Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
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

Is it just me...

Moving long thread over 50k to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford Round Table. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Future datestamp: 16:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talk • contribs)

Would somebody make sure this thread gets archived properly? Somehow I don't think shunting it off onto it's own subpage is going to allow that to happen. Pairadox (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the thread has died now anyway. That tends to happen when these sort of threads get moved to a subpage. The thread was also naturally coming to an end, so maybe it would have archived automatically after a day, but we will never know now. I know Betacommand has been manually archiving some noticeboards. Maybe he could deal with this subpage? Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And it still sits there, abandoned and forlorn... Pairadox (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Orderinchaos 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the thread as it is over 50k. People who have slower browsers find that this page especially loads up very slow, because of the big threads. D.M.N. (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Handling sock puppetry (block review)

• Griot (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Sedlam (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Hi. I've only tangentially become involved with one or two sock puppetry cases in the past and would appreciate assistance from someone more experienced in dealing with them. Revisiting Incivility...Griot above, an editor to whom I'd given feedback on a BLP concern asked my advice on my talk page how to proceed in the case of suspected sock puppetry. He (pardon if I'm using the wrong pronoun) followed up at checkuser and confirmed that User:Sedlam evidently is a sock puppet being used to thwart policy by User:Griot. I know that per policy User:Sedlam is blocked as a matter of course as an inappropriately used alternative account. (Please correct me if I've left the wrong templates.) I'm not sure what's to be done about User:Griot. A warning? A label? He is a long-standing editor who has as far as I know has never had a problem of this sort in the past, although it seems he was blocked on the 31st of January, 2008 for edit warring, I presume on Matt Gonzalez based on this note. My only experiences with Griot prior to this were in relation to the article Cabretta, and though we haven't always agreed he seemed like a constructive contributor. Perhaps some political topics are too emotionally engaging? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If he was using a bad-hand sockpuppet to edit abusively, then both the primary and bad hand account should probably be blocked (based on a review of the edits in question). This is something the checkusers or checkuser clerks typically take care of, have they weighed in? Avruchtalk 00:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than confirming the check-user and the policy thwarting use of the account, no. I'm not sure they're going to. I notice that the matter was completed at 20:50 on February 8, and at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, it says "In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, uyou will have to do this yourself." I'm not sure which cases constitute most. This is as close to check user as I've personally ever come. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And so they did. :) Thanks for weighing in, Avruch. If I ever wind up in this situation again, I'll just wait a day to see if this falls into one of those "action to be taken" or "action not to be taken" situations. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot indef blocked?

Though we punish people who abusively sockpuppet, Griot is a longtime user in generally good standing prior to this incident.

However, the current block levied is indef against his main account.

This appears to be excessive and uncalled for. I agree that his sockpuppetry was abusive, but not indef-blocked abusive. A week, maybe?

Comments sought. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with this assessment. I have no data relevant to this specific situ, but I do have years of positive experience with User:Griot. If indeed Griot is guilty, then he has some serious explaining to do and perhaps penance of some kind. But indef block seems way extreme unless the sockpuppetry is repeated and sustained. BusterD (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no input on the proper length of a block for this situation, obviously, or I wouldn't have brought this here to begin with. :) I did not block the primary account myself because of his history, but as I said above, I have no experience with sock puppetry to speak of. I would like to note that the editor who initially requested the checkuser believes that Griot may have abused other accounts as well, as he indicated in a more recent note at my talkpage (a belief mirrored by the now blocked IP editor above). I don't know on what evidence or if these allegations are correct, but other suspicions seem to have been confirmed by checkuser. Is this the sort of thing that should be investigated prior to making final calls or only if Griot returns and concerns persist? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the editor who requested the checkuser on User:Griot. I have no opinion on any action to take. I would like to add the following, though. User:Griot didn't simply switch back and forth and revert and be done with it. He made a self conscious planned out effort to deceive, and presented not just reverts, but purposively deceptive talk page commentary. For instance, on the talk page, to portray some sort of "compromise" having been reached, he writes "Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:" and then lists himself and his confirmed sock puppet (and one other editor of unknown relationship to this). Then, he logs out as Griot, logs in as User:Sedlam, and writes ":You can add me to this list of compromisers." On the BLP noticeboard , Both Griot and another likely sock User:Feedler, both gave input. As Moonriddengirl mentioned, I have reason to believe the sock puppetry by Griot goes back a ways on Nader-related articles, but wasn;t caught (although the issue seems to have been raised, but the complainant seems to have gotten blocked). Griot seems to have been vigourously edit warring on Nader article for a year or so. Elsewhere, he has confessed to have a serious personal grudge against Nader. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The indef block is abnormal in this situation and unwarranted, in my opinion. Has the blocking admin commented? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, here, where she has indicated a willingness to go along with consensus and suggested this discussion. Personally, I'm wondering if a topical ban would be appropriate in the event that the block is made definite. It seems the sock account was used primarily to thwart consensus building and disguise edit warring on Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. Perhaps this is evidence that the user is too emotionally invested in these articles to contribute to them as he does elsewhere? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Looking at the history of those articles, it looks like there's a lot of editing by drive-by IPs, SPAs, possible socks, etc. We know that one of the editors on the "other side" from Griot is a persistent sockpuppeteer. So my question is, has Griot been editing abusively for a long period (in which case I'd support a topic ban), or did he only turn to sockpuppetry recently after getting frustrated by the editing environment? (Either way, the use of socks is not good, and if he does it again, the block should be much longer...) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I suppose it might be worth asking Boodlesthecat the proceed with investigating his other suspicions to find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Adjust the block to be slightly less than that used against the person who opposed the user via the same tactics. Lambton ^T/_C 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean slightly less than the IP editor recently blocked for 6 months here as a sock of User:Telogen, who was indef blocked here, or are there yet more Nader-fighting socks that I don't know about? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reduced block

The handling of this matter was over the top IMO. As an uninvolved editor/admin, and after reading the above, I have reset the duration to one week (it says 6 days, but note a day had elapsed since the block was enacted). Consensus here should determine whether further reduction or an unblock is warranted. I am particularly surprised at the treatment of the user's user and talk pages, which I have reverted to their pre-9 Feb state, and the ignoring of the blatant incivility of Boodlesthecat by those handling the case. I will be placing a warning on his talk page shortly - ([1] done). Orderinchaos 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My response to the inference of incivility is here.. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Orderinchaos. As a relatively frequent reviewer of sockpuppetry cases at WP:SSP, the standard practice has been to block named abusive socks indefinitely, but to block the master account for a finite period if it appears to have at least some constructive potential. I typically block for 72 hours (see User:Lucy-marie, for example), though others use anything from 24 hours to a week. In any case, the master account (Griot) should definitely be blocked, but for a finite period (72 hours to 1 week). Further confirmed sockpuppetry should result in a lengthy or indefinite block, but an indefinite block for a first offense by a somewhat-constructive account is excessive. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding sock puppetry by Griot

I filed another Checkuser showing the very extended sock puppetry of Griot over here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page

Which I don't think is allowed is not allowed on Wikipedia talk pages, so reverted it back to the original conversation. This can be seen here along with my comments on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history This must be considered uncivil behavior. I reverted it back to the original and he did it again. He has done it again, saying (this is my talk page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=190710037<br\> However Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for purposefully misrepresenting fellow editors in a bad light.<br\> WP:Talk_page states that Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.<br\> And I am certain they are also not meant to be used in the way Griot is using his. Can someone please have him either remove all conversations between me and him from his talk page or leave the whole conversation exactly as it originally was? Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I or did I not warn you to stop edit harrassing and warring with him on his talk page?

Anyone who wishes can see the old versions and edit history. Stop bothering him. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Case of "nothing to see here, move along". Seems the guy archived or removed some comments from his talk page. Orderinchaos 09:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Amongst the comments removed are challenges to transparently false statements on his talk page that attempt to portray his history on the articles he has edit warred on for years in an undeservedly favorable light. Which of course is his right. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I told Billy, the history of what people have commented on there on his talk page remains for anyone who cares to dig. Our user talk page policy allows one to remove comments and warnings once they've been read, though a lot of people object to it. Policy remains what it is, though, so Griot is within his perogative, and edit-warring to restore content there is against policy etc. Best for everyone to just drop the situation - everyone knows about the CU results now, that's not going away, if he wants to clean up the talk page and protect some personal dignity then leave him alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently BillyTFried considers what has been left on Griot's Talk page is a personal attack on him. Perhaps the personal attack should be archived the same way Griot archived the other material. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do consider it an incivil personal attack and attempted defamation of character. And its beyond me why nobody is doing anything about it. Not even just telling him to either delete all my comments or leave them the way they truly happened. Seriously, I was warned and even blocked for a couple hours once for calling him "hysterically paranoid" on my OWN Talk Page. How is this any different? Is Griot somehow immune? BillyTFried (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya know, would it be ok if somebody posted a setnence on my talk page that said...<br\>

• Hey Bill I wanted you to know that I plan to kill the whole trivia section of that article that you wrote.

And I changed that user's comment to say...

• Hey Bill I wanted you to know... that I plan to kill... you.

Would that be ok with you guys? Hey, it's all in the "history" right? BillyTFried (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper Article<br\> I just wanted you to know that the reason Griot did this and that I am so VERY upset about his purposeful misrepresentation of me which you have done nothing about is because there is a Newspaper article about Wikipedia hitting the presses tomorrow morning here in San Francisco and Griot (who is currently banned for abuse) and his abuses and sock puppetry are the main focus of the article and this will surely bring traffic to his page which shows me in an unfair light thanks to him editing out our entire conversation and making it look like it happened in a way that it actually DID NOT. (he actually deleted 90% of his talk page except for the few items left he wants highlighted [inaccurately]) My Wikipedia user name (WHICH IS MY REAL NAME THAT MY HOME ADDRESS CAN BE GOOGLED FROM) is also briefly mentioned in the article referencing that event. Griot is of course an anonymous name. I find it completely unprofessional for his misrepresentation of our conversation to be left intact when it clearly violates Wikipedia's rules on what Talk pages are for and breaks incivility rules. I am asking one more time that you please address this issue before tomorrow when many people that live here in San Francisco will be reading this article, logging on to Wikipedia and then reading an unfairly edited chop up of a conversation I had with Griot that was chopped intentionally to make me look as bad as possibly... as if I was actually threatening him with GUN VIOLENCE, which was not what I was doing AT ALL, and that was ruled to be THE TRUTH by the admins after he REPORTED ME. I was NOT banned by the admins, though Griot said I was on his talk page, and when I removed that 100% lie, he didn't fight back. But his purposely editing out of the rest of the convo to make it APPEAR to be a violent threat with a gun will go over REAL WELL in San Francisco. At the very least please review exactly what has gone on here and ask yourself if what he has done is appropriate and that your allowing it is the right thing to do. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, based on that outburst, interested readers coming here and seeing that are NOT going to be coming to the conclusion about you that you think they're going to come to. --Calton | Talk 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of responding earlier, but you've captured my thinking rather well. Orderinchaos 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And just exactly what conclusion do you think "interested readers" will come to about you from your constant unrelenting defense of a confirmed sock puppeteer? BillyTFried (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the section below, it would seem that there's a case here of the pot calling the kettle black. Orderinchaos 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. At least I'm on the side of honesty rather than the side of deceit or tolerance of deceit, which is exactly what will eventually cause the downfall of Wikipedia. And everyone knows it. BillyTFried (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

At least I'm on the side of honesty rather than the side of deceit or tolerance of deceit - hence your whole-hearted embrace of a long-banned, anger-management-impaired, and self-promoting sockpuppeteer who got her sister to practice a little yellow journalism on the side? Hence your abusive outburst above complaining about abuse? Strange new meaning of the word "honesty" of which I was previously unaware. --Calton | Talk 14:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Article in San Francisco Weekly

here is the San Francisco Weekly article that BillyTFried refers to above. I don't think I would be exaggerating too much if I said that it attempts to out an anonymous Wikipedia editor, contains numerous insults that would, if they appeared on Wikipedia, be a violation of WP:NPA, and is by the sister of a banned sockpuppeteer (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen) to boot. According to a previous thread on this board, the reporter (User:Marynega) was in contact with Wikipedia PR and a number of Wikipedians; I trust that nobody knew what the content of the article was going to be, but it's still a bit distressing that this piece got produced with the help of Foundation members. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Crude hatchet-job. I'm surprised she got it past her editors. I've already dashed off a quick Letter to the Editor pointing out a conflict of interest or two that the reporter neglected to mention, including quoting a banned sockpuppet of her own sister without mentioning that fact: seems a wee lapse of journalistic ethics, there. --Calton | Talk 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature

• Jeffmichaud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jeffmichaud for a long time has used the signature "Jeff", but changed it on Jan 14 to "Baha'i Under the Covenant".[2] The policy on User names says to avoid names that are offensive or promotional. WP:sig suggests for users to politely request others to change their signature. If there is consensus that the policy of avoiding 'offensive, confusing, or promotional' user names equally applies to signature, then I also suggest updating WP:sig.

I politely requested on Jan 24 for him to change the signature,[3] and after no response I warned him again on Feb 8,[4]. The first request was immediately archived,[5] and the second request was immediately deleted outright from his talk page.[6]

For more details on why this is both offensive and promotional, glance over Baha'i divisions. The Baha'i religion has teachings on the succession of authority, and anyone creating divisions are considered dangerous and shunned, labeled "Covenant-breaker". The implication is that there is a Covenant in the religion to provide unity, and anyone who breaks away is not under the Covenant. Jeffmichaud belongs to one such group with a handful of followers who call themselves the "Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant". Changing his signature in the middle of a debate over Baha'i content was his way of promoting his ideological claim in the face of other editors. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief! What kind of belief or faith is it that cannot withstand critical comment even from within itself? And when it comes down to mere words, whatever their implications, I'd suggest that any belief system should be self-confident and self-consistent in itself to be able to ignore mere words. That words are found offensive doesn't help in the slightest. Throughout history, words have been labelled as offensive, mostly because they represent a difference from orthodoxy; but in the context of an analytical, independently-minded and intellectually balanced source of information, rather than of opinion, taking offence at mere words is jejune, intellectually barren, and time-wasting. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Please feel free to cite any authority whatsoever, religious, legal or otherwise, that supports a right not to be offended. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That is completely not the point. We have a Wikipedia policy that says not to use offensive user names, and a guideline that says it equally applies to signatures. Your response is attacking the policy and saying that nobody should be offended by anything. That's nonsense and a total disregard for the official policy that "all users should follow". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, but I personally am offended by any user name containing the letter "c". Therefore, they should all be banned. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, completely not the point, and an illogical disregard for WP policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop shaking the straw man, please. Or is that Reductio ad absurdum? hbdragon88 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my stupidity, but exactly how is the signature offensive or promotional? —Kurykh 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see it either; sounds like the debate we had over User:Rama's Arrow a few months ago. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.. neither can I. Has the subject since changed it? Rudget. 14:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a big part of why I don't edit Baha'i articles anymore. :\ JuJube (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should make something clear: I don't think it's offensive that he has certain beliefs and edits wikipedia, but he changed his signature to something that implies divine right. It would be like a user name of "I'm in God's favor and you're not". There is no need to use controversial user names/signatures and I politely requested for him to change it, and I politely requested for an administrator to enforce policy and ask him to change it to something less controversial. And no he hasn't changed it yet. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a deeper look, and ask him to change it based on that reason. I don't see anything unreasonable in asking the subject to change to something that would at least reflect his username. Rudget. 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if someone changed their sig to "I'm in God's favor and you're not", my reaction would be less "offended" and more "hilarity". Even assuming the worst possible faith--that the person is TRYING to honk off the other believers--changing a sig to something self-aggrandizing says less about the truth of his/her beliefs as it says about their response to disagreement. Just my opinion, though, and no offense intended to anyone. Gladys J Cortez 06:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, is someone here talking about me behind my back? Kidding. Rudget, I will respectfully decline your request to change anything if, as seems clear from the discussion that transpired, I'm not in violation of any policies nor am I being "required". I don't believe I've violated any policy, but rather am being "asked" to change it to appease Cunado's will on the matter? After closer look at the actual policies on the matter it is obvious that Cunado is taking generous liberties at interpreting them in his own unique way for reasons not exactly obvious to me or anyone else. I appreciate your sentiments to avoid controversy, Rudget, but if it is offensive to Cunado I can only be envious that his life is so blessed to have nothing of greater concern to worry about. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Username policy is a policy that "all users should follow", and "a user who acts against the spirit of them may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated." The policy states that inappropriate user names are ones that are misleading, promotional, offensive, or disruptive, and "these criteria apply to both usernames and signatures." I already explained why the signature is controversial. I was once blocked for not following WP:sig, which is a guideline and not even a policy, see this conversation. Someone please enforce policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to view this as not offensive. It is one thing to say "My group is great" and another to say "Your group isn't", so we have lots of users with pro- type names, whether it be sports, nationality, activity, whatever, which seem compliant with the policy; while anti- type names aren't. Quite a difference between User:Boston Red Sox lover and User:New York Yankees hater in my mind. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, would you find a signature such as "Jesus, the true lord and savior" to be offensive? It's proselytism, regardless of the religion involved. We have some Yankees and Red Sox fans who have a fervent devotion to their teams, but it's not the same thing. If the signature would be blocked as a user name, it shouldn't be acceptable as a signature either. Horologium (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Horologium, your example is in fact proselytism, but I'm not proselytizing per se. I'm identifying myself here, and not promoting/proselytising anything. BTW, it hasn't been blocked as a user name. Would it be? I've considered creating it as one. Would it be a problem? Baha'i Under the Covenant 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but it was not considered because the actually user name is not the issue. The spirit of the policy is that user names and signatures should be used for identification and should avoid anything controversial. Religion and politics are the most controversial subjects, so it should be a no-brainer to say that it's inappropriate to boldly promote a religious view in a user name or sig. Even a name like "Jesus is for me" might seem harmless, but there is no reason to stir the pot on something that should be free of controversial subjects. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the signature is intended to be a means of discerning who has placed certain comments. By changing it to something that obscures your username (no where in "Baha'i Under the Covenant" does it tell me who that is), is not within policy. The only problem I see is that there is no reference to "Jeff" or "Jeffmichaud" in your signature. Surely, it would be better to use something that includes the phrase you want, but also includes your actual username in some form.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, WP:sig is a guideline, and it says "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." So we're back to offering Jeffmichaud unenforceable advice. The issue is about enforcing the policy about a controversial signature. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also seen that he has not responded to my comment either here or his talk page. I'm really not sure, as an administrator, what should be done here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong, you didn't request comment "here or on my talk page". There were no questions in your message. I understand your concern now, and it makes perfect sense, so I've taken your suggestions and made the appropriate changes. I didn't think further comment was needed. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly I know essentially nothing about the religion in question, so I can't say for myself whether this signature in and of itself is contentious. But what strikes me as a potential bad faith is the way this came about -- from a content dispute regarding the religion in question.

I'm of the opinion -- and this is an opinion I came to by taking my lumps first -- that anything potentially divisive should be left off the wiki ... this is why I changed my username from something contentious to something just plain silly. The difficulty here is that not all people hold this view. Jeff obviously doesn't, and it would seem, from a policy point of view, that he's entitled to not hold it.

Is Jeff doing something whereby we can make him change his signature? Probably not. But in the spirit of good cooperation he should consider changing it as a measure of good faith. However, Jeff's comments here, such as these:

I will respectfully decline your request to change anything if, as seems clear from the discussion that transpired, I'm not in violation of any policies nor am I being "required".

I appreciate your sentiments to avoid controversy, Rudget, but if it is offensive to Cunado I can only be envious that his life is so blessed to have nothing of greater concern to worry about.

Horologium, your example is in fact proselytism, but I'm not proselytizing per se. (emphasis mine)

Ryulong, you didn't request comment "here or on my talk page". There were no questions in your message. [...] I didn't think further comment was needed.

do not indicate an overwhelming amount of dedication to the cooperative spirit. Sorry to assume mediocre faith here, but I'm not thrilled with the spirit of these responses. - Revolving Bugbear 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Revolving, how strange that you'd decide to cut and paste around the comments which are absolutely agreeable and polite, and display my comments in such a unfavorable way? Why leave out "I understand your concern now, and it makes perfect sense, so I've taken your suggestions and made the appropriate changes."?

I wasn't even notified about this directly, but was sideswiped, so-to-speak, by an email from Rudget (which was very polite and agreeable), so I came into the conversation after two days of discussion had transpired. I didn't change this, as Cunado implied, on the 14th in the middle of a discussion, but on the 12th basically on a whim. I don't feel compelled in any way to bend to Cunado's will as I believe his concerns are unfounded and a bit overly dramatic; but that doesn't automatically mean my actions here are in bad faith? Cunado's stated concern was this violated policy by being "promotional and controvertial", and I disagree. That is within my rights as far as I'm aware. Being made aware of Ryulong's concerns shed a new light on the matter, and I immediately made the changes he requested. If that is all then I'll thank you all for your help in the matter, and if there's anything I can be of further assistance for please notify me directly as I won't be keeping abreast of any further evolution of this discussion. Cheers. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You were definitely not "sideswiped". I asked you twice to change it and told you that I would follow up on the Admin notice board.[7] Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Change to user name policy

I can sympathize with admins not wanting to make a value-based judgment on what might be offensive in a religion, but this requires such a judgment. Would it be appropriate to update the user name policy to avoid showing religious or political affiliation? That seems to be in the spirit of what to avoid, and would differentiate this from the User:Boston Red Sox lover example mentioned above. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the best place to do that would be at WP:U where there is ongoing discussion regarding these types of things. As a matter of fact, the issue of religious or political references has surfaced. I ask you though, do you honestly propose that usernames that make allusions to a religious figure should result in a block? Remember WP:CENSORED. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between censoring in an article and avoiding controversial subjects in a user name. We already have a policy of not using promotional or offensive user names, and it is supposed to be enforced by a block, but right now it's not specific enough to include religion and politics, which to me seem obvious. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at one time it was specific enough to include (and this is more of a intuitive assessment of the name now) an inflammatory or offensive POV - If the username were to specifically disparage a religious icon or political figure, that would be one thing. However, there is an enormous difference between this and simply mentioning a symbol of your faith or ideology. Would you insist that IlikeAynRand to be a blatant violation of policy? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just bear in mind that there is much ongoing controversy over the username policy, not all administrators can come to an agreement, and in its current form there is nothing that would suggest the username you put forth is overtly offensive. The bottom line is this: virtually any username could potentially insult, aggravate, annoy or inflame somebody based on a personal point of view. This doesn't mean they should be reported to WP:UAA though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edito*Magica

Just my day for ANIs I guess. User:Edito*Magica was brought to my attention by another editor, User:UpDown who knows I am well versed in creating episode lists and requested my assistance on List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes. Edito*MagicaJ kept changing for format of the list to one that removes the lead, and does not follow proper episode list format, going against the consensus for proper episode list formatting. (see good version versus his version). I reverted his edits, and tried to explain to him why his edits are incorrect. He refuses to listen, however, and appears to feel that he knows better than the main Wikipedia MOS, the TV project, and existing consensus and standards for episode lists (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collectonian&diff=next&oldid=190484465 talk page discussions). UpDown also tried talking to him. I warned him that if continued his attempts to mess up the list, his edits would be considered vandalism, but he continues to revert, now calling the undoing of his edits to be acts of "sneaky vandalism." (his talk page with warnings that he has since blanked)

He is also removing content from various articles under the claim that information shouldn't be repeated in an article (examples: [8], [9]), despite it being appropriate information and my explaining to him that information can and should appear both in the lead and within the article proper.

At this point, its down to just undoing everything he is doing in these areas, and I'm hoping perhaps he will be more willing to listen to an admin since he is completely discounting the comments of other editors. I'm not entirely sure his edits are fully vandalism, but they are becoming very disruptive. Collectonian (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As an update, he is now leaving false warnings on the pages of those undoing his actions [10], and is selectively canvassing relatively new, inexperienced editors to try to get them to agree with him [11] in an attempt to "form a new consensus" [12]. He is also continuing to edit war over his changes, blanking out content of infoboxes [13] or outright reverting the undos of his bad formatting and calling it vandalism [14]. He is showing that he has absolutely no desire to actual improve or work with the community, and is ignoring more notes from experienced editors telling him that his format idea is wrong. Collectonian (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the reason why I persist in making the alterations on the Keeping Up Appearances episode page is to improve it for other users. I have the good of the community in mind and for that reason I want to help improve Wikipedia. Secondly, it is true I contacted two other users for a second opinion, both are not inexperienced and both agree with my minor adjustments to the layout. Collectonian does not like the fact that other users agree with me, and to report me for making changes he does not agree with is folly. It is he who is reverting constructive alterations that I have made, which still follow the Wikipedia policy on the “lead”, which isn’t even compulsory to follow anyway. I will stand up to the likes of Collectonian; if he can get people banned for undoing his edits and get them banned for making improvements, then how unjust the Wiki system actually is. I would report him, but i don't thing it is a constructive method in solving deputes. Edito*Magica (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Have either of you considered stopping the accusations of vandalism and trying to follow dispute resolution? Someguy1221 (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith or not, the policies have been show to EditoMagica, who ignores them. That is vandalism whether he thinks he's improving the pages or not. --UpDown (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I AGFed at first, and tried to explain in detail why his edits were wrong, but EditoMagica has made it clear that he doesn't care. He removes content from articles because he thinks it shouldn't be "repeated" in the infobox (despite being told the infobox is a summary, not a standalone) and he is refactoring episode lists articles to remove the lead in favor of another section of lists of statistics, despite again being told that it violates the MOS, the lead, and the consensus for episode list formatting. He is now taking these edits to other episode lists[15][16][17] and of course he is continuing on the KUA list[18]. He also completely blanked the talk page of Keeping Up Appearances[19] despite his edit history showing he knows very well how to properly edit a talk page. Its hard to AGF when he has already said very plainly that he doesn't care about Wikipedia policies or guidelines and instead is calling the clean up of his mess "sneaky vandalism" and making other accusations against the editors keeping him from ruining the articles (such as the one he left on your talk page which is obviously not a good faith remark). He's been told numerous times this isn't just the opinion of UpDown and myself (who normally, by the way, tend to disagree), but of the entire Television project, Anime project, and BBC project, all of which deal with television episode lists, and of the FL process, which EditoMagica would realize if he would actually look at the MOS and featured episode lists as was suggested. This was brought here because he will NOT listen to other editors, hence the need for admin intervention as his edits are very disruptive. His claims of support are from one or two other editors who are also as inexperienced as he is, and he continues to claim this support of two trumps to consensus of the hundreds of members of those projects and of Wikipedia guidelines as a whole. He is also blatantly ignoring two other editors telling him he is wrong. Despite his accusations, I'm not asking for him to be banned, but corrected and only blocked if he continues to be disruptive. Collectonian (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This really is getting out of hand now; EditoMagica is being hugely disruptive and seems to think that his way of writing an episode list is the best way, and the fact one or two editors apparently back him up he thinks means he has "popular support". These things are backed up policy, guidelines and by looking at relevant FA. All these go against EditoMagica but he ignores this. In addition, he fails to understand that what is in the infobox is always repeated in the article proper (like the LEAD). If he won't listen to advise and guidelines he will need to be blocked for the sake of Wikipedia.--UpDown (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And he continues leaving fake warnings on people's use pages[20] and again trying to mess up the KUA episode article[21]. I really wish an admin would look at this. Edito*Magica is trying to harass other users to get his way, insulting other editors, and being disruptive. He is not going to listen to warnings from "regular" editors as he thinks he knows better than all of us, and his actions will only discourage people from working on those articles to give them the final polish they need to be potential FL candidates. Collectonian (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So today, List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes was given a much needed update/clean up to bring it into line with the established format for episode lists. User:Edito*Magica reverted it then again put back in the version he prefers that he has already been told is not appropriate. He is also trying to get other users to come attack me [22] Collectonian (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Create an RfC and if that fails to generate a resolution move on down WP:DR. However I note he's already making personal attacks--Crossmr (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can an RfC cross multiple articles though? While he's concentrating on the KUA episode list at the moment, he's been trying with others as well. Collectonian (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes because you're requesting comment on a certain formatting style.--Crossmr (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the formatting style is already established. Edito*Magica is the one going against established consensus, and continuously attacking people in the process (mostly me, when I wasn't even the one who started the issue). *sigh* Collectonian (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly it is Collectonian that is being abusive, calling me and others “inexperienced” and “trumps”. I have not said one bad word about her, only referring to the user as a “nightmare”. Secondly there is no consensus for altering an entire tabular layout on the K.U.A episode page, Collectonian changed the page drastically without discussion on the talk page or considering any other user than herself. The previous table layout of Keeping Up Appearances, which Collectonian changed, had been established after consensus and disputes that had been resolved.

