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the 3 month block (per his own transcluded comments at the top of the linked page) to wanting it, essentially, rescinded entirely?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)

Maybe subpage it and transclude an active section, otherwise, yea, archive. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 7 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)

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)
    • No matter how justifiable this particular request is, we should expect a substantive presentation in every request for community sanctions. The time it takes to prepare a set of specific diffs etc. is trivial compared to the effort it takes for the requesting administrator to determine that a request is necessary in the first place. We all know that wikilawyers abound: I intend to avoid setting precedents they could manipulate on future occasions. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Often, those presentations are lopsided to begin with, so they're often not very reliable on their own because they don't paint the full picture - in which case, we end up having to find the relevant pages for ourselves. I agree; we should still insist on them painting a picture for every case (more than just saying 'I want him banned' or more than just 'look at this page. do something'). But if uninvolved users have looked at it for themselves, then I'm not sure about the validity of such an oppose. While Fut Perf. did not provide any diffs, there was a substantial description given by more than one user as to the duration of this dispute, and the extent of disruption it is causing, and the sorts of pages that are affected by it. If we genuinely couldn't find anything, then I'd be opposing with you on the grounds that I couldn't see anything to support the need for a sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is a ban really necessary? I note that neither user has been blocked for many months. Can we try blocking rather than banning first? One user has no blocks at all, the other has several, but the most recent early this year. Mangojuice^talk 23:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is a block necessary? No one seems to be looking at the facts surrounding this - for me, it was only about the image. For Supparluca and others, it is pure POV pushing. This, for me, was about the image. For Supparluca it was about manipulating an image I created for his own usage. I make regular contributions - a lot of maps, actually (it may be near 1,000 total maps I've created). So a block would decapitate me from even doing that - as I do geographic sweeps, I find places that need updating or creation. This, for me, is about the image, period. Can anyone NOT see that? Rarelibra (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question and Comment Has any form of mediation been saught? eg. MEDCAB or MEDCOM Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 17:38, 8 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)

[6] 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[7][8][9] and you should really tell the department of defense that[10][11]. 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)

A military regulation on this doesn't affect Wikipedia at all... Federal US law might, if there was a law that said that you couldn't publish photos of damaged US military vehicles, but there is no such law and such photos are released regularly by the military and taken by press and independent people. This is either a hostile troll attempt or someone who is terribly unaware of how the military regulation on what its people can do is inapplicable to what other unrelated people can or can't do. Ignore. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 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)

I've now made the tidying code a little less agressive, so although it will still compress multiple blank lines into one, it will no longer trim whitespace off the ends of lines, which was what was causing the diff tool to see these as paragraph changes. -- The Anome (talk) 22:48, 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

PatPeter (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks^confirmed · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

• 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, [12]? -PatPeter 18:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the full history, as is proper. I also tried to put your last known version back, so I hope that's okay. Change it as you like :) But please - no bigoted, homophobic userboxes this time - Alison ^❤ 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish that this had run longer, because I would have registered a fairly strong oppose. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 4#Category:Cub Wikipedians and Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians against the onychectomy of animals show specific instances of some rather deceitful behavior (depopulating a category and then nominating it for deletion, and adding a userbox to an IP userpage), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224#User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree have more examples more of his disruption. Of course, there is the issue behind his original block (in the block log) and some of the rather disruptive changes he made to the babel categorization process as Sox207 (see a bunch of discussions on his talk page [13]). This unblock was very hasty. Horologium (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cub Wikipedians category had how many articles? Something around two, then compare how long it existed to the point of its deletion. If a long period of time passed then the category had no use. How many IP addresses know how to use userboxes? And with this will you say that IPs do not need to use userboxes? And that they should not be in Wikipedian categories? I think of User:68.39.174.238 as a Wikipedian, and he has userboxes. How did Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224#User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree cause disruption? How did my edits to the Babel system cause disruption? -PatPeter 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm - me, too. I didn't get a chance to reply to Durova above. What I remember most was the rampant homophobia, the continuous userbox wars and the way he'd have an absolute snit if you posted in the wrong 'section' of his talk page. Oh, and the suicide threat that brought in the police *sigh*. I guess we'll see how this works out - Alison ^❤ 20:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Homophobia is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals." I do not fear homosexuals. I do not avoid them. How did my userboxes cause discrimination? "Discrimination against is the prejudicial treatment of a person or a group of people based on certain characteristics" and prejudice means "making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case or event". I would not call them userbox wars either, I simply tried to make a userbox, and someone deleted it, tell me, if I put the userbox: {{User:ChristTrekker/Pro life 5}} on my userpage would you delete it saying "PatPeter does not believe in womans' rights?", which I do, I hate discrimination against sex and race. I did not yell at you if you posted in the wrong section of my talk page. I would simply move your message, maybe tell you how I like my talk page used as. _{Oh and thanks for getting me kicked out of high school.... -PatPeter 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)}

