Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

A newbie casualty of this war

A casualty of the user:Ryoung122 wars (which now includes an attack [1] on the notability of Stephen Coles by the same editors), has been the indefinite blocking of user:StanPrimmer as a sockpuppet, when actually he is at most a meatpuppet. For those of you who've not lately reviewed the difference, see WP:MEAT. Specifically: "As opposed to sock puppets, meatpuppets are actual newbies, and it is important to not bite the newbies." The obvious reason being that newbies do not know what meatpuppets are, either (far less than administrators seem to).

Now, Stanley R. Primmer is a newbie and real person (for photo of him and talk he gave while founding the Supercentinarian Research Foundation, see [2]), and this inconvenient fact was pointed out by to editor user:BrownHairedGirl, who had specifically acccused [3] Primmer of being a sockpuppet for Robert Young. Apparently on no other basis but supporting comments Primmer gave in defence of Young and Coles [4] [5]. Apparently, if you disagree with an administrator and have a new account, that makes you a sockpuppet until proven otherwise, and perhaps without anybody bothering to look one way or the other (as in this case). In any case, user:BrownHairedGirl went to administrator user:Maxim's webpage and asked for a range of Young IP sockpuppet blocks, and included Primmer as a meatpuppet [6]. Whereupon Maxim blocked Primmer as a sock, indefinitely, giving sockpuppetry as the reason [7] [8] without adequate checking of ISP locations. Wups. The two men (Young and Primmer) are on opposite sides of the country, as their ISP's show. A mistake, and not a good one for an admin (who is supposed to be careful about permanent blocks of nameusers) but perhaps honest.

From here on, however, is where things go beyond honest mistake.

Editor NealRC and I pointed out that Primmer was not a sock, but a newbie. At this point BrownHairedGirl thanked us, simply characterized him as indeed a meatpuppet, and went so far as to reference WP:SOCK [9]. Apparently not reading WP:MEAT. When I pointed out the obvious difference [10], I got no response from BrownHairedGirl.

My next action was to notify administrator user:Maxim on his TALK page that Primmer was not a sock, but rather, as a newbie, had been blocked by mistake at somebody else's request, and that this was pretty ironic action for people who were afraid of "meatpuppets" (people recruited into an argument!) At least meatpuppets only give unwanted opinions and don't do administrative damage! [11]. Maxim's response was simply to erase my comment from his talkpage [12], not reply, AND do nothing about Primmer. After the initial block for being a sockpuppet, Primmer had previously been both unblocked and then RE-blocked indefinitely by Maxim, both without stated editorial reason [13]. So it's not as though Maxim didn't think about it. This newbie remains blocked, due to his opinions (which he gave, by the way, in a case involving public notability of a wiki-BIO figure, so it's not as though outside opinion wasn't appropriate).

In summary, both editors know what they are doing, and they know it is against policy, having been notified. Neither deign to answer ME. But they did it anyway, because they wanted to, and it got rid of a "disruptive" opinion in two debates (one on Young, the other on Coles) which didn't agree with theirs. I suppose they figure they can let it stand so long as nobody brings it to ANI

Now, I've been editing Wikipedia for a while (in fact, a lot longer than either Maxim or BrownHairedGirl !), and I've seen how administrative abuse works. If you leave more than one message on a TALK page you open yourself up to charges of harrassment, and if you're too good at argument someplace else, you find that you're accused of being that nebulous thing which nobody wants to be: "disruptive." The last being a little difficult to use against me, with my rather wide range of constructive and still existant edits, but I know when it's time to leave the matter in the hands of people who can't get stomped on for their views. I've personally done all I can. You have two badly-performing administrators. So, your dead fish. SBHarris 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sbharris has omitted the crucial point here: that Ryoung122 has already used several socks, and is using his Worlds Oldest People yahoogroup to campaign for as many meatpuppets as possible to come and swamp AfDs. I will paste one example below (there are several others)

Also, Harris has alleged that other editors (apparently including me) have been "recruiting associates and friends to echo you from among people who are already here". I have asked for the diffs, without success, and if Harris is acting in good faith, I hope that they will now be produced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing "crucial" about the point. Meatpuppetry is not a blockable offense. What part of this don't you understand? Second, I'm making an assumption that you're communicating with the group of editors you have going around with you examining geriatrics-related subjects and authors. But it could be mental telepathy, or it could be like a school of fish. I admit it. The difference, however, between this and other kinds of recruiting, is that you're doing it as administrators, and doing joint administrative power-tricks with it, like labeling articles as non-notable and unreferenced, and blocking newbies from fixing their references so they are. That makes it an entirely different thing. Basically, you're using software, not persuasion, to enforce your point of view. SBHarris 04:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Barnes

 I am reminded of the saying by Martin Niemoller:

 First They Came for the Jews
 First they came for the Jews
 and I did not speak out
 because I was not a Jew.
 Then they came for the Communists
 and I did not speak out
 because I was not a Communist.
 Then they came for the trade unionists
 and I did not speak out
 because I was not a trade unionist.
 Then they came for me
 and there was no one left
 to speak out for me.

 Pastor Martin Niemöller

 So, group members: do we really care, or not? If someone 115 years
 old is not immune to this, then who is? Again, one man is no army. I
 cannot be the only one standing up for these articles. If you think
 that supercentenarians are notable, then you all (800+ members) had
 better make your voices heard, lest it be too late.

 Moderator

• I find it ironic that you assume bad faith in alleging the assumption of bad faith. Are you helping User:StanPrimmer to help us to rectify this mistake? I don't see any actual evidence of that. I have left a message on his Talk page to try and straighten things out. Looks like he's being a bit more sanguine about this than you are. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Say what? Are you addressing me?? Your questions have been more than answered by now on Primmer's talk page, but for the record, he and I have not communicated. Part of the reason for which is that it is frowned upon for a blocked editor to make their case here on AN/I by proxy, so I was keeping it pure. Are you asking me why I haven't done that? Help Stan to help YOU rectify this mistake? Why in the wrold would I, or should I, need to do that? I showed it was a mistake; there was no question it was a mistake; and you didn't need Stan's input to figure out that it was a mistake! Do you mean to imply that unfairly-blocked newbies should be helping to fix their own problems on Wikipedia?

Guess what-- that's not going to work. The specialty at Wikipedia for stiffling dissent, is to stiffle the dissenters. And it usually works.

Robert Young, above, is a pretty good example: not a newbie-- enough experience to put up a good fight. In fact, too good-- good enough that they had to tape his mouth. Not a vandal, not an edit-warrior (until somebody tried to wipe out his presense), but good at lengthy self-defense. So, he obviously must be banned indefinitely, just like somebody trying to destroy Wikipedia. Why, how dare he, after being blocked, use other ISP addresses and sign his name (wups), in order to be heard? Isn't that pretending to be somebody else-- see sockpuppetry? Well, no. It's evading authority, certainly; always a crime.

Robert Young's apparently wasting administrative time with his long diatribes, when the administrator is fixated on really *important* editorial subjects, like 2007 Siberian orange snow and the Stanley Cup. While gerontologists and their ilk and their fans --humor :)-- are interested in yucky stuff like why you are getting older, and are closing in on the Grim Reaper. Don't think about it! Administrator user:BrownHairedGirl, for example, as part of what appears to be a crucade against the field, has recently called into question the notoriety of James Birren, one of the founders of geriatric psychiatry (see the page history), and added proscriptions for new editors from editing the Birren page, which still stand. Notwithstanding that she gives no evidence of knowing anything about the subject or the person, and apparently did not bother to read the references the article had, which were entirely sufficient (I recently added a lot more, for the benefit of the lazy, but the information was already there, for anybody).

And why the proscription against new editors? Now, consider: what about the practice of adding tags about problems in a Wiki, along with blocks against new editors doing anything to fix the tagged problem? Does that not amount to prosecution of a biased agenda by an administrator who uses administrative powers to block any avenue of academic disagreement? BrownHairedGirl seems to be doing this in connection with any article she can find, on gerontology or gerontologists. Alas, her problem now is that there's a gerontologist who was here before her-- namely me.

I suppose from what she posts, the badness is that that many newbies will come into wikipedia from a gerontology mailing list (there are roiling hoards of us-- we outnumber scientologists or even Mormons ;)), and begin editing. Goodness, the Idea that Anybody Could (Potentially) Edit! And (even worse) start Editing For a Specific Reason! Out of interest! See BrownHairedGirl's hair-raising post about this, above. Use of electronic mailing lists in an attempt to undermine Wikipedia, by influencing its content. Great Merciful God, then what? Next time, it might be the English Dept faculty, discussing some screwup or stupid bias in Wikipedia during a luncheon, and joining up as editors, in order to take care of the problem. And then…? Well, then, instead of fighting and ignoring Wikipedia, perhaps the academics will join it en mass. Then, control it. Which may be the real fear, who knows?

Meanwhile, the stink about "notoriety" goes on, with biased admins blocking any discussion originating from people who join Wikipedia in order to have a voice in a specific matter!

And, you know, Wiki admins function as cops, but unfortunately nobody guards the guards. They're cops without an Internal Affairs Department; one where only volunteer cops look into allegations of bad policing-- if they feel like it. Which has just the result you might imagine (yup, enjoy the TASER). If it weren't for the sunlight which shines on the process every so often in AN/I (sunlight is a good disinfectant), it would stink even worse. SBHarris 04:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• • An update to this. User:StanPrimmer has now been unblocked by Maxim. I am concerned that Maxim failed to leave a note in the log when performing the unblock, and I've said so on Maxim's talk page. I also fail to see any sign that Maxim has bothered to talk to User:StanPrimmer at all. User:BrownHairedGirl has apologised (she initially alerted Maxim here), but I'd like to clear a few things up here: (1) administrators must use the logs to give reasons for blocks and unblocks; (2) even if someone else alerts an administrator to a potential problem, that administrator must take responsibility for their own actions, and not leave others to apologise instead if it later turns out that apologies are needed. Carcharoth 03:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Give us your fucking money

I moved this discussion from the Help Desk--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a banner on Wikipedia that said this. I don't care if Wikipedia has articles on sex-related stuff, because children won't see them unless they want to. But they will see this banner even if they don't want to. I'm not going to donate, and I'm going to tell children not to read Wikipedia in case they see this banner. And where do I complain about such banners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.57.203 (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This banner was on someone's user page, as I recall. Whose page was it (I can't remember)? I thought it was a fairly harmless joke, but understand how some might be offended. Also, this question might receive prompter attention on WP:AN/I.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the above recollection is correct, I agree with the anon. Wikipedia isn't censored of course, but that sounds unnecessarily crude, even in user space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the harm, in user space. I curse in my user space pretty regularly. Parents who don't want their children exposed to the word 'fuck' probably should monitor their internet usage very, very closely. I sympathize with this user, but- well, since we don't know where the banner is, we can't even go and look at it for ourselves and see whether it's appropriate or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is of course a quote from Bob Geldof, from the original Live Aid tv broadcast. Is it possible somebody has typed this in with a donation, and it's got into the rotation of quotes on the official banner ad? Jheald 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A paraphrase of a quote, I think; I have a vague recollection that either Rory Bremner or Spitting Image started that meme. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I think the IP may be referring to the Bob Geldof article... Or not? pedro gonnet - talk - 09.11.2007 14:38

No, i saw the banner myself, it was intended to be a harmless joke i think. I can't remember where i saw it though. Woodym555 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In any event, Wikipedia is not censored. Dppowell 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(copied reply from help desk)Woodym555 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC):

Image:Giveit.jpg and Image:Giveit.png was a little joke as the author Neil says at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Donation Banner. It is apparently only displayed on User talk:Addhoc, User:Jeffpw, User talk:Jeffpw and User talk:Dynaflow. They are just three of a huge number of Wikipedia editors and they personally chose to add this (see [14] for Addhoc) to their own user or talk pages. User space like this is not a part of the encyclopedia and I hope you don't advice people against Wikipedia based on something in user space. PrimeHunter 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to copy it myself but got edit conflict twice. The second time was with Woodym555 copying it! PrimeHunter 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've got to be quick at this game. ;) Woodym555 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I took it off my talk page in case it offended anyone. I still think it's awesome, though. Neil ☎ 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that there is no need for admin action here. The banner, while somewhat offensive, is displayed only on a handful of individual user pages that are virtually impossible to stumble upon accidentally. And it is obviously a parody of the famous Geldof quote. No policy has been violated. -- Satori Son 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "Give us your fucking money" with a link to the official fundraising page http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising, and it's displayed above the page name like other donation banners. Many people don't know users can edit there and readers (like the original poster) are likely to think it's an official banner. This is unfortunate. I think that if it stays then it should be made more clear to readers that individual editors are choosing to display this in their own space. PrimeHunter 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, PrimeHunter is absolutely right. In addition, the same policies apply to userspace that apply to any other part of Wikipedia. WP:Profanity, although a guideline not a policy, is fairly clear:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

I think this clearly falls into the latter bracket, and the users in question should be asked to be a bit more careful. Waggers 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel as the creator of this little image I should point out I - in no way - intended it as a parody of Bob Geldolf, as I was unaware he even said such a thing, and wish to dissociate myself entirely from him, his daughters, and his maelevolent beard. I just made it for a joke on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Neil ☎ 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see this on the main page FA. --Kaypoh 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I keep reverting the IP whose doing it as vandalism because article space is not a place for these things, and it's obviously being done in bad faith. Bmg916^Speak 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should semi-protect it. --Kaypoh 16:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said an AN, I love the alternative banner. Since my walk to work every morning takes me straight through the heart of San Francisco's lovely Tenderloin District, that is the kind of language I've come to expect to hear when being solicited for "donations." If the typical Wikipedia reader would be shocked by the word "fucking" [cringe] and would not immediately realize the banner is satirical, I guess I have no choice but to take it down. I did copy the code to make the thing transclude in place of the real donation banner from elsewhere, and if I got rid of that part and just had the image as obviously a part of my userspace, I don't think it would cause quite as much of a fracas should someone be ... accidentally exposed. Page visitors would then have an extra clue, above and beyond the banner's content, that it's satire. --Dynaflow babble 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That horrible begging banner currently defacing every single page of this fucking project is what offends me. It's just so...Wikipedian <shudder>. I commend Neil for giving us an alternate that actually puts a smile on my face (though under no circumstances will anything compel me to put any money into this project's pockets--my free labor will have to be enough). For me the choice is clear: it's either the "fucking money" banner (which is really what you're trying to say with the original, dreadful banner) or stop editing until the beg-a-thon is over for the year. Jeffpw 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Using this image is probably a bad idea. It's needlessly crude and serves no encyclopedia purpose. Friday (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I just visited your userpage, and those pink whatevertheyares scared the hell out of me. Do they accomplish anything encyclopedic on your page??????? If not, I'm afraid they'll have to go, no matter how attached you are to them. Jeffpw 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone can make a reasonable case that they bring the project into disrepute, I'll remove them without complaint. Friday (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no reasonable case made about the banner; just the usual gosh gollying about little tots and their innocent eyes. Last I heard one could say "fuck' in a PG movie, so I doubt any brat coming to Wikipedia would be led down the primrose path to hell by seeing the word on my pages. Jeffpw 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been a semi-reasonable case made--that some people may mistake this for an official banner and take the Wikimedia Foundation (or whatever they're called) to be somewhat unprofessional. Not every new editor understands the distinction between userspace and mainspace. Note that I don't necessarily buy this argument, but I don't think it's entirely meritless. In general, though, I'm in favor of more wikijokes, not less.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Peeps make a queasy whenever I see them, and they bring back bad childhood memories of The Worst Easter Ever. Anyway, there's a difference between being obscene for the sake of being obscene, and taking elements of what might otherwise be obscene and using them for a satirical purpose. The banner in question is clearly an example of the latter. --Dynaflow babble 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is really being added to articles like the FA of the day, a sensible solution would be adding both versions to the MediaWiki:Bad image list with appropriate userspace exceptions.--chaser - t 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. [EDIT:] Make that all three versions; here's another: Image:Giveit.svg. --Dynaflow babble 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with temporarily adding these three images to the Bad Image List to prevent vandalism, but I still want to be on record as opposing any application of WP:PROFANITY here. Surely the community did not intend that guideline to prohibit the use of colorful language in an obvious satire used only on personal user pages. I fully realize we have to draw the line somewhere, but this behavior doesn’t cross it. — Satori Son 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Satori Son 18:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Satori, did your edit interfere with the image displaying on my user and talk page? Because it's just a blue link now. Jeffpw 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understood that MediaWiki feature, it is only supposed to prevent use of those images "inline in articles", but I cannot see the image on your page either. Anyone else more familiar with this feature with some insight? — Satori Son 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like user pages require exceptions as well. Fixed by others - thanks. — Satori Son 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here, after all WIkipedia is not censored, and it's funny as hell!! (except if you're the Moral Majority ) ;) KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Kosh Vorlon

I think restricting it to userpage only is a sensible solution, good stuff. Neil ☎ 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to restrict it to a single "domain," or is the only option to restrict the image from all of Wikipedia and list one-page exceptions one at a time? --Dynaflow babble 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there is any such mechanism in the software. I don't mind including people in the list if they ask at my userpage. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that there is any need for restrictions. I would hope, however, that people would have the common sense and maturity not to use it. I guess it shows quite clearly what kind of people we have on this project, and so in that sense is not misleading donors. User:Veesicle 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was showing up in the featured article earlier, so the potential for abuse is pretty high and I think the Bad Image List is a workable solution. As for the kind of people we have around here, well, we have various sorts, including the sort who don't care for what they perceive as intrusive pledge-driving and who, in the relative autonomy of their own userspace, prefer to subvert that with an irreverent and light-hearted jab. And I wouldn't want it any other way. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If they have a problem with the WMF needing money, they are welcome to edit another wiki. User:Veesicle 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They certainly are. And they are welcome to edit here as well. Last I checked, we do not demand that editors sign loyalty oaths. ··coelacan 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is rather childish. User:Veesicle 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Giveit.svg now helpfully offers: To use this image legitimately, such as in an article about human anatomy or physiology,... I'm now dreaming of legitimately attaching it to such an article. Hm, spleen, perhaps? Bile? (Moreover, it would seem to belong in [non-anatomical, non-physiological] expletive.) -- Hoary 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Something else: The banner says "Donate to Wikipedia NOW!". Donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation and help Wikipedia but "Donate to Wikipedia" could be considered misleading. I'm not a lawyer and don't know whether there are legal implications. PrimeHunter 01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If one wished to donate to Wikipedia, he or she would do so through the Foundation, as my understanding goes. There's no logical conflict there. --Dynaflow babble 11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Shop steward's thoughts

While I personally don't struggle with this, I know that this banner can easily be considered harassment. I'm not sure about how this is treated on the web, but if it were in a workplace, and someone might look there FROM a workplace ......., or most other places, one would be vulnerable to complaints on the grounds of the local human rights code. Also, it does not portray a desirable image. I personally despise political correctness with a passion and view it as a plague and would view the inventor of it and ardent supporters of it as hypocritical, holier-than-thou twits. However, the law is the law and there is little anyone can do about that. One can easily make a case, that no part of an encyclopedia should be such as to communicate on that level AND be linked to an official part of the site. It is asking for trouble and degrading to the image of the whole site. Were it allowed, one could then also make a case for permitting that sort of language in discourse between editors. That, however, is not allowed. I would love to use more emphatic language with some individuals on here and am prevented from doing so by the rules. In short, the banner should be altered to delete the f word. If not, then why not say: "Give us your motherf?$§*ß%& money." Or how about: "Give us your motherf.... money, you stupid, motherf&%$, etc." Where do you draw the line, once you allow it? I know that as a union steward, if I had to defend a member who had been disciplined for the use of such terminology, I'd have a serious case. Even if I dealt with it under a collective bargaining agreement, that still leaves the path open for charges with the local human rights commission..... You just don't want to go there in today's environment. Even celebrit<script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>ies are losing their jobs over this stuff now. --Achim 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For the thousandth time, "Wikipedia is not censored." Please actually go and read that official and non-negotiable policy. We actually have an article entitled f*ck, and it's not going anywhere. We also have articles for sh*t, c*nt, and a**hole. (Yes, ironically I prefer to self-censor my own language, but no policy requires me to do so.)

We make no guarantees that the website is safe for any workplace, nor will we ever. That argument has no legal relevance whatsoever. — Satori Son 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies . One, this isn't an encyclopedic image being used in an article. So its relevance to the content doesn't really apply here. As far as violating existing policy, some people might consider this to be a little uncivil. 'not censored' doesn't protect this, yet civil would indicate it shouldn't be here.--Crossmr 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? "If it were a workplace" It's not, it's a website. There are no collective bargaining agreements and the only work contracts apply to a half-dozen foundation employees who have no connection to this situation whatsoever.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That is just funny :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I Would like this on my userpage, if at all possible - would it be in any way possible o the bad imag list to permit it to be use here? No more bongos 06:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I added your userpage as an exception for all three images [15].--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for typos, my keyboard is broken. Especially E, D and N. No more bongos 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... No more bongos 07:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if we're taking requests, I'd like to use the banner also. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also  Done.--chaser - t 00:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that sort of language is all OK, then why don't we go much further? And since we're not censored, then why not throw "being civil" out as well? So that means anything goes, right? What about the N word? I made it quite clear that I was not making claims to legalities here. It's just that it's a slippery slope, once you allow that sort of thing. Apart from that, ask yourself this: If you have never previously considered donating, would you be more likely to donate if the request contained the F-word? Personally, I am not, much as I am amused at the use of it here, but it certainly does not make me more likely to donate. So what's the point of having it? Amusing the author of the banner? --Achim 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider it a bit of rebellion from good standing contributors. I've donated money to the foundation, I'll donate again. The fundraiser banner annoys regular contributors because it is unnecessary to use. If I use a Wikimedia foundation project daily, I don't need to see a banner. But I have no choice. It's akin to being a listener to National Public Radio during pledge campaigns but with the ability to comment in response. As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not censored and so follows that the word "fuck" in satire is applicable. If it trips your work filters, sorry for that as well but that's a baseless claim for removal if that is the ultimate problem. By rhetorical definition, those offended are the on the Slippery slope's fallacy. Just keep on editing. Keegan^talk 06:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As I just pointed out above, "not censored" doesn't protect this usage in non-article space. Not censored protects the use of words and images that people might find offensive when they are necessary to article space. It doesn't give you license to fill an article with "fuck" and in fact the policy clearly states that its only allowed so long as it doesn't violate any other policy. So you might want to cruise over to WP:CIVIL and have a read. Which obviously some people feel this doesn't jive with.--Crossmr 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are asking to go re-read Wikipedia:Civility, but let me assure you that I am extremely familiar with that policy. Especially the part that says "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." And the part that says "Profanity directed at another contributor." Please note carefully the "personally targeted" and "at another contributor" language I have bolded.

If someone visited your talk page and demanded that you "f*cking donate," that would be a completely different issue. But colorfully worded satire on your own personal user page is not a violation of any official policy, and it never has been.

I hope it doesn't sound like I am completely insensitive to your concerns. I personally do not approve of such language: I don't use it here and I wish that others would not either. But just as I argued that the personal essay "Don't be a f*cking douchebag" was not a policy violation, I will always defend those who choose to use profanity in a way that is not uncivil. It is simply not behavior that requires administrator attention or action. If someone feels that it should be, they should make a formal proposal at the pump. -- Satori Son 00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Humour is not universal and you're going to have to accept that fact that obviously this isn't universally hilarious as its seemed to be thought. But I don't see how behaviour has to be personally targeted to be uncivil. If I go off on a rant about the general behaviour of wikipedians and lace it with profanity you can guarentee I'll be blocked for it regardless of whether or not I name names. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. More than one editor has indicated they don't find this hilarious and have an issue with it. That's enough as far as I'm concerned to consider this as not acting civilly towards each other. Another quote from the page and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.. This obvious was unintentional but people have been offended. And 'not censored' doesn't provide any protection here. So there is nothing here to support keeping this image and a clear policy which indicates it should be removed, along with WP:AGF which means you should take their complaints at face value unless you see any evidence to the contrary.--Crossmr 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against admin action because I think it's "hilarious"; I don't. And I don't see anything that indicates I have not assumed good faith; I have.

