isn't, and I would also hope that he is closely watched and infractions scrupulously policed. Orderinchaos 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my comment above is directed at JeanLatore's ludicrous mandatory edits proposal, not the request by Flameviper to be unbanned, nor the proposal by Ryan Postlethwaite to mentor. While I don't support the latter two proposals, I don't think they were suggested for the purposes of trolling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[after edit conflict]The distinction is that this is not a volunteer project when it comes to the user in question, as the user in question has been previously banned from the project. Therefore, if the project allows him to come back (thus overturning their decision) the project does reserve the right to impose a less-than-full set of "rights" to him for a while, and making the user produce some article edits would be a good way to turn the probation/mentorship time into improvement of the articles. JeanLatore (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could we justify banning him in July if he made fewer than 100 edits in June, provided all the edits he did make were good? I think any number of good edits is better than zero. One imagines a starving man pushing away a slice of bread—"I'm starving, and you think I'm going to settle for that?" If he makes bad edits, then we could consider a penalty, but that's a different story. Everyking (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. If you create a requirement like that, volunteers who work mostly with content will have to fix 98 articles he felt obliged to edit. By past experience this would mean dozens of useless tags per article. Orderinchaos 01:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying he is incapable of helpful edits to articles? JeanLatore (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying if you force numbers on people that they will make up the numbers by whatever means. It's human nature. Orderinchaos 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still oppose on principle. This proposal would send a subtext to every banned editor who pays attention: Don't sit out your ban; come back and sock. And if you're sly and political enough about it, the site will even reward you for that by lifting your ban! You've got nothing to lose anyway--you're already on the outs. So sock away... Life is waaaay too short to deal with the fallout of that message. We don't owe one difficult individual a free pass at the price of charging our productive volunteers that heavy a price. My previous offer to mentor on another project stands: I'll open a new unban thread myself in due course if he does good work elsewhere. But this way? No way. Durova^Charge! 05:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Durova: rewarding editors for violating sitebans sends, to put it lightly, quite the wrong message. And Ryan, please stop misplacing your efforts towards mentoring people that have proven to be useless in the past and redirect it towards productive contributors who haven't yet been able to pass the hurdle of enculturing themselves with our wacky customs. Or put your considerable talents at mediation to use in resolving a dispute somewhere... something, anything besides wasting your time on incompetent editors. It's pure hubris to think that you'll finally be the one to turn a banned editor around, and it never happens; the proverbial fall inevitably comes around in the form of the person in question becoming recidivous. (Okay, maybe there's the one exception, but that's not happening again soon. :]) east.718 at 05:57, June 7, 2008
- Agree with Durova and East. People do not get banned for no reason, it's usually done at a point where community patience has been exhausted, and they have usually done a lot to get there. I've been at the other end watching someone being given chance after chance and then finally the last straw where they get banned, but usually only after driving productive contributors off the project. It wastes project and volunteer time to unban people who cannot offer us anything and have demonstrated an unwillingness to work within the rules. I've seen mentorship work at close range, but it only works where the mentoree is basically there but has regular lapses of judgement. This is not one such case. Orderinchaos 06:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People who get banned and sock are either going to help the project or hurt it. In my opinion, you can't reasonably decide what to do with them until you judge which course they've taken by evaluating their edits. Banning people is a practical measure that should intended purely to prevent them from causing harm. If unbanning Flameviper sends a message to other banned users that they can sock, work constructively, and get themselves unbanned as a result, then I'm happy to send that message. What if Flameviper wanted to donate money to the project—should the foundation refuse to accept his money? It makes no more sense to reject his good edits than it would make to reject his money; in fact it makes even less sense, because the improvement of articles is our highest priority. Everyking (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming capability here. Please show me one article he has significantly improved under any of his nicks. Good faith alone doesn't cover bad behaviour in the absence of positive contributions. Orderinchaos 08:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned his contributions going back through mid-May and found that it's overwhelmingly tagging and notifications for speedy deletions, coupled with many minor edits (I don't want to dismiss this kind of work, but clearly it's not on the same level as content addition). However, I did find a few examples of him adding substantial article content: Lutetium is the best example, followed by this edit, which also appears to be high quality. So my evaluation of his work through that time is that he is someone who spends a lot of time patrolling new pages, but is also capable of adding an occasional bit of quality, referenced content to science-related articles. On the other hand, he does tend towards occasional silliness, but he doesn't seem to do so in a harmful way. The best example of this is User:Ziggy Sawdust/Avril. I don't really know what's going on with that page—the questions are obviously not genuine, and the page is bizarrely popular among users who don't edit anything else. It would be easy to assume he created all those accounts as sockpuppets for fun—since they're doing nothing but editing his own "reference desk", I'm not sure I could define that as disruption, but it's obviously not something we should look very kindly on. Everyking (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What this proposal and its supporters are overlooking is that it not only sets a bad precedent; it's unnecessary. There are plenty of other projects where this editor isn't banned and could demonstrate a good history legitimately. I extended an offer of mentorship to him for another wikiproject days ago. He evaded his ban to post to my user talk page, so I blanked he ban-evading post and replied to his IP's talk page with instructions about how to follow up legitimately, via e-mail. He hasn't replied. With that already on the table before Ryan extended his offer, there's no excuse to bend the rules. I'm an admin on Commons and I edit a variety of other WMF projects. I'll put my reputation on the line at any of those to offer Flameviper a policy-compliant return. That should be more than generous enough in this situation. Durova^Charge! 09:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durova, East and Orderinchaos and I'm very troubled about the precedent the community is going to be setting if this happens. I regularly get emails from Eddie Segoura, the "Exicornt Vandal", saying that he wants to be unbanned. He has appealed without success to the ArbCom several times now and he has had a few socks that have been productive by all appearances but he has also had many sockpuppets that were not productive. Shall I tell him to keep creating sockpuppets and when he has a constructive one that has gone unnoticed for awhile, to come here and announce who he is and he'll be unbanned? Seriously? He watches the admin noticeboards and I know he would be most delighted if this is the precedent we are going to set for future appeals but I'm not so thrilled with it myself. I'll guarantee that he'll be creating socks minutes after he sees flameviper is unblocked. Also, for informational purposes, I received an email from flameviper after commenting on this subject earlier and he indignantly asked me to point out one policy he had violated since he was banned. Ugh, SOCK, BAN, BLOCK? That he doesn't get even *this* much is extremely concerning. But maybe that's just to me... Sarah 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree with Durova and east718 here, too much headache for so little a chance of success, seeing this user on IRC, I do not see there being any chance of success IMO. I'll note that there are 24 users in Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user who to my knowledge are not banned, socking, etc. Rather then rehashing every good ban we've ever done (something I've seen more and more of recently), I've got to echo the feeling that we need to be workong on helping totally new contributors learn to contribute at progressively higher levels of quality. MBisanz ^talk 11:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and a good wider perspective on the matter. Orderinchaos 13:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durova too that Ziggy S. got banned for a reason, seems intellectually incapable of making productive content additions to the articles (which is -- or should be -- our priority), and clear evidence of Ziggy's current sockpuppets being disruptive at the very time his "main" sockpuppet account is begging to be re-instated probably doesn't sit well with other editors either. My proposal above still stands, however, I would like to clarify I would like to see about 125 solid, referenced article content edits a month out of him for a year before he were to be granted full user status. Most people don't even want him back under any circumstances. JeanLatore (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful with syntax: a reader could infer from your statement that I've insulted his intellect. I haven't, and I ask you to refactor the opinion itself. It's one thing to point out behavioral problems, another thing to speculate about a person's intellect or state of mind. He's banned and not allowed to respond here. Durova^Charge! 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still uneasy about unbanning him, because Durova, Sarah, and other people do have a point about the principle of a ban. Furthermore, I don't get any sense of contrition in Flameviper's/Ziggy's unban request, and he was dishonest in not revealing his identity in his RfA, and in his unban request (four socks I know of post-ban, not two as stated). Ryan, could you please explain further what convinced you that he had reformed?

As a side note, I find Jean's proposed requirement of "125 solid, referenced article content edits a month" quite demanding. I don't believe I satisfy that requirement myself. --Kyoko 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you are not banned and asking to come back for no reason. This gentleman is at Wikipedia's mercy right now, Wikipedia might as well turn that to its advantage. If Ziggy/Flamewiper wants to come back, he'll do so as a constructive article editor for a year...if not, then CYA! JeanLatore (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's already past CYA, and the burden's on him to come back from the corner where he's painted himself. There are open doors from that corner to Commons, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc. And from there we can unlock a door back to Wikipedia without ruining the paint job. Durova^Charge! 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my last message: I'm not convinced that he has reformed, after discovering his edits to Lutetium, in which he adds content but also adds inappropriate ref tags. I don't want to repeat them here, but I've removed them. I did only a cursory reading, so there might be other hidden jokes. While he might conceivably feel this is just harmless fun, I think it conveys the message that he doesn't take Wikipedia seriously. I'm not saying that Wikipedia should be a joyless enterprise, but I also think that I or other people should not have to screen his edits for possible hidden messages. Sorry, Ryan, but I don't think he should be unbanned. --Kyoko 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this looks like it's going to have to go before ArbCom because I'm seriously ready to unblock. It's sad really - we've allowed many users back who have caused far less disruption than this. Flameviper is in the minor leagues as far as disruptive users are concerned. This guy created WP:ADOPT and it's clear he wants to help the project. He hasn't had a single opportunity to have an experienced Wikipedian to help him along the road - this is what I'm offering. It's not an easy way back in, it's the last chance saloon (something we've given to many users in the past). Yeah he's created socks to evade his ban, not to harm the project, but because he's a good faith user who really wants to help out. Yeah he's made his mistakes, but I'm willing to keep Ziggy on a tight lead. Even if I have to give a couple of short blocks to get him back into line, we really can shape him into a good Wikipedian. As far I'm concerned, it smacks of double standards compared to the treatment we give to other users that have been banned. One question - would we have banned him if he hadn't have admitted it here (or I'd have admitted my knowledge of it on his RfA? I seriously doubt it because nobody saw him as a user that needed a ban (nothing like in fact). This really isn't right. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, I understand where you're coming from but you don't seem to be following our objections and I still have a major problem with the way we have got to this point. If there hadn't been socking and you had come here and posted another mentorship/unbanning proposal (you said he hadn't ever had the chance at mentorship but he did have the opportunity, he just squandered it by using a sock in the very unban discussion) I wouldn't be really keen because I think he's too immature and just an attention seeker but I wouldn't have such a strong objection to it and wouldn't have tried to stand in the way. What I have a problem with is users who are banned creating sockpuppets using them to make lots of mainly minor edits, tagging and such and then if we don't happen to notice who it is in time and block them, they come here a couple of weeks later, reveal their identity and we reward them for socking by unbanning them? Are you sure that this is the precedent that you want to set for dealing with banned users? Why is there a rush? Why can't he request unbanning in the usual way without socking around the ban? Also, have you looked at his contribs and did you see his offensive edit summaries? I get that you think you can turn him around and kudos to you for that and I don't want to stand in the way of you trying to make a productive editor out of him but I really don't think this is the right way to do it. You said that "it smacks of double standards compared to the treatment we give to other users" - who else has been unbanned after announcing they're a sock of a banned user? To my knowledge, historically we've always blocked socks of banned users and I don't recall any sock of a banned user being unbanned in this way. Again, I have a problem with the way we have got here and the precedent it is going to set for future cases, but I am not particularly against him being a second chance if he were to stop socking and either appeal in the usual way or follow up with Durova and edit on another project for awhile. I'm not seeing what the rush is about here. Can you please respond to some of the points that have been raised by Durova and others above? Thanks. For the record, I think the idea that he should be forced to make an edit count quota is ridiculous and I would object on principle to that requirement being applied to anyone. Whether someone is on mentorship or not they should never be required to edit more or less than they want to. Sarah 01:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My frustration at this basically stems from this recent unbanning from WP:AN. Here, we see SwirlBoy39 evaded his ban, after creating numerous socks used to vandalise Wikipedia and when it was finally announced who he really was, he was unbanned to edit constructively. Then in this thread, Ziggy, who I don’t even think has used a previous sock (he had far less socks than SwirlBoy) to vandalise the project, gets relatively strong opposition to an unbanning. This is why I talk of double standards. The only reason why we even know the correlation between the two accounts is because I revealed it on his RfA, then he came here requesting an unban. I respect that this wasn’t the best way of going about things, but unfortunately we can’t turn back time. By having Flameviper editing under an account we can watch closely (let’s face it, he’s most probably going to create a new account, and this time tell nobody about it, so we won’t have a clue who he is), we can keep him on a tight leash and his edits will be open to scrutiny given the problems he caused in the past. I’ve certainly seen the incivility in the edit summaries, and even some on talk pages, but under the editing restriction, this would see him blocked – I’d block him myself because I’d be keeping an extremely close watch on him. As Everyking has pointed out, there is some constructive work in his editing and with a bit of help, we can cut out his poorer side (with short blocks if necessary at first) and help him become a better Wikipedian. I certainly look forward to doing a tag team on an article with him, talking him through our editing policies/guidelines so his content edits can be the best quality possible. Ziggy hasn’t had an opportunity to work with someone – he’s never had a mentor, or someone to turn to if he’s not sure what to do. This is exactly why I want to help him – if it doesn’t work out, oh well, we tried and we can block him indef again, but if it does work out, we’re going to have one more productive contributor who is obviously extremely enthusiastic about helping here. On a side note, I’m not a fan of Durova’s offer – Ziggy doesn’t seem to have an interest in working on another Wikimedia project (after all, they’re all very different), he simply wants to help out here- I don’t think it’s good having someone edit in a place they really don’t want to be editing at. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you unblock plz. enforce the 125 referenced article edits a month requirement, or something along those lines. JeanLatore (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JeanLatore, you're the only one advocating this. It's not going to be implemented for the various reasons discussed above. We do not force people to edit articles as, essentially, repentance. Yes, there are topic bans for those who demonstrate disruption in particular areas, but this kind of restriction is not "what we do" so to speak. Metros (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a compromise would be possible: he could be banned for one or two more months, then unbanned and allowed to edit (if he doesn't sock in the meantime) under Ryan's mentorship for one or two months after that, and if Ryan deems the mentorship successful, then he can edit without restriction. Everyking (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So socking one's unban discussion earns a ban reduction? I've already offered a more reasonable compromise, and he's lucky it's still on the table. Durova^Charge! 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it comes down to whether one believes that it's better for the health of the project that banned editors serve out their bans regardless of circumstances, to encourage respect for the rules, or whether one believes bans should be lifted at any time if there's a reasonable expectation that the person will not behave in a harmful manner, to facilitate direct improvement of the encyclopedia. Everyking (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking, have you looked into my offer? Right now I'm increasingly dubious whether a reasonable expectation exists that he'll be productive. This discussion has stretched to nearly 80k so I'll put a parameter on the situation: my offer to Flameviper of sister project mentorship now has a shelf life of 7 days, maximum. Over 4 of those 7 days have already passed. I may shorten it. It is a generous offer because I would put my reputation on the line at the project of his choosing. Then, if he lives up to the generous hopes some people have for him, I would open another unban discussion here myself. While this offer remains on the table he may contact me via e-mail to accept it. Durova^Charge! 07:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my assessment of his editing over the last month, which I detailed above, is that he has been productive, albeit in a rather limited way, so I feel that we could reasonably expect continued productivity if he's unbanned. I don't know that your offer is such a great one. It feels like it could be almost be conscripting him into work on a project he isn't interested in so that he'll be allowed to edit the one he is interested in, sort of like making him pay to do volunteer work. I suppose maybe he does have an interest in other projects, though. Everyking (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an alternative proposal: instead of being allowed full reign to the encyclopedia, the user is allowed to use their talk page again. Using {{helpme}} (or some other template if people want), they can request edits to pages be done for them. This would encourage serious content-creating edits, but would be reviewed through someone else first (plus the lack of ability to do real-time work adds to the pressure which I want to him under). I would propose that he cannot sock but is allowed one user talk page to conduct this test. If he does not indicate an serious interest in helping the encyclopedia during one month (either no real edits offered or some bad habits during that period), then he remains in the banned condition. Any socking during this period is an immediate violation (and socking to get around the reviewing process is a complete done deal). Any other views? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. If he makes some major content suggestions during that time without causing any trouble, I think that would make the case for unbanning more clear to some of the doubters. Everyking (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is getting more clear. It stuns me that with a generous and nearly unprecedented offer already sitting for four and a half days, respectable editors propose to go beyond that and create a dangerous precedent. I am very tempted to withdraw my offer and walk away entirely, as protest. Durova^Charge! 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may see your offer as generous and unprecedented, but there is no obligation for him to take you up on that offer. Having said that, a polite decline of the offer would be reasonable. First, though, do you have evidence that he has seen the offer since the latest reblock? Secondly, your offer shouldn't prevent others from making suggestions, or you from commenting on those suggestions. It would be nice if things were discussed in sequence, rather than in parallel, but it is nearly impossible to do that in large discussions on Wikipedia. Wait for the discussion to die down and then renew the offer privately and see what response you get and then announce it somewhere, like you did with Matt Sanchez. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, the answers to all of your questions are already on this thread. Nearly 5 days ago I extended the offer. He's seen it; he evaded his siteban yet again to inquire about it at my user talk page. So in accordance with WP:BAN I blanked the post; I also went to the talk page of the IP address he had used to post at my user space and left instructions on how he could follow up properly; via e-mail. I later summarized that here among my several updates to this thread. It is unreasonable to demand that I explain these points again, or to imply that I haven't proceeded with due diligence. As of now, I reduce the time span of that offer by 24 hours. Durova^Charge! 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for missing the earlier stuff. I think you would be better to withdraw the offer now, rather than have some deadline that you are reducing in some effort to force a response to your offer. Either that, or leave it open for him to contact you at some future point when things have calmed down. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I owe an apology too. Now that I check my own page history I see that was a different banned editor who replied via IP. This one has contacted me by e-mail now and I've outlined the offer plus a selection of other sites where I've done some work. The ball's in his court. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am volunteering to help mentor the user to help enforce the article editing requirement I could put him to use doing some research for me on articles I am writing on supreme court cases and other things. JeanLatore (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JeanLatore, as has been explained, there is not going to be the article editing enforcing if there is an unban. Metros (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dont you think that writing articles is the best thing one can do here? It is an encyclopedia after all, not myspace. JeanLatore (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody who wants Flameviper to treat Wikipedia as MySpace instead of writing articles, please raise your hands. Everyking (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really had my hands full; should have done this sooner. Flameviper has written me and expressed an interest in the Simple English Wikipedia. Really he'd like to be here at en:wiki, but that's pretty close. If he follows through and does good work I'll restart this discussion myself when the time is right. I'd like to come back with some good arguments that he's shown he can adapt and contribute productively without the problems that brought things to this point. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