Please do not start this again. I see absolutely nothing has changed - Alison ^❤ 21:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also agree that more discussion would have been nice on this one. Here's to hoping that Coren's abundance of good faith is not misplaced. — Satori Son 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not following up sooner, Alison. I saw the resolved tag and the unblock and hoped there was no need to. Yes, I'm very familiar with PatPeter's history (check his block log). Wondered what new concerns had arisen. In the interim that's explained itself. I hope this works out. Durova^Charge! 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All other concerns aside for the moment, I'd like to point out that this is and has been an extensive sock-puppeteer. One thing that I've seen done in the past is a request for a puppeteer to name all socks before being unblocked. I think that this should also have been done in this case.

And I have to say that I am stunned that the user was unblocked without the unblocking admin attempting to discuss with those who previously blocked the user. (Which I had thought was common practise in such cases.)

And 2 years of being blocked for an equal time of socking all undone due to a few comments posted in less than a day? I'm a big fan of WP:AGF, but this really seems surprising. - jc37 21:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Reblock?

This unblock was made out of process and without consensus and should be undone. Would you unblock Willy on Wheels because he cited AGF and said he was sorry? To be blunt, abusive sockpuppetry and userbox warring is just as bad. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please section link the area of the process you are referring to. -PatPeter 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What seems problematic? Why did I make the sockpuppets to start? If you are truely a fan of WP:AGF, then you would understand why I made socks, to prove that I could contribute, because no one talked to me on my userpage, or when I tried to talk on socks, for example, you ceased responding to me. -PatPeter 21:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you were truly a fan of Wikipedia, you would not have disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. Socking can not be excused just because someone asks it to be. It is an unblock request, not an unblock demand. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And what point was that? That I wanted to be unblocked? Once again my requests were shrugged off. I do not expect immediate forgiveness, I want to prove what I can do for Wikipedia in its mainspace, all the possible edits I saw over the course of those six months. -PatPeter 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your question wasn't addressed to me, but I'm going to answer it. If Willy on Wheels came and demonstrated remorse, yeah, I'd advocate for unblock. I'd watch him closely, and I'd block again if he so much as parted his hair on the wrong side, but I'd unblock him. Good grief, Jimbo has unblocked Daniel Brandt! We're a community that tends towards believing in second chances. - Philippe 22:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PatPeter, can I strongly suggest you step back from this for a minute and modify your approach here? Mainspace is that-a-way, so it might be best to return to editing the encyclopedia, now that you're unblocked. What you're doing here just gives the appearance of being overly aggressive - Alison ^❤ 22:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What Alison said. I believe in second chances for people who sit on the sidelines for half a year, and thank you for that. The second chance also depends on avoiding a repeat of the behavior that caused problems in the first place. This site has millions of articles waiting for improvement. Go show the community we made a good choice in bringing you back. Durova^Charge! 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry I wanted to set everything back up again, after all my userpage consists of primarily red links now. As far as mainspace goes, I make my best edits when browsing and reading Wikipedia, but I fear that jc37 or another user who has talked to me in the past will block me (seeing as I need inspiration [i.e. a typo... or something of the sort] to edit mainspace). Can I trust you all? Can I trust that I can wait to find "inspiration" and not suffer an block in the meantime? -PatPeter 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pat - the problem is that you came back and immediately re-engaged in unfriendly discussion here about the original block reasons. You would be advised to walk away from the topics that got you blocked before. Continuing to reargue them would be disruptive, and if you disrupt after all your prior history, someone will reblock. Unless the request/proposal to reblock gets more support, I recommend not posting on AN. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not want to spur an arguement, nor did I want my discussion to sound unfriendly, but rather friendly. I would walk away from my original block reasons, but does that mean others will walk away from my original block reasons? If I do not post here then someone will inevitably reblock me, not that it matters as I must go to eat dinner with my best friend for his birthday, and therefore will not post here for the remainder of the night and not until the next day. -PatPeter 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I was specifically noted, I suppose I should comment.

First, I've asked others several times about whether you should be unblocked. (Though admittedly part of my reason was that I was rather tired of tracking down your socks.) So even the implication to suggest that I'm "out-to-get-you" or some such nonsense is, well, quite a few things, but I'll settle for "insulting", for now.

Second, if you pick up the habits of the past, such as harrassing other editors, edit warring, POV pushing your personal interpretation of guidelines, suicide threats, meat-puppetry, sock-puppetry, and a slew of other disruptive activity for which you have been blocked repeatedly in the past, yes, I or someone else will indeed likely block you.

And as the others have said, your actions (and tone) so far aren't instilling great confidence.