My argument, simply, is that official En-Wikipedia policy does not strictly prohibit the use of profanity that is not uncivil. Obviously, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of policy, but I respect your opinion. And if it's supported by other administrators, I will support consensus. -- Satori Son 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The moment someone comes here to complain about it, it has become uncivil. Whether its intended as such or not that is how its has been viewed.--Crossmr 06:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if one grants that it's not strictly prohibited (which I would grant), is that really as high as we aim? I don't really care whether it's prohibited; I care that it's unprofessional, tacky, and unbecoming the dignity of this project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right: whether a behavior is "strictly" prohibited by policy is not really the standard we use for determining when administrator action is required in a situation, and I have stricken that needlessly restrictive qualifier. My other points still stand. Sorry for the misstatement. -- Satori Son 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for completely missing my point. Even if behavior is not prohibited in any way, does that make it excellent, or professional, or indicative of any class at all? Is there any reason that we might want to be excellent, professional, or classy? Is our goal to do everything right up to the edge of what's prohibited? Nobody has made an argument that the banner is tasteful, or that their chuckles are more important that presenting a professional face to the world. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to correct a mistake I made, not irritate you. I am sorry. -- Satori Son 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether I'm irritated - I'm not really anybody. What I think matters are two things: (a) Can Wikipedia rise to the challenge of being culturally sensitive, as opposed to culturally insensitive, and (b) Is our attitude that of doing anything that's not forbidden, or of trying to be as excellent as we can? I don't see how such a banner could possibly be consistent with cultural sensitivity and excellent behavior. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The key to the civility policy is to act civilly towards others. The presence of the image on a userpage is not directed or addressed towards anyone; it only exists as a self-obvious bit of humorous ironic hyperbole on the part of the user whose page it happens to appear on. Now that the image has been BADIMAGE'ed, there's no worry it might be maliciously forced on a mass audience. If what is causing emotional distress is the image's simple existence, we are dealing with a different issue entirely. WP:AGF also calls for the image's detractors to accept that the users of the image are probably not using it in a manner calculated to shock or offend. As regards the "gratuitous" profanity, as long as we're still citing not being dicks as one of our most important, core values, we have to accept that profanity and quasi-offensive language, in both humorous and merely emphatic contexts, have a secure and long-standing place in Wikipedia's culture. --Dynaflow babble 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the humor is as obvious as you make it out to be. I find it cute enough, but Wikipedia is read by a lot of people from a lot of different cultures, and writing cultural differences off as some kind of oversensitivity on the part of others strikes me as very unprofessional and unbecoming of an encyclopedia. The f-bomb means a lot more in some places than it does in others. I think the banner is very tacky, and while I wouldn't support sanctions against users who display the banner, I would hope that most of us aim to be a little classier than that. We are being watched by the world, after all. The conflation of profanity with our fund-raising drive is particularly unfortunate, to my mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the banner (in a deliberately crappy manner with all manner of bad jpeg artifact) with the sole intention of making people giggle when they clicked on the pipelink to it on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. It wasn't intended for display on talk pages or anything like that. Neil ☎ 09:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that you made the banner for bad reasons, or that anybody who's displaying it is doing so in less than perfectly good faith. I'm just hoping to point out that there may be reasons for not displaying such a banner that some people have not perhaps considered. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i think it is VERY unprofesional of wikipedia to have such a banner. after i see the banner, i will NEVER donate. americans think saying the f word is very funny. here it is NOT. i didnt come to wikipedia to see that kind of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the argument about the use of the f word's being directed at a specific person. Anyone who reads it may very well feel addressed. The author wanted all readers to feel addressed (Otherwise what's the point?) And the point of the banner is purportedly to get people to donate. I don't think anyone can argue that it fulfills that purpose. That means that either there is another purpose or the author was unable to see that the purported purpose was not served by the banner. In any event, it's in poor taste. I don't see the upside of having it on a site like this. --Achim 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a good reason to keep these images on our servers? I appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored, but that's an important article-space policy. In user-space, we're presenting the face of Wikipedia, and I think it makes a lot of sense to appear professional and culturally sensitive. The banners are neither. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The face of Wikipedia is in fact the encyclopedia: article space. We have never had any pretensions of professionalism in userspace. Despite the war on userboxes, and UCFD, and a few sad essays scattered about, there has never been more than a tame breeze pushing for professionalism in userspace. Giant Jefferson and I hope we will never see such a day. And I know it's tragically politically incorrect to say so, or perhaps I'm just a clod, but I can't muster any sensitivity for people who get flustered about fornication. Is there a good reason to keep the images? Perhaps you don't value these reasons, but I do: some productive users like them, the area of usage is confined by the software, the time of usage will be temporary, we never know what potential good we stifle when we curb expression, and there's no consensus to delete. ··coelacan 09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So, the "potential good that we stifle" when we "curb expression" is worth more than the fact that we're basically pissing in the face of entire cultures? I don't think you're getting just how disrespectful the banner is. Do you walk into churches and spit on crosses, because it's not forbidden? Yes, I'm choosing extreme examples, because I'm trying to get across that, until you've been there, you don't know just how offensive these words are. I was shocked, when I lived in Kenya, to learn just how beyond-the-pale the f-word is considered there. I wouldn't say it there, unless I were trying to offend, and maybe get my ass kicked. Every time I edit Wikipedia, I think about Kenyans reading it. Is it really such a painful hardship to be respectful of other humans' feelings? I know a lot of people who do it, and seem to enjoy it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the silly thing about this is how people can make a case for being obnoxious (and the comment isn't made at Neil who made a one off joke and is no doubt bemused about the ongoing molehill/mountain scenario), but at those who then seek to construct a whole principle upon it). In context, I swear, I will even use the odd swear word or two on Wikipedia to make a point (and risk being reprimanded), but it is done in the knowledge that swearing is offensive, even on the Internet.

In the end though, gratuitous swearing or obscene images just make those who use it seem ignorant and insensitive. If people want to create the impression of themselves being ignorant, then I guess that is there prerogative, but it does then reflect on Wikipedia. People who wear the badge of Wikipedia, and to be that includes admins (regardless of it being "just some tools"), need to reflect that what they do on Wikipedia is seen as what Wikipedia condones. If you want Wikipedia to be reported as being run by a group of foul-mouthed geeks, then carry on, but don't fall for the kidology that what you do in userspace is not part of what Wikipedia is, regardless of what you think it should be.

It is not the first time I have seen an argument that user pages are off limits to Wikipedia rules. This view extends to one that civility does not apply on talk pages (or your own talk page). That is simply unreasonable if user pages are part of the Wikipedia mechanism. Spenny 09:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"It is not the first time I have seen an argument that user pages are off limits to Wikipedia rules." Who is making this argument? I am not your straw admin. If the image is in violation of some rule, let's hear it. ··coelacan 10:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"... no doubt bemused about the ongoing molehill/mountain scenario ..." ' - you are not wrong. Neil ☎ 10:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

coelacan, I will not point to specific examples as I do not want to either revive old wars or fan ongoing ones. I'm not overly fussed about Neil's joke, which only backfired because of someone else's vandalism, but I would simply make the point that generally rude jokes have the potential create an atmosphere of incivility and as such you should be sensitive to those who might reasonably claim to be offended. (Long ramble omitted for all our good!) Spenny 12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Neil's joke, which only backfired because of someone else's vandalism. Exactly. And now that the potential has been dealt with, the rest of this discussion has been only so much Wiki drama, suitable for passing the time on a rainy day, but of no lasting consequence. As a quick aside, I fail to see how this innocent little sign could stimulate so much discussion, while userpages which advocate nuking other countries and spouting racism were allowed to stand for eons before action was taken. If we wish to keep Wikipedia from being discredited by its users, perhaps we could first get our priorities in order and deal with those kind of pages--or figure out some way to stop the vandalism which is a far greater problem and makes us look like such an unreliable source of information. Just a thought. Jeffpw 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In any case, a little harmless vulgarity can pay dividends beyond a chuckle from those unafraid to laugh at it: "Regular swearing at work can help boost team spirit among staff, allowing them to express better their feelings as well as develop social relationships, according to a study by researchers."[16] Leave the fucking thing be. --Dynaflow babble 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dynaflow, I hope you drop the f-bomb sometime in a cultural context where it's considered truly offensive, and then you can explain to the people you upset that their culture is wrong to be so "afraid to laugh". Then, I hope it doesn't get you into too much trouble. Cultural sensitivity is not simply "Wiki drama". -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL requires we also avoid being unintentionally offensive. As pointed out there are cultures and even people in the west who find this truly offensive. This has no place here.--Crossmr 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe displaying this is intentionally offensive - I'm not intending to offend anyone. I don't see any harm in a little satire in userspace. If anyone reading my userpage would be offended by the banner, I might suggest to them that they should lighten up. No more bongos 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that it be intentionally offensive. ...and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. The fact that some people have posted here and said they are offended is all the evidence that we need that this could be offensive. Continuing to display something that some people have indicated offends them, services no encyclopedic purpose, and could potentially offend other users may have some questioning your motivation for doing so. We don't assume good faith blindly and had I encountered your userpage outside of this discussion with no previous talk of this issue I'd assume good faith, but now that good faith concerns have been raised and a policy very clearly cited to indicate why it shouldn't be used, we don't continue to blindly assume it.--Crossmr 22:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, misread quote above. Well, fine, people are offended and the image is gone. I would suggest that some editors are rather easily offended. I suppose we all have different standards on this kind of thing, though. No more bongos 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize cultural differences as people "needing to lighten up". I think it's rather provincial to put it that way. Try living in a very different culture, and then see how comfortable you are saying that your culture is right and others are just "easily offended". Wikipedia is trying to be a world-wide institution; doing that involves learning about what it means to interact with all kinds of people. They are not to be judged for being different from us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Direct you to my comment further down. Have seen plenty more potentially inflammatory things on userpages. Wikipedia also involves learning not to get unnecessarily inflamed. No more bongos 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not inflamed. I'm saddened that there seems to be so much resistance to the idea that we might take people's feelings more into consideration than to write them off as "easily offended". Article-space is one thing, and nothing can compromise NPOV. In the rest of the project, I'd rather not offend people if I can avoid it; I'm sorry that others feel differently. The fact that plenty of potentially inflammatory things are on user pages does not make those things classy, or courteous, or good ideas. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

Note that User:David Gerard has deleted two of the three images. No more bongos 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he missed the third accidentally, rather than deliberately. Joke's over, the thought police have won - I've deleted it. Neil ☎ 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Neil, at least one portion of your sign is still providing me with use and pleasure: the code for the sign is still suppressing the crappy beg-a-thon sign from appearing on my userpage. For that I thank you. For the rest, I'll just say I'm glad the well meaning Wikipedians take themselves so seriously. God knows nobody else does. Jeffpw 22:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite agree. It's possible to edit an encyclopedia seriously at the same time as engaging in light relief, just see List of sex positions. Honestly though, I don't understand the issues people had with this. No more bongos 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Other cultures are silly; let's laugh at them and at how stupid and easily offended they are. That's class. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No more bongos, your statement above, "I don't understand the issues," is precisely correct. You don't understand how words sound to people in different parts of the world, and that's why others are here trying to help you understand. Go travel and learn. You don't sit down among Arabs and put your feet up on the table. You don't go to dinner in India and eat with your left hand. You don't make irreverent religious jokes in a religiously conservative country (no matter how stupid you think religious conservativism is). It is a different world out there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - however this is the internet. Although I normally agree with those opinions of yours that I've seen, I think in this case you're both drawing irrelevant parallels and being unnecessarily patronising. No more bongos 00:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So what if its the internet? That means everyone should suddenly subscribe to your ideals? Wikipedia is also a community. Part of working together is not doing things to offend other members of that community. Its one thing to do it unintentionally, its another to pursue it doggedly after the complaint has been raised. However as a community we aspire not to do it unintentionally in the first place.--Crossmr 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, and would be nice if you didn't try and simplify my argument by extension. Being the internet means we do not have a homogenous moral standard. The nearest thing that exist to this is policy. Policy is flawed and appears to be self-contradictory at times.

Userpages in particular are still a very grey area. If somebody had posted a nice note on my talk page, for instance, asking me nicely to take it down as use of the "'F' word" offended them, I would have given it serious thought. Nobody did this.

Instead - and this is only a probability rather than fact - what appeared to be a regular user logged out and used an IP specifically and only to remove it from my userpage and anyone else who had it, which struck me both as gaming the system and as assuming bad faith.

In any case, parody is parody, and as far as I understand it - and this forms my rationale for displaying it there in the first place - it plays on the visual aggressiveness of the fundraising banner. If people don't find it funny, that's down to them. It wasn't my intention to cause any offence, but I found the reaction here very bite-y, which made me slightly overly combative above.

In any case, this discussion here is getting WP:POINTy, since everything has been deleted, so I invite you to my talkpage to continue the discussion, should you feel the need. No more bongos 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Do you walk into churches and spit on crosses, because it's not forbidden?" No, and in fact that is forbidden; it's defacement of private property. It's not only illegal, but immoral, since I have no right to damage or leave my spittle upon others' property. But to correct your analogy, I have in the past linked from my userspace to this monstrous text in which a terribly insensitive man calls "one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Religious conservatism of all brands is remarkably consistent in relegating women to second-class citizenship, if they are afforded autonomy at all. Women in Kenya who've been raped have to flee traditional society to live safely without reprisal. Rape is their fault only if one begins from the ludicrous superstition that a woman first brought "sin" into the world, initiating bodily and sexual shame, and was punished for it with painful childbirth, thus making sex and reproduction the centerpiece of a busybody institution that maintains mindshare by normative violence in this life and threats of hellfire in the "next".

There are indeed plenty of people who are offended by words denoting human sexuality, and those people are wrong. Their beliefs are rooted in misinformation, and are factually wrong. Their beliefs contribute to sexual and gendered oppression, and thus are morally wrong. If they learn their beliefs from their cultures, then their cultures are wrong. Insofar as their culture restricts freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, it is damaging to humans and must be opposed, or we will still be born free but live everywhere in chains. Insofar as my culture values and protects liberty to a greater degree, yes, my culture is better.

If we pretend that an aim of communication should be to appease the most easily offended, then let us not neglect to cover the female visage, easily as offensive to some people as the word "fuck" is to others. If we pretend this a moral endeavor, let us make haste to remove all graven images from Wikipedia servers (surely a worthy criterion for speedy deletion). But I'm confused; you mix in pragmatic arguments too. If I should shut my lip in Kenya lest I be beaten, this is but amoral pragmatism. On the other hand, GTBacchus, if you felt it pragmatic to restrain your vocabulary or "maybe get [your] ass kicked", then this unspoken but understood shadow of violence is all the more reason why those people are morally wrong.

It is impossible to avoid offending someone. I have just offended many people with my assertion that my culture is better than any culture which lacks liberté, égalité, fraternité. You have offended me with your suggestions that I should kowtow to my neighbor's superstitions. Sensitivities, then, cannot alone dictate what stays or goes at Wikipedia. Those who sought the deletion of the images should have taken the question to MFD. Consensus rules here, and these impassioned defenses of taboo might, sadly, have carried the day. For future reference, though, such exhortations are lost upon me. ··coelacan 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it a shame that you mistake courtesy for taboo. If I suggest being mannerly, apparently I'm "kowtowing to superstition". If I think it's better that we try and get along with each other, then I'm "trying to appease the morally offended". You're pretty sadly mistaken about me. I'm probably more opposed to "taboos" than most people you'll meet, precisely because of experiences I had in Kenya. That does not, however, mean that I think that casual vulgarity is going to set matters right. I still believe in treating others as I would like to be treated, and for me, that means maintaining a certain level of decorum and class.

I think it's entirely appropriate that we have articles confronting such practices as female genital cutting, which is hardly addressed in Kenya because they've got taboos against saying words such as clitoris. That's not the same as keeping vulgarity on our user pages. There's a time and a place for shocking people by dropping the f-bomb. I don't see how our user pages at the encyclopedia is that time or place. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but where, exactly, is "stupid and harmful banner" listed as a reason in the criteria for speedy deletion? Or was this an out-of-process deletion undertaken with zero participation in discussion and with absolutely no desire to follow Wikipedia policy, either in spirit or letter? Oops, my mistake. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:IAR. We do not owe unencyclopedic pages "due process" or something. If you wish to formally contest the deletions, Wikipedia:Deletion review is right there. Furthermore, I find it very easy to see how the deletion was an attempt to follow the spirit of various policies. Assuming good faith is easy if you can just place yourself in another's shoes. If you can't... um... yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted on behalf of the m:Communications Committee because it was in extremely poor taste while representing the WMF. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Doctorfluffy

Resolved

 – Lar unblocked and will be monitoring for any further issues

I believe that the block for sockpuppetry is mistaken. The evidence given is not warranted:

Evidence of sockpuppetry + disruptive and trolling use of Wikipedia = eminently blockable. — Phil Sandifer 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the block be removed and the editor allowed to make his own case. Kindly note there was a related discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Pilotbob which make have given rise to this problem. --Gavin Collins 10:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. User:Doctorfluffy has been active since May; I'm not aware of significant disruption on his part, and I'm not persuaded that he is a sockpuppet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• The first step should have been to ask Phil, not post here. I've left him a message to direct him here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• We have here a user whose stated purpose is to delete articles, who says he will only participate in AfD discussions to vote delete, and who has no meaningful mainspace contributions beyond tagging and trying to delete articles. We also have evidence linking him to other accounts with similar editing habits. This is straightforward. Note that I am not the blocking admin - User:David Gerard is, and he blocked for the checkusered sockpuppet evidence. The statement "the evidence given is not warranted" does not seem to me to be meaningful, as I can't find anything beyond David's declaration that Checkuser determined sockpuppetry. This is generally considered sufficient evidence. Phil Sandifer 17:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• First- you're right that I should have waited until the blocking admin was contacted, rather than endorsing an unblock here. Sorry. Second- User:Doctorfluffy has posted a defense against the accusations of sockpuppetry and disruption on his talk page, and since he can't participate in this discussion, he asked that someone point that out here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Doctorfluffy's claim that he and Pilotbob edit from the same IP during work hours but from different IP's at home (at the exact same time) is at least plausible. Phil, does this assertion comport with your checkuser results? Or perhaps is does not matter: Since other behavior has been found disruptive (on which I do not yet have an opinion), was the checkuser just icing? — Satori Son 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser accounts show all three usernames from different IPs at matching times. They're blatantly single-purpose sockpuppet accounts. Pilotbob has been blocked for AFD dickery before - David Gerard 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I understand. Wouldn't the three users editing from different IPs at the same time indicate that they are not the same person? Am I misunderstanding what you said? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect what David means is that, at any given time, all three accounts are on the same IP, and that when one changes IPs, the others do as well. Phil Sandifer 19:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I understand it: different IP's at matching times. Just wanted to make sure we did our due diligence. — Satori Son 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. - David Gerard 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really thought that User:Doctorfluffy was innocent of sockpuppetry. But if checkuser does not support his assertion, then that would make me wrong. Make a note of the date, because it doesn't happen often. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. Slap my blindcheeks and call me Mary. Mental note for future use: just because you've agreed with someone whenever you've crossed paths with them doesn't mean they aren't fucking over the 'pedia. Are there any AfDs we need to revisit because of this? Because I'm too tired to look for myself and must away to bed now anyway: I'm cooking for a party of six tomorrow and need my beauty sleep to achieve it and the associated shopping ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's little more annoying than having someone you thoroughly agree with do dickish things to support it. This is an example of classic sockpuppetry: using second accounts to fake consensus. Which is a gross violation of the Wikipedia way of trying to do things by a real consensus - David Gerard 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I left notes on all the open AfDs he participated in (well, the ones that User:JoshuaZ didn't get to first). — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Socking to defend

Since there is no way for me to defend myself otherwise, I was forced to create a second account. I won't use it in the main namespace or for any other purpose than to resolve this issue, so please don't just block me off the bat.

I don't understand what exactly the checkuser has shown. To reiterate, Pilotbob, AndalusianNaugahyde, and myself edit at work at the same time. I've admitted this repeatedly. I wasn't aware of this, but apparently there are two possible IPs those edits could come from (not one as I originally thought), since we have two internet connections and sometimes users are switched between them. Regardless, all three of our edits during the workday come from that pair of IP addresses. At night, we all go home around the same time, and all of IP addresses would then correspond to our home internet connections. I don't see how this is so damning that the case is immediately closed. What exactly are Phil Sandifer's and SatoriSon's comments referring to? Why is it so surprising that our IP addresses change at the same time? I believe my initial explanation of the situation admitted as much. Doctorfluffytemp 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• We don't draw any distinction between multiple accounts operated by a single editor and multiple accounts acting in concert from the same or similar addresses. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read my defense? As I have stated multiple times already, we independently have an interest in notability debates and AfDs, but we have never "acted in concert". The overlap between our edit histories is coincidental due to the fact that we happen to patrol the same sections of Wikipedia, mainly the AfD cats and boards. At most, one of us may have !voted in an AfD the other nominated, purely by happenstance. Can you please find an example where our edits to the same AfD were more than that? Perhaps a situation we were vocally supported each other in an actual discussion? A situation where we acted in such an actively collaborative way that the AfD was tainted? Are our opinions invalid simply because we happen to be in the geographic location? Even taking into account that our separate interests lie in the same niche of Wikipedia, I would still venture that the number of AfDs we have both contributed to is very small in proportion to the number I have participated in. Is it somehow against policy for two people who happen to be in close physical proximity to both contribute to Wikipedia in the same manner? Doctorfluffytemp2 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know about the checkuser evidence, but creating an account for the exclusive purpose of indiscriminately pushing for deletions does seem rather troll-like. The rapid, indiscriminate delete !votes you cast and nominations you made really offer no insight into the merits of the articles they pertain to, and very short time gaps suggest that you couldn't have done more than glanced at the articles. So I really can't imagine what intent you might have had apart from creating the appearance of consensus favoring deletion where there might not otherwise be one. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  I refer you to the extensive defense section on my original account's talk page. It fully explains the rationale for what I do. Continually blocking me and not allowing me to even comment in my defense is rather exasperating. Doctorfluffytemp3 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  It would be smarter to cease attempting to stretch our credulity this way. Even if you were NOT a sockpuppet of another editor, it would still be disruptive to create an account solely to attempt to delete content from Wikipedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  Your exact concern is addressed in my defense section. I articulate precisely why solely particpating in AfDs is not disruptive and is actually beneficial. I implore you, please read it - I have linked to it multiple times now. Doctorfluffytemp4 03:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Perhaps the indef block should be reconsidered, as you intentions don't appear disruptive. (Not sure about the checkuser findings; probably best for those with the CU tools to decide.) Still, I think your rapid AfD !votes and nominations can be seen as forceful overrepresentation of a somewhat outlandish view. Your philosophy seems to be if someone else thought this should be deleted, then it probably should be deleted by my standards, so I don't need to look carefully at the content. This makes sense, but I don't think it's how AfD should or is meant to work -- rarely do you see users saying "keep - this is admittedly not notable but I inherently disagree with WP:N," and those who leave such comments are rightly told to bug off and read our guidelines (even though a year ago such comments were generally seen as reasonable). To an extent, AfD participants are expected to !vote in a way that they think is consistent with what the community thinks is best -- a reasonable amount of deviation is always acceptable and helps gauge consensus changes, but in my opinion you were pushing too hard. Perhaps, if the checkusers decide that your explanation is plausible, we should hold a request for comment to discuss these issues? — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for reasons for a check

• (undent) I'm not aware that being a DeleteElf is a reason for being blocked. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing doesn't have a section that suggests a user should be blocked for taking part in AfDs, nor does WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_be_used. Care must be taken when looking at cases involving users whose behaviour one doesn't like or agree with, but whose behaviour as such is not against Wiki policy and guidelines. I understand that Doctorfluffy's participation in AfD's has attracted attention. Though I think this on Nov 5th - for which Doctorfluffy was cleared - followed by a block on Nov 9th looks close to harresment. And, out of interest, I couldn't find any discussion for a request for a checkuser search. I think there are valid reasons to question this block. I do however find that the situation that Doctorfluffy has outlined of three people working in the same office who all set out to concentrate on deleting articles to be one that will invite close attention. If this is true then all three users would need to accept that mass voting in AfD attracts attention, and that if three people are doing it from the same IP address then those users are going to be asked some stiff questions, and will need to be very careful as to how they conduct their accounts. I would like the benefit of the doubt given to all three accounts and the block removed on the understanding that if the accounts !vote or comment on the same AfD in the future that it is highly likely they will get blocked again. Failing that I would suggest to Doctorfluffy and the others that they open new accounts and take great care never to edit in such a way to call into question their honesty - not to support each other in editing articles or in AfD discussions, etc. They would need to accept that given their situation and their editing preferences, they must take more care than the average Wiki editor. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sound block-ness asserted

This is a sound block. I checkusered this user as well and reviewed contributions and the net effect is one user acting to disrupt AfD discussions. I have addressed the objections and made an offer (despite it being a sound block) at User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry, similarly to how I counseled Pilotbob at his talk. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Second request