Furthermore, my edits are following the rules of the “lead” and other sections of the manual of style, which is not even compulsory to follow, but I do so anyway. I will persist in reverting Collectonian’s edits until she sees sense. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone inexperienced is not abusive, its a fact. Please provide evidence that I called you or anyone else "trumps." You have said a lot of bad words about me, insulting me on multiple user talk pages and in your edit summaries, and who continues to do things you've been warned by no less than FOUR editors not to do. The KUA episode page was changed to bring it line with the MOS, the biggest consensus there is. You are the one who has decided that you know better than three different large projects on Wikipedia and the general Wikipedia MOS. Manuals of styles are not compulsory to follow to the letter, however articles that completely disregard them will never reach good or featured status (or in the case of lists, featured list). Thank you, though, for illustrating why I didn't bother with an RfC or the like. If you won't listen the whole projects, why would you listen to an RfC or anything else. You have stated very plainly you will continue to be a disruptive editor and have no intention of actually working to improve the encyclopedia within its definition of improve, but only based on your own agenda. Collectonian (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for completenesses sake can you provide links to all the discussions from the projects where they decided on style? Thanks.--Crossmr (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is reflected in the featured episode lists and in peer reviews of episode lists. For examples from current FLs: List of Meerkat Manor episodes, List of Trinity Blood episodes, List of Smallville episodes, List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes, List of Carnivàle episodes, etc etc. For the TV project, users are directed to those and encouraged to use the episode list template Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage here, the talk page of which also includes a discussion on the standard format that has now been implemented at KUA. BBC uses the same standard, with appropriate British English in place of American. Anime and Manga project also uses a similar standard, as is seen in the FLs. Collectonian (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Another attack, in the form of a retalitory ANI filing[23] without OUT the courtesy notice to tell me he filed it and making false accusations about me attacking other users and without mentioning any of the earlier stuff before I got involved when he edit warred with other editors over this and I came in as a project representative to try to stop it. Collectonian (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To all admins closing AfDs created on 10 Feb and 11 Feb

If you are closing an AfD which was created on 10 February or 11 February, you will see a "(delete)" link. Please do not click on it! Due to my egregrous screw-up it will delete the AfD page or whatever page you viewed the AfD from. I have just fixed the mistake (passed wrong parameter to the delete link). AfDs created on 12 February onwards will not have this problem. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would this be all AfDs for 11 Feb, or just the ones in the first hour or so before the error was caught (per your timestamp above)? Thanks for the heads up. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, those AfDs created after the timestamp of my previous comment will be okay (I fixed the template a few minutes before that.) But I'm mentioning dates only, to be on the safe side. Pegasus «C¦T» 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fake timestamp for bot: Pegasus «C¦T» 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand

Nothing to do here; image was copyrighted and redundant to another (see deletion log comment for image). In addition, uploader is a sockpuppet of banned user Primetime. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A user named Betacommand has been acting very rude to me. I uploaded an image: Image:Cultofgreed.jpg, which I understand is free to use as a magazine cover. I was unable to add the image to a page because my account was too new, but Betacommand tagged it as orphaned. I tried to explain to him that I would be able to add the image, but he reverted me and called my edits vandalism. He has been spamming my talk page about once every 10 seconds now with frivolous vandalism warnings, even though this obviously is a content dispute. After I added it to the page, he changed his dispute to one over the rationale. I have tried to familiarize myself with your policies, but I am no expert. So I would have appreciated some guidance from him instead of edit warring on my own talk page and accusing me of vandalism. He's also removing my image from the article. Is he supposed to be your ambassador? I'm trying to help Wikipedia by adding a good image to an article. I'm certainly not a vandal. The image is perfectly legal and does not violate Wikipedia policy, either. So, why is he wasting so much of our time edit warring and attacking me? I understand there are rules on civility, being helpful to newcomers, and disruption. So, how many rules does he need to violate to enforce some obscure rule of which I admit I am unaware? To add an image I shouldn't have to fight such an intense struggle with this guy.--Guywithdress (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC) That's because you don't realize you're wrong. You have to provide a fair use rationale with the image. You haven't done this, and instead repeatedly removed the valid warning tag, which is vandalism. --Haemo (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) Betacommand isn't doing anything wrong. You inappropriate removing the notice from the image without adding a fair use rationale (which the warning clearly states) and you ignored multiple warnings that you were violating policies in doing so. Also you are not allowed to use non-free images on your user page, so if it is not going to be used in an article, it should be deleted, otherwise yes, it does violate policy. Collectonian (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Or alternatively, people could stop acting like unhelpful dicks round here? When someone says they can't add an image due to their account being new and the page being semi-protected, don't blindly quote policy. How about asking them what page the image should be on and adding it yourself? One Night In Hackney303 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I don't have a lot of patience for people who pretend to be new users so they can needle Betacommand about "biting" them and such. --Haemo (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. I was contributing valid content to your encyclopedia and was acting in good faith. The only person acting in bad faith is you. It doesn't need a rationale, anyway. All you two seem to care about are rationales. That's the most important thing in the world to you. Add it yourself since you know so much about policy instead of vandalizing the article and insulting me. See if you can contribute something useful to the site.--Guywithdress (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (EC)this is not a new user. this is a long time user coming back under a new account. they threaten me with WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:BITE and ANI. As for not adding the image, one it has no rationale, two the page he wants it on should not have it per our NFC policy. βcommand 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Yeah, as no existing users ever complain about your civility or makes other complaints on ANI.... Let's not forget how many times you reverted to the orphaned tag before claiming it lacked a fair use rationale - one, two, three, four. Then 90 minutes later you claimed it lacked a fair use rationale. One Night In Hackney303 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC) sorry I only pointed out one of several errors with that image. it was flagged by BCBot as orphan so that is what I tagged as. once it was used in an article then it needs a rationale. you cannot have a rationale for a usage that isnt there. Once the image was used without a rationale I tagged it as such. either way I was correct. βcommand 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I've blocked User:Guywithdress for 24 hours for 3RR (actually 11RR) after several warnings to stop removing appropriate tags from Image:Cultofgreed.jpg. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC) My views on this are as follows: Endorse 3RR violation block of Guywithdress for repeatedly improperly removing the DI tag 11 times. In response to One Night In Hackney, edits considered to be vandalism - including the improper removal of CSD and DI tags - nullify the 3RR. And then, another question: If Betacommandbot, a bot which monitors fair use violations on images, tags your image, if I understand the bot mechanics correctly, if you remove the tag without rectifying the problem, the bot will re-add the tag. This would result in the same cycle that is being discussed at this thread currently. There is no point in creating an ANI report about that, because it is a bot doing what it is supposed to do. There is no difference here between what was done and what the bot would have done, so why treat it as such? --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Holding bots to a lower standard than we hold human editors is a bad idea. This user isn't the only one complaining, and the bot isn't working as well or providing as necessary a service as its apologists pretend it is. User_talk:BetacommandBot has several discussions happening now about the bots shortcomings, none of which its creators seem all that interested in fixing. Torc2 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I don't have a lot of patience for people who pretend to be new users so they can needle Betacommand about "biting" them and such. Well, maybe if he didn't WP:BITE people, he wouldn't get "needled" for it. —Random832 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Random832, nothing I did was BITEing. the user in question has made it clear that they are not a new user. All I did is tag an image for deletion, and revert obvious improper deletion tag removal. nowhere did the user ever have questions. all the user did was revert and threaten. βcommand 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry of Solumeiras?

For as long as he's been a member here, there has been a cloud of suspicion from some editors (myself especially) about Solumeiras (talk · contribs) and his connections to past users. A checkuser was brought back as unrelated, but this looks like it may have been because of stale data on the past accounts (see the now-courtesy blanked Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SunStar Net).

It's always been a suspicion that he's been related to TheM62Manchester (talk · contribs) for similar edit patterns and general focuses. Both display a love for templates. Both focus on articles that involve cars. Both focus on radio articles (see TheM62Manchester's deleted James Kerr (radio presenter) which is on a Q103 presenter and Solumeiras's Q103 edit as well as two non-notable radio presenters up for AFD Sheri Staplehurst and Lara Rorich‎).

But the edit that sent all my suspicions over the edge today is this: Solumeiras added a controversial tag to Talk:Girls Aloud with this edit. This is exactly what TheM62Manchester did here on the same article. In fact, TheM62Manchester had a very fond liking to adding controversial tags to non-controversial pages (see a large sum of his talk page edits). This edit is so minor and unnecessary in nature that it is extremely unlikely two unconnected editors would make the same edit. It seems that Solumeiras is taking on a similar interest in controversial templating with 3 added today ([24] [25] [26]).

And while researching this just now I discovered yet another remarkable discovery. Solumeiras has taken a strong liking to Police Camera Action! as a point of edits. Guess who else did. Here's the talk page archive with TheM62Manchester and Solumeiras both featured and here's the article history for hte last 500 edits. Note that in addition to Solumeiras and TheM62Manchester, you'll also find User:Sunholm who was connected to TheM62Manchester.

I believe that with all this evidence laid out, we definitely have a sock situation at hand. TheM62Manchester and Sunholm were part of a large good hand, bad hand accounts that even went as far as Willy on Wheels. With his edit nature, I wouldn't doubt the same situation is in place with Solumeiras where he is the good hand with other bad hands out there. Thoughts? Metros (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And I forgot to mention Solumeiras loves to edit the pages of banned/blocked users like Special:Undelete/User:Sunholm and Special:Undelete/User:TheM62Manchester. Metros (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My question: does it matter? TheM62Manchester has been blocked since November 2007, but he/she is not on the list of banned users. Is there any evidence that Solumeiras is using abusive sockpuppets currently? Is Solumeiras causing disruption to Wikipedia at this time? We're supposed to act proactively, not punitively. I don't care if Solumeiras was or was not a misbehaving user in the past. What matters is what he/she is doing now. The bottom line is, based on current activity, is this person a net benefit or detriment to Wikipedia? *** Crotalus *** 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The belief is that Solumeiras, like the past carnations of this vandal, was using a good hand/bad hand system. Solumeiras would be the good hand in this situation. So while the Solumeiras account might not appear as a vandal, the person behind it is acting as a vandal. Metros (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And yes, there has been disruption through Solumeiras personally. He has been making nonsense edits like the controversial tags, creating inappropriate articles like the two "radio personalities/models", he has been requesting unprotection on pages that are not going to be unlocked (George W. Bush and Lindsey Lohan being two prime examples), and some other issues as well including this Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Solumeiras/VfD where Solumeiras was using his own AFD template which was creating deletion discussions at Votes for deletion instead of Articles for deletion for, what he deemed, "nostalgia". Metros (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at this with CheckUser and I can confirm that Solumeiras (SunStar Net) is very likely the same as Sunholm/Sunfazer, who I gather is probably the same as TheM62Manchester (though I don't have records on that one). Dmcdevit·t 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

His requests for unprotections lately are interesting.--MONGO 09:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one of the unblock requests was for Wikipedia, which was vandalized three times within an hour of removal. He seemed to be looking for long-term protected articles and asking for them to be unprotected, simply because they had been protected for a long time. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe he's a sockpuppet of any of those users, nor is he being deliberately disruptive. Dmcdevit, I don't think he is likely to be the same as those users.

Crotalus, I agree with your point though. Anyway, leave the guy alone, people, do you want him to become another {{retired}} editor (like Jaranda (talk · contribs) was, ages ago.).

I'm only really a sporadic editor here, but I'm commenting anyway purely because I have a bias: I know the guy in real life. Also, Metros, you're violating WP:AGF - you're treating him in the same way as the Armenia-Azerbaijani editors in that Arbitration case.

Please leave him alone. --Windmill 000eh (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• One more thing... he's not a good hand/bad hand account, and is a separate user from them.

You might think I'm a WP:SPA, but I'm just a sporadic editor. Anyhow... he hasn't done too much wrong with his mainspace editing. Yes he tagged talk pages as controversial, but what's wrong with that?? Anyway, I've courtesy-blanked his user/user talk pages for him... nothing wrong with that. --Windmill 000eh (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing:

Clean start under a new name

• If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. Note that the "right to vanish" does not cover this, and repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as improper.

The most common two concerns and their usual answers are:

• I'll be noticed: If you change your behavior, and also the articles you work on, there is no reason for a connection to be made. If you continue on the same articles or your writing style is so distinctive it will quickly be noticed, or you return to problematic editing, then it is likely a connection will be made whether or not you change account, and any perceived concealment will probably be seen more negatively when discovered.
• I'll be identified by checkuser or accused of being a sock puppet later: Checkuser is used for suspected breaches of policy. If you don't use the old account or engage in problematic conduct, there is little reason a request would be made, and a request without good reason is likely to be declined for lack of cause.

(That said, if future usage does draw attention by concerned users or administrators, then it is likely the connection will be made. See alternative account notification for how to reduce the likelihood of problems.)

--Windmill 000eh (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's funny how when we discussed the Sunholm/Sunfazer and TheM62Manchester accounts on this here noticeboard, the same thing happened. Socks/SPAs/friends etc came out of the woodwork to tell us that the user was a good editor. Come on, Solumeiras. This is too pathetic and transparent for words. Log into your account and come and talk to us properly. Sarah 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• But I am not Solumeiras, honestly. He'll probably be editing today, I don't know. But I'm a sporadic editor, not a SPA. --Windmill 000eh (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe you...once bitten and all that. for example: [27] Meybe you can staart tiping liek a unliteatable prson. Either you're Solumeiras or you're a meatpuppet here at his request. Either way, we've seen this dance before. As Matt said eighteen months ago here "I have blocked the IP that Sunholm (former Sunfazer, it is claimed) uses, since the promises from last time it was blocked that no more vandalism or sockpuppet creation from this IP would occur have been proven to be lies, and the old tricks are back.

I ask that no admin unblock this IP without talking to me. Vandalism and sockpuppetry from this IP has been going on for at least nine months; despite numerous blocks and promises to reform, the behaviour returns each time. The person/people behind this IP are playing us for fools; don't let them do so again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" If Solumeiras is Sunholm/Sunfazer and this crap has been going on for another eighteen months then enough said, I think. We've wasted enough time on this and that IP over the last couple of years. By the way, if you're going to be maintaining the claim that you aren't him you shouldn't be retiring him on his behalf. Sarah 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, this "friend" is on the same IP as Sunholm, TheM62Manchester, and Solumeiras. Dmcdevit·t 11:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just got an email from User:Doctor Nigel Lewis. This user's been blocked since March 23, 2007 as a compromised account. Who was the person the person to tag this user's user page as a compromised account? Solumeiras. Now, suddenly after all this time, the user claims it's not compromised. If that doesn't prove that good hand/bad hand is going on, I don't know what does. Metros (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Metros, that person emailed me, too. Look at User talk:Sunholm, the person/people behind that account claimed to have compromised some old account by guessing the passwords. I really don't think we need to tolerate this rubbish. I would support a community ban of the people/person behind these accounts. Sarah 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This behaviour (good hand/bad hand, protestations of innocence, claims that the IP is now OK although yes it was a source of bad edits before ("it was my little brother", "it's a library", "It's a school", "my roommates did it but I've spoken to them", etc), unwarranted and keen interest in CUs and the process of CUing and other people who have been CUed, vandalism of admin pages after an admin takes action (often on other wikis), creating impersonator accounts, offers to be a CU/crat/admin/steward on one of their personal wikis, and a host of other things too long and bizarre to mention in detail here unless it's necessary) is not confined to en:wp... This user is a frequent topic of discussion on the CU mailing list and has been blocked on and off under various guises on many many wikis to the point that it's almost a running joke (as in "what has he come up with THIS time??"), so it strikes me that it's time to permanently block the IP, with account creation disabled, on en:wp at the very least. (I am aware this will probably get me some angry protestations of innocence in my mail, and possibly some vandalism of some of my pages somewhere). Note also that this IP and its accounts are poster children for bugzilla bug: 8707 Support global blocking ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What now? Block? Ban?

What is the best course of action from here? Something is clearly up and it seems indisputable that one user is responsible for all these accounts. Do we go ahead and block Solumeiras indefinitely for the disruption? Do we then ban whoever is behind all this (I'm assuming we're calling this "Sunholm" in terms of who it is, right? Obviously this can't keep happening and frustrating us all. Metros (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ban the person behind the accounts, block Solumeiras and any other still not blocked accounts and reblock the IP as Lar suggested. I'm not sure if the IP is still 82.42.145.158 or not. Sarah 14:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Solumeiras and his alternate accounts. What's funny is that each of his alternate accounts were tagged with {{User Alternate Acc}} which was heavily edited by...Sunholm, Windmill 000eh, and Solumeiras. It doesn't get any better. Metros (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He's now started emailing unblock-en-l with the most utterly bogus stories claiming to be someone else unrelated who wants to claim the SunStarNet username but funnily enough they include the claim that the "SunStar Net" username originated from a university project which, of course, is what User:SunStar Net used to say. Ugh. He helpfully identified an IP that I've now blocked...it would be nice to have that confirmed but interestingly until today it had a notice on it saying it was Solumerias's IP, 'please don't block'. [28]. Sarah 01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Metros, do you know if the User_talk:Ashford1982 account has been CUd? If not, I'll follow that up as I think there's a good chance that's another sock. I've also received private evidence that 82.42.237.84 is the IP that has been used for mass disruption and vandalism across numerous wikis. Sarah 04:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I left Dmcdevit a message [29] asking about that. I also told Nwwaew to email that evidence to Dmcdevit. So we'll see what happens from here. Metros (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Message sent to Dmcdevit, with everything I've gotten so far. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry

I'm sorry to say, this user is doing more sockpuppetry. I need an admin to e-mail me, so I can release sensitive information I have on hand from another website. Additionally, I have evidence that may prove that Doctor Nigel Lewis is a sockpuppet. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot blocked

I've blocked BetacommandBot again: it's failing to follow redirects when trying to decide if an image has a valid rationale or not. See [30] for an example. --Carnildo (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

you know Carnildo you could have shown me a little respect and left me a talk page note about it. Please unblock and ill look into it. β^_command 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Has the bot stopped running? Are you going to fix the problem? --Carnildo (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He just said he'll look into it... I think it's reasonable to assume that means he's stopped it and is trying to fix it. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:21, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Im looking at what the API gave me as redirects to the article in question, and they are not the same information.

Image:Angyali udvozlet.jpg
Lenght:752
Rationale:False
Regex 1:(Angyali\sÜdvözlet|The\sAnnunciation\s\(film\))
Regex 2:(Angyali_Üdvözlet|The_Annunciation_\(film\))
Time:True

but Angyali_Üdvözlet and Angyali üdvözlet dont match. the API have me the first page as instead of the second. Im not sure what caused that. but I will be looking further the API error. β^_command 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll unblock as long as the bot doesn't do any image-rationale work until this bug and the μTorrent bug mentioned on your talkpage are fixed. --Carnildo (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Carnildo, there was no need to block the bot in the first place. Like I have stated several times to you. Leave me a talkpage notice and Ill stop the bot. I said im looking into this and will see if I can figure out if its fixable on my end. As for the μTorrent issue that is a seperate issue. β^_command 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Betacommand here. Why do we feel it neccessary to block this bot the moment someone has "an issue" with the bot? Woody (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Any bot should be immediately blocked if it makes serious mistakes (like here, tagging images for deletion that shouldn't be deleted), as restarting the bot is far easier than checking all of its edits. Kusma (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a quick easy way to make it stop. It's not remotely a big deal. Friday (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Friday, when people hold it against the bot in every argument, and a talkpage notice would do the same thing. and Ive asked Carnildo repeatedly to do it before blocking it, and he ignores my simple request. Leave a note and give me 5-10 minutes to kill the bot, instead of blocking. If I dont respond then feel free to block it. β^_command 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking bots that are malfunctioning is standard practice. Why should yours be treated differently? Natalie (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalie, when there are as many improper blocks on the bot as there is, people saying there "BCBot is malfunctioning", when they dont understand policy. and I have repeatedly asked this user to discuss it prior to blocking (you get about the same speed results) and the user repeatedly ignores my request I have a problem with that. β^_command 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear, however, to be making a general request of everyone: that they not block this bot without first telling you the issue. Since there's no instaneous way to know if a user is online, you're essentially asking any admin to contact you, hang around while they wait for you to answer, and then block if they haven't received an answer from you in some indeterminate period of time. Why is it such a problem to block, tell you the issue, and unblock once it's sorted out? Natalie (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

waiting 5-10 minutes is not that long. its a problem when the "follow redirects" is not the issue. and its been ~15 hours since the bot was blocked and its not been unblocked. this was sorted out over 12 hours ago and the bot is still blocked. admins are quick to block and very slow to unblock. its a pain in the ass to work with a block when a 30 second post to my talkpage would do the same thing. Ive repeatedly asked the admin to post to my talk page but he refuses a simple request. β^_command 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the bot, since you say it's been fixed. I have to say that I agree that blocking it isn't an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with problems (particularly if the block is set to indefinite, as it was in this case), but you haven't provided much of an alternative. Perhaps you could implement a shutdown feature that would allow admins to tell the bot to stop if it's causing problems? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Betacommand: I can see why this is frustrating, but in my experience at least it's pretty unusual to have to wait so many hours to have a bot unblocked. I would say that, in these cases, any admin could unblock a bot once the issue was fixed. The sticking point for me is that bots have one operator, but any admin can unblock. The chances of getting a hold of a specific bot operator are naturally much smaller than the chances of getting a hold of any admin, so the block-contact-unblock arrangement makes more sense than contact-wait-maybe block. Natalie (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I have repeatedly said when the bot is operational my normal response time to an issue is under 2 minutes. I have an IRC tool that pings me on certain things. editing my talk page or or the bots triggers a loud "Ping" from my computer. Natalie, its not contact-wait-maybe block, its contact, wait 10 minutes, if I have not responded block. is that too fucking much to ask? Ive asked countless times. when ever BCbot is blocked its always a pain in the ass to get someone to unblock. I have a great method for bring up issues but instead Carnildo has to be an ass and repeated ignore my simple request. β^_command 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to ping me to review a bot block next time. Any idea how the code ended up with a capitalized version of the redirect name? Gimmetrow 23:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Im still looking into the nightmare that is Unicode β^_command 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I solved this Unicode problem. if there are any others please bring them to my talkpage. β^_command 01:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blocking a malfunctioning bot isn't a big deal--Carnildo acted correctly here and any administrator should feel free to block a bot that clearly isn't acting as intended. But we don't have to have a huge off-topic thread on this page every time a bot is blocked. Betacommand has a talk page and, if there are bot control matters that should be discussed, they can be dealt with in the appropriate forum. This noticeboard is, in principle at least, intended for incidents requiring the attention of an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blocking the bot is a fast effective way to stopping it, and unblocking the bot is fairly painless. My only grievence is not telling the owner of the bot and making a spectacle on AN/I about blocking it again. Next time Carnildo, I would advise just dropping a note on Betacommands' talk page, letting him fix the bot, and then unblocking it later. There was no reason to making the drama more serious than the problem by posting the note here. — Save_Us † 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat blocked again

I've blocked Zenwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for continued trolling after Jimbo explicitly asked him to stop. He continued here and was reverted by User:Crum375. As a result, I've blocked him for a week. Since this editor's conduct is currently being discussed in an above section that may be archived soon, I have started a new section for further discussion. Nakon 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the first of this user's blocks that I actually endorse. Which is a shame, since I think that were it not for the previous ill-advised blocks, he might never have stooped to the level of deserving blocks. But he's responsible for his own conduct, and today his conduct hasn't been good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from Zenwhat. He has been posting tripe like this at the Village Pump for some time, and its been getting tiresome. This is not new behavior since the last blocking above, and I do not expect this to stop when the block expires. I would really love Zenwhat to prove me wrong, but his past behavior has not led me to believe that that will happen. I endorse this block, and pray that he returns from it with a better attitude. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gotta endorse Nakon's actions. When Jimbo says "stop trolling" you stop trolling. A week (as opposed to a longer, perma block/ban) is being generous. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being snarky, but if all he wants to do is discuss meta issues, perhaps someone should point him to an offsite area to do this, like the mailing list, forums, blogs, or whatever. I'm just saying the guy really likes talking about Wikipedia, maybe he can blow off steam elsewhere. daveh4h 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If he put that energy into article editing-- wow. I think he has problems not necessarily related to Wikipedia, and that he should better spend his energy elsewhere. The one week block is fine for the sake of reducing the disruption level. I don't foresee any change in his editing patterns after the block expires. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 08:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Dave, he seems to have done just that and moved some of his efforts to Meta (m:Special:Contributions/Zenwhat), but aside from some possibly license-breaking copy-and-paste moves, his contributions there seem to be on the up-and-up. --jonny-mt 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I cannot bring myself to see his posts as anything else than a bit distressed and eccentric, but also rather interesting meta comment. That someone who adores Ayn Rand has considerable difficulties sharing that perspective doesn't come as a big surprise. User:Dorftrottel 10:55, February 12, 2008

If I were a meta admin, I'd probably be inclined to do something about [31]. --B (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dorftrottel, for the most part. My only concern is that repeatedly banning this user will make him back come more outrageous than the last time and eventually turn him against the project entirely. Some may say that he is already against the project-but I disagree. If he were, he wouldn't spend so much time commenting on it. That said, I don't see any of this ending well, unfortunately. :-( If he is doing this for attention, then the offsite alternatives like meta, mailing lists, and message boards won't provide him enough. I find it easy enough to avoid his commentary if I find it annoying. Violating the sanctity of Jimbo's talk page seems to be the latest offense. If he said it elsewhere it probably would have gone unnoticed. This user either has other problems or he just hasn't understood the subtleties of how to interact here yet, which is something to consider. I still think he should be encouraged to read and interact at other meta sites, maybe he can find something positive to do. daveh4h 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, particularly with the word encourage. That's the key, imo. Discouraging him is definitely counterproductive. Maybe his energies can be gently directed into more appropriate channels, so why not give it a shot instead of jumping the gun on him (npi)? User:Dorftrottel 17:50, February 12, 2008

Much as I apperciate Jimbo, "the sanctity of his Talk page" seems a bit excessive. Regardless, I do think Zenwhat is a tragic case of what happens when a Wikipedian is brought low by what we call Wikistress, and a downward spiral of incivility between editors. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Move?