make it stop, please

it keeps removing sound clips from the page im editing. it isnt even in article space, it removed the photos too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little checking, so let me try to rephrase Ritzbitz00's complaint so other's can understand it:

Ritzbitz is working on a draft article in userspace: User:Ritzbitz00/Maximum Bob (singer) (Not sure if this would pass WP:Notability, but let's remain agnostic about that for now, shall we?) He is adding non-free images and sound clips to the draft article (again, remaining agnostic for now as to whether the NFCC justification is valid or not). BJBot is removing them since non-free content is prohibited outside of article space -- BJBot does not realize this is a draft article.

Not sure what the policy is here...? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this article was previously deleted here and endorsed at deletion review. However, judging by the discussions the problem was lack of content which appears to be fixed now. I suggest moving the article to mainspace and allowing Ritzbitz to continue working on it. BradV 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is to make the images links rather than inline: [[:Image:Example.png]] instead of [[Image:Example.png]]. When the draft is moved to mainspace, convert them back to inline images. --Carnildo (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had userfied this after a DRV and unless there are some sources it needs to be deleted again and am in contact with rizbtitz for this part. I advised him generically on fair use, and that the sound clips can't substitute for references. As far as i see licensing info is incorrect. If it can be fixed they might be usable in the Deli Creeps article, but I am not much into sound and images. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct to use a FUR to temporally "save" the sound sample until the draft is restored to mainspace? See my test addition of a userspace FUR. Or it's better to just delete it in order to disincentive non-free content, and let him re-upload the sample when he finds an article for it? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When drafting or storing an article in user space, one can use nowiki like this: <nowiki>whatever should not be in user space, like categories</nowiki>. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the oggs and other stuff, I don't find it appropriate to "save" stuff. Let it be deleted as orphaned (comment it out in the draft) and when moved back, simply ask an administrator to restore it. That would not be a controversial deletion and restoration, I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block the bot This is, once again, an instance of copyright paranoia taken to the extreme. There is no reason whatsoever to ban fair-use from userspace. Do you honestly think someone can sue based on namespace?!? Of course not, Wikipedia is a project taken as corpus and as such it is immaterial what namespace an image is used in. The only possibly valid complaint is the context in which the image is being used. Since drafts are obviously intended to be articles, there is no substantiated argument for removal here. The bot should be stopped at once from further vandalism. Enough of the wiki-lawyering, let editors edit in peace without stupid bots making their lives harder. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a perfect good reason to ban fairuse from userspace: it's against policy. If you want to argue policy, argue it. Don't blame the bot for people not following it. --- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is a violation of WP:AGF for a bot to remove it. Stop making extra work for editors attempting to contribute in good faith. I suggest this is an excellent reason to apply WP:IAR to WP:NFCC, since it is hampering the good-faith contributions of editors simply because a WP:FRINGE group of so-called "freedom" activists WP:OWN the WP:NFCC policy pages (what WP:IAR was made for). There is no benefit to the project by enforcing this ridiculous rule in such an absurd manner. I would submit it is simply policy for policy sake and not the rational application of such. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an excellent evaluation of what is happening here:

“

This is an mind-numbingly stupid discussion. Everybody remembers my old userpage, and nobody gave a fuck about it until I ran for arbcom. Of course, it was summer, I was busting my ass for this site, editing around the clock, and most people (myself included) felt like I was doing something useful, so nobody cared. These days I find it more interesting to stare at the ceiling or out the window. Editing this site has clearly lost all of its recreational value for me. I don't think I'm alone in my sentiment. And it gets worse, every time some a critical mass of limp-dicked busybodies assembles to write their life-saving new rules, not because there is any real problem to be addressed, oh no, but because they have a biological need something for something easier to enforce. You're already in their crosshairs, they've just been fabricating a good enough reason to fire. To anybody reading this, if you feel like I'm describing you, please unplug your computer, box it up and take it back to Wal-Mart. You'll thank yourself for it and I will too.

”

— Freakofnurture 05:25, Feb. 14, 2007 (UTC)

It could be said that the same is happening here... --Dragon695 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start another bot war please. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the operator of said bot. First, the WP:NFCC has community consensus, if you disagree take it there. Second, automated enforcement of WP:NFCC has community consensus. Third, my bot (and two others) have community consensus having passed a WP:BRFA with no objections. Sorry but this isn't how we operate, if you have a problem with the policy, the enforcement methods or the bot's approved method of action they're the appropriate venues for discussion. The bot is clearly not malfunctioning and calling for a block because you think the policy is flawed is baseless. BJ^Talk 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree, this bot is operating 100% correctly and enforcing policy properly. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've objected to past issues with bots, but this one was fine and was performing correctly - we do not link fair use from userspace. That's not a new requirement. What I suggest doing is waiting till it is in mainspace before plugging in the images or media. Orderinchaos 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

The above user has been removing problem tags from images that he/she has uploaded, [9] [10] [11] even using Twinkle in the process. I've twice warned the user, [12] [13] but I got a response on my talk page not to issue any more warnings[14] and the behavior has continued. The user is an administrator so I'm not sure how to proceed. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult situation, abusing Twinkle is serious, so I'd suggest maybe a 24 hr block or something along those lines, and if the behavior continues, perhaps requesting comment? For the record, I am not an administrator Chafford (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly seems to be trying to draw me into conflict or make extra work for me, so I'll keep this brief. He has gone through all my uploaded images, and is liberally tagging them, even when they're clearly PD according to the source, or have been explicitly released under a free licence and have OTRS tickets. Some of the legitimately tagged ones (e.g. of living people before we had such strict rules about them), I've deleted myself. But when it reaches the point of tagging the Eichmann trial for deletion when the Israeli government has released the images, and the source states that clearly, then it becomes make-work and lacks common sense. Add to which that this is his second post about it on AN/I, plus numerous posts to my talk page, image pages, deletion pages, and now "warnings" on my talk page, all of which I am supposed to respond to post-haste. I think an uninvolved admin should handle this, rather than Kelly, if anyone. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a bit, but I will say the above is a complete mischaracterization of my actions and a blatant assumption of bad faith. I haven't posted about SlimVirgin on ANI before, this was the first time. To my knowledge, I haven't tagged any images incorrectly - the Eichmann image had a bad source when tagged. Others indeed have OTRS tickets, but a lookup of the ticket shows that it didn't necessarily apply to the images SlimVirgin placed it on. For SlimVirgin to think I'm out to draw him/her into conflict is distinctly tinfoily; I'm simply cleaning up copyright issues with images, something I have been doing for months. I've had no previous interaction with this user and know nothing about them - I simply noticed a pattern of copyright problems by chance and looked through their upload log for other problems. Attempts to work with the user in a friendly way to resolve this have been rebuffed. Kelly ^hi! 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, I advised you to watch out for SV's territory. Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. For future reference, you might want to see the current ArbCom evidence page of C68-FM-SV for more details on why your involving yourself with her property is not advised. SandyGeorgia's experience is particularly relevant to your situation. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have listened to you, but I thought that abiding by Wikipedia policies would insulate me. Silly me! Kelly ^hi! 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked, no outraged that slimVirgin has been removing these tags, surely that's Crum375's job? Is Crum slacking or something? Buck up Crum, Slim needs ya. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comeon, RMHED, that adds nothing to the discussion, more light, less heat please? SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've given myself a damn good talking to, and I've assured myself that it won't happen again. RMHED (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being brought here? If anyone has concerns about images, please post a request with {{fairusereview}} rather than {{badfairuse}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Maybe it would also be an idea to add to the documentation of both templates to make users of one aware of the other, and when each should be used. Also, it should be fairly simple to check where each is mentioned, and to make sure people aren't wrongly being encouraged to use one instead of the other. Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use tags of any sort are inappropriate for public domain images. Durova^Charge! 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest. While I understand Slim's frustration, making sure images are correctly tagged to conform with our policies should not be regarded as make-work. In addition, this seems unhelpful to the process. --John (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Kelly, you tagged a large number of images uploaded by the same user, slapped them all into one discussion even though the tagging, source, permissions and licenses widely vary and you didn't expect that person to be a little peeved at the way you're handling things? I'm not sure how you expected editors to comment on that listing given the lack of commonality other than the uploader, and certainly the uploader has nothing to do with image licensing.

The first item you're complaining about is SlimVirgin expanding the fair-use rationale for an image [15] -- why is that a problem? She also reverted your tagging on the Eichmann Trial image pointing out that it was public domain - you don't appear to have given any explanation as to why you feel the image is not in the public domain as claimed? I'd say you need to go back through and give clear reasons you believe the images aren't free - if some have an identical reasoning, it makes sense to group them, but the way it is now, whether or not you meant it, this looks like you're picking on one uploader. Shell ^babelfish 22:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to the PUI listing - with the exception of the Eichmann image, which has been struck through, the images all had a similar problem...free licenses are claimed for the photos, but there is no evidence of the free license. It probably does seem like I'm picking on one uploader, but it's typical to look through a user's log for issues when a pattern of copyright problems is noticed. I did my best to consolidate the problems into as few messages as possible, as some people get very, very irate if spammed with a lot of image notification templates on their talk page. Kelly ^hi! 23:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SV was right on the first diff you show. As for the second ones, if she has a good argument to keep it, then she should put it on the PUI page rather than removing it. So long as she understands what to do from here on out it's no big deal either way. Wizardman 23:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time that Slim acts like she thinks rules, policies, and standard ways of doing things are for the "little people", not for elite administrators like herself. Having to deal with a talk page full of annoying notices about image uploads for which some user, admin, or bot thinks that not all the fair-use hoops have been properly jumped through is a pain in the butt, but it's a pain in the butt that all who upload images must go through (I've had to deal with heaps of those myself), so Slim shouldn't think she's too special to be put through it. She's a she, by the way; I have no idea which gender Kelly is. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the main thing I was hoping for a response from her on was some details regarding her statement that good images are being deleted from the Commons, perhaps by someone with an agenda.[16] [17] If true, it's a serious issue that needs to be investigated at Commons. But now I'm starting to believe that maybe this user sees bad faith where none exists. Kelly ^hi! 01:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of any concerns about agendas, Commons does have a bit of a reputation (deserved or otherwise) for seemingly moving the goalposts on what's considered "free", and in particular on public-domain issues, so it's reasonable for an uploader to want copies retained on enwiki. --Random832 (contribs) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before we speculate too much about the practices of a sister project, could someone supply specific filenames? These are serious accusations indeed. Durova^Charge! 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Commons policy is pretty static. It's here if you're interested. The fact that people don't read it, don't abide by it, have their images deleted, and then complain of Commons being teh evilz, is not actually Commons' fault. giggy _(:O) 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would be a surprise to me too if anti-animal rights deletions occurred at Commons. If it did happen the problem would be easy to trace once we get the filenames. It comes across as odd that an administrator as experienced as SlimVirgin would resort to hosting valid free images here if she really thought Commons practices were that seriously flawed. About half of overall Wikipedia site traffic goes to non-English editions. It deprives 252 other languages to host at en:wiki if the material really is copyleft or PD. Durova^Charge! 07:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, in my experience, tends to be a combination of: (1) people failing to put the tag on pictures here when we need to keep copies here, or where it is already known that it is free here but not on Commons; and (2) other people (ie. not the original uploader) being too quick to transfer images to Common without checking that it doesn't fail the more strict conditions there. People do get confused when they realise that Wikipedia labels some images free that Commons does not. Carcharoth (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any cases where images are free here and not free at Commons, with the exception of {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} or {{PD-US-1996}}, and even that is debatable. Kelly ^hi! 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Kelly, if he copies images to the Commons and tags that they may be deleted, to add instead that local copies should be kept, but he refuses, and says I have to do it myself. This alone indicates that he is out to cause me work for no reason, and as people who post on Wikipedia Review are now involved, and Kelly is posting to Cla68, it is very difficult for me to believe that, by chance, he just happened to decide to go through all my images. He is also claiming that images are not PD when they clearly are -- some of them were sent to me by e-mail by the copyright holder and released and have OTRS tickets; others (e.g. Eichmann) were released by a govt, as is made clear on the image page. Kelly will not say why he thinks the images are not PD.