I notice that you mention at User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry that you did the check "on request". Could you point us to that request because I've not yet seen it, nor the reasons and evidence for the request. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a request made privately, (estimates are that somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of all requests at en:wp are private and do not appear on WP:RFCU). I adjudged the reason for the request sufficient to warrant carrying the request out, so I did. ++Lar: t/c 09:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Third request

You have been trusted with checkuser, and part of the reason for that trust would have been that you are not dishonest or seek to conceal things. Yet you are reluctant to be as open about this affair as you could be. There are questions about this case, and it would give reassurance if there were evidence of greater accountability for the reasoning behind the action. I have asked twice already for reassurance, and I am now asking for the third time for the reasons for the check and the subsequent block. You needn't reveal the name of the person or persons who made the request if you feel their reputation would be soiled by this affair; though it would be reassuring if you could at least let us know the reasoning and the evidence. If the person who made the request would also come forward that would be even better. You must be aware that secrecy and evasiveness leads to greater concerns, so if you have reasons for not revealing part of the process that led to this user to get checked and then blocked it would be helpful if you could indicate that. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers are sometimes privy to information that can not be released due to the privacy policy. The checkusers do check each other. Mercury 22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fourth request

It's more the reason for the check that I am curious about. I've just been spending some fairly dull time looking at the history of the accounts under question and I don't see the reason why a check needed to be done. Also, if two of these users are sockpuppets, and one is the puppet master, then the puppet master would appear to be AndalusianNaugahyde, as that account is the oldest. At the moment the puppet master is claimed to be Pilotbob. The situation is not giving me confidence that this case has been handed with due care and consideration. That a concern about the block has been raised here and several people have supported that concern, yet we still haven't been given sufficient reason for why the check took place, is piquing my curiosity. It has been suggested I request the Ombudsman commission look into the matter, and I think I will. I've just had a look at Lars userpage, and I can see that he is a straight up person who is a highly respected Wikipedian. The impression I get from his userpage is that he would understand my concerns and would support my approaching the Ombudsman as I have not had satisfaction here. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This was a pretty routine investigation. My entry into it came when someone I trust as a good investigator, someone good at spotting correlations, sent me mail asking me to look. For privacy reasons I choose not to reveal who that is, although they can if they wish. I also choose not to reveal what the particular correlations are (per WP:BEANS). It resulted in a pretty routine result, really... 3 accounts that very solidly correlate together. Which account is the puppet master is not something we always get exactly right, and it doesn't really matter actually, it can be changed if it turns out (in cases where there are a lot of socks) that better identification helps more. See also User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry, particularly my latest entry, where I opine about happenstance, about cost/benefit and about levels of effort to prove or disprove things. I don't think there is a lot here to look into about why this investigation was carried out but if you want to go to the ombudsman I'd welcome their looking into it because if I've misstepped, or if David did, we of course want to know about it so we can improve going forward. But really, you should know, most investigations happen because of non public requests. What matters is what the outcome is. ++Lar: t/c 01:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fifth request

Thanks for pointing me to your detailed message on Doctorfluffy's userpage. I can see you are a honourable and respected and admired person, and that you do strive to be careful and as helpful as you can. I'm still, however, not clear as to why there was a check made in the first place. I don't see hard evidence in looking through the histories of the three accounts of disruptive behaviour or of deliberate and obvious vote stacking. I see three accounts that had been editing on Wikipedia for six months or more before discussions on AfDs began. The more I look into these accounts the more I see either the rather odd but plausible story of three people who work in the same place and share similiar interests and concerns with AfDs which all occured at the same time (something that could happen if they were chatting together about their Wiki activity) or one person who set up two sockpuppet accounts six months in advance - planning for the moment when all three accounts would vote stack, and then do it so badly that he votes against himself in crucial debates and votes for himself when it doesn't matter, and quite late, when the discussion is all but ended! Hmmm. What I've been asking is where is the clear evidence of policy breaking and disruption that prompted a call for an investigation? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

due diligence versus reasonableness

I see that Lar has carried out his due dilligence work and made reasonable conclusions from the evidence he has accumulated, but at the same time, Doctorfluffy has given reasonable explainations for the reasons for the correlation, and now the block should be lifted. Both sides have given evidence, both have reasonable grounds for their concerns, and both have acted in good faith. However, I think keeping a block on Doctorfluffy has always been unreasonable on the grounds that he has come forward to explain his actions; now it is time for the admins to expalain what they intend to do next to resolve this issue.

The secondary argument for the original block by Phil Sanders ("disruptive and trolling use of Wikipedia disruptive and trolling use of Wikipedia") is unfounded. Participation in AfD debates is an important process in WP in order to enforce WP guidelines; without this enforcement, WP will be tranformed from an enyclopedia to a fansite in a very short time. I see no evidence of trolling by Doctorfluffy; there is no evidence of POV pushing in any of his edits. What I do see is someone who consistently and justifiably asserts WP guidelines in AfD debates, and as such is providing a valuable service to the WP community.--Gavin Collins 10:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if Doctorfluffy is a sock of Pilotbob, how come the latter is not currently blocked?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gavin.collins: The problem with this argument is that you seem to assume as a given that P, D and A are different people, and then try to justify their actions. That they are different is an unwarranted assumption. The evidence makes it highly likely that is not the case. The assertions made by Doctorfluffy are not satisfactory to me, and absent proof other than by assertion, I am disinclined to believe the accounts are different. I am open to other suggestions than the one I made on the talk page as for ways to demonstrate difference, but I'm not just going to buy repeated assertion without proof. Note that normally, even if they were different people, if they were acting in concert as meatpuppets we would still block anyway if there was a clear pattern, as there is in this case, but I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt there, and watch to see if the pattern recurs. One of the sock accounts, the one that has undertaken to stop being disruptive, has been unblocked, that is sufficient, but if it goes back on its undertaking to stop being disruptive, it will be blocked as well. ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken; if two editors from the same office work together, then technically they are meatpuppets when they participate in the same AfD, because they are 'connected' parties regardless of whether they are acting independently or not. I think then what is needed is for Pilotbob and Doctorfluffy to disclose their close proximity on their user pages and to make an undertaking never to work in concert together. I think this might be the way to get the block lifted. --Gavin Collins 12:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)--Gavin Collins 12:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced they are different users. I believe David Gerard said so as well, referring to "different IPs at matching times" above. However, if these userids disclose the possible relationship between them in a neutral way on both pages, and if they undertake never to work in concert, (interpreted quite broadly, meaning not ever both participating in any discussion where consensus needs to be reached) I'd be willing to lift the block. Note that Doctorfluffy rejected the very suggestion of undertaking not to work together on his userpage: "There is no reason we should not be allowed to contribute to the same articles. This is blatant discrimination because we share a close physical proximity." (from User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry his point 3). I'm not sure I'd characterise it as discrimination but I do agree that it's treating these IDs specially. Oh well. WP is not "fair". We are a project to build an encyclopedia, not a social justice experiment. Note that other admins might feel differently of course but I will reblock at the first sign of any collusion or disruption on the part of these IDs. The offer extends to AndalusianNaugahyde as well. By the way, I personally consider nominating articles for deletion, without any other contributions of a substantive and significant nature, as prima facie disruption. That is a personal feeling mind you, not policy, although perhaps it should be. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Note for those wondering: the reason I'm willing to lift the block in that cirucmstance is, once the relationship is disclosed and the IDs undertake not to violate our WP:SOCK policy by avoiding the appearance of stacking, they are in compliance with policy, we do not at this time ban socks outright. I want to work creatively to enable these users to contribute positively if that's at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Doctorfluffy can't edit this thread, but I was just talking to him IRL and we both are willing to refrain from participating in the same consensus related articles and anything else that would give an appearance of meatpuppetry. Pilotbob 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If he can still edit his talk page, let him do so, outlining this, (he previously refused) and I will unblock. Fair warning, you'll be on an unfairly short leash as far as I am concerned, one minor misstep and I'll block again, but as I have pointed out more than once, WP is not "fair". Note ALSO that you are welcome (recommended, in fact if you have doubts) to ask first, ask me if the edit is iffy, and if I say it is OK, and you get blocked for it anyway, I'll stick up for you. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He did. I am seeking concurrence from David Gerard to unblock Doctorfluffy subject to monitoring. If David is opposed I would not want to see an unblock unless there is overwhelming and clear consensus here for that. We MUST stop overturning the blocks or unblocks of others because we disagree and can't be bothered to seek consensus first. ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fifth request (simultaneous)

Some edits the acounts have made: [17], [18], [19] - I picked those up quite quickly from comments in the edit summaries. The accounts have not been engaging in disruptive vandalism. For a combined 18 months the accounts have either added material to articles, tidied up, reverted obvious vandalism, or tagged articles that were a cause for concern. Oversights can happen, especially when busy. What concerns me more, is that when this case is under such scrutiny, that assertions such as the above are made, which can be seen to be unfounded with a quick look at the history of the accounts. This started out as a small case, but it could end up with the reputation of a respected and valued Wikipedian being slightly tarnished because of his reluctance to be less certain of his own judgement. Lars, what is being asked is for you to show the diffs and other such evidence of the disruptive editing of these three acccounts that led to the need for a check. I don't know you, so all I can go by is what is in front of me. I see a user who has gained the deep respect and trust of other Wikipedians, but who may have made an error here. I'd like to see the evidence that will clear up the doubts. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I looked at those edits, they're not in and of themselves disruptive, but they're ("I added all these foods because I drink a lot" ?? we typically cite things rather than relate drinking experiences) marginal at best. Some marginal edits and wikignoming don't give a free pass. But what you seem to be harping on more than anything else is "why" I carried out the check. I carried out the check because someone asked me to. Someone I know is good at spotting connections and who I trust. As it turned out that person was looking for a different connection, which wasn't there. Checkuser is imperfect. Sometimes the reason for a check doesn't stand up when you look. But just like a mechanic can fix a different problem than the one you brought the car in to be address, or a doctor can treat one illness they found after you visited with a different one, or a policeman write you a ticket for one thing after pulling you over for another... (and note CU is not like any of those things, we are not mechanics, doctors or cops... it's just an analogy, ok?) sometimes CU checks turn up things you weren't looking for. There isn't anything wrong with finding something you weren't looking for, it's more of a bonus.

I'm starting to think you're just trying to dig around here ("with the reputation of a respected and valued Wikipedian being slightly tarnished"... is that what you're trying for???) for no particular reason other than to see how long you can make the thread, or whether you can get me to say something I'll regret later. I had probable cause to carry out the check, and I found something. Other checkusers and admins corroborated it. Do I make mistakes sometimes? Sure. We all do. And I think I'm pretty good about admitting it. Heck, I LOVE to be proven wrong about something and have them turn out better than I feared, it happens in all sorts of scenarios. But you're not going to get me to violate privacy or reveal investigative methods to clear up your doubts. End of story. Note that we are not a justice system and not inherently fair. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (Lar, long A, not Lars :) )

Let's clear up a misunderstanding. As I've wikied above, I have been asking for the reason why the check was done in the first place. As can be seen from the above, I've not been getting the response. Having asked a number of times and only having got - up till now - evasive answers, can you wonder why I started to indicate that a reputation of trust can only go so far? And that someone who continues to be evasive without due explanation is not going to keep a reputation of trust. Implying that I came here with an agenda to discredit you does not stand up to the facts. I have asked again and again why a check was done on these people. Only now do I get anything close to an answer. Your response has managed to irk me a bit as I have been asking a question, and getting evasive answers, and eventually I get accused of plotting against you merely because I have pointed out that you have been evasive without explanation.

I see that under current guidelines someone with the checkuser facility can do a check on anyone whom they have reasonable cause to suspect of breaking policy, so that would include being notified in private by someone whose opinion they trust. (Though I am uncomfortable that checkuser requests are being made in private outside of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, no matter the personal relationship and mutual respect of the persons involved.) I also note that users with this facility must not give out personal information about the account (such as, that user A and user B work in the same place, especially if user A has identified that place on his user page, while user B has not). However, I cannot see in the guidelines that when a block resulting from a check is challenged and a discussion opened, that a reasonable request for the reasons why the check was done in the first place should not be answered. Continued evassive replies will only engender a feeling that something was overlooked, or a mistake made, and the person doing the check doesn't want to admit it - and this feeling is reinforced when the person who conducted the check is making statements that can be identified as mistaken (the three accounts having a long history of positive edits before the AfDs, and the wrong account being identified as the puppet-master). All this is a mater of record. So to be accused at the end of this frustrating experience of having deliberately engineered this situation in order to discredit the checker is galling to say the least. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your insertion of section headings to highlight how many times you asked (while leaving the text itself bolded) because section headings are meant to either be completely arbitrary or add some meaningful structure to discussion and the primary focus of this discussion ought not to be how many times you have asked basically the same question. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To your repeated requests. I really feel this has been asked and answered, multiple times. Let's review the sequence of events. Note that for the record, you are not entitled to this level of detail, since you are an uninvolved party. In the course of investigating other matters, a user I trust asked me to look into Pilotbob, suggesting that they might be a sleeper sock of a very troublesome user. Based on that, I checked. The connection was not there, but I did find the socks that have been reported already, saw Pilotbob himself had been recently blocked for disruption and reviewed enough of the other contributions to conclude they were disruptive too. I revealed the connection, but not the underlying IP(s) or the nature of the correlation to the user that asked. I said that the connection was pretty solid. I suggested they block and tag if they felt it warranted. All perfectly routine.

Meanwhile, independently, David Gerard also investigated. I don't know why, exactly, but again, we do about 2/3 to 3/4 of our investigations because of being asked through means other than RFCU, and I find that perfectly appropriate. He substantiates my findings that these are stone cold correlated. Sure, mistakes are possible but we don't have to be perfect here. There is no rush.

As to the "months of contributions" part... our detractors are getting better at what they do and it is not uncommon now to find sleeper socks with a fair number of innocuous edits that have been around for months and months. Good edits don't give you a free pass to be disruptive. There are some ok edits, some marginal ones, and some bad ones with each of these accounts.

As to the motives part, I don't get why you care so much about this, this is mind numbingly routine stuff here, completely run of the mill checking and blocking... that you and Gavin repeatedly dig into this routine matter puzzles me. It's wasting valuable time that could be spent in other more productive ways, so it gives the appearance of disruptiveness or trolling, even if your motives are pristine. I feel this is as much explanation as you need, perhaps more. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"I feel this is as much explanation as you need, perhaps more." OUCH! If you weren't such a respected Wikipedian I would assume you were trying to pull rank here and put little me in my place. How far exactly have we come from Jimbo's statement of principles? Let me quote something from that statement: There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny". "Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other. I respect that, as much as I respect many other aspects of the Wikipedia world. And I WILL question people when I feel something has happened (for whatever reason) that leads me to suspect that Wikipedia's founding principles are being eroded. If it annoys you that people will call into question your activities, perhaps you might consider not blocking other users on incidental evidence which you are not prepared to share with the community, but which doesn't appear to stand up against the explanation or editing history and behaviour of the three accounts involved. As part of the responsibility you have taken on board when you accepted the role of checkuser is the responsibility to account for yourself when reasonably asked. If anyone feels they are above accountability then I should say that they are clearly not fit for office. I am assuming here that you are human, and that I have irritated you, and that you have spoken out of anger, and that you don't genuinely feel that you are above being questioned. Please reassure me that your high office has not gone to your head and you are still capable of realising that we are all equal here, and that all of us are deserving of respect. I also hope that something of what has happened here will remain with you, and that you might just pause for more consideration when thinking of blocking in future - after all, as you say, there is no rush, and the accounts were not involved in vandalism nor in any activity that can actually be shown (despite your assertions otherwise) to break policy or to be disruptive. Why rush into a block when a few more minutes spent on checking the user's history would introduce some doubt into any reasonable person. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree about the disruptiveness. As for the level of explanation... I repeatedly explained MORE than is required in the hope that you would see reason. I reiterate, you're not an involved party, and you're not trusted with sensitive information. Checkusers don't always explain everything, and rightly so. We check each other, and the ombudsman commission is the final check. It has nothing to do with relative worth or status, merely whether you're involved or not, and whether you're trusted with nonpublic information or not. You need to internalise that and move on instead of repeatedly trying to cast aspersions, and mischaracterising my actions and motives... Or perhaps whatever it was you learned from this wasn't quite the right thing. For the record I reject much if not all of your characterization of my methods and approach. I have already submitted this incident for peer review to my fellow checkusers and there is no issue. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhh SilkTork....cabal, you mean like several editors setting up and pursuing an organize mass deleting process that has been going on for several months now deleting hundred of hours of input from previous editors or something? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Gaming

They're gaming. If PilotBob wants to contribute, he can do so in a manner that doesn't act to undermine trust on the project by furious sockpuppetry - David Gerard 15:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire or need to use sock puppets. I have never used sock puppets. I know that you don't believe me, but it is the truth. Pilotbob 15:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I beleive the time has come either to extend the block for a certain amount of time or rescind it; either way, a reasoned decision should be made about how best to resolve this. The comments of David Gerard are unhelpful; what is needed is a resolution. Once again I propose ending the block. --Gavin Collins 07:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The comments of David Gerard are extremely helpful, actually, as they validate why this is a sound block. I'm not sure yours are quite as helpful, I am afraid. Nevertheless, and you may not be aware of it, a proposal has been made and accepted, and I've indicated I will lift once David is on board with it (see his talk and that of Doctorfluffy) or there is a clear consensus here. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, I see them as unhelpful, as basically he is making accusations that cannot be responded to by Doctorfluffy as long as the block is in place. I am not sure why this is being done; I will assume good faith and assume he is a bit grumpy today. Without providing evidence in support of these accusations, I am afraid they do nothing but raise the temperature of the this discussion. If David Gerard has an axe to grind, then let him make a case in full, but his remarks are not helpful. The question still stands, what action is going to be taken rescind the block on Doctorfluffy? --Gavin Collins 14:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Asked and answered. David will or won't respond to his talk page message and if he responds negatively, or not at all, I'll ask for consensus here and that will decide the matter. This was explained before. Constantly reasking is not helpful. Suggesting that David Gerard has an axe to grind is not helpful either. This is a routine matter that seems to be getting much more attention than it warrants and it makes me wonder what the heck is really going on here. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In Gavin's case, he has difficulty accepting that his is a minority view - the RfC on his behaviour was brought by 5 users and endorsed by 28 more, with only 4 supporting Gavin, yet it appears not to have affected his actions at all. I'm sure Gavin would be demanding a permban on users opposing his numerous AfDs if they were found socking to rig the vote, yet clearly Gavin has no problem with this when they're socking to rig the vote in his favor. Edward321 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

resolution

After the agreement to abide by policy by both users, and after gaining concurrance from David Gerard: [20] the block has been lifted: [21] ... I undertake to monitor behaviour here and will swiftly reblock if needed, I consider these users on a very short leash, and frankly expect to be disappointed for being played as a softie here by determined trolls with an agenda, but would be astoundingly delighted to find out that these were just regular guys caught in a web of coincidence (and our pragmatic approach that doesn't need to handle edge cases well) who go on to contribute positively in many ways. One can hope. As always I invite review of my actions. (ahem, by those that have NEW questions to ask! :) ) ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That the block has been lifted means I won't be coming back here. I have learned something in the course of this discussion, and I sincerely hope that Lar has learned something as well. I wish everyone involved here good editing! Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing disgusting vandalism/personal attacks to Doctorfluffy's user page

Multiple IPs and new user(s) are vandalizing the page with sexually explicit edits and insults within minutes of each other:

• 00:52, 14 November 2007 Noonoopoo (Talk | contribs) (2 bytes) (←Replaced page with 'ok')
• 00:08, 14 November 2007 Noonoopoo (Talk | contribs) (1,992 bytes)
• 00:07, 14 November 2007 172.190.232.166 (Talk) (5 bytes) (←Replaced page with 'cocks')
• 00:06, 14 November 2007 75.80.149.145 (Talk) (740 bytes)
• 00:06, 13 November 2007 67.85.152.183 (Talk) (26 bytes)
• 20:25, 3 November 2007 Fullmetalmiku (Talk | contribs) (25 bytes) (←Replaced page with 'I am a tremendous faggot.')
• 18:41, 3 November 2007 99.226.56.5 (Talk) (3,878 bytes)
• 18:35, 3 November 2007 76.98.160.87 (Talk) (3,795 bytes)
• 18:19, 3 November 2007 69.226.120.198 (Talk) (3,793 bytes) (Undid revision 168984399 by Gilesbennett (talk))
• 18:18, 3 November 2007 69.226.120.198 (Talk) (3,775 bytes)
• It goes on even further since at least the beginning of the month.

I am not sure what the deal is, but I thought someone should be aware of this. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page for a while, hopefully that will help. These sort of attacks are, obviously, not acceptable. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

TShilo12 (talk · contribs)

I was about to issue a short block to TShilo12 (talk · contribs), but thought I'd bring it here for pre-emptive review instead. I first noticed this user when he posted vague, unsupported accusations of anti-Semitism against another editor while simultaneously complaining about violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I warned him at the time, he argued with me, but ultimately there were no further problems and the issue dropped.

Today I noticed that User:TShilo12 added new "evidence" to the "Allegations of apartheid" ArbCom case, which closed several weeks ago. The "evidence" in question was not evidence at all, but merely a rehash of the unsupported, inflammatory accusations he's made in the past ([22]). All the worse, this was added to a difficult and controversial ArbCom case long after its closure, in what appears to be an attempt to inflame and perpetuate the dispute.

I view this sort of baseless accusation of anti-Semitism as a problem for 2 reasons: first, because it violates the core of WP:NPA by attacking the character of another editor rather than his arguments. Secondly, there are real, dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites on Wikipedia, and abusing the term to smear someone in a personal dispute without any sort of evidence cheapens what is a very real problem. I see no mitigating factors to what appears to be a serious, unsupported attack, made in a long-since-closed ArbCom case, designed to inflame a dispute, and coming after a previous warning. My inclination is to issue a short block here, but as NPA blocks are always a bit controversial and I generally don't issue them (not to mention the underlying issue is inflammatory), I'm bringing it here for feedback before I do so. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I could be happy with the NPA block but a stern warning and reversion of the addition might work too. I certainly agree with your thoughts here. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised and disappointed to see that TShilo12 has done this again. As far as I know, I'd never had any interaction with this editor before he made his unprovoked personal attack on me and other unnamed editors ("an opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins") back in August. I've not had any involvement with him since, other than asking him on his talk page to withdraw his attack (see User talk:TShilo12#Your accusations), to which he did not respond. I have no idea what prompted this fresh attack, since I don't habitually edit Jewish-related articles and my editing lately has been fairly light. Once again it seems to be completely unprovoked. What makes this especially disappointing is that I see he's actually an admin of about two years' standing, so he of all people should know that Wikipedia:No personal attacks means what it says. Given all of this - the repeated attacks, the lack of any contrition, and the fact that as an admin he knows that this isn't acceptable conduct - I think a more significant penalty is merited. I'm not calling for a desysopping (though his conduct does make me wonder about his fitness to hold the sysop bit), but I do think this requires more than a 24 hour block. As an admin myself, I think we need to show that we can hold ourselves to a higher standard, particularly when it involves repeated, willful and unprovoked misconduct of this kind. -- ChrisO 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead with a 24-hour block for repeated and very serious personal attacks, aggravated by the choice of venue. If there is evidence that an editor is an anti-Semite then that's certainly a valid issue, but it's absolutely not acceptable to repeatedly make such a claim without any supporting evidence, based on what appears to be personal animus or something, and to aggressively complain about a lack of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at the same time. Unsubstantiated and repeated accusations of this sort are corrosive to any sort of dialog or community-building here. I recognize this is potentially controversial, so if there's a strong feeling (i.e. multiple editors/admins) that this block is inappropriate, then I'm willing to undo it (or if I'm offline, I don't object to it being undone provided there is real discussion about it here rather than a unilateral reversal). MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this block is totally inappropriate. MastCell was involved in the arbitration in question, and had a particular viewpoint, and should not be blocking people who take a different viewpoint. I also don't think TShilo's comments necessarily violated the rules cited. When an editor (and admin) such as ChrisO consistently takes a particular viewpoint, in this case on articles involving Israel, and has been accused (including by me) of using his admin powers to promote that viewpoint, I think it is acceptable for someone to speculate on his motives. (Compare this with ChrisO's past repeated references to a group of "pro-Israel editors", I can find some diffs if necessary.) The real issue here is that MastCell's use of his admin powers in this manner is an abuse of his authority. I also agree with the statements of IronDuke and Briangotts, below. 6SJ7 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no lack of admins around that are not involved in these disputes; why not to just ask an uninvolved party to look at the situation? I just do not understand what is the rush to put oneself in a compromising situation with these type of blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello? What rush? I brought it here for comment before imposing the block, and I asked for review after imposing it. The thread sat here long enough to be archived, and the only response I received was generally in favor. If you disagree with the block, then fine, but you really need to check your facts before accusing me of being in a "rush" or a "compromising situation" here. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is, you really shouldn't have been involved at all. 6SJ7 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody neutral please take a look at this

Ummm… my God? This block is wrong in so many ways. First of all, MastCell, you seemed to me to be very much a partisan in the very arb case from which you excised TShiloh’s comments. To have blocked someone who you disagree with therefore is inarguably an abuse of your admin role, not to mention that blocks for NPA are not generally given except in very severe cases (which this clearly is not), nor am I aware of a block policy regarding adding evidence to a closed case—and if that were a policy, I’m sure the clerks/arbs could handle it.