I've seen a lot of discussions come up about Zenwhat in the past few days. To keep all discussions centralized and in one place, I think it would make sense to have discussions located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Zenwhat. Opinions (note, I will move this discussion if users below agree). Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. daveh4h 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it will be necessary, especially with the most recent block. - auburnpilot talk 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea. (In general, I dislike moving discussions to sub pages, as the discussion is then fractured and the audience narrowed.) --Iamunknown 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I can only think of one other instance where it was done, and in that case there were issues with th user inquestion being able to edit pages >32K and extreme formatting difficulties. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protected

Per a request at WP:RFPP, I fully protected User talk:Zenwhat and reverted it. As you can see here, Zenwhat was continuing on the same sort of trolling that got him blocked in the first place. Just a long monologue about who-knows-what - conspiracies against him, etc. No discussion about wanting to be unblocked, no discussion about anything related to writing an encyclopedia, etc. Just a blog. Sorry, but to me, a week-long block is a week-long block. It doesn't mean a week of blogging. He can go about blogging when it expires.

Not particularly surprising, I've been called out on it so here I am for community review. If consensus here is to unprotect and let Zenwhat continue his blogging and pondering now instead of a week from now, then I welcome someone to unprotect it. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good block, good protection. Wikipedia isn't a place for conspiracy-theory soapboxing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. He was blocked, in part, for disseminating these pointless dull ramblings. Providing airtime for him to continue to use our bandwidth to witter on is pointless. Extended-RBI correctly employed. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't act against consensus, but I see the talk page protection as pointless. Ranting privately on his talk page seems harmless, and protecting pages like that is what gives complainers fodder. Do we wish to make Zenwhat into a hero for WR and the like? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating an account to do nothing but chat with your friends is even more harmless - but try it and see how fast you're permablocked (after you're caught anyway). WP:NOT#MYSPACE. In this case, he was ranting about particular users conspiring against him - mentioning them by name - all while already blocked. He should thank me for protecting him from himself while he cools off for a week. As far as making him a hero for WR, sorry but I couldn't possibly care less. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider Zenwhat's comments on his talk page to be trolling (posting rambling comments to one's own talk page - which people can readily unwatchlist and ignore - hardly seems to qualify as deliberate attempts at disruption) and I don't think his use of his talk page was particularly abusive (as mentioned in the protection log). I would support unprotecting his talk page. --Iamunknown 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So would I. Not my call though. User:Dorftrottel 23:07, February 12, 2008

Protecting the talk-page (it is only for a week) is a good call. Otherwise ZW can continue to post rubbish as has been happening for weeks, and this rubbish includes attacking insulting, misrepresenting, other users egregiously,(to no purpose whatsoever, except to gain attention). If I have to watch the page, to see myself slanderered, I would have to revert such rubbish off the page. I think I have the right to repair such damage on a WPpage put up by a blocked User. Why should I or others be forced to such troubles by a nuisance editor, and then run the risk of being blocked oneself? Wish I didn't have to say this, but Do not feed the trolls applies, as ZW has said so themself. ZW may in time learn to contribute without all the aggro and self-importance, (in time, but not at this time, so its preventative, not punitive.) Newbyguesses - Talk 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let him use his talk page for ranting. If he insults or attacks other editors (not Wikipedia in general - railing against Wikipedia in general is fine), we can extend his block. If he doesn't, then there's no problem. Neıl ☎ 09:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Neil on this one. If he was abusing unblock templates I'd think differently, but if he's just ranting and it's hurting nobody, let him. Orderinchaos 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but (and I understand this isn't policy, but a guideline) isn't personal opinion and ranting about conspiracy ad nauseum a breach of WP:TALK? I mean, it's almost literally the first line in the heading for proper use of a talk page. If he/she slanders, makes threats (physical or legal) etc.., then it is completely unacceptable. It may result in a block. However, what is the overall consensus regarding disruptive talk page usage as displayed here? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ZW is editing, but the protected page says "Retired"

I am mystified as to how ZW can make this edit, whilst "retired", and under discussion at AN/I for the (third time). Newbyguesses - Talk 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That edit is almost a week old: February 7. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ZW is blocked until the 19th. Addhoc (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the edit history at WP:IAR. The edit which confused me was [32] and it is not done by User:Zenwhat at all. It is done by 18:02, 13 February 2008 192.235.8.2 (Talk). Newbyguesses - Talk 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits: User:Iwanafish

For over two months now, Iwanafish has repeatedly inserted POV material into the I Ching article. Here's the history:

• Iwanafish adds unsourced text [33] on December 5, 2007. His addition is reverted [34].
• He re-inserts the text and is reverted[35] with the edit summary: "undid changes made by iwanafish, as he attaches his own personal opinion to the end of the opening paragraph." Iwanafish again re-inserts the text.
• On December 9, 2007 User:64.186.47.226 adds a note on the talk page, stating that the material shows a lack of objectivity.
• On December 11, 2007 User:Antifamilymang edits and moves the text [36]. Iwanafish reverts.
• A total of six editors, other than Iwanafish, comment, on the talk page. All agree that the text is unacceptable, referring to it as original research. On December 16, 2007 it is proposed to give Iwanafish until the end of December to find citations for the text. All those who comment on this agree. Iwanafish responds with scorn for "Westerners view of the I Ching" but does not comment on the need for sources.
• The pattern of reverts continues. Edit summaries refer Iwanafish to the talk page [37], and then warn him that if he doesn't discuss his edits on the talk page his reverts will be treated as vandalism [38].
• On December 17, 2007, a note on his talk page describes the problem of lack of sources, explains that editorial decisions are made by consensus and warns him he could be blocked if he continues his actions.
• No sources are provided but the pattern of reverts slows in late December and early January, then starts up again on January 30, 2008
• On January 31, 2008, Iwanafish is given a 4th level warning. He ceases to edit the I Ching article as Iwanafish.
• On February 10, 2008 209.166.90.180 adds the identical text with the identical MO as Iwanafish. A 4th level warning is added to the IP talk page. On February 10, 2008 209.166.90.180 reverts again.
• On February 13, 2008 Kungtzu (suspected sockpuppet) reinserts the text [39].

I recommend that a block of several days be given to his IP address. Sunray (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been a victim of more than one setup in my history on wikipedia, and having an interest and expertise in Chinese, this post caught my eye. When I investigated I found Iwanafish was not alone in wanting some of his edits included, despite Sunray's portrait. Indeed Iwanafish sourced one of his edits to p131 of Needham's classic. Sunray's rejection of Needham is most unwarranted. Needham's is one of the modern classics of world and China related scholarship. If his views on Chinese mysticism are not relevant then it is a very sad day for wikipedia. Having said that, I do not condone Iwanafish's style - though I point out that Sunray equally shares a tendency for reversion, and further, a tendency for ownership of the page in question. I recommend guidance for Iwanafish and Sunray, not the penalty Sunray seeks. Mccready (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mcready has done a creditable job of advocacy here. However, I think he needs to go over the history of this more carefully. At least six editors have either reverted Iwanafish, (pointing out his POV), or tried to edit his text. Each time he has reverted, insisting on his version. Also six editors (not all the same ones) have commented that they were concerned with the bias he had introduced into the article. Iwanafish's comments on the talk page have generally been to express his distain for the I Ching and the "western Yijingers [who] think you can have your magic book, shake you coins and no one will laugh at you."

I don't own the page. I do monitor it, though, and responded to the concerns raised by other editors. While I might have handled Iwanafish more gently, I've tried many different approaches and his intransigence related to this article continues to be a real problem right now. In my first warning note to him on his talk page, I did suggest that we could work on it:

"If you wish to participate in the discussion on the talk page, that would be welcome. I believe that the paragraph could be re-written, sources found and many of the ideas included."

Instead he continues to insist on his text, with its original research and one problematic source. Note that I don't say "block Iwanafish." It is his IP that is being disruptive. A short block might send the message that he needs to work with others if he wants to edit the "I Ching" article. Sunray (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Iwanafish has been rather disruptive, and he certainly needs to provide a source for the statement concerning the I Ching's popularity (or lack thereof) in Asia. Otherwise it just seems like he's trying to push his own personal observations. The Needham quote is fine, but so far hasn't been used very well in any sort of context. I don't think he realises how his tone comes off as within the article, and his talk page comments have been bombastic and almost universally hostile. And hostility tends to breed hostility. I don't agree that this requires a block (of any length), but it does require attention. Some kind of mediation. So far Iwanafish has been unwilling to simply discuss this (outside of comments like "You don't like my comments on the I-ching because they do not fit into your personal religion"...which is funny, because me? I'm an athiest :| ). I can't speak on Sunray's behalf, but he has at least brought discussion to the talk page concerning Iwanafish's ideas, which I can't say for Iwanafish concerning Sunray's.--Yossarian 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Yossarian's comments. I see a problem with the idea of mediation, however. Iwanafish, the IP, and now a suspected sockpuppet continually violate basic policies such as WP:NOR, WP:VER, and WP:CON

• Action needs to be taken with respect to current edits by Kungtzu. Please advise. Sunray (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

E-mail from user about taking legal action

I've been on an undeclared wikibreak but just received an e-mail from a user about a vandal I've blocked and how s/he continues to "commit acts of libel" and how the person intends to proceed with legal action. I don't know how to respond and haven't really the time to investigate it; would someone be so kind as to handle this for me? Cheers. -- Merope 14:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just tell the person that you are not active in Wikipedia right now and direct the user to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:No legal threats. That should be enough (we need to identify who the person is in order to prevent the person from editing Wikipedia according to our policy). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't reply to the email and reblock them with email disabled. Mr.Z-man 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the emailer is the one who's blocked, so that wouldn't really help. Natalie (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that appears right, I misread it. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Should I block the user from whom the e-mail came? Or let someone else know? -- Merope 18:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I reckon they need a warning with a link to WP:NLT first to let them know policy (especially if it's a new editor), but might be worth posting the name here to see (obviously not the content of the email, that's private). —αlεx•mullεr 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Ah, the editor is User:CamCham, and the dispute seems to focus entirely on the Miss Alabama USA article. Have fun. -- Merope 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice (I think, at least...) note left on the user's talk page. I guess we'll see where it goes from here? —αlεx•mullεr 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw I was the person who added the content to the Miss AL USA article in the first place and who reverted CamCham's removal of it, basically on the grounds that two reliable sources are cited to verify it. In edit summaries CamCham came very close to a personal attack on myself. Last night I received an email from that user stating:

"Regarding your last edit to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Alabama_USA&action=history. You'll need to send those sources because I can't find those references."

I quickly replied with the copy & pasted sources (they come from a news database I have access to through university and thus I can't post urls. This morning I got a very strange reply:

"We are reviewing these sources. Thanks for the quick response."

My query is where does the we come into this? Hmmmm. Anyway, that's my take on things. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be a role account, or it could be someone trying to make themselves sound more official or intimidating. Natalie (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is bizarre. I wonder whether there's a COI between that editor and the article they're editing. Wouldn't surprise me —αlεx•mullεr 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:NLT is a policy on acceptable use of this site. I don't think it applies to legal threats made by private email.

To put it another way, the point of the policy is not to enable us to boot litigious people from the project, but to ensure that litigation goes through proper channels with a minimum of disruption to the project.

In fact that policy specifically states "You should instead contact the person or people involved directly", which would seem to be an endorsement of the course being taken here.

Hesperian 00:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch makes it pretty clear that threats of off-Wiki retaliation for on-Wiki actions are absolutely unacceptable, and the form of communication shouldn't matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Though, Hesperian, you are right about NLT - I should've read it much more carefully. That said, the legal threats are completely baseless, so there's nothing more that needs to be done —αlεx•mullεr 00:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A question... the crux of the problem is that I've sourced information on the article that cannot be linked to directly - I got it from a restricted database available to me as a student at the University of Auckland. Is there some way (OTRS maybe) that the sources can be formally verified so that the revert war ends? I'm happy to email the articles to people but imagine there has to be a better way... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

PageantUpdater emailed me text from the two articles. Of course, it's still not 100% possible for me to verify them, but they did appear legit. I also found this court document that appears to substantiate it (though WP:BLP discourages the use of court documents unless those documents have already been cited in other sources). That said, is it really worth mentioning? The case didn't appear to have any bearing on the pageant as far as I can tell. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's Factiva or somesuch, or one of the many databases available to students generally, I am willing to vouch for any article emailed to me if I can find it myself (I'd prefer a citation to make it easy for me, but engine used and the relevant text so that I can find it would be OK). I have student access at two Australian universities, and have neither involvement nor interest in the subject of the articles in question. Orderinchaos 15:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Updating AN/I - this is completely uncontroversial. The sources say exactly what they were claimed to say, and a search over the time period failed to turn up any other article, so there is no source bias. (I have posted a summary of the exact details on my talk page.) Orderinchaos 04:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch doesn't apply to this situation. Legal threat is not the same thing as harassment, nor is it always a bad thing. People standing up for their legal rights is a very good thing, and if we can help them with minimal disruption to the project, and in a way that makes sure things go through the proper channels, then all the better. I'm a bit confused to see some of the first responses to this were "disable their e-mail". That wouldn't help anyone, even if it were possible. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgians/Chaonians

Repeated tactics

[40] If they dont get it its not my fault.Megistias (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question - do you have a concern of some sort? D.M.N. (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They refuse to interact and simply keep on reposting rejected material.Again on my ethnicity ,denying ,irony and ignore my postings and of any user or admin rejecting themMegistias (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias is mixing up complaints against two different users: User:Dodona, who is indeed a disruptive editor and forever in danger of earning himself a renewed ban, and a new guy User:PelasgicMoon, who has so far not done anything outrageously disruptive by Balkanic standards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. In which case, can we have some diffs so that we can resolve, or try to resolve the problem. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty frustrated.This is like deja vuMegistias (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dodona is a loooooong story. I've been trying to guard him through a "second chance", that's the only reason I'm not just joining in with Megistias' cry for bans, but I have doubts if it's going anywhere. I somehow don't know where to start with the links :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Still at it.[41]13:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone please remedie this situation in its entirety.Its all wasted time against people that have a dogma [42]Megistias (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling me a propagandist

talk, User:Taulant23 at the bottom of the talk says"his main propaganda agenda" referring to me.Megistias (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really the worst of personal attacks, if it even qualifies as one. What do you want done about it anyway?--Atlan (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For him to stop doing it.Megistias (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff. While it's borderline, comments like this are not helpful to the debate. I have left a note. — Satori Son 14:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User PelasgicMoon is doing the sameMegistias (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Diffs please. — Satori Son 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Its at the bottom talkMegistias (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User Dodona "that i am what i am called"[43]Megistias (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's time to apply a few trouts here. Can somebody uninvolved please take over at Chaonians? (I've IAR'd and applied emergency shortterm protection for just two hours, but we need a taste of WP:ARBMAC I think.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Incident

[44]see talk page[45] admins-User wants an edit war and provokes to this effect ignoring secondary source and pretending he cant read.Most likely sockpuppet .Megistias (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a minor content dispute - I've suggested a compromise, hopefully this will solve things. I suppose both yourslef, Megistias, and the IP (who then created an account, Arditbido (talk · contribs)) could both be blocked for 9 reverts each, but Fut Perf's protection has just as easily calmed that down. Neıl ☎ 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He doestn get it.He wants the edit warMegistias (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not a new user for certain.I am tired .Megistias (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that I only protected for two hours as an emergency measure. I've been involved with various related conflicts, so I'd appreciate if somebody else took care of whatever sanctions are appropriate. WP:ARBMAC applies, if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a new user.[46]Megistias (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at what he is doing.I have answered a dozen times and provided myriad sources both secondary and primary and he just goes on.[47].Megistias (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He is not a new user he even knows how to switch his name [48] into appearing as another "balkanian".You dont go from nymbered user to that in an hour!Megistias (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, User:DragonflySixtyseven made a substantial edit to Chaonians and then protected the page. This seems like a no-no. I've asked him about it on his talk page, but he seems to be away from the computer at the moment. Anyway, I haven't investigated this situation fully yet, but it looks like we've got a handful of POV-pushing disruptive editors who are using a combination of dodgy sources and flat-out original research, with some possible sockpuppetry tossed in. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys impose some sanctions on the whole of the disruptive editors?They dont change or learn .Just do something.Megistias (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen guys we have wasted endless hours these past few months

with this team of disruptors and they dont change nor will they.They have clones they do they same thing again they ignore users,admins and rules and so on.Megistias (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD moved and vandalized

Resolved

 – All sockpuppets blocked indef Coredesat 08:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominated several pages in User:Jay Turner's userspace for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jay Turner/WikiPoints. He moved the MfD to Wikipedia:Miscegfc,mnfdjkndkfjsfkjfllany for deletion/User:Jay Turner/WikiPoints and blanked the page. I need an admin to move the page back and would request a 24 hour block of User:Jay Turner for purposefully disrupting the MfD. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete a page on someone's userspace? Bstone (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:USER. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The set of pages relate to a game the user created where people earn points for doing things on wikipedia that are redeemable for barnstars. I feel this is an inappropriate use of the userspace as it is a WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. I've nominated for MfD to allow a discussion on the issue. MBisanz ^talk 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved back to correct place and blocked Jay Tuner for 31 hours for needless page move vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this page [49] seems germaine to this discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good find, now the tough question, since their both from the same IP address (no checkuser needed) do we trust the anon. IP or not? MBisanz ^talk 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And now the old-user name request User talk:Jaytur1 MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Would this count as using a sockpuppet account to evade a block? Wouldn't that result in extending the block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would guess so. D.M.N. (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, he's new enough and the link betweent he 2 names is rather obvious, that I really don't see a need to extend the block. Now if he continues with frivolous unblocks, then maybe. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of User_talk:ScreenagerPresents, I'm tempted to file an WP:RFCU to see how many other sleepers we have on this IP. MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jay Turner, User:Jay Turner, User:Jay Turner-Secret, User:Jaytur1, User:ScreenagerPresents, and User:86.135.46.88 are sockpuppets of banned user User:Iamandrewrice. Requesting indef blocks in line with ban policy. MBisanz ^talk 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Coredesat 08:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this might not be fully resolved. Helics appeared earlier today, and one of his first edits (his third, actually) was to my user talk page, asking me why I blocked Jay Turner. I'm thinking Helics is another sock, but that's all I have to go on. --Coredesat 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have filed another RFCU. --Coredesat 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Relata refero

Complaint about this user who is deleting information, even if sourced, here: Western Goals Institute and here: Merlin Hanbury-Tracy, 7th Baron Sudeley. He lectures other users and tells them what he will permit here: User talk:Chelsea Tory as though we have just arrived. He may, of course, be someone's puppet. But we should not be bullied by editors who are effectively vandalising articles and deleting things they simply don't like. Chelsea Tory (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement over content and Ownership issues. No admin action required at this point. A reminder about discussion being useful, and free of speculation over motive, would be helpful, though. Relata refero (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree this appears to be a content dispute. Chelsea Tory, please remember that personal knowledge is not considered a reliable source. Take these issues to the article talk page, rather than reverting each other repeatedly. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Complainant blocked following Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman. Relata refero (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about this user who is deleting sourced information here: Denial of the Holodomor. He lectures other users yet does not discuss changes on the Discussion page. I also believe he is someone's puppet. He is effectively vandalizing the article by deleting materials without discussion he don't like. Bandurist (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More eyes on that hideous mass of original research mostly referenced to community newsletters would be nice. Given the three different complaints over the past 48, all I need is the Armenia-Azerbaijan people angry at me to know I'm doing everything right. Relata refero (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Relata refero (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know anything about User:Relata refero except that he supposed to be blocked for WP:DE by User:Mikkalai [50], but another user was blocked instead of him, apparently by mistake. A content dispute? Let's take a closer look at the case reported by Bandurist. The article Holodomor denial was in a good shape, and Relata never edited it before. However, he was invited to do so by User:Irpen [51]. He repeatedly deleted a large segment of relevant and sourced text [52] claiming it to be poorly sourced [53]. I have examined four supporting sources, found that only one of them probably does not fit WP:Source, suggested to slightly modify the text and wait for opinions of others to bulid consensus [54]. Instead of waiting or discussing the sources, Relata deleted this text again [55]. If that is not WP:DE, I do not know what WP:DE is.Biophys (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, why tell non-truthes? I invited no one. To the contrary, the user invited himself and started editing the article([56] timestamp: 07:04, February 12, 2008) and got an exact sort of reception ( [57] ) that was given when another, previously uninvolved editor, tried the same. Only after that I warned the user( [58] , timestamp 18:45, February 12, 2008) to check a little history and warned him on what kind of conduct he is likely to encounter from you and other "guardians" of this article. I warned him that the first step of the dispute resolution some people try is block shopping and advised him to watch the adminboards for that. He chose to not back off. Well, I hate to find out that my sad prediction became prophetic. --Irpen 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't know what WP:DE is. (Judging by the talkpage, you're also having a spot of trouble with WP:RS.)

I wasn't "invited" by anyone. Please check those timestamps. Irpen was good enough to warn me after I discovered the article that the people who wrote that article tend to be a little protective. He also told me to read the AfD and the the talkpage beforehand so I knew what I was getting into. You might say he warned me against it.

The entire article is a mess of OR, is sourced almost entirely to community newsletters and unpublished papers of dubious reliability. It is terrible. I deleted a small amount of the worst stuff. I then waited while people accused me of vandalism, (in spite of the fact that I had extremely informative, if increasingly shocked, edit summaries) reverting once; finally someone decided I wasnt going away immediately and a conversation was opened. I then said I would hold off on any further large-scale deletions and asked for the antecedents of one paper which was cited all over the place, and was told I would have to wait a little while longer while people 'checked'. (The article was written last month!) Fine. In that interval I deleted another small section, about a non-notable unencyclopaedic book, sourced entirely to non-RSes. No defence has been made about why it should remain in there; the defence seems to be "it was published". (Seriously).

More eyes on this page, please. Relata refero (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment was not about content of any article/page. It was about your alleged WP:DE problem. I agreed with several other users that such problem exists. That might be also handled using an RfC.Biophys (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check if the other users that you agreed with are still editing. Some of them tend to come online recently merely to ask for me to be banned, and the others might have been blocked as a sockfarm. Personally, I am always glad to hear from the community, though perhaps it would be a tad more useful for the project if your efforts were directed towards finding a reliable source for that mysterious conference paper on which the entire article I'm apparently disrupting is based. Relata refero (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Centennial College

There is a slow-motion edit war at Centennial College starting here, mostly consisting of IP editors adding arguably POV material on how badly the college is run. This included addition of a "CC is run by monkeys" image. Most of the recent IP edits are from within CC istelf.

Now a new user has entered the fray: User:Ccrbm They have created a userpage with picture of a monkey, created the redirect Ran by monkeys and started re-inserting the POV content. I again reverted this here and added a note to the user talk about unsourced content. The user has responded by removing existing content here and here, apparently making a WP:POINT about unsourced content. I've added another note to their talk. My second-last note was in-between Ccrbm's last two edits, hopefully they will now get the message and cool down a little.

