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. 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

Hacking

I'm not sure whether this is the right place for this. Someone seems to have added a non-existent page to my watchlist. How much else of the system is open to hacking? Peter jackson (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the right place to go. Nakon 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

--*You can save your time, though. Check the article histories; what probably happened was that an article on your list was moved to a new name (perhaps by a vandal) and then moved back, and the new name remains on your watchlist. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean I should check the history for every article on my list? Is that saving time? Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have anything to worry about, this is just the result of pagemove vandalism. If you really want to find out, go to the history page and click "view logs for this page" to see if there was a bad move somewhere. east.718 at 17:46, February 19, 2008

This thread made me smile. Even knowing this I still occasionally do a "WTF" when cleaning out my watchlist and see some bizarre title. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What history page? The non-existent article hasn't got one. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The history page of the article that was moved, if you know what it is. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But I don't: this is a circular argument. Peter jackson (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the deletion log? Doesn't that tell you? — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell us what the article is, so that someone who knows better can look at its delete history and see what happened. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's called Tehehehehehe corey is corey. Peter jackson (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This was the product of a vandalistic move at Buddhism, if Buddhism was in your watchlist prior to this I wouldn't worry about it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

... as you may be able to guess from the logs (though not so much the deletion log, as I first thought). — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce (talk · contribs) Longterm civility issues & ownership issues

having encountered redspruce on the 2nd or 3rd article now, and a quick glance at some of his previous talk comments on previous articles he's showing a willing disregard to debate civilly and this is creating a hostile editing environment on these articles. Examples from Talk:Joseph_McCarthy include:

• Since your contributions to discussion inevitably consist of uninformed wingnut drivel, I object.[1]
• Speaking of senseless waste, was there some point to those 200 words?[2]
• And makes a rather disparaging remark in the McCarthy archives On second thought, I guess I won't be back later today. Trying keep this article neutral in the face of two McCarthy apologists is becoming too much of a time and energy sink for me. Barring the arrival of reinforcements on the side of truth and rationality, I'm going to have to drop out for the time being. So whadeva; it was a decent article for a while. Bye[3]

From Talk:McCarthyism:

• Jtpaladin, even if that infantile fantasy was true, it wouldn't matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned[4]
• not for you to indulge in incoherent ramblings[5]

Most recently on the Film noir talk page he's made the following comment:

• You may wish to read anyone can edit, or better still, WP:Don't be a tiresome, priggish, tendentious little snot.[6]
• P O I N T L E S S. There is no consensus here. Period. You can either: 1) Wait for a consensus to develop, 2) Go ahead and make your pro-priggishness edit and see how the resultant edit-conflict goes, 3) Try to take this to some higher level of conflict resolution, 4) Go find some article to be priggish at.[7]

After I commented that threatening resistance without any kind of consensus (or even majority, or even guidelines on your side) reaked of WP:OWN issues (he's twice indicated there will be resistance or edit conflicts if the changes he doesn't agree with are made), especially since he has reverted these changes in the past and claimed a majority and consensus which clearly isn't there.. Numerous editors have reminded him about civility during this time, and here he demonstrates a clear understanding of it Talk:McCarthyism#Personal_attacks but it appears it just doesn't apply to him. We all end up in disputes on wikipedia. Its rare to find an article with heavy traffic that doesn't have at least one or two on its talk page, but if you can't conduct yourself appropriately during disputes this is a problem, regardless of what else you've done for the project. Nothing excuses insulting other editors.--Crossmr (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, you're using diffs stretching back to 2006 to build your case? Please tell us where the current problems lie. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. Here are some recent incivil comments:

• 17:36, 21 February 2008
• 12:10, 21 February 2008

But I'm not going to do the legwork here. I went through several days worth of posts and can't find anything that is going to jump out and cause me to lose sleep at night. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the Joe McCarthy talk page and nothing stands out as being particulalry bad. David D. (Talk) 23:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So referring to someone's contributions as uninformed wingnut drivel is okay with you?--Crossmr (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that depend on whether the actual contributions were uninformed wingnut drivel or not? Please note I am neither disagreeing with the description nor agreeing with it merely pointing out that civility is subjective and depends on whether the statement is a statement of fact or whether it is rhetoric designed to insult. --WebHamster 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. WP:CIVIL requires that we also try to avoid appearing uncivil as well as actually trying not to be uncivil. So regardless of whether or not this users contributions were uninformed wingnut drivel, calling attention to that in that manner is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. falling back on insults when you have nothing further to contribute to move the debate along is very clearly that. As well the policy contains the text Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute. Whether or not he truly feels the editors contributions are that, describing them in such a disparaging manner is uncivil.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Appearing" to be civil, in my view, is actually worse than being uncivil as it is basically lying about what you really feel and is actually indulging in passive-aggressiveness. Lying to a person is not a civil act. It also prevents honest discourse. Editors here frequently confuse 'civility' with 'political correctness'. A true act of civility is to be honest with the person you are conversing with. Obviously you don't call them a name purely to insult, but if the person is being a twat/pillock/idiot/stupid, then it's perfectly civil to let them know that. The trick is to remain on the right side of the line that separates honesty from rubbing their nose in it. It is my humble view that the mantra "you're being uncivil" is used too frequently and incorrectly and is used as a shield to ward off disagreement. It's become a perfect weapon against true honesty. Being nicey-nicey has its limits and sometimes the situation occurs when it is no longer appropriate. --WebHamster 01:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No its not perfectly civil. No one is forcing you to engage in that debate. You can walk away anytime if you can't continue the debate without resorting to insults. There is no reason to be discussing the other editor in any debate. As WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA both are quite clear on, keep your comments to the content in the article, not to the other editors. The community has been quite clear on that point on wikipedia for a long time. Its always appropriate on wikipedia to avoid insulting other editors. If you want to discuss the merits of CIVIL you might want to do so on its talk page, but last I checked its still binding policy on wikipedia and this editors continued behaviour is at odds with it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it's subjective, and you did see where I wrote "Obviously you don't call them a name purely to insult" didn't you? When is an insult an insult? Anything can be perceived to be an insult so the recipient's opinion shouldn't be taken as absolute. If the 'utterer' is not intending to be insulting and is just being factual then it is indeed civil. Intention is what makes an insult an insult. In this instance "uninformed wingnut drivel" is quite obviously intended to be an insult and is therefore uncivil. Whereas if someone does something plainly stupid and the response to it is "don't be stupid", then that is a factual statement. Its intention is to inform, not to insult therefore it remains civil. It's simply a case of WP:SPADE. Now if the alternate response had been something like "don't be fucking stupid" or "don't be a retard" then that is obviously uncivil because it is meant to be insulting. Although WP:CIVIL is policy it also relies heavily on interpretation. It's this interpretation that is being abused by editors to get their own way. It's quite possible to be civil whilst telling someone an unpleasant truth. This project could be improved by occasional candour. Sometimes it takes the shocking truth to bring someone to their senses, something that many editors are overdue for. Nicey-nicey is just another way of putting a lid on a pressure cooker. When it comes to humans it's the equivalent of making a left-handed person write with their right hand. It's alien, it's unnatural and eventually it's the cause of the problem, not the answer. --WebHamster 02:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well in the examples I've provided I don't see anything other than these statements being used to insult, especially in the last case where he knew I found it offensive as I immediately pointed him to NPA.--Crossmr (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the threshold of 'being offended' becomes increasingly lower every day. Why anyone would take offence when a stranger passes comment is beyond me. Are skins so thin round here that a further portion of wikidrama has to be dolled out? Perhaps "sticks and stones may break my bones..." should be in WP:CIVIL too? Nothing you've said has persuaded me that civility isn't just another popular way of gaming the system. Are editors so insecure that they have to 'run to mummy' at the slightest little insult? Personally I think you should save the drama for when someone calls you a cunt, all this seems rather OTT for "wingnut". Priorities and perspective should be used in large portions I reckon. --WebHamster 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Neıl ☎ 13:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And Neil scores a bull's eye :) --WebHamster 14:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not your job to decide when someone else is offended. The very reason CIVIL and NPA exists is to prevent the creation of a hostile editing environment which is what this user is creating. If users are offended by disparaging remarks which are unnecessary to the debate at hand, that's all the requirement that needs to exist for there to be a violation of civil. This user creates a hostile environment to try and drive out some editors who disagree with him, especially when he can't seem to carry the debate further. In this case the hostility and disparaging remarks were coupled with thinly veiled threats of edit warring if anyone carried out an edit he disagreed with. This is plain and simple disruptive editing. As I said though, if you want to discuss the merits of civil and npa, you may wish to do so on their respective talk pages to seek consensus for your interpretation. Personally I don't think anyone who can't keep the discussion to the content and needs to include disparaging remarks to make their point doesn't belong here. You don't build a community and foster communication and growth by digging at each other.--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Who said it was a job? Anyway, to put things in a nutshell. Stop being a wuss, it's hardly the worst insult I've ever heard. --WebHamster 13:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I provided the two comments from Film Noir already, including links to them.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I provided those examples because they're still sitting on current talk pages from the few articles I've been exposed to him in. I haven't dug through his contrib history to nitpick every edit he has made. I provided them going back to 2006 as well to demonstrate that is a long term issue, not something recent or isolated. I also provided links to demonstrate he's well aware of the policy and if he's not going to change after this long, he's probably not going to change given any further time. The current problem lies directly in Most recently on the Film noir talk page he's made the following comment but this is a far reaching and long-term problem which requires more attention than a simple "behave" as he's been told that multiple times in the past.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Crossmr, I don't see a single contribution by you to RedSpruce's usertalk page. It would have been much better if you had brought this up directly with RedSpruce first. Even if you were blown off, or it made no impact, it would have been more appropriate--and potentially successful--than requesting ANI input right away. — Scientizzle 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

← My only interaction with RedSpruce has been on Joseph McCarthy. That page happens to be prone to what might civilly be called violations of WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP and WP:FRINGE. Or what might, uncivilly, be called "uninformed wingnut drivel". On the one hand, RedSpruce really needs to be more civil. On the other hand, if not for RedSpruce, our article on McCarthy would probably suggest that Joseph McCarthy is now considered a Great American who was right all along about Harry Truman (NKVD code name MAXIM) and his cadre of Soviet operatives. I dunno. What do you propose we do about him? MastCell ^Talk 06:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• /me goes off to create {{uninformed wingnut drivel}}, a maintenance tag which would be perfect for a number of articles on my watchlist, especially cold fusion, Morgellons Research Foundation, What The Bleep and anything to do with Remote Viewing. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, but defending an article doesn't give you license to violate policy. His problems extend beyond McCarthy at least to Film Noir, which is only in danger of being brought in line with Wikipedia guidelines on style. My suggestion is to put him on civility watch and if he can't handle editing here civilly, block him. There is clear evidence that its not an isolated issue or a short-term issue. Its why we have the policy in the first place. There are clear ownership issues on Film Noir, and civility issues on 3 different articles that I know of. We don't need editors to protect articles who are going to do it through intimidation and hostility. As people are often told in disputes, if you can't keep a cool head, walk away. If your view really is appropriate, other editors will fix it, or you can use other steps in dispute resolution.--Crossmr (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, we all appreciate that this user, and many other users who do similar work against POV-pushers, can be uncivil to varying extents. Off the top of my head I can think of at least a dozen editors that are occasionally or regularly abrasive, but their work is an overwhelming positive influence because they provide proper content. This is an encyclopedia, not a social network, so the content rules should always trump the social rules. In fact, you have to get to #4 of WP:5P before you get to civility standards--and that section expects all editors to "act in good faith", which is rarely a descriptor of the hardcore ideologues that try to promote their views. I am in no way excusing anyone for being rude, uncooperative, or uncivil--and I believe the entire Wikipedia could benefit from greater collegiality--but to let personality conflicts and schoolyard-level tattling competitions inhibit the conveyance of reliably sourced, valuable information to the general public (the explicit goal of the project) is mind-bogglingly asinine.

I've not looked at many of RedSpruce's contributions, I've never worked with that editor nor the topic starter, but I've seen too much recently of civility rules actually hindering what we're supposed to be doing (rather than promoting the mission, which is why the rules exist). Everyone could benefit from a slightly thicker skin, and from taking a deep breath and a reasonable re-read before pressing that "Save page" button, but don't forget what the goal is here. Civility rules will only work if everyone is acting in good faith, and many are not. — Scientizzle 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Scientizzle. A few incidents here and there are not a problem, especially when having to deal with "wing nut" revert wars. Productive editors should be given the benefit of the doubt. David D. (Talk) 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And there is a solution, which is to help out. If your skills lie in the area of tact and diplomacy, then you can help by taking on the task of patiently explaining to the soup-spittingpurveyors of The Truth™ that their edits are more of a problem to the project than the testy reaction of people who defend policy against never-ending querulous argument. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Maxim's undiscussed unblock of User:Mikkalai

Last night, I blocked User:Mikkalai for 12 hours for this attack, calling it an "egregious and unnecessary" reference to physical assault in my edit summary. (Block log.) The resulting discussion is above, in the midst of a wider thread on Mikkalai being tempermental yesterday. There was some endorsement of the block and some disagreement. User:Maxim unblocked him four hours later. He did not discuss on AN/I and he made no post to me. (Mikka had made no apology in asking to be unblocked, complaining about wikilawyering instead.[8])

I'm starting a new thread because I don't want to rehash the details of Mikkalai's initial posts. Rather, I'd like comment on unblocking without discussion with the blocking administrator. The relevant bit from Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Administrators should not unblock users blocked in good faith by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." Pretty clear language. I went to great pains to stress I blocked as an uninvolved editor, and to unpack my reasoning that it was preventative. You might disagree with the block, but it was obviously not done in bad faith. More troubling, when I suggested Maxim ought to have discussed with me, he said he could "care less" about the blocking (invoking IAR, naturally).[9] Well, sorry, if an admin doesn't care about the blocking policy, he or she shouldn't be enacting blocks and unblocks. Aside from being personally annoyed, I find the attitude a very poor one. If Maxim had looked, he'd have found I was immediately active and willing to discuss. At a minimum, going to the AN/I thread was necessary.

Finally, do note from the block log that the last time Mikka was blocked, Maxim also unblocked. I don't know what I've walked into here. Perhaps, as I sensed yesterday, Mikka has people willing to let him off when he breaches policy because he's a copious contributor. But Jimbo has made clear recently that you can't be a jerk just because you do good work. I think my block was perfectly defensible, and even if you disagree with it, discussion with me ought to have transpired before undoing it. Marskell (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oh for heaven's sake. If you want to remonstrate with Mikka, send email and at least try to find out what the underlying basis of his state of anger is. A pound says he lost his rag with yet another bunch of POV-pushers on one of the ethnic feud infested articles he works so hard to keep sane. You won't help Mikka to get less stressed by blocking him, that's simply not going to help anyone other than the hordes of warriors that infest that corner of Wikipedia which is forever Eastern Europe. Better still, find more Russian speakers worthy of the mop and bucket, to share the burden. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I was trying to make clear that I specifically wanted comment on whether Maxim should have discussed the unblock. I very rarely block; maybe I'm missing something. Marskell (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above shows that blocking was controversial, and the discussion also shows that this was not an unblock without discussion. Honestly? I think blocking Mikka was understandable but a mistake. You may have failed to take into account that English is not his first language, and I think that reasoned discussion would have had the desired effect. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Marskell makes a good point that Maxim should have discussed the unblock - even if it's just a note on ANI "I agree with the above and unblocked due to it". He defended what he did on his user talk page with (referring to Wikipedia:Blocking policy "I couldn't care less for that page, I do what I believe helps the project. Your block certainly didn't."

Regardless of the appropriateness or not of the underlying block - That statement is a borderline declaration of wheel war, and is a real problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment on the English as a second language thing: I wouldn't consider someone able to use the wife beating example from Fallacy of many questions to have any problems with English. John Reaves 10:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GWH. Unblocks, especially of blocks resulting from community discussion, should not be performed unilaterally. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seemed to say a 12 hour block was entirely appropriate. Guy, I'm aware you disagreed, as Mikka is a "surly bastard" just like you so rank incivility and talking of throats getting cut is entirely appropriate, but put that aside - a block was placed, the consensus was broadly that a 12 hour block was suitable, and Maxim's response was effectively "I don't care about the blocking policy" ([10]) and to unblock. That's very, very poor. And Mikka's control of the English language is fine - certainly better than a lot of our purpotedly native-English-speaking admins. It would be just as irrelevant to point out that Maxim is also Russian. Reimposing the block at this point would only cause more drama, but hopefully Mikka will finally get the point that crude langauge, hysterical abuse and threatening to block those who disagree with you is not acceptable conduct on Wikipedia, particularly for an administrator. Neıl ☎ 10:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikka's use of English rhetoric suggests he understands the impact of his words just fine.