What Tshiloh was up to, near as I can tell without having talked to him, was blowing off some steam because nasty things were being said about him in an arb case that he was not informed of until after it closed; I think most of us would find that pretty frustrating.

And you leave this up for just a few hours on AN/I (when you can clearly see TShiloh has stopped editing and can’t respond), and get exactly two responses, one lukewarm support at best, the other from ChrisO, who I think we can all agree would not be a neutral voice as this concerns him directly, and you take this as what? Community endorsement? Consensus? I recognize that there are tough calls to be made in blocking form time to time; this is not one of them. I urge you, or some uninvolved admin, to reverse this ASAP. IronDuke 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not willing to unblock at this time. Is MastCell in conflict with TShilo? Because simply "disagreeing" with someone does not prevent you from blocking them; that's not part of the blocking policy. I don't think MastCell is claiming community consensus; he made it clear in his message that he is planning on blocking, does anyone object? No one objected, so he did. I don't understand what would compel someone to make accusations (and that's using a far milder word than I think could apply) of the sort TShilo has made while being entirely unwilling to present any sort of evidence or support. Judging from the previous responses of TShilo to questioning, I'm unsure that a block will do anything to deter him from his actions, so it could be argued that the block is punitive rather than preventative. I'm not entirely convinced of that, which is why I'm unwilling to unblock myself without knowing much, much more background. If the actions do continue, then steps up the dispute resolution ladder must be taken; this behavior is absolutely not acceptable in any shape, fashion, or form. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

bbatsell, thanks for the quick and thoughtful reply. When I say that MastCell is in conflict with TShiloh, I mean that he was a party to a case that was brought against people who are, or who are perceived to be, pro-Israel, and that the strong possibility exists that, as no remedies of any kind were enforced in that case, MastCell is using a tenuous excuse to block someone he's had a political dispute with. See here among many other instances of MastCell’s taking a decidedly political position on this issue. If I may offer a mild global criticism; I think admins are far too willing to overlook fairly obvious conflicts of interest when other admins use blocking to gain an advantage in content disputes. It troubles me greatly. IronDuke 06:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The conflict of interest here couldn't be more clear. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in here, but I find:

Secondly, there are real, dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites on Wikipedia, and abusing the term to smear someone in a personal dispute without any sort of evidence cheapens what is a very real problem.

an incredibly important and valid point, just for future readers. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke and Briangotts, and also see my comments before the section break. The block here was unjustified. 6SJ7 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys really need to take a deep breath and check your facts before you go off here. I don't even know where to start addressing such ill-informed vitriol, and I don't see the point in refuting every poorly conceived attempt to paint me as "politically motivated" here. I'll just refer the reader back to the diffs I originally cited as the justification for the block, and point out the following: I brought the proposed block here before imposing it and asked for review afterward; the truly neutral parties who have commented have no problem seeing the utter unacceptability of TShilo12's behavior; making excuses for him ("blowing off steam"?) instead of holding him, as an admin, to a slightly higher standard is incredibly lame; and I've never been in any sort of content dispute with TShilo12 and have no idea how I'm supposed to have contrived this block to win a content dispute. If you can't see this situation for what it is - a block for egregious, repeated, unapologetic, and unacceptable personal attacks - but instead see me pursuing some sort of poorly fleshed-out political agenda, then that's a bit problematic. Or perhaps it's just more "blowing off steam". MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think those of us who know the situation can see the block exactly for what it is. You were breathlessly urging arbcom to employ “the stick” against those you disagreed with in the case to which TSHiloh was a party. When they failed to do take action, you contrived an excuse to wield it yourself. Shameful. IronDuke 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, all of this falls into the usual death spiral of conflict among those of a supportive-of-Israel bent and those of a critical-of-Israel bent, of which I am admittedly/regrettably a part of as well. Any administrative action taken by a participant (or a perceived participant) of one camp against a member (or a perceived member) of the other camp is instantly met with suspicion, accusations, and voices of support for their respective members/adherents/whatever. This is a larger beast than Tshilo12 and WP:NPA that is rearing its head here, and something really needs to be done to address it. The latest ArbCom attempt went out with a whimper, so what else is there? Tarc 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that this a rare case indeed: I fully agree with Tarc. This is only the 2nd time it occured. 3rd time I'll have to buy him icecream. Zeq 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, I basically agree with you; there is a great deal of suspicion and mistrust on this issue. What can admins do to help? How about not make blocks to further their own political agendas? What troubles me most about Mastcell’s serene indifference to how his actions would be perceived is that he was right that nothing would happen! He used admin powers to punish someone who disagrees with him politically, and all you hear on this board is the sound of crickets chirping. IronDuke 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You've succeeded in completely undermining your credibility, and I don't think your comments warrant any further response, particularly as the block has expired and has been supported by the uninvolved editors who have commented here. It may be worth noting, regarding the ArbCom case, that while I argued against any sanctions for TShilo12 there ([23]), I did present evidence that you and 6SJ7 had disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. Now here you two are, defending this sort of inexcusable crap as "blowing off steam" while attacking the admin responding to it. One might be inclined to wonder which of us, exactly, is gleefully pursuing a political grudge here. MastCell ^Talk 03:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, you’re welcome to stop responding; I think that would actually be a positive thing for you to do right now. I will say, however, that the diff you provide makes my point better than I made myself. You were involved in a spat with TShiloh, who was a party to a case and grouped with editors whom you strongly disagreed with for political reasons. You saw an opportunity to pick him off, and you took it. Yes, you had ChrisO’s support (who was himself involved in a dispute with Tshiloh) and one other lukewarm support; did you need even that much to do what you had already made up your mind to do? You have now me, and Brian, and 67SJ and Jossi all telling you that you made a bad blunder, but you’ll admit to nothing. I understand the block has expired and nothing can now be done—I’m not asking for anything to be done, other than to make plain to you and to others that what you’ve done is wrong, and that it will be called wrong again if you try to bully others with admin powers in a content dispute. That is all. IronDuke 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, the sound you're hearing isn't crickets chirping. It's people ignoring your attempt to turn yet another corner of Wikipedia into a battlefield. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, you were one of the people with the torches and pitchforks in the arbitration (in which, by the way, neither IronDuke nor I were found to have done anything wrong), and you accuse someone else of turning Wikipedia into a battlefield? Give me a break. 6SJ7 05:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've said everything I have to say about this. MastCell ^Talk 06:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Whether or not a block of one's political opponent is "proper", it is usually inflammatory and that's a good enough reason not to do it. A good block accompanied by thoughtful commentary from a neutral admin can make the block recipient become a better contributor. Blocks by opponents are less likely to have that effect. It would be really nice for admins from both sides to decide that henceforth they won't be blocking anyone from the other camp. BTW I've had the privilege of having both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors tell me that I'm clearly on the other side. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot "rating" articles and leaving notes about it

For quite some time now the talk pages of articles have been filling up with WikiProject templates saying things like "This article is supported by the Sports and games work group" or "This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma". I personally think this is, at best, meaningless non-sense. Saying that an article is supported by a certain group should mean that there is a group of people which is actively involved in improving it or maintaining it. Usually nothing of the sort is true - the article is usually written by a random Wikipedian and then some other Wikipedian involved with a vaguely related project has auto-tagged the talk page to claim it for the project or some subgroup thereof. What we get out of this is cluttered talk pages containing misleading and distracting text. This is probably particularly misleading for newbies who will think that this stuff about projects and workgroups "supporting" the article means something and will get the wrong idea about how Wikipedia works.

These WikiProject templates typically contain a parameter for rating the quality of the article. Quality assessments could potentially be useful but there's no reason to tie them in with WikiProject templates unless, and I think that's the original idea, an article could be of different quality depending on from what project you're looking at it. For example an article on a famous chess player who's also a politician could cover the chess part of his career in an excellent way (meriting, say, an A rating) but be lackluster in the political part (say, a B rating). In reality people don't seem to apply the tags this way a lot, the different projects seem to usually have the same rating for a given article. User:Betacommand seems to have picked up on this and is now having his bot go through articles and duplicating ratings across different WikiProject tags. So if an article is already "rated as Stub-Class" on the scale of WikiProject Biography then it now gets to be rated as stub class on the scale of WikiProject Oklahoma too. This is massively redundant. If ratings are not project-dependent (and they don't really need to be) then don't keep them in the project tags - make a new tag just for that and cut down those banners a bit.

Now, I'm used to seeing my watchlist spammed by useless juggling of project tags on talk pages but now BetacommandBot has started leaving notes under new headings that the bot has rated the article with the method above. Enough is enough. Talk pages are for talk. Human talk. They shouldn't be full of clutter. I asked Betacommand to stop the bot. Five hours later I followed the link on User:BetacommandBot which is supposed to stop the bot. Nothing happened so I went ahead and blocked it. Haukur 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the last edit made by the bot before I first blocked it: [24] Haukur 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject tags have a broad consensus and universal use. Presumably Betacommand has proper approvals for the assessment project, and it's very useful for the projects that care about assessments. What are you asking for? That the bot not leave a note? I don't think the note is terribly obtrusive, and it does highlight a relevant change to the article. What are the pros and cons of omitting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: Have you even tried talking with User:Betacommand? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note and then waited five hours before doing anything. He doesn't seem to have been around for the last ten hours or so. The method he gives for stopping his bot doesn't work, forcing me to manually block him and that's why I brought up the matter here (not that I think blocking bots is a big deal but still). Haukur 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot is making useless clutter. Of course we can live with it but there's just no need to. If what the bot's doing is uncontroversial then it doesn't need to leave a note. If it's controversial then it shouldn't be done by a bot. The bot will even happily leave more than one of these notes per page: Talk:Neel E. Kearby. And why, oh why, doesn't the bot handle all the project tags on each talk page in one pass? Haukur 23:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And you didn't address the thrust of my criticism: Why should the ratings be embedded in the project tags if they're going to be the same for every project? Why not just have a separate little tag for the ratings? Haukur 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not useless, if you don't think a practice is good them discuss, don't block. 1 != 2 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked a bot, not a person. I did leave a note at the bot talk page, but wouldn't you know it, the bot went right on editing into the night without attempting any discussion with me at all. Rude fellow, you should scold him. Haukur 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot was approved for what it was doing and many other bots do this task as well and have done so for a while. This is not the type of thing to block for. Mr.Z-man 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was never approved to add comments to thousands of talk pages. Nor was it really approved for the specific thing it is doing. Nor is it doing what it's supposedly doing very well. Haukur 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Adding wikiproject banners to article talk pages and associated issues." - how was it differing from that scope? Mr.Z-man 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is leaving comments under new headings to explain that it rated an article an "associated issue" to adding wikiproject banners? That's certainly interpreting its mandate very broadly. Haukur 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And I should note that even this approval you cite urges caution, saying: "please be aware that there is mounting dissatisfaction at the number of talk pages with multiple tags" Well, I'm part of this mounting dissatisfaction, I suppose. Haukur 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, your comment about trying to consolidate ratings across the board has been discussed, and rejected, before. Part of the problem is that there is no centralized discussion forum for determining an article's precise rating, and, probably more important, it would basically require an entirely different tab to keep track of the banners, which is probably all but completely unworkable, and would certainly be rather expensive and time consuming. If you really want to reduce banner clutter, then probably the best thing to do would be to use either the {{WikiProjectBanners}} or {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to reduce the amount of space they take up. In fact, it's even recommended that one or the other be used if three or more banners are in place. However, in several cases I've seen today, there has been absolutely no discussion ever on a given article, even if it has existed for several years. In those cases, adding the banner and at least letting the associated project know that article exists might be one of the few ways available to get any attention to the article. John Carter 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no centralized discussion forum for determining an article's precise rating I don't follow, what about the article's talk page? Is a more central forum for discussing the article's worth needed? trying to consolidate ratings across the board has been discussed, and rejected, before But isn't that what the bot is doing? Anyway, yes, hiding those silly banners under yet another banner is somewhat helpful - but the edits doing it still throw up dust on my watchlist so I'm a bit apathetic. Haukur 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot was approved for adding WikiProject tags to pages in specific categories, not for anything having to do with ratings. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Striking comment per link to another approval page posted by Betacommand. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm off to sleep, you lot do what you want. If you honestly think edits like this and this are useful then go ahead and unblock the bot. (Not that you need my permission.) I stand by everything I've said, though. Haukur 23:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well considering your invitation, and the general consensus here that the block was not the best solution I am unblocking Betacommandbot. 1 != 2 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Haukurth on this one -- I just don't see any benefit to adding redundant ratings. It just causes page clutter, watchlist clutter, and possibly confusion. If it's just done so that a human from a Wikiproject never has to touch the article, then the article probably shouldn't have the WikiProject tag in the first place. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you dont like bot edits on your watch list there is a nice little option to hide them, use it. Ive got full approval for what Im going, Ive been doing this for a long time and have had over 10,000 pages fixed prior to today. β^_command 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. I don't necessarily want to hide all bot edits - I want to review some of them. It's the useless talk page edits of your particular bot I don't want to see. You say you have "fixed" 10,000 pages, I say you have done marginal damage to 10,000 pages. Besides, your bot is just plain buggy. Why doesn't it stop editing when its talk page is edited like it says it does? Why doesn't it add this redundant rating stuff to all WikiProject tags at the same time? Why does it leave the same message twice for pages it does two passes on? Haukur 09:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When was this approved? Link, please. (And I don't use my watchlist, FYI in case anyone was dying to know.) :-) — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 8 is where this task was approved. β^_command 02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no harm, and actually a lot of benefit to adding ratings to existing wikiproject templates. One of my projects, WP:BAY, has a drive to help identify important articles that can be expanded beyond stub status. I for one often look there to see how I can help. In the past few days it has assessed about a dozen, probably more than any of the project members. In fact I was about to give the bot a barnstar until I realized it had been blocked and brought here, which would make my barnstar a little ironic. There are probably things to improve such as the way it leaves messages and how it decides what to do if the ratings are contradictory. But it's a great start and in my opinion doing a lot more good than bad. Incidentally, I consider it bad form to rate articles I create or significantly expand, and a little pushy to add assessments for projects I have no involvement with, so that's one way tags are left without ratings. Also, if I know the bot will soon conform the ratings it's a lot simpler for me to just add it once than to multiple templates...kind of the way you don't have to add the date to the {{fact}} template because you know the bot will fix it for you. Wikidemo 02:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is substantial harm to filling talk pages with redundant bot output. For one thing it makes everything less accessible and friendly to newbies. They go to the talk page of an article they may be interested in and find that it's full of this bureaucratic claptrap. They might think all this non-sense about such and such a group "supporting" the article is actually meaningful and maybe figure that they shouldn't edit the article because they're not a part of the right group or whatever. I'm sure redundant messages from bots "rating" article don't help. Talk pages that should be empty are now full of cryptic template code and redundant bot output. I've never seen any of this lead to actual improvement of articles. Haukur 09:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My god, why are people getting so worked up about this? Calm down, have a cup of tea, a biscuit, and go edit an article. No more bongos 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All out of biscuits. :( — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This practice must stop. Does Betacommand also use "autocontent wizards?" There is no such thing as an "automated assessment." It is a contradiction in terms. If it's automated, then it's not an assessment. If it's an assessment, then it can't be automated. This -bot, from one of the shabbier folks about, insults everyone who has ever performed article assessment. Their work has hereby been reduced to the level of a checksum. Their minds have just been evaluated by Betacommand and concluded to be negligible. It is also an insult to anyone who has ever written an article. Your work at putting together sentences, at being concise, at finding the correct terms, has hereby been called irrelevant by Betacommand. Those arguing "for" not blocking are, essentially, saying that convenience trumps both the editing spirit of the people doing assessment and the people doing writing. If you think that is no big deal, then you probably need to go do some checksums and leave the world of editing articles. Geogre 12:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do you understand what the bot is doing? the bot does not do any real assessing. what the bot does do is add a already present assessment to another template. you seem to misunderstand what it is doing. β^_command 13:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is the point of having the exact same assessment duplicated across multiple templates? Why are you making thousands of edits to talk pages which add nothing to them which isn't already there? And why do you feel this activity is so important that the bot needs to leave notes about it at every talk page it visits? Haukur 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Its part of the WikiProject system, since you seem to not understand that system and hate it, I will not attempt to explain it. Also I was requested to do this and have had a lot of positive feedback. β^_command 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And now, Betacommand, you "have been requested" not to do this. In fact, you say that you won't communicate with people who don't like the "system" (because they don't understand it, of course!), so I'm not sure that claiming virtues of listening to people really sticks. Try listening to people who don't want the autocontentwizarding. Consider the following: in the absence of consensus, the status quo is the preferred form. Is there consensus for you? Is it just consensus among those you like? Is it only consensus in your mind? Again: you're being asked to stop, so stop. Geogre 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"It's part of the system" - so it doesn't have to make sense? How is your bot leaving comments on thousands of talk pages a part of a system useful to Wikipedia? Why do you feel you don't even have to explain this? You are completely responsible for every edit done by your bot. If you can't (or won't) explain why you think edits like this and this are useful, then you shouldn't be doing them. Haukur 14:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just assuming here, so I could be completely wrong, but doesn't assessing the articles allows the WikiProject's to decide which articles they can collaborate to improve? If they are unassessed then it means a human being has to do it and it's time-consuming work, more easily completed by a bot. Is it the action you find disagreeable or the note? Seraphim ^Whipp 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, yes, all those stub/start assessments and tags are supposed to lead to actual people actually improving articles. I can't say I have observed this happen, though, and the plan seems rather Dilbertesque to me. Step 1: Tag lots and lots of articles and automatically rate them. Step 2: ????? Step 3: Profit! If anyone has diffs which show some causal relation between a bot editing templates on an article's talk page and that article being subsequently improved then please present them. Haukur 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Haukur, Im choosing not to explain it because you obviously do not like or understand the wikiproject system. What the bot does is share the basic rating of stub or start between wikiprojects that are unassessed but have been rated by someone else. β^_command 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what the bot does - I don't understand how what the bot does is supposed to be useful. I'm starting to think you don't either because you're not making any sense. How is my not understanding something a reason for not explaining it to me? Haukur 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's useful for the reason I pointed out. I don't know if there is a relationship between the articles being assessed and improvement, but there it is, that it what the bot is for. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

<-- moving back

The bot is useful in that it addresses the thousands of project page that have been tagged but left unassessed, this occurs purely because editors create a stub add the project tags but dont include the rating on each one. As such I see the bots action as useful in addressing that, but maybe it should be expanded to add {{WikiProjectBanners}} or {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} thus combining project tags. Gnangarra 15:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

id rather not mess with re-arranging text, (its open to a lot of errors) and there is already a bot for bannershell. β^_command 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the maths WikiProject does not want this given Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 24#Tagging math articles (which is admittedly not quite about the same thing but in my opinion it's sufficiently similar). Personally, I don't think this is useful. I'd prefer that the bot stopped doing this, and I think I have a good case to request this at least for maths articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has decided to listen to those who agree with what he's doing ("like the project" = "agree with him," and he has said that he doesn't want to talk to (presumably to hear from, as well) those who do not "like the projects") and substitute that for general consent. It isn't. The eventual crisis of "Projects" contradicting site-wide policies remains in the future, but we are merely seeing someone with a -bot executing across all articles without reason and refusing to listen to someone. I'm sure that the Math Project will fail to understand or like Projects, too, by Betacommand's rhetoric.

If the only way to forestall autocontentassessmentwizardbot is to go through and remove all assessment tags from any articles that one believes deserve human consideration, then so be it. I imagine, though, that that would only prompt another -bot that understands Projects to go on another rampage (and count all those edits toward RFA). Geogre 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot performs a valuable service

As someone who regularly goes through the Category:Stub-Class Wine articles and Category:Start-Class Wine articles for the Wine Project, I am one of the many different project members who are grateful for the work of the Betacommandbot in assessing start/stub articles (feel free to look at our assessment logs). There are many times when a new editor or anon IP will slap the {{wine}} tag on a new article they created and then forget about. Being a project that is fairly active about the status of our stub articles, with Betacommandbot's assistance, we can better categorize our articles and areas of need. Now there are times when I disagree with the Bot's assessment but it an easy fix to reassess it. While the extra "talk page message" is probably not needed, the basic function of the bot is useful in catching articles that project members might not be aware of. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can't this be an opt-in service for particular projects? Assuming for the moment that ratings are useful, different projects are surely rating against different things. An article about a scientist can be a decent biography but do a mediocre job explaining the science, an article about a protein can adequately cover its structure but give short shrift to an associated disease, etc. If two projects opt in and both have their tags on the talk page, then the assessments get duplicated; if not, no need. This would at least keep the clutter restricted to articles where projects are active and actually use the ratings. Opabinia regalis 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. An opt-in option would be the best way to resolve this. Carcharoth 02:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is no longer an incident needing admin attention, please go to the bot noticeboard, a project discussion area, or a user talk page. This is page is for incidences that require admin attention. This is an argument that can be settled in a more appropriate venue(perhaps you can talk to the people that participated in its approval discussion). 1 != 2 14:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Terribly shoddy block by the way. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. It's only a bot. Blocking a bot while we talk about whether we like what it is doing is a great idea. Hesperian 00:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WikiProjects are largely useless and arbitrary article ratings even more so. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This bot is a buggy piece of crap and I'm going to revert any edits it makes to anything I happen to be working on. Jtrainor 00:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As a member of a few WikiProjects, I routinely check the listing on the project pages for unassessed articles. The "unassessed" tag is generally an indicator of recent additions which may need to be checked for layout, overlap with other articles and so on. Marking them all as "stubs" prevents this useful activity occurring and doesn't seem to add much except to reduce the categories clutter on the talk page. I note that the idea for this task was suggested in relation to two specific WikiProjects but has since been universally applied. It's too late now but surely it would have been better to allow an opt-in process for Wikiprojects that actually wanted all their unassessed articles auto-assessed? Please note that this is not a criticism of the bot owner or the bot, but of the task itself. Euryalus 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia

This user is abusive, adopts a confrontational stance at all times, and makes the experience of editing Wikipedia less enjoyable for others. This is a long-running low-level irritation at the Cyprus page, and I would ask interested editors to refer directly to both the talk page and to the edit summaries on the article history: similar issues can be seen at Geography of Mexico, Metropolis, North America, and so on. It is not a question of accuracy, but of incivility (and, on a side note, an insistence on incorrectly marking changes as "minor"). I and others have repeatedly requested that the user abide by the usual WP:CIVIL guidelines, but he refuses to do so. I note from his contributions history that he is engaged in similar low-level unpleasantness on several other geographical articles, involving many other editors: this reassures me that, while my own behaviour is certainly not perfect, I am not alone in finding Corticopia a disruptive and aggressive presence. An experienced administrator's intervention would be useful here. This complaint was originally posted to the Wikiquette alerts section [25], and has been redirected here with the comment from User:Jamessugrono as follows: "This should be at either WP:AIV or WP:AN/I, this user has been blocked far too many times for this to be simply a matter of incivility - there are plain, obvious, disruptive edits". Vizjim 10:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, since he created that account he's being contributing mostly to Mexico-related topics, for reason that couldn't explain in one paragraph but if you check his record you'll see what I mean, I myself have had countless confrontations with him, usually reverting my changes with the excuse of NPOV, and it's not just me, users Jcmenal and AlexCovarrubias (who's been absent for a while) have had the exact same problem, Alex even suspected he was a sock of a previous user that was banned, he even has some evidence but for some reason nothing happened, I would really like the intervention of an administrator here, he uses profanity and uncivil manners and it should not be toletared in Wikipedia, there has been too many warnings for him. Supaman89 17:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add to the list the constant playing around and gaming of the system with respect to 3RR, again visible at Mexican and Cypriot pages. Vizjim 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm being dumb but... I don't see these disruptive edits. Any chance I could have some specific diffs for the violations you mention (i.e., incivility and edit warring)? If you can substantiate these allegations, I will certainly take them seriously, given Corticopia's history of being blocked for these reasons. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He constantly deletes his talkpage to hide his messages but here are some of them:

• Edit War - Geography of Mexico
• Bad Attitude - Cyprus
• 5 reversions in less than 24 hours - Hawaii
• Erased the whole comment and only left the part where the other guy looked bad - Hawaii
• Someone told him that he could archive his talkpage instead of deleting them - He erased it anyways
• He's blocked again for one month for engaging in edit wars
• Again he erased another comment listing all his negative and disruptive attitude
• Once again blocked by 72 hrs by breaking the 3RR rule
• Look at the summary, what's up with "crap will be expunged"?
• 3RR breakage
• Another edit war in Mesoamerica

And those are just a couple of examples, I could easily keep looking for two more hours, but I think it gives you an idea of what this user is like and how he's been behaving all this time. Supaman89 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of add-ons - Rude edit summaries, e.g. [26], and abusive arguments - e.g. [27]. Vizjim 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Goon rush

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2681321&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 Someone should probably keep an eye on that and revert accordingly. Jtrainor 05:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That forum thread cannot be viewed by unregistered members. What's the issue? -- Satori Son 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to Summer of Vile.--Atlan (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

why haven't we speedied that yet? --Crossmr 06:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted and blocked several of them. It seems User:Rubber cat, recently blocked 48 hours for vandalism, has been encouraging fellow Something Awful members to vandalize various articles as revenge. --krimpet⟲ 07:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel got him indef. east.718 at 07:43, 11/12/2007

Block of Rubber cat

Rubber cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have blocked this user indefinitely, as my block message says, for inciting and encouraging vandalism and disruption in a deliberate and blatant manner. It was done on an off-Wiki forum, link, and hence this as well as the fact that the account has a fair few edits (900-odd) I bring this here for review.