He has been trying for the last 24 hours to drag me into whatever this is, with various "warnings" to my talk page, and I'm just not going to be so dragged, so this is, I hope, my last post on the issue. If Kelly feels that an image is not PD, or that a free licence or OTRS ticket is not valid, he must say why he believes that. If any admin wants to discuss this with me, please e-mail me. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the reason why you're removing the PUI tag is because you think WR and others are out to get you? ...I'm hoping I'm misreading that @_@ That made my head hurt. Like I said before, if it's actually PD (which it seems to be) then the PUI will come and go with the image kept, just leave it be before this escalates. Wizardman 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people find the alleged "evil WR conspiracy" to be just as useful a smear tactic to distract attention from their own behavior as did the Clintons with their allegations of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", and for that matter the Bush administration with its insinuations about the evil anti-American left. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back to business: this is taking on the appearance of a dispute about personalities rather than copyright. Image issues are difficult enough to stay on top of without senior volunteers generating extra work for other people. SV: if you think Commons does improper image deletions, please give examples. Kelly: if you think there's a problem with SV's uploads, please ask a neutral party to review. I've got two restorations to complete for FPC and an image restoration module at Wikibooks to write, and I'm willing (reluctantly) to push back those plans and look into this if the soapboxing comes to a halt. If there are genuine licensing issues at hand I'll look into them: please document the evidence in a straightforward presentation. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did made a request for neutral review, here. Please take a look and offer an opinion. Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking on the appearance of a dispute about personalities uses passive voice to describe what actively happened right here, when SlimVirgin said: Kelly seems to be trying to draw me into conflict or make extra work for me, ... and it's a pattern. You're right dealing with image issues is hard business, and someone doing it shouldn't be discouraged with this kind of personalization of the issue. I was earlier willing to cede that SV might be able to change with a bit of self-awareness of the effect she has on other editors; perhaps I've been had once again by my inner Pollyanna. I've seen many editors get multiples of hundreds of templated messages on images; SlimVirgin isn't exempt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved two cents- I just want to point out the notion that Kelly is "targeting" Slim's images is rather silly. Kelly is simply going through images, fixing problems, tagging inappropriate licenses and transferring them to Commons. Prior to working on Slim's images, Kelly recently went through all of my image contributions and did a lot of nice work in transferring them to Commons and helping me out with some Flickr issues. Some of my images were deleted because the flickr license change but I didn't feel "targeted" at all. It is just part of the continuing process of trying to bring everyone onto the same page with Wikipedia's image policies and getting more truly free images over to Commons so that other Wikis can benefit. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I've seen Kelly's work on images, and she does good work there. Kelly reviews images, and going through other images that people have uploaded when reviewing one of them should be encouraged, not discouraged. From what I can see, the other incident was co-incidental. Sometimes people aren't out to get you, despite what you might think. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin still removing problem tags

This behavior is continuing.[18] The status of this image is still being disputed here. We don't tolerate this behavior from other editors, why is this admin violating policy? Kelly ^hi! 18:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say why you think it is not PD, or leave it alone. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* Kelly, don't template the regulars. Slim, leave it up. Let it run it's course, if it's PD then it will be kept. Maybe that particular image should be put on PUI separately, it may solve the problem, it may not. Just let process run out. Wizardman 18:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That particular image is in its own section on the PUI page. Kelly ^hi! 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the template spamming of my talk page by Kelly continues, this time to do with Israel-Palestine. [19] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, you need to cut this out. You're warning SlimVirgin for edits she hasn't even made, probably because of the image dispute above. Drop it and move on please. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make false allegations, Ryan. She has edited the page in question, look at the history. Also see this - my mian point is to make sure all parties in that dispute are aware of this decision. I myself am uninvolved in this dispute. Kelly ^hi! 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No chance Kelly - you're harssing SlimVirgin now because of the dispute above. Slim hasn't even edited the page since the arbitration case, yet you warn her? Not buying that - carry on like this and you'll end up blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Ryan here, you were fine until you threw that up. Plus, read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Both of you have made this far more dramatic than it needed to be. Wizardman 20:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, there's a really strong appearance here that you're just interested in creating more drama. I'd suggest that you find something else to do. When you go from arguing over image templates with someone, to digging something out of old history and templating that person, it really looks like you're doing it out of spite. FCYTravis (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, this is looking more and more like harassment. I don't know much about the back story here but if it keeps going down this road a block is not out of the question. I think it needs to stop. RxS (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly definitely must be blocked if he adds a template to SV's talk page once more. Beit Or 20:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, SV is no more special than any other editor. If the regular editor has to put up with the template spam due to a certain group's determined jihad against fair-use, SV should too. Perhaps she could actually use her clique for something useful, say like changing and owning the NFCC pages? If there is one thing I know, you can't beat the SV clique at edit warring on policy pages. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)struck through misplaced comment --Dragon695 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

errr, this was nothing to do with images - she templated SV on a completely unrelated subject that she was not involved in at all. Please, take your comments to the section above because this doesn't have anything to do with what you've just said. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> OK, this is what I'm not getting. I was monitoring the Muhammad al-Durrah‎ article before I ever discussed copyright violations with SlimVirgin. To make a long story short, I initially was watching BLP violations on Geert Wilders (I have added many articles to the BLP watch category, including that one), which led me to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which led me to Pallywood, which led me to Muhammad al-Durrah. There is a nasty dispute there that I read about on this noticeboard (here), and SlimVirgin showed up there after I did, where I was attempting to offer a neutral opinion and defuse the dispute. Part of the problem at that article seems to be that the Arb decision is being used as as hammer against some editors, and not others. So, in an attempt to neutralize the situation, I ensured that all parties were made aware of the decision, and logged the notification at the Arb case page. I also logged notifications of SlimVirgin's "opponents", ChrisO[20] and Nickhh[21] A formal notification of the case is not a "warning", as I have been told[22], but just a notification. However, my edits that log that SlimVirgin was notified are being reverted [23] [24] and I am being threatened with blocking [25] for logging the notification. Would somebody please investigate and get these admins, and their threats, off my talk page? Kelly ^hi! 21:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, just back out now. Drop it. Let others deal with this. If you continue to tangle in this in any way on any level whether right or wrong, you could end up blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Sandy, thanks. It seems I have stepped into a minefield, thanks for giving me a map. Kelly ^hi! 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These notifications are to be used when users are being disruptive on the page so they are aware of the arbcom sanctions that are in place. They are not given to every editor who edits a talk page, or in fact the article itself, unless there's problems. You are yet to show one diff that merits SVs inclusion on that list. I still don't believe for one second that this was just an unlucky coincidence - you were in dispute with a user, then chose to bait them by templating them for something completely unrelated. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Kelly posted at Talk:al-Durrah at 13:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC). SV posted at Talk:al-Durrah for the first time in ages at 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC). I think you need to rethink your knee-jerk assumptions. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo others' confusion about just what Kelly intended here; as far as I can see, Slim hasn't even edited that article recently, let alone did anything that's worthy of warning given the ArbCom sanctions. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize Slim for (as seen in the current ongoing ArbCom case, as well as the valid concerns Kelly expressed regarding images) without bringing in something as dubious as this. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to ensure all parties discussing the controversy there were aware of the ArbCom case. But apparently making the notifications is controversial, apologies. I would make the accusation that SlimVirgin is stalking me (as opposed to vice versa) but I am out of tinfoil. Kelly ^hi! 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The revert war at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles seems to me a separate issue, albeit tangentially related to the image licensing dispute Kelly and Slim are in. There is no evidence Slim edited a P-I article after the arb case, and the consensus here supports that. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the templating, as unnecessary, but may I point out that the wording of the ArbCom remedy isn't "editing" but "working in the area of conflict". If defending a version that one largely wrote extensively and enthusiastically on the talkpage isn't "working in the area".... --Relata refero (disp.) 22:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)As I said, it was only a notification based on the fact that she was discussing the dispute on the article talk page, and I notified the other parties there. Could someone point me to the consensus that only disruptive editors are to be notified? I re-read that decision multiple times and didn't see that. So far as templating goes, the decision seems to encourage that. Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page to end the revert war. FWIW, I think we should consider stipulating that only uninvolved admins should make the notifications. PhilKnight (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, except replace "admins" with "editors". Kelly ^hi! 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think notifications should be restricted to uninvolved admins to minimize drama. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Just to note that Rlevse edited through protection to revert the logging. (Possibly on an inaccurate reading of the remedy, as I note above.) Also, I understand any editor can make the notification, but only uninvolved admins can block, and changing that would require a request for modification to be submitted to ArbCom. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Relata refero, yes I guess it would. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why edit directly when you can have your very own meatpuppets do it for you? --Dragon695 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read wp:sarcasm is really helpful? PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tagging of images (ie, licensing) is a separate issue. Also, Kelly, you are involved in this, and the remedy says P-I "range of articles". You're using the P-I case to get at Slim. And if I'm not mistaken, admins should normally give arbcom warnings, your involvement in the issue clearly taints this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)OK, please read the above. I was involved in the particular P/I article before she was (at least in the recent time frame). I notified all major parties in that dispute, including her. The fact that I also found her copyright violations during a similar time frame is coincidence. SlimVirgin is the person who made this a personal dispute, not me - so why am I getting all the negative publicity? Neat trick - allege fake harassment and get a free pass on everything else. Kelly ^hi! 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. Any user can give a warning, the remedy uses the passive. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but exactly which part of the remedy are you talking about, pls quote it. Regardless, Kelly is stretching the bounds of it and using the arbcase to get at Slim. The arbcase clearly refers to a "range of articles", not image tagging. In fact, I can't recall any arbcase that included image tagging. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.." Nothing about adminship. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure who Dragon695 comment is directed to, but I can't recall ever being involved with Slim or Kelly before and I have a lot of experience with arb cases, and I have to agree it's best to leave the arb warnings to admins, and even if editors make them, they should be uninvolved and Kelly is clearly involved and at the center of this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without reference to the statement about Kelly, which I have no opinion on except that the timing does not add up, I'd like to point out that ArbCom did not appear to intend the notification be left to admins alone, and doing so would severely hinder enforcement in difficult areas such as AA and EE. --22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Even given that, the warner should be uninvolved and Kelly is not uninvolved and that clearly taints the warning, and in my opinon invalidates it, esp when considered in light of the scope of the arb ruling. Also, making a talk post is no justification for being added to an arbcase warning list. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "warning", but a simple notification of the decision. I'm really not seeing the problem in logging that a particular user has been notified of the decision. Kelly ^hi! 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting someone on an arbcom warning list (notification list or whatever you want to call it) is a warning and makes them subject to those. Plus, you're involved and shouldn't have done it anyway. Plus, you're stretching the scope of case beyond all reasonable bounds. Image tagging is not part of case and talking on talk pages is not disruptive, at least no in the issue at hand. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom ruling specifically defines "involved" as relating to editing in the area of the dispute, not the interpretation you are giving it. This is also for good reason, to prevent problem users from claiming that uninvolved editors or adminstrators are stalking them, an accusation that is common in areas subject to such discretionary sanctions. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Apparently I misunderstood the ArbCom decision, and I see that others are being added at will to that list for reasons I don't understand, but whatever. SlimVirgin is not allowed to be added to that list. I don't know why you're saying I am "involved" because I am not, I went to that article to try to help by offering an uninvolved opinion, apparently that simple action makes me involved. To conflate this issue with totally unrelated copyright violations by SlimVirgin is dumb, I think, but all right. I'll trust other editors to handle this. Kelly ^hi! 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, Kelly today asked for a BLP that I recently semi-protected to be unprotected. [26] He has also asked Tim Vickers who endorsed the semi-protection to explain why. [27] This is clearly no longer about images, if it ever was. He has also removed warnings from his talk page, so I'll link to them here in case they matter later. [28] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the fuss is about here. I see nothing that requires an administrator to be "uninvolved" for the purposes of notifying editors about a general sanctions regime. Moreschi, Fut.Perf. and I are heavily "involved" in the general area of Balkans articles (since we monitor them regularly, work with editors to resolve problems and deal with the nationalist silliness that regularly arises there). Does this mean that we are not allowed to notify editors or block them, assuming that we are not engaged in conflict with them? Some clarification would be helpful here since the log of notifications, blocks and bans is very long already and getting longer by the week... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RV, it wasn't about you, sorry if it gave you that impression. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About General sanctions notifications

Ok, this definitely requires some clarification, probably from the Arbs. The template itself very clearly states that "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions." and later that "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator ". To me this means it is not at all a warning given for disruption, but merely a notification, but one which can only be given by an admin. If this was not the intent, and it really is a warning that only an uninvolved admin can give, then (a) the template should be changed to reflect that intention and (b) several of the recent logs by ChrisO, a heavily involved admin who has been edit warring on these article he "notified" users on, and did so in a one-sided fashion, should be immediately removed; just like SV's notification has been removed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as official notice of ArbCom sanctions goes, my understanding is that to actually template someone and log it at the case page, is something that should only be done by uninvolved administrators. The exact wording at the P-I case may not put it like that, but it's pretty much standard procedure at other similar cases such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren and Wikipedia:General sanctions. Otherwise pretty much any editor could use these templates and case-logging as a "club" to beat up opponents. It's still fine to post casual reminders about an ArbCom case, but official warnings should be done only by uninvolved administrators. For more, see WP:UNINVOLVED. Administrators dealing in an area of dispute as administrators are not therefore "involved" in the dispute. --El on ka 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, would you please undo all of ChrisO's recent logs related to his edit war at Muhammad al-Durrah, and sternly warn him about abusing his admin privileges in a content dispute. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, I don't know the circumstances here, but to answer your question: you're uninvolved if you have not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing provisions of a decision is not considered participation in a dispute. OK? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, the circumstances here are that ChrisO is a heavily involved edtor on this page. He has edit warred on it (some recent examples - [29], [30], [31], [32],[33]) and at the same time, warned all those of the opposing viewpoint on the artcile, and logged that warning on the ArbCom enforcement page, while claiming he is just "notifying" them of the case. Needless to say, he did not similarly "notify" his fellow edit-warriors who held a POV simialr to him. In light of Elonka's comments above, this seems like a very inappropriate abuse of admin power. If that is the case, his logs need to be undone, and he should be warned about this behaviour. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is getting pretty far off-topic, but I did look into ChrisO's efforts here. On the one hand, he is definitely an involved editor, so should be cautious about using admin tools in the dispute at the Muhammad al-Durrah article. Then again, I think he was acting in good faith, as the rules at the P-I case page are indeed ambiguous about who can or can't log cautions there. I would recommend that ChrisO not add any other names to the page, but instead alert other uninvolved administrators about the issues, so that they can make that determination. As for the three editors that ChrisO added, I looked into their contribs, and I agree that a caution was appropriate for all of them. So even though ChrisO may not have been the right person to make the warning, the log should stay, since even if he removed it, another uninvolved admin, such as myself, would reasonably just add it right back. --El on ka 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I have absolutely no intention of using admin tools in that dispute, since I'm clearly involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[restated and clarified below] Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the best solution. About the ambiguity in the term "warning/notification": Does it mean: "I just want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place", or does it mean: "I want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place, and you are currently running the risk of having it applied to you, the way you've been acting"? I personally find that the second type of message is a lot more helpful, because the first type leaves the addressee confused whether their behaviour has been coming across as disruptive or not, and whether or not they are expected to change it. It's also much more in line with how "warnings" are used elsewhere. We don't go round telling people: "Hey, you can't make more than three reverts in a day", unless they are actually revert-warring. But if these notifications are supposed to be of the "warning" type, the person who makes them should be competent to make them. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to be the same uninvolved admin that might also carry out the sanction, not even that they need to be an admin, but it should only be done by experienced editors who can truthfully claim they have an objective, neutral judgment of the situation and know very well in what circumstances these sanctions are likely to actually happen. So, not usually a direct opponent in a dispute, for instance. I've given WP:ARBMAC-related warnings myself in some cases where I was "involved" and knew I wouldn't be allowed to carry them out myself – but then, I know very well that even in such situations my opinions carry some weight in that field and that if I ask for sanctions, it's more likely than not they will happen, so I thought the warning was fair.