No, of course, we don't need to reimpose the block. I didn't reimpose it last night because I've never wheel warred and don't intend to start. What I'd like to see is just some acknowledgement that the actions were in fact wrong. Mikka made no admittance that his post was unacceptable, Maxim unblocked him anyway, and now Maxim's justification is "I'll do what I like."

We do make allowances in practice for good mainspace editors. We do not hand out free passes. Marskell (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The unblock was questionable. Failing to discuss was inappropriate. The hostile response shows a lack of policy knowledge. I urge Maxim to rectify this situation with an apology. Ronnotel (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This initially was not a case of "administrators can get away with anything", and I admonished the person who originally complained about Mikka to not jump to that conclusion. However, whatever the merits of the block, the fact that an administrator acting alone broke ranks and reversed a block that was widely if not universally supported would tend to encourage that thinking. That in turn causes wariness, resentment, and discontent with the process overall. I don't know what good an apology would do but if this is part of a pattern of mis-use of administrative tools, and it recurs, I suppose the recourse is arbcom. If the system is to have any integrity you can't let anybody practice incivility towards non-admins with impugnity simply because they have a support base among the admins that makes them untouchable. Wikidemo (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"you can't let anybody practice incivility towards non-admins with impugnity simply because they have a support base among the admins that makes them untouchable" - exactly right. (And for Wikidemo and I to agree on something, the situation must be desperate!) Neıl ☎ 13:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If (neil != rehash past) then (wikidemo = not rehash past) Wikidemo (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, are you suggesting that unblocking an established contributor needs to be "widely if not universally supported", but the original block need not be? — CharlotteWebb 14:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the other way around. In this case the original block was w.i.n.u.s., and the unblock was unilateral. I'm not an admin and it's not my place to prove the dangers of wheel-warring or say what the standards should be for blocks or unblocks, I'm just commenting on the message it sends out to people when an administrator gets an executive pass. I've come to respect that everyone has their own way of doing things and one cannot condemn everyone just because of one person's actions, but to the mass of non-administrative editors out there administrative incivility and an attitude of impunity, even from a few, taints the experience and encourages cynicism.Wikidemo (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And Charlotte, a difference too is that I was willing to talk about the block but Maxim doesn't appear willing to explain the unblock. Although we should probably wait til he logs back in again before commenting further. Marskell (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to address the block itself, but I think that the unblock certainly should have been discussed prior to execution - or at least when Maxim was queried on it. Refusal to discuss it is unacceptable in my book. - Philippe | Talk 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not automatically wrong to reverse an admin action without approval from that admin, regardless of what any project-space page says at the moment. However, in this case, it was a bad move. The next time this happens, let's block longer, and leave it in place. We do not have to "take the bad with the good", and that way of thinking should be discouraged. Friday (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but refusing to discuss the reversal is automatically wrong. Maxim has some 'splaining to do, at the very least. — Coren ^(talk) 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He explained it- he did what he thought was right. There's nothing left to discuss on that front, since there was no serious consideration of reblocking - there's no ongoing problem to be solved. The ongoing problem we should figure out how to fix is Mikkalai's apparently frequently unacceptable behavior. If Maxim's unblocking is contributing to that problem, it's worth further consideration. Otherwise, I don't see that it is. Friday (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

His explanation was contrary to both policy and practice. That is worth further consideration, particularly with someone who appears to use the block tool frequently.[11] Issues with Mikkalai are indeed be worth looking into and are a larger problem. But we shouldn't ignore this one. Marskell (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I once discussed one of Maxim's blocks with him (on-wiki and via e-mail), asking if he would consider shortening an indefinite block or unblocking. My view was that though a block was needed, an indefinite block was too much. Maxim briefly responded to my questions about this, but nothing came of it. I didn't unblock, and the user in question is still (several months later) indefinitely blocked because, unlike Maxim, I don't invoke IAR when I think an unblock might be best for the project. The user in question edited a rather narrow range of articles, but he has e-mailed me occasionally with useful comments about incorrect information in Wikipedia articles on that topic, and I think he would be a useful contributor if unblocked, though there are other issues that complicate the matter. I have advised him to e-mail the unblock mailing list, because his talk page got protected, but my basic question here is why some people feel they can: (a) in one case block and refuse to unblock or shorten when another admin discusses it with them; and then (b) in another case unblock without discussion. Isn't that rather contradictory? Carcharoth (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  Yes. Unfortunately, the only recourse is ArbCom, as many admins won't listen to polite enjoinders to change their behaviour or reconsider their actions. Reconsidering an action could imply fallibility, let alone actually undoing it or apologising for it. Neıl ☎ 16:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He does have a fairly extensive log, and perhaps there are other examples of either excessive severity or undiscussed unblocks. But I would say again that we need to wait for Maxim to log back in and comment (or not) before talking about any further mechanisms. Reconsidering an action implies thoughtfulness—fallibility is taken for granted amongst mortals :). Marskell (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Again, why is this discussion still ongoing?!? Does it serve any purpose except to make Maxim and/or Mikkalai feel really bad about what they have done? If they said they were sorry with a cherry ona top, would that be enough? Was Mikkalai rude. Unquestionably. Did Maxim unblock out of process. Maybe, maybe not. Would blocking either of them again serve any purpose? No. So what is this discussion intended to do except to inflame the situation? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This specific discussion is intended to clarify Maxim's unblock, questioned, on a quick count, by nine editors above. Marskell (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32, this has nothing to do with Mikkalai. Think of it has Marskell blocked Admin "X," in good faith, and without discussion, Maxim unblocked Admin "X," justifying his wheel-warring by stating that (paraphrase) he couldnt care less for the blocking policy, that he can do want he wants, even in administrative actions, if he feels it makes Wikipedia better. WP:IAR? states that this policy does not "mean every action is justifiable" and that "a rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." Right now we are challenging Maxim on how his wheel-warring made Wikipedia better. Also read the follow from IAR?: "Ignore all rules" is not an answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons." I would make an argument that the blocking policy is one of our stronger policies and admins should not disregard it when they are changing a good-faith block by a fellow admin ever. Just my two cents. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To follow that - I have no concern either way about the original block or correctness of unblock. I'll leave those for others who paid more attention to the detailed circumstances. Maxim, in doing the unblock, has to take responsibility for having done it, and that includes the responsibility to avoid wheel warring. Failing to discuss beforehand is not unheard of, but bad form. Refusing to discuss after other than to justify it under IAR is into the behavior which has previously been sanctioned for wheel-warring. Maxim needs to explain what he was thinking (even though I suspect it was reasonable thoughts), and needs to not do that again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To make it short - I unblocked Mikka because I found his explanation to be sufficient, and the block ceased to be preventative, and prevented Mikka from making a positive contributions. He has started at least one article after I unblocked him. Secondly, what's the point of {{unblock}} if a simple unblock of a little uncivil yet otherwise productive editor require a lot of meta-discussion? I personally prefer to write an article to commenting at ANI. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. I don't care for fine wording in the blocking policy, I've never actually throughly read that page. Finally, I want to address this atmosphere of kicking users around and making ridiculous statements. There's been half-a-score of editors showing up here to say my unblock was X or whatever; that's not needed. Go do something more constructive. Also, there's no need for threats to desysop me, block me, etc. over one unblock. And you're surprised that some users like Mikka are upset. I come home (about 20 hours since I logged off last night) to find that nice little present. That's not exactly pleasant, you know. Maxim_(talk) 23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All editors should act as a check on each other. Your actions were inappropriate- telling people not to discuss it is really useless. If you don't want to be criticized, don't make bad unblocks. For what it's worth, Mikkalai continues to run amok, behaving in ways generally unbecoming an editor, since the unblock. Fix your mistake please. Friday (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How can Maxim fix what was/is not his mistake. This is a bit of a speck/log case and the treatment Mikkal;ai is receiving is just unbelievable. Well done, Maxim, I fully endorse your unbllock. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

People can discuss all they want, I'll respond if they so require of me, and I'll go back to the stuff I like doing. I'm a volunteer, so as you are. I haven't told people to not discuss this, I simply see this discussion as a waste of time, really. The block would have expired by now. And I believe this was a valid unblock. If you really want this "mistake" to be fixed, why don't you be bold and reblock mikka yourself? Maxim_(talk) 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec'd x 3)Well said Maxim. Regardless of the merits of the block/unblock pointless "yeah, Maxim did a really bad thing" comments, simply echoing one after the other, helped this thread and Wikipedia not one jot - I see barely any useful input after the first few comments. Jumping on the "admin made a bad call kick him whilst I've got the backing of others" is unseemly and pointless. Pedro :  Chat  23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikka and myself have butted heads our fair share, but I agree with Maxim here. He did what he thought was right for the project, did not anticipate any problems with unblocking, and no harm came of it. That sounds like textbook boldness right there. It's considered polite to contact admins to perform an unblock, but chiefly when you're not sure of the context. --Haemo (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maxim's comment here and those rushing to his side are demeaning to the people who took the time to try to deal with this matter. What's unseemly and pointless is the uncivil behavior, not our attempt to deal with it. This would not have been an issue if the administrators involved weren't defiant when confronted with their own missteps. Instead, Mikka just ratcheted up the uncivil rhetoric when called on it, and Maxim is laying down the gauntlet saying he will not follow policy on blocks and wheel wars if he does not feel like it. If someone is not interested in the finer points of being an administrator perhaps he should not be one. That's not a threat or anything else but rather a question on just how far the community should tolerate rulebreaking. Wikidemo (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Then hell why don't we just delete the first paragraph under WP:BLOCK#Unblocking? Then we can just allow Admins to unblock without talking with the blocking admin. I agree numerous posts about "that was a bad block" and "that was a bad unblock" are pretty stupid, but when an admin goes against a very straight-forward policy in making a pretty controversial unblock, I believe it is necessary to clarify where the community stands on this. I mean I am a new admin, so should I take this to believe that as long as I justify my actions with WP:IAR that I can freely wheel-war? I am not calling for a desysopping or block, but I would like clear consensus on whether the aforementioned actions are a precedent for future behavior. I know personally that I would never unblock without consulting the blocking admin, or at least letting the blocking admin know what I did and why I did it, unless it was pretty dang clear that it was a bad-faith block. User:Marskell has stated that the block was in good faith, and that s/he was very willing to discuss it, but there wasn't even a note given on his/her talk page explaining the reason behind the unblock. As stated earlier, this isn't only common courtesy, it is a very straightforward policy. And again, this has nothing to do with the original block, this is about how admins should act when unblocking a good faith block, something I (mistakenly?) thought was pretty straightforward in policy. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worth reiterating that WP:BLOCK#Unblocking is policy. Corvus cornix_talk 03:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The basic question that started this thread has not been answered: why did the administrator not contact me or at least AN/I? Oh I see, 'cause he doesn't want to read the blocking policy. Maxim should not be making blocks and unblocks. His unresponsiveness and lack of policy knowledge make that clear. He has deleted comments about the subject on his talk page, just as Mikka deletes anything remotely critical. It looks like we have one admin that will cover another when he becomes uncivil, and both of them then try to evade scrutiny. So what to do? Marskell (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Make a note and if the pattern persists open an RfC, and if the pattern still persists, go to ArbCom. That is the generally accepted route. Part of the problem though is that ArbCom tends to let old stuff be forgotten, though you can still make those points at an RfC I think. There is a balance to be struck between bringing up old stuff and not. Mainly, I think, if they said at the time "I won't do it again", then even if they do it again a year later, the old incident can justifiably be mentioned. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's so silly, Carcharoth, threating to take me to arbcom over one unblock. Sheesh. Maxim_(talk) 12:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not silly at all. In some Arbcom cases a history of wheel warring, including an administrator's unblocking against consensus and without communication to protect a disruptive editor who he was protecting, has been at issue in a decision to de-sysop (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence). That is exactly what is happening here[12]. In this case I see absolutely no contrition or acknowledgment that administrators have to follow policy when using administrative tools. I think it's hard to engender confidence or respect among the editors for the threat or actual use of administrative tools with administrators openly declaring that policy does not apply to them. If administrators suffer a loss of legitimacy everything becomes a free-for-all.Wikidemo (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maxim, I was advising Marskell to drop the issue for now, but to keep this incident in mind if future similar incidents occur. If Marskell (or anyone else) is not satisfied with how things are handled in future, then some of the next steps in dispute resolution (failing a satisfactory dialogue between the admins and editors in question) would be a user request for comments and then arbcom. That is not a threat to you, but general advice that I would give to anyone. You can do exactly the same for me or any other editor if you are not happy with their actions (I would ask that you talk to me on my talk page first). It is called Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but most of that could be avoided if people would tak to each other and be prepared to sometimes admit they could have done things better, and apologise. Look at the swiftly resolved Georgewilliamherbet and Krimpet situation for an example of how a swift review and apology can avoid drama. Carcharoth (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Malamockq, User:Asams10, and Deletion of comments on discussion board.

User:Malamockq has been deleting comments from myself and other users on the the talk page for XM8. Please note the following: [13], [14], [15]. He has also been adding inappropriate content in the form of original research: [16], [17], [18], and this one where he deletes somebody elses comment (maybe his own sock puppet) and adds his comment: [19]. He is warned here: [20], and here: [21], [22], and [23], but refused to heed the warnings. I'd like him to stop removing others comments and I'd like the Talk page reverted so his original research and forum-style discussions are gone IAW WP:forum. --Asams10 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Malamockq for 31 hours for incivility (review welcome). I saw no point in warning or commenting on their disruptive editing, given the attitude/responses previously. As regards the talkpages, I suggest finding consensus over what should and shouldn't remain and edit accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this block. I don't see any evidence of incivility from M; I could point you at several clear examples from Asams10. A complains about M removing comments but somehow omits to mention that he too has been removing comments. The complaints about OR, in that they refers to talk not articles, appear unmerited. M should be unblocked. Both M and A should be admonished for petulance over the talk page deletions. William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, since the edit that cut it for me was the one posted to your talkpage, particularly the last sentence. I thought that that post was typical of most of the exchanges by this editor, no discussion regarding replacing a question that appears to have been answered previously, speculation, and a lack of civility. For the record I have also requested the views of User:Stephan Schulz, who Malamockq mentions as being familiar with the situation. If his view coincides with that expressed by you then I am content for the block to be undone - unless you feel it appropriate to undo now (proceeding as if it were a regular unblock request). As for Asams10's possible edit warring, if someone wants to post a few diffs then an admin may review them and comment/action as appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, In that case I'm going to unblock M, since it looks like S is out at the moment William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC). Too late. Its expired. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Abuse truth (talk · contribs)

This is fucking ridiculous. I've complained about this again and again: will anyone listen? Just as Satanic ritual abuse is finally starting to make some progress, single-purpose account Abuse truth jumps in with more tendentious reverts and talkpage disruption to waste the time of the users who are actually fixing the page. Methinks a page-ban is needed. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a gentle warning on the user's talk page at User talk:Abuse truth. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll need a bit more than that. This has been up at FTN twice, AN once - every time the contributions of Abuse truth are highlighted, every time we all agree there's a problem - and yet nothing happens. Now something finally has happened: the SRA article has been massively improved by recent contributions and yet Abuse truth continues to try to derail the process. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a variety of editors who might be interested in this entry, but I'm wary of ganging up on AT and the strong POV of the skeptical disputants may over-ride the good that AT can do on the very limited number of pages they edit. AT does have a very strong POV and only edits towards that POV, but is always within the letter of civility, if not the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. I'll admit the strong desire to indulge in a little incivility, and I have stepped beyond what I consider politeness. However, AT's polite ignoring of other editor's substantive comments and posting of over-long, sometimes irrelevant replies is sandpaper to my delicate sensibilities. Broader input from the community would probably be a good thing. One thing AT does bring to the project is a knowledge of the more...credulous literature and contributors and there is serious discussion of SRA in reliable sources that would not be included in the page were it not for AT and a minority of other editors. WLU (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a 1RR/day or 1RR/week limitation? Then Abuse Truth would need to engage and obtain consensus for his/her proposed edits. If the disruption is limited to the talk page, then options would include a complete talk page ban (the most drastic), versus limiting him to 1 talk page post per day (as was done with GordonWatts (talk · contribs)) or assiduously removing any posts which violate the talk page guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an option? That's a good option. AT does not disrupt talk pages by the way, AT is very, very polite. They're just long posts that don't really address the reasons why people are reverting. Often it comes down to a simple 'I disagree' and a page revert. I will admit that some of AT's comments deserve answering (or used to, they're mostly spurious in my mind these days) and I make an effort to try to address them when brought up (if I think they have merit). But I find the reverts never actually have a good reasoning behind them and AT does not (in my memory) revert more than once per day. Engagement with the community is usually very limited - no postings on any of the AN or DR pages that could a) help if AT has a point or b) conclusively state that AT is wrong in conclusions or interpretation of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WLU (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree that the SRA page is currently making progress. Certain recent edits have been made without consensus, including the deletions of large amounts of data on the page. At times, I have restored the data deleted w/o consensus. IMO, the real reason I am being attacked here is because of my POV. It is not a skeptical one. Certain editors find this problematic and have decided to try to limit my ability to edit. Normally I do not leave more than one talk page comment per page per day anyway. I also disagree that I have ignored the reasons people revert on the talk pages. I have tried to respond to all comments and have explained my edits throughly on the talk pages. Other editors simply revert my changes and do not even explain themselves. But they are editors coming from a skeptical position, so IMO they are not held accountable. IMO, there is a strong bias in wikipedia toward skepticism in the subjects of child abuse and related topics. This shows in the way reliable sources are treated. Those with a skeptical view are accepted rather quickly, regardless of quality. Those that may back the existence of SRA, etc. are subject to harsh criticism and often deleted w.o consensus.