Personally, one thing that I think would go quite a long way for showing evidence of good faith, would be (as I noted above) for you to list all past sock puppets. - jc37 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And incidentally, I stopped looking for his socks sometime after the last checkuser back in May. (Check my block log.) So, I don't know that we could say 6 months, or even 5 (and perhaps less?). - jc37 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of this unblock, because after reviewing the evidence I believe this user is very disruptive and does not appear to have anything to contribute to the encyclopædia. That said, now that he's been unblocked, it would seem a bit mean-spirited to merely reblock him, lets give him another change (but monitor him closely), and if he gets back up to his old tricks, then he can always be reblocked indef again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

For the record, this unblock was (as are all of my rare unblocks) because the proximate cause the initial block no longer applied (nor did, I point out, the socking which was the reason why the block lasted so long in the first place). Need I remind everyone here that blocks aren't punitive, but preventative? Should problem behavior continue, I'll reblock faster than you can say "userbox". Everyone should be given an opportunity to mend their ways— whether they then choose to squander it is on their heads afterwards. — Coren ^(talk) 12:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While I absolutely agree with you that "Everyone should be given an opportunity to mend their ways," I want to emphasize that "an opportunity" is singular. It appears that one more opportunity had already been squandered in this case. I'm all for second chances – it's the third and fourth ones that give me pause. — Satori Son 17:58, 8 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 ([14]) 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 ([15]) 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 [16]--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 [17] 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 [18] --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)

Dear lord, that's a lot of media files. Gonna' go what a few dozen. lifebaka++ 19:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone pulled together a userspace identifying duplicated images. Category:Disputed non-free images needs some work too. I cleared two days' worth earlier. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help, it still needs much work on those images. I do not want to tackle many at the moment, being a newbie at it and being quite busy at the moment. Regards SoWhy 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Off to do some CSD I8 deletion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:04, 8 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 [19] 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)

Restoring unsourced content to a biography of a living person isn't acceptable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the subject is no longer living, but the dispute over this article is a perfect example of why we have notability criteria in the first place. If a person has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it is not possible to write an encyclopedia article on their life (and death) that meets the non-negotiable policy of WP:V. — Satori Son 18:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The person died less than a week ago, so while I'm not looking to enact WP:BLP in this instance, although it may arguably still apply, my question is really about content that has been challenged as unverifiable. Is it proper to restore said disputed content and fact tag it, or should it be left removed until a valid source can be cited? RFerreira (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe it to be untrue? --NE2 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that it is disputed and I cannot verify it, despite multiple Google searches. It has been my experience in my several years here as a Wikipedia editor that many times false information is inserted into biographical articles, perhaps in good faith, and later caused problems including publicity problems for Jimmy Wales during certain interviews with newscasters. That is certainly something I'm not looking to perpetuate despite whether or not I think something may or may not be true, that's not for me to judge. Any help here? RFerreira (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If it cannot be verified by reliable sources after a good faith attempt to do so, it should be removed. — Satori Son 19:40, 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)

I agree with an indef block of Fclass, after looking through his talk page and his previous blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good call to me. Unfortunate that he didn't take advantage of the opportunity offered. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While I greatly admire Gwen Gale’s patience with this editor, I will repeat what I have said many times: We waste far too much time and energy on this kind of user. And after wasting a half hour myself reviewing the editing behavior of Fclass, I can say with confidence we should move from indef block to site ban. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and it’s time for this person to find a new hobby. — Satori Son 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - I've noticed Fclass in the past few weeks, most recently raising a concern with Gwen about this. I support the block given based on the above. D.M.N. (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block and also agree this user should be considered banned. Mangojuice^talk 23:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the page Mood city as it was created by me by a mistake.

Please delete. The correct site is named Mood (city). Thx UndersavedHassan (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected that page to Mood (city). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves

Assistance is requested to assist in clearing the backlog at WP:RM. Any help is, as always, appreciated. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bong video

