Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Proposal to unblock Sceptre

(heheh, who thought I'd randomly done it without consensus from the title... :P)

On IRC Sceptre requested a reconsideration of his block, currently set at three months (to expire Dec 9) per this discussion. Sceptre would be restricted to editing only in work spaces directly related to article improvement and maintenance; He would not be allowed here at AN or any of the other boards. Unblock would be made with the understanding of all parties that violation of -space restrictions (without compelling reason)/gross incivility/puppetry, etc. would be grounds for quickly reinstating the block and considering indefinite. On a personal suggestion would recommend if accepted this parole remain until the end of the original block, to give Sceptre plenty of time to show he's clean and whatnot. Keep it low drama, hopefully. Discuss. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of low drama, I have changed the heading to accurately reflect the content, I hope. Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why has he gone from accepting the 3 month block (per his own transcluded comments at the top of the linked page) to wanting it, essentially, rescinded entirely? No judgement at all, just curious as to why he can't/won't wait it out? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

He's concerned about some of the low-traffic articles he edited going to hell (IP vandalism not reverted, et al.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if he lets us know his concerns, then there are other editors in good standing who will watch the articles for him. I for one, would be happy to watchlist them and monitor the concerns he has. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I like Will and I think he has done a lot of good in the past, but I think he needs the break. He just needs to get enough distance to stop caring , at least temporarily. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(to Fritzpoll, after multiple E/C) It would not be rescinded entirely; he's specifically blocked from noticeboards, which are the area in which there was an issue with his editing. I'm undecided on the issue, but he does have a track record of significant article contribution. If he stays away from Wikidrama, I think it would be a net positive for all concerned. Horologium (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just think there's been a lot of discussion on this issue, and a consensus was reached. This matter won't be an issue once the block expires, and Sceptre returns refreshed. Another significant point is that the community must feel that its opinion, once expressed after a reasoned debate (and this one certainly seems to have been) and accepted by Sceptre, is taken into consideration and not continually re-considered. I like Sceptre, but I think the block has to stand Fritzpoll (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason the block was three months instead of one. If he cares enough to reform himself, he'll care enough to wait. Wizardman 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And the Sceptre ordeal goes on and on...I think the full duration of the block should be carried out; not only will it give him time to calm down, as JzG said, but it will also let other editors who became inflamed against him do this also. He's a fantastic editor, but a bit prone to being more of a zealot than anyone is comfortable with. A break will do him well. FusionMix 14:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand what you guys mean, blocks are per policy not meant for "cool down" or giving users "time to calm down". They are only for preventing disruption. If we put Sceptre on parole and he proves he won't go on rants at AN like he promises, then the wiki benefits and we're only blocking for personal reasons, not per policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The three month block was a substitute for an indefinite block for sockpuppetry and harrassment, and followed reasoned debate with many good arguments presented. The policy is indeed that blocks are for prevention, but this block is preventative in the sense that "cooling down" will prevent, in the community's opinion (by the earlier consensus, or my reading of it) future occurrences. SO in a way, it *is* a cool down block, but it is also a preventative block. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that just because members of the community don't understand the blocking policy means we have to continue along that path... I can't vouch for their original intentions, but it seems clear to be now its punitive rather than preventative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, nor can I vouch for them. I think my point was that this line of argument is on a very blurry line where punitive and preventative are indistinguishable. Consider someone who *isn't* Sceptre: they violate policy on several occasions, and are accordingly blocked for a lengthy period. If we follow the above to its logical conclusion, then we shouldn't block for increasing lengths of time (as we do in practice) because we can simply prevent the action by blocking for a short period of time, so our block on the hypothetical user could arguably be considered punitive rather than preventative. That seems to be the line you've followed, and I think it is discordant with current practice. In Sceptre's specific case, I think the block was well-debated and that we don't need to go into it again, with all the accompanying friction that generates - just let it ride out. Wikipedia will still be here in December. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Know your audience. I think most of us understand the policy perfectly well, and were prepared to accept the very unusual reduction from permanent bannination to a 3-month block for some pretty egregious violations, because we understand that Sceptre has a long history of doing good things. If he had voluntarily taken a break then there would be no controversy, the problem was that he could not keep away. I don't think most people will be comfortable letting him back before we have seen that he has broken the cycle of obsession with Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be in the business of deciding whether someone is obsessed with Wikipedia... as per the block, we indefinite block people because it is clear (or should be clear) that they have no intention of ever contributing positively to the wiki; SPA accounts and whatnot. It's different for constructive users. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

David, we indefinitely block people for egregious sockpuppetry and block evasion. In Will's case we took the very unusual step of reducing the normal indefinite block to 3 months. His best course of action is to forget Wikipedia exists until December 9. From my personal experience, I would say that a lengthy "cold turkey" Wikibreak is the only kind that works; if you keep checking back and your edit finger keeps itching, you're not having a break and not breaking the cycle. Without a decently long break he will not cure burnout, he will come straight back in and escalate right back to where he was before, taking stuff too personally. Rather than imposing restrictions and having his detractors constantly snapping at his heels about them, it is much better, in my view, for Will to simply accept that he needs a break, and take one. Remember, his past refusal to accept this, and block evasion, is part of what got him here in the first place. Will is a good person whose good side has been eroded by the toxic side of Wikipedia's disputes, the only way I know to fix that is to stay away for an appreciable period, to the point where you no longer itch for your fix. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

More important issue: article quality

It's a separate point, but could Sceptre (who I believe is watching this thread) post a list on his talkpage of the articles that he's worried about. The articles need to be maintained, and vandalism reverted, and I can do this right now without an unblock discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