This is also shows up in the way certain editors such as myself are treated. Abuse truth (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Moreschi, I completely agree. Fucking ridiculous. I have blocked this querulous warrior for WP:TRUTH, you are free to set an expiry time if you like but I don't see much chance of change. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Moreschi and Guy, and I fail to see what all the fuss is about - the username alone rings several alarm bells. Will ^(talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

AT, we have tolerated your POV for MONTHS. None of the involved editors or admins have blocked, or suggested a block. It was all independent. You are not being crucified, perhaps consider taking some of the reams of advice handed out to you over the past months and weeks. The accusation of bias is laughable, insulting and reeks of the abuse of good faith.

New discussion - can anyone with the word 'truth' in their name be automatically blocked, unless it's meant to be ironic? Seems like it would save time. I'm sure WP:V applies somewhere : ) WLU (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• "IMO, there is a strong bias in wikipedia toward skepticism in the subjects of child abuse and related topics." —AT

I have explained to you, AT, and the other pov pusher in SRA talk page that child abuse is my specialty. However, it is unwise to swallow extreme claims such as the "Satanic" abuse of children.

• "This shows in the way reliable sources are treated." —AT

It has been pointed out to you that no sociology or criminology peer-reviewed journal endorses SRA claims. If the criterion of limiting the article exclusively to peer-reviewed literature were used in this article, it would become far more skeptical than its present incarnation.

Finally, AT, I also hold a most strong "pov" and "truth" stance, as anyone who take a look at my user page can see. But presently I refrain myself from using WP to push my pov in the way you do. Listen to WLU: verifiability, not truth; and change you user name and your behavior.

—Cesar Tort 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• The user seems completely unable to understand the problem (which is, of course, largely why the problem exists). He's now asking to be unblocked so he can change his username, because he thinks the username is the problem, rather than simply being the kind of username that problem editors so often choose. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

AT's been very good at civilly acknowledging that a point has been written, while totally missing the substance of the point. Months of patient comments, pointing to policy and advice has led absolutely nowhere. I have seen no progress towards behavior that is in line with the community at large or overall purpose of the project, just a relentless trudge along the same POV-pushing path. WLU (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

request review of indef block

• For reference: Abuse truth (talk · contribs) per discussion above.

I request the indef block of this user be reviewed and reversed. The block is unfair, was done without warning, without a series of shorter blocks, and does not follow process-based community action in Wikipedia.

This is nothing like the extreme disruption that justified the recent blocks of multiple pro-pedohile activist editors without warnings. With the pedophile activists, there was a huge disruption by a group of people that went on for months before several of them eventually were blocked. Even in that situation, there was controversy about the blocks, and it became a matter for ArbCom.

This is a totally different situation. User:Abuse truth does not deserve an indef block and I request that the block be reversed.

Yes, he/she edits only a certain range of articles, and yes, the user's name implies a certain POV. However, the editor is more civil than most, and brings many references. Sometimes, too many sources perhaps, but that's better than not enough, and in particular his/her editing does not consist of simply re-writing sections without references, and s/he does participate in talk page discussions about the content.

Also, and importantly, those articles involved bring out strong POV editing in many editors, and not only among editors, but even in the scientific research and published papers and books there are POV battles including scientists and activists. This is not just about Satanic ritual abuse, but a range of articles relating to Child sexual abuse, including Repressed memory, Recovered memory therapy and others.

It's a difficult ongoing process to find ways of getting to NPOV on those topics, when the literature and editors have polarized viewpoints. To let the process work, we need people from both sides of the debate to work on the articles. The fact that some editors may be getting frustrated with the work does not mean that the process is not working OK.

I concur with User:WLU, at 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC) that more input on the articles from a wider base of editors would be helpful. These are content disputes, perhaps WP:RFC would be a good idea.

This block should be lifted. The user was not even warned at all. If someone has a problem with a user, there are processes for that, such as WP:RFC/U that were not followed here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I said this, the only real advantage to having AT on any page is the addition of a blatant single side of an argument, at the expense of having to triage sources, review and dig up counter sources. Sure, the page improves, but at the expense of tremendous aggravation. The pages would benefit from knowledgeable editors willing to add both sides of the debate. AT does not do this. WLU (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur with block of at least one week, although I think "indef" may be too long, and an indef article-space ban until he provides evidence of reform. On the contrary (to Jack), he was warned many times that some specific actions of his were inappropriate and violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. He wasn't warned specifically for WP:TRUTH violations, but many of his clear violations involving misquoting sources, using self-published sources by self-proclaimed experts, inserting extensive quotes from sources which didn't support his article text, adding references to Elizabeth Loftus which are (claimed to) discredit her theories, etc., which all fall under WP:TRUTH violations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for concurring that indefinite is too long. About the warnings, I meant only that no warning was placed on his/her page indicating that if s/he did not stop, there would be a block and especially, nothing about the possibility of an indef block - at least, not that I saw.

I did see that there were improvements in the user's behavior over time. For example, instead of repeated reverting, AT has brought sections and references to the talk pages in recent weeks. I did not see blatant mis-quoting of sources, though it might have happened. If so, that needs to be addressed of course, but there are procedures for that, like RFC for consensus, or RFC/U; to allow other editors to offer feedback for the user to learn and change.

Regarding the content issues such as reliability of sources, those are complex. Elizabeth Loftus for example is a controversial researcher and there are many who have, as you wrote, "(claimed to) discredit her theories". Some of those who have done so are WP:RS. Maybe the way this user went about including that information was not quite on track, but criticism of Loftus are appropriate, with proper sources, because that criticism and controversy is WP:Verifiable and goes to NPOV. I'm just using Loftus as an example, of course.

My point is that there is a content dispute happening in these articles that extends beyond this one editor. If we lose this editor, we lose part of the process of finding NPOV through consensus. For the content dispute, the path to resolution is RFC, and I don't think that's been tried yet. If there were enough editors chiming in to create a real consensus, then it would be more obvious if one person were trying to go against consensus. Those articles need that kind of attention anyway. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

←I want to clarify that i don't know this user other than by seeing the editing and talk page comments. I'm advocating for a review and unblock because I believe from what I've seen that the user is a good-faith editor and is willing to learn and improve. This is shown by the user's clear statement of intent to change and learn in his/her unblock request. That is a very different response than many blocked users who become angry; here we have someone who wants to cooperate and learn, that is exactly the right response to this kind of challenge.

I hope that an administrator will accept the user's promise and execute an unbolock. It will be a loss for Wikipedia if this hard-working editor is lost, and, it will have been done outside of established procedures, without formal process. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support an unblock with an indefinite article-space ban, with AT agreeing to the ban explicitly on his talk page before the unblock. He's misinterpreted too many statements which seem clear to me, for anything less than a "signed" statement to convince me he's willing to follow the rules. It should be pointed out that, as I've interacted with him, it would be inappropriate for me to unblock. I'd also ask for comments from the blocking admin as to whether this would seem appropriate to him.

As for Loftus, my concern is that, as her theories have separate pages, references discrediting those theories should only appear on the pages for those theories. That's another failing AT has exhibited; placing his reference on any pages loosely related, while it's clear to me that they should only appear on the articles which are most relevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I'd accept an indefinite 0RR in article-space. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to accept a reduction of the user's block. But those conditions are too strong. This is not an ArbCom case where long-term user sanctions are decided, or even an RFC/U with evidence from both sides and comments from a wide range of editors. This was a single, overly speedy, overly punitive action by one administrator, without a fair hearing.

The block is unfair and should be reversed. The editor is now on notice, as a result of this situation, so there is nothing to be lost by unblocking. If the editor does not learn and change as s/he has promised to do, then further procedures or blocks can follow.

Strong santions should not be applied unilaterally to any user without a fair and transparent hearing process. That's what dispute resolution and arbitration is for. If those steps are skipped when something is not an emergency, that is a degradation of community and is bad for everyone who edits Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As I just wrote in AT's talk page, perhaps a compromise solution between Jack-A-Roe and other editors and admins is viable? I am still very, very skeptical that AT has understood the issues that led to his block (though I might be wrong of curse). —Cesar Tort 02:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My reading of the debate there is that he simply doesn't understand what he's doing wrong. Blocks are preventive, I blocked to prevent further disruption, and an unblock can be considered once the chance of disruption is known to be reduced. Step one along that path is for the user to understand the problem, but we haven't reached step one yet. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User still not blocked, still violating policy

At [24], I noted that User:Alex 8194 was conducting behavior he'd previously be blocked before, and making it worse. Admins in that section indicated they'd work with him to resolve the issues. Nobody worked with him to resolve the issues, and he still continues to conduct the violations, removing no rationale tags without providing a rationale, and doing it again on another image. Enough is enough. SOMEbody do something. All my warnings to him have fallen on deaf ears. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Those images no longer exist anymore, could you provide better diffs?. Rgoodermote  20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• An administrator can see the diffs. Look at the page history of the deleted images, and see his edits on those images today. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The user's contributions show he has stopped. This was way before user east told him off. But I do see edits from earlier today that indicate he has continued to add a copyvio image to Têtes à claques but when told off stopped. I also see he cleaned the deleted image tag from article Et Dieu créa Laflaque[25] though forgot to remove the image...will do that. and has even taken the hint that his Peter Griffin image is improper (he didn't re-add it) by asking at the talk page of the article. I do not think a block is necessary for this user. But a stern talking to. By the way, not admin Rgoodermote  21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Continual removal of missing rationale warnings after being warned several times on the issue is grounds for blocking. Removing warnings of any kind without fixing the problem noted by the warning is improper. He was warned multiple times. He's previously been blocked for copyright violation and had similar behavior leading to that block. He simply doesn't care. How many second chances does he get? Well, I'm content to give him one more...that he responds to east718's note on his talk page. If he continues to abuse our policies, he needs to be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Since my last message I delved deeper into the users talk page history. It appears he has been at this for a while. I would suggest a block at this point, but not an indef. I would say a couple months and an image ban. Rgoodermote  21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the original report and looking at the random edits the user has made. The user seems to be genuinely trying to help the project and not harming it. He may not understand copyrights and may be making wild potshots when it comes down to copyright and reasonings. What I believe should be done is to have the user banned from uploading and editing images in general. Rgoodermote  21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• My original request was a block until such time as he promises to work within policy. East718 did it lighter, but with more or less the same wording and no block. Either way, the behavior has to stop. When a person is given multiple opportunities to get it right (he has), has been told several times he's doing it wrong (he has), has been blocked for the problems before (he has), continues to ignore warnings and conduct the same problematic edits (he has), at some point you have to say...ENOUGH! Whether incompetence or willful misbehavior, the effect after all of that is the same. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are going in circles on this one. Let us start over. I endorse a 1 month block with a ban on image uploads and edits to images. Because I feel the user is trying to help but is unable to find his niche. Rgoodermote  —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think a one month block is excessive. Further, I'd like to see him respond to the "Copyright violations" thread at [26]. The length of the block is less important than his promise to abide by policy. The most I could see for this if he doesn't promise is a week. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If I could block him I would, I have tried to contact east but he is most likely offline. I don't know 1 month seems fine for violating copyright laws. But a week is reasonable to as long as he is forbidden from uploading and pretty much going near images again. Rgoodermote  22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, alex is offline and he will most likely not respond today. Rgoodermote  —Preceding comment was added at 22:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Less concerned about when he responds so long as he responds. There's no sense of urgency here in the sense that we've got to block him immediately. But, if he ignores the thread and continues on, then a block is appropriate even if he doesn't continue the violations. He can't just ignore this problem away. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well he can try, but I doubt it will ever work. This topic still unresolved admin intervention stilled required. Rgoodermote  22:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User still ignoring efforts to discuss this with him

Timeline:

• At 20:37 UTC today, admin East718 left a message for Alex asking him to promise to stay away from editing images until an admin helped him with this. Alex continued to edit, ignoring the plea ([27][28], etc.)
• At 20:45 UTC, user Rgoodermote informed Alex of this thread [29]. Alex continued to edit without responding to Rgoodermote or to this thread.
• At 21:56 UTC I asked Alex to please respond to this [30]. Alex continued editing, ignoring the request. [31][32]
• At 23:49 UTC, I more forcefully warned Alex to respond [33], noting it highly likely he'd be blocked if he did not. Alex continues editing, editing his userpage [34][35]

It's obvious at this point that Alex simply does not care about adhering to our policies or engaging in discussions related to his ongoing disobedience of our policies. He needs to be blocked. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, he finally responded. Deleted my requests at the same time, but meh. [36]. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems to have a real problem communicating and understanding some things. That seems to be the issue here, I think. It looks like wilful ignoring of policy, but I think it is gross failure to understand. At some point, the difference becomes meaningless. Suggest a thorough check of his uploads in the meantime. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've either fixed, deleted, or tagged all of their uploads. This user appears to be just a kid, and we can't really can't expect somebody like that to grasp an abstruse a topic as Wikipedia's image use and fair use policies, something which most established contributors have trouble with. They appear to be trying to help too, such as here, where a fair use rationale was written, but an incorrect tag was placed. I'll keep my eye on this user and help out wherever I can. east.718 at 02:33, February 23, 2008

• So, what are you going to do ? When I was re-uploading deleted images, I wasn't ignoring warnings and the policy, I was just finding a way to prove that the image was copyrighted, I didn't really know if it was or not. And about the Image:ÉDCL.jpg, when I claimed that it was licensed under GFDL, I was just too busy and I would've explain the real licensing later and also when I deleted the warning tag, I just read it quickly and then I realised that the licensing has been changed by a Non-Free poster, I just thought that the problem was solved so I deleted the warning tag. As Rgoodermote said, I am trying to help the project not harming it. I am just too lazy to read the tutorial, but I think I will.