Waited a while, message only partly received, the user added some {{tl:cn}} tags, which is OK, but now adding the original unsourced POV statement c/w "cite" tags. Please review for WP:UP, WP:UN, WP:POINT, edit warring, blah-blah. Franamax (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (put this at WP:AN first, should be here I think!) Franamax (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note for User:Ccrbm and addressed the question of his or her userpage and the image. These kinds of issues are not, in my experience, unusual for school articles on Wikipedia. I have watchlisted the page and may be able to help you address ongoing concerns. If the situation worsens, protection of the article may become necessary, but at the moment it seems to involve a small group of IPs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This user seems bent on spreading this content. Now he is spreading this "ran by monkeys" mantra on his user page and his talk page. Is this appropriate content for user space? —BradV 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He's gone quiet for now, but the link on his user page is really not appropriate, maybe it should be removed by an admin with a warning not to add again? Franamax (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not remove the link if that's as far as it goes. The article in question has now been thoroughly sourced, and it seems more productive to me to ensure that it remains neutral and sourced and free of original research. :) So long as the user space stays on this side of the line, I'm inclined to ignore it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Equazcion

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

Resolved

 – there is nothing more to be gained by keeping this discussion open. This is all heat and no light. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Heyo. Would some editors please direct their attention to today's 24-hour block of Equazcion (talk · contribs) by John (talk · contribs) for "Disruption". Equazcion was ordered to remove himself from Category:Rouge admins, himself not being an admin. He declined to do so, edit warred over his own user page for a bit, and was summarily blocked for his insolence. I hope with some more eyes on the situation that a consensus can be found that this block is not within the bounds of the blocking policy and is in poor taste. To block good-faith contributors over nonsense like this surely infuriates them. Please help. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock - really silly block. Isn't 3RR blockable either. Will ^(talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to unblock if the user will undertake not to continue to misrepresent himself as an admin. I already made this offer to the user but was turned down. This is an egregious misuse of our time and resources, a violation of WP:POINT (the user apparently believes the category is a silly one and is determined to show how silly it is by adding himself to it), and wikilawyering at its worst. I'd be happy to have some more input over it, but I stand by the block for now. --John (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block as sound. Note that several other admins have already declined (or commented on the decline, endorsing it) to unblock. Note also that I'm involved, I removed the category from the user's page the first time. I have made an identical offer to unblock if the user will undertake not to readd. As for not being 3RR blockable, remember 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. The user was warned not to redo a particular edit and chose to basically say "screw you" rather than discuss. I'm hopeful the user will be more reasonable going forward but it's a sound block. By the way, I'm not sure I agree with HiDrNick's somewhat non NPOVy description of events. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good block and I see no problem with unblocking as soon as he says he won't do it again. John Reaves 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorsed. The wikilawyering (not 3RR because... not disruption because... not edit-warring because... others were also doing it because... etc) just adds to the endorsement. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why the category should not exist, and the block was WAY over the top. There should not be any user categories that are restricted to admins, except for Category:Administrators, which is not one to which a user can add themselves. Of course, I'm not an admin, and I argued strongly against the retention of this category in December, but my concern is being borne out here: it's divisive; it makes non-admins second-class citizens, by telling them that they cannot participate in something that is ostensibly humorous. It (and the equally stupid Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping) should be burned with fire and buried under a metric ton of salt. Horologium (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Second-class citizens" because you can't add yourself to 2 of our hundreds (or likely thousands) of user categories? If that's how you really feel, I would suggest re-aligning your priorities, else there is no reason to resort to pointless dramatics. Mr.Z-man 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please show me any other categories to which users are not allowed to add themselves, (other than Category:Wikipedia administrators, which is not all-inclusive or guaranteed accurate, and the other "administrator by inclination" categories created without any form of discussion or consensus) and the justification for it (cite principles, policy, or guidelines, not some obscure essay) and I will gladly strike every single statement I have made in this discussion. This user category simply has no justification to exist, and your slap at me doesn't change that fact. As I noted at the UCFD discussion, this has nothing at all to do with the userbox (which neither Equazcion nor Allstarecho added to their page), or the essay itself (which I find to be amusing), but the category, which is useless and divisive. Except for the categories for rollback requests, copies of deleted articles, and admins open to recall, none of those categories serve any useful purpose. Horologium (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. We're not here to argue the merits of the category, and Equazcion should not have continued to add himself to a category that defines those within it as admins, after being asked to stop. - auburnpilot talk 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your concern is not "being borne out here" in the slightest - a single user who shared your "concern" was disrupting to make a point and got blocked when he didn't stop. That's the beginning and the end of it, I'm afraid. Black Kite 23:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• interesting twist on the earlier battle with WebHamster. But I just want to mention that "rouge admin" would probably refer to a communist admin (as in khmer rouge) and probably rogue admin is meant. Not that I should care, unless some rose` admins gang up on me. Pete St.John (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's bizarre Wikislang - see WP:ROUGE. It's a joke on people who call admins "rogue" with questionable spelling abilities. Orderinchaos 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed User:Allstarecho from the category too, who presumably joined in as a result of this discussion. This is all a bit trivial, but it's somewhat WP:POINT and more importantly could be confusing for an editor that comes across one of these user pages. Black Kite 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Allstarecho is back in the category. I will not, however, take any action on this. I'm recusing myself due to prior involvement with this editor (and, frankly, because I feel like it's a pretty weak block). - Philippe | Talk 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I put myself back in before I read all the drama on my talk page, and have since removed the cat again and replaced it with Category:Rouge editors. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, though I am somewhat involved, having advised User:Equazcion not to continue to revert his addition to the category. It is a clear violation of WP:POINT, I'm afraid. Adding yourself to the category just to prove its a joke isn't helpful. Edit warring to keep yourself there after being asked by several editors not to, really isn't acceptable. For what its worth, I agree with User:Horologium that the category itself should be deleted, but it survived an AfD only two months ago and that's sadly not going to happen. Gwernol 22:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• To Gwernol: I wasn't trying to make any point! I responded to this accusation on my talk page already, many times. Just to prove it's humorous? I have no vested interest in convincing anyone of that. I just thought it was funny to add myself to it. No point involved whatsoever. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:57, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC) (brought over from user's talk by ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

• Category:Rouge admins is clearly a joke, before the changes were made today, why would anyone assume that a name on that list was a real admin? I had no idea. - Epousesquecido (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The joke may not be obvious to a new or occasional editor, though. Let's err on the side of not confusing people. Black Kite 23:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • To Black Kite: New users would find "rouge admin" confusing even if it were an admin who had it posted, so confusing the newbies doesn't seem like a valid concern here. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:09, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC) (brought over from user's talk by ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
      • Possibly, but why not err on the side of caution? The category got kept at AfD, fine, that was consensus (I didn't take part in that, btw). One of those things. This all just seems like a completely pointless argument over something trivial to me. Why not just commit to not adding again, then you can be unblocked and we can all go back to editing an encyclopedia arguing about something important :) Black Kite 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have notified AllStarEcho about this, since his name was brought up in the discussion and his userpage was modified without any notification. Horologium (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I notified him directly above the section you pointlessly added. Black Kite 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I apologize. I saw the first post in that section, and missed yours. Horologium (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. Black Kite 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• As I said above, I didn't read my talk page first. All is well in admin-only land now. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• As a sidenote, shouldn't The Random Editor be removed from Category:Eguor admins? Or Avriette from Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles? User:Dorftrottel 23:20, February 12, 2008
  • yes. Only admins should be in any subcategory of Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish to state that I also think it is kind of a silly category. However, there are ways to delete things we don't like, and this is not one of them. Adding oneself to a category of admins when one is not an admin seems calculated to deceive and disrupt. Doing it once was a bit silly. Edit-warring over it when three different admins have asked you not to seems blockworthy to me, which was why I blocked. I am still open to unblocking if a consensus develops here that the block was unwarranted (though I am not seeing that at present) or if the user will undertake not to disruptively add the category again. --John (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a walled garden. Either the category itself is a joke, in which case it's fair game for all (an administrator-only joke area does not seem to be in the spirit of the project)...or else the category is for real, in which case administrators boasting about their contempt for rules is a pretty good argument for de-sysopping.Wikidemo (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If the category is in any way not a joke, then it is in bad-faith, disruptive, divisive and deliberately so. If it is solely a joke, then some admins need to "get over it" and stop doing silly blocks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you and everyone else concerned about the category being " bad-faith, disruptive, divisive and deliberately so" might want to read Wikipedia:Rouge_admin. That essay/joke/whatever you want to call it is the definition of what it means to be "rouge" (not rogue, the typo is deliberate there) in the en:wp context. You can argue that irony doesn't work well on line, or that the category isn't making the point it is intended to make because people don't get the joke, or you can even argue that it has passed its day, if you like. But to say it's bad faith... misses the point. Back in the day, you used to gain admission to the category by some other admin spotting something particularly clueful you had done, some particularly astute or courageous edit or block.... to roll back the tide of linkspammers, POV pushers and assorted crazies with fringe theories to push. The addition sometimes even cited the diff, you never added yourself to it, that was declasse. It was a badge of honor among some. Again, perhaps that day has passed. Perhaps most in it now don't even recall that. Perhaps it needs deleting. Perhaps the existance of it is now divisive. Wikipedia is far bigger and more formal than it was even 2 years ago, and perhaps some inside lore and jokes that used to work, and work well, maybe they don't any more... Perhaps no one gets "Ha Ha only serious" any more? I don't know. But, whatever else it is, it's not bad faith. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't mind either way, but it seems to follow from the block, that any non-admins should be removed from those categories for the sake of any coherence (joke or not), even if it's a (temporary) desysop on request. Another example is apparently User:JoshuaZ in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests. User:Dorftrottel 00:05, February 13, 2008

JoshuaZ appears have been desysopped at his own request. A friendly note on his talk page should correct the mis-categorization. - auburnpilot talk 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Black Kite: Because I want to make it clear just how ridiculous it is to make a big deal out of this, especially to the point of imposing a block. There's no way I would make a promise like that, because it would be condoning all this ridiculousness. If you want to block a good-faith editor for doing something that really would not have caused any significant disruption (and most people do agree on that point), then so be it, it's your loss. But if you want to prove that this isn't some kind of turf war (not you personally, but you as the body of admins who adamantly oppose this) and that you support reserving blocks and two-mile arguments for situations that actually warrant it, then you'll unblock me and tell me that it's okay to post this stupid joke category on my user page. Again, if you don't want to, that's your loss, and not just because I'd be gone, but because of what it says about where admin priorities lie. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:52, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC) (please paste this over there -- thanks.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs)

By the way, my de-sysopping comment wasn't meant to be serious. It's hard to be serious about this subject. My recommendation is that everyone have a pint of beer, and not in front of their computers. Wikidemo (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that editing while sober is a major cause of wikistress :) DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. WP:LAME, Table for two? Equazcion did this at first as a joke, but when pointed out that it's a joke the works best as an ironic joke about the attitudes of some admins to lock stepping down Policy Highway when the problems warrant a simpler, or more expedient solution, he decided that it was so funny for him that he made it into a POINT violation. That some commie editors are now insistent that in addition to all the pay and glamorous benefits of being an admin, like being dragged to RfC and ArbCom twice monthly for floggings, they must share one of two self-effacing categories with every piker who thinks they're that cool, or that funny, or whatever, is like 'not only do you get no coffee breaks, but if you sneak one, know that I've pissed in the filters, now get back to adminning.' Do we really need to antagonize these guys by shitting in the break room? Leave the block up, and leave the fuckin category alone. How childish is this? Rouge and Trout aren't secret clubs. If you want them so bad, go become an admin, and then join them. This is one of the stupidest fights I've seen here, and hell, I've BEEN in some stinkers. Support block. ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like an overkill block. I strongly recommend reversal. 193.95.165.190 (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed

User:Equazcion is hereby blocked indefinitely for not respecting authority. User:Father Goose is also blocked indefinitely for mocking the situation disrupting Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't helpful. I just don't understand why every single block turns into a big dramatic incident. If Equazcion hadn't been POINTY and hadn't violated 3RR, none of this would have occurred. If Equazcion will just say, "I won't do it again," this can all be resolved. And nobody needs to get on high horses over all of this nonsense. There's an encyclopedia to write, people. Corvus cornix_talk 00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the block was pointy, and designed to ensure that non-admins don't get to share the "big boys' joke". This whole stupid saga is utterly pathetic. The cat would have been deleted ages ago if it wasn't "admin only" - but god forbid anyone point out the double standards operated by some admins. DuncanHill (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Equally, it wouldn't have happened if the removing administrators weren't embarrassingly bureaucratic and humorless. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR isn't really an issue here, but Equazcion has stated on his talk page that he intends to leave the project if he is not allowed to add Category:Rouge admins to his user page.[59] DuncanHill, if others want to share the "big boys' joke" as you put it, see Category:Rouge editors. There is absolutely no reason for a non-admin to identify as an admin, even for humor. - auburnpilot talk 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See Rouge editors? Thank you - I already have. I was its second member and started the talk page. Maybe you missed that? DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I saw it, but thanks for your kind response. My comment was a general one. - auburnpilot talk 00:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Rouge editors was created two minutes before Eqazcion was blocked. It was not like he knew it existed when the banhammer fell. Horologium (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And here's another one to AuburnPilot:

• "Equazcion has stated on his talk page that he intends to leave the project if he is not allowed to add Category:Rouge admins to his user page" -- I said no such thing. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:26, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I misunderstood the statement "Again, if you don't want to, that's your loss, and not just because I'd be gone, but because of what it says about where admin priorities lie."[60] - auburnpilot talk 01:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Off topic comment: This is why I read this board nearly everyday. My eyes are tearing from trying not to laugh in the office. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You should be careful Rocksanddirt (or may I call you Rocks?) - laughing at the wrong things can get you in trouble here! DuncanHill (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the warning DuncanHill (may I call you Duncan?) You may certainly call me Rocks or anything else (except late for dinner) - sfx:rimshot - --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's a joke category. Stop taking it seriously. I thought admins had no greater authority, or stature on Wikipedia — hence, how could "misrepresenting" oneself as one be "disruptive"? I guess that tired "janitor" bromide has just been thrown out the window entirely. We might as well stop with the charade. --Haemo (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason it matters is because people do occasionally have to find administrators, and they might even decide to through a joke category. If the person they find is not actually an admin, that's a problem. Some months back, I needed to get in touch with an admin on Spanish Wikipedia, and although I speak some Spanish I'm really not fluent enough to get jokes. Any sort of joke category would have gone right over my head and I would only have read bibliotecaro, and assumed everyone within was an admin. Natalie (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to create a new category. [[category:participant in the lamest ANI thread ever]]. And, yes, I know I now would have to join. Bellwether ^B_C 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed also

I don't want to do it myself, but someone might create a Cat for Wikipedians who do not wish to be categorized. Though, in that case not sure if I would add (or delete) myself from the Cat. Just a thought. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm lost

Perhaps I've lost my way here, but could someone direct me to the section of the blocking policy that says that you can be blocked for not doing as an admin asks? I wasn't able to find it. The block summary used in this case linked to the disruptive editing guideline, but this guideline doesn't describe Equizcion's editing at all. Isn't blocking reserved for vandals, spammers, and trolls? What gives? ➪HiDrNick! 03:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to scroll down almost to the bottom to where it says "Dealing with disruptive editors". You will see there that if an editor persists in being disruptive (which in my view he was by adding a category which falsely implied he was an admin, was at best intended as a joke, and could not at any stretch be seen as likely to benefit the encyclopedia), the recommended sequence is (my summary):

1. Revert unencyclopedic material. Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources.

2. If editor unreverts. Revert again, notifying the author.

3. Problems continue. Attempt to engage new editor in dialogue. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate.

4. Talk page discussion fails to resolve. Request a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or other impartial dispute resolution.

5. Editor ignores consensus. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate.

The way I see it, Equazcion had been through stages 1-3 with Gwernol and Lar, taking up inordinate amounts of their valuable time with wiki-lawyering and argument. I could see no benefit in Equazcion's proposal to make a WP:POINT about how silly the category was by displaying it even though it was misleading, and after two people had explained to him nicely that it wasn't ok. I came in at point 4 as the "impartial dispute resolution"; although I know Gwernol and Lar well I would not have suppoted their actions if I did not agree with them. I did agree with them and so I warned the user again, then issued a temporary block, as per 5. This isn't about the category (which I have my own qualms about), or about the user's previous good edits. It is about somebody thinking they were right, getting into a textbook WP:POINT violation, getting a final warning and then a short block. I stand by what I did. I am mystified by your apparent mystification about the content and spirit of the guideline, HiDrNick. --John (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about a category that displays an emblem modeled after that of a terrorist organization; I think the content of page indicates that we are confident people will understand it's a joke. Why is it a joke when all the member admins misrepresent themselves, but not a joke when an ordinary editor does it? In my view you were engaged in a (silly) content dispute and the block was problematic. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lar and Gwernol and John weren't forced to take up any of their time, they chose to use their valuable time bickering over a silly usercat - someone mentions above another non-admin who added themself to the cat and an admin just ignored it after a couple of reverts. Why not do the same in this case? I'll say it again - with such a silly category I think that blocking in this case was pointy. If the category IS a joke, then it don't matter a damn who is in it. If it AIN'T a joke - then it is blatantly divisive and disruptive. Some admins seem to me to want to have it both ways (it's a joke so keep it but it's serious so don't "misuse it") - and that is guaranteed to cause the drama and stress and wasted time that one would have hoped admins would be working to reduce. I have on the category's talk page proposed removing it from the admin cat tree in order to reduce confusion, but I don't have any realistic expectation of any sensible discussion there, as the cat seems to attract an excessive amount of stupidity and belligerence. Blocked for wrongful use of a joke on a userpage? Does anyone seriously imagine that a block like that is in any way helpful to the Wikipedia? DuncanHill (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse duncan's statement here. madness. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could everyone live happily if the category were renamed "Rouge editors" (and merged with the category recently created under that name) so that everyone can be in on the joke on the same terms? --Reuben (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There IS a rouge editors cat. Viridae^Talk 05:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Christopher, I find it ironic and a little off-colour that you consider the fact that it uses "an emblem modeled after that of a terrorist organization" to be a mitigating factor here. To answer your question, it is a silly joke when admins do it, but when non-admins do it it is a silly joke that could cause misunderstandings, as the category contains the word "admin", and the category itself describes the members as "admins". As there is no prospect of any intention to improve the project, I have to look at the equation: Net potential gains = 0, net potential losses = small but positive, potential for disruption and time-wasting = high, and think, as the two admins before me did, warn, discuss, explain, then block.

Duncan, on a political and philosophical level I agree with much of what you say. As I said, WP:POINT is there for a reason though. Whether we agree or disagree with the political stance he was taking, this is not the best way to achieve the deletion of a user category one has qualms about. At least I hope not.

Viridae, that is a good idea. I think I would support the merging of the two, or indeed the deletion of both. It all gives me a most unfortunate flashback to the great user box wars of a couple of years ago. Let's not go there; we all have better things to do than fight over silly categories.

I thank everybody for the most interesting and thought-provoking feedback on my actions in warning and then blocking an editor who was edit-warring over adding a category which falsely implied he was an admin. --John (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I strongly propose that all non-admins that are reading this also add themselves to Category:Rouge admins until Equazcion is unblocked. The blocking admin might have a point had this not been a joke category in the first place, but since it's supposed to be for humor, that makes this all the more absurd. I supported keeping this category the last time it was at CfD, but it this nonsense continues then it will be clear the category is not being used for humor, and needs to go back to CfD. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

...and this is a fucking brilliant way of resolving this issue? — Dark ^(talk) 06:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It can also a clear violation of WP:POINTBalloonman (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

John blocking an established user over a joke category is a violation of WP:POINT. What I'm doing is a mockery to prove a point. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what an astonishingly bad idea. Bravo! Captain Infinity (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I just add...

... that this entire ordeal is retarded? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX

Am I mistaken, or is this big huge freakin' purple box on Category:Rouge admins? -- Ned Scott 07:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose.

And I would really like to emphasize "It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose." -- Ned Scott 07:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We need one that says "no serious purpose unless the cabal disagrees." dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to extend a cordial invitation to everyone to join Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD

This is why we can't have nice things. Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Rouge admins. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah, really? Come on. GlassCobra 08:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it will get deleted, it's just a way to formalize the discussion on it and develop some consensus on the issue. Outside of this issue, I have no problem with the category. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it won't get deleted. There are too many admins around who think blocking non-admins from adding themselves to a joke category is just fine and will come out of the woodwork to protect their little useless joke. --Kbdank71 14:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominating something for deletion when you doubt it will get deleted (and in your nom you say you're not in favour of it getting deleted, or do you? maybe "most of us" doesn't include you? can't tell) strikes me as process wankery (not even wonkery, I said wankery and I meant it) of the highest degree. This whole episode might not have happened if I hadn't noticed Equazcion saying "Can someone nominate this category? I would do it myself but it would only be to make a point. If someone who actually feels it should be deleted could please nominate it, I think the resulting discussion would be extremely interesting. Thanks!" (Let's see, if doing something yourself is known to be "making a point", isn't inciting someone else to do it pretty much the same thing???) at Wikipedia_talk:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Rouge_admins... that struck me as a bit like someone trying to troll or stir up trouble, so when I read further and saw "some idiot neglected to post the oldcfd notices at the top of the cat talk page. Damn it to puss-spewing hell!" from him as well, (my that was very polite phrasing, wasn't it?, not exactly what I expect from a user "in good standing" who is in tune with our norms) I spoke up, realised he'd added himself when he shouldn't have, and downhill we went from there. So, oops. I still think the block is justified though, This user may have good contributions but is also apparently somewhat disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The disruption has come from admins who havent read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. "Damn it to puss-spewing hell" was a joke, in a thread about a joke category. It was linked to an article about a well-known televisual comedy which is notable for including jokes. Please, everyone, read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX and if you still have any questions, let's see if joke is blue? DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, Lar, it said "Categories for discussion". I did not read Equazcion's message asking someone to nominate it, and I did so at my own conclusion. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Epilogue

Sorry to make a post-archive statement, but my block just expired and I just wanted to express a final thought.

I'm utterly amazed at just how many kilobytes (149) have been used since this issue arose, between the discussion on this page, my talk page, and the uCFD. Whether you agree or disagree with the existence of the category or the impositions of a block, ask yourself this: Should a single user adding himself to a single category really have caused all this? Should all of this have come out of that one little act? Is it that easy to shake this system? Was the response truly proportional and warranted? Or could the time and effort have perhaps been better spent elsewhere? I'm not trying to tell you that I'm right for doing what I did -- but suppose it wasn't me. Suppose some jackass somewhere decided to push a button he knows will touch a critical admin nerve, just for kicks, just to waste our time. Look how easy that was for "him" to accomplish, to send everyone into a crazed brewhaha. Now whose fault is that, really? Are you really going to blame one individual and his original action for all this?

In the interest of writing an encyclopedia, given the choice of either allowing users to exist in a humorous category you don't think they "belong" in, vs. having all of this occur, what should we choose? Equazcion •✗/C • 01:50, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I think this statement says it all — "the reason it matters is because people do occasionally have to find administrators, and they might even decide to through a joke category. If the person they find is not actually an admin, that's a problem." The "problem" which might have been caused by this joke is both extremely unlikely and with extremely harmless consequences. The time and effort spent "fixing" a problem which was both highly unlikely and had virtually no expected harm indicates that this was less about the issues involved and more about the status of admins on Wikipedia. To put it simply, this once again demonstrates that, no, they're not just "janitors" and there's a very real social stratification emerging (if not already in place) between admins and regular editors. I don't know how I feel about being an admin anymore, given what this discussion demonstrated is the status quo here. --Haemo (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "we'll block an editor because someone might at some point in the future think that editor is an admin, *and* that editor won't, at that point, tell the truth about not being an admin". Dan Beale-Cocks 12:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tigereye1240

The user DJIRREMIXES has recently been blocked under WP:U. Compare contributions of this user (deleted) and Tigereye1240 (deleted) and the symmetry is almost uncanny... Could an admin please investigate and consider blocking the master account? Since there is only one child account which is already indef-blocked, this is probably an ANI case rather than SSP. haz (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. Presumably DJIRREMIXES was blocked for a Username? That isn't explained on the block explanation. And tigereye1240 is not blocked at all, so Haza-w's "sockpuppeteer" template on tigereye's User page was inappropriate. If DJIRREMIXES was blocked for username, that doesn't mean that he can't use another Username, it just means he shouldn't use one that violates the Username policy. Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The account DJIRREMIXES was created after Tigereye1240 was given a final warning for disruptive editing and recreation of deleted pages, both of which DJIRREMIXES proceeded to do. haz (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper and WP:LEAD

Over the last month, Wolfkeeper has been making a number of edits to the WP:LEAD guideline and has been engaging in extensive discussions on the article talk page. These contributions have led several editors to question whether Wolfkeeper's contributions are an AN/I issue, and have left many other editors simply perplexed about what Wolfkeeper is trying to achieve. The latest comments by Wolfkeeper at WT:LEAD suggest the kind of paranoia that WP:CABAL attempts to discourage, in its own light-hearted way. This made me wonder whether Wolfkeeper might be trying an experiment. So, assuming good faith, I asked him, as politely as I possibly could. My question was unanswered, and when I pressed the point, my contributions to his talk page were removed. Twice. The most recent diff is here, which rather confirms my concern.