His talk page is protected. spryde | talk 15:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad - didn't notice that. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's protected at his own request because he was being trolled; he could easily request that it be unprotected. Thatcher 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Or even that it be semi-protected; all the trolling prior to protection was from either IPs or accounts that would have been stopped by semi-protection. GRBerry 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unblocking Sceptre on the condition that he stay away from drama sounds reasonable. Blocks are not intended as a punishment, which Sceptre's is. The belief that making him wait will "prevent, in the community's opinion (by the earlier consensus, or my reading of it) future occurrences" is erroneous; however, Sceptre's desire to prevent future occurrences will. Matthew (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'd support an unblock in conjunction with a ban from community noticeboards (with an exception for threads discussing Sceptre). I think this will prevent disruption, while allowing Sceptre to contribute positively, to Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • He's apologized for his trolling and sockpuppetry (not for what he percieves as disparate treatment with Kurt, but considering the whole point of unblocking him with these conditions is that he stays away from dramafests...) I just don't see what we lose. He other is a good user and keeps his nose out of trouble and works on articles, or he lapses into his old ways and someone can easily revert him and reblock. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Leave it up to Sceptre to behave, reblocks are cheap. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If Sceptre stays away from community noticeboards, stays away from Kurt, and stays away from drama elsewhere such as on talk pages (note the additional requirements) then unblocking might not be unreasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with unblocking Sceptre based on a clear agreement that, if followed by him, prevents the problems that led to his block, and if not followed by him, makes reblock, possibly extended, practically automatic and easy. As an agreement based on his voluntary acceptance of it, this is superior to simple imposition of sanctions. The key with disruptive editors, particularly with ones who are also positive contributors, is to gain their voluntary compliance with community behavioral norms. I see no value to the project in preventing Sceptre's positive contributions. The same is true for certain other disruptive editors, such as User:Fredrick day. If he'd agree to avoid the problem behaviors, I'd certainly support giving him a chance to show that he is capable of self-restraint. Self-restraint is far superior to imposed sanctions, it's efficient and more effective, for a user who is able to comply. Nobody likes to be forced to be cooperative. --Abd (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Sceptre is a featured content contributor whose problems occurred in Wikipedia namespace. If he comes back early there's a tradeoff: he gets the opportunity to improve articles (which is what he does best), but he's still getting trolled badly enough that his user space is protected at his request. With an early return he can expect more trolling--and if he doesn't handle it better than he did before then there's a danger he may get reblocked for a longer time. Still I'm not much for paternalism: he wants to take that risk and it's within the realm of reasonable options (he's a featured content contributor after all). So I'll support the proposal. Durova^Charge! 16:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock - In the few times I ran into Sceptre's work in the mainspace, I was very impressed by it. If he wants to write more, I say let him. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• In principle I support the notion of an unblock, but it should be made very clear that a violation of this trust will not be tolerated, and that the block will be reinstated without hesitation should the problem behavior return. Shereth 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I support unblocking Sceptre on December 9, as he agreed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see a reason to believe that the problematic behaviour will have changed. His most recent comments that I am aware of (there may be other ones more recent) don't instill confidence. Per Will Beback, "I support unblocking Sceptre on December 9, as he agreed." ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree to unblock, but also agree to their being some sort of parole on project space. We are possibly losing good articles with his absence, and I will assume he will behave this time. -- how do you turn this on 17:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That is the basis of the entire thread- he wont be allowed in areas which encourage disruptive tendencies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Will Beback. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Without commenting on the specifics of this case, I am in principle opposed to shortening blocks (occasional exception for indef blocks). In my opinion, the ability of blocks to deter negative behavior before it occurs is greatly diminished when people know that with a few promises and apologies, they can return to editing. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Whoah. If someone makes 5 reverts, is blocked for violating 3RR, and posts an unblock request saying "Sorry, I will not edit war any more", what's the point in making them wait out the remainder of the block? Don't we want them to "return to editing"? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Assuming that the blcok was an appropriate length for a 1 time 3rr violation (24 hours, say), then the point is that actions have consequences. Creating a consequence free environment on Wikipedia isn't a good thing. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • "Consequences" means punishment, rather than preventing disruption. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
        • It prevents disruption by acting as a deterrent. In my opinion the whole prevention vs. punishment paradigm is a false division. Blocks should not be solely punitive. But just because it is punitive does not mean that it is not also preventative. Take a look at any blocking structure remedy where we have incrementally increasing block lengths - what do you think the point of that is? Obviously, it's somewhat punitive, but it's primary goal is preventing disruption through deterrence. A goal that is compeltely undermined if the blocking is shortened every time the editor makes apology noises. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'm firmly opposed to making anyone make false apologies to get round blocks but we settled on 3 months for good reasons and I'm not really seeing any indications that Sceptre has attained any distance or greater understanding that would make an earlier unblock tenable. I have strong opinions but I know myself well enough to know I'm not being fair to Sceptre because of my personal opinion of them so please weigh this approopriately. But I do think my point is relevant to the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• December 9th sounds good to me. Remember, Sceptre has been on Wikipedia an extremely long period of time, none of his recent behavior can be attributed to "newness". Also, to the question of watching articles; if Sceptre cares about the articles he'll give David a list of them and David will put it on a page so we can all check recent changes on a regular basis. This "unblock me so I can protect articles" argument doesn't fly with me. MBisanz ^talk 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I think December 9th is fine. November 9th might be fine, too, but we aren't there yet. This would have been different without the attempts to evade the block, honestly. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Leave at 3 months - and he should consider himself lucky at that. As for fixing articles, he can point out vandalism at IRC or on his talk page (some may consider the latter to be an improper talk page use but it doesn't offend me...) IMHO, wanting to be let off so early is another symptom of his chief issue here - taking things way too seriously. This was supposed to be time for him to detach a little and take some time to reflect and cool off - not to sit staring at his watchlist, gnashing his teeth and begging to be let back in. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Can't agree to unblock someone to protect articles as being a good idea. The only reason the block wasn't indef, considering the sockpuppet issues, is that he was a long-standing editor that some people feel is a net asset to WP. The entire length should be served out and if there are articles in trouble, he can email or post the list on his talk page and it will be dealt with by people who haven't engaged in disruption, sockpuppetry, and 3RR. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  "that some people feel is a net asset to WP" — If you're going to play down his featured contributions, please do so outright e.g. by saying that in your opinion his featured contribs do not outweigh Will's mistakes. No insulting your fellow editors' collective intellect with weasel words, please. Everyme 21:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock (now, not December). We're building an encyclopedia here, and Sceptre can help. It does us no good to apply a punitive block to someone in hopes that they will not volunteer their time to help us develop articles for three months, thereby learning some kind of lesson. Surely, if Sceptre is capable of learning lessons, what he has been through already is sufficient. Using sockpuppets to pester Kurt Weber was a poor course of action, but it is almost meaningless when set against the utility of having a good and devoted editor working on articles. We need to get our priorities straight. Everyking (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• A complete project space ban worked for Kurt, and I think a complete project space ban could also work for Will. Giggy (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'd support a return to article editing for Sceptre, with a ban against all non-article work. He should be allowed to edit article, article talk pages, and user talk pages solely to discuss matters related to article content. We can revisit the rest of it at a later date after an extended period of good behavior. As many have noted, a reblock is cheap and easy, the first time he confronts another user he can be reblocked for 3 months with the knowledge that he blew his second chance. But we stand to lose nothing by unblocking him, if he only works on article content. And since a reblock is so easy, I see no reason to keep him blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. He engaged in abusive sockpuppetry, which is normally an indef offense, was given a 3 month block instead, and now wants it lifted? No. Let him wait, he won't learn hislesson by unblocking him just because he requests it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Erik the Red. Jtrainor (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support article editing unblock. I have worked with Sceptre at WP:LOST since approximately July 2007 and we made it our goal to create and get a (featured topic) set of fourteen articles to good or featured status between February and June of this year and we were successful. I have also met him at other parts of WP:TV and at WP:FAC and WP:RFA and was added to his list-of-people-to-contact-if-he-is-unavailable list. Through my interactions with him, I have found that Will is an excellent content editor and possesses other traits and skills ideal for a Wikipedia contributor. Since he was blocked, he e-mailed me asking to check changes to his articles and I have all of his featured/FAC content on my watchlist. If he sticks to encyclopedia writing and directly associated project/talk namespaces, e.g. FAC, for the time being, I think that we will even see him climb the WP:WBFAN/2008 ladder. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock until December 9. We usually block indef for this sort of thing, and this wasn't some newbie who didn't realise what they were doing. However, if consensus should be to unblock, he should be namespace-barred from project pages. Black Kite 10:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support an article editing unblock, agree mostly with comment by thedemonhog (talk · contribs), and Durova (talk · contribs) makes some good points. The short of it is that Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) is right - if past troublesome behavior resurfaces, could always reblock. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock with clear agreement from Sceptre. We should send a positive message: "You are a valuable contributor," at the same time as we protect the project from the problems. Voluntary restrictions, i.e., accepted by an editor in a free negotiation, are always superior in the long run to purely imposed sanctions, except when editors are truly unable or unwilling to restrain themselves and honor their own promises even when the rules are crystal clear. I've seen no evidence of that in this case. For this reason, unblock now, under a clear agreement -- which should be explicit, and explicitly accepted by Sceptre, not just some vague conclusion from this long discussion -- is much better than waiting for the block to expire. --Abd (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• If he wants to create content, we should allow him to do such. If he, in turn, throws it back in our face, then he should have some kind of penalty. Perhaps unblock now with it known that he could be blocked for, say, 4 or 5 months if he causes any problems during the 3 month period that he would have been blocked during? I don't know. I like content. I hate fighting. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• I am for the FULL unconditional unblock of User:Spectre because he is quite helpful guy. On the contrary, i support a project ban on Kurt Weber for being a complete asshat. --creaɯy!^Talk 16:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not helpful, and I suggest you withdraw it. Black Kite 16:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not helpful at all. Doesn't mean it doesn't have a point. Kurt is quite a bit more ... ah, hard to get along with than Spectre? Some people are going to recommend an unblock simply for the biased sort of reason as listed above "I like Spectre". Is that proper? -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 16:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Reasons given for blocking or unblocking can be analysed by their worth; nevertheless, Cream is entitled to the first half of his comment, but not the second. Black Kite 16:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Cream, please reconsider the ending of that comment. Durova^Charge! 17:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed: Cream, there's a trade-off between speaking frankly and being prudent. "Asshat" probably doesn't quite respect that. Anthøny ✉ 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Logical Premise. The only reason the block wasn't indef was because of his work in the mainspace. The entire length should be served out. GlassCobra 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with an unblock: Sceptre's article-work is flawless, from what I've seen of it. He's made mistakes, but from what I know of Sceptre, he's capable of learning, and isn't in the habit of lying. He can be reblocked if necessary, but I hope it won't come to that. Acalamari 21:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock now. Everyme 21:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. He agreed to the earlier proposal; three months isn't that lengthy in any respect anyway. Caulde 21:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• I favour a conditional unblock, based on our experience in Western Australia with a then-troublesome user who had been blocked for sockpuppetry, disruption and helping another user evade a block. We ended up negotiating with him an unblock very much on our terms. The type of disruption was different so with Sceptre giving him reasonably free scope in article space, so long as he stays away from certain parties in doing so, would be fine, but WP space (apart from AIV and his own FA/GA nominations) would be off-limits until, say, 3 or 6 months after the unblock (we did it for 3 in our case). In practice, the user did very well indeed, by the time the 3 month probation ended we were only really checking contribs once a day and not finding anything to worry about, and he's been fantastic ever since. 99.99% of this user's problems relate to getting involved in other people's dramas, which he seems to take quite seriously and can't extricate himself from once involved. At present, there is no incentive for him to change his behaviour on his return in December - this provides one, in my view. In order to get it to work, three or four admins need to be responsible for watching him - they need to be ones he'd find acceptable, but whose intention to enforce it is not in doubt by the community. I'd be happy to put my hand up for that, although I understand if others want to take the role on instead. Orderinchaos 00:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong opposition to Sceptre's unblock