--Alex 8194 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, not reading the tutorial before you upload dozens of images because you're lazy is a really bad excuse. Don't think of it as optional anymore - you have to read the image tutorial and the copyright pages before you upload anymore images. And not responding to messages does seem like you're ignoring people from their end. Other users don't really have any way to know what you're doing unless you tell them, so if you don't tell them anything and keep uploading images, it does look like you were ignoring them. I would suggest responding to people's messages, even if it's just a quick "I'm working on this, thanks for the heads up". If you start a dialogue with some of the editor's who have been leaving you warnings and messages, you may get a much better understanding of Wikipedia than you have now. Natalie (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I still feel and even stronger now that this user should not be allowed to upload or edit images on Wikipedia. His ignoring us, his constant ignoring of warnings and suggestions. The user has shown that he wants to help but is not doing it very well anymore. But at this point I am willing to let it go. The user seems to have changed his mind and seems to be listening to us. Rgoodermote  17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But on that note he has uploaded more images and again..they seem to violate a few policies and I am pretty sure a few laws but I am not sure. [37]. Rgoodermote  18:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

His last upload was five minutes before he posted here, and he has not edited since. At the moment, I think we can wait and see what he does. Natalie (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I make his last upload at 16:28, 20 February 2008 (three days ago), and he has edited since but not uploaded since, unless I'm missing something? Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not missing anything. I just stupidly didn't look at the date when I saw that the timestamp for the last upload was earlier than his post here. My point was that he hasn't uploaded anymore images after contributing to this discussion, so a block would be premature at this point. Natalie (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I have a link for a tutorial ? --Alex 8194 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:TUTORIAL (don't know if there is one for images), but to be honest, I would avoid images for now, unless you are sure you know the different between free images and non-free images. Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

When I said I was too lazy to read the tutorial, I was just talking about image uploading and copyright policy, not the whole tutorial. --Alex 8194 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to to find the tutorial of image uploading. I got what I was looking for. Wikipedia:Image use policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 8194 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You can also ask questions about images in general at Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk (for example, if a part of the image use policy is unclear to you), and you can ask questions about specific images at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. You may also find the page on Wikipedia:Non-free content helpful. Natalie (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I noted those links in my talk page. --Alex 8194 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruption, incivility, sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – anonblocked 131.125.114.0/23 --slakr^\ talk / 08:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor has used a multitude of IP addresses to push forward his agendas, specifically regarding Foo Fighters article and any articles relating to this band. His actions border on WP:OWN and his attitude is, for the most part, aggressive, belligerent, uncooperative and uncivil. Many of his edits go against consensus reached on article talk pages. I've had some unpleasant interaction with this user and it seems as if he moves on to a new IP account (within the same basic range) when messages start being left on his Talk Pages pertaining to his edits or his behavior. User has yet to establish a permanent account with a User Name, thus making the standard warnings useless. - eo (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• 131.125.115.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.114.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

incivility on edit summaries

[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]

other

The attitude displayed in these edit summaries carry over to discussions on article Talk Pages, specifically ones pertaining to Foo Fighters. User's most recent IP addresses are repeatedly removing a musical genre from Foo Fighters-related articles even tho discussion and consensus was made for its inclusion (these are just the most recent): [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]... etc., etc., etc..... on and on and on.

Since it doesn't look like there's any other good contribs from that range (131.125.114.0/23) I went ahead and blocked it for 2 weeks. since he was hitting other pages and there were lots of good contribs from other anons to the pages. Any admin is free to reduce/increase it as needed. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 08:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

IP posting some personal information

Resolved

 – All edits oversighted --Chris 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this, but I'll post here and let the admins do whatever they want. This diff [81] has some seriously questionable information posted, regardless of real or otherwise; if I were an admin, I'd probably delete that version from the history. Just something that got my hackles raised up. Yngvarr 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, check the IP contribs, the same thing has been posted elsewhere. Yngvarr 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Which IP? That particular edit has already been oversighted. MER-C 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Zoinkies, sorry. Special:Contributions/189.157.132.83 Yngvarr 02:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Got him a couple hours ago and pinged a couple oversights about those edits. east.718 at 02:44, February 23, 2008

We should probably delete those particular revisions to avoid credit card fraud. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the revisions and have sent a request for oversight --Chris 03:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

john celona and Jkp212

This is a weird case, in that I suspect that two users who, by all appearances, hate each other may actually be one and the same. john celona (talk · contribs) and Jkp212 (talk · contribs) are two editors who seem to be on opposite extremes of the interpretation of WP:BLP; celona likes to include as much negative information as possible, while Jkp212 takes "do no harm" as literally as it's possible to do. I've dealt with both of them at Peter Yarrow and Frank LaGrotta; these incidents make up, for a both of them, a majority of their edits in the last several months. Neither one had edited since January 17 until two days ago, when celona came back and made a couple of edits to the LaGrotta article. Today, Jkp212 came back too. Now they're showing signs of wreaking their customary havoc at Larry Sinclair. This certainly wouldn't be conventional sock-puppetry, but it still look suspicious to me. What do others think? Is there any chance of a checkuser being granted on this basis? Or am I just suffering the lingering aftereffects of Archtransit paranoia? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: they've also both been involved in the conflict around Gene Krupa, which I haven't touched. It looks like either my bizarre sock hypothesis is correct, or there's some stalking going on (which would also explain the almost perfectly overlapping wikibreaks). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is one certain way of finding out if CU will take the case... From a very brief review I wonder if it is possible that Jkp212 is an alternate account of a regular contributor which is used chiefly to oppose the celona account - without consequences for the main account? In the absence of any CU or other evidence I suggest dealing with them as two edit warring accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think LessHeard's ideas are probably right. There is some background here that I would prefer to give off-wiki to any admin who gets heavily involved here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin assistance - fairly lame attempt at outing

Hi. Can I ask an admin to deal appropriately with 70.4.91.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I suppose we're in a minor dispute over the IP's addition of inappropriate external links to Robert Gallo. As part of the dispute, the IP made this edit, which I assume is an attempt to "out" my real-world identity via edit summary. Since the ID is incorrect, I haven't bothered to delete it or request oversight, but this is clearly a fairly bad-faith tactic. Could I ask an outside admin to intervene here? MastCell ^Talk 07:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned, but I wouldn't oppose a block from someone else. MBisanz ^talk 07:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

IP hasn't edited since. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help with correct placement of an RfC on Collective punishment

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collective_punishment&curid=5762998&diff=193451707&oldid=193450832:

I have created an RfC as I believe the presence of the Israel/Palestine section is detrimental to the article and encouraging edit warring, preventing the article's improvement. I wasn't sure whether it should be listed as RFC-Politics or some other category though. If anyone knows the correct category for such a request for comment, your help would be appreciated. Thanks. M1rth (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks in place to me - the politics category seems appropriate. If problems ensue, feel free to take the next step in dispute resolution, or come back here and ask for assistance. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay out (as much as possible beyond playing devil's advocate regarding some sources) of the content dispute, since I don't think the content really improves the page at all. Thanks for the assistance! M1rth (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination) is a second time AFD nomination that is getting an extremely high amount of meatpuppetry. I would not mention now, except that I can't keep up with tagging the spa's every time one comes along. I also cannot find the site on the internet where this might be advertised. In any case, he may be notable, but it would be nice of a) an administrator could lock down the page to new accounts, or b) an administrator could evaluate the notability, and close the AFD. It's probably worth noting that the google search seems to be malfunctioning and not coming up with enough hits for him (can't figure out why). The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been deleted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 11:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not MEATpuppetry, look at the writing style, it's SOCKpuppetry. I'd wager it's the subject of the article, in fact, given the accolades heaped upon the subject in each keep vote. Should a Checkuser and block be done? ThuranX (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The article, and then its talk page, was recreated in various forms throughout today, and has now been salted. Black Kite 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswego — Scientizzle 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• You will now be pleased to note that it has gone to deletion review, and the circus has come back to town. --Haemo (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link. Some of them have been arguing with me on my talk page about it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Prodego and unblock-en-l

Prodego released my private email address during a heated discussion for no apparent reason. This email was privy to the aforementioned mailing list members, but was made public, for no apparent reason. I am asking for administrative review because this email was privately disclosed to the aforementioned list. My email is private; but no longer. It uses my first name, and the domain I own. It is enough information to get my home address, phone number, and any other registrant information. Regardless of my feelings about the 'private' list, I see this as the worst type of personal attack. Why was my personal email, entrusted with this list, posted publicly? Is this a retaliation for publicly admonishing this list? the_undertow ^talk 12:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS? John Reaves 12:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe this complaint is because the_undertow is upset because there were complaints coming from an email recieved at unblock-en-l because a user was upset at being blocked with the summary "vandalism: teh sucks" (we're not here to have a laugh at the expense of users we block) - If there's a real issue here, why publicise it on a high traffic page? Ryan Postlethwaite 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't sidetrack this. I want to know if there was justification for posting my email address. (PS. The user was NEVER upset about the edit summary - that was an outright lie), and admissions are here, Ryan. This is a real issue, and I would appreciate if you would do your research instead of assume and throw this off topic. Your omnipresence here is appreciated only predicated on the fact that you actually do read your cursory reviews in their entirety. the_undertow ^talk 13:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing has gotten surreal. The concerns on the list were raised and the decision was made to contact you with the intent of voicing those minor concerns and has just spiraled completely out of control. The unblock list isn't a secret cabal nor are we sitting around complaining about you. And seriously, if you felt the email address was a major issue, you'd have deleted the edit, not come wave it around ANI. -M^ask? 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would I delete the edits? The issue is not my privacy, it's the posting of my address. If I deleted the edits, it would be only available to the admins, who posted my address in the first place. This isn't surreal. It's quite real. Please make it clear that you are from the list as well, as that would help to clarify certain motives. the_undertow ^talk 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• This complaint is without merit. It is perfectly plain from the context that Prodego was simply attempting to confirm that he'd sent the message to the right address, this is absolutely not a case of outing or abuse. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that how confirmation works? Should I post your home address to confirm that you received the Valentine's card I sent? The answer is no. Any person with any tact, or an IQ of at least 85 would ask, 'did you get the email I sent?' the_undertow ^talk 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• @Guy, it is pretty obvious, that Prodego indeed revealed The_undertow's private email address to the public. @AKMask Yes, the unblock list is indeed secret as there is a selected readership and no public archive. --Raphael1 14:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's private because we deal with sensitive subjects, people have a right not to have their IP, name, and email all linked together for anyone to see. Private != secret cabal. We aren't hiding up in the tree fort dangling a rope ladder just out of reach, we're just helping out users. -M^ask? 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven's you just insinuated in your previous post, that publishing the email address isn't "a major issue"? What is it now? Do people have a right not to have their username and email linked together for anyone to see, or not? --Raphael1 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort, I said linking ip, email, names, and other information that frequently flows in is not something that should be available to every random person. You'd be surprised at the amount of phone numbers people provide for contact, for example. It's not any one piece of information, like an email address, but the totallity of whats provided. That said, I don't disagree that posting his email was a mistake, it was. But it was an honest one, i dont see any malicious intent, and this could have been handled quickly and quietly if the user in question wanted it to have been. -M^ask? 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Raphael1 is just upset that he wasn't allowed subscription. John Reaves 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that your comment may constitute a personal attack or at the very least be incivil, and that it would be best to apologize and bring down the temperature of the discussion, no? M1rth (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you found ANI on your 7th day here and are already imparting your sage wisdom...John Reaves 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this right below my request for assistance creating a request for comment, above. Please remain WP:CIVIL. Thanks. M1rth (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think posting the e-mail address was a dumb mistake, not an attack, and the edit should be oversighted and Prodego should apologize. I also don't see why an admin in good standing should be denied subscription to unblock-en-l. What is the rationale there? If there is a problem with the way he does things, raise it on-wiki so it can be addressed. Blocking him from the list doesn't change his ability to unblock with "vandalism = teh sucks" edit summaries. If the purpose of restricting access is to protect private information, isn't it ironic that in the course of restricting access private information was divulged? Admins are trusted members, and we have already seen what happens when closed mailing lists with restrictive access requirements above and beyond being a trusted member of the community engage in activity that results in a dispute. Avruch ^T 16:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, a mistake. A simple one and probably not even obvious until pointed out. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the point is that there was a "consensus" reached on this list that a block summary which read "vandalism: Really teh suck" was inappropriate. It was taken to the_undertow's talk page where he was told of this consensus. He acknowledged his mistake and said he wouldn't do it again, while also voicing his objection to these mailing lists. One-by-one the members of the mailing list started flowing in. Prodego knowingly lied about the situation, stating the user was offended when, in fact, the user probably didn't even notice. The_undertow then attempted to join the list to read the thread and Prodego declined his request. It is at that point that Prodego posts the_undertow's email on his talk page. First, the email didn't bounce back to him, so it's good. Second, he could have simply stated that he sent the emails to the address used to register for the list. There was no reason to post his email. There's a reason our wikipedia email doesn't disclose our email addresses and a reason we have to use special formatting to post them. It was inappropriate and pointy. After the last bit of mailing list drama the_undertow dealt with, it's no wonder he fails to appreciate such consensuses... and it didn't help that they trickled in one after another, making false claims (not just Prodego, but SWATjester as well), which could be taken as personal attacks. That's the point. There should be apologies for the lies that were said and for the careless public posting of private information. How ironic that a list which serves to protect the privacy of blocked users releases the private information of our sites most trusted users. Lara❤Love 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm somewhat perplexed here. Nobody should be using an e-mail address on the unblock-en-l mailing list that they are unwilling to have posted all over Wikipedia and the rest of the internet. You're making your e-mail address (and potentially other information, such as IP address and any other information that can be determined from your e-mail address) available to people who have been blocked for editing. Nick (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if you respond directly by e-mail to those requesting unblock. That isn't what happened here. Avruch ^T 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not. He only joined to read the thread. Lara❤Love 07:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So he joined the unblock-en-l mailing list but with an e-mail address that would never actually be used to deal with unblock requests ? Why not ask someone with access to forward the thread instead. I'd say, by signing up to the list, it's a fair assumption to make that you're going to use the e-mail address you signed up with to respond to unblock queries and consequently, there's no concern about that e-mail address being spread far and wide. Nick (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread is off track so let me be succinct. I was told the list is private and remains private because IP addresses are a concern. Why was my email posted? Why was it necessary? What was the point of posting my private information? Regardless of all assumptions made, the question remains, was there a good and justified reason that someone other than myself felt it necessary to post my personal information? the_undertow ^talk 11:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Hanlon's Razor. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Froth

It appears the User:Froth's account may have been compromised. This user had an elaborate user page until it was blanked on January 24th. This user appears to have been a contributer on the Reference Desk/Science for quite some time [82], but now his contributions are largely hoaxes. He also complained about deletion of a request for medical advice, claiming to be "a 54-year-old grandmother". It is my opinion that for a user who had a history of mature and beneficial edits who then suddenly blanked his user page and began adding nonsense, is most likely the result of a compromised account. He does have a committed identity hash which predates the alleged compromise of his account. I would like to request this user be blocked indefinitely until he can prove ownership of his account. (EhJJ)^TALK 14:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...Seems a little far-fetched. I doubt a compromised account would work for just under a month by the same intruder. Most probably just Froth himself. Rudget. 14:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's me. See my comments back at WP:RD/S :D\=< (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Too bad. I was hoping that someone hijacked your account rather than that you have changed your ways. Well, in that case, I drop my request that you be blocked under the circumstance outlined above. I don't have a problem with you acting bold, as long as it's civil, and I'm not accusing you of the latter. Happy wikiediting! (EhJJ)^TALK 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

He's editing for his own personal amusement rather than for the betterment of the project now. He's giving ridiculously stupid answers at the ref desk, apparently on purpose. This is a problem. Friday (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

He's explicitly stated that he's on "the light-current's fate train", which is a worrying comment. (For those not familiar with Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was a once-moderately-productive editor at the Ref Desks whose sense of humour and conduct started to grow more and more erratic back in late 2006. Light current was eventually banned after he started to engage in personal attacks, vandalism, and block-evading sockpuppetry; his sleeper socks have been popping up ever since.)