I found a public domain video while going through some image categories earlier, and added it here to the appropriate article. Given the subject matter, is there any historical consensus on this sort of thing? Since it's not illegal in all jurisdictions (even in the United States, where Medical_marijuana#United_States is allowed legally in some places) I'm wondering what past precedent with this sort of thing is, for, well, drug videos. rootology (C)(T) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is remove it from the article (it's not really needed there), move it to Commons (as PD), and let them deal with it. Not that I'm condoning passin' the buck on this one, or anything... Anyways, unless anyone's got a better idea, I'd rather not actually touch the issue. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already on commons, but moving it there isn't something for them to deal with, since PD is PD, I'm an admin there. :) I meant as far as usage here, for the points Rod mentioned below. rootology (C)(T) 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As soon as author info's recorded, mark the local version for WP:CSD#I8. Discuss the use on the article's talk page. That should do it. lifebaka++ 01:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the article in which it is displayed clearly says "marijuana, tobacco or other substances", there is no necessary inference that we are depicting a crime. I'd agree that if it's PD, it can go to Commons, where I would argue the same. --Rodhullandemu 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually moved it to commons as soon as I saw it. It was the points that Rod brought up that I was curious about. rootology (C)(T) 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Possession of marijuana is illegal in most of the U.S. but possession of the video isn't. Any legal liability would rest on the the person seen in the video, and only in the event that his local jurisdiction identified him from the video, and decided it is probable cause for a search warrant on his home. This is unlikely as his face is off-camera, so I wouldn't worry about it. That's assuming he's not actually using some non-prohibited smokable substance like tobacco or salvia etc. This couldn't be proven in a court of law anyway, not based on the video. I wouldn't worry about it. — CharlotteWebb 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any use in having it in an article, and there may be long term fallout from outside the 'pedia to having it. I would suggest leaving it out. Dlohcierekim 03:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there may be at least a handful of readers who have never used a bong (and may have difficulty understanding, from the article alone, the physics behind it). I suppose we could instead have a cartoonish looking cannabis user getting stoned in an animated gif. — CharlotteWebb 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents, I'd probably link to it (indirectly) via one of our sister link boxes for commons. "Commons has media related to Bongs.." That way it's available to the reader, but less.. prominent (for a lack of better words). -- Ned Scott 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in "Bundling" at AFD

Would an Admin please check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Accounts Payable Association (esp. my Comment to closer ) as there may be an error in how "Delete ALL"'s may be interpreted. Several AFD bundles seem to have been created all refering to the same bundle of Articles. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's a bit messy. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• I've put a note near the top of each AFD saying that it is for the named article only and is not a bundled AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I know you are a pretty regular AFD Lurker so I'll trust you might keep an eye on the outcomes. Just in case. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 18:58, 8 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) 02:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1RR enquiry

Per User_talk:Boodlesthecat#1RR_restrictions and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive474#Proposed_1RR_restrictions, and per text of WP:3RR (Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material), can we consider the following edits a 1RR violation: revert 1 and 6h later, revert 2. PS. Proof that I am involved in this article and w/ regards to this very content: [20]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that I was the administrator who placed both Piotrus and Boodlesthecat on 1RR restrictions (when reverting one another) pending the outcome of Piotrus's current RfAr. I was asked to review these diff's earlier and was unable to come to a conclusion as to whether a block would be appropriate here. From my understanding you can revert a user quite a few times within a short period as long as the reverts are not related, and that is what appears to have happened on the page in question. But according to WP:3RR, it does not matter if the content they are reverting is the same or not. So, I would really appreciate if another administrator (or two or three) could give some input here. Tiptoety ^talk 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd already blocked Boodlesthecat before noticing this. In my opinion, [21] is a clear revert to [22], and [23] is another one back to [24]. Even though the edits that they're reverting are different, each one counts individually, and also towards establishing a pattern of hostile editing; there's a partial revert here on the fifth, and another one here. This is fundamentally edit warring to the maximum extent that one thinks that one is allowed daily, and it isn't healthy. The intent of a 1RR sanction is to stop hostile behavior, not establish a numerical hoop that must be jumped through every day. We might need a different solution if unconstructive editing practices continue. east718 // talk // email // 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I probably would not have blocked in this situation, if only because I see both of these editors names on this noticeboard and in other places on such a regular basis that I am getting beyond the point of "This one did something wrong now" as a reason to block. But that said, I do see east's block as reasonable. I would urge both of these editors to disengage entirely from each other and stop with the noticeboard posts, they are far to frequent for any good to come. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"if only because I see both of these editors names on this noticeboard and in other places on such a regular basis that I am getting beyond the point of "This one did something wrong now" as a reason to block". Thank you for giving me another example for my essay on "mud sticks" :> In future, when you see an editor "frequently on ANI", do consider that he may not be a wrongdoer, but a victim of constant harassment. Victim blaming is a common occurence, unfortunately.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think my block is reasonable only to the effect that it's a temporary stopgap until we figure out what to do. I don't like blocking established contributors, and have found that 1RR often creates more trouble than it solves - again, the effect with the hoops. A more elegant solution that is equitable to all is required here. east718 // talk // email // 03:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, on the 2 diffs alone, I'd initally come to a conclusion that no block was needed here. The sanction was to stop Piotrus/Boodlesthecat reverting between each others versions, even if they're reinstated through another neutral editor. This was a completely different revision & editor so the sanction didn't apply. However, east718 has established a clear pattern of edit-warring so a block on that basis is certainly reasonable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just observing that Piotrus is an admin and is also on restriction. Fascinating. Bstone (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, Piotrus is the subject of a second ArbCom case at the moment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Amazing, isn't it. Shouldn't admins be expected to set a positive example by their behavior? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, on this occasion, this is about Boodlescat rather than Piotrus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Silly me. I didn't realize that it's acceptable for an admin to recruit edit warriors to do his dirty work for him. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's silly of us to assume, even for a moment, that our admins follow policy and be positive examples to and of the community. Bstone (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's sad of us to assume, in every case apparently, that every action by a WP editor is an act of bad faith. See Malik Shabazz's innuendo in this thread. WP is more about tar and feather than about pen and ink. —PētersV (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To Bstone, a cursory gander at your contributions is quite positive, your cynicism is unbecoming. PētersV (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My cynicism can be easily rectified by making admins accountable for their actions. Quite easy, in fact. But silly me. So, so silly me for expecting anything otherwise. Bstone (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cynicism? How? Bstone has every right to inquire about an administrator's poor actions -- who is the subject of a second ArbCom case of all things. Administrators are accountable to the editors; we cannot be selective on what we enforce and run amok. seicer | talk | contribs 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply on 07:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC) above. Score another one for mud smearing campaign :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be less cynical if Bstone didn't have a long history of yelling "admin abuse" every time something (usually not involving him) comes to one of the AN boards that might involve an admin having done something wrongly [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30][31] and ad nauseam. Black Kite 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