Based on the behavior Sceptre has displayed on his talk page since he was block, I am in strong opposition to him being unblocked. He has reverted legitimate comments by other users as "vandalism" and "trolling" [1] [2], gloated on his talk page about another user being blocked whom he had previously been in conflict with (the same user who's page he had vandalized anonymously) [3], whined about his block and insisted that he be unblocked just because the above user was unblocked [4]. If anything, based on this behavior, his block should be lengthened, not overturned. The fact that he is so quick to gloat about other users being blocked and label them as "trolls", yet believes that he deserves special treatment and that his block should just be taken away shows a gross level of immaturity. I believe if nothing else, the block should remain as is, as this will hopefully give him time to rethink his behavior, but I honestly wouldn't object to it being extended either.--ParisianBlade (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, read blocking policy, we aren't supposed to try and make sure "users learn their lesson" punitively. If we restrict him to editingspace to avoid disruption, there is no reason for the block, because the whole point of it will have been erased. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There is such a thing as deterrence. This three month block seems to say "we really mean it". If Sceptre is unblocked early, the message becomes "we really didn't mean it." Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't world politics. We don't have to act macho and continue down a stupid course of action because "We're america, god dammit, and we can't let the terrorists win!" I don't see where deterrence is mentioned in the blocking policy, and either way a block is not deterrence- "The prevention from action by fear of the consequences" - if he's blocked, there are no consequences. What I'm proposing actually would, ironically. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There are consequences to blocking - namely, appeals and unblocking threads like this one that take people's time. Both blocking and unblocking have consequences. It's not as simple as saying one option has consequences and the other one doesn't. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, I find your bigoted comments concerning America to be extremely offensive, and ask that you retract them. Jtrainor (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, grow up, I'm illustrating a point. I can be as bigoted as I flippin' wanna be. Anyway, Carcharoth, you have a valid point, but as contributing to this thread is voluntary, the suggestion that this draws on people's time is a bit of a misdirection. I could have gone ahead and gotten Sceptre to agree to terms on IRC, unblocked him, and then notified everyone "Hey, I unblocked sceptre, and as long as he doesn't commit personal attacks and remains in editingspace he's chill". But I think most people would agree that's not a good idea. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"I can be as be as bigoted as I want to be"??? David, you need to relax. You are raising the heat level markedly without producing any more light, and you're not doing Sceptre any favors. You made a good point, now let it play out. And by the way, the unilateral, no-discussion administrator action you described would have likely been perceived as unnecessarily disruptive. Again, you're starting to get shrill. Calm down. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 00:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, being patronizing doesn't make me want to "calm down". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fuchs, it would be more persuasive to present ideas in a way that doesn't raise this sort of objections. Durova^Charge! 01:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've had a chance to do a sanity look at the case myself, and I must oppose any reduction in Sceptre's block. Using socks to harass other users, regardless of the circumstances, is not acceptable. Ever. Blueboy96 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• If we do unblock for such things as "article quality" (which probably weren't high on the priority list anyway, henceforth there would be no block if they were) we're setting ourselves up for a potential precedent affecting every single 'deterrent' action(s) we may pass in the future, and eventually, the integrity of such motions will deteoriate on each editor they affect, such as to mean there would no point in passing them. That's not helpful for either Sceptre or us. Leave the block in place. Caulde 21:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What are you saying? There's no precedent, we aren't the supreme court, and what choices we make in one decision do not affect others. The point is not to uphold some perceived integrity of blocking, it's to improve the encyclopedia: that's why we are here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "choices we make in one decision do not affect others" - maybe in an ideal world they wouldn't, but this is the real world and people do look to past actions to guide future actions. As for integrity of blocking, that does directly affect the encyclopedia. Not that the integrity of blocking in general around here was that high to begin with. Whether a block "sticks" or not does seem to depend not on what actually happened, but more on a large hodge-podge of various factors. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been procrastinating about doing this for several weeks now, but this topic has finally prompted me to write Wikipedia:Priorities -- please feel free to butcher it as needed. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose early unblock - ParisianBlade took the words right out of my mouth. If Sceptre had shown any signs that he acknowledged the severity of his actions and promised not to do them again, I'd be all for an immediate shortening of his block. But he hasnt, at all; he's been acting like some sort of an affronted Wiki-Prince, making excuses, drawing irrelevant parallels with other users, threatening to take his ball and go home ("Then you'll be sorry!"), and generally admitting no wrongdoing. I can't support an early unblock in this situation, as it sends completely the wrong message. I realize Sceptre has been around Wikipedia for a long time, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but not when he's throwing a temper tantrum like he is. We don't want abasement, we just want him to stop acting manipulative and juvenile for 30 seconds... Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 00:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bullzeye. The reason the current block is in place isn't to punish Sceptre for his previous behavior, but because there is no reason to assume that his behavior will change if he is unblocked. It is therefore, in fact, there to prevent disruption. An example of chronic disruptive behavior on his part which he has yet to change is his continuous abuse of rollback/Twinkle/undo by reverting legitimate edits/comments as "vandalism" or "trolling" (including one incident in which he reverted a report of disruptive behavior on his part I made on WP:AN as "vandalism"). Even though he has had his rollback privileges suspended multiple times, he still continues in this behavior to this day. The behavior which got him blocked in the first place was his trolling of User:Kmweber, and just within the past week he has continued to troll this user on his talk page. He can say on IRC all he wants "I promise I won't do it again", but actions speak louder than words, and none of his actions since his block give any reason to assume that he'll change the behavior that got him blocked in the first place. Hopefully a few months off will give him the time he needs to mature and make a decision to change his behavior.--ParisianBlade (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole reason for the projectspace restriction. He has shown to be a valuable contributor, so we could allow him to continue doing that. Honestly, we stand to gain much more by unblocking him than we stand to lose. Can anyone explain what horrible things will happen if Sceptre does return, acts like a dick and is promptly reblocked? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Time, mostly. Which we have plenty of. ffm 03:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not really I direct response to my question :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on policies and rules, which Sceptre has shown himself unable to follow. Why should he get any special treatment? What's so special about him? There are plenty of good contributors around here, I fail to see why he is irreplacable in any way, shape, or form. The pages he edits will not spontaneously combust if he has to wait out his block. And to respond to your earlier comment, no, you may not be 'as bigoted as you want to be'. You're as much required to follow WP:CIVIL as I am. Jtrainor (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to take what you read with a grain of salt. I'm an american, so stop getting your boxers in a bunch. Once again, the point of blocking policy is to prevent disruption; if we put him on parole with the same effect, there is no reason to continue the block. Don't begin to judge the worth of editors, J; we aren't here to say who's "special" and "irreplaceable". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Paroles and mentorships require effort by volunteers to enforce. They aren't "free", and they often aren't effective at eliminating disruption. Sceptre agreed to these terms. Let's stick to the agreement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not much of an effort; if he violates the terms of his parole, he's blocked. That takes five seconds on an admin's time. Just because they don't always work doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Far more than five seconds of admins' time have been spent on this thread alone. I don't see any reason to believe that a parole violation could be handled in five seconds. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Article and talk space restriction

How about we limit Sceptre to article and talk space (I know this has been suggested above, but let's put in a firm proposal) for 3-6 months, then we can think about opening a namespace up at a time after this period. I would probably suggest 3 months at first, then we can start think about reducing it down. Sceptre is keen on getting back to article work, and he does nothing wrong in this area. I'm sure he'd happily accept this restriction as he's got a lot to give to mainspace and it's certainly better for him than an outright side wide ban. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is fine. I think we're losing out by keeping him banned. -- how do you turn this on 22:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My initial idea was to keep him under such restrictions until the end of his block duration (december) and then the parole can be reevaluated, whatever. If he screws up, we reblock. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Would he be allowed in User_talk:? It's somewhat hard to discuss edits with a user if you cannot contact them on their talk page. ffm 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he's been problematic in user talk space - he's been known to cause some nasty arguments there. If there's content problems, he can use the article talk page like everyone else should. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Talk pages and the admin noticeboards have generally been where the issues have arisen. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, I'd be fine with this - as long as it happens on December 9. Are we really considering unblocking a user who doesn't acknowledge why he was blocked in the first place? What a great message that sends out. Black Kite 22:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Based on Sceptre's past edit warring over articles, the same sort of edit warring the led to him losing rollback twice, and his frivolous AFD nominations, and the issues with fairuse images in articles, I cannot agree with Ryan that "he does nothing wrong in this area". MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If accurate that is worrisome. When did Sceptre lose rollback and when was the last problematic AfD? JoshuaZ 14:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe that I removed his rollback very shortly before his initial indef block. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It is documented at Mass_pointy_AfD_noms and Removal_of_rollback and User:Sceptre_-_Abuse_of_rollback. MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm, ok that is worrisome. This makes me more inclined to agree that he should stay blocked. I've previously tried to encourage Sceptre in the meantime to help out on some of the other Wikimedia projects but I've seen no sign of that happening. Sigh. JoshuaZ 20:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • For the record, he has actually had rollback removed three times, not twice. I also removed it back in May,[5] following a discussion on AN. - auburnpilot talk 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• I support Ryan's proposal, noting his concerns re the user talk namespace. Orderinchaos 01:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

Erm, what happened to mentorship? I don't believe Sceptre took on board what he did was wrong, and hence will need a mentor not to do it again. Agree with Black Kite above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, mentorship and being limited to article and talk pages could well work together - I think mentorship would be a good way forward. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre has been here since, what, 2005? To be blunt, I don't think there's any subtle hints a mentor could teach him that he hasn't already had ample opportunity to learn. This isn't a case of accidentally blanking content, malformation of complex templates, or non-adherance to the MOS. Sceptre has engaged in juvenile harassment of multiple editors on multiple occasions, a pattern of behavior which dates back years (see oppose #1, here), not to mention starting up a little sockfarm. If you really believe he just simply didn't know his behavior was out of line, then either you're a fool or you think Sceptre is a bigger fool. Allowing an editor who has done what he's done to come back with this sort of "slap on the wrist" and final final final this-time-we-definitely-mean-it-for-now final chance seems to pave the way for WP to become the ultimate in bullying cliques, where the "good ol boys" with the time or desire to fart around in project space are given carte blanche to attempt to demoralize, troll, harass, or just plain bully anybody else. That's ridiculous, and perhaps this attitude is why there are so few contributors of Sceptre's (or Kurt's!) tenacity. Who's to say how many people with plenty of contributions to make devote less time, or no time, to Wikipedia, once they find out the insanity (such as this) that goes on behind the scenes? Badger Drink (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