I've only been very mildly involved in the WT:LEAD discussions myself, but I've been involved enough that I don't feel it appropriate to take action myself, so comments from uninvolved editors would be most welcome! Geometry guy 23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted your rather creepy edit to my talk page; and it confirms nothing whatsoever.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin who just took a look over there, I think a neutral admin or two should go take a look and maybe try to reign things in a bit. Wolfkeeper seems to be bordering on edit warring over the guideline and is claiming consensus for all of his edits, when the number of other editors arguing with him would seem to say otherwise. While normally content arguments would go elsewhere, as WP:LEAD is a style guide that is heavily used, and the following of that guideline can make or break FAs, GAs, and FLs, it is important that it not be casually or arbitrarily changed.Collectonian (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone should give him a courtesy notice that he is being discussed here. I would but I'm a recent target of his accusations of caballing, for which I gave him an AGF and CIVILITY warning on the guideline talk page. I agree that this could be a problem in the making...but then again it might not blossom into a full-fledged problem. Wikidemo (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I've left him a courtesy notice. Collectonian (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice, I just spotted this, without being notified. I utterly resent the contention that I am edit warring, on the contrary the admins involved here are warring; they are simply reverting every single edit. There is a discrepancy between the Polices in WP:NOT and this guideline, and whenever I point this out, the admins 'don't understand'. I'm sorry, but I'm not that smart, and they're not dumb. I have been unbelievably reasonable and civil, over a long period to an absolute fault. I cannot say the same about some of the people I am discussing this with. It's also bizarre that the admins editing the WP:LEAD claim not to be aware of the policies involved; I checked and the policies involved have almost complete consensus going back 6 years. My point about consensus is that policy consensus trumps guideline consensus every single time; particularly such old, old policy.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The word 'define' where it applies to the subject of an article has been systematically removed from the guideline (except one place where they talk about uncommon terms, which is quite different), and yet policy talks very clearly about defining the subject, and diferentiating it from other subjects. etc. etc. (see WP:NOT). Is it completely unreasonable for me to expect that a guideline should, at the very least, point out the applicable policy to the editors?? Because all my edits that make this or similar points have been systematically removed.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If the WP:NOT/WP:LEAD question were an isolated incident, I would not be raising the issue here: that discussion belongs at WT:LEAD. However, Wolfkeeper has repeatedly tried to make non-consensus changes to WP:LEAD, and discussing the matter with him has been, for many editors, frustrating to say the least. He seems not to want to give direct answers to direct questions, to believe that it should be obvious that he is right and that there is some sort of conspiricy against him. This attitude is indicated, for instance, in him finding my straightforward question "creepy". It was nothing of the sort. If Wolfkeeper's edits are partly aimed at making a point, then he will not be the first person to do this, or the last. I'm assuming he is not, but the evidence suggests otherwise, and I, for one, would like to know. Geometry guy 08:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All the changes I have made have been in good faith, with no intent to disrupt, have not violated any of the rules or guidelines of the wikipedia, and are in accordance with consensus policy. None of my edits meet the definition of disruption as laid out in WP:POINT, nor would I do so. I continue to find geometry guy creepy ("so sue"), but I absolutely do not believe there to be a conspiracy against me.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Paaerduag

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

Resolved

 – The Elfoid has accepted Paaerduag's apology; Paaerduag has been warned. Sarah 09:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has been rude towards me repeatedly, constantly. The issue is that Paeerduag is a self-confessed Michael Jackson fan. To quote his user page "My most important mission on Wikipedia is to cleanse the Michael Jackson article of all the rubbish spread by the media and tabloids, and to return it to a fair and neutral state, uninfluenced by any lies."

I found issue with a number of pages he had created/edited within the Michael Jackson WikiProject. Largely my edits have been approved by the project's other main contributor, User: Realist2. Other people have also approved these in general, and only Paeerduag insists on reverting them. Because he/she perceives my edits as personal, which they are not.

I don't like being insulted. I don't like people swearing at me. So far, I have yet to do either. I repeatedly say "doing that is not allowed, I operate within the confines of the rules, you have to as well or I will report you". It has only aggravated the situation. Such things can be found spread out accross a variety of pages.

Here's a few examples:

From the edit history of Just Good Friends (song), here is an explanation of an edit "elfoid is engaging in vandalism - he has reached NO FUCKING CONCENSUS and yet he removes pages as if he alone can make that call - reach concensus you asshole)". That's for turning a page into a redirect, since it was a non-notable article which was tagged for notability, lack of sites and a stub. Realist2 agreed with me it was a fair edit, and the merge tag (since some information was moved) was kept up for about 2 weeks before I did it (within this time someone else approved my suggestion).

Another one, on (Speed Demon (song) - "no consensus reached - elfoid, you do not operate above consensus. what the heck is your problem". I didn't think it needed consensus...I kept the merge tag up for a while and no one commented. I felt that made it fair. What else did I have to do, post on talk pages for everyone I knew?

"I refuse to allow you to turn this into some sort of source-scrounging marathon - I don't care what some obese white piece of shit says about the Ultimate Collection this is about the SONG not sources"

That was part of a debate about the deletion of an article. Insulting the overweight, and the white. My mother is very overweight and I am white.

I put an article up for deletion that I felt was fair. Here was the edit summary for why he removed it "so this is what you've been reduced to, randomly putting articles I made up for deletion? I will not let this happen without a fight". Hardly justified. That was We Are Here to Change the World‎.

"FUCK YOU seriously - all you want to do is revert all my edits because you have some problem. I don't really give a fuck, because this should be in a separate section", "no offence, but sometimes your sentences are just painful to read". - Thriller 25.

Another Thriller 25 thing....I called Michael Jackson "significantly older" for being 49, compared to people in their early 30s he collaborated with. I was responded to with "drop the anti-MJ stance RIGHT NOW. I will not let you pollute this article with hater-filled lies and disgusting rubbish. if you think 50 is 'significantly' old, you have problems"

From my userpage:

"Is it your hatred of MJ that makes you want to know every single editing update on all pages related to him, just so you can scan them to make sure that they aren't too positive towards MJ? Why do you edit MJ pages? I mean, normally on wiki (well, in my experience anyway), people edit articles on subjects which they have a passion for. So, I ask again, why do you edit MJ pages?"

Showcasing a biased POV, something else that isn't allowed.

I tried to explain problems with his edits and justifications for my own to him. I got these in his responses "I'm not going to bother to read what you posted on my talk page." "There's one rule I like to follow, and it's called IGNORING ALL THE RULES. and I do it because I try to make wikipedia a better place", "seriously, I'm not going to read your propaganda"

Here's the one that really hurt. The most recent. "don't you dare threaten and harass me, as if you are somehow superior and can 'report' me whenever you want. YOU HAVE CONSTANTLY UNDONE, TRIED TO REMOVE AND GENERALLY RESISTED MY EDITS. All you did on Thriller 25 is continually change things I did. You work without concensus, and you think you're above the law. You personally attack me, even though you are in the wrong. I HATE WHAT YOU ARE DOING, and how you treat me. It is disgusting. I will NOT cooperate with an autocrat such as yourself, you despicable person"

When I made that edit to Thriller 25, I didn't even look at the edit history...I just edited it. I hadn't touched it in a while so knew there'd be too many changes to check up on and just got to work. And I got this abuse in response. Sometimes, like AFDing a page he made, I knew I'd get an argument. But I didn't think I'd be in trouble for that.

And on User: Realist2's talk page, I found this: "people like elfoid are the reason I stopped going on wikipedia for a while. he personally attacked me, and then turned it around and said I was attacking him. It is really horrible and mean."

I've noticed he's reverted edits on other pages, like HIStory World Tour offensively. Someone changed the figure for the tour attendance. Maybe they read a different figure? Well in his edit summary, he justified the revert as "hater lies". His POV is an issue everywhere. He sees everything Jackson does as notable.

1984 in music he put in this: "Michael Jackson's scalp is burnt during the filming of a Pepsi commercial and he remains calm. Around this time, Jackson also releases the final single from his monstrous Thriller album "Thriller". At the time, the music video is considered to be the greatest ever created."

No sources either. And who would care if he "remained calm"?

His userpage claims he has "entirely written" pages I know myself and my friends have worked on.

This guy's verbally abused me. Insulted me. Sworn at me. He's shown something that is borderline racist and insulted overweight people. He's falsely claiming to have written entire articles. He's reverting my edits and basically using "fuck off you evil michael jackson hater" as an excuse. He's gotten un-necessarily offensive in reverts of other people's edits. He publicly admits to and showcases repeated over-POV problems. He's accusing me of personal assaults with nothing to explain it. He's tried to plead to Realist2 about what a horrible person I am, which I did not need. He's made frequent poor edits because he sees too many things as notable, then gets angry when I pick up on it. He's got in arguments with other users frequently (e.g. User talk:Remisser) but it's hard to track since he deletes anything he doesn't like from his usertalk (which isn't a crime, but makes the scale of his troubles hard to track).

Please, someone deal with this. I'm upset, hurt and angry. I'm being treated unfairly by someone who I've repeatedly been trying to deal with. When I say he's breaking rules I get told "I don't use rules". When I say I'll report him, I get "don't you dare threaten me". How can I deal with someone who says that, then when I reason with them, tells me to fuck off? I'm aware this edit could anger him and make the argument worse. But I'm not concerned...since I doubt the situation could get worse anyway. Please help me...I'm losing the will to live over this. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

EDIT: I'm aware this is a huge thing for what should be a summarising edit. But it's spread accross my talk page, Realist2's talk page, Thriller 25's edit summaries, and about 5 other pages' edit summaries and other pages. I'm hoping putting it together makes it easier. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

yikes, i really didnt want it to come to this!, how terribly unfortunate, some of the alligations made here are quite serious particularly the alleged "racial" comment. I think there needs to be a link to that edit. Realist2 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm aware of behavioural problems with this user and have blocked him for his incivility and abuse in the past myself. However, please see the note at the top of the page: "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." I think you need to condense this report to only things that admins can take action on and you need to provide diffs. For example, things like him taking credit for articles you helped write aren't something we can do anything about on this board. The ANI noticeboard is for reporting incidents that require administrative intervention. If you can't provide a concise report which shows breaches of policy with diffs supporting your claims it is unlikely (m)any admins will bother reviewing this because they're just too busy. Pasting in the quotes isn't good enough without diffs as we need to be able to look at the evidence ourselves. I think your article content related complaints require some form of dispute resolution but the personal attacks are absolutely unacceptable and Paaerduag knows this and has previously been blocked before for his rampant incivility. Also, you might pursue mediation or a third opinion for your article content disputes. Sarah 02:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr - say it concisely and you will get more response. Viridae^Talk 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I don't even think I CAN say anything... after I read Sarah's post on my talk page, I feel sick and ashamed looking back at things I've said to you, elfoid. Right now, this may sound corny, or ungenuine, but it was not YOU specifically with whom I was so angry. I get so caught up in issues all the time, but in real life I state my opinion calmly and rationally. On the internet, however, I... I'm scared of what I've said. I'm scared of the things I said. I can't believe I said those things. I just get so frustrated with the "haters" (those people who insult MJ) because it happens all the time, and because on the internet especially (especially youtube) these people always badger the fans posting videos and stuff. I shouldn't have brought those prejudices to wikipedia, but I get so fired up and angry that I interpret people as 'haters' sometimes. Like, when you started redirecting my pages without consulting me, I took that to mean that you were deleting them to reduce the number of MJ pages on wikipedia, or just to get back at a fan. I was upset and angry, because I thought there was no concensus, but obviously realist2 was there as well. when I said things like "obese white piece of shit", that was really directed at tom sneddon... to me he epitomizes a 'hater', and whenever I perceive someone to be attacking MJ I think of him. I was so fired up about the page removal, I said a lot of horrible, disgusting, unforgivable things. I don't even know you personally elfoid. these comments... they are about a stereotype of person that I assumed you to be. when I'm not in the heat of the issues, like now, I look back and say "how could I have said/done that..." and right now I don't even know if I would be able to show my face on wikipedia because I'm so ashamed and scared of what I've done. I get fired up about things, like that thing awhile ago, which you know about Sarah, and in that instance, it was because I perceived people to be covering up the truth, and that made me furious. Looking back, I realize that the school itself was not responsible, only one individual, and what I did then was INEXCUSABLE, and yet... you excused it. at the time, I felt it was a 'victory' for justice. now I realize it was little more than a waste of my life. and this page redirection thing... I guess I just expected a note on my talk page telling me it was going to happen. also, I perceived that elfoid was editing the Thriller 25 article without regard for anyone else, as often you simply reverted changes I made without explanation, and that also added to my 'idea' that you were somehow a 'hater', and also an uncooperative editor. now I realize that perhaps that was just how you got things done, but after the Thriller 25 incident, I stayed of wiki for a good while to cool down. I returned briefly, and that was about the page redirection thing, before cooling it again for an extended period. Now I returned, and there was another spat about page redirection, and I felt as though elfoid was targetting pages I had made, because all the MJ song pages I made were disappearing. I got angry, but DID NOT say things like what I had said around the Thriller 25 incident. But still, I should not have got caught up in it. Sarah, I'm sure you're seeing a pattern. When I get deeply involved in an article or general subject, I get too involved and start to interpret other editors as supporting whatever I'm trying to oppose, even if they're approaching the obstacle from a totally new direction. if you're thinking that this is all made up (which you are definately entitled to think), let me tell you that right now I am feeling guilty and sick to the stomach at what I have said. I cannot believe what I have done. this is not who I am in reality, it is that real person who I should be bringing to wikipedia. elfoid, I'm so sorry. In my lunatic, random attacks, I forgot that I was dealing with a HUMAN BEING, not a random computer entity. I'm so, so sorry for what I have said. even if I do get blocked, please - please forgive me. I'm sure you are a good person even though I don't know you personally, you are just trying to help on here. You deserved better. Just please accept my apology. I didn't mean to offend you or your family, and to have done so just reflects what sort of person I am. I am so sorry. I am disgusted at myself... you're not a bad person, I am. --Paaerduag (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If we could cut the drama at this point and get a simple undertaking from you that you will not use offensive edit summaries or engage in the sort of behaviour that you have prior to this report, I'd be happy to see this matter gone. We all make mistakes. It's how we learn from them that matters. Note that this board will not show such tolerance of any further instances of this sort of behaviour again - it's a one-off. If it helps, a quote from the master himself: "Let us dream of tomorrow where we can truly love from the soul, and know love as the ultimate truth at the heart of all creation." Orderinchaos 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to make stuff more concise. It's something I find hard, and I thought it was appropriate since the issue was far from focussed on a couple of specific pages. Paaerduag, if you can cool it, fine. But I only forgive people once. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

You have my word. I should have controlled myself better, and vow to in the future. Elfoid, I'm sorry about what I said, and hope we can put it behind us and work collaboratively in the future.--Paaerduag (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection request for Brian_A._Scott

I need semi-protection for en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_A._Scott -- there is now no longer a references dispute I have added proper references and believe these references to be true to the best of my ability. An anonymous user or someone with a registered account less than four days old willfully removed content without explanation or justifiable cause.

Winlundn (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, your references aren't proper. Secondly, I don't actually see anything in the history of that page to suggest semi-protection is required. Anons haven't even edited it in over a week. And if there was a dispute over sourcing, protection is not used to win a dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP ? —αlεx•mullεr 01:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please request protection at WP:Requests for page protection, not here. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

continual lack of good faith and WP:OWN displayed by one editor

I wish to report the behaviour of user User:Mathsci who continually has tried to discourage me from contributing and editing articles on French localities in a significant display of WP:OWN and particularly WP:OWN#EVENTS. This first started with accusations of being lazy and unconstructive [61] and being disruptive and having no "special knowledge of French or France" [62] and [63] then reverted a legitimate edit of mine [64] which I believe this was solely done as I did that edit. This developed into a personal attack as shown in the edit summary of [65] and still displaying WP:OWN in [66]. And then accused me of "not aiding the WP project" today at [67] At no point has this editor assumed good faith about my edits. I have tried to reason and warn about lacking good faith on numerous occasions to no avail [68], [69], and given warnings [70], [71]. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have hardly edited recently [72] because I am busy giving a graduate course/preparing a book. I did buy an 800 page book on the history of Marseille (in French) on a recent brief trip back to France: I have used this a little to check historical details mentioned by other editors on the page of Marseille and have suggested using it as the source for a detailed article on the chronology of Marseille (a similar article already exists on the French WP). Michellecrisp appears to have followed me to Aix-en-Provence. I own neither of these pages but have them on my watchlist. Much local information (eg detailed local history) on both these places is only available in French. If dates are added which contradict the chronology in an authoritative and encyclopedic history they will be corrected using the reliable source. Michellecrisp seems to have gone on a tagging spree on information added mostly by other editors long ago and has not tried to source the information on her own (such as population estimates from INSEE). Often sourcing information is not hard to do with a knowledge of French: the official information is often only available in French. I have no idea why she has brought this to WP:AN/I. Her choice of the word "continual" is odd considering my recent wikibreak. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My original comments stand. I am not questioning Mathsci's knowledge of French topics. but the violation of principles of assuming good faith and clear WP:OWN (I have given seven examples above of this which has occured over the past month) which has regrettably developed to personal attacks. It is against Wikipedia principles to discredit or put down other editors for lacking knowledge. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your content dispute does not represent what happened on the actual pages, where you added faulty information (mistaking a TGV station for an SNCF station, quizzing the climate of Aix, dismissing the ancient monuments of Marseille, getting dates wrong). I have no idea why, without adding any significant content to either of these pages but merely tagging indiscriminately, you have seen fit to bring your grievances to WP:AN/I. You have not made any very clear arguments on the talk pages and most of your taggings that I have had time to look at are easy to justify. They mostly concern long standing additions by other editors. If you tag without discussion and add faulty information, is it not to be expected that somebody with access to detailed information will check the information and add sources? That does not constitute ownership of an article: it merely means that sources are being provided. Data from dubious websites that contradict acknowledged encyclopedic history books will be corrected in this process. This "dispute", of your own making, should never have been brought here. Your tagging was provocative: you seem now to be objecting when proper sources have been added to justify material of long standing by other editors. That seems unreasonable on your part. It seem odd that you have been tagging with no intention of checking the information for yourself, which cannot be so hard, even in Australia. I think you have misrepresented the recent editing history: you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Mathsci (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute but an issue of user behaviour. My issues is here are your comments that you have directed to me that violate assume good faith and WP:OWN#EVENTS. ownership of article includes trying to discourage others from editing not necessarily "owning" in the literal sense. Please let this be reviewed by an administrator.Adding faulty information such as the SNCF edit was done in good faith. I have never deliberately added faulty information. Feel free to check the history of Marseille or Aix-en-Provence where I have found some references and tried to improve wording. I have brought this grievance here because after repeated warning you fail to assume good faith and have developed into personal attacks, and a deliberate campaign to dissuade me from editing articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"a deliberate campaign to dissuade me from editing articles"? On the contrary you have chosen a very public place to misrepresent my WP edits. Bonne nuit. Mathsci (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very clearly a content dispute. Please take follow the policy Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in resolving this issue. Your dispute does not belong here. If necessary, please request mediation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify how this is a content dispute? I am reporting the issue of user behaviour, specifically WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS as evidenced in my diffs in the original post. This is not related to specific content. I am not disputing the content of any article mentioned, I am disputing the validity of editors asking other editors not to contribute to certain articles. One of the things Mathsci is questioning is my right to tag articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed "content". You still need to work through dispute resolution to get this taken care of. That's what it's for. So far, I don't see anything that specifically needs an administrator to do anything. Any user can warn another for violating policy or guidelines. You are having a dispute with Mathsci, and the steps on WP:DR are there to help you work through the dispute. Please take advantage of that information and the steps found there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have said that I am on a wikibreak because I am otherwise occupied in real life. Michellecrisp is needlessly wikilawyering here because I have added "of note" after the word "fountains" in Aix-en-Provence to describe two particular fountains, picked out in the cited Guide Michelin for Provence. From her contributions here and on my talk page, she is simply trolling to make a highly ill-conceived point that appears at the bottom her user page. She is being highly disruptive. The presence of this inappropriate report suggests that she is set on harrassing me and does not properly understand how WP works. I unfortunately have no time at present to engage in interactions with Michellecrisp unrelated to actual content in WP articles. Thank goodness she has stayed away from mathematics articles. :) Mathsci (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Michellecrisp has added fresh citation tags to Marseille. She has inspired me to prepare a WP article on Pierre Corneille's play Médée when I return to France. Can someone please award her a barnstar? Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone note the continual lack of good faith displayed by Mathsci towards me and less than subtle personal criticism in their above comments? Could an administrator please read my original post? I have attempted to warn the user in question of potential WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS violations and only came here because the user persisted with this behaviour to this point with no cessation as shown in the rather rude edit summary here [73]. I have made several warnings which I stepped up to higher levels (the next level being reporting here) but this behaviour towards me continued (as shown in the seven comments I have provided in diffs above). I would like to continue editing or tagging article I see fit without being rudely discouraged each time I edit an article. With the exception of Masalai I have never experienced this in the 20 months I've been on Wikipedia. An example as shown in my original post was Mathsci reverting one of my edits simply because it was me, I changed some text to conform to policy WP:LAYOUT and removed non-relevant links . [74] This is not a content conflict but one based on one editor disliking me editing French geography articles. Where is the evidence of my disruptive behaviour? Tagging is not disruptive but as per WP:CITE and WP:PROVEIT Michellecrisp (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

civility problems and copyright violations and exposed a person's real name

[75][76][77][78][79][80] EBDCM is a newbie but is making uncivil remarks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#copyright_violation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Safety_issues The safety issues section has a text dump of copyrighted information.[81]

I fixed the text to reference it properly. You could have done this for him, too, QG. WP:AGF, okay. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not okay.[82] That is a copy from the website. Please explain how is it okay. QuackGuru (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you telling me about WP:AGF when I was attacked and spotted copyright violations? QuackGuru (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look here.[83] EBDCM has put a link on the talk page claiming he knows who I am and by clicking on the link at the website exposes a real person's name.

Regards, --QuackGuru (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A brief look at the edit history of chiropractic and the talkpage will show I have also been the subject of abuse from EBDCM. I have pleaded with him and other editors have advised him to desist. He has not done so. Mccready (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:EBDCM is a newbie, and you guys are very experienced. Perhaps if you wouldn't WP:Bite he wouldn't have to be so defensive. I've been trying to work with him because he seems to have some knowledge and good writing style. Give him a chance. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Dematt: User:EBDCM has a good writing style. Copyright violations and deleting well sourced information is not a good writing.[84] QuackGuru (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have erred on the side of giving EBDCM some slack by virtue of being new and entering a war zone early in his/her Wikipedia career. His approach is far too combative, but there is a real learning curve - I was much more combative (believe it or not) when I started out. I have a lot of confidence in Dematt, so hopefully EBDCM can be directed toward the light side. The above sort of confrontational and combative behavior from EBDCM is inappropriate; let's note that, and give him a chance to improve. If there's no progress, then we can revisit the issue. MastCell ^Talk 04:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides, we all know who really is Stephen Barrett now, don't we :-) Shot info (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has dealt with copyright violations before, I would say they are a really serious issue and it is imperitive that editors understand this and don't introduce them. When they are noticed like they were in this case, they can be dealt with easily but when you only notice them several months or years later, it is very annoying having to delete large chunks of an article, which has often been worked on quite a bit, because it was a copyvio. If EBDCM doesn't understand copyvio issues, I suggest he/she get a polite but firm explaination ASAP. Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors and issues related to 1948_Palestinian_exodus

Resolved

 – Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that certain editors with admin rights are trying to block off cleaning up a seriously racist article by blocking those they disagree with. This happened most recently to an editor 1948Remembered whose posts on the talk page remain unanswered and one Riana has just threatened me as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.98.149 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins, please look into 76.30.98.149's racist comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus#Real_funny, I fail to see how it is acceptable to use temrs like "jew hating" as valid arguements. --FreeThoughts (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This Riana has now abused her powers to edit the article after one Krimpet had protected it. This is clear racism and abuse on her part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.98.149 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008

Perhaps you could be better served by discussing your concerns on the talk page of the article itself? I don't even see what's "racist" about the article. Your edits probably appear to be vandalism to other editors. Discussing your concerns on the talk page without getting too aggressive would help out a lot. --clpo13_(talk) 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because they have an odd definition of racism. --Haemo (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Protection by Krimpet and reversion by Riana occurred in the same minute of the day. The most likely explanation is that the page was not protected when Riana began her edit. I don't know how popups work, but generally speaking protection warnings are displayed when an edit screen is loaded to begin the edit, not when an edit is saved. Looking in more detail, add me to the list of people that consider the IP edit being reverted as an edit not intended to improve the encyclopedia. GRBerry 04:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected, not fully-protected. There is nothing wrong with someone semi-protecting the article at the same time another editor -- admin or otherwise -- is reverting vandalism. -- tariqabjotu 06:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to see here folks, it's just a returning disruptive user, 1948remembered (talk · contribs), who's been trolling around on IRC too. krimpet✽ 04:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... This looks fishy. Riana responsible for the 1st indefinite block (1948remembered), Krimpet for the IP, and Krimpet even blocks what looks to be a DHCP IP address on indef? I'm not through looking at the edits but the article is tagged as under dispute, yet Riana not only has blocked an editor but then edits without once editing on the talk page to say why she's doing something. Whether it's legit or not it's enough to look suspicious and could easily give some people the wrong impression about Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.206.74 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hey, you're right, it is a dynamic IP. ;) krimpet✽ 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah dude, because I need to discuss my removal of the words 'failure to wipe out the state of Israel'. Put a WP:SOCK in it. ~ Riana ⁂ 08:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also a newish user. I thought that any removal should be explained - any change should be explained. Arbitrary removal of content without an explanation on the basis of "Uh, yeah dude"..."Put a sock on it" is not likely to encourage people to put efforts into editing or contributing. It should be harder to destroy than to build and anything taken out should be justified. That way, whoever made the original can learn from errors if they made any. Mewnews (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that a new user No Oven For Me (talk · contribs) might be the same as the previously banned user 1948remembered. It only occurred to me after I saw this comment [85] (which I brought to the attention of Krimpet and Riana) and then read this thread. In any case, so far, their edits have consisted of a couple of bad faith accusations. But it might make sense to keep an eye out given the tendency towards disruption (if indeed it is the same user) in the past. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: account created immediately after 1948remembered (talk · contribs) was blocked? Check. Picking up right where that disruptive user left off with more of the same trolling? Check. I've blocked No Oven For Me (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, based on the duck test. If there were any evidence of constructive intent that might have served as a mitigating factor, but there isn't. Comments and feedback on the block welcome. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair call of the duck test in my opinion.--VS ^talk 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe this fails WP:BITE. The user has been here several days without an article space edit, obviously trying in WP:AGF to learn the system and make good edits. They have asked for assistance with a group they assume to be friendly, which I do not consider out of line. They have caused no disruption and have received notification of the Arbcom case regarding Israel/Palestine editing, and were given no chance to respond to this before being indefinitely blocked. As I noted in the Mantanmoreland discussion below (now moved to its own page), wikipedia has a large problem of admins who fail to heed WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:CIVIL in their behavior. This causes more harm than good, and drives away potential and actual solid editors.

How can we say Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit when someone who comes in good faith and attempts to seek help and learn the system is instead turned away with a backhanded, insulting slap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.146.249 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of this user's edits, and weigh your opinion in light of very similar edits made from your IP to the same target article (e.g. [86], [87], etc). I also note that you have spammed at least 5 other admins and the WikiProject about this block. Anyone else? MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it "spamming" to inform others of a situation. You were next on the list as I was working on the notification template, but I see you arrived here first and I apologize for not being quicker to type it out. As for disagreement of the user's edits, I'll reiterate my key points: #1, that they asked for help in learning to edit, and #2, that they had not made any edits at all to article space. Blocking is supposed to be used for making editors better and quelling disruption, not attacking people.

the ip above just canvassed my talk page. my quick opinion is ripened sock. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been notifying a lot of people (particularly those who agreed with me re: the situation of administrators who are too quick to use their buttons). VS has sent me a message and in respect to the wishes of those who disagree with this I will inform no-one else.