A block warranted then? Rudget. 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts whether it would help. And right now, this situation is not an emergency, so we can move slowly and carefully. If he does something particularly egregious, a short block may be warranted to make clear the message of "Yes, we really do expect people to behave." The best thing would be someone talking him back into contributing constructively. Obviously this is easier said than done. Friday (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a go. Rudget. 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(after double ec and hopefully not too late) A block isn't warranted. Froth has been very helpful at the reference desks. I too edit for my personal amusement. I don't think the comparison with Light current is legit (even if made by froth himself). Froth thinks he's a pirate, and is showing an anarchic DGAF attitude, but he rarely calls people names, doesn't play faux-naïve, doesn't abuse user pages, doesn't fill talk pages with time-wasting silliness for the lulz. Some guidance, yes, but a block will have the opposite effect. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I edit for my own amusement (and hopefully others'. Nothing wrong with that. Hopefully he will satisfy the bloke posting this to ANI more in future. It's all a matter of personal taste, to some extent, and what we feel like doing. Of course, if he turns truly evil, block. But I think the likelihood of that has been increased rather than lessened by this thread. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think his conduct so far warrants a block; I just thought that the comment was worrying, and that offering him some guidance now rather than later might be a good idea. I'd rather not get into a Light current-type situation where a sometimes-good editor goes off the rails/off his meds/off the deep end. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe LC and Froth are sharing the account? David D. (Talk) 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That was my assumption, I went through histories looking for shared tics but didn't see anything too blaring right off the bat, but I have them open and am parsing them, I noticed they both created their accounts in July of 2005, and though many many other people did as well, seems odd for the reference now. Dureo (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that is a coincidence, I meant sharing in the literal sense that LC could edit without suspicion if Froth gave him the password for his account. We have to remember that while LC has a bad side, there is a good side too, problem is that the former can never resist contributing. David D. (Talk) 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Light current has a 'signature' style that Froth (or the edits from Froth's account) doesn't seem to exhibit. As far as I can tell, Froth is just letting off steam; with time and guidance I hope and expect he'll back away from the edge. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

THUGCHILDz

User:THUGCHILDz ignores again this consensus for wording Australian rules football, rugby league and cricket are all claimed to be the national sport by various people in national sport#list of countries' national sports and pushing cricket as most popular Australian sport but cricket is certainly not most popular Australian sport!!!! All you read in introduction of sport in New Zealand New Zealand's most popular sport is rugby union, the national sport but THUGCHILDz insists pushing cricket also most popular in New Zealand and inserting New Zealand in this list. THUGCHILDz likes cricket but pushing this sport in all corners!!!! He is a POV warrior against consensus of other editors and against evidence: may you stop his absurd edit warring?--PIO (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems he ignored a 3RR notice on his talk page (by AGK) on the 11th. Block warranted in my opinion. Rudget. 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Before you make an judgment, how about you look into the matter please?--THUGCHILDz 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And sorry but I have to take this personally because this has gone way too far. And just to make it very clear for you. 4 Out of like 11 or more user's vote isn't and doesn't make a consensus. Also, people read into it before making judgment with prejudice. If you do take your sweet time to do that then you'll know that I haven't removed anything over the wordings but put accordingly to the refs. Nationally cricket does have the most popularity but on state to state basis it is different with AFL and RL being more popular in different states. And that's exactly what was put. That wasn't even what I had inserted first. There was a consensus and people came very close to an acceptable statement and All I had done is [modify] it a little bit accordingly to the ref. And No I'm not pushing cricket at all corners; all I did is edit it to what the sources had said. Citing a wikipedia article is irrelevant.--THUGCHILDz 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If he's broken 3RR then file a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Otherwise this is a content dispute, and should be resolved using the normal dispute resolution mechanism. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't broken 3RR, there are days between edits. This is a content dispute about exact wording of the entry, although THUGCHILDz is also adding an obviously irrelevant sport to the list, which should be removed. Black Kite 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what irrelevant sport am I adding? please read the consensus above and you'll know that the people aren't talking about me but PIO himself. Either he doesn't understand English very well or is just being ignorant--16:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by THUGCHILDz (talk • contribs)

The irrelevant sport (to the article) is Ice Cricket, with this edit. Black Kite 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't add it, some else did]--THUGCHILDz 03:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at PIO's talk page and know that I tried to communicate with him over the issue but he didn't resolve the issue. Also you'll notice that he's in conflict with several other users. He's also made personal attacks against me several times on my talk page and the mediation and when I confronted him with it, he just ignored it. He equally made personal attacks and accusations against other users as well if look into it. I didn't go against the consensus. I AM part the consensus. All I did was correct something accordingly to what the source said.--THUGCHILDz 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What's a patience and I have patience very much.--PIO (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? That didn't make any sense.--THUGCHILDz 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont know you guys. it seems like editing to blow off ssteam is a legitimate use of editing privileges t o me, and if its on his own talk page id ont see why it has to be huge case like this. Smith Jones (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I've been mediating this dispute at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Australian rules football and referred the parties to this and the other noticeboards for edit warring complaints, since MedCab isn't a binding or enforcing form of dispute resolution. There are some issues with a couple of the pages involved in the dispute, that I've opined on at the case, but I'd like to leave any administrative action to an uninvolved admin. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Disturbing edit summaries by User:Dumrovii, possible sock case

After I blocked User:Parable1991 for vandalism, User:Dumrovii reverted my message to Parable1991 with the edit summary "Removing threats of anthrax injection. User is reported". Before that, he reverted the vandalism warnings on that page with the summary "Removing sexual innuendo. User is reported". Obviously the edit summary is disturbing, but it is more disturbing that it is on another user's page. I think a block for User:Dumrovii is in order, along with a sock check. VegaDark (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser  Confirmed these accounts are coming from the same computer:

Dumrovii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Parable1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So I'm porkin' this hooker, right and she keeps squealing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Going Down to Texas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reginmund and Parable have a large number of seemingly good edits; the question is whether this is someone who just needs to blow off steam once in a while and can straighten up, or someone who is a long-term concern. Although, note that before the checkuser was run, both Reginmund and Parable1991 had been blocked for various forms of misbehavior. Thatcher 16:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I to understand that these other edits came about whilst the main account (Reginmund) was blocked for three months? It seems like the editor wasn't blowing off steam - more likely, he was blowing off the editing restrictions. Should his other accounts, listed above, be tagged as socks? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, check the timing for yourself. I try to present the checkuser evidence and leave the rest of the evaluation to others so I won't be accused of conflict of interest or abusing my powers by banning people on evidence only I can see. If Parable1991 was editing during Reginmund's blocks, that would be a case for strong action. Thatcher 16:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this posting by Parable1991 to my talk page pretty much made it clear that this user is socking and that they aren't likely to stop the personal attacks and bad edits, even with the stopgap measures presented by basic blocks. Can we just indef ban this fine young gentleman and get on with things? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• This looks like another sock: User:Domrovii with this edit:[83] --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• All accounts blocked indef and tagged - quite a bad sock farm by the looks of things. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Danger to user security from SSP report

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

Resolved

- Report closed, editor concerned didn't seem upset. No admin tools used and I see the initiator of this report failed to address their concerns with the repoprts originator before bringing this here. Same 'ol, Same 'ol I guess but no admin action required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

just clarifying that the issue was raised with the report's originator before this was brought here and that Abd has subsequently explained to me that they were concerned about an urgent need to delete the SSP. Since I did that independantly I guess we can move on but my apologies for mischaractising their actions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

---

User:MBisanz, a new administrator, has filed a suspected sock puppet report on a user who apparently abandoned an account and began using a new one. (There is no overlap.) Unless there is abusive editing, detecting this (it's not difficult) and reporting it could be harassment and certainly could be harmful to a user who wishes to interfere with easy off-wiki identification by shifting to a new account. This report also, without cause, identifies the IP address of the user (because of edits made when not being logged-in and easily connectable with a little research). Because I don't want to add to the number of references which will directly name the account involved, I'm not linking to it directly; rather, see User talk:MBisanz, where I filed a warning and request, or Special:Contributions/MBisanz. All edits which identify the accounts involved (in the text or in the summary) should be immediately deleted, including my own, unless MBisanz -- or someone -- shows cause for filing an SSP report involving abusive editing or other reason for need-to-know. As far as I am concerned, all identified accounts could be considered as one, without SSP filing, for purposes of identifying abuse. But Mbisanz is apparently not active at this time, and possible off-wiki damage could occur at any time.--Abd (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just walked in the door. I had reasons of possible/potential abuse that I listed in the report, which others can review. No special tools like deleted contribs or checkuser were used in its creation though. I'll respond more there unless there is a consensus to discuss here. MBisanz ^talk 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well its been deleted, so if an admin wants to review it, they know where it is. Seems to be resolved though. MBisanz ^talk 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's moot now, because the user showed up and acknowledged the account linkages. However, that SSP report should never have been filed. There is nothing in it rising to the level of sock puppet abuse justifying investigation. Definitely, if policy here is unclear, this should be discussed. Users should not troll for sock puppet identification unless there is suspected abuse. In this case, there was no simultaneous usage of accounts (other than some IP account overlap), and nothing alleged that the user couldn't have done with open socks or a single account, no dual voting, no back and forth between socks to create the appearance of support, only a page created by the first account and later (lapse of time) edited by the second. Apparently, Mbisanz thinks that changing accounts without putting up a notice is some kind of violation. He should be disabused of that notion before he wastes more time -- his and others -- chasing non-abusive "sock puppets."--Abd (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I had concerns which led me to file the report, which can be review in the deleted report. And there was at least one (since reverted and no I won't link the diff) instance where there could've been an actual sock problem. MBisanz ^talk 19:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Template:Db-g1

Resolved

Move war on this template is disruptive. It creates many double redirects which not only wastes bot-time but also may cause the use of the template fail. -- Cat ^chi? 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call that a move war. I believe there was a move, one revert of that move (and the revert caused double redirects,) then a discussion, then re-doing the original move (which I believe fixed the double redirect situation; there don't seem to be any double redirects now.) Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Double redirects in speedy templates. I don't think any discussion here is necessary. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I care not what the consensus or the discussion is. All I ask is people discuss and reach an agreement first and then take action on such heavy use templates. -- Cat ^chi? 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Since only two editors were involved, wouldn't it have been more effective to just give them that message personally rather than posting here? I'm not aware of any other templates that have been moved repeatedly, so it doesn't seem like this is a huge problem. Natalie (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

These templates are so heavily used that they are also heavily discussed - the issue existed for a very short time, discussion should remain on the talk page for CSD as per Coppertwig; this thread should be closed.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism

by this IP [84] working a whole range in order to vandalize a user's talk page [85]. As soon as he is blocked he adopts a new IP. JNW (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page has been protected. Moot point now? HalfShadow (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

One hopes so, though that IP range might bear watching. JNW (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Talk:Vector (spatial)

User:Firefly322 has been engaged in some disruptive editing at Talk:Vector (spatial). This includes personal attacks against me in a thread which may seem to be about improving the article, but is actually a referendum on the my own "intellectual qualifications" as an editor: see [86], [87], [88]. Firefly also persistently refactors his/her own talkpage comments after they have been replied to, and has deleted some responses to comments as well. (Just see the edit history at Talk:Vector (spatial).) At one point, I moved the entire thread to Firefly's talkpage, after he/she attacked me again despite repeated warning. Then he/she selectively reintroduced parts of the thread, but without any of my own replies. I am at wit's end, and don't know what to do with it. Please help. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Firefly is not the only one modifying talk page comments. You deleted a "personal attack" by Firefly322, which is why the first two "personal attack" links you give above are identical: one of them is a revert. You also admit to "moving" a thread. If Firefly322 wished to move the user's own comments back to where the user originally wished to post them, and to leave your own comments where you decided to put them, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The "personal attacks" quoted above don't look terribly bad, although no user should be commenting on other users in that way, in my opinion. ("When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." WP:NPA) I see a message from you, Silly rabbit, on Firefly322's talk page about personal attacks, but I don't see anything about how talk page messages shouldn't be refactored after being answered (which is probably not an absolute rule, anyway). I also see an edit where you moved a large amount of content on to the user's talk page, with no apparent explanation -- not even an edit summary. I would think that would be rather bewildering for the user.

Note that Wikipedia:No personal attacks says "Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all." Note also the section "removal of text" in that policy, which seems to suggest that you shouldn't have deleted Firefly332's personal attacks. That sort of thing often only contributes to escalation of the whole situation. Try to see the other user's point of view and to get along. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the outside view. I admit that I probably handled some things badly in the situation, but I found the whole issue to be so infuriating. I hope things have calmed down somewhat, and I see that the user has at least refactored out all of the personal attacks from the recently added text. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my comments in a positive spirit. I'm glad to hear that the other user has refactored out the personal attacks! That's a very positive sign. I hope you'll find some way to extend an olive branch and that things will go well. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement question

Question: When dealing with an ArbCom imposed ban, article restriction, or other sanction that is for a specific duration, i.e. 1 year, 6 months, whatever, does that duration reset with each violation of the remedy? For instance, if an editor is banned from an article for 1 year, but continues to edit it through obvious sockpuppets, after 1 year from the ban enactment does that ban lift, or is the ban extended to 1 year from the date of last infraction? It seems folly to basically say "no matter how bad you are, how much you violate the arbcom decisions during your ban period, after this magic date, you're allowed to come back."

Example: User X is banned from article foo for 6 months on January 1st. He violates the ban on February 1st, march 1st, april 1st, May 1st, June 1st, and June 15th. On July 1st is he allowed to return to the article? Or do his violations reset the start of the 6 month ban i.e., his ban would not expire until 6 months from June 15th? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it (and I've recently seen an example), each infraction may reset the ban, although this could depend on the ArbCom ruling. So the six months could have been restarted in your example on 1st Jan, 1st Feb, etc. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The general practice is definitely to reset the sanction. Relata refero (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, extending an ArbCom remedy based on violation happens only if there is an allowance for it in the remedy or if the Committee makes a further ruling. Avruch ^T 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Brad is probably going to come and answer this properly, but the reason we have enforcement in ArbCom remedies is so when a ban is violated, a block is issued. If it's just an article ban, then generally speaking, we don't restart the ban on a user and keep on blocking until they reach the end of the enforcement meaning the block length is extended to a longer period (e.g. 1 month, 1 year....). It's different if they're site banned, then we generally restart the ban every time they break it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so for an article ban, where the remedy does not specify that it resets on each violation, the general rule is that it does not reset? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just go ahead and block for the duration that the enforcement section states - and it can't hurt to strongly caution him not to do it again. For what its worth, given the user has been banned from the page, all his edits to the page should be reverted on sight. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have bothered to reset article or topic bans, since violations there are met with escalating blocks. In Swatjester's example, User X would have earned himself about 2 months cumulative block time for all those violations. I suppose we could reset the timer on page bans, as we do on general bans, but it has not previously been common to do so. Thatcher 03:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If a user is sockpuppeting and wholesale ignoring the ArbCom restrictions then go back to ArbCom. "You know what, we tried to give this user a chance to reform under editing sanctions and they just don't get it. Can we ban them please?" Or if they are continually disruptive without useful edits, just get some admins and community ban them. ArbCom sanctions are not meant be protection from community sanctions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm specifically referring to Derek Smart from the Derek Smart arbitration case. The remedies state that: Supreme Cmdr (Derek Smart) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV.