He may have been here since 2005, but is also young and behaving as such, many newer editors are older and mellower. I mean that emotionally people can often be blind to their actions as they are preoccupied with their own needs or desires rather than being receptive to others. My point was if he comes back then he must have a mentor IMHO. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We're hardly giving him carte blanche to do anything; I don't know why no one reads the conditions in my original post but the entire point was that we give him a chance to stay out of troubles' way and be productive, and if he doesn't then we can throw him off the side for all I care. The objective is to improve the 'pedia and give Sceptre a chance to do that with minimal disruption; if he does indeed act disruptive, then an admin reblocks him and nothing else need be said; "obviously he is unable to contribute constructively without disruption in any capacity at this time." -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We gave him a chance. We have, in fact, given him multiple chances. We gave him a chance in 2006, where Jimbo Wales said "if he does ONE MORE LITTLE THING, he is gone from wikipedia *poof* just then, no arbcom, no nothing, just me banning him myself". We gave him a second chance in late-August, 2008, when his rollback rights (formerly taken away for abuse over at Criticism of Hugo Chavez) were given back (only to be revoked once more four days later for more abuse). We gave him a third chance in September, when, after being discovered using an anonymous I.P. to harass good-faith contributors with whom he had what could be best described as "political differences", he was given a rather light two month block, with a stern warning not to fuck up again. You could even consider his subsequent three-month block for more sockpuppetry to be a fourth chance, as I don't know of many other users with his history who would be given such a comparatively light block after multiple sock puppeting instances. Wikipedia is not a babysitting service - if he cannot control his own behavior, that's unfortunate, but it isn't (and shouldn't be) our problem. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - I wasn't aware it was that many chances - I sorta came late to this party. Is there a single coherent timeline with diffs of all these? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Badger: this is wikipedia. It's not your problem, it's not anyone's problem unless you are directly affected by Sceptre's actions or you make it your problem. I don't give a damn how many chances he's had, I care about improving the 'pedia. If unblocking Sceptre with conditions leads to him productively editing, so much the better. If not, we block him and revert. It takes no one any time if they don't care-- I'd happily volunteer to clean up any possible mess he could make. We really stand to lose little by going with the proposal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe what badger is trying to say is that "has this person personally attacked me?" is not by anybody's definition (except yours) a reasonable justification for dismissing his on-Wiki conduct. By that justification, almost no one has the right to be offended by Grwp's conduct because he hasn't personally harassed them, specifically. I'll freely admit that I don't know Sceptre from Adam, and no, he's never personally attacked me. Does that make my opinion worthless? I thought we were supposed to act out of reason and cooperation, not personal feelings. Personal feelings (ie- "This jerk attacked me, and I want him banned" or "He's a friend of mine and you're NOT going to ban him") turn a community into a shameful popularity contest. Part of WP:AGF is the notion that we're all working for the same project and we all want to protect it from harm. Based on the stridency and passion of your posts, I ask you, are you fighting for Sceptre because you like him, or because you truly feel he deserves an endless number of chances in the face of majority community condemnation and his dismissive, unapologetic, recidivist attitude towards anyone who dares to call him to task? Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 07:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm not saying that just because you aren't personally affected by the user means you don't have any say in the matter; I'm just stating that due to the expansive and open nature of the wiki, users don't have to get involved in the Sceptre business. Thanks for the AGF link, because it's pretty obvious that you're not assuming good faith in me trying to get the user unblocked. I don't give a (random colorful metaphor here, choose one) about Sceptre; I'm not his friend or pal. I think he needs to let go of his grudges and move on; even if you are wronged on wikipedia, griping about it doesn't make anything better. That said, send me any user who has the potential to improve the wiki, I don't care about what his or her issues are, and I am willing to work with them in order to maximize the benefit to the 'pedia. I'm not saying he deserves an endless number of chances, but I don't believe in just letting possible contributions go to rot just because no one is willing to take a chance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

There doesn't seem to me to be a consensus to unblock at this time, although as I hold a particular view (stated above) so my interpretation may be considered biased. Nonetheless, if this is considered the case by someone else, shall we archive the discussion since it isn't getting us anywhere? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

IP editor redirecting talk page to indefinitely blocked account

216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who made a series of abusive statements about other editors on Talk:Barack Obama (see [6]), insists on redirecting his/her talk page to that of an indefinitely blocked account they created.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] This seems to have started about a month ago when Frogger3140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) moved and redirected the IP's talk page to a new account[14][15] the IP editor created several hours before.[16] I noticed this during routine article patrol of Talk:Barack Obama as I was about to put an article probation notice (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation on the IP editor due to ongoing abusive comments.[17][18][19][20][21][22] When I looked into it the whole thing seemed fishy. The IP is an accused (and likely) sockpuppet of a banned user (see [23]), and Frogger3140's edit history is odd, to say the least. It did not make sense to me for an IP to direct to a blocked user account so I restored it, together with the various prior warnings - and that's when the IP started reverting the redirect and page blank. Do IP users "own" their pages the way account-holders do, in the sense that they can make their page say anything they want? Does that extend to redirecting their talk page somewhere else? I don't want to continue revert-warring this editor over the matter, though it seems likely they'll eventually be blocked or banned for other aspects of their editing. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have not notified the IP editor - I don't want to leave the notice on the wrong account, and leaving it on the IP talk page would involve reverting the redirect.Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have undone the redirect and move protected the page, giving my rationale here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you put that well. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Move protection doesn't prevent redirecting the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it? Oh, well, if you don't tell them I wont... It can be our secret! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting a page can be done by any user who can edit it - including blocked users redirecting their own talk pages. If this anon tries to redirect his/her talk page again - they will discover that it can be done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mass of hoax biology stubs

A year ago Blake3522 (talk · contribs) was caught creating a host of hoax stubs on monoclonal antibodies. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananeuzumab. They were deleted and he was indef blocked.

His earlier/alternative account BlakeCS (talk · contribs) was also blocked at the time. However, that account had a pile of stubs that were not deleted. Some of them just may be legitimate, but some/most are hoaxes. After I stumbled upon this, I contacted a couple of admins on IRC who've been working hard to sort the mess out, however 108 article remain [24] and more work is needed. Some may be legitimate, but it may be safer to nuke the lot and restore later.

Some clued admins with some time to spare would help. Beware, googling these will throw up a lot of mirrors.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Working on this. I am not, however, opposed to nuking these if others agree. Risker (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I picked four at random; Zalutumumab, Labetuzumab, Ofatumumab and Iratumumab, and found non-mirror references which confirm the existence of all four. [25] [26] [27] and [28] So based on this small sample, most of them are not outright hoaxes. However, "used to treat cancer" is misleading; from a quick glance most of them are in early clinical trials at best, which is not really the same as being used to treat a disease. I don't have enough knowledge of antibodies to feel confident about expanding them myself though; if others feel the same or don't want to plough through them just now then as most of them have virtually no content beyond that slightly dubious sentence, deleting them wouldn't be the end of the world. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh. Okay, here's a full list. Whenever you have confirmed the existence of an entry on the list, cross it out and add the word 'verified'. Sound good?