Interesting comment - I wonder what your thoughts are also on the commencement of his user page with this material - and do you have any comment on his user name of "No Oven For Me" - which in all likelihood fails username policy ?--VS ^talk 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the content of the user page: many things are allowed on user pages. Some people put their personal information, some artwork, some quotations, some to-do lists. Some list a myriad of political and social affiliations. Unless there is something seriously amiss, which I doubt, I don't see the issue.

As for the name: if you believe the person's name violates policy, the solution is to have them get a new name, not indefinitely block them claiming them to be a "sock" of someone else, is it not?

• The Duck test is legitimate in this instance IMHO. No Oven For Me can seek to be unblocked if he brings forth information that removes an admin's legitimate belief in his being a part of sock-puppetry. If he does then his username will be blocked and he will more than likely be required to get a new name. Finally Admins are volunteers also - and what you call as being too quick to use the buttons is in fact our attempt to protect Wikipedia. The fact is that there are countless attempts to remove the freedom of the encyclopedia by unscrupulous editors - and on that basis we do our best. More importantly our best comes with many chances of re-consideration as to any possibility of mistake that we make - for every editor - one of which I mention above (in relation to request for unblocking). If you sign up on with an account name - edit here for a year or so, throw your name in the hat to become an administrator, and are accepted by the community - you will quickly learn of the difficulty of the task. I personally would welcome you to take these three or four moves seriously. Let me know if you do so I can know to whom it is I am speaking. Best wishes--VS ^talk 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there was way too much speed on the trigger finger in blocking NoOven. Where is the policy that says a user has to disprove he is a sockpuppet? In any event, there was no disruption. The user page was tame in comparison to some I have seen on the pages of established users. As for the user name, I think it would require some discussion. It is not so clearly over the line. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. While this user did n fact turn out to be an abusive sock (confirmed by checkuser, as below), can I assume that this newfound willingness to assume the best possible intentions in everyone is going to carry over in your approach? MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I didn't talk about you. Why are you talking about me, including an implied personal attack? 6SJ7 (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what point of the "Duck Test" is valid. By the contrary, I think this sends the wrong message. Undoubtedly the message taught to this editor by the quick, insulting, indefinite block is not "how to be a good editor" or "how to edit in good faith" or "how to improve wikipedia" but instead, the message is (or will certainly be seen) as a confirmation of their fears: that what they saw as threats have come to pass, and that they (for reasons of race/religion/creed) are unwelcome on wikipedia. I don't doubt that this will be spread among their friends either.

You say that "our best comes with many chances of re-consideration as to any possibility of mistake that we make" - and yet in this case, you seem to offer up no hope of re-consideration. You will require that the user offer up "proof" of not being a sockpuppet; what proof can a new editor hope to have? They already have not caused any disruption, but were banned on word of suspicion from someone who seems to have some ideological opposition to them - and who left a message which they definitely took as a threat. All that requiring "proof" of them will do is make them all the more hostile and prove, at least in their mind, that wikipedia is home not to fair-minded individuals who will WP:AGF and give them a chance to contribute, but rather that they need to be looking over their shoulder all the time even if they do come back.

I'm sorry, but this is not the "free world of knowledge that is wikipedia" that you wrote me to evangelize - this is something I am truly disgusted to see. Rather than assume good faith of someone new, at the first insinuation (before they even edit a single article) that they are someone who someone of a diametrically opposed POV disagrees with, they are banned indefinitely? I see not good faith here, but a witch hunt in action, and it truly saddens me to see it. 129.7.146.249 (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that I'm the user referred to above by the anon IP "who seems to have some ideological opposition" to No Oven For Me (talk · contribs). The message I left on his talk page, "which they definitely took as a threat" is here, for those wishing to review the matter further. To be clear, I never suggested he be banned, only that admins keep an eye out, considering the similarities between his preoccupations and those of 1948remembered (talk · contribs). Thanks. Tiamut^talk 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I spoke to a checkuser who confirmed my deduction that No Oven For Me (talk · contribs) is a sock of 1948remembered (talk · contribs). While the checkuser was not willing to comment officially on the IP's who have been driving this thread for privacy reasons, I was told to draw my own conclusions. My conclusion is that we can end this trollfest and move on. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vendetta account

Could someone perhaps take a look at this & try to sort it out? NHguardian appears to be a single purpose vendetta account directed at User:Jrclark & engaged in edit warring with that user across dozens of articles [88]; Related IP's of abuse also used include [89] and [90] for instance, among others. User also exposes the personal information of Jrclark on the talk pages of about ten articles such as this one [91].

As far as I can tell, NHguardian appears upset because s/he feels that Jrclark is making conflict of interest additions to external links sections in articles; although there may be some truth to this, I informed Nhguardian that his/her methods of dealing with Jrclark have been inappropriate. Does not seem inclined to talk things out. Nhguardian maintains that s/he will continue to edit war. This has been going on for some time now; it was dormant from December to February, but has erupted again. See also related dialog: Talk:Mount_Sugarloaf_State_Reservation. Thanks so much, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Update Both users were blocked today for edit warring, however, there are potentially serious issues of personal information posted to article talk pages and possible conflict of interest issues that still need attention. And users are beginning to sockpuppet.[92]. I've been trying to keep the peace, but much of this is beyond my ability level to deal with. Thanks,--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Berman, videos or BLP?

Over at the Chris Berman page, there's been a lot of activity lately. Several videos of Berman in embarrasing situations have popped up on YouTube and other places, leading to someone (usually anon IP editors) adding them to a new section on "Controversy."

I thought'd I'd ask for clarification on this, since it seems to be up against the line for WP:BLP. On the one hand, Berman is in the videos saying some pretty embarrasing things. However, none of the references discuss where any of the "controversy" is coming from, they're only links to the videos, sometimes with detail on the various questionable things Berman does in each one. There's no references to secondary sources detailing any controversy.

I've tried to start a discussion on the talk page, but no one seems to want to talk things over before rushing to add the videos and descriptions. Is this appropriate, or a violation of WP:BLP? Snowfire51 (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll hop by the talk page to offer some extended thoughts, but I imagine that one should be able to find references to secondary sources discussing the controversy; ESPN has, in fact, apparently, albeit in an e-mail, and one reproduced on a blog (a blog, though, that is prominent and, if not a reliable source for the underlying matters, a reliable source toward the prominence of the controversy), released a statement about the videos. Joe 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As hilarious as they are, we don't link to sites that violate others' copyrights (he took these photos as an ESPN employee - ESPN owns the copyrights) and Youtube isn't particularly verifiable. If mainstream (not blog) media is reporting on it, talk about it and link to the story, but I don't think we need to be linking to the youtube video. --B (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, WP:NPOV requires that any topic not be given undue weight in an article relevent to its importance to that topic in mainstream media. People do goofy shit all the time, and many of them get YouTube videos while doing it. I don't see ANYTHING here worth reporting AT ALL about these videos in the Chris Berman article. To put anything at all in the article would be providing undue weight to some silly vids with no real importance to the person or why he is notable in the first place. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I work in the business, and that kind of stuff is honestly commonplace. The only thing noteworthy about it is that it showed up on YouTube. Somebody cuts in front of my prompter, and I'd yell, too. Snowfire51 (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

When those YouTube videos become themselves prominent and the source of controversy reported/referenced non-trivially in prominent publications (certain blogish media are prominent publications, of course, especially where they are essentially reliable online news sources [e.g., Yahoo Sports], but I haven't really any idea about whether any of the various places the Berman videos have been discussed is such a publication), they might merit mention in the article; whether that is the case here is, as we see, a matter subject to some debate (and one about which I don't have an opinion), and one that ought to be discussed more fully at the article's talk page or BLPN. Joe 07:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though ESPN has been successful in asserting copyright and getting YouTube to remove the videos. I'm sure they're available elsewhere, but we should definitely not be linking to blatant copyright violations. — Satori Son 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo says Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss.

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland.

For the record, I did not say that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss. I have investigated that claim repeatedly and I have been unable to find any proof of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, immediately after you claim this here you say My saying at one point that I believed Mantanmoreland to be Gary Weiss is not a smoking gun or anything like one. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User IP 81.79.183.245

I'm reporting them for a third use of foul or abusive language, in edit summary to "Ken Doherty" article bigpad (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, Wikipedia isn't censored. Deal. The user has done nothing wrong, and their edits are quality. There's nothing here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with censoring. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong here, but the ip could try to be a bit more civil in their edit summaries. WP:CIVIL is policy just like WP:CENSOR, you know.--Atlan (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the message I left at the IP page as soon as I read this thread, you'd already know that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing

Are there repercussions for stealth canvassing? Please consider this AfD; specifically here and with some follow-up questions answered here. Is this actionable or should we just ignore it and move on? Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked QuackGuru (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for disrupting the AfD in question. Not only is there a strong suggestion that he engaged in email canvassing, but he also accused another editor of canvassing by using highly cherry-picked diffs and conveniently failing to note that the editor in question had notified people on both sides of the fence ([93]). This looks to be a pretty clear attempt at misrepresentation, and is particularly interesting given his own simultaneous off-wiki canvassing. These actions amount to disruption of the AfD, and there's also a sort of last-straw effect in that this editor often skates very close to the edge, as his past blocks and AN/I appearances attest. I'd welcome any comments or feedback on the block. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see it as "disruption", but the email canvassing seems reason enough for a temporary block. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

QG reported to me that the complainant User:Infophile was article-banned from Homeopathy in response to QG's complaint. If that checks out, Infophile's comments about QG could rationally be disregarded. I tend to agree that QG should be blocked if he was under supervision, the supervising admin is off-wiki, and QG does the same sort of things that got him blocked previously, but this doesn't seem kosher. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Given some of the other issues with misrepresentation by QuackGuru, it's probably worthwhile first to track down the actual complaint by QuackGuru, which supposedly engendered this grudge. That said, my 2 cents are that Infophile's note here has the ring of truth. It doesn't sound that grudge-y, for example - Infophile notes that there was no explicit request to vote a certain way, and he brought it up only in exasperation with QG's misleading accusations of canvassing ([94]). Additionally, QuackGuru's misleading complaint of canvassing at the AfD is independently disruptive; had no one called him on it, it might have been more so. My sense is that there is a mandate from the community to try to crack down on endemic behavioral issues on these articles, and this seems like a clear case of an editor trying to game the system. Of course, if there's a desire to let QuackGuru off the hook I'll abide by it, though 2 other admins have turned down his unblock requests (which, admittedly, do not deal with his own behavior so much as accusing me of various malfeasances and then removing my response). MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This one has me confused

Resolved

 – Unblocked tag removed and talk page protected — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was checking out this IP address and found a template for unblock that informs the user that he/she/or the IP address has been unblocked. It appears this IP thinks they have unblocked themselves: Check it out. I'm just confused by this. Happy Editing, Dusti^talk 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They are still blocked till July 12, 2008, regardless if they said they unblocked themselves. To check a block, go to their talk or user page, hit user contributions on the left, then at the top of the next page, hit block log. If you notice, the only edits since then have been to their user page Ctjf83^talk 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They've been using that template quite a bit, so I protected the page for a day. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty funny, tho. I got a good laugh. Bstone (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User hounding me and accusing me of political bias

Resolved

User:SpikeToronto has become quite incensed that I removed Image:Democratslogo.svg from the now deleted userbox at User:SpikeToronto/userboxes/Democratic Party. He's continuing to accuse me of political bias and refuses to drop the issue, repeatedly hounding me about it and making demands that I take action against Republicans because I took action against his userbox. Interactions on this point can be seen at User_talk:SpikeToronto#User:SpikeToronto.2Fuserboxes.2FDemocratic_Party and User_talk:Hammersoft#Image:Democratslogo.svg. Can I please get some help here to tell this user to back off? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• He's still hounding me [95]. HELP please. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

one way to solve it is to ignore Taprobanus (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Collectonian

Having been an editor of the Keeping Up Appearances pages for some time, I have worked hard to get them to the quality they are. I have written large amounts of the episode synopsises, much of the plot summary and made many other contributions. So as you can appreciate, when user Collectatonian decides start reverting my improvements, I was not very pleased. The recent issue has surrounded the List of Keeping Up Appearances episode page, where I have made a minor adjustment to the layout by putting technical details under a new sub-heading and the information that follows in bullet points. This is so that users can find technical details quickly, rather than having to read a whole paragraph. I would like to point out that my changes to what is known as the “lead” of the page are hardly drastic, and the information is still there, present and correct, just laid-out slightly differently. The lead of the episode page follows the guidelines of the manual of style, yet Collectonian doesn’t seem to think so. Collectonian disagrees, and describes my changes as vandalism. She has threatened me with warnings about being banned, and personally attacked me and another user, calling us: “inexperienced" and "trumps” ”. Such attacks are uncalled for, and if anyone should be banned it’s Collectonian. Furthermore, she has now completely changed the entire page for the Keeping Up Appearances episodes, inserting a new tabular format with no consensus whatsoever, yet when I revert such changes to the previous layout, she claims it’s vandalism; hardly just. A user can’t come on here and accuse someone of vandalism, just because they disagree with their policies. If Collectonian persists in reverting my improvements, I have no choice other than to revert them back. The user is being highly disruptive, and as an editor I have to make the right decisions for the public, my layout is concise, quick and efficient, and is the best way of displaying information. Most importantly, I will not have other users being attacked, and Collectonian needs to understand her actions will not be tolerated. Hopefully an administrator will put an end to the user’s unjust reverts, derogatory comments and bullying tactics.Edito*Magica (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've issued User:Edito*Magica a warning about labeling edits he/she disagrees with "vandalism", and have also asked him/her to review WP:3RR. Corvus cornix_talk 22:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

After discussion with Edito*Magica, he/she has agreed to follow the dispute resolution process. Corvus cornix_talk 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So now I can add filing retalitory ANIs without even following protocol and giving me a notice about it to the list of your attacks. Collectonian (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You really are petty aren’t you?Edito*Magica (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edito*Magica, I highly recommend that you refrain from these uncivil comments and that you discuss this on the article's talk page, where there is surprisingly little actual discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick AfD

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology (2nd nomination). I've forgotten how to close AfDs, I almost never do it. Someone please? RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Closed by RockMFR IrishGuy ^talk 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• The nominator should clearly be blocked. It's bewildering why such an obviously disruptive editor, with their Talk page chock full of warnings, profanity in edit summaries and on talk page, calling Jimmy Wales a nazi, et. al., is still not blocked - perplexing. --David Shankbone 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Update, I have reported the user to WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Update, indef-blocked as vandal-only, disruptive account. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

IP/socks vandal

Resolved

At Leather Pride flag. he thinks he owns the article period.. keeps removing the sources and adding his own web site which has nothing about leather pride flag on it.. and at one point a few days ago he put in the article that he created the flag when he was 11 years old and he also put IF THIS PAGE IS ALTERED PLEASE EMAIL HENRYLASTER78@AOL.COM directly in the article. he's been blocked twice for this.. by Rdj0060 and Master of Puppets.. only to come right back at it. He's using 70.161.189.155 as well as the names User:HenryWLasterLeatherPride and User:Leatherarchives. See the article's history. Leaving edit summaries like THIS IS NOT TO BE ALTERED UNLESS BY HENRYLASTER and Undid revision 190706701 by HENRYWLASTERLEATHERPRIDE. DO NOT UNDO ANY CHANGES. He's been given an "only warning" today and reverted a couple of times. Also this on the article's talk page. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor + IP blocked and page is sprotected. Nakon 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Any chance this is someone out to embarrass this person by using their names? if so... oversight or something? ThuranX (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but not necessarily. I think a clue can be found within his own website; he claims to have Down's Syndrome and other learning disabilities. His sheer persistence up to this point makes me think that this block isn't going to deter him. Pairadox (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Recurring vandalism from 70.182.10.113

I was reading the article about Porcupines and noticed some vandalism from IP 70.182.10.113, which I promptly fixed. Looking at the history page for IP 70.182.10.113, I found that most edits I investigated were nothing but vandalism. Occasionally there was a follow-up edit removing the vandalism previously added by IP 70.182.10.113.

68.8.164.184 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

193.198.171.142

Having some serious problems here!!! I have no idea what the hell this IP user is doing. They seem to be causing some serious chaos, though. They are continuously editing the page, List of black metal bands. Take a look at this. The user has been warned and it seem the IP address is only being used for vandalism. I'm asking for a block (if not a permanent ban). I'm also not quite sure how to undo all those edits. I'm sure someone will come along and do it, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's more like test editing than vandalism; they're seeing what all the flags look like. But, for some reason, they ignored the warnings and the sandbox recommendation, so eventually test edits that don't stop become vandalism. Luna Santin blocked for a month. --barneca (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Tillich

Obstructive and tendentious editing by Saul Tillich (talk · contribs) disrupting Talk:Paul Tillich with lengthy personal essays [96] WP:SOAP and WP:SOUP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be heavily rooted in Dispute resolution. I would take the necessary steps of WP:RFC or WP:RFAR. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if the user is being incivil, try the non-abrasive WP:WQA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Severe and repeated disruption by User:Adrianzax on Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

Said user repeatedly adds two misleading references to the article. One is false, the other is misquoted. In addition, he changes a text to a POV form featuring a series of weasel words. The issue involved is documenting allegations made regarding Codreanu's ethnic origins: as references in the article and on the talk page indicate, Codreanu is believed by many historians not to have been of Romanian origins, and presume that his father was either Polish or Ukrainian. Several times now, Adrianzax has added a reference to Codreanu's autobiography, originally added by another user. The reference, according to which Codreanu said his father was a Romanian with a Polonized name, is incomplete, because it does not cite a page number and sends the reader to a 1936 edition. This aside, it seems that there is no such statement in the book - no online edition published by Codreanu's followers even deals with the subject.

Another reference he adds is to historian Kevin Passmore, based on this excerpt from one of his books. This was added by Adrianzax to Codreanu's claim, leading the reader to assume that s/he can find the account backed there. However, the citation says no such thing, and does not at all touch on Codreanu's more distant origins. In a context where Codreanu and his nationalist followers are shown to be attacking Jewsih students, he describes all of them as "ethnic Romanians". The quote is as follows: "Ethnic Romanian students like Codreanu at the Iasi campus in Moldavia were at the forefront of the struggle to 'Romanianize' the new territories - intellectuals in Romania had traditionally seen themselves as the nationalist vanguard." This is the only instance where Codreanu's ethnicity is even discussed in that source, and it has nothing to do with Codreanu's supposed account.

In addition to this, Adrianzax rephrases the following source-based text: "Allegations regarding the Codreanus' origins were notably publicized by the authorities in 1938, at a time when the conflict between them and the Legion reached its peak. Propaganda circulated at the time had it that Codreanu was of mixed ancestry, being the descendant of not just Ukrainians, Germans, and Romanians, but also Czechs and Russians, and claimed that several of their ancestors were delinquents." In this version, it turns into weasel-worded and ungrammatical POV: "In vicinity to his trial, Codreanu's origins were the subject of an Anti-Legionary propagandistic campaign organised by the authorities, when copies of an offensive genealogy variant were dispensed, and according to which he was of mixed ancestry, being the descendant of not just Ukrainians, Germans, and Romanians, but also Czechs and Russians, and claimed that several of their ancestors were delinquents."

I should add that Adrianzax began his editing on the article by simply removing references to Codreanu's possible foreign origin and tentatively added citations from neofascist sources (removal and addition here; re-added the neofascist sources and other neofascist sources here). In addition, he has removed text and a reference here (disrupting the whole scripted reference in the process). For his disruptive editing in just the past hours, see here, here, and here. Check his block log for evidence that he has been made aware of such issues, that he has a history of edit warring, and that the reasons for blocking were less serious than the disruption here. Dahn (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The first link was added originary added by other editor I reverted it because you were continously removing without saying why, The second link states clearly and precisely that Ethnicity is An ethnic group or ethnicity is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry, Dahn personal speculations and original research are not allowed in WIkipedia No Original Research

The article Corneliu Zelea Codreanu was edited aproximative 100 consecutive times by Dahn without the interference of me or other user, I think wikipedia is a colective editing encyclopedy where everyone can make contributions, Dahn is not the owner of that article to interdict other's contributions which are hihly backed up by links and citations . Dahn even inserts propaganda tools and speculations in the article which are interdicted by Wikipedia. The biased editing history of Dahn in romanian articles can be once again proved by investigating the history edits of Romanians article in which his edits were proved as being unreal, disprutive and biased bu the fact that the majority had strong opposing opinions and the article was blocked many times due to his abusive edits Adrianzax (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The above message can only be further evidence of the behavioral pattern I mentioned. All of my edits were based on reliable sources, and I do believe I have greatly improved the article. All of the issues I outlined above are explained on the talk page for the article, where I nominated even more reliable sources, and pointed out precisely what was misleadingly picked up by Adrianzax from other sources (per WP:SYNTH), and precisely why the other citations he kept adding were not acceptable (for their extremist POV and fringe claims - per WP:RS). Dahn (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you continue to lie because we can actually check if iy's true or not what you're saying. The book The Legionar movement by romanian writer Liviu Vălenaş taken from the Online Library of Timis Country, is not an unreliable source !!!!

The user Dahn even goes that far that he cites Propaganda paragraphs which are clearty specified in his own article as being Propagandistic[97](campanie propagandistica anti-legionara -- means -- anti legionar propagandisctic campaing) This flagrant breaking of one of the main Wikipedie policies easily verifiable in the history of the article can only stress the biased and unneutral behavior of user Dahn.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Observe this line (Propaganda circulated at the time had it that Codreanu was of mixed ancestry, being the descendant of not just Ukrainians, Germans, and Romanians, but also Czechs and Russians) Since when quoting propaganda is NOT propaganda ?? just specifing beside it doesn't cancel the essence, this is a cleartlyattempt of creeating false and unreal perceptions for the readers[[98] Adrianzax (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and doesn't belong here. Please take it to a third opinion or, preferably, seek consensus on the article's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ: as I have attempted to show, Adrianzax does not introduce content that is disputed, but sources that he willingly distorts, and content that is not in any way backed by the sources. I would go as far as to say that this is subtle vandalism. Please check the comments on the talk page and the edit history for the article. In addition, most of what Adrianzax continues to say here was already brought up there and on User talk:Bogdangiusca - including the bogus claims about the reliability of his sources from the "Timis County Library", the false accusations that I engaged in legal threats. Dahn (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore the user Dahn threats me in the in the claims of legal actions and is obvious breaking the rule NO LEGAL THREATS. Citing : (If you continue to remove referenced text and replace it with whitewash, I'll report you to WP:AN/I, for which you're long due.)[99].He is calling backed edits by librabries and writers as being "whitewash" and he is threathing users only because they have differit opinions then his .

I strongly consider his behaviour as unaccectable due to his flagrant breaking of several important rules, fact stresed by the present abusive reporting in noticeboard incidents, which is in fact a content dispute .Is this type of behaviour allowed in Wikipedia? Adrianzax (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

His behaviour is unacceptable? Will ^(talk) 02:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there friend of the user Dahn , i'm glad you posted that link so that the administrators can bserve another gratuitous threat towards me and broke of No Legal Threats rule(the administrative consequences could just as well lead to an indefinite block there. Should I invite them to?) --> NO LEGAL THREATSAdrianzax (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, stop your pointless wikilawyering. Any sane person reading that talk page would agree you were being disruptive. Will ^(talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For and identic remark towards the user Dahn [100] of the first part of your sentence I got banned 72 hours. The second remark from your sentence where you're making me insane is a high gravity personal attack and break of the rule NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

Observe the identic type of behavius of his friend...i'm glad he proved my point. Adrianzax (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent. Enough of this please. This noticeboard is not meant for arguments about the validity of sources, their interpretation, or for general content disputes. I've suggested above that you take it elsewhere, and from what I'm seeing above, the only admin intervention likely to occur is a block for disruption of this page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

UCFD needs some admins to close

Resolved

 – closed by myself, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could one of the admins who drops in to UCFD to !vote to keep Category:Rouge admins also close some of the discussions that have been waiting for an uninvolved administrator to close? We have discussions that have been open for 11 days now, but the three admins who normally contribute to UCFD have already commented on them. As it is, the backlog tag has been in place for a couple of days now, but none of the admins who have participated in the discussion of Category:Rouge admins have bothered to assist with the backlog. Thank you. Horologium (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Staygyro

Page move vandalism? I'm not sure quite what Staygyro (talk · contribs) is doing. Could somebody block this user and fix the tangled web of moves? Corvus cornix_talk 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its just a misguided attempt to create redirects for possible spelling variations, not anything malicious--Jac16888 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

that is my intention Staygyro (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

if you want to create a redirect to another page, rather than doing it through page# moves, create the pages with the spelling variations, using #REDIRECT [[Name of the article to redirect to]]. --Jac16888 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

on the same issue, i have accidentally created a page called Dmitri Hvorostovsk. Can an admin please delete it Staygyro (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review User:Barry Jameson

I have indef blocked Barry Jameson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for disruptive editing and attacks on articles related to anti-pedophile groups. I believe that he's crossed the line on performing activities which are intended to promote pedophilia on Wikipedia. We have established policy and precedent that such behavior is not tolerated.

Barry is clearly a single-purpose account, having edited essentially no articles unrelated to pedophilia in the roughly 9 months his account has been active. There has been a consistent pattern of attacking anti-pedophilia groups subtly in editing for at least the last couple of months, and in spot checks I performed back to his earliest edits.

I would like to ask for uninvolved admin review of the block action. I believe it's policy and precedent compliant, and that we're better off without him, but I'd like second opinions. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I support a block, but think indef is a little much. Yes, Barry has been blocked once before recently and continued the same course, but he did have improvement inasmuch as he attempted to source and tweak the adds to be less problematic. I think he has a good overall intent but hasn't gotten the "we need to discuss this on the Talk page" bit. I tried to take the issues there very deliberately myself, just to take him and Frederick off the main article page. So that said, I support a block.