In the past several days, Derek Smart/Supreme Cmdr's socks have been editing the page, violating both Supreme Cmdr's 1 year ban, which expires next month, and violating the rule against editing the page. Supreme Cmdr/Smart's ban expires in 1 month, but he's obviously shown no contrition and continues to disrupt the page with various sockpuppets. So, my question was, despite all those violations, his ban just up and ends next month? Granted, the other remedy (against him using the article page) would continue indefinitely, but that does not address his sockpuppets, as well as his edits to user's talk pages who edit that page. The best solution here is to have his ban reset on violations. Can this be requested somewhere? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Above its said that sitebans typically reset if violated, so it looks like this is a candidate for that outcome. Is this extension the sort that is worked out at WP:AE? Seems like it ought to be, with the outcome logged at the RfAR enforcement log. You could do it yourself, assuming you are otherwise uninvolved. Avruch ^T 05:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this thread but others have anticipated me. There is no general practice of resetting pagebans or editing restrictions after a violation, because they are usually enforced with escalating blocks instead, but I don't see any reason that an uninvolved administrator couldn't order a reset in an appropriate case, at least for serious or repeat violations. If you think this should become a more common practice, that should probably be raised on an enforcement talkpage or somewhere. In general, as most readers here probably already know, requests for attention to violation of arbitration remedies go to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement (WP:AE) in the first instance, and then can be brought to WP:RfAr if a change to the decision itself (e.g. strengthening a remedy) is needed. Incidentally, this is as good a place as any for a reminder that there is a chronic need for more admins to get involved at WP:AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. I made the request at WP:AE, since my involvement in the case nominally makes me unable to do an extension myself. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruption on Kosovo article, potential abusive sockpuppets

Several users (User:Getoar, User:Rinigjon, User:Pjetër Bogdani) have teamed up to make massive and highly POV edits to the History section of Kosovo. This has been going one since the protection was lifted, and but has spiralled out of control because of the current weekend. They have ignored all attempts at discussion, and one of them in particular, Getoar, has a highly combative attitude. When I tried to reach out to him he just ignored me both here [[89]] as well as here [[90]]. He has also tried to frame me for vandalism here [[91]] when in fact that edit was performed by another user [[92]]. I request urgent action to be taken to protect the article and prevent it from becoming a battleground. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems on that talk page, including rampant incivility from User:Bosniak, who, it seems, can't reply without using "Duh!" to respond to the comments of everyone else, a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. Further, the three above do seem to be supporting each other's edits in the article space, but I'm not sure they're actively pushign a POV or such, and think diffs to that effect are needed. ThuranX (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:Getoar (established user)
• User:Dardan Prishtina
• User talk:Sintonak.X
• User talk:Rinigjon

... They appear to be coordinated off-wiki and they revert towards some WP:SNOW recension involving the "Serbian peril" and similar. No sign of willingness for collaboration on talk. how will we deal with these? Intervene at user level or lock down the article again? dab (𒁳) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us also remember that this article is on ArbCom probation, meaning any of these users can be blocked right now. I am going to leave notifications to all of them that they have listed on AN/I, for now. SorryGuy  Talk  22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Getoar's conduct is particularly troubling. I went to the article from here, and found a particularly bad bit of grammar. It took a while to fix it, but once I did, Getoar came right to my page congratulating me for having the right viewpoint, and trying to recruit me to be on his side, and push his POV. This, in turn, led to an outbreak of the damn war on my talk page, which I put down in the most absolute form. That editors now feel they can pick who is on their side like a pick up baseball game is a problem, one guaranteed to escalate the tensions and the warring on Wikipedia. As such, I recommend that Getoar be blocked 'toot sweet', so his recruitment drive does not continue. (This in no way endorses the other side.) ThuranX (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To be totally honest, I think you are over reacting and not exactly using language conducive to the calming of the situation. At any rate, Getoar, for what it is worth, has been very open to communication with me. He agreed to stop reverting changes and instead bring his proposed changes to the talk page, which he has done. He did say "I can wait for a while and see what they say. But even if my version is not accepted I will challenge the current one (by tags and minor acceptable edits). It has practically no sources at least up to its later subsections." which gives me some pause, but I feel as though the situation, at least in regards t him, has been partially defused. SorryGuy  Talk  00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My language only got blunt AFTER their actions ,to make things incredibly clear to them. before that, I was clear and concise about the problems I was addressing, it's not my fault that they want to see POV everywhere. ThuranX (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They are now teaming up on Talk:Kosovo to try to ram these changes through. Massive canvassing evidenced on the these users' talk pages. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I know so little about the subject I can't comment on the validity of the proposal, but when they all obvious share similar beliefs I would sort of expect them to agree. Just give it time, if those neutral to the subject feel the proposal is a bad idea, I am sure consensus will develop towards not making them. SorryGuy  Talk  00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My goals are to improve the article on Kosovo and at no point aggravate it. I don’t exactly understand what you mean by “teaming up,” but I am just asking people who are interested in the issue to give their opinion. I don’t personally know any of these editors, so I can’t presume their reaction. As to now, three people have preferred myy proposed changes to the history section as opposed to one objecting them (see Talk:Kosovo#PROPOSAL_FOR_THE_HISTORY_SECTION).--Getoar (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this fall under WP:CANVAS? BalkanFever 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive canvassing evidenced [[93]], [[94]], [[95]], [[96]], [[97]], [[98]], [[99]], [[100]], [[101]], [[102]]. I don't speak Albanian, but it seems pretty clear to me that "diskutimin për historinë e Kosovës" refers to the discussion of the history of Kosovo. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the idea here is to appropriate that Kosovo was always Albanian, through whatever possible continuity between Albanians and ancient peoples, and never Serbian, simply by leaving all the information out. BalkanFever 07:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Revanchism at its worst. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In an article under probation, with multiple complaints about him, why hasn't this user been blocked? This level of CANVAS (10 Users listed above) on an article with this much contentious editing, and there's no block? ThuranX (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, I am looking. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Getoar has been blocked for 96 hours and warned of the general sanctions. If they resume trouble making, I recommend a lengthy topic ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good block ,Jehochman. I'm inclined to support the topic ban now, but I think that would only escalate things, as the 'other side' would take it as a victory, and 'this side' would seek to escalate to get 'revenge' by getting one of 'that side' banned as well.ThuranX (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Similar problems on Dardania related articles

Adding a subsection here. I've noticed that the Dardania related articles are also getting a POV pushing. As far as I can work it out, the POV goes as follows: IF the geographic land is Dardanian in heritage, then the Albanian people have to shut up, if the land is Albanian, the Dardanians have to move. TO that end, I note that prior to the Kosovo declaration, and the lead up to it, This was the explanation for the Dardanians: [103]. Now that it's been moved, the borders shrank. This push one way or the other is ridiculous, and it's the first time I've felt that I'm really watching Wikiality en masse, in the sense that Colbert intended. This POV pushing has to stop, and I really think that article locking for Kosovo related articles is the only way to handle it, and ask that The recent POV pushign edits by DBachmann be reverted and the articles locked by an admin. I'm on neither side on this entire fight, but only got involved through the AN/I reports recently, which have had me sticking my nose in. But I'm not an admin, and I've already seen how fast the POV warriors tag you as friend or enemy, and since I have no buttons, being lit up again isn't my interest. ThuranX (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Dbachmann's edits POV-pushing (he seems pretty neutral), but strongly agree to protecting both Dardania and Kosovo. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would. He seems to be on the Kosovo=Dardania side, not the Kosovo=Albania or Kosovo=Serbia side. ThuranX (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, that's ridiculous. I'd be highly surprised if Dbachmann was pushing a POV. Much more likely he hasn't had occasion to look at these articles before, seen that they're already unbalanced, and has tried to repair them with a few reliable sources. If you're unfamiliar with an editor's history, do spend a couple of minutes looking through their contributions before making that sort of accusation. Relata refero (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann's notified of this thread. Relata refero (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all how it looks to me; Specifically, his edits to shrink the borders to custom fit Kosovo look suspicious, as per the diffs I provided. Seems like a deliberate intent to support the Dardani=Kosovo POV pushing. He changed all of it without good sources or citation, and hid some of that movement behind the cover of merging and moving articles. I note that as part of that ,he had to remove the article about the geographic location (Dardania) into the article on the people, which certainly fits with the Kosovo = Dardania POV pushing. Otherwise, he would've left an article on the place, and one on the people. ThuranX (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm spot on neutral with no personal interest whatsoever, which, as always, means I'm being bashed by both sides. I have just done abominable pro-Albanian edits at Kosovo (UNMIK), just as I've perpetrated abominable anti-Albanian edits at Dardani. The whole idea that the proto-historic tribe of the Dardani bears any relevance whatsoever to Kosovar nationhood is patent nationalist fringecruft with no footing in sane reality. I am, as always, on the side of protecting our articles on ancient history from the attempts of our less reasonable customers. Dardania: 400 BC. Republic of Kosovo: 2008 AD. Connection: none. dab (𒁳) 15:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Betacommand

No, this is not another bot thread, this is a question about dealing with its owner, betacommand. I ignored the deliberate vandalism of my talk page, I ignored the total ignorace to repeated requests for information, I ignored the responses about 'bullshit attack pages' is respone to good fatih attempts at centralised discussion, but now, he is basically calling me a liar: "The issue is the page was created with numerous false statements that were knowingly made", and "they knowing pulled shit out of their ass". Seriously, what has this guy got to do to get censored? MickMacNee (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Providing the diffs proving the allegations would be a start. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This perhaps. At some point this thread should be moved to the AN subpage, which is if I recall titled "/Betacommand" not "/BetacommandBot". Avruch ^T 21:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Talk page vandalism (first response to criticism) [104]
• First actual response to criticism: [105]
• First allegation of being a liar: [106]
• Second: [107]

MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also [108]. I'm also curious why Betacommand2 (talk · contribs) is being expressly used to contribute to an MfD - it splits the edits to debates across two accounts and makes things harder to follow through contribs. Orderinchaos 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If he really said "they knowing pulled sh*t out of their *ss" about other editors, that just isn't on and he should receive a warning at least. Hasn't he had warnings for this recent stuff? Special Random (Merkinsmum) 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit diff links above are fairly unambiguous. As Betacommand2, he does appear to have said those things. I am going to leave him a warning on NPA and no more, as I am about to step away from the computer for a time, but other uninvolved admins should review in more depth. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have notified Betacommand about this thread. - Philippe | Talk 23:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mick, please stop it with the threads. At the very least, it's making you look bad. If you want to create a witchhunt, do so in its proper place. Will ^(talk) 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd probably be better if you were to be "concerned" somewhere else than AN/I, because I think you're wearing away the good faith of most regulars on this page. As Will says,user disputes are this way. Black Kite 23:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My comments tward MickMacNee, and several other users are correct. I have repeatedly stated facts and how BCBot operates. these users come forward making BS claims about how BCBot operates, without ever providing proof. these false claims were not based on any facts but where designed to make me/how the bot operates look bad. I pointed out these false statements, yet the users in question keep repeating their same false statments ignoring my comments. I have repeatedly stated how/when BCBot does things either here or on AN. yet the users in question failed to do any research, but instead make lies up about how they think work. β^_command 00:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just left a warning on your talk page, however... you can be entirely correct that your critics are factually wrong, and at the same time saying so in a manner which broaches WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. If you broach those policies and abuse users enough, you will be blocked, even if you were right about the underlying dispute. Abusing people on-wiki is contrary to policy, rude, and destructive to the community. You've been warned about this before and you've admitted that you had a problem staying polite with people before. You know this is a problem. If this keeps up, somethings going to have to be done about it. That doesn't serve you well or the project well. Please take the step back and calm down and stop aggrivating the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Georgewilliamherbert, BC/BC2/BCbot have done many good things for wiki, but the community's patience with lack of response to concerns, his behavior, and his language/incivility seem to be at an end. BC's been warned multiple times. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, if there are concerns about BCBot that you think that I have not answered please bring them up on my talkpage. I try to stay calm but repeated attacks against me wear me thin, and admins seem to just ignore those making those attacks, while when I react I get hammered for loosing my cool after repeated attacks against me. β^_command 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• If there are no objections, I plan to move this thread to the AN subpage in an hour or so. Avruch ^T 01:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm a bit irritated that we keep moving this off, because I'd certainly like for MickMacNee to see that most ofthe community is tired of this shit. Every single little thing, he runs here. I don't like tattletales. This is ridiculously childish of him. it's the old 'I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you' for five minutes, until he screams 'He HIT me! He HIT me!'. Well, good for him! Really. how much begging for a fight should we tolerate? Let MMN see that no one approves of him, and then he can move on. Hiding it on a subpage means less people saying stop it to him. ThuranX (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. Let him study up on the proper procedures for uploading images, get out of Betacommand's sandbox (proverbial, not subpage) and move along already. Everyone jumps down Betacommand's ass for his civility and they don't consider the constant poking he gets, and in particular, this month, from MMN. Lara❤Love 08:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • So you don't think the above comments are innapropriate then? If anyone is tired, it's me from being continually abused for having the temerity to start a discussion about a bot, which you and others continually try to derail into unfounded conduct allegations. I realy would love to know what possible self-interest I could have in making BC look bad. MickMacNee (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Considering the constant crap that you give BC (which, by the way, looks an awful lot like harassment at this point), I probably would have said worse. Find something productive to do with your time and stop poking people with a stick. Shell ^babelfish 16:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it'd be a Pyrrhic victory for your anti-BCBot campaign. We're all aware of how horrible you find it to have all the images you uploaded without rationales tagged and notified on your talk page; we know you took it as a personal insult, and many of us see your actions since then as a payback for that. I sure do, and all your conduct since then continues to show me you can't accept responsibility for your upload actions, and fix your images. Now quit trying to get a guy doing something that was endorsed by Jimbo in trouble for doing it. You keep poking the animal, the animal tries to bite, then you try to have the animal put down. That's how I see it, and judging by LaraLove's comment above, I'm not alone. ThuranX (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This comment exposes the criticism of me as the phallacy it is. I have never had any images uploaded by me tagged by BCBot (until he chose to mis-use his privelages and vandalise my talk page). Check your facts before making such ridiculous statements. I raised the original issue as a reflection of observed community concern, nothing more, nothing less; your continued assertion that this is a personal campaign due to something I have to gain from it is, in the words of BetaCommand, "bullshit"; and your and LaraLoves attempts to besmirch me for doing so, do not stand up to scrutiny. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not how you spell fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.50.164 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

you need to check your facts, over half of what you say about BCBot is just plain wrong. yet you insist that its right. β^_command 16:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything I may have said about your bot that was actually incorrect has not been repeated once it was corrected by you:- one of the main issues at hand is the lack of accurate information on which to base any complaints at all, and your reluctance to correct any innacurate view promptly, preferring to vandalise talk pages instead. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That is because you dont bother to do any research, Ive clearly stated how/why/what BCBot does countless times. you just dont bother to do any research and instead making baseless claims. β^_command 16:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're not personally affected by BCBot? Then why are you out here every day looking for ways to get BC and BCBot blocked? Why do you keep poking him with a stick? If you're not affected, you've got even LESS ground to stand on. The only community concern that matters is improving the project. That's achieved by protecting the project from legal troubles. BCand BCBot assist in that. Their actions are noted and approved by the Foundation and Jimbo, as evidenced in the many, many prior threads on this matter. I don't know why you're opposed to his actions, but the net result is that you look like you want the project to be damaged, or even fail. Stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense, day after day. And if you've got no image uploads, then yes, I was wrong to assume you're personally insulted. Fuck if you're not insulting the whole project though. ThuranX (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your POV opinion of my actions, and again you confuse issues with the bot with issues with the user. Check your facts before making generalisations like this. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tone down the rhetoric and watch your language. This is a forum for reasoned discourse not angry comments. FWIW, my comments apply to everyone, let's take a pause before reacting; I find that sometimes works (LOL). Bzuk (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Toning it down is a good idea, but there is no policy or convention against swearing. NOT#CENSORED and all that. Avruch ^T 16:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But there's no reasoning with him. I've been calm in previous threads on this matter, but at this point, nothing less than the firmest and bluntest language seems likely to affect MMN's attitude. CIVIL doesn't extend infinitely. ThuranX (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Ricky81682 and question of possible administrator abuse over files

The following two images were processed by that administrator Ricky81682 with no appropriate license assurances and the questioning tags were vandalized by him while he abuses other article images with fictitious concerns and failing to rectify his mistakes despite good faith discussion attempts. More interestingly, he adds fictitous licenses at images put in wiki by other users in those specific images. Than he goes and removes PUI tags while he puts same tags in other’s work to damage. See below:

Image:Image-TJC Logo.jpg • (cur) (last) 01:43, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) m (757 bytes) (Reverted edits by 71.184.9.231 (talk) to last version by Ricky81682) (undo) • (cur) (last) 01:32, 19 February 2008 71.184.9.231 (Talk) (1,134 bytes) (undo) • (cur) (last) 01:31, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) (757 bytes) (license) (undo)

India Sex.jpg 01:30, 19 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:India Sex.jpg • (cur) (last) 01:40, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) m (390 bytes) (Reverted edits by 71.184.9.231 (talk) to last version by Ricky81682) (undo) • (cur) (last) 01:30, 19 February 2008 71.184.9.231 (Talk) (768 bytes) (undo) • (cur) (last) 01:22, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) (390 bytes) (added license) (undo)

The same administrator Ricky81682 covered up the following vandalized sound file despite appropriate copyright tags at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CemalGursel1963.ogg. 14:15, 16 February 2008 Rettetast (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:CemalGursel1963.ogg" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD G12), was a blatant copyright infringement. using TW) 14:15, 16 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Cemal Gürsel‎ (Removing instance of image CemalGursel1963.ogg that has been speedily deleted per (CSD G12); using TW) He erased all goodfaith discussion attempts at the above sound page including all of its log files to prevent traceability and responsibility.

He also continuously interferes in bad-faith with an obtrusive and predatory manner with the following files:

Image:ArmyGames.jpg clearly indicated “From his family album and personal collection” and it is also a government photo declared heritage. There should be no problem there. Making fair use claims does not negate against public domain. It seems extra but does not make abuse by an administrator OK.

Image:WithACadet.jpg indicates the same “From his family album and personal collection” as to the ownership of the copyright and further fair use statements are provided, which do not again negate against the image legitimacy.