1. Bapineuzumab verified [29]
2. Ecromeximab verified [30]
3. Abagovomab verified [31]
4. Oregovomab verified [32]
5. Technetium (99mTc) fanolesomab verified [33]
6. Besilesomab verified [34]
7. Lemalesomab verified [35]
8. Sulesomab verified [36]
9. Denosumab verified [37]
10. Gavilimomab verified [38]
11. Afelimomab verified [39]
12. Faralimomab verified [40]
13. Catumaxomab verified [41]
14. Ertumaxomab verified [42]
15. Adecatumumab verified [43]
16. Altumomab verified [44]
17. Anatumomab mafenatox verified [45]
18. Aselizumab verified [46]
19. Arcitumomab verified [47]
20. Atorolimumab verified [48]
21. Bavituximab verified [49]
22. Bectumomab verified [50]
23. Belimumab verified [51]
24. Bertilimumab verified [52]
25. Biciromab brallobarbital verified [53] (this is as close as I can get, but it looks legit)
26. Bivatuzumab mertansine verified [54]
27. Cantuzumab mertansine verified [55]
28. Cedelizumab verified [56]
29. Ipilimumab verified [57]
30. Lerdelimumab verified [58]
31. Metelimumab verified [59]
32. Zanolimumab verified [60]
33. Ziralimumab (preliminarily looks OK but I couldn't find any sources I really liked)
34. Dorlimomab aritox (same here)
35. Zolimomab aritox verified [61]
36. Elsilimomab verified [62]
37. Inolimomab verified [63]
38. Odulimomab verified [64]
39. Vepalimomab verified [65]
40. Galiximab verified [66]
41. Gomiliximab verified [67]
42. Golimumab verified [68]
43. Maslimomab verified [69]
44. Keliximab verified [70]
45. Lumiliximab verified [71]
46. Teneliximab verified [72]
47. Vapaliximab verified [73]
48. Tremelimumab verified [74]
49. Erlizumab verified [75]
50. Fontolizumab verified [76]
51. Ocrelizumab verified [77]
52. Pascolizumab verified [78]
53. Pexelizumab verified [79]
54. Reslizumab verified [80]
55. Rovelizumab verified [81]
56. Ruplizumab verified [82]
57. Siplizumab verified [83]
58. Talizumab verified [84]
59. Tocilizumab verified [85]
60. Toralizumab verified [86]
61. Visilizumab verified [87]
62. Pemtumomab verified [88]
63. Mepolizumab verified [89]
64. Exbivirumab verified [90]
65. Libivirumab verified [91]
66. Sevirumab verified [92]
67. Tuvirumab verified [93]
68. Felvizumab verified [94]
69. Motavizumab verified [95]
70. Inotuzumab ozogamicin verified [96]
71. Lintuzumab verified [97]
72. Matuzumab verified [98]
73. Nimotuzumab verified [99]
74. Sibrotuzumab verified [100]
75. Sontuzumab (looks OK but no good refs)
76. Tacatuzumab tetraxetan verified [101]
77. Tadocizumab verified [102]
78. Tefibazumab verified [103]
79. Tucotuzumab celmoleukin verified [104]
80. Epratuzumab verified [105]
81. Atlizumab verified [106]
82. Nerelimomab verified [107]
83. Urtoxazumab verified [108]
84. Pagibaximab verified [109]
85. Volociximab verified [110]
86. Iratumumab verified [111]
87. Lexatumumab verified [112]
88. Mapatumumab verified [113]
89. Ofatumumab verified [114]
90. Pritumumab verified [115]
91. Zalutumumab verified [116]
92. Stamulumab verified [117]
93. Efungumab verified [118]
94. Raxibacumab verified [119]
95. Labetuzumab verified [120]
96. Capromab pendetide verified [121]
97. Detumomab verified [122]
98. Epitumomab cituxetan (once again, no great refs but looks alright)
99. Igovomab verified [123]
100. Minretumomab verified [124]
101. Mitumomab verified [125]
102. Nacolomab tafenatox verified [126]
103. Technetium (99mTc) pintumomabverified[127]
104. Satumomab pendetideverified[128]
105. Taplitumomab paptoxverified[129]
106. Edobacomab verified [130]
107. Imciromab verified
108. Technetium (99mTc) nofetumomab merpentan verified[131]

I'd recommend making it a subpage in someone's user space. That will keep this organized. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It will also ensure that nothing happens, or that two people are expected to do it. Actually, it is more useful than half the moronic threads that appear here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, from what I can see everything has been checked and from what I can see 100% of these contribs are legit. The ones I marked as not having any references I liked only had hits on suppliers in China or that sort of thing, but were the sort of pages that were unlikely at best to have picked up from Wikipedia. Seems resolved to me. hbent (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The ones with no good sources could probably go to AfD, I can find them listed here but there is no indication that they are in common use. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say we can use the duck test here and assume the rest aren't hoax since only 4 out of 108 are unverifiable. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They are witches?! Burn the witches!! BURN THEM!!! – Sadalmelik ☎ 07:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with anti-Vandalism bots?

Is there a problem with the different anti-Vandalism bots which usually revert page blanking and other blatant vandalism? Unless I missed something, these bots don't appear to be working this morning. There's a ton of vandalism they used to revert slipping through the cracks.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't made an edit since Sept. 30. —Kww(talk) 14:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

VoABot II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't made an edit since Sept. 19.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems healthy.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Was there some consensus change I missed which disallowed these anti-Vandalism bots? I always thought they did a great job.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I just hope people remember that I can't do anything but comment.—Kww(talk) 14:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the ClueBot system seems to be up and running, except for ClueBot itself. The most recent ClueBot report (from today) says:

ClueBot is currently enabled. ClueBot currently has 764137 contributions.

ClueBot has attempted to revert 0 unique article/user combinations in the last 24 hours. ClueBot knows of 1003 different articles that have been vandalized in the last 48 hours.

I don't know what's happening, this does seem strange. VoABot is also working today. I'd recommend asking Cobi about ClueBot, and Voice of All about VoABot II. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left them messages - hopefully they will deal with the problems with their respective bots. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, everyone. I raised this issue here because I wasn't sure if there was a larger problem behind the scenes that an admin would have to address, or if this was a problem with the specific bots. Until this issue is resolved, I also hope my fellow admins will join in on the vandalism patrol. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What in the world? Removing my comment? Which admin tool are you suggesting we use here? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for that. I was working on another project when I saw your edit summary and I thought you'd deleted this thread. My intent was to place the thread back on ANI, which obviously wasn't needed. As for bringing up bot problems there, this is an admin noticeboard and I wanted this issue brought to the attention of my fellow admins, figuring some of them would know what to do. It appears this was a correct assumption, based on the helpful comments in this thread.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The ClueBot's control panel is accessible to all admins, but only admins.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha. That should have been mentioned earlier. Communication Breakdown. Still, SouthernNights is an admin and could do something there him/herself. But I'll drop this sub-thread........ —Wknight94 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Admins have access to the emergency-off switch and the IRC-side of ClueBot. (Where to report things and such) Only I have access to anything resembling a "control panel", though. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It's VOA Bot II with an admin-adjustable control panel.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with bots. That is why I brought the issue up here. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

Yes, ClueBot has been broken for a few days. The server which was running it had a hard disk crash. Luckily I have a backup from 1 day prior to the crash, so nothing was lost. I have moved the backup file to another server and am setting up the requisite databases and such and will likely have it back up and running very soon. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! Nothing makes you appreciate the AVBs as much as when they are out of action and we are forced to revert vandals by hand! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No wonder we have to undos and reverts ourselves recently... OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Protecting talk pages of indefinitely blocked users

Hi. After I had protected the user talk page of User:Pedro821 ([132]) because of continued disruptive editing, I received this message at my talk page. As I was not sure what the advantage would be in doing so I replied accordingly. After this reply I could see the advantage, unblocked the user, reblocked him and unprotected the talk page. However, considering that (1) there is absolutely no need to edit the talk page and (2) that it's simply additional work to unblock the user first and then to reblock rather than just protecting the talk page, I have to ask whether it's really an advantage to do so? I would appreciate some input, as I'm really unsure now how to handle such things in the future. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already said that this would be a good idea if it were an option when protecting the page itself rather than when blocking the user. It would save the block logs becoming congested. Garden. 20:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I think blocking only the user should be done. Better to have it so everyone can edit the page except them. -- how do you turn this on 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Aitias raises a good point here. I think it probably is best to handle a blocked editor disruptively editing his/her talk page through unblocking and re-blocking with the +cannot-edit-own-talk option flipped. It is indeed additional work, but in the interests of limiting the disruption to other editors (namely, non-administrators), it is the best option. Anthøny ✉ 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Garden. Is there anyone who could report this as a bug here? I would do so, but I couldn't figure out how this system works. :( —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This would probably fall under bug 10080. Mr.Z-man 21:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The main advantage of protecting the page is to stop others editing it inappropriately, baiting for example. Durova puts it well here. The question is, what would User:How do you turn this on have possibly written? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I don't see the point in protecting pages to everyone that don't need to be. -- how do you turn this on 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A WP civil and Assume Good Faith Warning Needed

There has been a small dispute about who should be listed in the commanders box on the American Revolutionary War. I and several others have reverted edits by User:Albrecht. The dispute is beside the point here. Here is his last edit summary. That's quite enough of your vandalistic non-edits with non-summaries. The only "unneeded" entry is John Paul Jones, who commanded 1/20 the tonnage of d'Orvilliers or Cordova. Many of his other edit summaries, while not as bad as this one, have been, well, it is difficult to describe, but offensive is a shaky word to use. Montgomery & Arnold led a miserable little band into Canada and J.P. Jones was a glorified frigate pirate. Cordova, d'Orvilliers and Suffren captained large fleets. No comparison. I just ask that he be advised to assume good faith in disagreements.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK clock reset

Resolved

Could an administrator do a simple task for me and reset the DYK clock? It's fairly easy. Just follow the directions when editing the page. Thank you. – RyanCross (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan. Now resolved. – RyanCross (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser appointments

Avraham, Luna Santin, Nishkid64, and Rlevse have been appointed by the Arbvitration Committee as checkusers for the community, pending identification. Links: Detailed post, Meta request.