I do want to note, though, that I feel a better course of action would have been the blocking admin asking for another admin to look at the situation and doing the block. The reason is that before I even read the reasons for the block, it struck me as odd that the same admin blocks the user and then four days later indef-blocks the same user. I don't think anything was untoward in this situation, but that initial concern could be a wider view by some and in other situations. Seeing the same admin with consecutive blocks (especially close temporally and especially when the second one is indef) could be seen as self-serving.

Again, I am not saying that was the case and I categorically do not believe that to be the case; I note it only for the viewpoint awareness (think of it as a "little people" educating the upper class about how the little people can see things sometimes). Please consider changing the block to a short time - perhaps a 48-72 hour block even. Hey, most US states have some concept of "Three Strikes" laws... same concept. I think there is at least minimal improvement and no particularly malicious intent. Perhaps misguided or overzealous, but not necessarily malicious, and I think that's really what an indef block (which is in effect the same as a lifetime ban) is designed for and should be used for. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

This particular topic area has been determined to be a one-strike zone. The question is whether I called the strike reasonably or not.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Foul tip"?

And what exactly makes this topic area a one-strike? Something I'm not aware of on this particular page? How is it different from any other contentious page? VigilancePrime (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Side Note: Barry has some variety in editing, with a primary focus in one area, but certainly not one article. I don't know how SPA that really is... some people have a more narrow focus on Wikipedia than do others. When I first started, I could have been seen as an SPA as I stayed in a pretty slim area of editing and only branched out, as I recall, after weeks and even a couple months. I don't think it unreasonable to see the same process take longer. For that matter, the bigger debates tend to dominate time and account for a lot of it as well. I stand by the assumption that the block was instituted with legitimate intent but also that this user need not be permablocked as of yet. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Support block - I have the PJ page on my watchlist, but have stayed uninvolved up to this point. While I agree with VigilancePrime that an indef block coming in short time after the temporary block from the same admin, even though justified, doesn't sit right. Also, while the step from 24h to indef is rather harsh, it has become evident (at least to me) that this user does not wish nor intend to fully stop their disruptive ways. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Support block. This editor has disruptively pushed his POV since he started here. He hasn't made any positive contributions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Will, that statement is ripe with personal hatred. To say that he (or anyone) hasn't mady any positive contributions? Barry has. Maybe you don't like them. Maybe he hasn't made many. But to categorically say never, none... he's made some and he has tried, however misdirected in many cases. Does he need to significantly adjust his editing? Yes, absolutely. He has adjusted some, he just needs to adjust more and faster. I grant that. But let's stay calm about this and not throw around ridiculous comments like "never made positive contribution" or the like, eh? VigilancePrime (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Veritas not assuming good faith

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

Resolved

 – user blocked. no more to deal with here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a relevant category to Jena 6, and Veritas reverted my edit, labeling it "vandalism". He then deleted the comment I left on his talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CplJames (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This from the same individual who makes this comment: [101].--Veritas (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

the Category:Black-on-White crime in question has been CfD'd. The editor filling here, CplJames, created it, and is trying to populate it, for better or worse. Not sure it can be speedied. Given the creating editor's rationale, which is inflammatory, if not outright bigoted (for even Black on white crime there are about 8 to 9 black on black crimes), I'd suggest waiting for the CfD to close before considering actions against Veritas. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Can facts be bigoted? Blacks are only 12% of the population yet they commit over half of all violent crime. In 2005, over 30,000 white women were raped by black men, but less than 10 black women were raped by a white man. Those are government statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CplJames (talk • contribs) 03:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I removed it and tagged for vandalism after seeing the addition of the cat to the Jena 6 article which is not about a racially motivated attack on white individuals by black individuals and interpreted it as simple racist vandalism that was factually incorrect, inflammatory, disruptive and soapboxing. I hardly feel that there was any assumption of bad faith, but a manner of interpreting the truth based on the available evidence by reverting and asking the editor not to contribute nonsense. --Veritas (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That its a fact does not mean it is relevent. We don't create random categories of (insert name of ethnic group here) crime because its manipulation of the facts to effect an ultimately bigoted response. That black people comit crimes and that sometimes white people are the victims may be true, but ultimately pointless. To give such a fact undue weight in an article is to violate WP:NPOV, a cornerstone Wikipedia policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Note Krimpet (talk · contribs) has speedily deleted the cat as nonsense per WP:POINT yet the individual in question has opened up deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 15. --Veritas (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not "pointless". Every day thousands of Whites are victims of black violence. Virtually all interracial crime is non-White on White. This is a relevant national issue regardless of what the liberal mass media tell you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CplJames (talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So, will your next category creation be Brown-on-White crime and Yellow-on-White crime? Stop using WP as your own personal soapbox for railing against what you perceive to be "liberal bias." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don’t always agree with Veritas’s actions or viewpoints; in this case, however, he is absolutely correct. I move to close and archive this discussion forthwith. —Travis^talk 04:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What I think you're looking for, Jimbo, is Conservapedia.--Veritas (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

CplJames is blocked for 24 hrs for disruptive editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

11,000 images tagged NFUR in one day

And 6,000 yesterday [[102]]. All to be modified in 7 days or face deletion. How can that possibly be squared with with betacommandbot's stated desire of not wanting to delete images? I have had 7 tags appear in my watchlist today, and looking at comments on the bot talk page from another user with 7 and an 11, that seems about average, with one admin getting an unholy 65 direct talk page tags over the 2 days. I, like other well meaning editors who have not uploaded these images do have a willingness to investigate, fix and educate where necessary, but are simply put off by the sheer number of tags in a short space of time, with no tags applied for the preceeding 5 days. The intransigence/absence of betacommand on the bot talk page is also frustrating many. I have also seen the speedy deletion of images purely on the say so of uploaders getting fed up with the bot and just jacking it in. The majority of uploaders just seem baffled/confused/annoyed, with none really making any headway faced with tag explosions like this. Many image tags wont even be seen by the uploader in 7 days. Something seriously needs to be done about the way this bot is operated/scheduled. MickMacNee (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that I am not the only one angered by this. I find it incredibly disruptive and destructive to Wiki. While I understand that the policy is clearly written, the policy was recently changed, but in most of these cases, the image does qualify as fair use, but it simply needs to mention the specific article its already used in. Why can the bot just do this automatically? Some of the users it is notifying aren't even active anymore to change the image. --Veritas (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This policy has been effect since mid 2006. and bots cannot write valid rationales. β^_command 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this. While tagging images is necessary, tagging them at this rate overwhelms the ability of Wikipedians to deal with fixing fair use criteria, the ability of admins to delete the images without a script, and the ability of people to review that the bot did tag the image properly. Please slow down the bot to reasonable levels. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Even still, why does a bot even need to do this? We're sacrificing reason for efficiency at a destructive and brutal pace. If it is not possible for a bot to operate in a constructive manner it should be shut down. It is clearly not capable of fixing problems, but only pointing them out and often to users who are no longer active and unable to do anything about it. Thus, what happens? Images are deleted and we will wait a year or so until someone else comes along to add new images. A ridiculous waste of editor time thus indicating that the bot really isn't all that efficient in the long-term. --Veritas (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree we need a bot to tag these to conform to policy. But given that we have 40+ days, I'd urger that we work on this current backlog past the 7 day limit. Its worked before and can work again. Also, a schedule of when runs would occur, would be most helpful. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of the intransigence. Just completely brushes aside any criticism. Not everyone has been here since mid 2006, especially many new uploaders, and many images pre-date 2006. This bot has got to be one of the most divisive things I've seen on WP, and yet, no direction is given to a precise summary as to consensus for this bot's usage. This is not about the policy, this is about the effectiveness of the bot to apply it. I have seen nowhere in the myriad of talk pages about this, any actual analysis of whether the bot statistically meets it's stated aim of not seeing an end result of deleted images, rather than being just a very fast and efficient deleter of content, valid or not. Denying that the bot plays any role in the admittedly final human decision to delete is just outrageous, especially given the timescale, numbers, and the reactions to it's tags from users of all experience levels. MickMacNee (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that BC is being intransigent, but that the use of this bot must be monitored and restricted due to its damaging side-effects that tags images faster than other, active, editors can step in to fix the backlog of destruction it leaves behind. BC seems to have a tendency to closely stick to policy. That's the safe route and there's nothing wrong with it save the fact that it doesn't always account for the human element of Wikipedia. --Veritas (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Veritas, when ever BCBot makes a run that day's limit is normally extended. since we are getting closer I thought Id identify as many as possible so they could have time to fix them prior to the deadline. β^_command 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure of the technical aspects of how the bot works, but I know that I haven't had any complaints about it until the past couple days so I'm not sure if something has changed recently. It is troubling though since I do feel that the bot's actions are negating is usefulness. Perhaps we can extend these 7 day deadlines until the back-log is cleaned up? --Veritas (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, why is this convo going on at AN as well as AN/I? --Veritas (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That convo looks like a general gripe, I am raising issue with the incident of NFUR tagging 15,000 images in 1/2 days, and the multitude of issues that comes from that. MickMacNee (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3)That is reasonable to ID them now so there is a greater opportunity of the uploader seeing and fixing them. Would it be possible to extend the delete date in the tag to say 14 or 21 days to reduce the incidence of uninvolved Admin X wandering across the image, not knowing about the extension on the Cat page, and deleting it? MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue has come up several times. Part of the problem is that instead of tagging a few hundred images each day, the bot runs on this task only once in a while but tags many thousands of images instead. There is no need to extend the deadline, really, this will create a huge backlog when it comes time to delete these things anyway, so the deadline will effectively slip. It would be nice, though, if this task was run more frequently but at a lower rate. Mangojuice^talk 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What use is that if the tag says 7 days, and people just chuck it in because they haven't a clue what to do? There is no information anywhere about this deadline we are getting close to. Of the 7 images I have seen marked, 2 required a 10 second mod, most had specific tags that can direct to organised interest groups such as applying dvd cover templates, and none actually deserve deletion. Some even date from Nov/Dec 2005, so why are you rushing this through now? Why has there been no attention earlier by people who know what needs to be done to satisfy this bot? MickMacNee (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The copyright tags on the images clearly state what is required of the uploader to fulfill policy. There are also a few hundred active admins and a help desk for anyone confused to contact about what to do. I really don't see how this is something the bot can be faulted for. Lara❤Love 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree and disagree at the same time. Ideally, that is how it should work, but clearly not how it works in practice. I am tending to favor Mango's suggestion here that the bot run the task more often. This would create a far more agreeable tagging to editor-intervention ratio that is actually maintainable. --Veritas (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am planning more runs, I had a massive run about a month ago. this cleared what I missed last time and future runs should not be as bad, Im hoping to run this ~2 times a week. β^_command 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That fits from the admin who said it wasnt her job to explain the procedures on the project page she patrolled, necessitating edits of the instructions by the user themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What project? Lara❤Love 05:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing at all wrong with this. I just cleaned up one myself, and i'm lousy at writing these things. Luckily, it's pretty much boilerplate, and if you can remember most of it, then you're fine, and if you can Cut n paste to fit the use of a given image, then it's easier. there's a bit of mix and match, running down your entire notification list with one clipboard text-set would be bad, but it's not that tough to do. And this doesn't affect every editor, just those who never read the full 'how to upload images' guides, or who disregarded the tough part about writing something. Those editors will get the notes, as will all editors who have any article with such an image in their watchlist. I just grabbed one, and will probably find others in the next few days. This isn't as big a deal as it is being made out to be. And, it does keep WP out of legal dangers and hassles. Would it be nice if the tagging bot ran more often than now? Maybe. It would probably irritate the serial violators more and a few might quit uploading, and a few might start writing, and then we'd have less for the rest of us to do. Or maybe not. But that we have 18K unfurred (sounds dirty, don't it?) images is even worse. ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know how to write FUR's, it's easy, I did one right off the bat, but when 7 pop up in your watchlist in one day, in the middle of a big article project yourself, none of which you uploaded but want kept, all of which are not violaters, some pre-dating the policy at all, some that could blatantly be fixed in seconds, some you know full well will not get the attention (it's not all project based images), but the effect of lumping it all in one, and with attitude of the operator, and the complete lack of historical guidance, you have to wonder if the stated aim of not wanting to delete images is correct. Had I just seen one or two flagged, I probably wouldn't be here now, and be none the wiser as to the tip of the iceberg surrounding this bot. MickMacNee (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Three of us on the ice hockey project fixed about 40 images in a very short period of time. There is no reason why we have to hold to a hard 7 day deadline if the backlog cannot be adequately tackled, but if editors with an interest in affected articles and projects are dedicated, it can be handled fairly easily. It just takes some time. Resolute 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Beta just said that he's planning on having the bots do more frequent runs. I am in favor of a large number of these being tagged now so long as the bot does regular and fairly frequent runs in the future so that users interested in maintenance have time to step in to fix the often minor adjustments that are required. --Veritas (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, for the day when there'll be a "11,000 images fixed in one day" thread. MickMacNee, if these images are so easy to fix, why are they not being fixed? Why is it so that years down the track, this bot finds thousands upon thousands of bad images each time it runs? --bainer (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are clear issues surrounding the lack of links and interest from the bot operator to inform aggrieved users of the past discussions about this bot (are there any agreed consensuses? Not about the policy, but the specific use of the bot). The issue is not clear cut when most advocates of the bot are expert admins, and most aggrieved by it are new editors. The issue is clearly affecting many many editors. Just needing a 17 point not my fault header on the bot talk page that has an archive for every month should tell people something is wrong. I say again, has any analysis been done on the effectiveness of this bot on gaining rationales to meet policy? As opposed to just hastening deletion of perfectly acceptable material? MickMacNee (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The material is not acceptable if it's not fixed; that's the policy, and the bot is just alerting admins that there is a deficiency. As for Betacommand and his communication skills, yes, they leave something to be desired, and I've had my own 2 cents to say about that a time or two. Nonetheless, the bot shouldn't stop running just because it's delivering the bad news that there is a lot of stuff that needs fixing). Mangojuice^talk 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You absolutely cannot ignore the scheduling issue, and the complete lack of any historical links or summaries. 'see the archives' is all you will get, if you're lucky. It has changed my willingness to fix things today, it has caused an admin with 60 odd tags to flip out, and caused others to just give up and say they want the images deleted rather than deal with bcb anymore, which were probably fixable. MickMacNee (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the time you've spent debating here, you could have fixed a few dozen images. Also, Wikipedia isn't really hurt by copyrighted images being deleted, appropriate for fair use or not, so it's not damaging the 'pedia. It's an inconvenience for some, obviously, but it's a bigger issue for Wikipedia to be improperly using copyrighted images. Lara❤Love 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I know this probably doesn't matter to the deletionists, but there are a lot of editors (myself included) who have simply given up on uploading images. BCBot takes a subsection of a subsection (10C is it?) and uses it to tag tons of perfectly acceptable images for deletion. Then we have admins who simply plow through the backlog, deleting without bothering to check if it's something simple to correct. I'm done with trying to add images to this project, at least until BCBot is reined in or shut down completely. Bellwether ^B_C 05:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's silly to say that deleting images doesn't hurt the articles. It's also a little strange to give up on uploading images. It's not hard to do it the right way, if the image is truly appropriate per policy and guidelines. I won't opine on the schedule though. Sooner or later we do need to get to a resting place where most of the images have the data they need. Wikidemo (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that many of the images at hand were uploaded correctly, then the guidelines changed, and suddenly there's a bot coming by screaming about the coming image apocalypse. BCB is bad diplomacy; Wikipedia rules are in flux, and when they change, thousands of articles are affected. How do we deal with this? Do we make it easy to bring the old ones in to compliance with the new rules? Maybe get a bot to fix that? Or do we get lazy and just send a bot out to tell editors they're wrong and their work is being erased. Even if the form is easy now, why should I trust it? Why should I assume the rules aren't going to change again such that the band name or record number has to be included with every album cover, and suddenly BCB rolls by with another 11k nastygrams per day? Allowing this to proceed unabated costs Wikipedia the trust of its editors. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 11:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't really hurt? A picture tells a thousand words. How about the editors chucking it in left right and centre every time this thing runs like this? In the time you've spent debating here, you could have fixed a few dozen images, As said above, I do fix images, but on days like today you think what's the point?, especially when you research and see the background to this issue, and see the massive effect one user is allowed to have without comeback. The copyright issue is all well and good, but again, this bot today has tagged in my watchlist sample, 30% of images that were loaded in 2005, and not a single actual copyright violator (after modification to meet a seemingly ever changing policy). Would you create content if you knew you might have to do it 3 times after each deletion retrieval? How does anyone expect any other jobs to get done in the face of that kind of lunacy. MickMacNee (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• My main problem is that he's taking a subsection of a subsection, and applying it like it was the effin' tablets brought down from the mountain with Moses. And the admins that mindlessly plow through the backlog, without checking each image carefully aren't doing the project any favors either. There's just next to no common sense applied here. Bellwether ^B_C 06:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the time you've spent... is such a horrendously fallacious argument to make. In the time I've spent correcting correctly tagged images so the bot stops bitching I could have made substantive contributions to the project. We have X hours of editor manpower, yet a machine insists on determining exactly how we'll get to use those hours, and it has decided that forcing editors at gunpoint to perform dull, meaningless bureaucracy is the best use of our resources. And those hours are gone: whatever it decides, plus the lost hours from the editors who just bail from Wiki altogether when they get spammed by a machine, plus the lost hours from editors who will eventually have to reupload the same image because there was nothing wrong with it before aside from botardedness. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 10:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What is silly to me is to stop uploading images because of BCBot. Just upload them under the policy. They don't get tagged if they meet the requirements. Lara❤Love 06:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, what is silly is treating a subsection of a subsection like it was holy writ. And dismissiveness is usually the best option when dealing with those less experienced than you. I uploaded my first image maybe a month ago. I haven't uploaded a new image in a couple of weeks at least, after getting bludgeoned by BCBot, both on images I'd uploaded, and on images at articles I contributed regularly to. I'm tired of it, and I'm not going to be uploading (or working with images at all) until this bot is either reined in or shut down. Bellwether ^B_C 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• The issue is also non-uploaders wanting to fix things, faced with ridiculous conditions to do so, the issue of minimal exposure images being lost due to an arbitrary 7 day deadline, and images that were uploaded under the now out of date correct policy, being tagged multiple times every time a phrase changes. The issue is also the us and them attitude, there is absolutly no link from the bot page for a collaberative effort for experienced editors to fix things in a coordinated manner, nor any links to major consensus regarding the bot, it's all hidden all over the shop, all that exists is a long list of excuses and get out clauses. Most loaders hit by the bot only know to go to the bot page if that, and realy struggle to even comprehend what is required of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 06:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What would be a better time frame than seven days? "Arbitrary" doesn't seem appropriate considering these are images that infringe upon copyrights. Lara❤Love 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Wikipedia policy with U.S. law. The former is far more restrictive than it legally has to be. Most of these images do not infringe upon copyrights; they simply haven't had a specific rationale for fair use written yet. An appropriate time frame would be one that gives actual humans (not bots) time to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to each individual image, and to write a rationale if the image is to be kept. *** Crotalus *** 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not infringing until examined and challenged in court. The one I corrected today was patently legally correct, it just did not meet whatever matching criteria the bot uses (these are I believe kept secret, why?). Many of these are not infringing at all, it is purely the bot design that tags them. Giving 7 days notice on an article loaded in 2005 along with 15,000 others at the same time is patently ridiculous. It is also my understanding that an image with a few keywords but filled with gibberish does not get tagged. MickMacNee (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know the quesiton was rhetorical but it would make more sense to tag all the images at once rather than haphazardly, and give people a very short time to correct new uploads but a long time (say, March 1 or March 15) to correct older ones. That way people could plan their work load, and rest assured that once they addressed all their notices they would be done with it. That's not going to happen, but just my $0.02. Indeed, the vast majority of these images don't violate copyright and are perfectly fine for Wikipedia, they just lack some data fields on the image file. Wikidemo (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that people who either don't understand the Wikimedia Foundation policies or don't understand how to write a proper fair use rationale are having their images deleted. It seems to me like they want someone to blame. Either Betacommand, his bot or the deleting admins are taking flak for enforcing the policies laid down by the Foundation. The policy is not decided by Betacommand, his bot or the deleting admin. Also it is not always simple to write a FUR if you are not the uploader. How can I know the source of an album cover that someone probably google searched? Also with regard to Bellwether's comment "No, what is silly is treating subsection of a subsection like it was holy writ." - If any part of this section is not met, the image may be deleted. It's written in the "enforcement" section right below the one I linked to. You may think that 10c is trivial but the Wikimedia Foundation (ie the owners of the servers and they set rules which we cannot override) do not. There's nothing silly about a bot pointing out violations of policy. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are issues on how it is being scheduled. There are people who want to fix things, this bot is not helping by going the extra yard and scaring new users and annoying old users that have complied with a now changed policy. At the very least this should have been an internal project bot to highlight first issues for an experienced group to review/quick fix, without going straight to tagging the uploader, placing a massive incomprehensible tag on the image, and deleting within 7 days (that isn't being enforced because it is not working, so why say it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus nobody it seems is aware how the bot checks to decide when and when not to flag, it's whole design and operation appears to be in one persons hands. That to me is wrong when it affects so many other editors. MickMacNee (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no-one more suited to writing a fair use rationale than the uploader. If they don't know how, then they shouldn't have uploaded the image. New/inexperienced users may not have known about fair-use and the policy, but the message given by BetacommandBot links to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I think tags such as {{no rationale}} are pretty clear, but if you can think of a better way of phrasing the message that needs to be conveyed by the tag, go for it. Finally; even if the images aren't being deleted within 7 days it provides an incentive to provide a valid rationale now instead of procrastinating. We can't change this policy even if it is overwhelming for new users (I stayed away from fair-use for a long time). James086^{Talk | Email} 07:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The images I'm often seeing tagged are ones where the uploader is usually long gone due to issues like this bot. And I don't get this idea that you can jump straight in and add text without any knowledge, and it will usually be fixed if wrong, yet woah betide you if you add an image with even the most trivial of non-compliances. Only a small subset of images really need the uploader's actual knowledge. Understanding the rules around nfcc is a nightmare. The bot is damaging efforts for new uploaders and experienced fixers at the same time. To suggest all is hunky dory at the moment is daft. The lack of group effort or consensus regarding this bot is also amazing, as fixing furs at the rate they are being tagged is way out of the league of even the most wiki-addicted. MickMacNee (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying to MickMacNee: As far as I can tell, the bot has a very simple algorithm. It takes the name of the pages an image is being used on and looks for them in on the image page (note that the links at the bottom of an image page are automagically generated, and so don't count). If any of the images are precisely named on the page (doesn't even have to be linked), ie. including things like "(diambiguation bit)", then the bot passes it. There is even a toolserver link around somewhere to a tool where you can check your images to see if Betacommandbot will tag them or not. So MickMacNee is correct to say that you can write gibberish on a page and the bot won't be able to tell as long as you include the name of the article somewhere. Of course, if a human spots this, the image will be tagged or corrected, and the editor who did this would get warned and, if they didn't stop, blocked. There are images I know of, which lack rationales, but which have the article name on them for other reasons. The most common reason is when the description bit says "picture of random article name" (with or without the link). The bot won't be able to detect these. It does, however, detect ones that say "picture of subject of article" without naming the article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's Just That Easy™, why does the bot fix the fair use rationale? What information is it missing? For that matter, if it only detects a linked article name if the article has been wikified, that's a bug. A fair use rationale has to name the article it's used in, but does not explicitly have to link to it.

Another bug is that the bot is too stupid to tell when a targeted page has been moved and replaced by a disambiguation page, which triggers a false NFC. If it was a human eidtor who falsely harassed a few dozen users and deleted images under false pretenses, they'd be banned for vandalism by the fifth instance. We should not be more lenient for bots than we are for people.