In any case I'm opposed to having warnings themselves logged at the Arbcom pages as if they were already a kind of sanction. It's a "list of blocks and bans", not a "list of notifications, blocks and bans". However, if people want to log these, then of course the criterion for who should warn and when should be a lot stricter: only an independent admin and definitely only where actual disruption has already occurred. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this makes a lot of sense - its pretty much what I was pointing out earlier - and should be clearly set out as the customary approach in an essay somewhere, perhaps. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarification. Notifications are give to new editors who won't be aware of the relevant case. They are also give to old-time editors who may not be aware of the case. They are never given to old-time editors who are certainly aware of the case. Notification does not mean you have done anything wrong, and hence the logging of the notifications should be done using neutral wording. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Logging the notifications seems a bit like overkill, but I supposed it is needed to ensure people are aware. Is there a time limit though? It would seem a bit harsh if someone hadn't edited the topic area for a year or more, but had a year-old notification waved at them, followed by a block. About notifications in general, I think this is one area where a personal note can help more than a templated message. Overall, though, it seems like the system is slowly evolving into a more structured version of what already exists - a series of warnings and then a block. I suspect that it is the structure and formality, rather than anything new and exciting, that is helping these processes calm certain areas down. That and people seeing that they can get a fair deal - that is absolutely crucial. If people think they won't be treated fairly, they are more likely to react badly. Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I said was not quite what I wanted to say - so I'll restate and clarify what I meant here.
  - Moreschi has summarised what a notification is - making someone aware of the decision/'regime' with neutral wording. A warning is where the user is told something like "you are currently running the risk of having it applied to you because...." - obviously, sometimes both are combined.
  - Involved administrators should from now on not give any further warnings (of course, they strictly cannot give sanctions) - they should bring it to the attention of the appropriate administrators' noticeboard so an uninvolved admin takes any necessary formal action. This is a step that must be taken if you've been editing in that area so that the warnings are taken seriously in the way in which they were intended (when this was added as a provision in the remedy). The purpose of this process is to ensure impartiality and to avoid the chilling effect, among other adverse effects. Admins should be aware of their abilities, feelings, passions, agendas etc. to avoid making any ill-considered actions that (even potentially) do not comply with this purpose - where an admin gives a warning, particularly where they are involved, it is interpreted very differently from if it is given by any other uninvolved user. Gaming the system is not on. On the other hand, notifications by any user is ok - but they must be worded appropriately, particularly if you're an involved admin.
  - However, I'm suggesting the problems in this area have gone on long enough - an uninvolved administrator should investigate and give warnings to those editors who are have recently not complied with the principles of the decision, while notifying all other involved editors of the decision. This way, ALL editors editing in the area have absolutely no excuse for 'not being notified or warned by an uninvolved admin'. These should replace the logging of formal warnings or notifications by involved administrators and would clear up a lot of the issues. This applies to all warnings or notifications that were made during or after an administrator became involved in a dispute - see above where I have defined what an uninvolved admin is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd still maintain that pure "notifications" in your terminology (i.e. without the "your actions are disruptive!" part) are quite useless, and I doubt it was the Arbcom's intention to make us use those. The pure "notification" just boils down to saying "it is forbidden to be disruptive". Great. Everybody knows that anyway. But what counts as disruptive? The definitions of disruption are so vague that it's perfectly possible for a user to be disruptive and never become aware that they are being perceived as such. In fact, barring trolls and vandals, we should assume nobody is disruptive intentionally. So, being aware of the rule as such, in the abstract, won't help. "You can be blocked if you are disruptive" is useless. It only becomes meaningful if it's coupled with a concrete message "... and you will be blocked if you continue to do XYZ". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments about images

The status on a number of disputed uploads hinges on whether People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or Animal Liberation Front release all their images to the public domain. I see no confirmation on either site that they actually do, and I did find a PETA statement that strongly implies they do not. I also found a statement from ALF that said some (but not all) of their site's images are fair use reproductions, and no indication which images they own and which they do not.

OTRS has been filed for quite a few of these, but the documentation has been done in a manner that raises concerns. For instance, Image:Marshalsea-plaque-December2007.jpg is an obvious copyright violation. Yet SV asserts the image is under a Creative Commons Attribution licence by e-mail. E-mail to permissions. That doesn't explicitly say whether OTRS has been filed or not. The photograph may be copyleft, but the plaque it depicts is not. And the Flickr source link goes directly to the image file rather than to the hosting page that would specify the license.[34]

Another example is Image:KeithMann1969.jpg, which has a clear OTRS ticket statement. Yet the accompanying text is contradictory. The photograph was shot in 1969 before the Animal Liberation Front existed and the public domain argument is Released into the public domain, as are all images originally owned by the Animal Liberation Front. Obviously the Animal Liberation Front cannot be the original owner of this photograph. Although OTRS is generally trustworthy, this raises an eyebrow--particularly so since the previous example demonstrates a weak understanding of derivative work.

Fourth example: Image:DavidMertz1.jpg. Simultaneously claims PD and fair use. Assertion of PD release is unverified, and no indication that OTRS has been filed.

Fifth example: Image:GushKatif1.jpg. False license claim. Site clearly declares full copyright.[36]

Sixth example: Image:PABombeat3.jpg. PD rationale is invalid. From an old Toshiba catalogue; catalogue out of print, model no longer made. No copyright issues. None of these factors amount to an expiration of copyright or a public domain release.

I could go on, but this is enough to convey the point: there are weaknesses in the rationales for these uploads, and there are enough weaknesses of enough different varieties over a long enough period of time to cast a cloud of doubt over much of the remainder, despite OTRS. Although I have not been informed which items were deleted from Commons, it is not hard to imagine why the site rejected this material. Had I seen these on the Commons deletion board I would have contacted the uploader not with templates but with notes (which I have provided for every image at the discussion Kelly started). Yet it is disturbing that an administrator as experienced as SlimVirgin not only created so many problems, but made a public insinuation that Commons deletion standards are either inconsistent or politically motivated, and that she transferred those problems from that site to this one without seeking better information. I would like to host much of these on Commons if the copyleft/public domain status were clear because these are valuable encyclopedic images, but frankly I don't want this problem. And Kelly could have articulated it much better. This was not well done. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place to discuss whether images of dubious provenance would be Wikipedia:Images for deletion - people seem to ignore IFD a lot these days, instead preferring to tag things and leave them. If Kelly believes these images have ropey rationales or tagging, they should be taken to WP:IFD, rather than creating a big fuss over this, and I would suggest she does this now, if she hasn't yet. Agree this was not well done. Neıl 龱 09:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Kelly listed them at WP:PUI and/or IFD from the start. The big fuss started only when they got into a disagreement over Slim removing the tags out of process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were listed at PUI, yes. When SV started removing the tags out of process, they should have gone to IFD, rather than here. Neıl 龱 10:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would one want to shift them from one forum to the next, from PUI to IFD? The right thing is to have them run their course where they are. (That said, I can never understand why those are two different fora anyway. We should merge them.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IFD is for images that are obsolete, orphans, unencyclopedic, low quality or copyright violations, where further discussion is needed as the addition of a speedy tag is either inappropriate or disputed, or the user is unsure if deletion is warranted. PUI is for listing images where fair use is disputed. I agree the two fora might be merged, but this is not the venue for that discussion. As it is, based on Durova's six eamples above, PUI isn't the appropriate venue (the disputes aren't about fair use). They're at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#June_7 anyway, though, so this is moot, I guess. Neıl 龱 10:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no. PUI isn't for disputing fair use. That is indeed done either through a speedy channel ({{Dfu}}) or, in less obvious cases, through IFD. PUI is exactly for these types of cases: images where free status is claimed but the factual basis for that claim is in doubt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is always appropriate to address the central issue of a long ANI thread. The bottom line is that Kelly's concerns are substantive, although poorly expressed. I stepped in principally because of an unsupported allegation regarding Commons, a project where I am a sysop. The person who made the allegation failed to respond to two requests to substantiate it, so I took time away from other matters to examine and note each of the images in Kelly's list. This subthread summarizes highlights of those findings in enough detail to halt the he said, she said-ishness that stretched the thread to absurd lengths in the first place. Now I'll return to those other priorities. Durova^Charge! 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on Kelly's talk, I was under the impression that the FBI considered ALF a domestic terrorist organization. Are terrorist organizations even granted intellectual property rights? IP rights are not a Constitutional right, they are a privilege granted that can be revoked by the government. For example, consider the fact that convicted felons loose all ip rights to anything associated with their crime. I highly doubt that news organizations have to get permission from terrorists to use their content to report on stories, I imagine the same standard applies here. Let's apply a bit of rational logic here, ALF has no standing with the law seeing as how I imagine that anyone involved with them would be arrested as co-conspirators. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sclua repeated personnal attacks and disruptive behavior

This user has repeatedly been breaking Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In the articles Crown of Aragon and Coat of arms of Catalonia he has been engaging edit warring:

Erasing references brought by other editors claiming them to be Aragonese nationalist lies" --> Not assuming good faith
Reverting edits by other users using xenophobic and racist comments calling me "Southamerican" --> Personal attack

He has also made comments such as:

"They are trying to block me, are trying that i leave to edit, i am suffering mobbing from both users with lots of threatens (...) It is Spanish fascism, worse than Chinese one (...)" here.
"I think a fascist Spanish hacker has blocked my access" here and here

May I notice to the admins that he was already warned for using this language: "Also suggesting that 'Spanish fascists' are responsible is disruptive" by User:Prodego. He then answered that he will try to moderate his vocabulary. Something he has not.

A number of users have already warned him because of his behaviour in his talk-page (me included), but he blanked the page.

For all these reasons, I'm reporting this user to the admins. Thanks --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would hardly consider my passing comment a true warning. Prodego ^talk 21:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm also involved here. Sclua keeps removing sources that he doesn't like and misquoting the rest to fit his POV, like removing the only catalan author from a sourced list and then misquoting that same source that mentions a catalan author to claim that only aragonese authors backed a certain theory.

I warned him on his talk page, explained him why he shouldn't do that, and tried to merge into the article the few useful sources he brought, but he keeps edit-warring this sort of thing into the article.

Sclua has received several escalating warnings from me, but his behaviour is the same or worse, and keeps acusing others of bad faith for enforcing policies. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, notice that MauritiusXXVII began with the personals attacks " absolutly ignorant (i don't know the meaning of Povish)", please see how he demanded me explanations when he still has not any explanation on the page talk nowadays though his huges changes on the article (only after the edition left the message without reasoning), see how he begans to say me "pushes a catalanist or (may I say anti-spanish) non-neutral POV" before i called him "anti-catalanist", please see how he begins to threaten me after just one day from his first edition "you will be reported" please see how he said "Catalan POV and this is not the catalan wiki" before i call him southamerican and when, in fact, i was bringing International Heraldry Academy sources not Catalan ones and he (they both in fact) only were bringing an Aragonese website source (Aragonese Encyclopedia when the Wikipedia is not what others Encyclopedia say so that source would have be removed as invalid source). And please, notice that i have no warnings but "mobbing" from the Aragonese Enric Naval specialist in request blocks against Catalan editors on the Spanish wikipedia like this when he demanded to an administrator to block the user Periku And the worse of all is that the current edition done by MauritiusXXVII [37] (they both in fact) the sources numbers 1,5,6 and 15 (where he needs to demote the count of Barcelona Ramon Berenguer IV to edit, an example of his ideology) are falsified. He (they both) has gone beyond the limits of the decency. I can prove that the authors do not state what they both are falsely pretending they say. --Sclua (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute, but a behaviour dispute, with this user removing heraldic sources that don't agree with his POV and claiming that we are misquoting the sources (when we are doing a direct quote of the source, I kid you not) continuous accussations of bias that started well before Maurice's involvement, and accusing me of being biased for removing a source that failed completely at WP:RSN where, ironically, he accusses me of trying to clear the sources I don't like.

(Notice that, after my complaint, user Periku was blocked 1 week for disruption, and his changes in dispute were reverted. Also, I didn't complain to an admin, but to an uninvolved bureaucrat) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out my comment, this is not a content dispute, I make my argument again.