BK, I am actually quite flattered you're keeping tabs on me. However this thread isn't about me, it's about another admin. Bstone (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not keeping tabs on you, those took about five minutes to find. Black Kite 18:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Boody's edit warring was bad enough, but I think that the biggest problem was his rampant incivility: in the past week, accusations of "spreading anti-semitic propaganda", "attempts to make this entry into a vehicle for anti-semitic libels", "bullying threats to vandalize articles that contain referenced material you dont like", clear and direct accusations of vandalism, "Are you committed to manipulating, distorting and twisting every aspect of this encyclopedia?". PS. Malik, I am really disappointed with your actions: I've asked you time and again to moderate Boody; you have failed to do so, and instead complain about those trying to stop his harassment. That's not the way to go... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety's comment above suggests that future 1RR restrictions should be worded in a better way. For instance, if there is a mutual 1RR, neither party should revert more than once a day *in total* on page that the other party has edited in the last 48 hours. Otherwise the reverts may be too hard to count and admin action could lead to disagreements, as in this case. Regarding the general idea of imposing 1RR restrictions, the idea still seems good, since it is a milder option than some of the alternatives. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I agree it might be a good idea to amended the current wording of the revert sanctions, just to make them a bit more clear in the future. I currently do not have the time to contact Boody to see if he would be willing to agree to the wording: "neither party should revert more than once a day *in total* on page that the other party has edited". If someone would not mind doing that? And Piotrus, does that seem reasonable to you? Tiptoety ^talk 18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Implicit in that is assumption of good faith on the part of other editors when they revise (as opposed to revert) on a page. Otherwise we have a case where one or both (or more) sides operate from a blanket assumption of bad faith. I've already been attacked and labeled a Piotrus lackey for a neutral edit that actually preserved a disputed source. —PētersV (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Boody has asked to be unblocked via unblock template twice in the past few hours and been declined twice ([32], [33])... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oversight request

Partially offtopic: could oversight remove this terrible slander? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Radοžda

apparently this page is blocked from bieng created. I would like to write an article about the village of Radοžda in the Republic of Macedonia. Can any one tell why its creation is blocked and please free the article. PMK1 (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Try again. I think I've removed the problematic entries from the title blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored them. The reason Radοžda is blacklisted is because it contains a Greek omicron. Try Radožda instead. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with omicrons? Shouldn't this at least be a redirect? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

remove from blacklist russianfootage.com

please remove from the black list to update stock footage section in wikipedia Stock footage