I have no objection to people criticising Wikipedia off-wiki, and I also recognise that attacking people off-Wiki isn't often blockable. However, in this situation, inciting others to vandalise in such a blatant and deliberate manner is not compatible with also being allowed the ability to edit Wikipedia, both given the blatant attempts to negate what we're doing here (constructing an encyclopedia), and the disruption this user is directly, deliberately and knowingly causing by doing so.

I welcome a review of this block and, if consensus supports it (for whatever reason), an unblocking.

Because the forum is private, many users won't be able to access the information. If any established user so requests the content of the posts, then I will email them via the Wikipedia email interface. Cheers, Daniel 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this from the thread above - unfortunately their forum is private, and pay access is required, but I happened to have an account left over from when I was active there years ago, and I can confirm that on Nov 10, 2007 15:13, while he was serving a 48-hour block for vandalism, he made a thread in their "FYAD" forum inciting "everybody go vandalize at least 3 wikipedia articles right now." I support the block; we have no need for this silliness. --krimpet⟲ 07:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged this thread into the above one as a subthread. Daniel 07:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: This edit may also be of interest - see Footu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Daniel 08:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If it hasn't been done already, all edits by Footu should be automatically reverted, since that was a vandalism only account. Bread climp should also be speedy deleted, since it was created by Foot to vandalize Bread clip. Cumulus Clouds 10:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. However, there's another problem:

Revision history of Bread climp 21:18, November 10, 2007 WikiWilma (talk · contribs · block log) (←Redirected page to Bread clip) 21:06, November 10, 2007 Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · block log) (vandalism) 19:12, November 7, 2007 Footu (talk · contribs · block log) (←Redirected page to Bread clip)

Administrators can see this at Special:Undelete/Bread climp. Block straight away or not? Daniel 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A protected redirect to bread clip would probably make sense. I don't see a reason to block based on that (note I just acted too hastily and indef blocked WikiWilma (no edits other than that and own userpage) before I realised a redirect was reasonable, and unblocked straight away). Neil ☎ 11:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has posted an appeal for unblock on talk. It doesn't acknowledge any wrongdoing on his own part, specifically not asking others to vandalize. Since asking others to vandalize is vandalism, I'm not going to act on it. GRBerry 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• User:Justaddcorn is another vandalism-only FYAD import, as seen by his edits here, here and here. User has been issued three warnings, but blanked his talk page. Cumulus Clouds 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• User:32000BTUGasGrill is almost certainly a sock of User:Footu, the newest incarnation also being a vandalism-only account revolving solely around the Flipmode squad. Cumulus Clouds 07:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Both indef blocked, and WikiWilma too after I saw the edits they had started to make. Neil ☎ 11:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is still going on, so keep an eye on that thread. Jtrainor 00:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Indef block for Kadiddlehopper/Dichotomous?

Useful links

• Kadiddlehopper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dichotomous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary of events

Recently, Kadiddlehopper earned a week-long block for a personal attack in which he called another editor a 'lieutenant in the SS': [28]. I subsequently protected his talk page for 24 hours when decided that the blocking admin (not me) should also be described by the same name, quoting 'to call a spade a spade': [29], [30], [31].

Coincidentally, I was reading questions on the Reference Desk and I came across this gem from Dichotomous asking, in essence, if black people had trouble keeping clean because dirt (actually 'fleas, roaches, feces, mold and dirt') was more difficult to see on their skin. A couple of editors had made game, good-faith attempts to answer the question sensibly and scientifically, but it was the sort of question to raise eyebrows, so I had a look at his talk page.

At this point, I saw the thread User talk:Dichotomous#Editing from 2 accounts, where another editor asked why Kadiddlehopper was making comments and signing them as Dichotomous (as here, for example). Further investigation showed that both Kadiddlehopper and Dichotomous (and no other editors) also edited Dichotomous' sandbox: User:Dichotomous/sandbox (history). Dichotomous claimed to be '...at a neighbour's workstation.'

Applying WP:DUCK, I concluded that Dichotomous was likely a sock of Kadiddlehopper and blocked that account indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet. (Evading a block to troll the Ref Desk meets the definition of 'abuse', methinks.) Dichotomous has responded on his talk page (User talk:Dichotomous#Indefinitely blocked) that they're separate, unique individuals who share the same internet connection and occasionally use each other's computers ([32]); he then offered up the comment 'Perhaps Clem is right that [Wikipedia] is nothing more than a Jewish boy's club.'. He subsequently sent me a rather odd email the repeated his suggestion about our 'ploy to eliminate non-Jewish contributors' and made reference to our 'intolerance' and (oh, delicious irony) 'hypocrisy'.

Topic for discussion:

Should Kadiddlehopper and Dichotomous be banned as abusive sockpuppet(eer)s? Are there any other socks?

They certainly appear to be acting as sock/meatpuppets. (Even if we take Dichotomous' explanation entirely at face value – which I am somewhat disinclined to do – Dichotomous is a meatpuppet for a blocked user and is himself blockable on that basis.) I admit that I will shed no tears over an editor who has only been around for eleven days and who has chosen to embrace various sorts of racism and anti-Semitism.

Kadiddlehopper is slightly more complex case. Looking through his contributions, I find that he is the 'Clem' referred to in Dichotomous' comment: [33]. Aside from the occasional low-key rudeness, his only really overt personal attacks were the ones that earned his block. On the other hand, the Kadiddlehopper account also doesn't seem to do much that contributes to Wikipedia; he seems to be pretty busy trying to start debates (philosophical or economic) on the Ref Desk.

Any comments or thoughts on how best to handle Kadiddlehopper? Any suggestions that the Dichotomous indef block should be reviewed? Anybody know of any other socks?

Your comments and assistance are appreciated. Sorry for the long post. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block for Dichotomous was entirely appropriate. The current block for Kadiddlehopper should, I think, be enough (with a warning that any further crap will see it reimposed indefinitely). Neil ☎ 15:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Works for me. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Works for me as well. Any further harassment by Kadiddlehopper, should be followed by an indefblock as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Looks good here. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• That was me who asked Dichotomous to stop editing from 2 accounts (linked above) after a charming exchange at the Computing Reference desk. He responded by making another comparison to the Nazis. I re-iterated my concerns at his talk page, he referenced the Nazis (again!) and asked me to provide him with all of my personal details, at which point I backed off (although I probably should have reported or something at that point). The two users editing patterns do seem similar, even before Dichotomous arrived on the scene, but I suppose it's impossible to tell who's who. For what it's worth, thanks for blocking Dichotomous - I think it was a good decision. --(Not an admin) Kateshortforbob 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Outcome:

Thanks for you all your input, everyone.

• Dichotomous remains indef-blocked as a fairly obvious sock/meatpuppet.
• Kadiddlehopper's current 1-week block stands.
• I have warned Kadiddlehopper that anything that looks remotely like sock- or meatpuppetry will result in a permanent ban, as will any antisemitic attacks or reference to Nazism to describe another contributor.

If anyone encounters another sock or is on the receiving end of further abuse from Kadiddlehopper, let me know. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper and Whitechapel murders

Looking for an additional opinon or two or three. The situation at issue involves User:DreamGuy and User:Colin4C, a pair of long-time combatants, and part of the key reason that the Jack the Ripper article has been fully protected for a while now. This link shows where this all started today, with DreamGuy reporting to me a likely WP:CFORK violating page from Colin4C. DG had redirected it to the JtR page, and wanted me to protect it (the WCR page). Looking into it, I saw what did indeed appear to be Colin4C maintaining a separate page that refleced his own view of how some of the JtR related information should be presented, but that the page had been in existance for a number of months before the latest dust-up on the JtR page. I did however ask Colin4C not to revert the redirect, and to let a recently launched RFC, which included the key idea at issue, work itself out.

This has progressed in the last hour. Colin wrote several versions of scathing complaints about the situation on the JtR talk page, and then deleted them (his own comments). DG restored them, and responded. Colin and DG have started a minor revert war over this, which I could easily see becoming more than minor.

I, however, have a history with DG, and really should not get too far into the middle of this with him on one side. So I'm looking for reviews. Was the pre-redirect WCM page a violation of WP:CFORK or not? Was I in-line to request/warn colin4C not to revert the redirect? And what, if any, policy covers the removal of one's own talk page comments and the restoration of them by another? And could one or more uninvolved admins keep an eye on the JtR talk page and help prevent a revert war there, preferribly before anyone crosses 3RR? - TexasAndroid 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly I think this has got ridiculous. The pair of them need either compulsory mediation or an arbitration case. Nobody else's opinion matters to either party, from what I've seen. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are just jumping to unwarranted assumptions of bad faith here. I have been trying very hard to get more opinions expressed on the Jack the Ripper article, patiently trying over and over to get people to figure out the items actually under dispute (which was very unclear for a while because of other people's habits of blind reverting the article to the last version they edited, wiping out all sorts of new edits in the process) and to facilitate discussion. I also opened up an RFC on the article which so far hasn't really attracted anyone other than the people who were already there. But when people remove the talk page comments of both themselves and other people, I can't see how restoring them can possibly be considered a bad thing.

Considering TexasAndroid's past history with me, I regret going to him about the issue of the WP:CFORK file in the first place, but I had hoped he would be willing to get over that and deal with a pretty basic situation. I also contacted another admin who had been involved in the lock on the main article, and he said he'd lock it if it becomes a problem but for now there didn't appear to be a need to, as Colin4C had not reverted it (just put up a huge rant about it). As far as that situation goes, it's case closed. Why TexasAndroid feels the need to report a revert war in progress hours later when no such thing has happened I don't really know. I think admins need to cool off sometimes too and not end up escalating a problem when they were approached in good faith to try to help smooth things over. DreamGuy 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

TexasAndroid, can you post instances of incivility and edit-warring by each party here? At least one of the parties is under Arbcom restriction regarding civility. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about incivility in my initial report here, and made no such accusations, so I have no instances of that to provide.

As for the edit warring, here [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] is the main sequence. And given that my initial report here happened only 3 minutes after what turned out to be the final revert, DG's comments about my reporting being "hours later" is, at best, inaccurate.

DG asked me to intervene and protect a page. I evaluated the situation, and determined that things had not reached the point of protection being needed, so I issued a warning instead. When the above shown revert war started developing on the JtR talk page, I saw a situation developing in which my actions were, at least in part, a factor in the situation. And given that I cannot properly take action against DG because I cannot be considered a neutral admin about him, I did not see how I could in fairness take action against Colin either in a situation where both were revert warring. So I saw the situation developing, but I was unable to do anything about it. So I punted and came here to see if a neutral admin could prevent the active revert war from growing much larger. For whatever reason, DG backed off after Colin's final revert, and the situation defused, so no outside intervention ended up being needed. But at the time of my report, only 3 minutes after what ended up being the final revert, (and given that it took more than 3 minutes to type up the report) the revert war was indeed in full swing. - TexasAndroid 13:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User:71.177.247.31

This little gem of an edit summary (warning, rated "R" for adult language) led to me extending the anon user's block to a week.

I just wanted to get a quick reality check on the lengthening of the block and the original reason for the block. The anon in question was making a number of grossly unproductive and offensive edits to the sandbox. It was an WP:AIV report, so obviously people were taking offense and there were no productive contributions to the project. Any concerns here? Caknuck 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No concern from me. Of course an ip could be on another address in seconds, but no problem with the block or length. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 22:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd support 3 months, even if it's an IP. It's a direct allocated IP. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just me, but you may want to block him longer, that "picture" that he created appears

to be the infamous "Goatse" picture. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 13:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Golf clap for the creativity though. I wonder who created that table first... spryde | talk 13:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dethme0w

I have been threathen with a block from user User talk:Dethme0w in regards to EgyptAir and feel I can no longer debate this issue. I am cross posting this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#EgyptAir to indicate that I feel I can no longer safely debate this issue. For more information please see

• [[User talk:Dethme0w#Warning! Breach of WP:OR. Violation within EgyptAir]]
• Reliable sources Noticeboard #EgyptAir
• EgyptAir Main article
• Talk:EgyptAir#WARNING! Violation of WP:OR

Thank you for your action on this. --CyclePat 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just receive another message on my user talk page which I believe lack good faith. [39] --CyclePat 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This regards my removal of a ((fact)) tag from a piece of information that should not require sourcing. I have (prior to this user's abuse of this noticeboard) already added a reference to that article against my better judgment in order to resolve the issue once and for all, but this user is apparently escalation-bound nevertheless. If we had to defend, on this noticeboard, every template we place on a user talk page when we see content deleted without justification, the vandals would take over Wikipedia in about 10 seconds (and the noticeboard would be a gigabyte long). Dethme0w 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly appears that you're committing a breach of WP:POINT here, CyclePat—and that this is far from the first time you've done so. Looking at the timeline:

1. CyclePat adds a {fact} tag to the two-letter IATA code in the EgyptAir airline infobox on 9 November: [40].
2. Dethme0w removes the tag on 12 November, with the edit summary rm fact tag from IATA code. If we required every bit of minutiae in articles to be sourced there'd be more references than text! on 11 November.
3. CyclePat then removes the information from the article entirely on 12 November [41].
4. CyclePat puts the information back a short time later, again with a {fact} tag: [42].
5. CyclePat leaves a lecture about OR and WP:V on Talk:EgyptAir.
6. Dethme0w adds a footnote for IATA code as the only way to get Pat to stop being disruptive: [43].
7. Dethme0w adds {fact} tags to some statements in the article that actually ought to be sourced. Why Pat ignored these I can't say.
8. CyclePat proceeds to file these crossposted complaints (here, Talk:EgyptAir, the reliable sources noticeboard, at least) to draw attention to his obstinate timewasting.

I note that the link immediately above the IATA code in the airline infobox points to our page on IATA airline designators, which contains an external link (this one) that lists all of the IATA codes. Footnoting the abbreviation in every airline infobox is a waste of time and space, and Pat's actions here are nothing more than disrupting Wikipedia to make a point—again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I agree with Dethme0w here. The item of information is apparently the EgyptAir IATA Airline code, apparently MS.[44] I don't see how CyclePat can, in good faith, claim this is either controversial or incorrect. It's just a couple of letters, unless there is something I'm missing about a dispute with another airline over them or something, I find it hard to imagine this could be a big deal. It is, of course, possible to look this up in less than one minute,[45] which is almost certainly much less time than it took CyclePat to post the fact tag, edit war over it, post his complaints on the article talk page, on the reliable sources notice board, and finally here. This is a mountain being made out of a molehill. I won't block CyclePat over it, but I do strongly suggest he go and drink a tall, cold glass of the beverage of his choice for a while, and contemplate the relative importance of those two letters as opposed to keeping peace and harmony with a fellow Wikipedia editor. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(further) Prompted by this report, I examined CyclePat's recent contributions, and found that EgyptAir is not the only article where there has been trouble. I have warned CyclePat that he should cease to act on his idiosyncratic understanding of the use and application of WP:OR and WP:V, as he has been simultaneously engaged in disruptive editing on MS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

comment from CyclePat

This is difficult comment to reply to because again, it seems to lack good faith. :-( Nevertheless, I will try my best. To help me out, I have looked into "Netiquette Guidelines" an article published by S. Hambridge, Intel Corp. October 1995... used in colaboration with Nortel. It says I should :

"Wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages. If you have really strong feelings about a subject, indicate it via FLAME ON/OFF enclosures. For example:

FLAME ON: This type of argument is not worth the bandwidth it takes to send it. It's illogical and poorly reasoned. The rest of the world agrees with me.

FLAME OFF

So... I will wait overnight before maybe giving a full response. Nevertheless, it makes me happy that you helped provide a reliable source to properly reference MS. We have solved the main issue! :) I hope if we have to work together in the future, particularly in regards to verifiable information, that we will be able to resolve our issues. (Perhaps in a less draconian fashion as today). In particular, regarding WP:V. As for EgyptAir, may I suggest you include the citation within the articles main text, (ie.: EgyptAir (abrv. MS)(reference # here), which would make the table look a little better. Best regards. --CyclePat 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. Pat - you are very enthusiastic and we value your energy but you really need to learn a bit of self-criticism. You're slinging tags around, and people are disputing them in good faith, and seeing you slinging them around, and they perceive that you are being disruptive - and they are right! Why not just chill? Go for a ride on the bike, mull it over, and come back, pick one article and work really hard at actually finding the sources and background info? Visit the library, even. If only your enthusiasm could be diverted to digging up sources we'd have a dozen featured articles with your name on them. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh...

Mind if I remove the sourcing for the MS code? Custom is that people can look it up using the IATA designator. I have already added numerous sources to the article and that [1] hanging up there in the infobox bothers me. I would rather make sure that I am not pissing people off by doing it :) spryde | talk 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found an alternate solution. spryde | talk 01:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It would make me happy if the footnote were to disappear. The complainant in this case is incorrect when he states that the issue is resolved - he missed the part where I said that I added that [1] against my better judgment. I will consider the issue resolved when the article is allowed to return to - and stay in - the state it was in prior to this mess. Excepting, of course, constructive edits such as yours. Dethme0w 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing Statement: May I suggest that the discussion regarding content placement and formatting remain within the talk:EgyptAir's discussion page. Also, please see my aforementioned comment which states: "...may I suggest you include the citation within the article's main text, (ie.: EgyptAir (abrv. MS)(reference # here)..." I would like to point out, that this has been done and contrary to what the article used to be... it's now possible to actually find the sources, cited as per WP:CITE! (I would like to clarify: I really don't know, and still can't find within this Airline codes-M list a reference for MS being the code for EgyptAir.) Finally, may I also suggest that this issue is resolved, as per Dethme0w own admission that he is not an administrator and that his warning to block was simply his belief that my "edits were disruptive, and that my behaviour had exhausted his reservoir of AGF." Obviously, everyone here seems to have made a consensus that, for some reason, my edits where disruptive. I apologize if you don't believe in WP:V and WP:OR rules and that my methodology of application (as suggest be general consensus within these policies) offended you. But, back on to the main issue, again, the reason this was reported to the Admin board was primarily because I feared having to be blocked after Deathme0w placed this warning template on my talk page. Given it appears, as stated above, that I have a reputation for allegedly being disruptive, I didn't want things to escalate any further and decided to report this threat first thing. Thank you for your feedback on this situation and all your help. Indeed, I believe I could respond with many things. Nevertheless, as suggest in the "Netiquette Guidelines" article, published by S. Hambridge, Intel Corp. October 1995, p.2... which says "On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames." Adieu! I will be moving on to Malay language which, it too does not have proper sourcing for it's MS code. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --CyclePat 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We all believe in and follow WP:V and WP:RS and WP:OR; it's just that the rest of us also understand the bounds and limits of those guidelines. You are still having trouble with that. I suggest that before you edit anything else, you re-read them and try to understand their intent rather than just their semantics. And then read WP:IAR - this is the core policy that illuminates why what you are doing is wrong. Ignore All Rules means that if a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. I think that a logical corollary is that if application of a rule would degrade the quality of the encyclopedia, the rule should also be ignored (not applied). Your literalistic application of WP:V et al is at the least preventing the improvement of the encyclopedia. Dethme0w 00:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ps. The lists of IATA airline codes are organized by airline name, not code. Look under Airline codes-E. Dethme0w 00:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Need some resolution here

CyclePat is still at it. See Talk:Mass_spectrometry. This has to stop. Dethme0w 04:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about User:TougHHead

Hello, this user has been constantly adding non notable references to aircraft related articles, particularly F-15 Eagle and F-22 Raptor. [46] [47]. Looking at his contribs and talk page warnings, he has been disruptive as well. Perhaps suggestions would be in order? Thanks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave me and those users alone. I got banned from Wikia and all Wiki Projects and now not here too. PsiSevereHead and Angela banned me without showing how long I am blocked and finally someone plots to get me banned everywhere.(TougHHead 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps I misread that, I am can tell you that I am not plotting to ban you everywhere. No one is. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt but I have noted a particularly uncivil and intemperate series of exchanges involving TougHHead. The following are recent examples of editwarring: removing an admin's cautionary note, edit war with two other editors, replacing titles established under WP:AIR/PC guidelines, inappropriate edit note, edit conflict and an indication that this is a banned user. FWIW Bzuk 06:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

Also, this example of blatant vandalism ensued after this admonishment by me to do right in his edit warring. The user appears to be continuing a pattern of bad behavior from his time on Wikia until he was bannished. - BillCJ 07:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he's had one short block (which I now understand from Angela should have been longer), and he's now received multiple warnings, so any further disruption, in my opinion, is grounds for a much longer block. When he transgresses again, I'll be happy to take care of it, unless another admin happens to get to it first. A note here would probably be best to keep everyone coordinated. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That block will never happen and I will stop you. I only edit for peace and you guys kept doing edit wars all the time besides Blocks are for people that tries murder. You will leave this peace loving user alone because I don't like people talking about me or having negative concerns about me.(TougHHead 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Some peace [48] [49]. And besides, blocks are not for those who "murder". That is their own business. See WP:BLOCK. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also that This Wikipedia is mostly an American Website because most users are turned out to be Americans like me and finally there is also Freedom of speech.(TougHHead 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

You have freedom of speech, but your speech is often uncivil and disruptive. [50] [51] [52] User talk:Angela#Please I am trying to tell you something, [53], not to mention you continue your crusade on F-15 Eagle and F-22 Raptor despite repeated warnings. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The banishment will never happen and I will stop you no matter the cost. I won't be treated like Banished Dark Templars that had been banished for eons.(TougHHead 06:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

User:Loopers

I'd appreciate someone taking a second look at this editor. His less-than-30 edits include moving the Help:Merging and moving pages page, playing in the X9 sandbox with parameters of templates, a improper move that mentions redirects in the edit summary, an edit of another editor's subpage, and creating a template. (If someone would speedy the template, it would be appreciated.)

All in all, a rather impressive display of knowledge for a newcomer, I think, but I'd welcome a review by someone more experienced with these things. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that this editing pattern lacks any kind of coherence whatsoever. No more bongos 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jakie21 etc.