Perhaps the absurdity of the abusive admin interaction becomes most obvious at the Image:Harb&istiklalmedal.JPG and all of its history with appropriate tags. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leblebi (talk • contribs)

As for the bottom three: The images he is tagging as "possibly unfree" have no verifiable information as to their source, and there was the suspicously migrating arguments as to why the images are free. He is under no requirement to simply take someone's word for it that he's the copyright holder of an image if he feels that is unlikely, and he has pursued the appropriate action by posting to PUI and seeking community input. You have pursued inappropriate action by edit warring to remove the tags from the images. I'd suggest that you stop this and simply stick to civil and good faith discussion on WP:PUI, or on the talk pages of those who have reverted you until you understand what their concerns are. And with regards to the TJC logo, the fair use rationale was in line with policy, so he rightly removed the disputed tag placed on it. And as for the india image, the placement of a tag of improper fair use claim was utterly inappropriate as it was a creative commons licensed image, so again, Ricky very rightfully removed it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I noted at Talk:Cemal_Gürsel#WP:ANI, I was concerned about the license being changed at Image:InErzurum.jpg from GFDL to PD. While both are free, those are different licenses. Looking at the section at WP:PUI, I commented that removing part of the original uploader's source information at Image:WithACadet.jpg and then changing it from the GFDL given by the uploader to now a public domain is unusual, and should be reverted. As I noted at WP:ANI before, we have had a number of anonymous users who seem intent on keeping those image here, based on some suspicious copyright theory that I honestly cannot understand. Also, I had nothing to do with Image:CemalGursel1963.ogg (other admins can confirm the deleted edits). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the best to all this is it was User:Rettetast who added the PUI notices at Image:ArmyGames.jpg, Image:WithACadet.jpg, and Image:Harb&istiklalmedal.JPG, not me. I've just been trying to keep the notices on the pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Docu

Can I get an administrator to assist me with a situation regarding User:Docu? I came across the article for Lake of Gruyère while cleaning up a list of lakes. Back in April 2007, User:SomeHuman moved the article from Lac de la Gruyère (the French spelling) to Lake of Gruyère (the proper English spelling), correctly citing and explaining that English-language Wikipedia requires article name in English: the lake is by numerous sources called 'Lake of Gruyère' (though sometimes without accent grave). User Docu since reverted this move and is now in an edit war with me insisting to keep the French reference to the name rather than the properly translated English name. With that logic, User Docu could switch all the Lake articles to French names. Or the Spanish articles to "Lago de"... or the German articles to "See"...etc. With that logic, we could change all of the lakes of the United States in various language wikis from Lago or See or Lac to "Lake", correct? I hope someone can help me inform User Docu that his/her actions are incorrect (first by reverting the initial move months ago) and that, here on English wiki, we use the proper translated name of "Lake" not "Lac". Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The wiki guideline on naming conventions clearly explains why the usage of "Lake" over "Lac" is correct. Rarelibra (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The matter of the name of an article is a content dispute, which is a subject for dispute resolution, not for admins. But it appears you've been doing cut and paste moves, which violates the GFDL. And I don't see any evidence of you trying to resolve your dispute amicably on Docu's or the article's talk page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My move was to correct the original revert that Docu did when SomeHuman correctly moved the page. If you see User Docu's talk page, I have addressed it with him/her.

By such logic, that means we can change the names of US lakes to "Lake" in all of the language wikis, correct? Wiki guideline states to use English. It isn't content dispute - it is following wiki guideline. Rarelibra (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your move violated the GFDL, violating the copyrights of the contributors of the article. I don't care if you move the article using the move button, but if you persist in cut and paste moves you'll be blocked from editing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, my apologies. After painstakingly combing through the list of lakes - I changed/moved many of the titles from incorrect names in Spanish, Italian, French, German, and even Dutch into the proper name in English. This was the only article that a user had already incorrectly reverted and redirected (even after a proper move was done back in April last year) - which was never addressed. Threaten me all you want - my actions were incorrect but the outcome should be correct, as it is backed up by wiki guidelines and naming conventions. Otherwise, let's go through and change all the names to "Lago de", "Lac du", "See", etc. Sorry, just calling it like I see it. Rarelibra (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Docu seems to have been the first to copy/paste move it from Lake to Lac. I've restored the proper history, and moved it back to Lake over the recent copy/paste war. Perhaps some of the deleted revisions in Lake should be restored, but there doesn't seem to be much there other than the war. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help - I will keep an eye on the other languages that I helped move and attend to the proper help if needed rather than risk being blocked from editing for pointing out an obvious incorrect action that occurred months ago by attempting to correct it back (which, I believe, is allowed in wiki when making a correction from an incorrect revert and redirect). Rarelibra (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OOPS, it appears I was wrong. Rarelibra performed an improper copy/paste move, which Docu properly reverted, even though the article should have been moved to "Lake" and the reversion made the move require administrative action. I think I've got everything in order, now. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Arthur - you were not wrong. SomeHuman moved the article back in April. Docu then reverted - which was incorrect, given that he was provided with the proof. On the talk page, Docu tried to justify French usage in English. Wiki guidelines are quite clear. And BTW, it was the ONLY French lake article moved that was 'owned' and continually reverted. If his theory was correct about usage, all the other "lakes" should be changed to "lac". Funny thing, though - I work in GIS (even worked for Rand McNally) - and the only usage I know of by a French name is Lac du Flambeau in Wisconsin and Lac des Allemands in Louisiana. All the rest seem to be called "Lake" for some reason. ;) Rarelibra (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Extremely minor considering everything, but the Spanish word for lake is "lago", not "lado". Lado is "side". ^_^ JuJube (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooohhh ... typo. Rarelibra (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Before doing any moves, may we follow Wikipedia:Requested moves? Just copy-and-pasting content to machine translated titles doesn't help [109]. Oddly, Rarelibra even accuses me of the doing them [110]. -- User:Docu

Marko sk (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Issue deferred to AIV. AGK (contact) 02:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody take a look at the history of this user and block him? He was warned on his talk page about vandalism. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mario, but the Princess is in another castle HalfShadow (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikipedia is a nice labyrinth. I guess I will bookmark that page. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mitrebox evading his block

Resolved

 – Blocked Rudget. 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see 70.11.244.78 (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, he's already been blocked. Sorry. Corvus cornix_talk 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer disruption of AfD

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination), Philip Baird Shearer insists on putting a new post at the top of the AfD.[111][112][113] This is contrary to established practice, and distorts all of the talk below it, none of which has taken this posting into account. I have moved it twice to the bottom of the talk and pointed out the incorrectness of his placing of it to no avail. Tyrenius (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Its unusual, but I'm not sure I'd call it disruptive. If anything, I'd say Sarah777's comments have been significantly more disruptive than anything Philip has done, even if the AfD nom was somewhat ill-advised. AfD isn't a hammer to enforce a position in a content dispute. Avruch ^T 03:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Philip is not even the nom. He wants the article deleted and is bizarrely placing his post at the top. The reason for new posts to go at the bottom of the AfD is that it is a debate, where subsequent posts comment on previous ones. If people start posting at the top, it breaks the whole ethos of that. It needs to be moved to its right place after the comments which it is a reaction to. What do we do when someone else thinks their new post is sufficiently important to go above his? Tyrenius (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

He's not the nominator in this case, but he has been in two previous related noms - and there was no nom statement, and opposes on that basis, so he provided one. Have you asked him not to post further changes to the top of the page? Avruch ^T 03:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no nom statement. That was how the AfD started and revisionism can't change that. There then follows a debate. There is still no nom statement. There is a statement from one of the participants placed in the wrong place and messing up that proper debate. If you look 3 posts up, you will read, "I have moved it twice to the bottom of the talk and pointed out the incorrectness of his placing of it to no avail." Tyrenius (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Seems like arguing over a technicality. If the AfD is invalid because the original nominator didn't place their own statement at the top then I suggest a speedy close followed by immediate renomination by Philip (or whoever) with the relevant arguments from editors in the current debate transferred to the new AfD. What admins can't do is let the current AfD run for five days then close it as "keep" because it was an invalid nomination. So either speedy close this now on procedural grounds or let it run its course as a valid AfD for the full period, then get the original nominator to place their statement at the top of the page where it should be or - failing that- allow Philip's statement to stand in for the nom. --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally if the "reasons" stay at the top I see no need to close it but I have already suggested on the AFD talk page to Tyrenius that "If you do not want them there Then I suggest we close this AFD now and re-open it with the reasons at the top. I am more than happy to do that if that is what you want."(See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination)) But for some reason rather than answer on the talk page of the AFD he chose to post here. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am one of those who said Keep on the technical grounds that no reasons to delete were provided. It's too late to fix that so restarting is best. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Two disinterested editors have commented on my retrofitting reasons to the top of this nomination have suggested closing and re-opening the nomination. As closing it and reopening it means extra work for a number of editors, I will post a message to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) asking if anyone else has an opinion on this. If no objections forthcoming in 24 hours we close it and reopen it. If a disinterested admin wishes to close it before the 24 hour period is up, please post a message to my talk page and I'll resubmit it with all the steps done. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. The sooner this issue is clarified, the better, because the AfD debate is getting longer and longer and attracting more and more commenters. If it has to be aborted on a minor technicality a lot of people are going to be annoyed. If it is technically invalid as alleged then I'm surprised an admin hasn't speedily closed it already. --Folantin (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I hold my hands up, my fault. Close and reopen seems to best way to proceed at this point. Ledenierhomme (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the point - it'll just end up as a no consensus, just like the current debate. Lugnuts (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin stepping in here... Rather then closing and reopening the entire debate, I suggest Philip moves his argument to the proper place, because they are just that: your arguments. Putting your arguments on top of the debate and calling them "reasons" is a mirepresentation of your arguments, since you are not the nominator. Having to close the debate, only to have you re-open it with your arguments at the top again is not an option; I view that as gaming the system. So if this AfD is to be closed, Philip may not restart it, as it basically does not change the situation. — Edokter • Talk • 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's no point closing it and re-opening. That would be a waste of everyone's time. The relevant points have been discussed in depth. PBS is worried because two keeps were on the basis of no nom statement. The closing admin is obviously going to see there are plenty of arguments for delete without a nom statement, so those keeps are not greatly convincing in themselves. PBS has chosen to post at the top of the AfD as a revisionist nom statement, which is entirely unnecessary. It means anyone responding to him will also post at the top, and it will become impossible to follow the thread of the debate. I posted here because PBS has placed his statement in the wrong place three times and has not discussed before doing so. Again I ask him to put it where it belongs in the logical sequence of the discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing it and reopening it on a technicality indeed sounds like a waste of time. If there was no nom statement, but there is a rationale for deletion that can be provided and has been, then why stop the AfD if it has vigorous participation? Opposes based on the lack of a nomination should be disregarded by the closing admin if they aren't revised during the discussion period. Philip should leave the nom section alone now that it has been populated with a rationale, and make further comments in the body of the AfD. Respondents can respond in the body of the discussion like they would to any other nominating statement, and everyone can move on knowing that while it may not be a technically perfect AfD the object is still being observed and technically perfect isn't what we here to accomplish. Avruch ^T 15:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Let's keep this as a valid AfD with maybe a note to the closing admin at the top explaining as much. I'm not sure it matters where Philip puts his comments but if people object to his substitute nomination rationale then he can move it down the page to where it would have been chronologically. --Folantin (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Melbrooksfan101

Resolved

 – blocked indef as block evading socks

• Melbrooksfan101 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• Broadwayfan91 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• Soapfan101 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• Soapfan91 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

Melbrooksfan101 (talk · contribs) has created several articles about a non-notable podcasted soap opera and its characters. I have listed all of them for deletion for lack of notability. In retaliation, Melbrooksfan101 decided to place an AfD tag on Passions. I removed the AfD tag and warned Melbrooksfan101 about WP:POINT, he responded by telling me that he has a responsibility to nominate articles for deletion if he has never heard of them. He's trying to claim that that's the reason I've nominated his articles, which, of course, is not true. Could an admin have a word with what I believe to be a young editor? Corvus cornix_talk 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: This is not true what is being said about me. I am fifty-two years old and have been with this site since 2002. This is an insult to all of Wikipedia. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not acording to your edits you havent't... HalfShadow (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but your tagging of Passions was clearly retaliiatory. It's definitely a notable series. See note on your page. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, how can an experienced wiki-editor believe it fit to nominate a moderately referenced article for WP:AFD? Clearly this is WP:POINT and WP:TROLL. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So either he's lying about how long he's been here, or he's admitting he's a reincarnation of another user. Also he claims on my talk page that he didn't afd Passions, that his account (actually he says "site") was hacked, so we have an admission of a compromised account on top of the rest. Hmm. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This tells all. Corvus cornix_talk 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(multipl,e ec) See this. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've under a couple different user names. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is evident - and it also looks like a few of them have a history of malicious behavior. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should just stop posting now, Mel...Every time you do, you seem to make your hole a bit deeper... HalfShadow (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You know you people do not understand everything I added because you don't know pop culture. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The early history of his talk page is instructive. Apparently a sock of a blocked (expired) user, with some strange playing around with unblock templates on 30 December that led to the talkpage being protected... Avruch ^T 04:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Some contribs under his previous account Broadwayfan91 (Also Soapfan91, and Soapfan101, both blocked for vandalism):

• 23:34, 3 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead‎ (←Replaced page with 'i haven't heard of this play so it must be made up......that's the way you guys act.')
• 23:32, 3 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead‎ (←Replaced page with 'go suck a cock')

Avruch ^T 04:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh goodness. This one's gonna leave a stain... HalfShadow (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, how is this user able to more or less announce to the community about his past sockpuppetry and escape the ramifications? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if lossing your password is a sin. Melbrooksfan101 talk 08:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We've moved way beyond your claim of a lost password at this point. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the article he's fighting so strongly for was already deleted under a slightly different name. It was also written by one of his previous accounts. AniMate 11:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

From Broadwayfan91 "23:32, December 3, 2007 (hist) (diff) Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead‎ (←Replaced page with 'go suck a cock')" — Rlevse • Talk • 12:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Then there's tag removals, such as this one by Melbrooksfan. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is an obvious sock and even admits it as seen in two of the entries above, one by himself and one provided by Ed Fitzgerald. Couple that with the fact that the oldest account, Soapfan91, was blocked indef, that makes him a block evading sock and the fact that all four accounts have disruption and behavior issues, multiple warnings etc, similar edit histories too, make it clear he's not here to be constructive. I'm blocking all indef and tagging Soapfan91 as the master (oldest account). — Rlevse • Talk • 12:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to re-protect this page

Too many anons vandalzing ANI, it's time to re-protect. Corvus cornix_talk 04:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. I see the IPs are each blocked, but there are presumably more - any thoughts on a possible remedy? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

actually, 206.230.26.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) only got a warning. Corvus cornix_talk 04:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A few real world addresses, two or three friends and baseball bats? HalfShadow (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Krimpet semiprotected it literally seconds before your post, Corvus. Rdfox 76 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing 4 IPs that blanked the page and their talk pages are red links.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do they need warnings? Corvus cornix_talk 04:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning 'em would be the equivalent of pissing into a strong wind; they're just throwaway IPs anyway... HalfShadow (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a warning but a "hey, you've been blocked blah blah blah" notice... - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Like I said: they're throwaways. I've seen some IPs used that actually had some legit edits. HalfShadow (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadly nightshade

Have a bit of an edit war breaking out between anon IPs. Article is currently under probation as it's related to Homeopathy (see homeopathy probation). Justin ^chat 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:RFC? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Threw both IPs into the bing. Let's see which of the regular accounts in this area takes a 31-hour wikibreak now. east.718 at 05:11, February 24, 2008

Shankbone image deletion

Somone needs to close this Shankbone image deletion ASAP. Not sure what's up with it being nommed here when it's hosted at Commons. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gone. east.718 at 05:13, February 24, 2008

David Archuleta

Ouch. David Archuleta got copy and paste moved to David Archuleta (singer) and the edit history of both articles are now a mess. Could somebody please fix this? Corvus cornix_talk 05:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. east.718 at 05:10, February 24, 2008

Awesome. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:BQZip01 and User:Cumulus_Clouds probation proposal

• BQZip01 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• Cumulus_Clouds (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

I don't know what the origin of the problem between these two users is - an article about a stadium at Texas A&M, perhaps? Either way, there have been a number of noticeboard threads, an epic RfA argument, an MfD, a RfC/U here by BQ against Cumulus Cloud and finally a RFCU here which has devolved into edit warring and a continuation of the dispute. I'd like to propose that the checkuser case be completed immediately or withdrawn, and that these two editors be formally barred from communicating with eachother or editing pages that are a source of conflict between them - either indefinitely, or for a period at least 6 months. Thoughts? Avruch ^T 05:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would support this on two conditions: 1. The 3 week old RFC also be immediately closed and 2. the ban be shortened to somewhere between 60 and 90 days. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I oppose for a number of reasons:

1. I never did anything wrong here. I only tried to follow policy. All I ever tried to do on this page was to put comments where comments should be. Instead of discussing it, CC immediately reverted it and accused accused me of censorship. We could have discussed it and things would likely have been fine, but instead, he insists (once again) of unilaterally deleting my edits. Then Avruch decides to just bring such a discussion here. Bizarre.
2. A disagreement between myself and CC does not need to be brought here every time we disagree. We have worked most things out between us. Quite frankly, I was going to request the RfC be closed if this didn't turn out to be CC, though that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with any of his actions since he left articles on which I was involved.
3. There is an instigator here that has been completely missed: user:Lawrence Cohen. Everything was fine until he decided to inform CC (showing an additional user who is now stalking my every edit) and is the source of this problem. An RFCU was filed to verify who is making disruptive edits to Wikipedia. The number of noticeboard threads have not been filed by either CC or I, but Lawrence Cohen, who has a personal ax to grind against me: [114] [115]. IMHO, this is meatpuppetry and CC is being used to fuel a personal agenda against me. CC and I parted ways and the RfC seems to be going nowhere since no one is willing to read what I wrote. He claims to be staying away from the page (if so, then the RFCU will, worst case, concur with that).
4. As for the checkuser being "completed immediately or withdrawn", that makes no sense. Only certain users have checkuser rights. They will get to it when they get to it. Deleting a valid checkuser request because one of the parties doesn't like it is insane, IMHO.
5. A simple misunderstanding doesn't require a probation for either of us.
6. Seriously, this solves nothing. CC or I could make some asinine comment on a page in which the other person has edited as an IP and then the other party could do anything about it? That is insane. If CC is doing as he says he is, then the RFCU will come out clean and there shouldn't be any more problems.
7. This is another example about people in Wikipedia not knowing or understanding the processes within Wikipedia and taking great offense at them when someone uses such a process. An RFCU is inherently only "dangerous" to people who are causing problems.
8. I'm not interested in "nailing" CC for his actions, only correcting the problems caused by the creator of the IP posts. My past with CC is irrelevant. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support original proposal. Sorry, BQ & CC. Also, I recommend they both take an enforced timeout from their conflict articles, especially BQ. Enough wikilawyering. If not, this will end up as a messy RFAR. Lawrence § t/e 06:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I withdrew from editing that page 5 days ago. I will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cumulus Clouds filed by BQZip01, with extra helpings of personal attacks against me for some reason. Lawrence § t/e 06:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

C/U case has now been  Declined for a number of reasons - Alison ^❤ 06:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Completed or withdrawn" because the result you see above my comment was inevitable, and the existence of the uncompleted request was causing more problems than it could solve. BQ, again this is not a place to continue to argue about the underlying problem. The point of this discussion is not to rehash specific errors, or assign blame - you and Cumulus have been unable to resolve your problems. This inability has been disruptive across multiple project pages and articles, but neither of you appear to be causing disruption outside of this dispute. It seems logical, then, to separate you from eachother when you can't do it yourselves. Avruch ^T 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Intervention required?

Would the edits to the Special relativity article need any such further intervention than a full protect? Please advise. — E ^talk 05:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't clocked it, but I'm fairly certain there is a 3RR issue in that history, on both sides. MBisanz ^talk 06:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Intervention required on Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

A series of anons have made personal attacks following the deletion of a claim of satanic imagery subliminally planted in the film, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. The anons seem to be the very same user who has new IP addresses created by dynamic IP generation: 76.244.160.121, 76.212.146.249, 76.248.229.104, 76.244.162.118, 76.248.229.104, 75.55.39.225, 76.244.162.118, 76.248.229.104 and 76.212.146.139. The first mention of satanic images was placed into a popular culture section: " * The use of the satanic symbol "666" in movies like The Omen could have begun with "Mr. Deeds." Although never mentioned, "666" can be seen in the "doodles" of the court psychiatrist." First mention which was supported by a reference that was a YouTube video: "* Youtube's Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, symbol seen at 2:20" The XLinkBot reverted the submission and it was later re-inserted but again the link was first reverted by Beetstra and later the pop culture note was deleted by myself, Bzuk. What followed was a talk page submission: "You deleted 666! Ha ha, that's funny! You deleted perhaps one of the most important discoveries ever made in Hollywood cinema! Wikipedia is a joke! Wikipedia has nothing of value here, it has no knowledge contained in its pages at all. If Wikipedia were a brick and mortar library in any country, it would have been demolished by now. There is nothing here but disinformation (remember that word? You should!). You're a joke and your administrators are fools. Remember, this site never represents anyone, you speak for no one. You are liars. And people can still find the link and reference in the history section. You cretins, you never speak for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.146.139 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)" and immediately followed up by a series of attacks on my home page, some archived by myself and BillCJ. I then attempted to explain the reasoning for the deletion to the anon that requested further information. Basically, my concern was that it was OR, based on a faulty interpretation of a single image and was unattributed to any refrence source. I advised the anon to go back to the article's "talk" page with a request for discussion which was done. The continued attacks on me were placed on Beetstra's page and showed evidence of wikistalking as well as continuing personal attacks. I then requested a number of admins to review the article and although only two admins had a chance to do that with one suggesting "not to feed the trolls." Good advice but the continuing personal remarks have not abated. Please consider this situation as one that requires administration action.

I support User:Bzuk's take on this. I've asked the IP to provide a citation. The IP seems either not to understand WP:OR and WP:V or perhaps thinks the proposed edit is so earth-shaking as to transcend all Wikipedia policy. The IP's lack of civility and taunting are also very unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note, I'm trying to discuss this with the IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bizarre. I wonder what Scattergood Baines would have made of it? Guy (Help!) 08:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the talk page and I see that this has been silly and tiresome. However, a quick look at the article's history suggests that it hasn't been degraded in this way for at least six days. I may have missed something, but I think the IP has recently been tiresome and irritating on its talk page; semi-protecting that seems a bit extreme. Somebody could s-protect your talk page if you wish. (Not me, or anyway not in the short term, as I'm about to leave the net for a few hours.) Since the anon is using a succession of IPs, it's hard to think of other countermeasures -- at least until I take off my admin hat, put on my editor hat, and add to the chorus telling him not to waste everyone's time with such silliness. (Incidentally, I think you and others there have been admirably patient so far.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well this inspired me to look up the author of the short story on which Mr. Deeds was based, Clarence Budington Kelland, who write Scattergood Baines, a book that my father referred to endlessly and we eventually managed to find in an antiquarian bookshop a few years back. What a fascinating man! I will try to get more sources and expand the stub I just created, but have a look at the picture on this site - don't you think he's an older J. R. "Bob" Dobbs? Guy (Help!) 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, the issue is no longer the tenditious editing that is evident on the talk pages, it remains the unwarranted claims that are personal attacks. See:where he claims that I initiated the claim of "666", the demonic images, a statement about denying Truth, Justice and the American way, where he asks for an apology, claim of misrepresentation and claims of being a liar, censor, charlatan, evil. These attacks continued to come even after reasoned discourse was attempted. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

I have requested a review of the block, and I have also requested that Mr. Bzuk be restrained from harassing me any longer. I never claimed the 666 symbol was satanic, I attempted to draw an analogy between its use here and other successful entertainment industry ventures. Its Mr. Bzuk who inserted his own belief into the matter. And all of this took place on the movie's Discussion page, not on the article page. And it wasn't continued on Mr. Bzuk's page, rather on other editor's pages and really didn't have much to do with Mr. Bzuk at all. Mr. Bzuk has shown his position to be irrational and extreme, and when the truth is shown to him, he cries harassment and stalking. Neither are true. Thank you very much.

This continuing claim that I am irrational and extreme flies in the face of every edit made during this back-and-forth. FWIW, I have no abiding interest in the "666" claims, it is the virulent commentary that has been engendered that is the issue. Bzuk (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Bot edits on WP:UAA

Is it just me, or have the bots' edits on WP:UAA stopped showing up in the history? The last user report was around 5.55 this morning, but since then all bot reports aren't shown in the history, and I've just done a username bloc - the username's been removed from the list, presumably by a bot, but there's no corresponding history... _GB^T/C 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've just done another one (Transitads) which is showing up... _GB^T/C 08:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I'll just shut up. They're on a sub-page aren't they. Sorry about that! _GB^T/C 08:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User subpage

Is it possible to put an user subpage under any article category? For example User:Roddie Digital/Guardian Unlimited is included within Category:News websites, Category:British websites and Category:The Guardian. If it is possible, then I will like to put some of my usersubpages in some categories. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User subpages are not supposed to be categorized; it is likely that the editor pulled a copy of the article into his userspace to edit, but failed to remove the categories from the "working copy". Horologium (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, user subpages shouldn't be in article categories; the categories should be commented out, like what I did here. I have commented out the categories and left Roddie a note. Daniel (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather, Fredrick day beat me to it :) Daniel (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

While that was going on, I left a note on his talk page asking him to remove the categories, but it appears to be moot now since it was dealt with by an admin. Horologium (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:CAT#User namespace. Horologium (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pgsylv

Pgsylv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been quite incivil, and can be defined as a "POV extremist". Examples of this individual's most recent comment can be found at Talk:Quebec (or [116], [117], [118])

This individual has been blocked at least twice ([119]) once for vandalism, and once for edit warring.

There is also Wikiquette Alert concerning Pgsylv and his incivil and unconstructive behaviour.

Therefore I am recommending the following:

1. Topic (including talkpage) ban for 3 months with a 72 hour block
2. Topic (including talkpage) ban for indefinite with a 72 hour block
3. a 1 year community ban, enforced by a block

Personally, I would be leaning towards option 3, as clearly Pgsylv is an unproductive, uncooperative, unconstructive, incivil editor and is definitely not an asset to the construction of this collaborative encyclopedia. As this is a community based project, I am asking the community's opinion on what actions we should take next in this situation. nat.utoronto 13:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the following comments disturbing: [120] [121]. It's obvious that this is (almost) a single purpose account whose sole objective is to POV-push in any manner possible. The only reason you see a decrease of activity, sans talk page comments, from Pgysylv, is because Quebec was fully protected due to his edit warring. I endorse a longer block of 3 months. seicer | talk | contribs 14:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the diffs provided by the initiator of this thread and Seicer, I'd suggest a topic ban of 5-7 months plus a block of a short period (yet to be determined, most probably around the 72 hour mark as already pointed out). If we let behaviour like this to continue, not only will the content be affected, but also the editors who do it. The sanctions already theorised by Nat seem reasonable. Rudget. 14:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor 68.55.219.186

68.55.219.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made three posts, one a vote to preserve an image relating to Matt Sanchex, one homophobic attack and one personal attack. All three edits Matt Sanchez related. Would an admin someone please take some action? I'd issue a warning or two, but am not sure which one(s) are appropriate and don't fancy receiving a rant. Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No warning(s) needed for this type of situation, just a block. R. Baley (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be BM (new diff!) evading his ban [122]. R. Baley (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - you might want to log that block under the others for his socks at ArbCom. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not an admin, I was just adding info. Still waiting for an admin to happen by. . .R. Baley (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry - thanks for the info. By the more recent posts, Matt's still trying to influence content on the Matt Sanchez article. Hopefully an admin will happen by and block this sock soon. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Rudget. 14:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've extended it to one month per comments on my talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think he'll keep it that long? (I didn't check whois or anything) R. Baley (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You gotta "sex-up" the subheading, maybe go with something like, "Ban-Evading Vandal attacks Wikipedian!!!" :-) kidding, R. Baley (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• That would predicate that this sort of thing is somehow unusual. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know. . . a lot of times it's hard to get motivated to report anywhere, getting around a block is fairly easy. R. Baley (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Improper use of a primary source in a BLP

Admin WJBscribe has used a photo of a document alleged to be the birth certificate of Michael Lucas (porn star) (seen here: [123]) as a source to verify Lucas's birth name [124]. Editor Hux has used the same photo to source Lucas's birthdate and birth location, [125]. The photo itself fails WP:V as there is no way to verify its provenance or accuracy. Using the photo as a source to substantiate claims made in the text violates WP:PSTS as such use makes an interpretive, explanatory or evaluative claim about what is in the photo. To allow these would be a violation of WP:NOR. --71.127.238.135 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The campaign never ends. Aside from being a recent topic on this board, the forum shopping continued at the help desk (link) a couple of days ago. R. Baley (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's rather disturbing... passports and birth certificates should not be used as sources in articles. What's next, editors going through celebrity's tax returns to source information on the person's wealth? This kind of stuff is journalism, not encyclopedia writing. --Rividian (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oh don't be absurd. If a fact is not disputed by the subject, then using the subject's own birth certificate, with the subject's co-operation, as a source for the fact, is hardly problematic. It's not as if the birth name is that big a deal anyway; if his birth name was Darth Vader it would make no real difference to his notability or the name by whihc he is currently or most widely known. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's still journalism... we're producing unpublished information no non-user-edited sources apparently care about. We're letting subjects provide original documents to determine what's in their encyclopedia articles? Are we an encyclopedia or a press release service? --Rividian (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This was at WP:RS/N as well. I can think of a few more noticeboards to shop it to, anyone interested?

Seriously, though, as I said at RS/N, yes, sure, its a primary source and should be used with caution, but if we can't ignore those rules in this instance we might as well toss WP:IAR out the window. Relata refero (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Rules are rules; WP:IAR doesn't apply here as there are many sources available to substantiate Lucas's birthname, which is a contentious issue in this bio. Remember that these are not the actual documents, but photos of those documents -- there's no way they can be verified. We can't allow the subject of a bio to provide photos of document she asserts to be official or accurate, when their provenance or acuracy cannot be verified. Anybody can create an offical-looking document and take a photo of it, or anybody can take a photo of a document and then use the various editing software to doctor it, then claim that it's offical. Those possiblities preclude the use of photos of documents as sources.

--72.76.9.10 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:TheFEARgod

User:TheFEARgod has a userbox telling "This user knows that Kosovo and Metohija is a part of Serbia and that it's declaration of independence is criminal." This userbox may be controversial. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

my view on a political act is legitimate. I didn't point that Kosovo by itself or its citizens are criminal or criminals. Thank you, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, user Otolemur crassicaudatus took the initiative to edit my page without my consent (not waiting my replies on his initial messages) and he removed the whole userbox, not only the contoversial word criminal. [126] The userbox stood there for a long time and I added criminal at a later stage.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Abuse

In association football I added tag after explained action in talk page but two editors removed this regular tag. I claim this abuse and request restore it.--PIO (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You were warned that the link you were referring to was a personal website, ad in no way a reliable source for the information you were including. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there was no abuse at all. The whole issue that PIO brought up and led to their inserting the tag has been discussed back in mid-January in great depth both on the articles talk page, on PIO's talk page, and both directly and indirectly on numerous other articles talk pages and then today out of the blue the tag was added.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do I report methodical copyright vio?

This morning I discovered that a Miss America page, Susan Powell has grown last month, and the new text was finished, with subheads. Plus the text made claims which were out of date. So I clicked on the Miss America website, and lo: the text was copied directly from that page. When I looked at the ip contributor's history, I noticed this has been going on a grand scale, So I reverted the change, warned the ip's talk page, and now I can't find the correct page for this sort of methodical vio. BusterD (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing reverts tantamount to vandalism in contravention of WP:Consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocides_in_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive_5

Several editors are reverting the edits I have been in contravention of Wikipedia:Consensus.

In the relevant section of the Genocides In History article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#France), this "issue" was debated over for several weeks, at length, with many editors involvement. The resulting section is still FAR from perfect, (placing the sophistry of polemicists - in most cases self-published in all but name - on an equal footing with established authorities who are specialists/experts on the subjects and have been published in peer-reviewed journals) but it is far and away more objective and dispassionate than the argumentative, unbalanced, diatribe that some editors have allowed this article to become. This includes at least two editors who were involved in the discussion on the Genocides In History talk page who are trying to get their skewed political/national/religious/ethnic POINTs enshrined in this article, because it has drawn much less attention.

C.J. Griffin then launched into personal abuse by accusing myself of having a "nefarious agenda".

-- Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)