For the Arbitration Committee

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ringkorea

Ringkorea (talk · contribs) This is a request to keep an eye on this new editor, whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been edits to promote South Korea and South Korean companies at the expense of Japan and Japanese companies. I've issued him a final warning, but past experiences with nationalism here on Wikipedia have shown that warnings have little effect on nationalist editors. Horologium (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Didn't stop after the warning. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Request an uninvolved admin to close a merge debate on lycanthrope and werewolf

 Done --CBD 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I proposed a merger here of lycanthrope and werewolf and discussed it at Wikipedia_talk:Merge#Protocol_in_mergers.2C_how_much_is_consensus.3F about when and how to end this. I can't see how this can be closed as anything other than a merge and would close it myself as such, but it may be more appropriate for an uninvolved admin to do so. I did try to close it early after a flurry of early support but was reverted. I can do the moving around of material from lycanthrope. Thoughts? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward. --CBD 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated, just felt an impartial close was prudent :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban needed for two edit warriors

Rarelibra (talk · contribs) and Supparluca (talk · contribs) are at each other's throats again over lame geographical naming issues relating to South Tyrol (see Provinces of Italy and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. This has gone on between these two users for years. I've told them both that they'd be topic-banned from this dispute, and I now ask such a topic ban to be endorsed by the community. These are otherwise constructive contributors (well, at least Rarelibra is, I can say that much), so I wouldn't want to see them blocked, but they both evidently have totally entrenched, intransigent positions on this particular conflict and need to be kept away from it.

I move that both Rarelibra and Supparluca be topic-banned from all edits (I'd say including all namespaces and talk) relating to contentious geographical naming practices relating to South Tyrol. Including but not restricted to: any changes to Wikipedia usage of the terms South Tyrol, Südtirol, Bolzano, Bozen, Alto Adige, or any other occasion where there is a choice between German-derived and Italian geographical names in that area.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposal is too complex. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, those two guys will know perfectly well what it pertains to, no problem there. If you want simpler wording, just call it: "Hands off of South Tyrol Alto Adige Südtirol Bolzano-Bozen" (but there you get the problem again.). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is probably too complex for the typical noticeboard thread (where everyone either overtly or covertly wants to ban everyone). Just file an RFAR. — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is the last resort and probably ArbCom would just propose a topic ban as well. I'd agree that this board has to be limited to only serious issues that has taken long to get sorted out without success. However, I have no idea about this particular case but probably mediation was not tried? -- fayssal - wiki up^® 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd be loath to go to arbitration over a dispute that is so relatively minor and narrowly circumscribed. It's just these two people, with one or two allies on either side perhaps, and it's just this relatively small set of articles. But it's extremely persistent, has been going on for years, shifts from one page to the next (sometimes it's an article name, then an image caption, than a map legend, then a category renaming, then a POV fork, then a merger proposal, then a page move, and so on, but always about the same underlying issue.) I'm sure there isn't a dispute resolution technique that hasn't been tried yet; I seem to remember there was some mediation attempt once, back some time, in the late pleistocene or thereabouts, but it all came to nothing. At one point Rarelibra got himself indef-banned for making rather nasty off-wiki threats of some sort, then got back on parole under the understanding he'd be topic-banned, but he ignored that once he understood the other guy wasn't being topic-banned too. They just won't stop, and there is not a shred of AGF left between these two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FPaS - I disagree. I cannot see where I am doing nothing more than defending the image work that I have done, in this case. You worked with me to an acceptable new image, and then Supparluca merely copied it, changed text, and uploaded it under the modified name (again - the image already exists in Commons). There was no need for Supparluca to do what he did, other than continue the agenda that was started years ago. You must admit that it has been some time now since I have participated in any disagreements about naming - simply stated, I've focused primarily on images and other geographic articles. The team you mention (Supparluca, Icsunonove, etc) all pretty much patrol those pages and focus all of their efforts on the continued push for name changing and article elimination (case in point was the valid and common usage name of "South Tyrol", an English equivalent of Sudtirol). I have avoided their name changing only up until it involved the removal of a valid image I had in place, with the substitution of the SAME IMAGE under a different file name. Rarelibra (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support the topic ban as described in the paragraph above, "..relating to contentious geographical naming practices.." I think the above paragraph is clear enough for administrators new to the dispute to take action on it, if necessary. Any attempt by one of these editors to switch between German-derived and Italian-derived geographic names will trigger the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to make a quick statement here. Supparluca did not like an image I had up there (I specialize in maps) - so he started the recent actions. The image I had was approved by admins a while ago to be applicable because it covered the various language usages of the area. Please note it used the names that, by Wiki, are to be used - the common usage and English equivalents for the area. Supparluca merely downloaded MY image from Commons and made a local image in ENG Wiki for his special POV case. I tried to restore my image, and the result was the edit war. I then made the effort to UPDATE the image, making it better with more accuracy, color use, labels, etc. Supparluca simply took the UPDATED image and, once again, modified it to copy over his preferred usage. He made no attempt to contact me in any request for modifying the image or working out any requests to update, nor was there ANY ACTION on the articles for the need or request for updating the image. He is doing this as a POV move of his own volition. I did NOTHING MORE than restore the image (as my history will show), and create an update. My history will also show that my focus has not been this topic for some time, as my focus has been in many other countries/areas. Rarelibra (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fut Perf. I've re-read it and I think I understand what you're saying now. If you don't mind, I'd propose wording it as "Rarelibra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Supparluca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are topic banned from all edits relating to South Tyrol, broadly construed. Included in this topic ban are: edits where changes are made to the terms South Tyrol, Südtirol, Bolzano, Bozen, Alto Adige, or any other change between German-derived and Italian geographical names in that area." Is that okay? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: Either FutPerf's original or Ncmvocalist's revision or whatever. I happened across this endless issue by accident a long time ago and carry the scars to this day. Whatever will end it, please do. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it was over two years ago that I encountered this dispute! Wow, I could barely focus for the 60 seconds it took me to track down that discussion... I can't imagine hanging with a dispute for over two years! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• A topic-ban for these two seems reasonable. Moreschi (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I have been asked by Rarelibra (talk · contribs) to voice my opinion, I'd like to remain neutral because this topic has generated such an immense amount of ill-feeling I think it best I refrain from this discussion. Either way I have to laud Rarelibra (talk · contribs) for the innumerous constructive contributions he has done so far, a ban on him I do not consider fair. Gryffindor 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose. Sorry, but I just can't get behind any proposal to topic ban whose presentation is based solely upon links to account names and two articles. Future Perfect, I have the highest opinion of your judgment generally, but just isn't the sort of precedent we ought to set: AGF requires the rest of us to assume that no action is needed, and places the burden of proof upon you to demonstrate more clearly why it is. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support the edit warring is pretty clearly the only issue that's a problem. If this will end the issue, it is a good solution. I can't make any sense at all out of Durova's justification for a procedural oppose. *dryly* It's as if you're saying we shouldn't take the word of trusted admins on these issues based on the evidence they put forth. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the community are not incapable or unable to look at the relevant pages and decide for themselves - I doubt this could be characterized as a case that is too hard to follow without some sort of guidance from the complainant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos of battle damaged Buffalo MPCVs

Someone has posted photos of battle damaged Buffalo mine protected vehicles. [[Here]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buffaloied.jpg] The US Military strictly prohibits photos of battle damaged vehicles being posted on the internet. These photos can be used by anti-coalition forces to build better weapons to defeat these vehicles. Please remove the photos and once.

Thank you

Cycloneveteran (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution is to find a photo of one that isn't battle damaged and reupload the photo. It only takes an autoconfirmed account to do so. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What regulation or order covers BD iamges? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We already have photos of non-damaged ones, I presume this photo was uploaded as an example of one that was damaged. Mr.Z-man 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[133] seems to be relevant, though its unclear whether it would apply to us, and I haven't been able to find any actual regulation saying this. I think we should wait for actual confirmation from the miltary (via OTRS) that we actually cannot host these pictures before we start deleting them. I would be surprised if this was the only picture that such a restriction would apply to. Mr.Z-man 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a slide-show presentation for soldiers, detailing what they can and can't publish in the internet, probably at peril of court-martial. I think the first amendment would prevent this from applying to the general public (those who have not waived their their right to free speech as a condition of government employment) but I am not a lawyer. — CharlotteWebb 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, Wikipedia is not censored. On the other hand, "It is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment." Discuss. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The information might be public-domain, since it was collected by US military employees as part of their official duties, but releasing this information seems to have been against their instructions and certainly not part of their official duties. The copyright status of the material is therefore questionable. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a tricky legal question. If we can agree that it does more harm than good to publish these photos on WP, that question can be avoided. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I was just noting this to discourage any "It is PD so we must publish" arguments. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The copyright status of the material is therefore questionable. ← Wrong, the copyright status is unambiguously PD if it was created by on-duty military. Whether publishing it in the U.S. is protected by the first amendment is another matter. Let's ask Mike Godwin about this. — CharlotteWebb 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how military regulations have any bearing on what we do. The soldier that released this photo might get in trouble but that's about it. BJ^Talk 18:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The photo was uploaded by User:IraqVet225, selecting the Federal government public domain copyright template that doesn't quite apply. Using that template seems inaccurate, presenting it as a work of the Federal government. The template would apply if the Federal government was the source of the photo, as in presenting it on a federal website. The photo could still be public domain, but for reason that it is posted by the photographer and released by the photographer into the public domain. Not clear who took the photo and who releases it into the public domain. Anyhow, not every photo taken by someone who is a Federal employee is automatically in public domain. P.S. It doesn't appear to me that the photo is very revealing to anyone about any military secrets, although it may technically be a no-no for an on-duty soldier to take such a photo and post it. However, it is also technically a no-no for wikipedians to take other photos, without changing the legality of the photo. For example, wikipedians sometimes trespass onto private property and take a photo of a U.S. historic site, but I believe the owner of the property can only pursue a trespassing charge. The "illegally" taken photo can still be freely uploaded into the public domain and used in wikipedia with no legal problems, i believe. doncram (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually on further examination I don't think pictured vehicle is damaged enough to provide useful information to the enemy. All I can see are some holes in the glass windows, if that. So I'm not sure it would create a problem for anyone. Of course I'm not a lawyer or a ballistician, plus it's a small photo and I have uncorrected vision, etc. — CharlotteWebb 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any use issues with this photo. The U.S. military "strictly prohibits photos of battle damaged vehicles being posted on the internet" by members of the military. It has no authority over other uses, and there is no legal bar to the use of these photos. In terms of judgment, the photo should only appear in an article if there is an encylopedic reason for it, but illustrating the effects of IEDs or discussing the resistance or vulnerability of a given vehicle to attack is certainly an encyclopedic use. The public domain copyright status of the work is not affected by an internal regulation limiting what the government employee may subsequently do with the work. --MCB (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a Foundation, or at least an OTRS, issue to me. It's probably unwise for us to try and parse out whatever U.S. Military code this may or may not be in violation of. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So it may be not permitted for US military personnel to post such images on the internet, and WP is therefore uncertain if it therefore can host such images... Which leaves us with the unenviable situation of being okay to host pictures taken by non US military personnel of damaged US military vehicles; someone perhaps like an Al-Quada operative perhaps... Do these people have to train to be this dumb? It surely cannot be natural. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC) ps. Can I be a ballistician, too? It sounds "exotic"!