I was editing the page on Stock footage and included Russian Stock Footage Library link russianfootage.com, This link will contribut wikipedia stck footage page because Russian Footage provides archival motion imagery, stock footage and research services for documentary producers who are willing to license video from state Russian archives, other Russian video libraries. Please help me to unblock the web site russianfootage.com Somehow it is blacklisted now. It deserves to be added to Wikipedia stock footage section here: Stock footage. Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxana s (talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Em? You've never edited that page? Indeed this is the fist edit of this account. Methinks this is not so innocent.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit of WP:AGF wouldn't go amiss. If an attempt is made to insert a blacklisted link, saving of the edit will fail; that would account for not having edited the page in question. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Yes, and the account that's never edited before immediately knows where to find this board and then, with his next edit, 2 minutes later the spam blacklist. I'll see your AGF, and raise you a WP:DUCK.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He might have found the spam blacklist because MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext links right to it.. --Conti|✉ 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah maybe. But this account is entitled "Oxana" previous spammers of this link have had accounts like "user:Oxxxrsdsy" "Oxxxrsds" "Oxxxrs" "Oxxie" "Oxxx" "Oxromss" "Oxyruyyyurq" and so on......quacking yet?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers may wish to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/russianfootage.com for blacklisting information. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Everyone, thanks for paying attention, feels like on a trial, but I do appreciate your work very much, I have personally edited all the mentioned account and my name is Oxana and I run www.russianfootage.com and I think that if we provide information on the stock footage page that will contribute this page , because international producers always while making documentary for Discovery and National Geographic are looking for Russian stock footage and do not know where to refer? Tanks you so much for your help …Don’t you watch documentaries on National Geographic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxana s (talk • contribs) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oxana s, if you would have gone through the trouble of actually reading the warnings that were left on your many, many accounts (this actually is about 4 domains this far!) then you would not have gotten here, and maybe your link could have been used here in an appropriate way.

• tvdata.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• tvdata.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• russianfootage.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• moscowfootage.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

In case you really missed all of those welcome message, remarks, warnings, please review WP:ENC, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:USERNAME, WP:SOCK, and maybe more. The links have been on XLinkbot for some time, but as I think recall saying in my blacklisting remark, 'enough is enough' (no, did not say that, that was for another case; diff). May I suggest others to have a look, at a certain time I caught an edit after the blacklisting where a youtube video was linked, where the youtube link was actually an upload of a movie on one of the four servers (diff). I guess the request to remove from blacklisting is  Declined until you can convince regular editors that your links do have a use here on wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) (adapted Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Speedy closing an RFA?

Sorry, I don't know the precise procedures for speedy closing an RFA per WP:SNOW. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Programmer888, since Programmer888 (talk · contribs) clearly isn't ready. Do we just use {{rfaf}} and {{rfab}} with an edit summary, notify the editor, and call it a day? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Programmer888 has actually been opened (added to WP:RFA), so I don't think there's any need to do something with that particular page. The best thing to do would probably be to message the user on their talk page. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing a user's posts

Should this edit be reverted? It is apparently an IP interfering with a registered user's post to a talk page and changing the signature. But it occured to me that it may be the original user trying to anonymise the comment. What should be done, if anything? SpinningSpark 16:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the IP == that user? Protonk (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be done; a review of their contribs makes it pretty obvious it's the same user, who sometimes edits while logged in, and sometimes edits while logged out. A quick review of their contribs shows a dedicated wikignome with lots of good work and no apparent ulterior motive, so rather than revert, or even raise the issue with them, I'd just leave it alone. --barneca (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith AfD nomination

An editor just nominated Honorific titles in popular music for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music (3rd nomination). The reasoning given is pointy to say the least had verges on bad faith. This is the articles 3rd nomination, infact, I made the original AfD nomination several months ago and here I am supporting the article today. The article has it's problems, I rant about them regularly on the article talk page. However three established editors: myself, User:Rodhullandemu and User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult watchlist and improve the article daily, removing all unsourced, pov info that arrives. There is also regular talk page discussion on what direction to take the article. It's in good hands to say the least. I spoke with Rodhullandemu about the latest nomination, I was tempted to remove the AfD myself, but Rod suggested I brink it to AN. Looking for a speedy resolution to this and hopefully some assistance on stopping these AfD's that pop up every month. — Realist² 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly "every month" if there's only been two previously. If it is so obvious, then there will be a string of speedy keeps and someone will close it soon.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are just "official" AfD's, the crazier ones are removed much quicker. — Realist² 18:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with this AfD is that it hasn't followed the process; as the Admin who closed the previous nomination and an editor who has added content since then, I would rather a fresh pair of eyes looked at this. --Rodhullandemu 18:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Aggressive tendentious edit warrior - community ban/sanction proposal

Problematic conduct

A lot of users are aware of the problems with this user's conduct - I am speaking of G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, inevitably, there will be some who aren't aware, so the following is a sample of context.

Edit-warring

G2bambino's train wreck [block log reveals a lot on its own - one of the worst edit warriers Wikipedia has seen. On his most recent block, he was unblocked on the condition he was on a 1RR restriction. Since, there have still been problems. He violated that restriction twice in the past few days alone from what I've investigated, and he's engaged in a clear pattern of edit warring.

The first occasion: PrinceOfCanada made the following bold edits here. G2bambino then reverted in part over the 3 or so edits here here. PrinceOfCanada then reverts here. G2bambino then violates his restriction and reverts for the 2nd time here. 2 days later, he was reverted by another user here. He then reverted again [34], which was reverted again by PrinceOfCanada [35] with the request it be taken to the talk page.