Sclua's excuse for being uncivil is that others have been uncivil first, but that's not a excuse for incivility. He doesn't address at all his disruptive removal and misquoting of sources. Also, he makes a personal attack on his comment above, calling me a "specialist in request blocks against Catalan editors on the Spanish wikipedia" --Enric Naval (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

I'd like some assistance. After reminding [38] User:Andyvphil that he's not to edit others' Talk page comments [39], he immediately altered my comments (to an uncivil quip) in his User_talk space [40] and continued his tenditious editing at Talk:Barack Obama [41]. I'd normally leave someone so clearly in the fast lane for a block to their own devices, but I don't appreciate his repeatedly editing others' remarks; Andy's been blocked repeatedly for his hostility toward other editors, and while others have tried to work with him, he doesn't seem to be learning from past interaction. Shem^(talk) 05:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, none of my blocks were for "hostility toward other editors". Which is not to say that I take kindly to the abuse of process that Shem is engaging in here. Andyvphil (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andyvphil has now edited my comments on this page [42] and again on an article talk page [43]. Shem^(talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it"(WP:TPG) is lost on you? You don't own this page, or the Barack Obama talk page, and you're not allowed to use headers to make abusive assertions ("tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil"). Keep your "comments" in the text area, where your signature marks them as the opinions of dubious origin that they are. Andyvphil (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Shem will take this opportunity to realize that warning and threatening every user he edit wars with is counterproductive, and will only make enemies, and will not help out his cause in the slightest. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's always been a collaborative work, so there aren't any "enemies" here, Evil Spartan. I stand by all of 'em, and was glad to step back in and remind some of y'all that Wikipedia's not a battleground. Shem^(talk) 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means let's look at Shem's examples of my "edit[ing] others' Talk page comments [44]" and "continued... tenditious editing[45]". Both involve only the header on an article's (not a user's) talk page, where the guideline is: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."(WP:TPG) Shem's header was "This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus" and I first changed it to "Further comments by Option 1 supporters: 'This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus' and, after Shem reverted, to "Argumentative header redacted, per [guideline]: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.'" (edit comment "...I'll leave replacing it to someone else.") So the real question is whether Shem's right to protect the integrity of his remarks means that his argumentative headers can't be made neutral. And whether he should escape rebuke for filing completely bogus complaints like this. Andyvphil (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this editor is headed for a long-term block or ban, if he does not either improve or lose interest in the project. Replacing talk page headers with complaints and personal attacks (here's another[46], and in this very section he edits the headings to turn a report on his behavior around to a complaint about the poster[47][48]) is one of the least of the problems. The site of the most recent trouble, the Barak Obama article (where he has joined forces with three other accounts to pester his perceived enemies with taunts like "Obama campaign volunteers" and "Obama fanboys", and broke ranks of the consensus discussion to renew an edit war[49][50]), was recently taken unprotected with a stern warning to not edit war that soon lead to the article's full protection. The other place he has been most tendentious of late is a sockpuppet report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth (where he called User:Josi "bad, arrogant"[51], "arrogant abuse of admin power...for whom an admin bit is an opportunity to stoke their ego..."[52]and me an "imbecile" and a "liar"[53]. We can and should have a thick skin about all this, but it's lead to protectio of an important article and the more or less complete breakdown of consensus discussions.

I have had a couple of prolonged unpleasant run-ins with him myself and left quite a few warnings. Andyvphil has not responded well to repeated warnings, and shows no sign of self-reflection or moderating his behavior. However, now that he is a party to a sockpuppet request, and much of his incivility and tendentiousness is occurring there, I would say he's already under scrutiny so I'm not sure a separate forum is needed here for the moment. Wikidemo (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was admin, not merely "user" Jossi whose actions in blocking Fovean_Author with no plausible justification I called arrogant. My retitling of this section so that it does not assert my guilt is in accord with the guideline I've quoted above, and if you read "accusation" into the perfectly neutral descriptive title "Allegation by User:Shem of tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil", that is entirely in your own head. Not that I am unwilling to accuse when it is called for. You point to my calling your addition of my name to the list of sockpuppets operated by "suspected sockpuppeteer" Kossack4Truth an abuse of process,[54] and I stand by that 100%. Since your cohort in the hagiographic clique (you, Scjessey, Lulu, Shem...) called me a racist without rebuke[55] it's hard to credit the notion that calling the group Obama Campaign Volunteers would merit one. That's assuming I used the term. Where's the diff? I'm sure I never used "Obama Fanboys", though it's not an epithet in a league with "smells of racism" either.

I won't bother refuting the rest of your off-topic rant. Shem has reported an "incident". He alleges that I have engaged in "tendentious editing" by first contextualizing and then redacting his argumentative header on the Barack Obama talkpage. Did I or did I not -- that's the question in this section, and I am confident that the answer cannot possibly be the one he wants. If you want to raise a different complaint against me, start another section. Andyvphil (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemo correctly, below, appears to consider that the "racist" issue is moot here. However, that incident reveals more about how Andyvphil responds to disputes. He links above to the place where he was allegedly "called" a "racist." The diff does not support that. Nor was "smells of racism" (not the actual language) a personal attack, and that Andyvphil thinks it was is diagnostic. Scjessey's edit summary was this: "Undid revision 211967788 by Andyvphil (talk) - rv disruptive edits that are starting to look suspiciously like racism." While this may not be the soul of cooperative civility, because it could indeed be taken in an inflammatory way, it merely noted Scjessey's impression of the edits, their appearance to him, and a concern. That was not a personal attack, for a totally non-racist editor could make an edit that "looks like" racism to another editor. Had Scjessey called Andyvphil a "racist," it would have been an entirely different matter, or if he had made some broad statement clearly implying that, such as "All his edits appear to be racist," a personal attack would have been visible.--Abd (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor seems to claim his ongoing incivility and name calling are okay because he was provoked by supposed "cohorts" who called him a racist a month ago. I can't quite follow that, and I wasn't involved during his last visit to this page. But he has clearly been confrontational and upset many editors over a long period and has no interest in stopping. Indeed, he continues after making the above statements to edit war on the Obama talk page over the very edit that was first complained about in this report (though he is now defacing rather than merely altering the heading).[56] That is particularly disruptive given the consternation, disagreement, name calling, and allegations of sock puppetry surrounding the repeated polling, with the polls becoming a springboard for edits that got the Obama main page fully protected. Yet another warning would not seem to help; he dismisses this as "administrative arrogance" and "abuse of process". Whether or not the disruption would justify a block at this very moment, in the long term something ought to be done to mollify things.Wikidemo (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I've dismissed as abuse of process was Shem's bogus assertion that I had edited his "comments" (again, its only his headers I've insisted follow WP:TPG) and your bogus assertion that I could possibly be a sockpuppet of Kossak4Truth. Another bogus "warning" that I shouldn't interfere with Shem's misuse of headers will indeed be dismissed by me. What part of "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it"(WP:TPG) is lost on you? Andyvphil (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't take the invitation to snipe back. He is edit warring on the Obama talk page, citing a misinterpretation of WP:TPG, to deface one option in a heated poll to Argumentative header redacted, per [guideline]: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."[57] There's a bona fide concern of sockpuppetry or at least meatpuppetry, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. He's recently called me a liar and an imbecile. That's all in the last day or so. He and Shem are revert warring again in the past half hour over the title to this section.[58][59]. This is not looking good. - Wikidemo (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in principle that changing a section header is not the same as refactoring someone else's talk page comments, and I think that some of the header modification edits made by Andyvphil were probably okay, this is unacceptable. Behavior like that could rapidly lead to a block. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.[reply]

(ec)Andyvphil is also repeatedly editing section headers placed on his Talk page, turning warnings to him into taunts of other editors. See [60], changing "Do not edit others' talk page comments." into "Shem's sham outrage," undone at [61] by Shem. [62] changed "Edit warring." into "Hypocritical hagiographers threaten," removed by Wikidemo with [63] with summary: "remove personal attack heading and replace with original" (Next edit from Wikidemo also replaced another header Andyvphil had removed, and added text warning about NPA.) Andyphil then, today, replaced the "sham outrage" attack header,[64], claiming "wider latitude on my Talk page." Most recently, as this is written, Shem reverted that last change, and notified Andyphil of this AN/I report.[65].

See also the SSP report, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. Sock puppetry has not been proven, though there is reasonable suspicion remaining. However, for our immediate purposes, the behavior of Andyvphil in this report should be reviewed. He is generally attacking administrators and others who warn or restrain him. He consistently fails to assume good faith, instead imputing hypocrisy, bias, "plethora of bad, arrogant, admins," "abusing process for the purposes of harassment," "arrogant abuse of admin power," "Arrogant and unaccountable admins," "admins equally incurious as to the facts but eager to boost their fagile egos by pissing on any non-admin "peon" handy."

Those are some of the facts, a review of this editors history will find much, much more. As to the implications, Andyvphil is correct that he has greater latitude on his Talk page, but that does not extend to using his Talk page for personal attacks. Further, a section header added by a user with the user's edit of the page is part of the user's edit, and changing it can alter the meaning. Changing it into a personal attack is even worse. His provocative, taunting ABF comments are disruptive and confuse efforts to find editorial consensus. Readers may be aware that I've often complained about administrative abuse. It happens. But it is not necessary, dealing with it, to impute bad faith, hypocrisy, spite, and all the rest, and, in fact, administrators are accountable. I commented in the RfAr proceedings of User:Physchim62 and User:Tango, who made blocks apparently as a result of alleged personal attacks directed at them, violating conflict of interest rules, and not for the clear protection of the project, which might have justified the blocks under IAR, and those admins both lost their bits. Other administrative errors happen, often through inattention, but are remediable. Attacking the administrators' personal motives, absent clear proof, isn't legitimate. I'm amazed that this editor isn't blocked yet. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk:Barack Obama page has been a toxic combustion chamber of editors behaving badly, getting other editors offended who then behave badly and so on. To get involved in discussions there is almost guaranteed to make yourself the target of an attack. There is plenty of bad behavior on both sides -- and I do mean sides. Only part of the problem will be solved with blocks or topic bans. What's needed are more adults with patience taking a little time to get involved in discussions about an article that gets tens of thousands of page views on a typical day and on June 4 got a quarter of a million page hits. It's inevitable that controversial subjects get debated heatedly on certain talk pages. What's odd about this talk page is the low heat/light ratio and the worse drama/constructive discussion ratio. I know that's not an advertisement for recruiting cool heads to the page, but it would be good for Wikipedia if you'd come. It's not only a great exercise in trying to keep cool, but you might learn somethng about one of the most important topics of the year. Slap permanent bans on every editor whose signature appears in this section, and you'll have the same problems on the page within two months. Wider participation is the only way out. Noroton (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moi? Slog around in the mudfight? Ask me personally, on my Talk page, and I'll consider it. Just like I'd consider helping my neighbor who asks me to help clean out the remains of a racoon that died in his basement. I don't need "exercise in keeping cool," I need cool. It's over ninety out today. I prefer, usually, to seriously work on articles where I'm expert on the topic, at least in some way. I actually use what I know to judge what is notable and what is not. Horrifying, I know, but I don't remove stuff because it isn't sourced if I think it is true and balanced. (If I put such in, and I often do, I can't complain if it is removed because of lack of RS, though I'd consider it more polite, if it seems like it might be verifiable, to tag it.) Anyway, thanks. As to the issue of Andyvphil, I've seen his attitude be a problem across more than one article, it's not just Obama. And it goes way beyond the too-common incivility between disagreeing editors. It's divisive, us vs. them, wikiwarfare. And it doesn't belong here. Given how much he's been warned, and how many times blocked, I'd say it's time to pull the plug. Will this stop edit warring? Probably not. But it will lessen it, at least a little. (Some might be surprised to know that I think we should block far more quickly, but with less ongoing effect. When the police see a fight going on, it is *not* their job to decide who was right. They say, "Stop!" and anyone who does not stop gets stopped, immediately. Has nothing to do with who started it, who was the evil-doer and who was protecting all that is Good. Stop. Now. Then, when the smoke clears, the police decide whom to more permanently arrest, if any, and who can walk free. Let me put it this way: there should be an "everyone involved, stop" block reason that doesn't create any prejudice with regard to future, more serious blocks. It would not involve any judgment of blame. And I'm pretty sure that I'd be blocked in this way, at least occasionally!) --But maybe evenly distributed warnings would serve for this. And article protection does stop edit warring.--Abd (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toi! (Et vous!) Sometimes the raccoon dies in the volunteer firehouse. And the trick with working on an article like Barack Obama is that almost everybody has some knowledge, most everybody needs more knowledge, anybody would benefit (even off Wikipedia) by getting more knowledge, and it's good for the soul to find out you're wrong every now and then. Aux armes! Aux armes, citoyens! (for the French-defficient, see my edit summary)Noroton (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions

← Barack Obama is a featured article and one of our most often-viewed and high-profile pages. The editing behavior there is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and has been recognized as such by the mass media ([66]). No one person is wholly responsible, but any attempt to deal with it has to start somewhere.

Andyvphil (talk · contribs): Four escalating blocks for edit-warring; has wikilawyered each of them by arguing the letter of 3RR and accusing the admins of not knowing how to count or recognize a revert (see here, here, here, etc). Citing the talk page guidelines to justify changing another editor's overly "argumentative" heading ([67]) is odd coming from someone who himself routinely alters others' headings into attacks: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], etc. This editor is gaming WP:TPG as part of an ongoing pattern of inappropriate editing. His level of civility is poor even by the standards of the Obama talk page; he's dismissed every attempt to reason with him or moderate his approach (e.g. here and here); and the denial of his last 3 unblock requests led him to conclude not that his behavior violated this site's standards, but that admins as a group are a capricious, ignorant "mullah class" conspiring against honest editors like himself ([73]). I haven't seen any potential for improvement here. This editor is playing a major role in the devolution of one of our highest-profile articles into a battleground (even drawing the attention of the popular press). I'm going to go ahead and block him for 1 month for disruptive editing on top of 4 previous blocks for edit-warring, and if he resumes the same approach after the block's expiry, I would support an indefinite block.
Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs): Editors with "Truth" in their username seem to run into problems with NPOV and tendentiousness fairly often. This is an evident tendentious single-purpose agenda account contributing heavily to the poor quality of editing and behavior at Barack Obama. S/he has racked up 2 blocks in the past few weeks for edit-warring on the Obama article. Third edit blued out his talk page with a pre-emptive defense against charges of sockpuppetry ([74]). I would recommend a topic ban to see if there is anything more here than someone dedicated to abusing Wikipedia as a venue to advocate for a specific, narrow agenda. I won't impose this without further uninvolved feedback, though.
A number of other editors at Barack Obama have contributed to the poor atmosphere there. This is not an exhaustive list, but an identification of a starting point for improving this situation. Experienced or constructive outside editors without an axe to grind are essential, but I don't think we'll attract many of them until the current debacle is addressed. I would welcome uninvolved feedback on the above, as well as any additional review of these or other participants in the article.