Yeah, I think we'd better step back and let OTRS and Co. handle the details. I'd be shocked if it DOES apply to us, but hey, you never know. (And LHvU, isn't the ballistician that guy who tells you to "turn your head and cough"? Because in that case? No thanks.) Gladys J Cortez 20:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Has someone contacted Mike about this? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My .02 cents: I'd be less concerned about legal issues which might impact the project & more concerned about inadvertently causing someone in a combat area to be more seriously injured than they might otherwise have been.. In order to use an image of a damaged vehicle to build a better IED, the badguys would have to identify the specific build & placement of the IED that caused the damage to the pictured vehicle.. The chances of that happening from this 3yr old, non-geolocated, low-res photo are pretty slim. --Versageek 00:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Response from image uploader: First of all, I strongly disagree with the premise that the military prohibits posting pics of battle damaged vehicles on the internet. If this really is the case, you'd better tell the army that[134][135][136] and you should really tell the department of defense that[137][138]. Secondly, somebody please tell me how anything in this picture gives an advantage to any enemy who sees it. There is nothing in it that violates operational security other than to display the fact that it is really, really hard to blow up a Buffalo. It is a well known fact that the military releases photos of MRAPs hit by IEDs to show the enemy that it cannot hurt us. And even if it did give the enemy an advantage, it's not Wikipedia's job to take sides in a war. It is Wikipedia's policy to maintain a neutral point of view and editors should be bold and unopinionated with their edits. Also, don't we have an obligation to show folks back home what is going on? How good is a democracy that burns books and keeps it's citizens blind? Lastly, there is not a single Wikipedian rule or policy this image violates. It isn't copyright protected. It is pertinent, notable, and encyclopedic. Honestly, there isn't a single objectionable thing about it. You have to be careful, because if you violate Wikipedia's censorship policy and censor this one it opens the door to a whole lot of other images about related and unrelated images alike. How different would censoring this be from China censoring google search results? IraqVet225 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In support of IraqVet's comment above (which makes a lot of sense), I suspect that what we have here is one of the following: (1) a troll trying to jerk Wikipedia around by making a dubious accusation; or (2) someone associated with the Bush administration who wants the photo pulled because it makes what's-his-name look bad. While (1) is most likely the actual case, (2) is not Yet Another Conspiracy Theory -- the Bush Administration has been known to downplay all of the bad news concerning the Iraq occupation, which includes keeping the press from attending funerals for those killed in Iraq. (No, I don't understand the logic behind that either.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering this is Cycloneveteran's first and only post on Wikipedia ever, you may be right. However, I am inclined to assume good faith and not bite the newcomers that haven't yet learned Wikipedia's policies and the fact that this image doesn't violate them or the law in any way (doesn't even come close), just as I'd expect the people here to assume good faith on my behalf that the picture was taken and posted properly. IraqVet225 (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been in 21 years now, and this is the first I've ever heard of a supposed ban on posting images like this. Unless a user can CLEARLY come up with the EXACT military regulation that states such a ban, these and other images are clearly allowed. Rarelibra (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Raj Patel

Is this article a hoax or is this for real? --Túrelio (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's a hoax, it's fooled amazon. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) For real; Patel has been (at least seemingly) omnipresent since the publication of Stuffed & Starved. Joe 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably should have checked the history before replying; the version about which you (one imagines) wrote was, as you suspected, not wholly accurate. Joe 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Double Redirects

I just did a merge and don't have time to fix the Double Redirects, could somone please do that for me the Source page was "Chigger" and the destination was "Harvest mite" Thanks Etineskid (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to a disambiguation, per the discussion on its talk page. Euryalus (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

... and fixed the redirects. This wasn't something that required admin assistance - next time there's a mite-related editing issue you can usually find someone to help at the Arthropods Wikiproject. Euryalus (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the software does that now? -- Ned Scott 04:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's moves. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Anomebot2

Resolved

It appears that the changes being made by User:The Anomebot2 are having some strange side effects. See this change. Large portions of the article show changes, but I cannot tell what the changes are. I suggest stopping the bot until the changes being made are understood. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there others? I looked at about a dozen random diffs from the bot's contribs and didn't see any like that one. Mr.Z-man 01:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the great majority are OK, but I found a few more here, here and here. I also saw a few changes where the bot removed some extra blank lines, which seems harmless. Perhaps the changes are harmless, other than cluttering up compares. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I checked the edit-window text in the version of Hampton Roads preceding the bot's edit against the current edit-window text, and what the bot appears to have done was delete some extraneous word spaces that were present at the end of various paragraphs. Doesn't look like a problem. Deor (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. That seems harmless. I guess that's the kind of cleanup that probably doesn't need approval. Sorry to be a bother. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Champ Car circuits

I added Image:Detroit Grand Prix on Belle Isle route.svg to the B column next to Belle Isle. The image is not there. An X with the words "Belle Isle" is there. What happened? And can it be fixed? Fclass (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide with the diff of what you are talking about. You have a dozen edits to that article in the last few days alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It was in this edit. It's something to do with the image size but the question is more suited to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Image not appearing. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:PatPeter requesting unblock; claims to have not edited in 6 months, asking for another chance

Resolved

 – Unblocked — Coren ^(talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:PatPeter. This seems similar, in my mind, to the House1090 case; if it is true, I would support a conditional unblock here of some sort. Anyone out there more familiar with the case, and does anyone know if what he says is true? Just posting here for a wider opinion on the matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If the claim of no socking is true then I'd support. Durova^Charge! 03:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can say that he's not socking right now (unlike the last unblock time, in Feb) and hasn't been in quite some time indeed, so I'd say he's being honest about the socking. However, I don't like his threatening, lawyery tone re. the images vs. minor edits. It sounds like the last time he was here :( Either way, he's having problems unifying his account under SUL. We have fixed this for others in the past (Hornetman, also up for unblock) and I guess we can do that here again too, whether he's unblocked or not - Alison ^❤ 05:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded like a lawyer, and actually did read this section before posting. I did not want to sound like a lawyer but rather wanted to persuade you (all... does not sound good, just know that I do not mean you personally) to unblock me, seeing as I had tried beforehand. Also, began reading Socrates, including his Apology, so I have sealed myself into talking like this for an unknown remainder of time. I also did not want to sound myself in a threatening tone, but once again wanted to make a point. Also, what do you mean SUL? I know you mean the global login, but what does that acronym stand for? -PatPeter 18:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you give examples of the tone that concerns you, Alison? Durova^Charge! 06:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

From now, as compared to before? - Alison ^❤ 07:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that he's not socking anymore, I've unblocked with a reminded that trying to climb on soapboxes is not appropriate here. Let us hope he will not squander that last chance. — Coren ^(talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I figured I should post here, instead of my userpage for a more rapid recognition of this message. Can someone restore my userpage history, without restoring the less than admirable edits? Also does anyone know if I can change my home wiki to, for instance, [139]? -PatPeter 18:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting admin make note in my block log

Resolved

 – I came here to make a simple request but I too many it seems not not so simple, I don't see how this block-log note is controversial, he admitted his block was in error. I will try to contact him about this but I doubt he will respond as he seems to be retired. But anyways, I am sorry for growing AN by another couple thousand bytes, there are better things too do than argue over this. -Icewedge 05:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Back on 1 July I was mistakenly blocked as a "Vandalism-only account"; this block was incorrect, the blocking admin saw a page move I was making to a page with an allready obscene title (see below) and thought I was committing move vandalism.