The second occasion: G2bambino makes an edit for the image change [36]. Another editor makes a revision in between, and G2bambino revertshere. PrinceOfCanada reverts this [37] then G2bambino reverts for the second time in violation of his restriction [38].

Similar edit-warring can be found on other pages.

Problematic edit-summaries

G2bambino has also been using uncivil edit-summaries that could be considered as baiting. [39] Suggestions (in edit-summaries) that warnings or concerns will only be legitimate if others are admins is again unhelpful. [40] Hurling accusations of personal campaigns is again unhelpful. Persistently referring to these image allignments as unsightly in edit summaries were not helpful, [41] [42] [43], nor was hurling accusations of personal campaigns [44]. Then furthering it with assumptions of bad faith/incivility/implied personal attacks that others have problems with their eye-sight is another troubling issue [45].

Tendentious editor

Recently, there was a dispute on an article. If it had gone through an article RFC, the question would have been "Is the term 'personal union' an accurate descriptor of the relationships between the monarchies of the Commonwealth?" G2bambino believed that it was, but multiple reliable sources proved otherwise. PrinceOfCanada repeatedly requested G2bambino to provide sources to support the assertion - 23 requests later (each request and response can be found below), having avoided the question that many times before G2bambino came up with 1 source. Not only is it unreasonable to expect an editor to ask 23 times for a source, but both the manner of responding, as well as the substance of the responses, show clear problems of G2bambino engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, distraction fallacies, tendentious argument etc. and the clear conflict with our content policies of verifiability and NPOV clearly was not a priority for G2bambino.

This was enough for me to consider that G2bambino is a root problem to the ongoing conflict in the area.

The conduct problems of this user seem to have begun very early on User_talk:Gbambino/archive1 and continued to be a problem today. Even more recent implied personal attacks/incivility/strong assumptions of bad faith [46] further lead me to the same conclusion. Not all users are blameless for letting the atmosphere get disgusting [47] [48] - although the latter does seem to illustrate the crux of the dispute to an extent. This diff is also relevant to the dispute [49].

Note: this is just a sample of the problems I found with this user's conduct - there are more diffs I have, but if I were to set them out like the rest today, I will end up with a headache. This has literally taken hours to go through already and that's draining enough for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific sanctions proposals

It is clear that an RFC is not going to help for such long-term problems. Despite multiple violations, the 1RR restrictionis not working, and the edit-warring is clear. This needs to be effectively resolved.

This long term disruption is not just in a certain area/topic, and the user seems to be generally unreformable in terms of his misconduct and tendentious nature. I propose any or all of the following sanctions be enacted on G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by the community:

1) G2bambino is banned from editing Wikipedia. Should G2bambino wish to return to editing Wikipedia, he may appeal to either the community or the Arbitration Committee after 1 year.

2) G2bambino is banned from editing Wikipedia. Should G2bambino wish to return to editing Wikipedia, he may appeal only to the community after 1 year.

3) G2bambino is topic-banned from making edits relating to monarchy, heraldry, royalty and the commonwealth realm, broadly construed. This topic ban includes all articles that fall within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth.

4) G2bambino is subject to a 0RR restriction.

5) G2bambino's is subject to a 1RR restriction. He is limited to one revert per page per month (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. He may be blocked if he exceeds this limit or fails to discuss a content reversion. This includes partial reverts.

6) G2bambino's is subject to a 1RR restriction. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. He may be blocked if he exceeds this limit or fails to discuss a content reversion. This includes partial reverts.

7) G2bambino is subject to a 1RR restriction. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. He may be blocked if he exceeds this limit or fails to discuss a content reversion. This includes partial reverts. He is also subject to a further editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged at User:G2bambino/Community_sanction.

8) G2bambino is limited to editing with a single account.