Resolved

Not sure what is going on here, but WhatIWanted21 (talk · contribs), Jakie21 (talk · contribs), and Smashout21 (talk · contribs) appear to be the same person, creating multiple user accounts and user pages that seem to be a transgression of WP:NOT a free webhost... no contributions to the encyclopedia at all, only the creation of multiple linked user pages that seem to serve as a collection of interlinked vanity articles. Should these be dealt with in some fashion? Not that these user pages are hurting the encyclopedia (a few music-related categories had to be removed, however), but they're ultimately not of any benefit either, as these users only appear to be here for one purpose, and it's not improving the project. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's User:Explode24 all over again. See here for his previous appearance. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted them all and issued warnings. -- Merope 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More sockspuppets than feet

I was hoping to get some input and feedback on a problem I have been encountering in the John Lennon page, and - lol - I will try to be brief. :)

Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked some time ago for sockpuppeting and a host of other issues. Quickly thereafter, a bunch of his sockpuppets started making appearances in the article. Here is a list of his proven socks and his suspected socks. I've noticed a lot more apparent puppets showing up, and filled out a SSP report. I was hoping that I am following the protocol more concisely,and thought I would post because Realsanpaku, like the others has been pretty much either attacking me or asking the article be deleted. talk about your salt the earth' revenge. The likely socks I reported are as follows:

• ImagineNoPossessions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  
• MindGuerrilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  
• 24.168.17.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  
• Jeffrey_O._Assmunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  
• Realsanpaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  

If I've filed wrong, or need to do something else, could I trouble someone to pipe up and let me know? I'd prefer to avoid any confusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that it even matters, but the user listed inthe SSP, Realsanpaku, tried to alter the SSP report (inserting my name instead) but it was then reverted, and made legal threats on my User Talk page. Looks like paydirt. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Extended to indef while legal threat is outstanding. Suggest you not email him further (if you even did). -- But|seriously|folks  09:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never emailed him at all. In fact, aside from notifying him of the SSP and limited contact on the John Lennon page, I've had no contact with him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and removal of talk page comments

User:Adam.J.W.C. is edit warring on swamp. This user also removed my comment on the associated talk page. Enternoted 04:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Adam.J.W.C. also seems to have violated the Three revert rule by reverting me (at swamp) three times within 24 hours. Enternoted 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Providing diffs per instructions:

Revert 1, Revert 2, Revert 3.

Removing my comments to the talk page

Sorry to add these diffs so late. Cheers. Enternoted 04:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a revert I am restoring content removal by a new user who only seems to be concerned with removing one of my images and nothing else since signing up. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can also see that this new user has made know other edits apart from the content removal and this message here. So a new user just signed up simply removing content of images looks more like content removal (vandalism) and nothing else. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Enternoted, it takes two editors to revert war, not just one, you are being just as disruptive with the reverting. Another thing, an editor does not break 3RR with only 3 reverts, 4 reverts must be done for a violation of WP:3RR to occur. I would suggest both of you take a break from each other and from editing on the Swamp article. — Save_Us_229 04:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I was simply restoring deleted content, even though I may have been wrong in remove the talk page content. I was simply looking after what is on my watchlist. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam, the edit was done with good faith as the editor removed the image because he had a concern about it. Nothing in WP:VAND describes that as vandalism. Removal of content doesn't always mean it's vandalism. Also reverting claiming vandalism does not exempt you from WP:3RR were to go to the noticeboard for these violations. I would chat with Enternoted on the talk page of the article and address concerns he raises about the image. Cheers! — Save_Us_229 04:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See also: Deletes two users' comments on his talk page.

I did not notice that the image in question was Adam's. Since it is Adam's, it could be an ownership issue. I could upload a better image of a swamp if necessary, but as things are going, I'll wait and see how things go. Enternoted 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded a better image. Retracting issue with his own user page as some kind sole instructed me that this is okay. Enternoted 20:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:131.216.41.16

I believe that User:Bremskraft, who was previously confirmed as having used multiple accounts to contravene 3RR (see Archive 280, "Possible Sock Puppet" and Archive 304, "Confirmed sockpuppetry by User:IronAngelAlice), has recently returned to making the same type of edits as before as User:131.216.41.16 (see contribs). 131.216.41.16 has made edits to the same narrow range of articles as both Bremskraft and IronAngelAlice, including Harry Reid,[54][55][56] Jon Porter,[57][58] David Reardon,[59][60] Gardasil,[61][62][63] and Post-abortion syndrome.[64][65] -Severa (!!!) 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user is not banned. Wknight94 blocked the Bremskraft account indefinitely but left IronAngelAlice open to reuse after 1 week. This IP did not edit during that week, so no block evasion. I will leave a note for the user suggesting that they log in as IronAngelAlice and read our policies carefully. ··coelacan 11:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sfacets and WP:PUI

Resolved

Sfacets (talk · contribs), an editor with a history of questionably self-tagged images, has come up with a novel theory to defend his images from deletion. Relying on the language at WP:PUI that states "Images can be unlisted immediately if they are undisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license", he asserts that images with free license tags can be unlisted regardless whether the propriety of the tags is disputed. On this interpretation, he removed WP:PUI templates from many of his own images that were up for discussion. This interpretation can't be correct, as the statement at the top of WP:PUI indicates that "This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have disputed source or licensing information." Indeed, one of the primary uses of WP:PUI is to discuss images with dubious free licenses. Free license tags cannot insulate an image from scrutiny.

I'm raising this here because I nominated many of the images for deletion, so I am asking uninvolved admins to take a look at the situation. The deletion discussions are at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 25, and most of the discussion between Sfacets and me is here. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  08:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been a protagonist in this issue. In my opinion Sfacets has a history of unsupportable claims about images that he's uploaded, and is no longer reliable in that regard. Sfacets feels that questions about his claims are personal attacks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but that's not why I started this thread. I was trying to get other admins' opinions on the PUI process. But I have since realized that this isn't the proper forum for that. I'll copy my question over to WT:PUI. And while I was posting the question here, Sfacets was blocked for 72 by another admin, so any admin issues have been resolved. -- But|seriously|folks  09:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Page move vandal

Resolved

Could someone experienced in undoing such messes please sort out Special:Contributions/Qutsucks's recent burst of page-move vandalism? -- Karada 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. WjBscribe 09:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! The use of sleeper accounts shows this is clearly the premeditated work of a persistent vandal. I've protected the page move=sysop for a month to stop any further planned attacks. -- Karada 09:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If the vandal is using sleeper accounts odds are he'll just go to a different article. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Qut in his name refers to the article he was vandalizing, so this seems more like a person with a vendetta than someone who will just hop articles all day long. Natalie 00:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Correcting a misspelled defamatory statement/word

Hi User:Animesouth corrected a misspelled defamatory statement/word rather than removing it [66] and has complained about it on my talk page after I reverted and warned them. See User_talk:Daytona2 and User_talk:Animesouth#Your_recent_edit_.5B1.5D. Did I handle this correctly ? Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Animesouth on this one. WP:AGF...and in any case, it wouldn't have been worth a final warning. --Onorem♠Dil 10:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't assume good faith because of the warnings given by other editors on their talk page User_talk:Animesouth. Doesn't making a libel clearer mean that an editor is in the wrong ? When do you stop assuming good faith ? -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 11:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You were correct to remove it, but a stern warning was probably unnecessary. Neil ☎ 10:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert and warn is correct (though probably not a final warning); it's difficult to WP:AGF when they actually expanded the libellous statement with their next edit. ELIMINATORJR 11:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Which next edit was that? The next edit I see for Animesouth was this one. We have articles on people saying correctly that they've done corrupt things. There's no reason if we assume good faith to believe that Animesouth knew anything about this person, and knew that the statement was incorrect. It's not a statement I would have left unsourced in an article if I saw it, but that's not the point here. --Onorem♠Dil 11:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - I weas looking at [67] this edit, not realising it was a different section of the article. ELIMINATORJR 11:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This was a spelling corrective edit, with no content being added, deleted, or modified. It's akin to prosecuting a person for conspiracy to murder after it is discovered that the person helped to change a man's tire, but that man turned out to have murdered someone beforehand. -Animesouth 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While I applaud your correcting the spelling, to extend your metaphor - fixing the spelling of unsourced critical information on the article of a living person is akin to fixing the tyre of a burning car. Neil ☎ 16:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The car wasn't burning. If we give out warnings to everyone who corrects spelling on an article that might be considered controversial ('burning car'), no one would be left to edit. Spelling/grammar error fixes is what I mostly do. If we now have to check the content, validity, and living status of an entire article before making every single spelling/grammar edit, nothing would ever get done. -Animesouth 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the perils of metaphors. The sentence was the burning car, not the article. To clarify - there's no point copyediting unreferenced contentious POV sentences in articles, as they will just be removed anyway. Neil ☎ 16:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For years, I have been copy editing, usually without even logging in. I usually do not edit content. If it becomes required to verify facts, contents, and POV before even correcting the spelling of one single word in an article, I think we've lost sight of the mission of Wikipedia: improving the Encyclopedia. Maybe I didn't improve it the way you wanted it, but it was improved. When I worked for USA Today, they loved me because I copy edited everything I saw, even though it wasn't my main responsibility, because it improved the paper. They never once warned me because the content of the article might have been amiss. -Animesouth 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your copy editing is very much appreciated, please don't get me wrong - I am merely pointing out that your stalwart efforts are wasted when copyediting sentences that will only be removed anyway; it's not a good use of your time. Nobody can stop you doing so, and you are entirely entitled to copyedit whatever you see fit; I would just suggest that your expertise could possibly be better used. Neil ☎ 15:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

FC Steaua Bucureşti and Aecis

Yesterday I closed a move request, moving FC Steaua Bucureşti to FC Steaua Bucharest. The discussion on the talk page itself was against the move, but community consensus (WP:NAME#Sports teams, WP:COMMON, WP:ENGLISH) and many many precedents (Bayern Munich not Bayern Munchen, Dynamo Kiev not Dinamo Kyiv, Spartak Moscow not Spartak Moskva, etc) are clear on this. Aecis undid the move, reverted the changes, and has posted to a number of Romanian-related pages ([68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], and [76]) asking them to chip in to the discussion. I suggested he also post to WikiProject Football to at least avoid any inference of votestacking or canvassing, but this was ignored.

When I asked Aecis why he reopened the discussion and suggested it may have been because he didn't agree with the result, his reply was "That's bullshit" and dismissed the whole thing as "ridiculous" [77]. Have I done anything wrong here? Am I being ridiculous? Is this canvassing by Aecis (Do not attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. )? Neil ☎ 13:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably Aecis didn't appreciate your "Oh, for crying out loud." I don't believe there's something for the admins to do for now. Try WikiProject Football. As for canvassing, yes. I don't see why someone would discuss X at Y talkpage. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You followed the naming conventions in the MOS; that should have been enough. Why are we even having a discussion on the name of the article when our policies quite clearly state what it should be? ELIMINATORJR 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You should wander over to Dynamo Kiev as well. The discussion has occured twice on that page and still continues. Most editors who have arrived simply for the discussion are asking for its return to Dynamo Kyiv. It is an argument fraught with nationalism and I have already offered my opinion on that page which is why I will not get involved in the moving. Woodym555 15:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the MOS must be respected though it is useless to argue about that since it is just a guideline. That's the dilemma. It is clear that this is an English version of the encyclopedia and that tells a lot. Probably the Village Pump is the right place to sort these issues. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this should be discussed on ANI, since there is nothing for the admins to do here. I can live with Neil's position; if he had responded normally to this matter, we would have agreed to disagree and that would be the end of it. But Neil's utter incivility and confrontational response was completely uncalled for. That is what I called ridiculous and bullshit. Not his move.
With regards to the issue of canvassing: that too is completely uncalled for. Yes, I left a notice on the talk pages of seven articles. And why? Because if Steaua Bucureşti‎ would be moved to Steaua Bucharest, there would be a ground for moving Dinamo Bucureşti‎ to Dinamo Bucharest‎, Rapid Bucureşti‎ to Rapid Bucharest‎, Maccabi Bucureşti‎ to Maccabi Bucharest‎, Progresul Bucureşti‎ to Progresul Bucharest‎, Unirea Tricolor Bucureşti‎ to Unirea Tricolor Bucharest‎, Venus Bucureşti‎ to Venus Bucharest‎ and Victoria Bucureşti‎ to Victoria Bucharest‎. Since this would involve so many articles related to Romania, I thought it would be very reasonable to notify the WikiProject Romania of this. And why I didn't notify the WikiProject Football of this matter? Because the move request was already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves. The WikiProject had already been notified. What I did doesn't even come close to canvassing. Aec·is·away ^talk 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I expressed a mild exasperation at your reverting a closure without discussion. That's hardly "utter incivility and [a] confrontational response". The breach of etiquette was yours. I hope someone other than yourself will close the reopened move discussion (I know I certainly won't try and get involved again).

Above, I asked for clarification on whether your actions amounted to canvassing - I didn't accuse you of it. Your explanation satisfies me no vote-stacking was intended (even if it may now occur as an unintentional side-effect). Neil ☎ 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your assumptions of bad faith as highly incivil and confrontational. Two examples:

"So will you reopen the discussion again when the next administrator trying to clear the WP:RM backlog closes it in a manner you don't agree with, too?"

"Is that good conduct?"

I have tried to be civil with you. You have earned your marks and deserve respect and the assumption of good faith. If I have given you reason to believe that I didn't, I apologize. But I feel that I deserve the same.

My explanation of "the issue of canvassing" was in response to FayssalF's comment "As for canvassing, yes. I don't see why someone would discuss X at Y talkpage."

Aec·is·away ^talk 15:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for being blunt. It was born out of frustration - trying to quell nationalistic edit warring on Wikipedia is often dismaying enough without a fellow administrator reverting good faith and policy-mandated closures of requested moves without any discussion. I hope we can put this behind us. Neil ☎ 16:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is how this issue should have been dealt w/:

• There was no need for Neil to state "Oh, for crying out loud."
• There was no need for Aecis to state "that's bullshit"
• There was no need for FayssalF to believe that it was canvassing before going deep into the matter
• WikiProject Football needs to sort this out in a whole and not on a per-case basis because one day soon you'll get back there again. See this example at the WikiProject Military history. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's gonna be a wider discussion about this, I don't think the WikiProject Football is the right forum for this. Not only because it involves a naming convention, but also because it might extend to other sports. To avoid clogging up the Village Pump, it might be better to start a centralized discussion about sports teams, to sort this out in a whole, as FayssalF says. Aec·is·away ^talk 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's now been closed (against the MOS and against convention, but I don't care any more, someone else can sort it out). Neil ☎ 22:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It remains to be seen whether the closure went against the MOS. As argued by Prolog (talk · contribs) (when he closed the move request) and by MTC (talk · contribs) (on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football), there was never any consensus for this particular naming convention to be added in the first place. It was boldly added by a user, without any prior discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the general rules of WP:NAME states "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage (e.g., Besançon, Edvard Beneš and Göttingen, but Nuremburg, delicatessen, and Florence)." On that basis the articles should certainly reflect the English names of the cities, unless they're generally known in the English-speaking world by their native forms; and the same will apply to their football teams. This really needs to be sorted out for all these articles, or we will keep going round and round. Either the policy is changed by consensus, or the articles should retain their English titles. ELIMINATORJR 00:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the articles are not that straight forward. It's Spartak Moscow, Bayern Munich and Red Star Belgrade, but A.S. Roma (not A.S. Rome), Club Brugge (not Club Bruges), ADO Den Haag (not ADO The Hague), Sevilla FC (not Seville FC) and Olympique Lyonnais (not Olympique Lyon). Aecis^Brievenbus 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because those in general are the names by which the clubs are best-known in the English speaking world. Ask an English-speaking football fan "name the two big football clubs in Rome" and he will reply "Lazio and Roma". There may be an issue with Club Brugge, which is often called Bruges, but that's a Dutch/Flemish issue, not an English one. ELIMINATORJR 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Aecis, your observation of the inconsistency between "Bayern Munich" and "Roma" has a point, but in Wikipedia the policy is to use the most common English name. Bayern München are almost always referred to as Bayern Munich in English, but Roma are never called Rome, just as ADO Den Haag are never called ADO The Hague. For this reason, the Romanian teams should be xxx Bucharest, not xxx Bucureşti. Furthermore, familiar usage dictates articles should (if following WP policy) be called Red Star Belgrade (not Crvena Zvezda), Sporting Lisbon (not Sporting Clube) and Athletic Bilbao (not Athletic Club). They may not be thus named at the moment but that is because they are not following WP policy correctly. Mjefm 09:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct - this is what WP:COMMON and WP:ENGLISH state. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy is an afterthought in this situation. Neil ☎ 15:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya

Please would somebody note the actions of User:Sarvagnya. Edits such as this are clearly disruptive and vandalising yet nothing was done about it and this which shows a clear aim by this user to remove existing content and damaging the encyclopedia - to destroy a whole license which has been previously been authorized and would affect hundreds of articles and then attempting to persuade the authoriser User:Riana at the commons to "nuke them all" on the grounds of his belief it isn't adequate. There is a clear purpose from his recent actions to attempt to erode existing articles related to Indian cinema and destroy the weeks of work and effort from other contributors brnading their work a "pile of garbage". If new editors did all this they would have been blocked. He has excessively tagged many main existing pages with often 4 or 5 different tags to portray the articles as terrible such as the Bollywood article. Addressing tone and ordering references is fine but this editor has gone so far that it is clear he isn't acting in good faith when many articles will be under threat. Is this what people want? He has been warned by an admin before Please avoid making personal attacks. because he personally attacked one editor. But it is time to do something about this. It is rude and it is disheartening to other editors, and is certainly not an environment I want to work in particularly when content is under attack and I am having to continously against my wishes having to become involved in it and try to protect existing content. I haven't got time to waste on people or this sort. I seriously fear that hundreds of articles or going to be degraded in this way and going unnoticed ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: How do you qualify this as disruptive? Shouldn't a user be allowed to express his opinion on Wikipedia? So what do you want to indicate? That people who are notifying copy-vios in Wikipedia are damaging it and should be blocked? Nice try.. And if you are complaining about personal attacks, may be you should see this, arse jockeys, eh? -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad try yourself there. Now, if someone could address the substantive issues of the user in question's repeated apparently unjustifiably tagging content for speedy deletion, repeatedly adding other tags without any explanation, and the other substantive complaints made here, the discussion might rise above the level of the comment above. John Carter 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally react , count it lucky I didn't react even worse and leave permanently - I was crying out at the same procession of editors following Savagnya in bringing things down and that an ameniable alternative wasn't made from discussion first ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucky, eh? Lets leave out the personal attack business from the discussion... -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya seems to have developed a bit of a history misusing the speedy deletion template, as per his talk page and elsewhere. Is there any way to formally recommend that such misuse cease. Regretably, he doesn't seem to misuse it often enough to qualify for a block, but he does seem as per his talk page to misuse the template with some regularity. John Carter 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please notify the user of this thread. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See the above thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sarvagnya Woodym555 16:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)(threads merged) Woodym555 16:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has been warned many times about this the latest warning about speedying existing articles and images and general disrpution was removed as "nonsense". I don't know what it'll take for him to get the message. He has actually been warned more times than I had previously though see User_talk:Sarvagnya#speedy but continues to ignore warning at disruption. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would ask anyone interested to review the contents of the editor's talk page. Placing all sorts of templates without any justification given, removing verifiable and appropriate content, making legal threats, etc. User seems to have a history of unilateral action without any explanation. John Carter 17:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

blah blah blah.. I made legal threats? Where? Point out or shut up. Sarvagnya 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the editor's talk page would only be like looking at the one side of the coin. If some one is reviewing, I request to review the complete conversation, which could have happened in multiple talk pages. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I am misstating the content of User talk:Sarvagnya#no legal threats explanation, my apologies. However, I cannot help but be amused that much of the content of your talk page, and the purpose of this discussion, is your own failure to abide by that principle, given your repeated failure to justify any of the seemingly irrational tagging you so often engage in. John Carter 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Much of the content on my page has a history of which you know nothing about. Many a time the allegations are as ill informed and ludicruous as your own here and so I dont even bother replying to those.. that doesnt make those allegations true! So stop shooting your mouth off and making a fool of yourself. If you find the contents on my page amusing, good for you but keep it to yourself. Dont waste people's time on ANI by misrepresenting conversations and slandering others. And next time, do your homework before you come on ANI.

And oh, Blofeld that applies to you too. Before you crib that I reverted or attacked someone, make sure that the user was not a banned troll. Also if you're going to complain that I tagged 'brilliant prose' as nonsense, be ready with a diff to back it up. You're surely not faulting me for removing that gem of a "Bollywood is entering into the consciousness of western audiences" etc., on Bollywood, are you?

Can anybody here say honestly and with a straight face that articles havent improved after I've paid them a visit? Can you say that Zinta didnt improve after the FAC? Can you say that Bollywood hasnt improved in the last 12 hours? The amount of bad faith and witchhunt against me is appalling. This is probably the second such thread in a week. For what? Because I opposed your article on FAC on the grounds that it lacked RS sources?! Sorry, I'd rather clean up non-RS and copyvio cruft on wikipedia than make friends.

If you have a problem with me cleaning up cruft, too bad. You can cry hoarse on ANI.. but its not going to change the way I go about cleaning cruft. And dont make it sound like I've tricked Riana or Yamla or Guy or anybody else into buying my POV over those images. They're sensible and intelligent people too and your insinuations against me are really an insult to them. Blofeld, if you werent wikipedia's 'most productive editor', I wouldnt be dignifying this screed of yours with a response. You should work on assuming good faith and examining the edit and not the editor next time. Nichalp, a bureaucrat, also supported my stance on that FAC. Have you considered opening a thread like this on ANI against him too? Anyway, I'm out of here.. dont expect me to keep replying here. Sarvagnya 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah Nichalp I'm wondering when he'll turn up. If you concentrate on adding content and really improving articles I support you 100%. Its when articles are made to look pathetic and hard work attacked and branded as a "pile of rubbish" that I find offensive. Each time I log into wikipedia I find you have gone further and are attmepting to ruin something else or putting articles up for speedy, when I really want to continue with something else. If you got on with adding the content and improving articles like you claim to do which I beleive you are capable in a half ameniable fashion I wouldn't give you a second glance. I don;t know how you expect to systematically pursue your course of actions and not expect anybody to be evne slightly concerned ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Boy.. should I be concerned that people get worked up for no reason? I simply cannot help it. If people are going to keep taking ill informed stances about me, I cannot help it. And I didnt make the articles look pathetic. They were pathetic. I merely tagged it and brought it to people's attention! Nothing gives me more joy on wikipedia than writing articles. But I wouldnt be able to sleep at night if I wrote nonsense like Bollywood. Writing articles takes time and diligence. at the moment (as you can see from my talk page), I am too busy in RL to write articles. I've been working in snatches last few weeks and I only have time to do drive by cleaning.. and that is waht I am doing. Also when I create articles, I usually create them on notepad and hoist them up in one shot like I've done

here, [78], here, here, here, here, here and several other places. For that matter, even at this moment, there's a half done article sitting in my sandbox. Those edits obviously get buried in my contrib history and all that someone assuming bad faith can pick out is edits like the one you've chosen to misrepresent here. I usually hate making a case for myself even when I run the risk of being misunderstood, because I see it as vanity. This isnt the first time I've been dragged to ANI nor will it be the last. Only this time, it isnt the usual rank troll who would drag me here. It is you, Blofeld and that is why I'm even bothering to reply.