20:52, 1 July 2008 Icewedge (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:It's the Bootleg, Muthaf*ckas! Vol. 1 to Talk:It's the Bootleg, Muthafuckas! Vol. 1 ‎ (The cover title does not contain the censor.) (revert)

20:52, 1 July 2008 Icewedge (Talk | contribs) moved It's the Bootleg, Muthaf*ckas! Vol. 1 to It's the Bootleg, Muthafuckas! Vol. 1 ‎ (The cover title does not contain the censor.) (revert)

He quickly realized his error and rescinded his block in less than a minute however but now looking back on it his unblocking edit summary "maybe not" leaves a lot to be desired in terms of explanation so could some admin give me a one second block with a block reason explaining the circumstances of the this block and how I was not committing vandalism, I imagine something like " note: the block at 20:53, 1 July 2008 by User:Pilotguy was in error, he misinterpreted a good faith page move by Icewedge to a page with an already obscene name and incorrectly assumed he was committing move vandalism". Icewedge (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you ask Pilotguy first? Jehochman ^Talk 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC With Jehochman's comment above)I would not be comfortable doing so unless Pilotguy acedes to it; I have no idea what he was thinking, and for that reason, I cannot comment on his intents in these matters. You may have a better chance if you contacted him directly. If he made an honest mistake, he may be willing to make such a note himself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that, but PilotGuy has not edited for over a month and a half. I must say I don't see what is even minutely controversial about that, PilotGuy made an honest mistake for which he later apologized to me on my talk page ([140]) and I just dont want users who go to my block log getting the impression that I was committing vandalism (but that I was not vandalism-only). Icewedge (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you might need this diff ([141]) to get the context of the first diff. Icewedge (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally, if an admin blocks someone and then immediately rescinds the block, it means that the original one was wrong. If someone yells at you for your block log, just show them the diff of Pilotguy apologizing. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I have let it be for such a long time but looking back at it now I see how it would be easy for a user to get the impression "Icewedge vandalized something, but he was not vandalism only so PilotGuy decided not to block him". Its not a huge issue as, yes, if it is brought up I can explain easily, but it is more about impressions, if a user wants to see who I am they might go to my contribs and maybe check my block log and then wander off thinking I had in the past committed vandalism. Icewedge (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I think you would care (and go through all this trouble) is if you're planning an RfA. I know there are some irrational RfA opposes, but I think a simple statement in the nom or acceptance section would take care of it. You're getting pushback here because I think us other admins would prefer that the original blocker make a statement, instead of us presuming his reasoning/error, etc. Tan | 39 05:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think most editors would see that block as a (very) quickly undone mistake. It seems to me that adding something to the log would draw more attention to it, not less. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh true, but too visitors to my block log it still begs the question why was I blocked in the first place. I am just trying to explain it too them, how about just the note, "the below block was made after this page move: 20:52, 1 July 2008 Icewedge (Talk | contribs) moved It's the Bootleg, Muthaf*ckas! Vol. 1 to It's the Bootleg, Muthafuckas! Vol. 1 ‎ (The cover title does not contain the censor.)"? (#to Tan) Yes I am thinking I may submit another RfA sometime around Christmas but this is not really why I am doing this (as you are correct, it would be easy to make a note of it) but when I come across a new user in and AfD or something I will often check their contribs and block log to see what kind of user I am dealing with and if someone does such a breif pass on me I would rather not have them walk away with misconseptions. Icewedge (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you should ignore any editor who actually would care about a block lasting less than a minute where the blocking admin wrote "maybe not". Anyone who would honestly have any misconception based on that would probably be able to find a lot more things to make misconceptions from. Adding more short blocks will lead to questions and, playing devil's advocate, pointing to this thread as the reason you asked for the additional "explanation blocks" by outside admins starts to look like someone who is way too concerned with how others view them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Request uninvolved admin to make a determination of outcome for RFC

Please see here. You may also be interested to read the comments here if you wish to be the one to close the discussion. Thank you! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Topic ban to be lifted

As my topic ban of an inital topic ban of 2 months has long since expried i now request this to be offically lifted.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the original discussion for those not familiar with it? MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, please see here [142]--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to have been extended to 3 months - so please wait 11 more days. I don't know the details of this, but if your contributions were so bad as to earn you a 2 month (extended to a 3 month) topic ban, and you are now so keen to get back to the same topics, I'd not be optimistic that your involvement in those topics is likely to be so valuable to the project that we'd been keen to have you back 11 days before we have to.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This was imposed on the 8th July (original) this exprires this week, and should be lifted, also as per these findings these user have had bans lifted [143] and can freely now edit, same should apply to me.--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Mangojuice's unblock, your ban should expire on Oct 18th. It's far from clear, looking at the diffs, exactly how or why a decision regarding Domer48 would be applicable to your ban. Can you explain why that should be? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as Mango states `Note that you are still topic banned, and the topic ban will expire in *three* months now (that is, the same date as before). That to me means the 8th of July is `the same date as before`. Hey if you guys want me to wait another 11 days then thats fine, doesn`t bother me either way, ive had it for three months, just seems to me that it should be up now. I felt the ban was OTT anyway, and i brought the Domer case up a proof of my OTT sanction. So if i have to wait another 11 days i take it i dont have to come back here, and i assume im free to edit anywhere i wish.--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

From the comments in Rockbiggs' user page and block log, it appears that the topic ban expires 3 months from July 8. Month can either mean what it usually does, and thus, by my watch 14.5 hours from now, or it can mean ninety days. Either way, we're splitting hairs here, but it is not 11 days, its at most one, maybe two.--Tznkai (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, as I read it, it's 3 months from this edit, which is about 22 hours from now (or from the time the block was shortened, which was 1 minute later); however, you should probably be very careful about your edits to that page. There is no need for some "official" lifting - as soon as it expires, you are technically free to edit those pages.

I would also like to point out that the ban wasn't extended - part of it was to be served under a full block, and some was merely a topic ban; Mango reduced the first part without reducing the whole ban, thereby the second part naturally got the difference. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The original topic ban notice suggests that the ban lasts for at least 2 months, but Mangojuice noted it was 3 months from the original date, in which case, the minimum duration of the term (I think) will be served in 2 days time. Now the question is if the community has a problem with the topic ban being lifted or would like it to continue after 9 October 2008? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How can it continue ? a harsh ban was imposed and time served, surely you can`t suggest amending the sentence after the punishment has been issued and served. I am truly staggered by your comments Ncmvovalist. This should not be put to the community --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends on your point of view. From your point of view, it was a punishment. But in reality, such topic bans are to prevent disruption to the pages within a topic. So in reality, it can be put to the community in the form of a question as to whether or not the community is willing to allow you to edit those pages again. Not taking a side here, but there is a fundamental misconception in your post. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don`t see a fundamental flaw, as i was banned and imposed with a topic ban. The Ban was expired/lifted and now the same applies with the topic ban. Which Mango quite clearly stated was a 3month ban. I see your point Fritzpoll may apply in other cases, but i am dealing with hard facts which were clearly stated here [144] --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning that "This should not be put to the community" is that, as a community-driven project, the community have every right to reexamine a topic ban. Consensus can change, after all. As policies of Wikipedia, these too are "hard facts". Again, no opinion either way Fritzpoll (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

After being banned for about 3 weeks and also concurrently serving a 3month ban on ALL Irish related subjects, i think that arguement is flawed. As User Od Mishehu stated, there is no need for an offical lifting, the ban is finished and technically im free to edit. --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, absolutely. But my point was that if the community wants to consider it, or someone wants to put it to them, then they can. Your earlier comment implied that you believed that this was not allowed, and I was pointing out your error. But yes, once the ban is completed in around 2 days, you are free to edit as you like. Caution is advised though. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Anomebot 2

User:The Anomebot2 need stop be stopped temporarily, until this problem is fixed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked; anyone can feel free to unblock once it's resolved. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've found and fixed the bug ("WP:" was incorrectly being detected as an interwiki prefix), and confirmed correct operation using one of the test cases given by the reporter on my talk page; I'm currently running a short test run. Please reblock it if there are any more problems. -- The Anome (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Namespace name change

For those who do not follow the technical Village Pump, please take note of this thread. In short (assuming no major issues arise) in about a week the Image namespace will be renamed to File. All links using the Image: prefix (i.e.: Image:whatever.jpg) will still work fine. This change will effect all Wikimedia projects. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Huge backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Hi there, fellow admins, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a huge backlog the whole day already, I would like to request some more help clearing it (especially those images). TIA SoWhy 15:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On it. Thanks for the notice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

When did our verifiability policies change?

Regarding the article of the recently deceased Johnny "J", there appears to be a dispute regarding verifiable content. Is this diff [145] correct when non-verified content is in dispute? I am fairly certain it is inappropriate but perhaps I need a reality check. RFerreira (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass

I lifted User:Fclass's indefinite block a few weeks ago, in spite of his blatant block evasion and many broken promises, because I thought I saw a spark of helpfulness in his edits. However, he seems to keep sliding back into his old disruptive editing habits, so I have again, unhappily, blocked him indefinitely. Since I've had a kind of stake in this user, I'm putting the block up for review here and will very happily abide by whatever outcome the community sees fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)