Another issue is how totally confrontational everything about this bot is. Look at User_talk:BetacommandBot: you're greeted with screen-tall stop sign and 17 rules that all essentially say "piss off I'm right about everything." Then read the discussions below where it gets even worse. (Seriously, read it.) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 10:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Form issues

The issue is obviously that most uploaders are ignoring the page that appears prior to the upload formula, if the users uploading Fair Use images where presented a blank form and filling it was obligatory to complete the upload we wouldn't be dealing with a backlog of 11,000 pages due to something as simple as FCC#10c. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, the issue is that WP's policies regarding image useage are so arcane and stringent that they allow bots to tag perfectly acceptable images for deletion, based on a subsection of a subsection. When this project brings their image use policies more in line with actual copyright laws, perhaps the deletionists won't have such a field day, and new uploaders (and image workers) won't become discouraged and give up. Bellwether ^B_C 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You've stated this four times now. What we're discussing now is a possible way to prevent images from being improperly uploaded to begin with. Lara❤Love 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• And you've ignored the root cause I raise four times now. The problem isn't good faith uploaders who don't know the subsection of a subsection of the NFCC that BCBot uses to tag images for deletion. The problem is primarily with the policy that allows the "letter of the law" enforcement that BC demands from initial uploaders, and the tagging itself, which seems like killing a gerbil with a bazooka to me. Bellwether ^B_C 13:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. A change that I would think could be easily implemented. And what would be the negatives? Lara❤Love 06:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many images that predate the bot specs and were uploaded perfectly correctly. MickMacNee (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You really have to separate this issue into two parts, old images and newly uploaded ones. Or maybe three - brand new, a few months old, and really old. Older images are a real problem because people get blindsided by the tags and by deleted images. For people actively uploading new images they can get spanked around a little bit until they learn how. "Arcane" is an overstatement, it's just a weak user interface. People grumble but I think that's more in the delivery of the message than the task they have to learn. In less than 1/2 hour you could learn most everything there is to know about how to upload images properly. It's a lot faster than learning the markup language, or learning where all the policy pages are. Nevertheless, anything that could make the process easier to get right from the start is good. Wikidemo (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• The negatives are that oftentimes an image is used for articles other than the one it was specifically uploaded for, which then triggers the bot to tag it per 10C. Bellwether ^B_C 06:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've pushed for this in bugzilla:12452. No word yet on its implementation. If someone could write the css/javascript code, we might be able to implement it locally. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting a option to prevent a simmilar situation in the future, this is supposed to kill the problem at its root. About sideffects, the only one that I can perceive is that the upload process would take longer, but then again when that is compared to the time that admins spend cleaning image backlogs that effect proves meaningless. Please note that this blank form (wich should be designed so even the most dumb of bots can understand the resulting rationale) would only appear if the user selects one of the Fair Use licences, wich means that users uploading free or public images wouldn't encounter this problem. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Most first time uploaders probably don't even know the difference between free and non free, but the editors that do are being given the runaround by the reverence being held for this bot, and ignoring the massive issues it creates and continues to create with it's tidal wave operation. The culture is also now I believe, we have a bot that fixes that, so let's not do it ourselves, or guide good faith violators. The tag box is huge and intimidating to a new user. MickMacNee (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, if a new user is going to upload a image he/she will receive the instruction page before uploading, now if they choose to ignore that, chances are that they will most likely end uploading without a rationale wich will only add to the backlog, we can't have a competition between a bot that fixes images and several tagging them, and we can't let the 'fix bot' choose if he removes a notice placed by another bot before. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would support a redoing of the image uploading procedure where incomplete uploads were prevented from happening. If a user does NOT supply a required piece of information, the page should send return an error message and stop the upload until all required info has been provided, INCLUDING the article where the pic is intended to go. This would reduce the problems on the back end that leads to all the grief this bot takes. I have no idea how this can be techincally done, but it seems a good idea. On the flipside, regardless of how inconvenient it is, the bot is doing necessary work, since images which are protected by copyright should NOT be used inappropriately on wikipedia. Remember, even "fair-use" is a violation of copyright, though being done in an "excused" manner. If you wish to excuse the violation of the rights of someone else, you should probably be very clear as to how and why and for what reason you are doing so. The bot only cleans up situations where people have not done this adequately. If it tags too many images, its probably because most people are doing it wrong, which is why we need to fix it at the "front end" before being uploaded. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get hung up on first loaders, as I've said, there are wider issue with those about them not having a clue at all. But I am seeing a very large proportion of these flags being like this: [103]. Perfectly fixable in seconds by experienced editors, yet we are being swamped, and who is coordinating these efforts, and from where? And is there any information at the page causing all these tags, the bot? No. Leaving fixes to uploaders and pontificating as such by the bot is also wrong when like this, it was loaded 18 months ago. MickMacNee (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WT:TODAY should give some insight into coordination. But its rather dormant now . MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For those images uploaded a year and a half ago we will have to deal it with patience and using the current methods. Please note that my proposal is focused in the images being uploaded in the very close future so we don't have a similar discussion eighteen months from now. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to make the same point - it's not fair to say uploaders should've enforced a policy that didn't exist at the time. At the same time, though, people should keep a check on their uploads. Will ^(talk) 13:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair-use image deletion deadlines

Partial repost of previous post at WP:AN

Please click "show" above and have a look at the backlogs arriving soon in the "disputed fair use images" dated categories. Normally, these images would be deleted after 7 days. The practice so far has been to extend the deadline some indeterminate amount. Given that these runs by Betacommandbot were done rather close together (looks like an extended run over three days), what would be the best way to determine a suitable extension here? An extra week? An extra two weeks? I asked Betacommand on his talk page recently (a few weeks ago), and he said he was near the end of doing these runs. Previously, I put dates of 10th and 17th February on the other backlogged categories. I'd suggest putting a date of 2nd March on these categories. It isn't terribly clear where this sort of thing should be discussed, or with whom, and it seems no-one else is attempting to manage the backlogs. To avoid future disputes, I'd appreciate it if people could object to or endorse this action, here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I only do logos (and some symbols and seals). Right now AWeenieMan's tools say I have ~3900 images to process. Given real life commitments and what, I would need about 3 weeks from today to get through them all. MBisanz ^talk 07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Gary King, inappropriate categories, and probable unauthorised bot use

User:Gary King has been adding categories to uncategorized articles at an alarming rate. Most of these are questionable, many plainly incorrect. When I questioned some of his categorizations (here), his eventual response implied the use of a bot ("Those were automatic edits."). He has now denied that it was a bot, but is continuing to add categories despite having been asked to stop (here) by both myself and User:Pichpich. So, two issues (1) probable unauthorized bot, and (2) ongoing questionable edits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely baffled by this whole thing. After digging through, it seems he was told at least 6 months ago that he was messing up categorization work. I think we should assign a bot to undo all the edits made using the semi- or fully-automated process for categorization because it is actually quite damaging to the project. Many of the uncategorized pages need to be sent to some kind of deletion process, which this user has clearly not tried to do, many are worse off being categorized in overly broad categories than they would be if they were returned to the uncategorized backlog where they have a chance to be dealt with competently. The most bizarre aspect of all this is Gary King's complete unresponsiveness despite repeated pleas for him to stop. I can't imagine he's ill-intentioned but the result is a disaster. Pichpich (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by RonPaulvsTheFed

It seems fairly obvious that RonPaulvsTheFed (talk · contribs) has created the sock account ColbertInTheDark (talk · contribs) to get around the "do not remove this tag from articles you have created" clause of Speedy tags. Pairadox (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And now seems to be using the IP 76.120.5.84 (talk · contribs) Pairadox (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked the sock and blocked User:RonPaulvsTheFed for 48 hours. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Persistent unwarranted tagging of articles for citations and deletion

I need help in dealing with User:Blast Ulna, who is spinning out of control, tagging large numbers of articles for sources/citations or for deletion when these are clearly unwarranted. He is clearly a man on a mission and his contribution history is descending into farce, creating problems that waste time rectifying.

Though his targets are widespread, my concern is (a) articles on significant recording artists he declares unnotable, many of which he is now tagging for deletion, and (b) stub articles on albums by notable artists that consist of little more than an infobox, intro, tracklist and personnel. The information at these stubs is (a) self-evidently sourced from the album covers and (b) not likely to be challenged, and therefore not covered by the requirements of WP:V and WP:CITE, both of which appeal for commonsense in their application. When I delete the tags and explain why, he consistently reverts.

I have discussed the issue with him at length in such places as Talk:Those Who Are About to Die Salute You, Talk:The Devastations and User talk:Blast Ulna, as well as at the deletion discussion for Brood (album), which he AfD'd after I deleted his "sources" tag. (After intervention from another editor he grudgingly withdrew the nomination). From his replies, it emerges: (a) he disagrees with Wiki's policy on citations, and therefore rejects criticism; and (b) regards album articles without cited sources as possibly "elaborate hoaxes". His words. His blizzard of edits – almost all of them them demanding sources or nominating articles for deletion on the grounds the subject is unnotable – has today reached a nadir with the absurd request for a source to be cited for a record label in an infobox. (See The Devastations). (edit: Now he's outdone himself. See Home Improvements.)

His urge to see sources cited on articles is commendable and constructive, but his edits are now becoming disruptive and frivolous and he shows no sign of slowing down. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums to gain independent opinion; it was suggested there that I raise the complaint here. Grimhim (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Grimhim continually removes my tags, such as refimprove, reliablesources and so forth, on the grounds that WP:MUSIC allows articles on albums don't need any sources. I have told him that WP:V, being a policy, overrides WP:MUSIC, a guideline. I'm pretty sure my tags are not in any way a violation of policy. Let me know if they are. Could you also inform Grimhim on the whole Wikistalking business? Blast Ulna (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • If the infobox lists AMG or any review site, those are sources that satisfy WP:V. Once they have confirmed the existence of the album, then there is one reliable source implied with every album article: the album itself. Do we need to explicitly cite the album itself in an article about the album? Why not {{fact}} tag each track? That's not to say every tag is going to be invalid or that no citations are needed, but it's only for material that is: (1) Not covered in the standard sources like AMG, Rolling Stone, etc., (2) Not covered in the album or liner notes, and (3) likely to be challenged. It seems to me most, but not all of Blast Ulna tags seem to fit this. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I tagged only articles without AMG and standard sources etc. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I would remove them too if I had the energy. Policies don't override guidelines in that way. You're supposed to honor the policy and the guideline. If you think WP:MUSIC is in conflict with WP:V you should take it up as a policy matter, not by splattering Wikipedia with dozens or hundreds of contentious article tags. Look, infoboxes don't need source citations for every field. You're misreading WP:V to think they do. You have placed tags on material that you're challenging for no other reason than that they lack citations. I've spot checked a few dozen of these and found nearly all of your tags to be pointless, and about half of your "prod" tags (20 in the past day or so) to be contentious. Prod is only for uncontroversial deletions. If someone objects they can remove the tag and then it's up to you to take it to WP:AfD if you really think it's got a chance of being deletable, but please no more than a few a day because you'll overload the system. Incidentally, looking over the pattern of controversial edits done by a rogue editor is not wikistalking. It's damage control. You probably ought to slow down if you want to avoid provoking a flare-up. Wikidemo (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Please take a look at the kind of articles I tag. When I was informed of the notion that being signed to a record label made a band notable even without any sources, I tagged a few bands that have never been signed to any label. These bands and their albums have no independent sources, make no claim of having any hits, and were not signed. How is it wrong to question them? Blast Ulna (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Updating my comments from earlier.) Actually, a few of Blast Ulna's tags do have merit. Adding the unreferenced tag to Home Improvements, Bread and Circuses (album), Tomorrow's Blues, and Daughter of Time was entirely appropriate, since they don't list any third party reviews in the info box and really have absolutely nothing aside from a primary source; while primary sources are allowed, they're not allowed to be the only source for an article. Also, The Devastations article really doesn't assert notability enough to escape a notability tag, and the AfD for that is somewhat appropriate. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 11:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A side issue, perhaps, but your point that AfD nom is appropriate for The Devastations is wrong. According to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, notability is achieved by any of the criteria which includes "(5) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels ..." The article's discography lists two albums on the Beggars Banquet Records label. (The BB link was wrong, admittedly ... I've fixed that) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimhim (talk • contribs) 12:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really fixed; the article still has only the band's own webpage and their myspace page. Nothing verifiably notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, here is the diff between one of the articles before I tagged it and now. It seems to have been much improved, especially considering how small an article it is. So, are my tags disruptive, or do they help improve Wikipedia? Blast Ulna (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Karmaisking

After being blocked for some period for sockpuppetry, soapboxing, personal attacks, and coming back after a month cooling-off period, it begins anew:

[104] - inflammatory edit description, "after the genocide". Note also advertising for specific sites in subject line (soapboxing). [105] - reference to specific editor (me) "deleting so much...". [106] -debt money "killed off as a concept on WP"] [107] - example of several references to "carcass" (meaning parts of article deleted by various editors). [108] - "Thanks. I nearly drowned when I was shoved overboard by some vindictive psychopath, but somehow I managed to swim back on board S.S. Titanic. " [109] - user page soapboxing and attacks. "given Coren's track record of trigger-happy blocking (My God she's fast on the draw! Do not mess with her around high noon, I tell's ya)." " You and I both know the game. People want us to shut up. They threaten. They harrass. They hate the truth." " I welcome and encourage you, a like-minded fellow traveller on this dangerous journey of life, to got into my talk page history and check out the old correspondence. "

For admins to decide, but given the previous record of puppetry, attacks and soapboxing by this editor, as well as numerous warnings...does not seem to be compelling case for another chance.--Gregalton (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes: note use of userpage after user's talk page was blocked for soapboxing.--Gregalton (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, joy. And this... valuable contributor is back with personal attacks as well. I have completely run out of patience with the paranoid delusions, grandstanding and outright offensiveness of that user— and I would block indef without hesitation. His persecution complex, however, appears to be currently fixated on me and I wouldn't want to throw further oil on the fire (probably causing more socks). I'll leave action to someone else. — Coren ^(talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see no compelling reason to allow this to continue. Indef blocked. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Propol 's war of harassment of other editors

As I have seen on Propol 's talk page, you have had history with this editor as he has done this in the past, so can you, as an administrator, set this editor straight as to his behavior towards other editors [110] [111] who may disagree [112] with him on political articles. Thanks. Oldschooltool (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Sarvagnya

This editor's obnoxious behavior towards several editors and articles is appalling and out of control, and needs to stop. It's steadily been escalating to a point that requests, warnings and alerts have not deterred the editor from changing his/her ways, even after a number of months.

The editor has made it a habit of being incivil with editors who make edits that he/she disagrees with. The editor has been requested and warned on several occasions. Once here, and on another occasion, I myself requested the editor to stop being so overly-critical of others contributions and start giving some recognition so that editors don't leave as a result of the unnecessary incivility (evidenced here). There are several other examples which can be found through this editor's talk page history (unfortunately, this editor has made it a habit to delete many of the comments on his/her page) and through some article talk pages where this editor has made comments.

However, he/she continues to resort to using a judgemental tone in edit summaries evidenced-here, assumes bad faith, is rude, calling others contributions names, and making it a priority to direct personal attacks at editors who do not support his/her edits and/or reasoning. The editor also forces others to the point of breaching civility without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This can be seen as he/she scatters some valid points among an extensive attack on an article or on those who have contributed to it. This is evidenced especially here. Again, there are other examples, but i cite only this one as it was the final straw that prompted me to report such behavior. (On a separate note, he/she has also made other attacks on the article and its contributors over the last couple of years, and yet, in all this time, has made no actual positive contributions towards improving the article significantly. In stark contrast, the editors involved have made a major improvement from the nonsense it was to begin with.)

The editor uses mannerisms like 'I'm just obsessed with improving this article', 'This article is dear to me' and 'I am just as frustrated with the state of the article as you are', or the like, as a justification for the impolite, incivil and inconsiderate communications he/she uses, when really, such communications are unwarranted under any circumstance.

This editor in addition to often assuming bad faith, often assumes WP:OWN over the articles he/she concerns himself/herself with. He/she has vandalized articles (or blanked material without explanation), and when left a warning about it, has deliberately deleted the warning (seen here). Similarly, the editor removed a request (that an otherwise reasonable editor would have taken the time explain to the concerned editor who made the request) labeling it 'trolling' (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sarvagnya&diff=prev&oldid=190924381 here). It is ironic that he/she expects reasoning from others, when he/she often fails to provide any when he/she makes edits or removals of information. He/she in effect thinks its justifiable to merely label things as he/she sees fit, without any explanation to support it. For example, the editor has blanked out entire references in an article without properly explaining how or why the references are 'extremist' (as he/she indicates in his/her edit summary here), perhaps in an attempt to advance his/her position that content from this article should not be mentioned in another article, Carnatic music. Having deleted these references, the editor then goes one step further and adds tags that there are no references for the article here.

This overall style of interaction between editors has resulted in driving away some contributors. Whether it is a lack of patience, or just a deliberate attempt to assume WP:OWN over certain articles he/she concerns himself/herself with, driving away editors is the direct opposite of a postive contribution. It is a serious issue that us editors have been forced to tolerate such incivility, disrespect and persistent assumption of bad faith by him/her, when it shouldn't be happening in the first place, (nor is it necessary).

For these reasons, I request that this editor be blocked for a period of time, both to prevent this happening again (until he/she cools off), and to make it clear that such behaviour is not tolerated at Wikipedia. This editor needs some time so that he/she can refresh his/her style of interacting with other editors (this would involve learning to show more respect for other editors contributions to Wikipedia, and also, learn to show more control over what he/she edits and how emotionally involved he/she gets in disputes). Warnings and requests have clearly not worked, and I, nor any other editor, wishes to stoop to the same obnoxious level as him/her, nor would any editor like to leave as a result of such obnoxious behaviour. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

If an editor is determined to have a need for mentoring, how is that mandated and enforced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.138.11.104 (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG Vandalism

Resolved

 – Crisis averted. Thanks to everyone who helped manage the influx. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I invite the attention of my fellow admins to WP:AIV, where we appear to be severely backlogged. We're hovering around 8-10 active reports, with more coming in. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance tag vandalism

• see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#National_Policing_Improvement_Agency
• see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive365#is_this_disruptive.3F

Maintenance tag vandalism using sock IP's on National Policing Improvement Agency

• 09:11, 12 February 2008 - -17:52, 12 February 2008 - -17:57, 12 February 2008- -18:03, 12 February 2008- -10:53, 14 February 2008 - -14:16, 14 February 2008 - -14:50, 14 February 2008- -15:17, 14 February 2008 - -15:17, 14 February 2008

Maintenance tag vandalism using sock IP's on Serious Organised Crime Agency

• 09:12, 12 February 2008- -17:52, 12 February 2008- -17:55, 12 February 2008- -17:57, 12 February 2008- -17:59, 12 February 2008- -18:03, 12 February 2008 - -18:05, 12 February 2008 - -18:07, 12 February 2008- -10:54, 14 February 2008 - -14:17, 14 February 2008- -14:51, 14 February 2008

Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) works for the NPIA, see [113][114][115][116]. Despite being invited to the discussion on COI/N, The account and IP's continue to edit, and have have persistently removed the maintenance tags (see above), despite the fact that he/she is infact the one with the conflict. Input please.--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bamford does seem most insistent about that tag. I'll drop him a note. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we have all tried to communicate but with little result, hopefully you'll have better luck--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian

The Guy Fawkes article continues to have problems with an WP:OWNership editor named User:Yorkshirian. The protest group Project Chanology incorporated the use of the Guy Fawkes mask in V for Vendetta (and also used on the cover of the novel), and I placed a photograph of the protest under the "Popular culture" section of the Guy Fawkes page. One user, and only one user, continues to edit war over it. He was blocked for WP:3RR a day ago for removing the photo five times in 24 hours, despite other Users saying they want it. Four users (User:Cirt, User:R. Baley and User:silly rabbit have either the photo on the page, or said they want it on the page on the Talk. User:Yorkshirian continues to edit war still over it.[117], [118]. He is also naming a section title his own POV, calling the photo "Spam" which is a personal attack.[119], [120] He has called me a troll [121], [122]. I request he be blocked for edit-warring against consensus (again) and for personal attacks. --David Shankbone 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when is calling something spam a personal attack? It's not like he said you were a can of Spam or anything. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling a good faith contribution SPAM, when it has been pointed out that it is not SPAM by another Admin, and calling me a troll twice, are personal attacks. We don't call the good faith contributions of long-term editors SPAM. SPAM impugns the motives of the contributor. --David Shankbone 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone against the warning of administrator Georgewilliamherbert has continued to war on the article Guy Fawkes despite that administrator specifically telling him to "leave it as is for a bit, and talk to him on the article talk page and try to work it out to a real consensus".[123] Despite this warning Shankbone has persisted in spamming his photo on the article which it does not belong.

On the talkpage it has been proven that the incident is a direct parody of a scene in the movie V for Vendetta (film) and indeed the people in the image are using the official "V for Vendetta" merchandise masks as sold here. Shankbone claims to have concensus, he is telling a lie. As clearly shown on the talk he is the only one aruging rationale for the inclusion of his image, as shown in WP:CON users are supposed to put across a rationale to show their case. Myself and an administrator have cited rationale against its inclusion.[124] After been disproved on the talkpage about any real relevence to Fawkes and the proving that it to do with the fictional V for Vendetta movie, Shankbone has now taken to refusing to address the content of the messages. Instead of providing an answer to the content, he merely returned to waring against the warning of the admin, without even using an edit summary for his reasons (he even compromised the content of the article by vandalising sources in the content, with no thought for the article.). I even suggested a compromise to move his image to where it belongs; V for Vendetta (film), yet he persists.

Shankbone also took to trolling my messages, he blanked one as shown here and defaced the talk header of the section that I started to push his POV, despite the fact that users are not allowed to edit others messages. He thinks he can do this because he is an established editor, I'd like to see him blocked for warrning against rationale stated consensus, going against the request of an admin and the vandalism of my message as shown in this paragraph. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I have to say that, as a slightly involved party who has been following the progress of this incident, that Yorkshirian has been baiting for a fight the whole time. Calling Shankbone's contribution spam may or may not be a personal attack, but it shows an astonishing lack of civility, and otherwise fails to assume good faith. I don't know if blocking is the right course of action, but certainly someone should issue a stern warning to the user that this kind of behavior doesn't pass. WP:MASTODON and all that. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian clearly does not understand consensus, and his saying that I'm lying belies the diffs and warnings of others to Yorkshirian: Cirt [125] (who has 7 featured articles under his belt), Silly Rabbit [126], and R. Baley [127]. Yorkshirian has nobody but himself . --David Shankbone 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're lying Shankbone. Please point out a single place on the talk of the article, where any of them users provide a single rationale to show how its related to Fawkes and not the movie V for Vendetta? Nobody but you has argued a rationale in favour of it, and at this point you have even been disproved in your rationale to the extent that you have taken to closing your eyes and pretending the talkpage and the points on it (all with sources) doesn't exist. I understand consensus fully, may I suggest you read WP:CON and learn what it is? this isn't a strawman vote... anybody is welcome to put forward a rationale, it just so happens that so far you are the only one to put forward one in favour of your image. I have proved you wrong with various sources on the talk and an administrator has told you not to leave it off for now, very clearly. Why is it that you have 0% respect for that admins wishes and went against what he told you? Can you explain that please? You have also failed to explain why you blanked messages and even blanked sources from the article. The diffs I provided in the message above show this very clearly, its not acceptable behaviour. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only has the rationale been explained on your Talk page, on the Guy Fawkes page, etc., but this goes down to your WP:OWNership issues - When four users see merit in an image, and only you don't, you are not the "gatekeeper" we must pass to change the article. I don't know where you get off that four users have not explained themselves to you as well as you would like. I will let an admin deal with this situation as I am tired of bickering with you about it. --David Shankbone 16:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but thinking if Shankbone's name weren't attached to the image we wouldn't have a problem here. Issues with Shankbone's images have led to far more conflict than any other contributors, the above is case in point. A user has a valid reason the images should be stricken and Shankbone goes to war. Mike Farrell is another, Farrell took the time to send in a better picture of himself to replace Shankbone's and Shankbone went to war. Perhaps we should disallow names in images for some period of time and see if it leads to less contention? 71.112.130.211 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have worked with Shankbone and Yorkshirian before, though on separate articles. It should be pointed out that Yorkshirian has a fairly extensive history of not dealing well with dissent. My earliest contact with him in Robin Hood late last year found us in disagreement over his massive edits and my request and advice that he discuss them beforehand. Before long, he began calling me a 'vandal' - not exactly conduct conducive to professional interaction. I see that the behavior has not abated whatsoever. Calling established editors liars and their contributions spam is deleterious to a positive editing environment.

For me, the deciding factor as to culpability in behavior is the back-and-forth edit summarized by this discussion page Diff wherein Shankbone is altering a section title to make it less inflammatory without surrendering any of the informative value. Shankbone should be commended for this. Yorkshirian has to recognize that he is going to be edited, and if he truly feels that is edits are and should remain unassailable, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the best use of his talents and temperament. When it comes to consensus, sometimes you are the dog and sometimes you are the hydrant. Having been both, I can assure Yorkshirian that consensus can be built anew over time, so long as the argued point isn't of the 'snowball' variety. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And as for the anon 71.121's contention that ' Shankbone's images have led to far more conflict than any other contributors', perhaps they should take the time to consider how many images that Shankbone actually contributes to the wiki. One can hardly surg the wiki for an hour without coming across an image file not of Shankbone's creation. I would put his rep up against any other image-uploaders any day of the week and twice on Saturday. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale has only been explained or claimed by you in favour of it. One, uno person... that isn't a consensus, thats you. Lets face the facts this has nothing to do with WP:OWN, this is to do with you trying to slap an image on any article you can just because "you took it", regardless of the fact that you've been proven that it doesn't belong on this specific article. Despite the fact that you're the only one who has even attempted to explain a rationale in favour of it and despite the fact that two other people, including an administrator has told you to give it a rest. You care about putting on an image simply because "you took it", you're not interested in improving your article. Notice how once again you dodge all the questions I presented even here? Just because you've been here a while doesn't give you the right to a different set of standards I'm afraid. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block review for User:Decoratrix

When I was going through the the helpme pages I noticed this: [128] user was blocked for a time of 1 week for "vandalism", yet this user's recent edits seemed to be good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, rather than damage it. In addition, even if there were some edits that I can't "see" (deleted edits), to be blocked for one week with no warnings seems a bit extreme. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That block does seem a little stern to me, but have you brought this up with the blocking admin? That is normally the first thing to do in such cases. — Coren ^(talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The user has been unblocked by another administrator. The apparent reason for blocking was that the edited the article of Barack Obama, an American candidate for President. The edit had some negative information about his voting record which had a reference cited. Administrative abuse or not? Archtransit (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We could probably wait for Bearian to comment before speculating on his motives for the block. --Onorem♠Dil 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This could very well be "no administrative abuse". However, if an administrator blocks an editor who has made a controversial but cited edit in a political article just prior to block, fairness dictates that we examine that political censorship is not an issue and the real reason for blocking. I don't know much about whether this source is a reliable source of not (WP:RS). Isn't this politician running against John McCain for U.S. President? Archtransit (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Decoratrix was accused of vandalism by User:Nuclearj in this edit summary after making these two edits to Barack Obama, both of which Nuclearj reverted. Decoratrix was shortly thereafter blocked for 1 week by User:Bearian with "vandalism" given as the reason in the block summary. No warnings were issued. The block has now been removed by User:Rodhullandemu. My opinion is that the blocking administrator does not need to be consulted before removing such a blatantly improper block, but should be informed as a courtesy that his block has been removed. Mike R (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I actually didn't think I'd unblocked, realising that I should contact User:Bearian first, but I have left a message for him and explained on User:Decoratrix' talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking this page

Someone want to take a look at this user: 66.168.119.50? He just blanked this page and when I went to warn him, I saw all the warnings on that page and thought I should just ask an admin to take care of it. Tex (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(editing conflict) Next time you could be proactive. It's good practice : ) If the IP is still active and continues to blank after a warning (level 3 or final), then you or someone else can report him/her to WP:AIV. Looks as though they've already been warned. and blocked Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking one's own talk page is permissible, unless it's a shared IP. It's practice; a proposal to use punitive measures against blanking one's own talk page failed to gain consensus, and probably won't. (Of course, this is a bit controversial.) Gracenotes^T § 16:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an IP with a long history of sporadic vandalism, including page blanking. They didn't blank their talk page, they blanked this page (AN/I).[129] Vassyana (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. IP blocked from anonymous editing. {{anonblock}} noted on talk page. Vassyana (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana. Apparently my original post wasn't clear. I'm glad you understood what I was trying to say. Tex (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)