NOTE: Sanction 1 and 2 are alternatives so only one of them can pass - if sanction 1 passes, it will override sanction 2, or if sanction 1 fails, sanction 2 will override it. Similarly, sanction 4, 5, 6 and 7 are alternatives - only one of them can pass. Please indicate whether you support/oppose each sanction. Eg; "Support 3 and 8 only", "Support All - prefer sanction 2 over 1", "Oppose all", etc. The rationale for #8 is to explicitly prohibit evading these sanctions under other accounts - something that certain tendentious editors have somehow argued as being non-explicit in the past. Further, he's used another account in the past. Hopefully, that sort of gaming of the system will as a result, no longer be an issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Given the nature and extent of disruption caused by this user, I support 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Prefer 4, then 5, then 7 then 6. No preference between 1 and 2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose all options -- Sorry, I know I told you I would be happy to see some improvement in the whole revert wars but I don't believe this is the answer. I really don't think this is all G2bambino's fault, there are at least 3 other people involved in the ongoing revert wars. As a fellow member of WikiProject Commonwealth of Nations I see a lot of G2's wonderful contributions. Should he be banned we would be losing one of the projects most constructive and oldest editors. G2 isn't some common revert warrior, most of the time he has sources backing up his version of the article. G2 is always ready to discuss his changes and is usually not the only person to back up his theory. I myself quite a lot of the time I agree with G2s reverts. Indeed a lot of the time he has to revert POV warriors. Please take all of this into consideration whilst deciding the outcome of this !vote. Best, --Cameron* 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the block log and numerous vios of editing restrictions speak for itself. And as for POV pushing, I think what the discussion at Commonwealth Realms demonstrate is that G2 has been doing just that. I cannot condone such disruptive conduct that has gone unnoticed by the community for so long, and indeed, came to my attention under the most unfortunate of circumstances. The gross misconduct of this user is utterly unacceptable and incompatible with editing at Wikipedia, and it is time that other constructive contributors can be confident that they need not have to pay for it, or will be driven away by this sort of atrocious gaming of the system. Whether one wants to call it tendentious editing, or civil POV pushing, it's the same in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I am not going to vote on this, as there is a clear conflict of interest in me doing so, unless a large number of people want me to. I will of course respond to questions, or requests for clarification. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose all options -- If not for G2, I wouldn't have known the 16 Commonwealth realms were 'equal' to the United Kingdom. I would've continued to believe Elizabeth II reigned over Canada as British monarch (instead of Canadian monarch). GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ho-Chunk mythology

Could someone please look at User talk:Xenocidic#Ho-Chunk mythology and provide me some assistance here? The user seems to want the article returned to it's April stub and claims the material he has written is copyrighted from his website and he wishes to withdraw his contributions. I don't have the time at present to properly deal with this inquiry. –xeno (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally when an editor makes a contribution that's copyrighted to another writer, we treat that as a WP:COPYVIO and revert, block etc as necessary. But when an editor submits their own writing ("You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL") they cannot later withdraw permission. So the question for Mike Godwin et al to answer is, did the author violate their own copyright by posting the text here? If that is possible, their text should be removed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That was the main issue that I was trying to get my head around: especially if the author paraphrased his own work when contributing it. –xeno (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Block review needed

I just noticed this block to NJGW (talk · contribs). User:Elonka is wielding her admin power too frivolously. This block should be immediately retracted because: 1) NJGW was not warned, 2) it was not edit warring, he was trying to keep the peace, 3) others were trying to edit war, 4) they were not all the same reverts. By Elonka's logic, we can't do any editing to these articles. She has appointed herself sheriff of these articles, and I don't think she's doing the right thing by WP:AGF and a whole host of other core principles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW has been warned for 3RR in the past,[50] and also blocked for edit-warring.[51] It is not necessary to issue new warnings each time, especially in such controversial areas as the Pseudoscience-related areas. --Elonka 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Without endorsing OMs summary of the situation, I do agree that this block seems undeserved. Perhaps Elonka will reconsider shortly, and let's try to keep it as undramatic as possible! Verbal chat 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there an Arbcom ruling for these articles? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems Elonka is focusing too much on editors who edit from a neutral point of view on Pseudoscience-related areas. QuackGuru 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This certainly does not look like edit warring, and a warning could have resolved any issues rather than jumping straight to a doubtful block. An early unblock would be a good idea. . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) The relevant ArbCom case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, which empowers uninvolved administrators to take any necessary action to reduce disruption to the project. In this particular case though, the block was not based on discretionary sanctions, but plain old 3RR, which any admin could have done. To provide a bit more context, other editors were warring too, and have been appropriately warned, but no one else (that I could see) passed 3RR yet. Also, some of the battling editors are the same ones who battle at other pseudoscience articles, such as Chiropractic (which was the Topic du Jour today). Though the four reverts were not specifically to the same version of the article, they were mostly related to whether "Chiropractic" should be listed as a pseudoscience or not. --Elonka 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What edit warring, and what other editors? I've been active on this page today and I completely missed it. The removal of the incorrectly placed fact tag is hardly a revert. Verbal chat 20:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I would also encourage an early unblock, as the diffs don't look like an edit war to me - there are a number of changes made to the section in question through the diffs pointed out, and discussion on the talk page as well. The lack of a warning is a big issue to me as well; we should be giving good editors notice before pulling the block trigger. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse unblock. Block was unwarranted. It's a far stretch to claim that all of those edits are reverts, and certainly there was no blocking that needed to be done. HiDrNick! 20:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I would propose: NJGW is unblocked, as a gesture of goodwill. He agrees to refrain from editing pseudoscience for the duration of the block, as a gesture of goodwill. We move on with our lives. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)