And what do you mean by irrational tagging? I tagged and got dozens of images deleted by dozens of admins and I've been doing it for months now. So you're accusing all of them of acting in bad faith? Same with articles. For your information, there used to be a List of Tamil film clans or some such which I tagged as unencyclopedic. Another editor, a Tamil himself and one who considers me his sworn enemy supported me, took it further and tagged it for speedy. And it got speedied. So that is what I had in mind when I put Bolly clans up for speedy. Its appalling how people can think that such a list is even encyclopedic! And stop making up stories like the edit war on Shahrukh had anything to do with my edits on Zinta FAC. I've explained this before and let me explain again. If I remember correctly, from SRK I went to AB where again I saw the same non-RS sources. From there I clicked on several Bollywood articles and all of them turned out the same. So I went to WP:INB to leave a message where I saw your message about Zinta FAC. It was from there that I landed on the Zinta FAC. You led me there! Sarvagnya 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Look that Bollywood article did have some misleading statements -thankyou for identifying them. Statements such as "Bollywood is generally making a breakthrough in the west" or whatever it was is a dreadful generalization to make in an encyclopedia article - its not about that -we both know there is some bad text in a number of articles. Many of the Bollywood articles need serious work to address comments and bad references and if this improves and eventually builds content this would be ideal. However, it is the way that you conduct yourself and your course of action that I am concerned with with little regard to the concerns and protests of others time and time again and it is clear you look on many editors and their work with disgust and in a condesending manner.. Now I have done no real editing on Bollywood articles at all, in fact my only editing there has been with adding film posters or templates and cast sections on existing film articles rather than actors. However terrible you think articles are, you just don't make decisions to nuke articles with no consensus with other editors and however terrible you think an article is ,you most certinaly should not discourage anybody who attempts to add constructive content to this encyclopedia. You keep claiming good faith, but how can your continous disregard for the genuine efforts of hard work , whether it is in article content (or with images which I helped with) be acceptable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - He has been warned by an admin before Please avoid making personal attacks. - No, that user who warned is not an admin. Also, the user on whom Sarvagnya is alleged to have made a personal attack appears to be an obvious sockpuppet, and his edit in the same page was reverted back by admin. - KNM ^Talk 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Either way, within minutes of the edit war and vandalism here on the Shahrukh Khan article, when his edits were reverted within minutes he influenced the Preity Zinta FA nomination by declaring "strongest possible oppose" as a response. This is when this user came to me attention as I was rather surprised at how it seemed to be overly degrading. Follwoing each of these events his close friends such as KLF turn up to offer their support. Nobody seems to be notice the misconduct here -this is what worries me. Would somebody please see the edits here and how entire paragraphs of article being removed and branded as nonsense ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Influence?? What do you mean by influence? The article did not pass the GA review, because the lead editors could not address the review comments. Why do you want to make Sarvagnya as the scape goat, when the lead editors inability to move the article to a GA was the reason for the failure? Didn't you see the page history of Preity Zinta after the GA review, where a lot of cleanup is in progress? Please be more objective than trying to put in your opinions... -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is possible for such a profound statement as "strongest possible oppose" to sway votes, even if that "swaying" is accurate. It is also legitimate to point out that the party seems to have certain "tag-alongs" or "defenders" who appear shortly after the initiatior himself. And I don't find a User:KLM. Was Blofeld perhaps referring to User:KNM, who has posted here already? John Carter 17:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Carter, may I point you to the history page of the Preity Zinta article to show you the clean up happening after the FA review. This is ample evidence that the article did not deserve to be an FA. What do we want next? Half baked articles being promoted to FA? Please... "Tag-alongs" and "defenders"? Would User:Shshshsh and Mr. Blofeld be an example of what you call as "Tag-alongs" and "defenders", since they seem to edit together? -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I used the example because it seemed highly suspicious and quite a coincidence that is occurred within minutes of that conflict. That article had some issues which have nothing to do with this editor. Now please don't try to justify all of his latest actions as good faith, it is clear he has gone beyond this. I am amazed how the same group KNM and Amargg turn uo in the same succession everytime to run to his aid ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Blofeld. Exactly! Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is quite serious, worse than i thought.This article was vandalised and emblazened with a "hoax" tag and he received a warning about this. This is a serious threat to our encyclopedia on major articles such as this. The question is are people happy to let him undertake such actions to our articles? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All that tag summarily says is "The truthfulness of this article has been questioned.", which is perfectly fine for an article like in that state, where there is absolutely no references (not even single citation), and when a long-standing editor has concerns over its truthfulness. Looking from the positive perspective, that edit would only help bringing the article into a better shape by having references, inline citations and removing the original research. Once we start assuming bad faith on an editor, everything from him/her will be start appearing as -ve contributions to Wikipedia. Thats the whole purpose of, WP:AGF. - KNM ^Talk 17:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, such, potentially conscious, misstatements of fact are themselves troubling, particularly from an editor who so frequently seems to rush to defend the editor in question. I presume you didn't bother to read the second sentence of the template, "It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax." Such distortions of fact for the purpose of defending actions could themselves be seen as being potentially problematic. And perhaps the editor could explain on what basis clearly and specifically alleging something is a hoax without foundation can be counted as being acceptable. John Carter 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What distortions and what potential problems are you talking about John? Do you see any references in that article? One single reference at least for it's sake? What is the notability of that err...committee? I believe Sarvagnya was well within his rights to tag the article as hoax. There is no distortion or misrepresentation here. Things are just fine. Gnanapiti 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. By any stretch of imagination, I cannot see that as a vandalism. Perhaps I must request you to see WP:Vandalism. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Look you know that my main concern is to improve article content and quality this is why I am here. Often sources and tone does need addressing yes but if you exmaine the course of actions over the last fortnight the actions and attitude of this person which is pretty obvious in this disccusion you'll see why I am concerned. Now it has become plainly obvious these edits are not done in good faith. How can anybody possibly justify the edits and behaviour identified as in good faith? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This whole complain thing is nothing but trolling. Not even one legitimate diff to back the complaints. All I see are incomplete complaints about personal attacks, hasty lies about legal threats and not so wise ways of looking at things. Tagging hoax for that completely unreferenced article was absolutely fine and well within wikipedia polices. And you wanted Preity Zinta to qualify as an FA? That would be a dishonor to all other well deserved FAs. I know what's coming next. Keep them coming, only if at all I need to reply. Gnanapiti 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there is also the matter of the absolute refusal to address valid points on the part of those who are defending the subject of this thread by attacking those who have commented on his misconduct, and the clear evidence on his talk page of possible repeated abuse of the speedy delete template. It would be interesting to see if anyone will actually directly address that matter. As they seek direct evidence, I would point to the following threads from his talk page:

• User talk:Sarvagnya#Suspect Licensing (possibly legit),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#ICFI (in which hoax and OR tags were placed without any comments made to justify their being placed),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka (in which the party removed cited material without any discussion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#WP:RS (removed a reference without any apparent prior discussion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Chennai (removing cited material without discussion again),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Tamilikam (regarding tagging articles),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Carnatic (in which the party is suggested as possibly "causing more edit wars of this kind"),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#regarding tagging (again adding tags without seemingly bothering to indicate why),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Hi friend (another reversion of information),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Chola bell (reverting again),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#on kongu nadu (yet another complaint about sources, with allegation of a "jehad" from the Karnataka workgroup),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#hi (yet more reversions),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#speedy (being told about misuse of the speedy deletion tag),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Apology needed (regarding personal attacks),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Please stop (marking templates for speedy deletion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Image tagging (again regarding tagging images for deletion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Image:JasmineSimhalan-kalaripayatt-silambam.gif (in which an admin questions the suggestion for speedy deletion and warns that going admin shopping when he can't accept a decision won't work), and
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Changing a cited quote (changing a cited quote without discussion). Rather a longish list. I would welcome any defense of the complaints individual, but I also believe that the sheer frequency and repetitive nature of them are more than sufficient for this editor's actions to merit scrutiny. John Carter 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages represent only one side of the issue and I had expected an experienced editor like you to realize this already. More legitimate and trustful would be actual diffs of misconduct and any further discussions done on the issue, if you have any. Gnanapiti 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but about three of those are explicit statements from admins about misusing the template. I note that once again no direct responses regarding points made are forthcoming from the subject's apparent allies. And I think it can be understood that the sheer weight of allegations of misconduct regarding this party from both admins and regular editors can be seen as being at best reason to question the actions of the editor, particularly when they come in such rapid proximity to each other. John Carter 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah I wondered when Gnanapiti would turn up, Sarvagnya gave you an award didn't he. Has anybody noticed that so far all editors supporting him are from the same close group from India ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I normally stay far away from such discussions as possible and have never reported an existing user before. However over the last weeks it has become plainly obvious the actions of this user are disruptive time and time again to the point I have become shocked-and he has a clear attitude problem in ignoring these warnings as nonsense which is very disappointing from a user who I feel has the ability to constructively edit this encyclopedia. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding non-RS. Previously, on the Shahrukh Khan page, Sarvagnya came from nowhere and started removing references and placing fact tags instead. A few days ago, I requested Sarvagnya to turn always to the article talk page and list his non-RSes there. Because it definitely can be subjectve, and every source can be proven as RS. This is a debatable case. That's why removing references without prior discussion is unacceptable.

Regarding tags. It is very hard to work when tags are being added. Yes, as Sarvagnya said, the Bollywood article has improved (I have cleaned up), but not because of these tags. It is also subjective, and again, if he has a reason to place these tags there, he must provide his reason on the article talk page with explanations. If you say, it reads like a magazine, so you probably have examples, so why not intrduce them on the discussion page? I've cleaned up the Bollywood article and it had a major tone down. Yet, I forgot to remove the tags. The only important thing is to discuss things before making drastic edits (and these were drastic), and then act further. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This image again is a blatant copy vio and I'll be putting this image for deletion soon. If you guys have problems with this image getting deleted, please fix the license now. Gnanapiti 20:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That image has nothing to do with the Bollywood blog agreement. It is isn't from that site. I can get a replacement ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

comment I think Blofeld should take this discussion off ANI and workout the issues on each other talk pages.thanks Dineshkannambadi 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now Dineshkannambadi is a clearly constructive editor who I have a lot of respect for. All I want is for articles and images to be secure and not under attack so I can continue editing in peace and not be concerned hundreds of articles are going to be chopped up ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All this guy needs is some serious lessons on consensus to stop speedying or attempting to delete existing content without real justification and in doing so try to treat other editors with an ounce of respect ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? —Preceding comment was added at 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree on the consensus part. This user has a history of unilateral removals, massive rewrites, POV pushing, as well as calling disagreeing edits "BS". See Talk:Tolkāppiyam#Layers, Talk:Tolkāppiyam#Rajam, and Talk:Tolkāppiyam#Influence_of_Sanskrit for example. He has not responded to my query regarding his removal of cited info here despite a reminder. He has been warned several times by different admins and has been reported here on more than one occasion. His violations have been mostly borderline and his disruptive edits are interspersed with good edits making it difficult for stronger action. I seriously wish that he be more amenable to discussions and NPOV, and stops using rude edit summaries. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Michael Price has violated an editing restriction imposed by ArbCom for sustained edit-warring Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ebionites#MichaelCPrice_restricted. MP reverted content on the Tachyon article without discussing it on the talk page as required by ArbCom. [79] [80] Ovadyah 14:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• This probably should have gone to Arbitration Enforcement. I have left MichaelCPrice a note to explain that he appears to have broken his editing restriction. Whether further action should follow is dependent on his reaction. Sam Blacketer 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's my first experience dealing with ArbCom-related issues. Ovadyah 15:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer is correct. The Arbitration Committee does not handle enforcement of our remedies. Arbitration Enforcement is the place to notify administrators about violations of editing restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sam, thanks for looking into it. Clearly, no learning has taken place yet. Ovadyah 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite MP's exhortations to the contrary, there was clearly no previous consensus, other than a consensus of one editor. Talk:Tachyon#Removal_of_content. This - it's all on the talk page somewhere, why don't you go find it - business clearly subverts the directive of ArbCom, which was to discuss each revert on the talk page before making it. On a related note, MP is continuing with the personal attacks by questioning the mental stability of editors that question his edits. [81] [82] Ovadyah 15:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

VoABot_II

Could an admin please shut this bot down, or change its settings? This bot is reporting editors after two "violations", including at least one false positive where an editor (User:Eng rashid, (contribs)) was warned and reported for edits to an article he or she had created and was making updates to (Grid fabric). --健次(derumi)^talk 15:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not only were they warned, they were actually blocked. I have contacted the blocking admin to find out if there was any other reason for blocking; looks like a new user with not a great command of English trying to create an article to me. ELIMINATORJR 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As the blocking admin appears to be offline, I have unblocked the user and asked the blocking admin to contact me if there was any other reason for the block. (Edit: or I was about to, then found that User:Neil had already done it :) ELIMINATORJR 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to tell VoA about his bots reports to AIAV for nearly two days he's either completely missed my comments on his talk page - or has completely ignored them. I'd support a block of the bot until he fixes the problems plaguing it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot blocked til resolved. Neil ☎ 15:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just compiling evidence with which to request it be shut down myself. As well as the various reports of overzealous reverts and poor reports to AIV, I have discovered various instances where it is warning users that have been reverted by other bots / people. This means many people are getting mutliple warnings for a single edit. Examples include [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]. These are just a handful that I found within its last 6 or so hours of edits. Furthermore, here not only did it warn someone it didn't revert, it managed to completely misplace the warning. Given the bot seems to have so many errors at the moment, I think keeping it shut down until it is properly fixed is a good idea. ClueBot will make many of the same reverts anyway (it currently reports VoABot II beat it to 2200 reverts recently that it intending to make), and warns / reports much more reliably. Will (aka Wimt) 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The warning was not misplaced, but missing a newline. This has been fixed. Voice-of-All 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to report only if there is a final warning. I've added a check to see if someone beat it to avoid extra warnings. Voice-of-All 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the quick response. The bot seems to be working well now. --健次(derumi)^talk 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the script also be modified to make it identify only warnings, if that's not already included? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister's disruption of a WikiProject

Northmeister (talk · contribs) removed Wikipedia: WikiProject Rational Skepticism from the list of related wikiprojects at Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views here. He then claimed that there was "no relationship between the two" projects. He then went further to say that the projects have "conflicting points of view" here. This is a very troubling violation of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, in my opinion. Northmeister seems to have taken it upon himself to specifically attack one particular WikiProject and group of editors. I am nervous because he is so active on many of the pages relevant to Wikipedia: WikiProject Rational Skepticism that he may be trying to subtly push his POV. I was considering filing this at Wikiquette alerts, but did so here because this particular user is an administrator and I'm concerned that he may be tempted to abuse his administrative powers. If someone thinks that this alert is better placed over there, please move it. Thanks. ScienceApologist 15:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just to point out that User:Northmeister is not an administrator. ELIMINATORJR 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  Quite right. Sorry about that. ScienceApologist 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  Stupid question - What point would that be? It isn't clear from the links nor that particular page. spryde | talk 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  It seems to me that Northmeister is trying to claim that the Rational Skepticism WikiProject is at odds with other WikiProjects and perhaps Wikipedia in general. ScienceApologist 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  Northmeister appears to have acted boldly, but is willing to let project members decide, according to this posting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  Will has it right, my intention was to alert members of Wikiproject Alternative Views and let them decide as it is not my project. I notified the projects founder with that in mind. I did act boldy, but without the malice ScienceApologist seems to indicate I had. It is the members project and they have the right reverse my decision based on their own observations and in this I fully support them. --Northmeister 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has been disrupting Wikipedia for many months. He continues to do so, most recently on the Parapsychology article, where he just drove off one of the best most neutral editors we have see this. The parapsychology article is featured. See ArbCom for details. This report is just the latest. Sigh. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncivility and personal attacks from User:Apostolos Margaritis

Over the past two days, User:Apostolos Margaritis has been launching personal attacks at me and other users, in connection with negative votes on this AfD on an article he started. The problem was first noticed in his original posts there, aimed at User:NawlinWiki: "Why are so biased not to say plainly incorrect as to this issue of the so called "one" refference? There're more than that. One, two..three...Learn how to count. It's arithmetics. Let me be clear: I'm gonna mobilise wiki users who are gonna defend the right of this article to exist." Continued in his following posts: There are reputable, respectable sources making the case for NyLon but you've got no eyes for them and seem to refuse the evidence . next comes this one, aimed at me and others here: "As to all the other wiki-flunkies [i.e. the likes of Dahn (a native Romanian speaker he claims !? Well, I ought to be one of them too should I not? Hmmmm) & the ones he's unctuously aping]". In between these, he left the following Romanian-language message on my talk page, with the headline "Ca in ograda noastra nationala si ca la noi la nimenea" - "Nobody has it as bad as our national courtyard" diff here:

Inca o data se adevereste arhicunoscuta si rasverificata de pe-acum banuiala de-a mea ca noi romanii nu suntem solidari unii cu altii. Ura de sine? Ok...nu "ura" dar in mod cert un soi de nemernic dispret fata de tot ce tine de propria etnie. Sigur, nu am exact nevoie de "solidaritatea" ta in particular, dar mi se par usor gratuite afirmatiile tale vis-a-vis de Nylon. Exact ce vrei sa dovedesti prin sprijinul care-l acorzi celorlaltor "contrarians" (ca sa folosesc o sintagma de-a lui Cristopher Hitchins)? Vrei sa "te pui bine" cu ei maimutarindu-le opinia? Chiar vrei sa se epureze NyLon?. Exact ce sti[i] tu despre NY si Londra? Locuiesti aici? Eu da, de bunicel timp..Si articolul cu pricina reflecta o realitate pe care tu n-ai cum s-o banuiesti, intuiesti. Pentru simplul motiv ca tu n-ai acces la aceasta realitate. Strugurii la care nu ajunge vulpea sunt socotiti de ea, oricum, "acri". It's as simple as that my friend. Habar n-am daca esti roman si detaliul asta n-are importanta. Dar simplul fapt ca vorbesti romana ca limba materna te face, automat, membru pe viata al acestui jalnic "club" romanesc. Pacat. Il numesc "jalnic", fiinca noi il facem sa para "jalnic". In speta cei ca tine. Sorry. N-o lua in nume personal. "Cei ca tine" e o generalizare, aproape o metafora (trista) daca vrei.

Translated as:

Yet again does the arch-known and over-verified hunch I had that us Romanians are not in solidarity with one other prove itself true. Self-hatred? Ok...not "hatred" but for sure a sort of scurvy contempt toward anything related to one's own ethnicity. To be sure, I do not need your "solidarity" in particular, but I find your statements in relation to NyLon [ie: the article up for AfD] to be gratuitous. Exactly what do you aim to prove through the support you give to the other "contrarians" (to use one of Christopher Hitchins' syntagms)? Do you wish to "find a good spot" with them by aping their opinion? Do you really wish for NyLon to be purged?. Exactly what do you know about N[ew] Y[ork] and London? Do you live here? I do, and have been doing so for quite a while..And the article in questions is a reflection of a reality you cannot possibly presume, intuit. For the simple reason that you have no access to this reality. The grapes that the fox cannot reach it considers, under any circumstance, "sour". It's as simple as that my friend. I have no idea if you are a Romanian and this detail is of no importance. But the simple fact that you speak Romanian as your mother tongue makes you, automatically, a lifetime member of this pathetic Romanian "club". Too bad. I call it "pathetic", because it is us who make it seem "pathetic". Especially those like you. Sorry. Don't take it personally. "Those like you" is a generalization, almost a (sad) metaphor if you will.

I took offense to such a message, and indicated to him on the AfD page that I consider this material for AN/I, and asked him to stop [94]. To this, he replied (note the threat): "Calm down Dahn! Under no circumstances my missive to you can be described as "hate mail". So stop using self-made labels and sticking them on this message board. You do not impress anyone around by playing the pathetic "tough guy" card. I tell you what: better mind your own businesses by which I mean the dull platitudes gathered under the title "the 1848 revolt" [in reference to an article I contributed to, which he probably came to from my user page]. Articles such as NyLon are perhaps an inch too demanding and too ground breaking for your peace of mind." (diff here)

He has already been warned twice on his talk page in connection to the insults he posted on the AfD page: [95], [96]. Dahn 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Continued just now by another post on my talk page, In addition to the accusation of "backstabbing", the part in Romanian reads "I see that he is reporting me to the High Porte" (in what I presume is a reference to the allegedly servile nature of boyars and princes who complained to the Ottoman sultans about things going on in Wallachia and Moldavia). Dahn 16:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet another attack, aimed at yet another user: [97] and [98]. Of these last messages, the first specifically targets a user for his ethnic origin: "I really won't take offence since behind these lines is yet another peevish Greek patriot and given my (non-Greek) Vlach background the Greek's nagging does not come as a surprise..." and "NyLon will survive...It's not the neo-Greeks who set the rules of the game in town my friend...". Dahn 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He was warned to stop, and seems to have done so. If he starts attacking users again, bring it back to this board or let me know. Neil ☎ 10:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to this comment, which is his only one resembling a pledge not to do this anymore, then note that his last two attacks come in quick succession after that message. I.e.: he promised (or whatever that was) at around 19:00 UTC, and attacked User:Argyriou at around 21:00. Dahn 10:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The warning (on his talk page) was at 21:10, 13 November - there has been no further attacks since then, as far as I can tell. Neil ☎ 10:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of Grant Chuggle

Daniel Case was persuing this matter but has become extremely busy and seems unable to continue. Recently MaryPoppins878 has been making edits much like Grant did and even is from the same area. They make edits based on their personal decisions, much like Grant did. There is a long discussion on both my user talk page and Daniel's user talk page regarding the behavior of MaryPoppins878. Could another admin take over what Daniel started? Please. Irish Lass 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this may need a case at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. Qst 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have referred the matter than but would request this is not immediately removed as I have put a link back to this page on the case. Thank you Irish Lass 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Third complaint on William R. Buckley for extensive abuses

Umm, i very much doubt that any admins are going to want to read through such a long essay of a report, could you just clarify to the main points, i.e. what the user is doing, why its a problem, etc. thanks--Jac16888 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit, it looks like a content dispute between fraberj and buckley which has gotten out of hand, with neither user looking particularly angelic as far as i can tell, both within this dispute, and in general. However, buckleys last edits were nearly a fortnight ago, in several of which he said he was leaving wikipedia, why bring this back up now?.--Jac16888 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It probably took two weeks to write that report. Neil ☎ 10:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be fundamentally a dispute about the importance of different people's inventions, and a question about whether one of them is sourced only by the patent itself, without secondary sources. However the language used and the nature of some of the arguments is highly unsuitable for Wikipedia. I think Fraberj and Buckley and the various ips involved --some who admit personal involvement in the underlying question--should all back off from the article, and let some uninvolved people who understand the subject edit it. This is a field where we have enough people with relevant expertise. We have no formal way of doing a topic ban here --perhaps we should. DGG (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block/ban of BigBo14 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User has been active for about a week. In that time, user has managed only three things: copyright infringement, personal attacks, and vandalism. Zero constructive edits. User contributes nothing of worth, and after myself and East718 reported his uploaded image as possible copyright infringement his only responses have been to repeatedly vandalize the incident page.

Time frame of block left to admin discretion. Tuckdogg 17:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The bizarre travels of the Bizarre behavior from Jehochman thread

This incident is currently being investigated by the Arbitration Committee. Users may contact the Committee privately with any questions or concerns. Kirill 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you got my attention! El_C 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may comment here. The thread was deleted and I thought that all ANI threads were to be archived (didn't know that what the user was trying to do was to deny recognition...that one's on me). I reverted to copy the massive thread, archived it in it's proper place and then redeleted it. If it looks "bizarre" it was not my intention, just trying to archive. Hope that clears up the "bizarreness". Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuing incivility

"LOL. 2 macho guys in a tag team (Armon and Tewfik). Beaten by a woman (oh dear) with their own fish (red herring)" - I don't know, perhaps this bizarre comment and its "progressive" ideas on gender would actually be humorous to some if it wasn't the latest of literally dozens of extremely incivil and disruptive comments. While I would be glad to submit a list of incivil language directed against myself, perhaps more telling and more "neutral" is this "exchange" with multiple random administrators responding to his recent unblock request as an example of the problem attitude. Does anyone have a suggestion for conveying to this editor the importance of respecting WP:CIV and WP:AGF, especially in the midst of a content dispute? Tewfik^Talk 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hydroponics

Resolved

 – IP Blocked 72 hrs Arakunem^Talk 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please protect this page or block the multi IP vandalising it. Giano 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the IPs has been blocked for vandalism. I've seen some other vandalism to that page, but it doesn't look like it's related or from the same IP range. If the article continues to get vandalized, WP:RFPP would be a good place to report it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry it is blocked now! Giano 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anittas (talk · contribs)

Minor note: There is no consensus. Dpotop 14:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD request for closer

Resolved

Hi, this AFD has been open a while now and needs to be closed as keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Sorry to bring it here, Thanks. Tiptoety 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, I wouldn't say a snowball keep is in order here, I think we should let this run its course, personally. Qst 20:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin second opinion, it certainly turned around from a CSDA1 to a keeper :) spryde | talk 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I do think a Speedy Keep is in order, as the article is now no longer the same article that was nominated, due to an interesting coincidence mentioned in the AfD discussion. *deposits $0.02* Arakunem^Talk 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed it. The original version of the article should have been speedily deleted as nonsense, but the current version asserts notability. I don't think it's necessary to have a deletion discussion about an article that has changed radically (and for the better) after the original AFD was submitted. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Neverpitch

User:Neverpitch's only contributions have been to randomly remove PRODs from articles in bad faith with the same reason of "Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not paper." Appears to just be a POV/ideology push rather than legitimate PROD disagreements (it looks like he just went alphabetically through a list). Originally reported to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. An admin left him a note about being distruptive, and his responses seem to confirm that he is only doing it to make a point about his disagreements on the deletion process. The vandalism case was closed as not being obvious and it was recommended I posted here. Here are the comments from other admins about the issue from there [156] including one that notes this may be a sockpuppet account. Collectonian 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look. I don't see how proding makes us bueracratic, it's a good way to get around AFDs when the result will obviously be delete but the article meets no CSDs. I think an admin should have a word with him--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a second admin has left him a note, to which he seems to basically be responding to with "I'm not disruptive, you are." He is also continuing to both remove PRODs and notability delete tags in bad faith and repeat the same "reasoning" across a plethora of AfDs. Collectonian 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

He is also now adding to his seemingly disruptive behaviour by running through other PRODs and redirecting them to other articles, without actually merging anything from them, such as Undermine (Warcraft) and Tarren Mill. Collectonian 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are complaining. With the PRODS in place, the articles would have been deleted without any merges being done either, yet I don't see you whining about the people who inserted the PRODS into the articles.--Neverpitch 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably because we don't care either way about gamecruft being preserved. JuJube 08:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot blocked

I've blocked BetacommandBot for incorrect operation. It's been tagging images that are not claimed as "fair use" as "orphaned fair use": see, for example, [157]. Betacommand has not responded to my concerns that this is confusing for new users; he thinks that because templates such as {{no copyright holder}} place images in the category Category:All non-free media, it is appropriate to treat them as fair-use images. --Carnildo 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BCBot has been blockec numerous times for incorrect tagging, I think Betacommand might be in the process of fixing it. He is usually rather quick in fixing problems to get it running again. Qst 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(As an aside, I deleted the image, it was an obvious copyright violation though the tagging was somewhat unclear. It was taken from [158] and the source image is copyright General Electric... Georgewilliamherbert 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) )

It's just the example I came across. I could probably find a dozen more without even trying by looking at images OrphanBot's tagged recently. --Carnildo 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind doing that so we can take a look at one that hasn't yet been deleted? Thx, Wikidemo 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a couple: [159] [160] --Carnildo 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight correction, [161] is an inappropriate NFCC #10C tagging, not an inappropriate "orphaned fairuse" tagging. --Carnildo 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NFCC: For purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. (bold mine)

Then, from the same page: 7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (bold mine, note that it does not say "fair use")

I can't say for sure, that I follow where BetacommandBot was doing something disruptive. SQL^{Query me!} 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, you are correct. However, the point of {{no source}}, {{no license}}, and the like is that we don't know if it's under a non-free license or not. All we know is that it does not have a free license tag.