The bottom line is that this is one of our highest-profile articles, and its current atrocious state as a WP:BATTLEfield of tendentious edit-warring is a high-profile disgrace to Wikipedia. Feedback welcome. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- 1/ Is a month enough? 2/ A topic ban...well, is that going to be effective? A short block might be a better step. 3/I want to review this whole article further (as an outside opinion) - I'll check back within 12 hours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re: a month, I'm open to feedback on that. Re: a topic ban, for most single-purpose agenda accounts a topic ban ends up being functionally identical to a block - they came here to push a specific agenda, and if they can't, then they leave. On the other hand, if Kossack4Truth has other interests and something of value to contribute to the encyclopedia, then the topic ban may facilitate that. I think it's a less blunt instrument. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's very troubling behaviour. I'm absolutely certain that (at minimum) a topic ban is needed for Kossack4Truth. Will continue looking through everything, including other involved editors conduct (amidst the edit conflicts) in a few hours or so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You pretty much nailed it, MastCell. 1 month for Andyvphil is exactly what I'd recommend, given the history and behavior, which isn't marginal, balanced with gradual escalation of blocks. --Abd (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I'm an involved editor and I've been in agreement with Andyvphil and Kossack4Truth in terms of some of the broadest issues, but I can't criticize a single thing MastCell says. Noroton (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Support Mastcell's summary of the problems over at the obama page as a good first step --It jibes with what I've observed over on the talk page on the few occasions I'm able to look over there. One of the main problems with SPA pushing a point of view is that each edit by itself is plausibly defensible, if not scrutinized too closely (a big thanks to Mastcell for doing the legwork on putting his summary together). Support the 1 month block for Andyvphil and the 1 month topic ban for Kossack4Truth. The remedy is appropriate for each. R. Baley (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you proposing a 1 month topic ban on Obama related articles for Kossack4Truth? He currently isn't under such a restriction and while MastCell did recommend a topic ban, he did say that he wasn't imposing it and didn't include a time frame. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has K4T been notifed that he's being discussed here? By my count, in the 14 hours since this report was opened K4T has participated in a minor edit war (to be fair, on the right side of it), placed a warning logo on the Obama talk page and that of a user relating to the edit war, re-added disputed information that Tony Rezko was convicted of bribery, and accused one editor of "distortion" and another (the edit warrior) of "indefensible" conduct. But he seems capable of good editing. Perhaps a warning is more appropriate than a topic ban.Wikidemo (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell has, as is often the case, summarized this mess rather nicely. I'd say that the block and topic ban seem to be quite appropriate in the pursuit of slowing down the mayhem on this very, very busy page. If other adherents of the combatants pick up the sword and start to charge, though, an attempt at article probation might be a good idea - it probably won't slow down anytime before the elections. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Noroton
Slap permanent bans on every editor whose signature appears in this section, and you'll have the same problems on the page within two months.
However, MastCell's suggestion seems likely to have the effect of removing the immediate problem, giving the parties time to consider the consequences of their actions, and discouraging future POV warriors from participating too disruptively on the subject; I support the proposal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the merits of the block, but Andyvphil (talk · contribs) has requested unblock for the purpose of contributiong to this discussion, and I have advised him to post any pertinent comments or unblock requests on his talk page. Sandstein 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have any real objection to unblocking him specifically to post here, but given past history I think it might be most productive to adopt Sandstein's suggestion, which is fairly standard practice, for Andyvphil to post his comments on his user talk page and have another editor copy them here as needed. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call by MastCell, a more long term block seems necessary at this point and a month seems appropriate. I've seen Andyvphil at the related A More Perfect Union (speech) article, and while he has made some constructive edits there the overall approach to editing and the tendency to comment pointedly on the supposed motivations of other editors troubled me from the outset (the behavior there does not at all approach the problematic level at the Obama article however). Andyvphil can no doubt be a constructive contributor but needs to recognize that his behavior up to now has been problematic. I also fully agree that the main Obama article is a big problem for Wikipedia and we need more admins (and editors) who can keep a cool head over there helping out. I've intentionally avoided it but will probably try to lend a hand at some point. The situation over there could easily lead to worse press for us than that which has already been published.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support MastCell's analysis of the problem and his block and ban recommendations. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell's spot-on. Shem^(talk) 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest the topic ban be enforced then. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse MastCell's analysis. Would support the month-long topic ban if Kossack4Truth enters WP:ADOPT. Further on evidence support site ban/ indef blocking of Andyvphil if he does not address eth substantive behavioural issues raised here - too much disruption to make a point & too much wikilawyering--Cailil ^talk 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having just found out about this (gee thanks), I would like to offer a word in my own defense. It is clear that there are POV pushers on the other side of the dispute at Barack Obama. I'm somewhat new to this and was unaware that being a single purpose account is frowned upon. I would voluntarily and cheerfully start a week, or even month long topic ban on Obama related articles, if admins can promise me that the POV pushers on the other side of this dispute are monitored carefully, and blocked without hesitation as needed, in the interests of protecting the Wikipedia project. In particular, they're trying to gut the section on the presidential campaign and remove virtually all references to Tony Rezko, even now. Hit Scjessey with a month-long topic ban at the same time. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this editor does know of the proposed topic ban, he jumped in to a revert war on the Barack Obama article anyway to restore a list of criminal charges against Tony Rezko.[75]. He reverted the "bribery" charge part of it two other times in the hours before learning of the proposed sanctions[76][77], so he is at exactly WP:3RR. There was another edit yesterday in a revert war over a broader section that included this material[78]. So the editor has been at a state of WP:3RR for some time. There's also ongoing debate, with the editor claiming on the talk page that those he is reverting are POV-pushers[79][80] and issuing warnings and appeals on their talk pages.[81][82] You might want to take a look at the behavior of other editors as well here. Kossack4Truth's four reverts are among a total of 12 reverts in the last +/- 36 hours (by my count) to the Tony Rezko section of the Obama article - all that after edit protection was lifted and people warned to not edit war. Wikidemo (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a total of 12 reverts in the last +/- 36 hours ... and at least half of them were by Wikidemo, Scjessey, Loonymonkey and the other exclusionists who make substantive edits without consensus, in defiance of repeated warnings from admins on the article Talk page. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New User:Grawp vandalism

I know Grawp has a thing for Geography FAs - on at least three talk pages there is the same odd vandalism, a picture of Kalomira and the obscene things Grawp wishes to do to her. See Talk:Larrys Creek, Talk:White Deer Hole Creek, and Talk:Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek), but not Talk:Joseph Priestley House Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS There is no edit in the talk page history to show how this was done. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever fixed it - it is gone now. Probably want to figure out how to block this in the future though Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Fralmpa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Corvus cornix_talk 18:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I reverted the edits by Fralmpa. Sneaky inclusion into templates, but now gone. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For curious minds (ec): it is done not by editing the page directly, but the templates: {{River}}, {{WPBrazil‎}}, etc that transclude onto those pages. Reminds me of some of the refdesk vandalism. He uses the 'position' and 'overflow' CSS elements to squeeze the stuff in, and in this case it was wrapped in <noinclude> tags to obfuscate it. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:29, June 9, 2008 (UTC)

Question: Has anyone gone over to WP:RFCU/IP and left this name there so that the CUs can root out sleepers and block IPs? Remember that, as of late, Grawp has been favoring OPs. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:42, June 9, 2008 (UTC)

Not Grawp. Thatcher 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think so. Not his MO. Corvus cornix_talk 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Ditto on that, Thatcher - Alison ^❤ 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. I'm finding that broken/vandalized transclusions are a bane. Which reminds me, WP:BEANS. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still seeing the vandalism on Template:User14. I hard refreshed my browser and purged my page cache. Can't seem to locate it. Can anyone else spot it?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything there that hasn't been there forever. Sorry. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a problem with my browser then. It just won't disappear at the moment...odd.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

warning removal

Resolved

– no admin action required here.

i was warned for a discussion topic i created at Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) however i was warned because i was told i was making it up and making disruptive edits. This is regarding alleged incest on a video created by the subject of the article. I pointed the editor to the video on youtube, however he claims it is a fake video. Another user has pointed out that it was not a fake video, however it may be in actuality a hoax...a shock video. I would like the warning removed as it is unjustified and a mistake.Myheartinchile (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to remove the warning from your talk page, if you like, you can justify in the edit summary as to the reason for the removal. xenocidic (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove any messages you want from your own talk page and it's taken as a given that you've seen the message, so you can't say later if you get blocked that you never saw it. But I don't think the warning was "unjustified" or "a mistake". You have to be very careful with biographies of living people and the policy WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. The way you worded that question was as a statement of fact that Crocker was in an incestuous relationship with his brother. This is why you received the warning and I think it was warranted. Please be more careful with the wording you use when editing biographies and their talk pages and include a source to an article discussing the issue if it's something controversial like this. Sarah 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, please read what Sarah has written above - my comments to you were just to note that you are free to remove comments from your talk page as you see fit. I wasn't making any judgment as to whether or not the warning was justified. xenocidic (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry guess i misunderstood and i'm stupid.Myheartinchile (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one thought you were stupid and you have as much right to edit as the next person. Policies are there because these issues have come up and been dealt with many times before. You aren't the first person to make that mistake and you won't be the last. Warnings are a good tool to use to learn about a policy that you may have violated, intentionally or not. Banje boi 03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded Harassment by User:Odd nature (and endorsed by User:Filll)

User:Odd nature has posted a bogus RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B on a whole range of users they disagree with. He's labelled me a "supporter" of the subjects of the RFC, among a few other editors, and insists that the entire group "steer clear of participating in discussions regarding members of the project occurring anywhere on Wikipedia". He's also labelled Cla68, LaraLove (LaraHate at WikipediaReview), Giggy, Dtobias (Dan T), The undertow, ThuranX, and Gnixon in the same manner.

I'm uninvolved and have participated as a third party in several disputes (whether it be here, or at WQA), and at ANI, I repeatedly requested him to stop making unfounded accusations against me as being involved in the several disputes I have commented on. This behavior has clearly not stopped and he continues making such unsupported accusations, now with a RFC in WP:POINT. This further seen by the unacceptable manner in which he tried to have it certified - as if it is one dispute, when in reality, all he's done is referred to several disputes with several different users.

This is atrocious.

I request

The users be informed of this discussion.
User:Odd nature is blocked for disruption, harassment/personal attacks and using Wikipedia as a battleground.
The RFC be deleted.

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that unsupported accusations are a perennial problem with Odd nature et all, Ncmvocalist, I tend to think that A) This would best be served as evidence IN that Request for Comment (I would like to see it more neutrally named, mind you), rather then in a seperate ANI report. And B)As for the legalities of it, as long as it serves to focus on the issue, I think a bit of WP:IAR should be used here to let it run. ArbCom has stated they want an RfC on the issue, and everyone knows if the issues aren't resolved at the RfC level, it's probably time to bring it back in front of ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The reason this is here is because this conduct has not, and will not change until there is admin intervention against this user in particular. Unsupported unwarranted accusations against third parties is purely harassment, particularly when they're repeated as a smear campaign. An RFC is to make claims with evidence against parties of a dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How fun. I come here to notify on another Colbert incident incipient on wikipedia, and find my name in the thread above it. I'm not sure why I'm included in this based on a few comments about bad behavior and the willing impotence of admins when confronted with it. ThuranX (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it but I was also concerned about pages such as User:Filll/Abuse_of_Civil_Hall_of_Fame -such pages recording the abuses of others and commenting upon them are quite often deleted. Sticky Parkin 12:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD'd Viridae ^Talk 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is not meant to insult or offend anyone. It is data about how we are applying policy like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Are we doing so consistently? Does our approach make sense? Are our standards for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA at the appropriate level? Should they be more stringent or more lenient? Are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ever used inappropriately as weapons against opponents in disputes? These are just examples I have come across in my travels, and not meant to be exhaustive or an appropriately random sample.

I do not pretend to know if Wikipedia is enforcing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL appropriately at the moment or not. I do not pretend to know if the most commonly held assumptions about CIVIL are reasonable or not. However, these are interesting questions to consider as Wikipedia evolves as an enterprise.

If we are ever to move beyond our current "intuition-based management" of Wikipedia, based on gut feelings and on who can be the biggest bully or who can scream the loudest, to "evidence-based management" we need data, and we need to analyze it. We need to understand what our current stance on a given issue is, and what it was, and how it is changing and why. We need to frame our policies and enforcement in terms of our actual goals, and then try to determine the best means to reach these goals, and then implement these means if possible. And that is what the CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is. It is a tiny step on the road towards "evidence-based management". --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for the RFC at the top of the page say, "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." Since it is unquestionably impossible for this RFC to be certified (there is not a single dispute with a single user for anyone to certify), the RFC should be deleted (or courtesy blanked, if it is needed for arbitration evidence). --B (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would fall under ignoring all rules. People have good faith concerns, and should be allowed to address them. They should not be deleted on some technical wikilawyering. If the substance of the request for comment is the concern, then the evidence should show that, and it can be closed as unsubstantiated, but not on some small procedural rule. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes rules are there for a good reason and this is one of those cases. An RFC is not for launching complaints at a group of people and then seeing what sticks. Virtually all of the complaints in there have nothing whatsoever to do with me. Even where Odd Nature makes statements in his description of the dispute that all four of us did something, he provides no evidence of me doing it - it's just a false accusation. The one and only complaint that does have anything to do with me is that I have presented evidence of abuse of the administrative tools by Felonious Monk. This is nothing but retaliation for my daring to offer arbitration evidence. There is no campaign of harassment on my part, rather, it is the correct response to an abuse of the administrative tools. Unlike some of the other presentations at the arbitration case in question, mine was brief, contains only recent material (who cares if someone cursed 3 years ago), and contains only the clearest of examples. This is not harassment and if anyone considers the actions that I documented or this RFC as a response to be an acceptable behavior, there really isn't any point of agreement from which to have a discussion. --B (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RfCs are for dispute resolution not for airing of grievances (as B puts it), not for compiling loosely connected evidence, and not for investigations of off-wiki activity. That type of RfC discredits the process and its use in future dispute resolution attempts--Cailil ^talk 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC nuked. First, the diffs that purported to show attempts to resolve the dispute were unbelievably tenuous, and secondly, we don't do RFCs on a random group of users. Individual RFCS on individual people would be fine, and a big RFC on the topic of intelligent design would also be great, as ArbCom requested. Maybe you could even model that on the RFCs we have now and again on RFA. But not this way. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design and would appreciate drafing help. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, this looks like it will try to work towards a resolution of the dispute--Cailil ^talk 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, I wish that the now deleted RfC had been merged to the THIRD RfC "Bite at the apple". Making the community post AGAIN seems problematic. SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate Full protect Warren G. Harding

Colbert on it, claims harding was a 'negro' based on Mclaughlin report, probably worth protecting all 43, after the litany of accusations he just made. ThuranX (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for protection should be made at WP:RFPP :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, yes. In this case, WP:IAR prevails. Within a minute of a televised suggestion by Stephen Colbert to his audience that they check out a certain Wikipedia page and make alterations, we can pretty well count on significant vandalism without immediate full protection. It's one of those "find the first possible admin" cases, and this is the page most watched by admins so it's the right place to come. Risker (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Groucho Marx, you're fighting for this man's honor, which is more than he ever did. Maybe we should go to the Stephen Colbert page, and vandalize it by calling him a journalist or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And while we're handling this, Franklin Pierce is getting hit as well, let's lock it before his show hits the west coast.. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've come a long ways since McLean Stevenson would be on the Carson show and ask everyone in Bloomington, Illinois to flush their toilets at the same time so that his pal at the city reservoir could watch for a sudden dip in the water pressure; or since Soupy Sales asked all the kiddies in the audience to mail him some of those pieces of paper with Presidents' pictures on them, that they could find in Dad's wallet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a town in Iowa that voted that way during the caucuses a few years ago? Can't remember which one. They measured the water levels to determine the winner. Oh, and I semiprotected Pierce for you. :) Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. But I know this: Harding and Pierce are one thing. But if they mess with my man, Millard Fillmore, there will be blood. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I copied Image:Warren G Harding portrait as senator June 1920.jpg from commons and protected it (just to be safe). So someone remember to delete it in a couple of days. --Selket ^Talk 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't actually say anything about vandalizing wikipedia, but he did show on-screen a version of the wikipedia article on Harding asserting that his middle name is "Gangsta". --Random832 (contribs) 01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on dealing with the flood of vandalism, but do we have an extended long term plan on what to do about this? JeanLatore (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this specific incident, they will move on. If you mean what to do if Colbert keeps doing this sort of this then I intend to laugh each time. _{1 != 2} 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think we need one, outside of the usual "keep eyes on it" method. Semi-protect if needed, full if things get heinous. Hot spots like this show up from time to time, from any number of outside sources. Rather than fighting it, we can turn it into an opportunity to recruit new or returning users. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've combined this from a new section below, to keep all this in one place. ThuranX (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Colbert would like having it pointed out that he's a modern-day answer to Soupy Sales. He might like it. Then again, he might not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various irregularities in AfD for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

This here is a perennial AfD so there's always been a fair share of eDrama surrounding it all, but iteration #8 is getting to be quite a mess.

HandThatFeeds files the AfD, admittedly on behalf of another user Wikifan12345 aka 70.181.148.148. (self-identified as such here, this isn't an accusation) It was pointed out that this is not allowed per Wikipedia:Speedy keep criteria 1. Was unaware of this rule myself, and no one else has commented on this angle as of yet.

Wikifan12345 has ex post facto altered the nomination rationale, reverted by Thetrick here, then reverted back by Wikifan's IP.

Wikifan12345 has been violating WP:CANVAS, namely the votestacking section, by only posting alerts to the AfD to editors of a particular (i.e. his own) side. This should not in any way be taken as casting aspersions those who were canvassed, but the fact that the users who he contacted... Humus Sapiens, Amoruso, et al...are either regarded by regulars who edit Israeli-Palestine articles as "pro-Israel" or may appear to wikifan to be such based upon their own userboxes, self-categorization, etc... (all of which is what WP:CANVAS suggests can be used as identifiers) is undeniable.

Tarc (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse Tarc's comments, and would add that the anti-Arab sentiments outlined in this statement would seem to undercut WikiFan12345's credibility somewhat. Seriously, this afd is even more of a partisan mess than previous nominations, and that's saying quite a bit. CJCurrie (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's reasonable that those most active in this area of discussion know what's going on. I merely made them aware of this important happening. I see nothing wrong with that. I personally wanted the opinion of the Israeli wiki section, as the discussion going on in the nominations page was going nowhere. It became a single-view for keep and the reasons remained the same. If I violated any rules, I'll gladly retract my statements made to the alerted people and accept the appropriate penalties. In response to CJ's concern, I edited those statements seconds after submitting. It was an error of mine and I regret it. Thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we're talking about name calling, I'd like to mention several users involved in the discussion attacked me and others with inappropriate terms (Israeli Defenders, for example) that offered nothing to the issue. But, I'm quite forgiving and understand users get very heated in these types of discuss. I just don't want people to consider me something that I'm not, which seems to be the case here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have little interest in this AfD because I know how it's going to end up (though in the interest of full disclosure, I have consistently voted to delete it in the past, and believe it should have been deleted long ago), but since Tarc's first bullet point raises a "process issue" that may affect other AfD's, I just want to respond to it. I believe the person who mentioned SK criterion 1 on the AfD page is taking one sentence of it out of context and misinterpreting it. If you read the sentence in question, all it says is, "Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves." It doesn't say there's anything wrong with doing so. (And if you look at the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, the last sentence of this section also states that this happens sometimes, and there is no suggestion that there is anything wrong with it.) If you read criterion 1 in its entirety, basically what it is saying is that if, at some point in the AfD, nobody (including the nominator) is currently supporting deletion, the AfD can be closed as a speedy keep. Then it goes on to point out that sometimes the nominator is doing so on behalf of someone else and this does not count as a support for deleting the article. It is irrelevant here, because four or five people have "voted" to delete the article, so there is no unanimity regardless of whether the nominator counts. (I think criterion 1 needs to rewritten so it can't be misinterpreted this way. I am not even sure why criterion 1 is necessary, since WP:SNOW also seems to apply, and does not require unanimity.) 6SJ7 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess, but it looks like the AfD, like the preceding seven attempts, will come out as Keep.

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) isn't really to blame for the fact that someone else had to set up the AfD properly. This account was created on June 7, and on June 8, he tried his first AfD, botching the mechanics of the process somewhat. He was trying at one point to post an AfD in the deletion review log [83]. He asked other editors for help, went to the Help Desk, and someone else stepped in just to get the process straightened out. So he shouldn't be bitten (WP:BITE) for that process error.

On the other hand, this is close to being a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. The canvassing is somewhat disturbing, especially after the CAMERA editing-team debacle. --John Nagle (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated this more than 3 times, twice in the nomination page (if you were reading it): I've been editing at wikipedia for more than 6 months, it's only recently did I register an account. I pray this is the last time I have to say this. *prays* Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stand behind my interpretation of the WP:SK #1 guideline as discouraging nominations that the nom-poster immediately attempts to distance himself from. Especially when the nomination is controversial, this method of sparking an AfD seems like bad process. Townlake (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be your opinion that it's bad process, but the page that you're citing doesn't prohibit it, or even discourage it. Quite frankly, it is so badly written that that particular sentence doesn't really say anything. The Guide to deletion, on the other hand, says that this is what sometimes happens, and doesn't say there is anything wrong with it, which strongly suggests that it is acceptable (especially since WP guidelines are supposed to be "descriptive" of current practice.) In my own opinion, there is nothing wrong with a more experienced editor assisting a less experienced editor who is having difficulty navigating the bureaucratic requirements of the deletion process, even if it means that the "helper" actually has to post the AfD. Otherwise, we're saying that if you think an article should be deleted but you can't immediately figure out the process, just go away. That doesn't seem to be in the "spirit" of Wikipedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I certainly agree with you on the community spirit of WP and how much we should all support it. We clearly disagree on SK #1. I'll respectfully bow out of the discussion here, since I don't want to sidetrack this ANI conversation. Townlake (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, everything except for the WP:CANVASsing issue can be immediately dropped. For all intents and purposes, Wikifan12345 was the nominator and HandsThatFeeds was just giving him technical assistance. His ex post facto modification of the nomination should be treated as if he was the original nominator and just decided later to revise his nomination.

Frankly, without Twinkle, I doubt I could get all my ducks in a row for an AfD. That's kinda hard. So I am very sympathetic to Wikifan's predicament.

The canvassing issue can be debated separately. I have no opinion on that at this time. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.[reply]

Question: Have any of the "canvassed" persons even posted to this afd? I don't see the named individuals in the list at all. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended, but I have to ask if it matters? IMO even if a canvas violation was a failure, it is still something that is not allowed. But to get to the answer to the question, yes; Oren neu dag (vote) and FrummerThanThou (vote). Ynhockey also voted in the AfD, but the vote cast precedes Wikifan's notification. Looking at the remaining contrib histories of the rest, none have been active since the notification; some as little as a few hours, others as much as a month or more, while one is even in the middle of a 60-day ban. Whatever user list was consulted in this, it was a peculiar and somewhat out-of-date one. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't aware of any rule that restricted the notification of a deletion process to other wiki members. The members who I notified all belonged to the wiki-Israel project. I felt it was only fair to let the people most involved in this area of discussion know what's going on. As far as ethical violations, I did alert some people involved in the wiki-palestinian project, I think. Not everyone in the wiki-project Israel is "Israel Defender" or "Zionist Pig", as many of you describe them to be. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, "Zionist Pig" ? "Many of you" who? This tactic of leveling veiled charges of antisemitism against one's perceived opponents here is a very bad road to go down. Tarc (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah read the nomination and discussion pages. There is one particular person (forgot name) who has made a strong effort to outline my unspoken political relationships as negatives. His name starts with an E...I don't feel like looking it up lol. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need eyes

User talk:Thatcher is getting familiar vandalism. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 05:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stu8912 and repeated copyvio image uploads

Stu8912 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images (and has uploaded a certain few multiple times), and has not repsonded to his fellow editors' requests to stop doing so. His talk page shows his somewhat lengthy history of copyvio problems, as well as a prior 24-hour block for copyvio uploading. He seems to be fixated on topics relating to and including Angelo State University and San Angelo Stadium, and I honestly think he is unaware that what he is doing is wrong. I suggest another block of an even longer timespan as a way to get this point across to him, and a semi-protection of the Angelo State University article.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been online for about two weeks, so my inclination is that this is kind of stale. A block would likely expire before the editor comes back. Semi-protection won't do anything since he's a registered user. --Selket ^Talk 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're gonna have to forgive my relative ignorance on this complaint process (I prefer doing smaller edits; I'm only doing bringing this up here because he's been a recurring annoyance). Stu8912 has a pattern of going offline for a while, then returning to upload many of the same copyvio images, before going back offline for another while, etc. This is why I suggest a substantially longer block (if possible) for the user, because when he DOES return, he'll likely resort to his same shenanigans all over again unless action is taken.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite XI makes a good point, so I have blocked the editor for one month (per this, with comments) so they will have their attention drawn to the communities concerns. While the tariff may appear harsh it seems to be the only way further disruption can be countered, and I would have no objection to it being reduced when the editor makes contact and realises the problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ramsey89

Resolved

When are kids going to learn that posting personal info may well get them in trouble? Please blank this kid's vanity page and delete the edit history ASAP. He posted damned near everything but his address and phone number. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the article immediately. I think it's something of a losing battle to get kids to not give out information online. Online isn't real-life and they don't believe the two would ever coincide (cf the bomb, death and suicide threats we deal with - all kids not expecting the FBI/Scotland Yard at their front door). All we can do is delete on sight. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 07:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page forgery

Resolved

Be advised that, following a recent block, 219.23.5.48 has forged multiple comments from another user (i.e., User:CalendarWatcher), using that user's signature, on his (i.e., the anon. user's) own talk page. I removed the phony signature once and advised 219.23.5.48 against this sort of behaviour, but that has not deterred him whatsoever. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and the page protected. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:77.102.168.180

Resolved

– it's a dedicated IP, blocked a month --Rodhull andemu 12:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is a persistent Date of Birth and infobox vandal, specifically on pages of Kellie Shirley and Matt Di Angelo. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. User has been warned constantly (and has only just been released from a block) but continues to vandalise and ignore the warnings. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton is asking to be unblocked

Resolved

– Temporary unblocked by Thatcher. Don't forget to lock the door behind you :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last night, when I was creating a new login for myself on MetaWiki, the registration page invited me to avail myself of the new Global Account Management feature. That sounded sensible, especially if I was going to register also on WikiBooks and/or Wikiversity.

However, I ran into a small technical glitch...

Login unification status
From Meta
Your home wiki (listed below) is blocked from editing. Please contact a sysop in this wiki to unblock it. While it is blocked, you cannot merge your accounts.
Home wiki
The password and e-mail address set at this wiki will be used for your unified account. You will be able to change which is your home wiki later.
* en.wikipedia.org (home wiki)

So I would request to be unblocked on the English Wikipedia for the express purpose of availing myself of the Unified Account Management feature so that I may ply my craft, under a unified WikiMedia Login ID, on more collegial and congenial projects (other than the English Wikipedia) sponsored by the WikiMedia Foundation.

Note, also, that I had previously asked you to remove the block which prevents me from creating or editing subpages in my user space here on the English Wikipedia.

Also, please see this item, which raises the issue of which party has the ethical responsibility to undo an unethical act, once it's raised to their attention.

Moulton (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above was posted at User talk:Moulton#Civility As a Tool Against Academic Excellence. I am cross posting this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton. I suggest the conversation take place there. I believe we should AGF and unblock. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/facepalm.

Right, everyone stay calm, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - temporarily' unblock Moulton, allow him to merge his accounts, then reblock his en.Wiki account. This will allow him to edit on other projects, and does not commit us to unblocking Moulton here. Neıl 龱 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is allowed to edit on other projects, he can create an account there, he just can't do it through unified login. Fram (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what harm it would do to allow a user to use SUL. Moulton, in particular, is an unusual case - he was never really a bad faith editor, more that he is unwilling/unable to work within the parameters of en.Wikipedia. Neıl 龱 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(editconflict) I don't see what this has to do with AGF. He can still create those accounts the old-fashioned way, one by one, where needed. If he is blocked on en.wikipedia, he is not allowed to create or edit subpages here. When he has an account on Wikibooks or wherever else he prefers, he can probably create and edit user subpages over there. I don't see the need for us to undo his block for the specified reasons. Fram (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion please. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse on principle to use AN subpages; they are stupid. If you wish to copy my comment to there, that would be okay.Neıl 龱 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, if you don't discuss there, we're going to have conflicting resolutions to the problem. Possibly leading to wheel wars. So, just this once then, please give in to the evil and keep discussion in one place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done This is fairly routine and has been done for users much more annoying and troublesom than Moulton, so no reason to refuse, especially if he plans to contribute productively to other wikimedia projects. Thatcher 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Thatcher. Neıl 龱 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user keeps creating hoaxes faking a game that either does not exist or a totally not popular fan game of the original Galaxy Angel

The user Galaxyangelnew is creating hoaxes in a few articles faking a game(Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers Shooter Version) that does not exist. The game is not sourced and on top of that got no google results. If the game can contain units from two Japanese company as well as a North America company and uses so many music from different series just because it is from the same composer(while it is not by the same composer as well like his/her claim), it must be extremely easy to find sources and does not have to keep reverting the pages without having one and ignoring the warnings. MythSearcher^talk 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user created a new account: User:Galaxyangelwork and uses the IP: 122.53.166.111 for his/her vandalism acts. MythSearcher^talk 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watchlisted the article. And those accounts. We'll see what happens. Grand master ka 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AvantVenger (talk · contribs) will need a close eye and/or a longer block

See user's response to being blocked for gross incivility. (And I'm talking gross incivility, e.g. after having a relatively polite Wikiquette alert filed regarding him, his first comment at the WQA ended with "you can all go to HELL!") Maybe he just needs to cool down, but either this block needs extended, or somebody needs to be waiting tomorrow at 08:34 to make sure he is actually calmed down. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of laying on more heat, I left a friendly note with some links. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes down to a re-block, we can cross that bridge when we get there; for the time being, I believe de-escalation seems more appropriate. It's difficult for some users to quickly get into the "wiki way," but we should do what we can to nudge those users along. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmartBoy222

User SmartBoy222 (talk · contribs) has made no contributions other than to remove prod templates from articles. According to policy I'm not supposed to restore these, but is this sort of editing considered vandalism? BradV 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His latest contribs though are a number of page move vandalisms, sent to WP:AIV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked. Looks like some of his/her contributions got deleted, and then turned to vandalism. I would restore the prods as removed in bad faith. Pastordavid (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prod removal was obviously just to get his edit count up and were not done in good faith, I've reverted them. Any good user can recheck them. This is the UK grawp groupie, no other open accounts on that IP. Thatcher 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied a bunch of the prods as they were rubbish - a couple of the prods he removed were actually justifiably removed, though, so someone may want to go through them as Thatcher suggests. Neıl 龱 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAPy user talk

Would User talk:Dzonatas be considered a little outside the bounds of the standard unblock requests, etc. that might be brought forward by an indefinitely-blocked user? I'm tempted to blank and lock myself, but thought I'd request some other thoughts first (besides, I'm kind of busy). Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much to help the indef blocked editor as anyone else, I have blanked and locked the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer?