The specific disruption is that, by adding a potentially irrelevant tag, new users are confused as to what's wrong with their image, and the image will be deleted after 48 hours, not after the seven days that {{no source}} allows. Since new users don't visit Wikipedia on a regular basis, the image can easily be deleted before they have a chance to fix any problems. --Carnildo 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it appears the bot is correctly applying the image policy in tagging these images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is clearly wrong to tag/claim that a fair use claim is invalid when there is no fair use claim in the first place- and in fact no claim at all. The bot isn't applying policy here, it is generating random noise. While the bot sometimes gets it right, we shouldn't let it be this blatantly wrong. GRBerry 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The image in question was tagged as orphaned and nonfree, and it was both. The image was on our servers without a free license, and used in no articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are referring to the same image I am. The one I'm referring to is Image:MOP.jpg. Before Betacommandbot screwed it up, there was nothing in the image page about it being a fair use image. Then the bot falsely claimed that the image was orphaned fair use. There was never a fair use claim, so it wasn't orphaned fair use. It was orphaned, but it never had a fair use claim. It was completely unsourced, which is WP:CSD#I4 and would have led to deletion even if Betacommandbot had never touched the page. So Betacommandbot is not helping in these cases, it is making things worse by causing confusion and making it harder to fix the real problem. GRBerry 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering how many times the bot has been here with some sort of problem like this, perhaps it's time to retire the bot completely? Argyriou (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Won't happen, sadly. But it would be a glorious day for many, many editors. Neil ☎ 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm against retiring the bot without a replacement being available. We do need to comply with NFCC policies, and like it or not, automated tagging is the best way. Maybe if BC could break the bot out into several userid' bots (BetaCommandBot1, BetaCommandBot2, etc). According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Bots%2FRequests+for+approval%2FBetacommandBot&namespace=4 it is approved for 8 tasks. At the very least, multiple bots would prevent the entire operation from being shut down if one of them goes haywire. Mbisanz 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, splitting separate tasks into multiple bots sounds like an excellent suggestion. At least that way when the programming gets screwed up, we could only shut off the affected tasks. We've seen bad coding too many times to let this continue. GRBerry 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

this was not caused by me, it is an improper use of {{non-free media}}. Template:No copyright holder contains that template. {{non-free media}} is used to label non-free media. β^_command 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is caused by you. It wasn't too hard for me to add various exceptions to OrphanBot; how hard can it be to add a check to BetacommandBot that says "if there is a deletion template on the image, then do not place an 'orphaned fairuse' or 'fairuse disputed' template on it"? --Carnildo 02:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock BetacommandBot soon, please. I need it to inform me when my pictures get removed from articles, so that I can vent some incivility upon some of my fellow wikipedians. Jecowa 03:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Misza13 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – A mistake has been made here. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Misza13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)- In the past few months has appeared to have been running an unauthorised blocking bot and an unauthorised deletion bot under their main account. These bots may be doing a good purpose but I must complain about this as there has been other sysops who have been blocked and had their rights took away. Betacommand (talk · contribs) for example. I don't see why one admin should be allowed to have unauthorised blocking and deletion bots when another hasn't. Please inform me if I have made a mistake here. The sunder king 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Everybody knows this...Qst 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See User:Curps, he was a block bot (although still a user), he made over 26,000 blocks during his time here. Qst 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) Betacommand didn't get desysopped for running an unauthorized bot. They are two different situations. In many ways, it is one of those "as long as it ain't broken, don't fix it" situations, IMO, such as the Curps blocking and rollback bot a while ago. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the community generally takes a laissez-faire attitude towards adminbots as long as they aren't disruptive. Misza13's bot has been running for quite a while, performing a useful service without disrupting the project --krimpet⟲ 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The {{resolved}} wording is a bit insulting... the Betacommand decision included a [162] "Admins should not run bots on their sysop account that are enabled to perform sysop actions (blocking, deleting, etc) without specific community approval from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and/or WP:RFA". It can hardly be a mistake to actually think that would be fairly applied. --W.marsh 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Arbcom rulings only apply to the case they are part of and do not set policy or precedent. Sometimes rulings follow established convention or the consensus of the time and sometimes rulings lead the establishment of consensus, which later coalesces around the ruling, but consensus can change. If it is the current consensus that adminbots are OK, then that supercedes the ruling. Maybe an admin RFC should be opened to determine what the current situation is? Thatcher131 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Bot policy is policy though. "Prior to use, bots must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval", "Administrators should block bots if they are unapproved"... I mean, my point is just that it's reasonable for someone to be surprised that everyone's all apathetic about an unapproved adminbot. --W.marsh 01:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Generally agree but since this seems to be a tolerated open secret, it should probably go to a bot talk page somewhere or an admin RFC, rather than directly blocking Misza at this time. Thatcher131 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • If the only reason it's a problem is "But... but... it's policy!" then it doesn't seem to be a problem... is this bot causing any harm to the project? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Please don't try to mock me for pointing out what policy is. I didn't say either way what I think we should do here... I'm just explaining what policy says. --W.marsh 13:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • A user running an unapproved bot on his own account takes the full responsibility of the edits made by the account. The way I read the Bot consensus is that bots must be approved if they need the bot flag, or run under a separate account. Most of us sometimes perform AWB runs to fix things under our accounts. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

205.155.32.81 blocked?

Resolved

Per User talk:205.155.32.81#Regarding your edits to Business card:, it appears this IP was to have been blocked for 1 month beginning 9 Nov 07. However, the IP vandalised Fire[163] today? Fireproeng 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The block log says that the user was blocked today. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The block was done one minute after the vandalism to Fire. Corvus cornix 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The confusion is probably coming from the fact that FisherQueen placed the block notice under the Nov 9 warning without signing or dating it. Leebo ^T/C 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the sig hidden in the block notice. I've been meaning to update the instructions for that parameter coding. -- Satori Son 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, folks! This page receives about 15-20% vandalism. Can we get it semi-protected? Fireproeng 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

5 days anon-only. Should flush some sleepers and also give real editors a nice rest. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

more User:Ryoung122/Gerontology related disruption

Suggest some uninvolved admin eyes over at Bart_Versieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Extremely Sexy)'s recent action tagging a large number of Irish Politician stubs with refimprove templates, and initiating this AfD. Some evidence suggests WP:POINT violating reprisals aimed at articles created by User:BrownHairedGirl, possibly involving off wiki canvassing for such disruption by the recently banned User:Ryoung122. Pete.Hurd 23:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Craig (Irish Professor) as a bad-faith nom (plus there was clearly a consensus to keep). — Scientizzle 23:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given Bart a 48 hour block for violation of WP:POINT. I note that he also has some decent block history. —Moondyne 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bart Versieck‎ might be of interest to anyone involved. PS-Thanks for changing the background of his talk page. It hurt to read it. — Scientizzle 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Typos in front page "On This Day"

Resolved

 – typos fixed

The text for the "On This Day" box reads:

14 November: Children's Day in India, Day of the Colombian Woman in Columbia.

1228 – Frederick of Isenberg was executed for the murder of his cousin Engelbert of Berg, the Archbishop of Cologne.

1817 – Bolívar's War: Columbian seamstress Policarpa Salavarrieta (pictured) was executed by firing squad by the Spanish in Bogotá for working as a spy for the revolutionary forces in New Granada.

In the cases where it's spelled "Columbia" or "Columbian", it's wrong. Can someone please fix that? Argyriou (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed by User:Stephen. ELIMINATORJR 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And now I know about Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Argyriou (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Need a regex

Can someone write me a regex so that I could use AWB to deal with [164] this? It's going to be deleted as a result of a TfD, but I have no idea how to regex it and I don't want to remove them by hand. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You could go to the "Find and replace" feature of AWB and put {{McGrawHillAnimation}} to be replaced with nothing (or if that doesn't work then a new line). I'm not great with regex's though so it may or may not work. James086^{Talk | Email} 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the find and replace function, the only problem is that the template has variable parameters, so find and replace has trouble with a text-based search. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's me to the rescue again. Try \*? ?\{\{[mM]cGrawHillAnimation.*\}\}, or if you're feeling adventurous, \n?\*? ?\{\{[mM]cGrawHillAnimation.*\}\} east.718 at 02:17, 11/14/2007

I'd recommend (\*\s+)*{{McGrawHillAnimation[^}]*}}\s* instead and set AWB to case insensitive. There could be multiple spaces and your last wildcard could match more than intended as it's greedy. -- JLaTondre 02:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to tell you guys, but none of those work. Does anyone think that these link templates are inadvisable for these reasons? Why do we need templates to do the links, it makes them nearly impossible to remove easily. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Done manually, thanks for the help though. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:( Just for the future, you can use these two sites to craft your own. east.718 at 03:54, 11/14/2007

Out of curiosity, why was this posted on the board for incidents requiring administrator actions? Neil ☎ 10:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually tested it in AWB before posting it. It's possible I copy-n-pasted wrong, though it looks right. Are you sure you selected the Regex checkbox? AWB won't treat it as a Regex unless you do. -- JLaTondre 11:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Long-term abuse by ROHA

A person using a variety of anonymous IPs has made racist and incivil comments in Talk:Cat Stevens. EG a comment on another wikipedian being a Jew, [165], [166]. The person identifies himself as "Hans Rosenthal" (coincidentally, the same name as a holocaust survivor and television personality) or ROHA. A few (but not all) mentions of previous misconduct can be seen in: December 2005, same incident mentioned elsewhere some of the IPs involved, August 2005, February 2006. Does such a user need any more warnings, or should they get blocked? Andjam 01:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Have they been busy recently? Those examples are from a while back and ROHA has always been on a shifting IP so there's little point in blocking. The article was semi-protected in OCtober because of their edits. Just remove the remarks from the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Moon question

I don't deal with any of the various moon articles, but can someone tell me if Metebelis is being constructive or not with his/her edits? IrishGuy ^talk 02:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me... Some cleanup and adding Moons of (Planet Name) collapsible boxes. Seems OK FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a PS. I was looking at the edit histories of some of the articles, and there seems to be something that was either breaking boxes, or ... well, I'm not sure, but it was leaving fragements of what looked like code from a template: for example in Tethys (moon), it left "... | Enceladus | Telesto, Tethys and Calypso | Polydeuces, Dione and Helene | ...".

I thought it was a particular bot, but I found a couple where that bot hadn't been. So, if anyone sees this, they might want to take a look. That said, Metebelis's edits are cleaning them up. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rfc gone awry and long term disruption

You might want to take the IP to WP:ANI, as fighting consensus could be considered disruptive behavior. While sometimes those who go against consensus claim to have policy on their side, this seems like a clear cut case of WP:ILIKEIT. People think it illustrates the point clearly, which is OK, but it isn't backed up by policy or guidelines. Also, the IP seems to have the wrong idea about consensus, saying that "Consensus means either that everyone likes it or no one likes it." That rarely ever happens, so we go by an overwhelming majority system. If unanimity and consensus were synonymous, we'd have no admins, no crats, and we'd all be in need of a regular software upgrade. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[167]

Comments pertain to this Rfc:Talk:Solar energy#RFC pictures

This Anon continues to put difficult pictures in the lead. One of these has been rejected by strong results from an Rfc. The other picture has a nearly identical copy which is slightly cleaner and requires a simpler caption. The content of the page itself has been mostly avoided by this Anon which I find strange. The user validates his good faith by pointing to vandalism removal edits. There has been a subtle long term pattern of disruption on the solar energy page by this Anon. The page has moved forward but it seems like the talk page has grown by five for every page of the article. I also suspect sockpuppet issues but I can't be sure. I would like some help resolving this. The lead deserves to be clean, crisp and stable. The page reached GA status last week despite all the confrontation but the confrontation continues. I want to see the page go to FA but this task is being made very difficult. Mrshaba 03:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Some help and guidance please... How should I deal with a rejection of strong consensus by a solo Anon? 69.229.196.79 06:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clive Bull has been incorrectly protected against "vandalism" by User:The-G-Unit-Boss

The Clive Bull article has long been a target against vandalism by people adding insults and uncited material. Several days ago I reverted some vandalism and removed some claims that have been uncited for 10 months. I have previously asked for citations in edit summaries, but none were added. I have asked the editors who added the material on their talk pages for citations, but none were added. I have added "citation needed" tags for these claims, but none were added. I have added a huge hidden comment in the article asking for citations, but still none have been added.

So I removed the unsourced claims a few days ago, there followed a few reverts by a disruptive editor/s, claiming my edits were "rascist" (sic) and "sickofantic" (sic).

Now the article has been reverted to the version that includes the 10 month old uncited statement (it has a fake citation, ie the name isn't mentioned anywhere on the url cited), and User:The-G-Unit-Boss has protected it. I don't mind if the article is protected, as that will stop people vandalizing it and adding dubious statements, but can someone please at least revert it to this version, which contains up to date citations for everything]. 172.159.155.145 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

m:Wrong Version. You may be interested in that article. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected, and based on the level of IP edit warring, that was a good call.

As administrators, we are not really supposed to pick a "right" version during an edit war. If you believe there is a genuine sourcing problem, I suggest taking it to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Please be very specific about your accuracy concerns. -- Satori Son 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's a content dispute, it's fully protected. Doesn't matter who is edit warring. Semi-protection is only for vandalism. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough - my bad. Still, if they have BLP issues, the noticeboard seems the way to go. -- Satori Son 06:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The first step should have been to take it up with User:The-G-Unit-Boss, not come here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask him first, but I saw he hadn't made any edits for several hours and I was hoping this could be corrected before waiting until tomorrow. I asked for help with this article 3 months ago here, all I am trying to do is make sure everything in Clive's article follows WP:V and WP:RS. This may seem like a minor thing, but I listen to the show and I haven't heard this caller identified by his full name. I could say I heard Howard Stern phone the show calling himself "Howard from New York", that wouldn't be true but no one can prove it didn't happen, which is why I think citations are especially important for claims about things people heard on the radio. I will try the BLP board later. Thanks for the advice here. 172.216.235.122 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppetry suspicions

Hi, I've been harrassed by a bunch of sockpuppet accounts vandalising my user page and talk pages:

• User:Fkpg8 [168] [169] [170] [171]
• User:Diupg8 [172] [173] [174] [175]
• (after an intermission during which my talk page was semi-protected)
• User:Niuxoi [176] [177] [178]

My suspicion is that the series of sockpuppet accounts are related to User:Peter zhou, based on the facts that:

1. User:Peter zhou has been the sole representative of the opposing side of a dispute on Talk:China.
2. The vandalism started on November 11, and the dispute on Talk:China really got going on November 10: see this and subsequent edits.
3. Since that time, I have not been involved in any other disputes.

I'm wondering if an admin could help me to confirm that these sockpuppets are linked, and moreover whether they are linked to User:Peter zhou. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrators do not have the power to check users. You want Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

They have all been indefinitely blocked.--Sandahl 05:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

okay, thanks - I have submitted a checkuser request there to check the vandal accounts against User:Peter zhou. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are related SSP cases on this, see SSP on Sumple and the RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Massive copyright violations

Resolved

I would prefer that another admin more well-versed in copyright issues than me check out the history and uploads of Isida1028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, east.718 at 06:28, 11/14/2007

All of them should be speedied, IMHO. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All deleted as copyvios. User appears to be editing in good faith, so I don't want to block, but I will have a word with him on his talk page. Neil ☎ 10:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Neverpitch (2nd discussion)

Neverpitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User made a personal attack towards me. I added a note to the discussion page that those are not acceptable. I also left a notice on the users talk page. The user then made another personal attack and I left another warning on the users talk page as well as struck out the personal attacks from the AfD page, as that is not relevant discussion, obviously. The user then reverted the strike out (which to me seems like additional personal attacks) so I re-struck them and left a final warning for the attacks. The user then removed the strike outs once again, hiding behind Wikipedia is not censored, which doesn't apply to personal attacks. I'd appreciate it if an admin could re-strike the personal attack comments on the AfD Discussion and have a word with the user. - Rjd0060 07:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User warned and attack removed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. I'm glad all the admin's dont have a bedtime. - Rjd0060 07:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconding CBW's response, for what it's worth. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the user has C&P'ed the same "Keep" criteria to many AfD discussion pages, mostly on gaming-related ones. Sounds disruptive to me. JuJube 08:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he did, after he randomly went through and removed PRODs from multiple articles with those same criteria. His behavior seemed very disruptive, and was noted above :) Collectonian 08:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It never ends

Why is this[179] allowed? "In 1975, the Treaty of Alvor integrated Cabinda into Angola, but this treaty was rejected by all Cabindan political organizations. These organizations argue that because they had no input on the document, it was, and is, illegal, and therefore does not bind them to Angola. However, according to Perspicacite, Portugal annexed Cabinda from Belgian Congo in 1927" If Alice.S isnt blocked after an edit like that then something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia. Jose João 08:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone going to seriously dispute that that's vandalism? Not to mention she has followed me onto every other page I edit. Jose João 08:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently she realized her error and fixed it,[180] making sure it linked to my userpage. No doubt, using the logic of most administrators, I should now be blocked for complaining about vandalism. This is of course the logical action to take. Jose João 08:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The other editor was way out of line, but your lack of faith in others is kind of disappointing. east.718 at 08:40, 11/14/2007

This editor has followed me to at least six other articles, restored vandalism to "Rhodesia" four times in one day violating WP:3RR, has kept a mirror copy of my archive despite administrators telling her otherwise,[181] and continues to spam the talkpages of articles I edit with a copy and paste of Wikipedia policies. My faith in this system dried up a long time ago. Jose João 08:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is also troubling; I also see that Guy talked to her about it before. east.718 at 09:04, 11/14/2007

...and, yet again, this results in no block. surprise surprise. Jose João 09:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered that I might be waiting for wider review? Your bad vibes and pushiness isn't really helping you here. east.718 at 09:21, 11/14/2007

The last comment is not directed at you. It's directed at the administrators who took no action the last time this happened. Jose João 09:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, when you say "vandalism," most Wikipedians used to dealing with such issues will go looking for giant penis images, or lots and lots of swearing and caps, not specific historic information -- if somebody is completely unfamiliar with the issues in question, they're going to have a hard time telling right off the bat whether a particular set of claims is ridiculous or not. History of South America is hardly my strong point. Is this user being abusive in ways which would be blatantly obvious, without the need for area-specific knowledge? Ignoring messages, bypassing strong consensus, being combative, and so on. Mainly asking because if so, you should point it out right quick. If they're not, then I'd suggest you find somebody who is familiar with South American history, or try to go through the motions of dispute resolution (requesting sources and debate, and such) just to see how reasonable or unreasonable this person may be -- if they're a troll, they're likely to show their true colors around that point. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is so hard to see the abuse here. If user A inserts into the body of any article a derisive remark that "According to user B ..." that is obvious harrassment of user B by user A. Alice.S inserted "According to Perspicacite ..." into the article — not the talk page, the article itself. That is way over the line of acceptable behavior. Why on Earth do we need a subject matter expert to understand that point? --MediaMangler 09:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

...d'oh, I've been foiled by User:Perspicacite's piped signature. I had the impression that was some third party, another site or such. Taking a second look, but I see east already left a message about it. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good thing there was an edit conflict just now. I considered posting some "historical information" regarding certain editors in this conversation. Divine intervention from the wikiprophets no doubt. Jose João 09:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Luna Santin's response to a personal attack added to an article was this: [182] Wow. Jose João 09:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it was. I don't block people willy nilly just because you ask nicely. I'm asking her for an explanation because I value hearing both sides of a story before taking action. Now, as East said, your attitude is not helping anything. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Luna for handling this case. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two sides to a personal attack in an article? Uh, no Luna, there arent. You are right on your second point though, you dont block users based on my asking nicely. You block them based on violations of WP:NPA and WP:VAND. Jose João 10:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It think it's time to take a break here, Perspicacite. Alice was blocked for 24h for other reasons, so you can relax and stand down from needing to guard things. You're a little angry, and I can see why, but you're biting at an administrator who came to this cold and was trying to figure out what was going on. I know you're frustrated, but Luna was taking the time to make sure that any actions she took were just and completely defensible. You would want her to do the same if Alice had come here first complaining about you with a series of differences selected to make you look bad. Assume Good Faith means that, whenever an admin enters the fray, they do indeed need to assume good faith from EVERYONE....which means that while things might clarify rapidly, at the very very start, yes, we do indeed assume that there are two valid sides to the story. --Thespian 10:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked AliceS. for 24 hours. See this note for detail. El_C 10:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AWachowski long term use of affilation to discredit other editors

I warned this user several times [183] [184] [185] [186] under his previous incarnation of Lwachowski to stop broadcasting my (many times stated) affiliation with the BKWSU. However he persistently uses this technique to imply untrustworthiness and an agenda on my part [187]. In the linked example he's complaining about the removal of a link to a community site that was established to be inappropraite by an rfc [188] [189].

Whatever the complexities of the article may be, I hope I get some support for the principal that these constant comments about me and other editors and their affiliations by AWachowski will now have to stop. I would appreciate some kind of assertive remedial action to enforce this in no uncertain terms. I have suffered this abuse pretty-much for as long as I have been registered on Wikipedia. AWachowski is just one more of a long line of incarnations that seem to find this technique useful. I suspect Green108 is a notable previous incarnation.

There are many more examples of this. Just look at any post made to a talk page by these users.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 13:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios on the featured article?

I've no idea where the proper place to raise this is - so please move the thread if this isn't good.

Today's FA, Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes (which is excellent btw) contains a number of composite "before and after" images Image:Sistine Chapel Daniel beforandafter.jpg Image:Sistine Chapel TwoSpandrels.jpg Image:Jesse spandrel beforeandafter.jpg Image:Daniel project 03.jpg - the uploader claims these are PD. Now, there's no doubt that Michaelangelo's' work is PD - and a simple photograph of it is probably too. But, in each of these cases someone has taken a picture before the restoration, and then taken an identical picture after it, and then spiced these into the same image. This is a lot more than a simple collage. That would seem like a creative act - and thus copyright. Maybe it is borderline, but borderline copyvios should not be in a Featured article currently linked from the main page. Should they? If I'm wrong here, I apologise - but I thought the issue worth raising.--Doc^g 13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's not clear who took the 'after' images and who spliced them together. If the uploader did both, or even just the 'splicing', then there is no problem. But is putting 2 images next to each other without modification an act of creativity? I think your concern rests on the 'after' images, so determining that is the important point. Splash - tk 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just the splicing. Someone took a picture in the Sistine chapel (not hard) - then thought to return months later to the exact same spot and take the same picture - and then (probably he) spliced them together. If I take a series of pictures of my house at different times of the year, and then put them together for comparison - isn't that copyright?--Doc^g 13:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your house is three dimensional, the art in this case is two dimensional. Reproduction of 2D art isn't re-copyrightable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Individually, the pictures are without a doubt not eligible for copyright as faithful reproductions of an artwork. Simply putting two together next to each other wouldn't to me meet the threshold of originality. henrik•talk 13:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Doc has a point but I do not think it is obvious enough to go after the pictures at the present time. In the US, Bridgeman v. Corel applies to the original photos, and I don't think the act of composing them in a before/after arrangement is sufficiently creative to create a separate copyright (as opposed to say, this). It's worth seeking additional guidance on, maybe, but not immediate action. Thatcher131 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)