Meddevicefan (talk · contribs)is adding tons of external links to a particular set of websites. Second opinion wanted, is this spam? Corvus cornix_talk 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks problematic. Some form of advertising? Even if not advertising, the additions aren't improving the pages. It could likely be good faith additions, though, might want to first address with the user things like WP:EL. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sure looks like promotion for a manufacturer of (an admittedly cool) surgical device. There's no reason to have external links on every Wikipedia page for every condition that can be treated laparoscopically. They can have a couple of links on the page about the device itself (see Da Vinci Surgical System); the rest is overkill. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These links have been removed in the past (first half of 2007) due to their being determined to be spam-related. See Dfiinter (talk · contribs), 68.33.211.237 (talk · contribs), and 65.160.57.101 (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Advert only account, blocked accordingly. persistant spamming--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the second opinions. Corvus cornix_talk 21:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outing on my userpage

Hi,

I wanted to listen fully to a user who was critical of Baggini. This editor seems to now have more against SlimVirgin that the subject of the article. I assumed good faith and was kind to this editor, but he is now postings about speculations about SV's real life identity. I was aware of these speculations before, but I don't want them on my talk page.

I'm asking admin actions, and perhaps these things to be over-sighted from my userpage, if possible. I feel little inclined to continue discuss the topic with this editor now. I would appreciate if someone not involved with SlimVirgin took care of this as there are accusations of cabalism, etc.

Thank you, Merzul (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I EC'd with SlimVirgin in deleting the talk page to remove the revision. The user in question, Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs), was indefblocked by SlimVirgin. While I concur wholeheartedly with the block, it may have been better for SV to wait for an uninvolved admin to handle it. That said, I agree with and second her actions in this matter. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume someone has requested oversight; if no, I'll handle it in a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While not a fan of involved blockers or indef's, the user in question seemed to have earned this the old fashioned way (repeated poor behavior). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

G11 deletion

- NOt exactly resolved, but nothing left to do or see here. Archiving. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been an admin for 90 minutes and I already am bringing stuff to you guys. To take my tools for a spin, I deleted some easy CSDs - no problem there - and Koingo Software this one keeps popping up. Certainly G11 when I deleted twice, its now back and I'm second guessing myself. Can I get another pair of eyes on this? Tan | 39 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keeper76 deleted it already. Water under the bridge.--Atlan (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too late to retract my nom? What have we done? Are you in CAT:AOR? Obvious, blatant adverting, and WP:COI to boot. Deleted again, if it comes back, then a strong usertalk warning may be in order. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm not an admin but there's some claim to notability (featured in numerous Mac and technology magazines and web sites - including MacAddict) so ask the editor to provide third party references. If they can't, prod it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ECx4) (!) Welcome to Adminship. You'll see a lot of these. In this case, the author appears to be attempting to comply with policy (they removed links to products, for example). So, I'd recommend that they draft an article in their userspace, citing independent sources (Google news offers several), and focusing on what the company is and why they are notable, not necessarily why their products are awesome. Either they'll come up with a neutral piece (the company may be notable, after all), or they will not. Either way, giving them a Plan B (the draft in userspace) avoids WP:BITE. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After three rapid recreations, salted for 6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a usernameblock for the account that keeps creating the article.--Atlan (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keeper~~ User already indefblocked after a fourth recreation. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't indef block anybody, check the log. This user is getting railroaded at the moment, way overboard compared to his "crimes" of attempting to write an article. Like life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, really. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I suggested usernameblock. No need to block indef just yet.--Atlan (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user involved (Koingosw (talk · contribs)) continues to blank his talk page following the block. While I have no problem with blanking one's own talk page in general, I do believe that past discussions have said that messages such as block notices need to remain. Can an admin comment and/or take a look? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - the page was protected while I was posting here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that takes care of that, though I imagine we could have gotten by without taunting the block-ee. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, my bad. I get a little upset when people keep posting self-promotional stuff. I see this all the time on new-page patrol, though most aren't as stubborn as this one. Having said that, he should have been blocked much earlier on a username violation. OK, time for a brief Wikibreak - or as the little lady calls it, "Go mow the dang lawn before it starts raining!" Oh, well ... - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to wheelwar over it, and I agree the article doesn't belong here in it's current state (I deleted it twice myself). But this user has just been railroaded out the door, and can't even edit his talkpage to make a plea. He's pissed off right now, likely rightfully, but perhaps he has a case/or could build an article? I'm recommending an unprotection of his usertalk. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. He should at least be allowed to suggest a new username on his talk page. I don't even know why his talk page was protected really.--Atlan (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just unprotected. Left him/her a message explaining why everyone reacted how they did(repeated recreation is generally frowned upon). We'll see if he/she is still around. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Tanthalas - thanks for bringing this issue here. Admins new and old should bring things they're not sure about or are worried about straight to one of the admin boards for discussion. We're a collaborative editing environment, so it always helps to talk stuff over. In this case, yes, you're right to pause after repeated recreation of an article and ask yourself if you've done wrong, just in case. Then, as here, if you haven't, move the article to the creator's userspace, salt the original title and move-protect the copy and then contact the user on their talk page and, without using templates, explain where the article now lives, what is wrong with it and how they can improve it and how they can contact you. A spammer will detonate all over you, so can be ignored. A genuine fan of the subject will tell you more or ask for help. Either way, Wikipedia has won. We should always be ready to userfy and help, just in case, despite the extra work. And I'm aware I've got someone waiting for help in exactly these circumstances that I haven't yet provided, so don't point it out :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit summary vandalism intervention?

An anonymous editor added a patently offensive edit summary to the Terry McAuliffe article. Is there anything that can be done about that? Please direct me elsewhere if appropriate -- I couldn't find any resources that explained what to do in the case of "edit summary vandalism". Thanks, -- Shunpiker (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERSIGHT. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, maybe not. This guy has quite a few offensive edit summaries ([84]). I've deleted one from the history - the others? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:OVERSIGHT is typically a little heavy-handed for simple vandalism, I don't think we want this guy's racist and sexist tirades preserved for posterity any time someone opens up the page history. I'd be in favor of getting rid of it. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted all the offensive edit summaries except for the first two remaining on the contribution list, which are to articles that probably have over 5000 edits. Can someone with greater powers than I help with this? NawlinWiki (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)`[reply]

Blocks by CSCWEM

I am concerned by the lengths of some blocks that CSCWEM has issued recently. He does not seem to be editing regularly, but has returned to issue some very long blocks against IP addresses with histories that do not seem to warrant them. I have raised this here, but have not received a response. I am tempted to reverse some of these blocks but also suggest that this is something which may need to be addressed if it continues. I understand from AuburnPilot that this has been raised to CSCWEM frequently, but that the blocks continue without any clear justification. Any input would be appreciated. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think that 3, 6, 12 month blocks should be reserved for those persistent IP vandals that have already received the customary 24h, week-or-two and 1 month blocks. xenocidic (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment about these blocks on CSCWEM's talk page, but of course received no response; this isn't the first time I've had to ask him to respect the blocking policy. The most troubling of blocks are the ones that occurred without warnings, hours after an editor stopped editing, or those where CSCWEM changed another admin's block without discussion. Hodge04 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 7 May 2008 for one month, in what was already an excessive block, and CSCWEM unblocked and reblocked the account indefinitely without contacting the other admin (and no further abuse from the editor).[85] It needs to be made clear to CSCWEM that his actions are inappropriate, and the lengths of his blocks are excessive. - auburnpilot talk 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without input from CSCWEM I can only make comments, with the application of liberal AGF. An indef block of a one post vandal, after the expiry of the initial month block, indicates a history that is not apparent from the talkpage to me. The block summary is not exactly comprehensive either, but as noted CSCWEM was executing a great many blocks in a short period. I note in the one example that there was no request for unblock/howl of indignation, sometimes (but not always, of course) and indication of a bad faith account being abandoned upon discovery.

However, I should prefer a response from CSCWEM and would enquire if anyone has mailed them to make them aware of this discussion/these concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, do we really expect an editor who replaces an entire body of text with "YOU SUCK" to really constructive in the future? Granted that this is the sole edit of the account, but I have yet to run into a good-faith account who started off the bat with vandalism. On the flip side, it would be nice to see CSCWEM reply here. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if that were the only questionable block, nobody would be complaining, but this is a recurring problem. For example, the last time I had to point out CSCWEM's inappropriate blocks, I made a list of ~250 registered accounts seen here and here (note all have email disabled as default). That was several months ago, and he's still making bad blocks - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, CSCWEM doesn't answer his talkpage. The only reason it isn't 100 screens long is because I set up the archivebot awhile back, maybe even the archives themselves I don't remember. Avruch^T * ^ER 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin making questionable blocks who doesn't answer his talkpage, not exactly ideal is it? Maybe it's time they gave up the mop, as it seems it's all too much trouble for them. RMHED (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner".[86] Daniel (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that I have asked CSCWEM a few times to cease and desist his questionable blocks, and like others had received no response. I'm all for the community forcing an answer out of him. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he editing from an alternate account or something? He just has an incredible number of logged actions for someone with zero edits. But I guess it really doesn't matter - if he's issuing blocks and not stopping to talk about it, that's a big problem. I support a block until such time as he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, I am with the several other editors who have asked politely and have been rebuffed (I believe I may have had the same experience at ANI over the issue). AGF does not mean willful ignorance in the face of repeated actions that show otherwise. I strongly suggest an RFC, regardless of a block; I will sign it myself if someone opens it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a number of users are concerned, here; an RfC sounds appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) He has not edited a single page since 11 April. I have not checked deleted contribs, but expect them to be similar. He has, however, continued to perform blocks up until 28 May. This is problematic from a procedural basis, simply because he is blocking users withotu actially templating them to let them know when, why, and for how long they are blocked. Some of the blocks are problematic, as noted above - for example, do we block IPs for two years? Most of the edits look like tests and vandalism, so block away, whatever, and I am familiar with escalating blocks... but two years? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have randomly clicked on some of his blocks. A lot of them are just factually incorrect (ie, saying "repeated vandalism to various articles" when the IP only had one edit). This block of a US Department of Justice IP is slightly troubling and even though that isn't on the list of sensitive IP addresses, it's still a darned good idea to put some diligence into it. He has not blocked anyone since May 28, although there are frequently holes in his logs, so that may not mean that he has stopped for good. I think an RFC is appropriate, but regardless of that, I think that he needs to understand (and I will leave this message on his talk page) that if he makes another questionable block, he will be blocked as a preventative measure unless/until he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA backlog

Resolved

– Normal service has now been resumed - Alex Muller 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Usernames for Administrator Attention could, uh, use some administrator attention. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Jaydon

Clarification : primary problem is at The Mickey Mouse Club, not Zachary Jaydon itself.Kww (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to seek input about what steps are appropriate. User:TragedyStriker (whose signature reads "Skyler Morgan", so don't get confused by that) has a pretty single-minded contribution history: the inclusion of every detail of Zachary Jaydon's career in Wikipedia. He has been accused more than once of including details of Jaydon's career that are counter-factual, specifically the claim that Zachary Jaydon was a cast member on The Mickey Mouse Club, a claim he has been making for nearly a year. Editors of the article have consulted two works that claim to provide a complete list, The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History, by Bill Cotter. New York: Hyperion (1997) and Disney A to Z: The Updated Official Encyclopedia, Dave Smith, Hyperion, ISBN 0-7868-6391-9, and have found no Zachary Jaydon. Editors have scanned the credits of the YouTube copyright violations, and found no trace of Jaydon in the credits. The only sources that list Jaydon on the MMC are IMDB and another "edited by user contribution" site.
After a lull of several weeks, TragedyStriker included the following:

[[Zachary Jaydon]] (Seasons 1-7)<ref>Stevens, K: "The ALL-NEW Mickey Mouse Club!", pages 33-36. The Disney Channel Magazine, April, 1989</ref><ref>Venable, B: "MMC Rocks The Planet", pages 16-17. The Disney Channel Magazine, June-July, 1992</ref><ref>Stanza, M: "MMC, The Album", pages 14-19. The Disney Channel Magazine, May, 1993</ref>

A nice set of paper references, but, unfortunately, nearly impossible to verify. I live on a Dutch-speaking island in South America, so our local library hasn't been eager to stock house magazines from American cable children's networks. I've put out requests for people to look it up via e-mails to editors on the article, postings on the reliable sources noticeboard, and the talk-page for the article. So far, no one has been able to physically obtain a copy of this information to validate it. Accordingly, User:Saratoga Sam,User:C.Fred, and myself have been reverting this information, until someone can physically validate this source or TragedyStriker can pony up some credible scans. TragedyStriker has been blocked once for 3RR for this, and socks seem to be involved as well (sadly enough, on both sides of the debate: this, this and this seem suspicious, but here we have an editor with one edit created two minutes before that one edit, and he is removing Zachary).
So, my real question ... what's appropriate behaviour in a situation like this? If Tragedy never comes up with the scans, and no one ever finds a copy of this magazine, can we just keep blocking the addition of the information? Or do others think that our supply of good faith should come in larger bottles?
Kww (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a blog post out there that I won't link to with a lot of allegations about Mr. Jaydon which indicates that he also goes by the name of Skyler Morgan (you can find the blog posting if you Google Mr. Jaydon's name). I am not making any claims one way or the other, but the blog posting is worth reading if anyone wants to delve into this. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worthing noting that there was already a consensus deletion of this article: [[87]]. Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was overridden in the second deletion review. Most people don't deny the existence of Zachary Jaydon, and his verifiable accomplishments can be seen as sufficient to warrant an article.Kww (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian article vandal

A vandal with the IP 68.81.195.69 is daily vandalizing articles having to do with Georgia. He or she is changes mostly speaker counts or inhabitant numbers, sometimes only slightly, without giving a source. I've had quite an edit&revert war with him, as I thought after some time he'd stop anyway. He didn't. That person is getting very annoying, so I hope someone can block him now. Thanks! — N-true (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has not edited past your final warning (at 23:17 UTC on 10 June). Let us know if he does so. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

self promotion links

Hi. User Mikemaadogg (talk · contribs) has only added links to one website which leads me to believe this might be self-promotion. I originally removed the links because I felt much of the info on this website is incorrect or not necessary. I wrote on his userpage a few days ago but he has not replied and has undo my removal of the links. What do others think about this? Thanks --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a factual website relating to Chinese finance, and the ".gov.cn" reference is a bit of a giveaway. In what way is it promotional? This site does not sell products as far as I can see. And how do you judge the accuracy or relevance of the information on it? --Rodhull andemu 01:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod. I'm not sure which edit you are referring to but most of them are to the SWF institute, which is a non-profit organization. Some of their information is incorrect or in some cases copyrighted materials. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note requesting some response from Mikemaadogg; no particularly strong feeling on the site itself, as of yet, but the single-minded pursuit of links to it suggests a possible COI. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Luna. Let's see what he says. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 642: / Line 642: @@
 ::Er, "Zionist Pig" ?  "Many of you" who?  This tactic of leveling veiled charges of antisemitism against one's perceived opponents here is a very bad road to go down. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-::Yeah read the nomination and discussion pages. There is one particular person (forgot name) who has made a strong effort to outline my unspoken political relationships as negatives.  He's name starts with an E...I don't feel like looking it up lol. [[Special:Contributions/70.181.148.148|70.181.148.148]] ([[User talk:70.181.148.148|talk]]) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
+::Yeah read the nomination and discussion pages. There is one particular person (forgot name) who has made a strong effort to outline my unspoken political relationships as negatives.  His name starts with an E...I don't feel like looking it up lol. [[Special:Contributions/70.181.148.148|70.181.148.148]] ([[User talk:70.181.148.148|talk]]) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 == Need eyes ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards