Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Jonah Ayers

• Jonah_Ayers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jonah Ayers
• Wikipedia:Account suspensions/Sojambi Pinela (AKA Jonah Ayers)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive40#Biff Rose-related sock puppets

This long time problem user has recently been making attacks by posting private information of other editors, in addition to his usual mayhem of sock puppetry and edit-warring at Biff Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Though the information has been removed, admins SlimVirgin and Dan100 can confirm the attacks). This editor needs to be banned in all of his manifestations. I suppose that will require an ArbCom decision. I'll ask an ArbCom member to do a sockpuppet confirmation. -Willmcw 00:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems very self involved for willmcw to be able to brand all those identities as mine without any real proof. I deny that any of those are my sockpuppets, and will say that I believe somehow willmcw is somehow related to User:Sojombi Pinola who is directly related to the article of note here, on Biff Rose.

i think it is a shame that when an editor has a disagreement with another editor that he can besmirch the other person, this is an administrator of wiki who is basically behving like a fascist using implication to fashion a noose around my neck. I demand retraction. he says I've done so many things, I have not!!! This most recent one is the worst. about the phone number. never!!!Jonah Ayers 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've personally collated a list of 13 different idioms this controller uses to vandalise various aspects of Wikipedia and other works I am involved in. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 21:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• This editor has been using a variety of sockpuppets to vandalize the article Biff Rose, then accusing editors who revert his vandalism of breaking the 3RR. He does not edit in good faith. A simple look at his comment of the Biff Rose talk page wil confirm this. Marcuse 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

no. not true. editing in good faith here. adding images, and readability to an article, even if it differs in subect matter, as long as it is sourced, is not vandalism, but a difference of opinion in stylistic matters. Wiki is a growing spot, and i should not be called vandal when I edit in good faith.Jonah Ayers 23:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian

I range blocked every IP he could possibly use, which is 212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255. We have no one else using any of those IPs. This is just for 48 hours. If it goes ok with no complaints, I'll make it longer. I know. It's drastic. But he just won't give up. We're up to 15-20 IPs he posted from. Just no other way. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the list of IPs G has used and it's not even inclusive. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I note this probably means blocking all of Gibraltar. Now the pages in question are semi-protected is this needed? Morwen - Talk 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If it does it is a little counterproductive. We do need the Gibraltar POV in articles.. Secretlondon 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A locked out Gibraltar user comments:

I have politely explained twice to Woohookitty that the addresses he has blocked are part of a dynamic IP pool allocated to users of Gibtelecom, the largest of two ISP's in Gibraltar. This has been posted to the discussion part of his homepage, he deleted it without comment. He has locked out 2000 Gibraltar users unjustly.

He does not want to listen, and when he says "We have no one else using any of those IPs." he is simply not telling the truth, I normally use part of that IP block and I am certainly NOT the user he objects to.

Woohookitty seems to have a campaign against Gibraltarians as a whole and is unworthy of the privilige of being an administrator - I request that this block is removed quickly and that his status is reviewed.

I have been updating the pages on Gibraltar for some time (see record) - nobody has complained about my actions, and I have tried to deal with the Spanish user who wants to rewrite things his way politely. Woohookitty ignores this.--Gibnews 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what solution do you propose to sort out the Gibraltarian problem? Have you also politely requested Gibraltarian to stop his disruptive behaviour (the real source of this problem)?

And BTW, I don't want to rewrite things my way, just introducing the Spanish POV, something that your compatriot Gibraltarian doesn't seem to even allow. Besides, your concept of being polite with "the Spanish user" is certainly rather strange: downright lies, lunatic [1], feel free to post as much false Spanish propaganda about Gibraltar as you like or I just rather hoped that there was an emerging intelligent generation in Spain who could treat Gibraltarians with respect and as friendly neigbours instead of wishing to engage in cultural genocide [2]. And last but not least, Woohookitty hasn't tried the IP range address (as the last resort) because "he has been upset by Gibraltarian calling him a fascist" (as you state in User talk:Gibnews#December_2005) or because "he have a campaign against Gibraltarians as a whole" but because Gibraltarian has proven that he's not able to work in a place like wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence) --Ecemaml 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm alarmed that no Gibraltarian is now alowed to edit the Gibraltar page- unless he lives outside Gibraltar! While I agree user Gibraltarian has been rash, he's trying to make sure that the Spanish POV isn't dominant on a foreign page. Bearing in mind the hostile attitude some Spaniards have of Gibraltarians, no bad thing. Blocking all Gibraltarians is an over-reaction. I suggest it is lifted immediately, and a fairer way found. As a newcomer to WIKI, far for me to suggest what that is, but I'm sure you have more options than barring an entire country from editing their own pages. Rockeagle 20:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No my friend, I'm afraid you're not totally right. Gibraltarian hasn't been rash, but definitely rude (you can see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence) if you want more info. And no, he isn't preventing the Spanish POV from "being dominant". He's simply attempting to remove it. And in wikipedia there is no "own" or "foreign" articles. There are just articles that, as wikipedia clearly states, everybody may edit. And this is not a forum like those of www.xsorbit3.com, where simply shouting louder or using the most crude insult makes someone "win". There are quite precise rules and guidelines (WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:CITE and WP:V) that Gibraltarian routinely violates on the grounds of the "hostile attitude some Spaniards have of Gibraltarians", which, according to you, it's "no bad thing". That's the real problem. --Ecemaml 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please Rant less, Quote more accurately, and remain on topic--Gibnews 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

being polite. --Ecemaml 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ecemaml, please don't bait me. I was trying to be a dampening influence on some of the comments made here, so was deliberately understating. I'm not saying that Gibraltarian isn't being unreasonable, some of his comments are. However, some Spaniards have a very warped view of Gibraltarians, and Gibraltarians don't much like Spain, so care is needed to make sure it is a NPOV. I think we can agree on that much. Alternatively, we could try two sections: a UK/Gibraltar POV and a Spanish POV. However, I have been working on the History temp page, which I think is comprehensive and neutral, though maybe links to the Dispute page can be put in once we thrash out something for that page. If we can get the History page released, then perhaps we have made a start, and I can then focus on getting the dispute page into language we can both agree on, even if we don't like the points the other raises- because we probably won't. It IS a "dispute" page after all! So, are we going to edit, or just argue? Rockeagle 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm no longer doing anything involving these articles. You guys can revert Gibraltarian's comments yourself. Have fun you all! I did nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing. Not a single admin reverted what I did. Not a one. I don't even speak Spanish. I've never been outside of Wisconsin much less been in Gibraltar. I have no Spanish or Gibraltarian in my blood whatsoever. I've never read either of the articles this is about. But yeah. I have a grudge against people from Gibraltar. yeah. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a hard work to be an administrator. Sure. --Ecemaml 09:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

yes its hard work, and with it must come responsibility. Blocking 95% of Gibraltar users from access is simply unjust. Bad behaviour by one does not justify it by another; Less is more, so all other comments as irrelevent.--Gibnews 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, fortunately Gibnews is here to tell us what is relevant and what is not. --Ecemaml 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion about blocking, not an excuse for a rant and as such it does not affect you, unless you want to silence everyone in Gibraltar.--Gibnews 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with blocking that ip range for 48 hours. Gibraltarian has been constantly using ip addresses to vandalize, and this was meant to put an end to it. To claim that Woohookitty is partial to one side or the other is absolutely unjust—how long have you known him? Have you seen the disputes he works with? He is doing his best to be practical and deal with the situation according to policy. You are allowed to be critical of his actions, but to suggest that he is acting in bad faith is absurd, and I strongly suggest that you apologize. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 17:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking at the board, not the players and stand by my comments. if you have problems with one user thats what needs to be addressed.

I see a problem with an administrator; I also saw "If it goes ok with no complaints, I'll make it longer." The film '48 hours' had several sequels. There have been complaints.--Gibnews 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you complained. So. I didn't do another range block. I saw one complaint in my email. I looked through the discussion board and my email. You complained once, not twice as you claim. If you can find the first complaint, let me know. And you know what? After you complained, I stopped. And I'd also like an apology from you. I want to see this bias I supposedly have against Gibraltar. Look at the entire web through google. Look up either Michael Lindeen or woohookitty. And also look at all 16,000+ of my edits on here and show me my bias against Gibraltar. The real issue here Gibnews is that, as you admitted on your talk page, you basically agree with Gibraltarian. It is you with the bias here, not me. You make a comment that unlike us, you can talk to the ISPs in Gibraltar to get him stopped. Then why haven't you? You haven't because you think G is just and correct in his attacks.

Another thing. Look at this page. It is a list of evidence against G. Notice that the vast majority of it is not from me? I am point this out because on your talk page, you said "It seems that someone called user:Woohookitty has now locked out 95% of the users in Gibraltar as he has been upset by user:Gibraltarian calling him a fascist." Um no. He was originally blocked for the 135 offenses on the evidence page I cited. 135. After he was blocked, he starting using sockpuppets, which is completely against policy. So then I started short range blocks, which didn't stop him. So I did the longer 48 hour one. ANY ADMIN COULD HAVE REVERSED ME. Any admin. Admins get reversed by other admins every day. If what I did was so biased, why didn't others stop me? Because they knew there wasn't much else to try.

And people wonder why I'm ready to leave the project. It's because people like gibnews can make wild accusations with no basis in fact and they get away with it. If he doesn't apologize, there isn't a damn thing I or anyone else can do. I have him accusing me of abusing power when he doesn't know a goddamn thing about me or my work here. I've been here for a year now. I have 16,000 edits. I've been an admin since June. Gibnews, yours is the FIRST complaint against me on this board. Doesn't that tell you something? There's no abusal of power here. I was trying to stop someone who has violated most of our rules from posting. I did the range block for 48 hours. You complained. I stopped. How the hell this has become "Woohookitty is abusing his powers" is really beyond me. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no apology to someone who blocks the entire ADSL pool of Gibraltar wrongly.

You complain of abuse from ONE user of that pool, and slam 2000 IP's used by around 5000 users, including me.

I have told you the implication of a global block yet you ignore the advice.

I have offered to trace the user here in Gibraltar and resolve the problem locally, you do not reply to my email.

Despite which I have traced the user and am dealing with what you claim is a problem you cannot solve without killing everyone.

IF as you allege you have been subjected to repeated emails from the users, you can complain to the ISP or myself and it will be actioned but you do not.

You need to learn that with power comes responsibility and if you can't accept a polite and reasonable complaint against your abuse of authority, its time for you to consider your position.--Gibnews 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh please. Accusing an admin of bias and demanding his adminship is not polite. "I have traced the user and am dealing with what you claim is a problem" is patently absurd. This discussion has degenerated into an exercise in troll feeding and I suggest we end it here, and go work on the encyclopedia. Incidentally, I just blocked five Gibraltarian sockpuppets today... Dmcdevit·t 20:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Amen, Woohoo is one of the finest admins we have, get over yourself Gibnews, sometimes drastic action needs to be taken against determined banned users. The only thought that should come to Woohoo's mind when he considers his position should be absolute satisfaction with his role here. --kizzle 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify something I said before, my decision on whether to stay with the project is not based on just this. It's been a long series of stuff that's got me dissatisifed with the project. Since December 2nd, I've had 163 headings on my talk page. It's just overload. And I'm being told every day that I'm things I'm not. In the last 2 weeks, I've been called power hungry, racist, a censor and everything else. I have a thick skin, but it gets to you after awhile. And then you have this. Gibnews, your first email to me was on the 2nd day of the 48 hour block. You completely avoided my question. Where are these other "warnings" and "complaints". I get up at about 4 am Wikitime. You wrote me the couple of emails you wrote me while I was sleeping. By the time I woke up, the block had expired. You make it sound as though you had been warning me for weeks. it's all just ridiculous. The block is OVER. Has been for 2 days now, as evidenced by Gibraltarian's socks. And "polite"? What do you consider polite. In your very first email to me, you told me that I should take time off and contemplate my role here. On a post on your talk page, you talked about how corrupted by power I was. How the heck is that polite? You don't even know me! You know how many admin things I do a day? 10-15. I do one thing that you consider wrong and suddenly, I'm just an awful, power hungry man. Again, where is this bias? Where are all of these other abuses of power? People make mistakes, gibnews. Anyway, I'm not saying anything else on this. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for a little while now (though less than a year, I admit), and I would like to put down a small observation on this. Woohookitty is a good admin. He has always attemped to be fair in dealing with those who would work contrary to what Wiki stands for; I've never seen Woohookitty act in a rude, condescending or otherwise inappropriate manner here. What we have is a single individual (Gibnews), who has felt apparently slighted and rushed to judgement without any thought to whether or not his accusations or demands were called for. They aren't, of course. Woohookitty did what he felt was neccesary in order to preserve the peace and sanity of everyone who contributes legitimately to the article in question. This is also why Woohoo's actions weren't overturned by higher authorities; because he acted appropriately. Gibnews has already (as was shown in this very thread) asked politely by other users to calm down and to discuss the matter rationally, but he merely seems interested in presenting his own side of things and not listening to what others have to say. It's extremely difficult to deal with an individual like that, because oftentimes rational logic will get thrown out the window in an effort to preserve "his side".

Woohookitty, please don't leave the project. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been remarkable and invaluable. I count you as one of the people that can be relied on to tirelessly, thanklessly work towards bettering the project despite seemingly constant attacks from individuals who don't get their way. I am asking you, please, don't let the small minority win. Don't leave.

Wiki needs you. Daniel Davis 04:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Thank you, much appreciated! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 'people make mistakes' and one hopes they also learn from them. You scorn any assistance from me is solving a problem you have not been able to address. I suggest you wait and see.

There has been a long history of trouble between 'Gibraltarian' and the Spanish, resulting in him being blocked, and I believe the whole Gibraltar IP pool, from editing the Spanish pages, these still contain defamamatory comments. That will be addressed.

In the meantime, as others say you are doing good work, please carry on doing so. I also intend to do just that. Less is more so don't go on about things ad infinitum, there are more serious things to be done.--Gibnews 10:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, you're beginning to resemble Gibraltarian too much, I'm afraid. Yes, the whole Gibraltar IP pool is blocked in es:. It's blocked in a week-period basis. We block for a week and wait for the new vandalizing from Gibraltarian. Last time it took less that a day to see the new vandalizing from him (Vandalizing? Yes, quite similar to what is currently being described in ). And as long as we don't implement the semiprotection feature (it's not automatic and is being voted in es:) the blocking will continue. The other possibility was blocking Gibraltar-related

Gibnews, you're right, the whole Gibraltar IP pool is blocked in es:. It's blocked in a week-by-week basis. We block for a week and wait for the new vandalizing from Gibraltarian. Last time it took less that a day after the expiration of the block to see the new vandalizing from him (Vandalizing? Yes, quite similar to what is currently being described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence. Besides, of course without any explanation, he violates the naming policy agreed on in es: with regard to place names, for example replacing Bahía de Algeciras with Bay of Gibraltar or Puerto Argentino/Stanley with Stanley; he's even funnier when he, not being a native speaker, intends to replace perfectly valid phrasing because he doesn't like it). And as long as we haven't implement the semiprotection feature yet (it's not automatic and is being voted in es:) the blocking will continue. The other possibility was blocking Gibraltar-related articles (and Falkland Islands-related, by the way) and, sorry, but it's not fair to block a set of articles only because of the vandalizing of a proved fanatic individual like this. Unfortunately, the measures that wikipedia may put in place to fight against people like this are quite limited, and administrators have to choose. I'm not keen to get burnout like Woohookitty (my sympathies, by the way) only because of people that doesn't understand wikipedia, people that doesn't love wikipedia as we do, people that come here only to continue with his offensive and rude insults they've got used to in places like xsorbit (you can see his messages there and verify whether he was a troll after or before posting in en:). And take it for sure, there is no possibility of removing such allegedly defamatory contents (I'd still like to know which of the current contents of the articles are "defammatory") for people that behave as Gibraltarian does. As far as I understand, there are only two possibilities with him: blocking the IP range (unfair) and semiprotecting all the articles he targets (more or less fine), but as long as he's publicly stated that he's determined to go on with his behaviour "for ever" I don't know what to do in the long term (semiprotection is not forever). I'd like to know whether there are other possibilities, but it doesn't seem so. --Ecemaml 08:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (administrator in es:)

I'm on extended break as of now. And again. It's not just this. Read my user page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Everybody needs a holiday and a rest from things from time to time; If you are spammed or molested by any Gibraltar users, feel free to email me directly, otherwise I will leave you alone. My complaint here was about blocking Gibraltar not Gibraltarian but you have reverted the heading and really we have said enough on the topic. This is why I drew a line and hoped others would take the hint. No, I don't know you, but there again you don't know me either so perhaps we should start afresh when you are back.--Gibnews 00:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'am a regular watcher of Spain and sometimes Gibraltar as well. I must testify that Gibraltarian is not a type of a user that listens or discusses. The user doesn't respect any policy of Wikipedia. He's been notified many times that the day of his indefinite banning was on the horizons. His actions are not acceptable in this place.

Back to the subject. As long as everybody agrees about the vandalism of the user, the solution to this problem is simply an sprotected tag. Let's go back to work! -- Cheers -- Szvest 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

This is not really the place, but in the article Economía, it describes Gibraltar as a "paraíso fiscal" and then later correctly says the OECD states its not. Its one thing I agree with 'Gibraltarian' on.--Gibnews 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's not the place, but acording to the definition (in Spanish, see the authority on determining what things mean in Spanish here), Gibraltar is a "paraiso fiscal". We're not going to change things because a non-native speaker thinks that it should not be the definition in Spanish. BTW, see the article here on Tax havens. It (correctly, I suppose) lists Gibraltar as a tax haven (the usual translation of "paraíso fiscal"), so... where is the point? --Ecemaml 13:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar is not a 'tax haven' according to the OECD who are the authority. Your article contradicts itself. Your comments about 'non-native speakers' views not counting are revealing.--Gibnews 22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gib! The point is that Gibraltarian acts against the policies. I may agree with him or not but I'd never tolerate their lack of respect of policies. If the problem is about "paraíso fiscal", it would have long been sorted out (as it is done in every article). The problem is beyond that and everybody should abide by the policies, starting w/ WP:NPA. Knowing in advance about the fact that playing with a large range of IP's would cause a disruption for all Gibraltarian users like you and many others and still keeping on playing the same tricks is a clear evidence that the user just don't care. Cheers -- Szvest 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Yes. Sort of human shields. --Ecemaml 13:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, ^{Wiki me up™} as the topic is Gibraltarian and I was discouraged from changing it to the wider issue of blocking Gibraltar IP's which was my actual complaint; I suggest you read the above intransigent exchange from Ecemaml and form your own opinion on why 'Gibraltarian' got frustrated and acted inappropriatly.

This discussion has also confirmed that the majority of Gibraltar users are locked out permenantly from editing the Spanish version of the pages on Gibraltar, and that our views don't count as we are not 'native speakers'. Yet we should also be locked out of editing the pages in English, so the Spanish version of reality can prevail there too. This mirrors the practice that our mobile telephones are blocked totally from operating in one particular country in the world.--Gibnews 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, Gibnews. But you are both distorting things coarsely and unfortunaly not telling the truth. Distorting things because there is nothing against not native speakers. There are plenty of them in es:. But what a non-native speaker may not do is changing the meaning of words in Spanish. If the Real Academia Española (the organism that defines what every word means in Spanish) gives a meaning to "paraíso fiscal" and such definition applies to Gibraltar, it seems weird that a non-native speaker claims that such a definition does not apply (BTW you can try the following searches "paraiso fiscal" +Gibraltar or "tax haven" +Gibraltar. The first search gives 17,000 hits. The second one 64,000. Moreover, if you go here to the article on Tax havens, you'll see that Gibraltar is listed as one of them. I don't see so much belligerence with regard to the article Tax haven. In fact, if you take the listing of the OECD, only three territories are listed as non-cooperative tax havens. And BTW, the presence of Gibraltar in the OECD reports is appropriately described.

And not telling the truth since the claim "the majority of Gibraltar users are locked out permenantly" is plainly wrong. At the moment, and as long as we haven't implemented semiprotection yet, blocking of the Gibraltar range is performed in a periodic basis (and we're forced to renew it once expires since it takes to Gibraltarian less than a day to go on with his vandalism). The problem, as you know, is your compatriot Gibraltarian that, according to their last editions (here) and quite defiantly, "will NEVER give up". We're still waiting for your solutions to the problems caused by him.

And Gibnews, again. I ask you to refrain from labelling people or their edits. Sometimes it seems that as long as you've suffered a lot you should be allowed to behave in the way you want, and that's not the case. The edits by Burgas00 may be right or wrong, but as long as he's a beginner, you could try and assume good faith and therefore, not label his editions as vandalism. It's not definitely polite. --Ecemaml 08:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me concisely respond.

1. Gibraltar is not a 'fiscal paradise' nor a 'tax haven'. The OECD is the body who determine that and your article says correctly they do not list it as such. it is not your call, nor that of a wiki or Google it is THEIR opinion which defines inclusion.

No, you're not right. And not in the specific case of Gibraltar, but in a wide sense. If you look to the ODCE list, you'll see that they define tax havens according to the transparency of their mechanisms and how cooperative they are. According to that, there are only three tax havens in the world! However, the article on tax havens here defines what in English language a tax haven is (regardless of being cooperative or not and not considering the definition of the ODCE). The same happens in es:. The definition of tax haven is applied. And although the precissions on what the ODCE considers a tax haven should be added (as an interesting aside to consider: sort of "legal definition"), they're not the authority to define what a tax haven is or not (by the way, the inclusion on the ODCE is described in the es:Gibraltar article). --Ecemaml 07:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

2. You are blocking my normal IP with a rollover lockout on the .es site. I am not complaining about that currently just observing the fact.

No, you were stating that there is a permanent blocking. There isn't. --Ecemaml 07:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC) PD: BTW, the semiprotection feature will be implemented on January 15th (once the voting ends) so that no need for further blockings will be needed.

3. The edits of Burgas00 amounted to vandalism, however as he had I now believe him to have been naieve rather than malevolent, so there is no further action required. if he persists he should get the treatment awarded to 'Gibraltarian' I have politely described with reasons for deletion in the appropriate place and you agree with me ... unless you really think Gibraltar is 'in Spain' :)

The fact that I think Gibraltar is in Spain or not is irrelevant (in fact, I do think it isn't), but again, the point here is wikipedia and its rules and guidelines. Wikipedia states "assume good faith" and "don't label other people editions". I agree with you that Burgas edition might be unaccurate and even offensive, but the wikipedia way is explaining what's going on (what you actually did), rework the edition by the other side, if necessary, wait and see. Being personally offensive with a newcomer (labelling his edition as "vandalism") is not the wikipedia way. For sure. --Ecemaml 07:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets not labour the point, its resolved and my comments on the discussion page are a model of politeness. Seeing five bad edits rang alarm bells. I'm glad you agree with me on geographical issues. Without wishing to get into that discussion, Brits died to remove the name Puerto Argentina, its not coming back. It should be treated as a historical curiosity and not given equal billing but at least we agree on the name of Gibraltar and that military intervention is not an option.--Gibnews 10:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we agree on the current status of Gibraltar? In spite of what you can think about me, I'm not here to support the Spanish claims. Only to show that they exist. On the other hand, I understand that your mention to Puerto Argentino is related to the discussion that has taken place in es: (other of the usual vandalisms by Gibraltarian). So I'll try to explain it again in order to make it understandable. The first point is that the official toponym of a name is irrelevant in es: (well, in the same way as in any other wikipedia). That way, we have an entry named es:Londres and not London or es:Bruselas and not Bruxelles or es:Islas Malvinas and not es:Islas Falkland. The convention we follow is using the Spanish exonyms when available. From such a point of view, the conventions in es: were clear: the article should be under the title es:Puerto Argentino. However, there were two problems: the Spanish exonym was not "traditional" (it was created during the Falklands War) and it was not unanimous in the whole Spanish-speaking countries (in some countries Stanley was used while in others Puerto Argentino was more popular). That way, it was decided, after a two-week discussion, that the convention used to name Chilean-Argentinean lakes (lakes located in the frontier): using both names with a slash between them (and using an alphabetic order). That way, the name of the article is es:Puerto Argentino/Stanley. However, Gibraltarian, without considering the discussion or explaining anything just removed the agreed name and replaced it with Stanley. Very similar was the replacement of es:Bahía de Algeciras with Bay of Gibraltar, when the name in Spanish is the first one. Are they vandalisms or not? --Ecemaml 16:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that people from Gibraltar are blocked permanently from editing the Spanish wiki. That's not fair at all. However, I am not in a position to intervene on that matter as I am not an admin neither a user in the Spanish wiki. Regarding here, I also can't give a judgement about the editi warring as I am not familiar w/ the political issue. All my intervention is dealing with pesonal attacks and the lack of civility. And according to my experience, I only witnessed that to come only from one user as I explained above. Cheers -- Szvest 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Hi Fayssal. In fact I don't see the personal attacks as the main problem. The main problem is his inability to understand how wikipedia works. See for example this removal. It seems that he tries to manipulate the history to support his political point of view, removing what could be against his positions. What is rather strange is that a) I can't see how such removals support or not his position b) what is removed is appropriately sourced with British sources!!! (two books, the most widely references works on the topic; one of them being allegedly pro-Spanish, the other one by a very ex-Governor of Gibraltar, a militar and professional military historian). That's the real problem, I'm afraid. --Ecemaml 08:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Guys, the size of this particular AN/I is growing beyond limits. Please continue any further discussion to the relevant articles' talk pages. Cheers -- Szvest 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

I say delete it - the dispute is over. --Gibnews 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Marsden Redux

Since the previous discussion has become hopelessly stupid, I am lifting the block on Marsden. If he continues the trolling behavior that got me to put the block up in the first place, I am reinstating it at indefinite. My reasoning in this will be simple - Marsden exhibits behavior that has gotten many people banned before. He exhibits this behavior unrepentantly. He is, in short, more or less certain to get himself banned. Given the choice between a drawn out process that will result in a circus as he rants about the Injustice of it All, or quietly shooting him as the foregone conclusion that it is, I pick the latter.

If and when I reblock Marsden, I invite any admin to undo the block PROVIDED that they can actually give a substantive reason why the block is in error. That is to say, I do not care if it is against procedure - I want to know what's wrong with it. Procedure is not and never has been an end in itself on Wikipedia. But perhaps Marsden will take a lesson from the fact that he is so very close to the edge,and change his behavior - we'll see. Phil Sandifer 16:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Phil, I suspect I speak for not a small number of Wikipedians when I ask, who exactly do you think you are? You seem to imagine that you are some sort of savior for Wikipedia, breaking all the rules in order to ... well, it's not clear exactly what you intend. Why shouldn't someone shoot you rather than me, Phil?

Your comment on unblocking me, Phil ("OK, let's give Marsden a happy 'one last chance' and then see what happens."), belies what I think is a perverted understanding of what Wikipedia is: ultimately, this is a charitable effort, manned by volunteers. "One last chance," Phil? There seems to be a corrupt attitude among a lot of Wikipedians, especially admins (and cerrtainly not just you, Phil), that it is punishment to ban someone from Wikipedia. How long do you think the Red Cross would tolerate a volunteer manager who insisted that some other volunteers were unworthy of stacking sandbags against a rising river? And yet, isn't this pretty much the role you have tried to carve out for yourself at Wikipedia?

Whenever Wikipedia drives away another editor of good faith, that ultimately is a loss for Wikipedia. Sometimes it no doubt is necessary, but to relish doing it, as you seem to do, frankly suggests some significant moral defects.

My participation in Wikipedia became relegated to trying to counter what I see as part of its systemic bias. This wasn't by choice, and anyone who thinks I enjoyed it should take a look at the early work I did make glacially paced changes at the Zionism article, and explain for themselves how anyone could enjoy that.

But in doing this, I encountered an obstruction of reliable methods of inquiry from a couple other editors here: circular objections to changes, and the revert warring that sadly is ultimately what decides what stays in Wikipedia. It was not me, between myself and the group of editors that I have had conflicts with, who first abandoned discussion and reason in deciding what should be in Wikipedia.

But the regime is very strong. I don't know the extent to which different editors are consciously promoting propaganda as opposed to just reflexively attacking any threat to an establishment that they see themselves as a part of, but at this point Wikipedia systemically makes unwelcome (to say the least) anyone who questions certain aspects of the project. That sort of attitude inevitably leads to a spiral descent.

User:Marsden

I smell jasmine in the air...ah, the sweet seductive scent of eternal optimism.  :-) Tomer^talk 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden has been blocked indefinitely by Jimbo. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

With the comment that "Snowspinner was right", but as far as I can see, no other contribution to the debate. Great - doesn't he have better things to do than randomly over-rule community discussions? And more generally, what broader conclusions do we draw if Snowspinner's actions were entirely 100% correct (including failure to notify anyone of an indefinite ban, never mind justify it with anything other than block summary "hopeless troll" and WP:AN remark "Wikipedia does not need trolls with nothing better to do than accuse Jimbo of stacking the arbcom with Zionist Randroids.")? How long before users can be banned permanently by any of 1000+ admins (not there yet, give it time) for being persistently annoying or strongly backing a POV an admin disagrees with? This is a dangerous precedent, IMO. It's a slippery slope when you prioritise ends over means; product (user getting banned for bad behaviour) over process (proving that behaviour was bad enough to deserve it, and that ban has nothing to do with content dispute). Frankly, in circumstances where the user accuses editors of bias, we should be more careful about process not less, for reasons that should be obvious. Rd232 ^talk 00:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Count yourself ahead, rd232. It's Wales' project, and no one has any right to demand anything from it. But now at least you have a better idea of what the deal is. User:Marsden

How long before users can be banned permanently by any of 1000+ admins (not there yet, give it time) for being persistently annoying. Hasten the day. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

First, I am part of the community process, not overruling it, and acting in this instance perfectly in line with our longstanding norms and traditions. Second, I'm quite sympathetic with concerns about slippery slope problems and the importance of process over results.

In this case, in line with longstanding policy, Snowspinner made a block which not one of our hundreds of admins was willing to overturn -- to me, this suggests a very strong consensus that could be formalized with a poll or something but to be honest, why bother?

Indefinite in this case does not mean infinite. If you'd like to start a poll or something as to whether he should be let back in, or start an arbcom case requesting the arbcom to consider letting him back in, I won't stand in the way. But, I think you can guess what the result would be.

There's another slippery slope to worry about, and this is that good people, thoughtful admins who care about quality, are frequently burned out by our excessive tolerance of nutcases. This can lead to a tendency over time toward having increasing tolerance of trolls and increased influence of trolls over policy. A very important counter-measure towards this race to the bottom is for us all to step back now and then and say, right then, this kind of thing is simply not welcome here, end of story. If I had the time to really thoroughly investigate several pending cases, I'd indefinitely block at least 20 more like him tomorrow.--Jimbo Wales 23:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

1. "I am part of the community process, not overruling it" - AFAIK, you didn't contribute to the discussion prior to your action, which was what I was referring to when I said "over-rule community discussions" (not "process"). The result of those discussions was that Snowspinner changed his mind (albeit mostly to get shot of the issue) and gave Marsden one more chance, unblocking him. You then overruled Snowspinner's change of mind with the comment "Snowspinner was right", and no other explanation. Frankly that strikes me as an odd and illadvised thing to do, unless you saw something inappropriate in the single contribution (comment above) Marsden made in the intervening period.
2. "Snowspinner made a block which not one of our hundreds of admins was willing to overturn" is incorrect: after the ban was brought to community attention (a week after it was done), and some discussion, I overturned it in favour of a 1 month block, and after that was reversed another admin overturned it again in the same way. And I recall a comment that a third would have done it if he didn't have Arbitration issues to worry about.
3. "Indefinite in this case does not mean infinite.". Really? Then what is the process by which indefinite is turned into definite? Is appeal to Arbcom really the appropriate means for dealing with all such concerns? (If there's another means, what is it?)
4. If "tolerance of trolls" is a problem we should define banning policy in a way that possible trolls can be warned of behaviour to avoid, and that admins considering such bans can use as a reliable yardstick (or at least a guide). "Trolling" is far too subjective a notion for as large a community as ours to allow individual admins to ban people on the basis of accusations of trolling without any attempt to prove it or to gain second opinion from others to support that judgement. That doesn't require the formality of Arbcom, but it requires some kind of process.
5. Failure of other admins to overturn a ban doesn't constitute process, because (a) we don't know the number of admins we can plausibly expect to notice a ban (even when it's announced properly, which it wasn't in this case) (b) we don't know the number of admins who'll serious consider evaluating the case; (c) the respect admins generally pay to other admins' decisions, mostly for reasons of practical efficiency (we'll generally assume there are aspects of a complex case that aren't obvious, and rely on others' judgement). In other words, the failure of anyone to overturn a ban cannot reasonably be taken as an endorsement: only explicit statements of support can be counted on. Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
6. "If I had the time to really thoroughly investigate several pending cases, I'd indefinitely block at least 20 more like him tomorrow." Which cuts to the heart of the problem: if we had a policy which was well-defined enough to deal with this sort of behaviour consistently, the risk of appearing to arbitrarily exercise these powers would be rather less. Perhaps you could suggest some changes to Wikipedia:banning policy to help clarify these kinds of situation in future. Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Rd232, you distinguish between "process" and "discussion" somewhat disingenuously here, IMHO. Do you seriously expect that every time a user reads something on WP:AN or WP:ANI or anywhere else, for that matter, and agrees with a statement someone makes, that they should clutter up the page and the servers by saying "I agree!"? Do you seriously think that Jimbo doesn't have this page on his watchlist? Categorically, "indefinite...does not mean infinite". Look it up in a dictionary. Jimbo even said that he wouldn't stand in the way of an arbcom case regarding the matter, or even a poll. The argument that an arbcom case has already been brought and rejected out of hand isn't going to hack it in this case, since the arbcom case was horrendously written, accusing a number of parties of being involved in "the dispute" without any indication as to how they're involved. It's even a stretch to say I was involved, yet I'm listed as an involved party. Not only that, but there was never any evidence presented that the supposedly "involved parties" were ever informed of the RfAr. If you value "procedure" so highly, do a decent job of creating an RfAr and maybe your complaints will fall on more fertile ground. As for your claim that the ban was not announced properly, that's just plain wrong. The fact that Marsden's defenders didn't notice the announcement for a week is an indictment against them, not against the process you claim to hold in such high regard. As for your recommendation that Jimbo propose changes to the blocking policy, perhaps you should consider doing so as well, since you seem to feel that the policy there doesn't sufficiently protect Marsden [in this case] from abusive admins. Tomer^talk 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Groan. (I didn't want to rehash this again; and you don't seem to have read my and Jimbo's comments as carefully as you might.) Fine. 1. The distinction between process and discussion arose from Jimbo saying he was part of the community process, missing the point because I'd complained that he'd acted without taking part in the discussion. 2. This (users don't say "I agree!") is precisely my point: absence of evidence of disagreement is not evidence of existence of agreement. But when relying (implicitly or explicitly) on the "community patience" provision of banning policy, it would seem reasonable to require some evidence of agreement. 3. "indefinite...does not mean infinite". - see my point 3 above. 4. As I've said repeatedly, I didn't want an RfAr or anything like that; I just wanted a straight answer, with some evidence, on why Marsden deserved an indefinite block; or, failing that, a revision of the block. 5. The ban was not properly announced (here), because it omitted the rather crucial fact that the ban was indefinite. 6. I would suggest changes to blocking policy, but given the existence of Wikipedia:Controversial blocks, and Jimbo's endorsement of Snowspinner's action, it would seem pointless (or at any rate, low point-to-effort ratio). 7. If you multiply the Marsden case by 1000, allow for ever looser interpretation of policy and increasing number of admins, and you will soon have something resembling the "Wild West". Rd232 ^talk 11:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rd232, you're confusing banning with blocking. Marsden is blocked indefinitely, in accordance with the blocking policy, for disruption and excessive personal attacks. As for your prioritizing process over product, you might want to consider being consistent in that regard, as you yourself recently blocked a user you were involved in a content dispute with, someone who thoroughly deserved the block, but had you been following process, you wouldn't have done it. [3] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confusing blocking with banning. Marsden is banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, which ban is enforced by an indefinite block. Rd232 ^talk 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not "in a content dispute". I came to the page via WP:RFC, made a remark agreeing with the majority, and participated in some discussion in an attempt to clarify the issue. I did not edit the article (except, after the block, to undo the excessive reversion after the user's severe violation of 3RR). Rd232 ^talk 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that (above) you link (via a diff) to your comment on my user talk page, thereby excluding anybody who follows it from directly seeing the reply I'd already made there long before you posted the above comment - and which reply you'd evidently seen because you'd just replied to it. I'll assume that was just an oversight. Rd232 ^talk 12:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that you seem to prioritize process when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. The blocking policy says that we can't block where we're involved in the content dispute. You made a comment on the talk page shortly before the block that directly opposed the position RJII was reverting over, thereby involving yourself in the dispute, so strictly speaking you should not have blocked him, especially when the first admin to deal with the violation had decided not to. That's my only point. I agree that process should not be prioritized over product, I agree that RJII deserved a block, and I personally have no problem with you doing it. I'm only asking for consistency. Just as you're asking people to trust your judgement as an admin regarding RJII (even if strictly speaking the block may have been a violation of the blocking policy), so other admins were asking you to trust their judgement regarding Marsden. We do have to trust each other's judgement, even on occasions where we may not agree with it. If we don't, the result is these very harmful block wars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've explained that I did not consider myself involved in the content dispute. (I've also explained - on my talk page discussion with you - why I took action when another admin didn't: inaction was driving editors away.) Now others may disagree as to whether I was involved or not, but I object to what amounts to an accusation of hypocrisy, that I will preach on process but ignore it myself. As to the block war: yes, that was exceedingly silly, since the discussion was ongoing and there were over two weeks left on the 1 month block I instituted: i.e. no pressing need for anyone to pre-empt ongoing discussion as to what the appropriate length was, and the resulting to-and-fro about indefinite or 1-month blocks. Rd232 ^talk 15:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on my actions and the criticism from some quarters it has gotten, I've decided to open an RFC about my actions. Thanks in advance for any comments. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of God of War

User:God of War was indefinitely blocked by User:Neutrality, who gave "trolling" as the reason. Certainly, some edits of God of War warrant a block, for example [4], but I question whether the block should be indefinite, and I don't see a pattern of warning edits on GoW's talk page leading up to the block. I have raised this on User talk:Neutrality but have not yet received a response.-gadfium 05:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see that Neutrality has unblocked him. Never mind.-gadfium 05:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• In my opinion, this comes close to warranting a {{usernameblock}}. Radiant_>|< 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would we block that and not block Mars (talk · contribs) and Ares (talk · contribs)? Uncle G 00:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • While I agree that a username block is uncalled for, I should note that I've just blocked him for a day for reposting the text of a personal attack template (that's been speedied at at least four names now) several times on Wikipedia:Deletion review. —Cryptic (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think this latest block was justfied, as I've explained on User talk:God of War#Blocked. Friday (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist and Snowspinner blocked for 3RR

I've blocked both Karmafist (talk · contribs) and Snowspinner (talk · contribs) for 1 hour for 3RR violations on the redirect WP:RFC/KM. The 3RR violation is clear and blatant, and I've treated both equally. I'm not trying to take sides, I'm trying to restore an ounce of civility to this nutty situation. -- SCZenz 04:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What links to WP:RFC/KM; only two real pages (Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules and User talk:Jimbo Wales) ink to it. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is a couple of 3RR violations. And incivility and wheel warring out the wazoo—but it's the 3RR violation that's on firm ground. -- SCZenz 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah put my comment in the wrong section sorry, meant to put it upstairs. Anyhow, YOU've now been blocked by Phil, amazingly. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Is there some reason that admins get off 96% easier for 3RR violations? - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think it would be an amazingly good idea if you stayed out of any discussions about Snowspinner for a little while at least, Aaron. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Holy Mike. [5]. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Snowspinner unblocked Karmafist (but not himself), claming that my 3RR block was unjustified. Judging it was inappropriate for him, as involved party, to decide that, I reblocked Karmafist. As a result, Snowspinner blocked me for wheel warring, and User:Sean Black unblocked me. It doesn't seem my effort to shock people into being more civil has improved much. If anyone thinks I acted incorrectly in this, I'd appreciate comments. -- SCZenz 05:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Heck no, keep up the good work. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.--Sean|Black 05:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think you acted inappropriately, simply because it wasn't a revert war, it was a delete/undelete war, which is a different kettle of fish. Possibly still bad, but you shouldn't try to shoehorn it into 3RR policy. I would not have disputed a one hour block on both of us for abject stupidity. :) Phil Sandifer 05:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The history says it was a 3RR block, because you didn't actively delete/undelete. Wheel warring like that deserves a block too, and abject stupidity is a nice bonus, if you want to think about it that way. This behavior cannot be our standard mode of operation—a regular user acting like some admins have been would be blocked a lot longer, and that's not fair. -- SCZenz 05:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd have accepted a wheel warring block too. That's why I found your wheel warring so ironic as to require forceful comment. :) Phil Sandifer 05:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if we're interprating "wheel war" broadly. More like a "wheel scrimmage" :).--Sean|Black 05:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You were involved, so overriding my block of Karmafist was inappropriate. It was your wheel war, not mine. -- SCZenz 05:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR#Detail also says that deleting and restoring are under the auspice of 3RR, so there really is no wiggle room. If someone doesn't block them for the extra 23 hours I'm going cry all over my keyboard. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, admins have the option to choose what to do, and I made my choice. -- SCZenz 05:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist unblocked himself, under the misapprehension that Snowspinner had unblocked himself, so NSLE blocked Karmafist unblocked Snowspinner. I reblocked Snowspinner and Karmafist both for 30 more minutes. -- SCZenz 05:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I unblocked Snowspinner, rather. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've struck through and fixed it above. Thanks for the correction; I was in a hurry. Sorry for overriding your decision, but I think having both users serve their time was fairer. -- SCZenz 05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Crikey! It's hard to sort out who blocked whom in this sort of situation, innit? If only the software could be simplified to give a simple report: "User:X screwed up, block him for 24 hours. Have a nice day." fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm appalled by all of this - the pile-onto Kelly, the opposition to alleviating that pile-on, the wheelwarring on karmafist's part, the wheel warring on SCZenz's part in his blocks, Aaron's apparent determination to step up his hostility in light of his admonishment - everything. This is not an environment in which people committed to what Wikipedia actually is can survive - they are forced to choose between watching the place come down around them, or behaving unacceptably in a desperate attempt to extinguish the forest fire. That's a fool's choice, and I'm done making it.

I'll be back Thursday, maybe. Phil Sandifer 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My God, Phil, actually I'm surprised by your apparent sheer inability to admit any wrongs, and to stop. You've made enough potshots against Aaron, but right now, it's you who blocked the admin that just blocked you, you who is wheel warring on WP:RFC/KM, you who is wheel warring at Template:Help Wikiboxes, you who handed out punitive blocks to two users who disagreed with you, and I don't even know what to say about the SPUI block. This is not to excuse the other wheel warriors, but give me a break... This is quite possibly the lamest flame I've seen here, and you and everyone else who participated in it shame the rest of us admins. Get over yourself. Dmcdevit·t 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? I fucked up. I wheel warred. The problem is that there isn't another option to fix the problems. The problem is that every decision making process through which one could raise a reasoned objection has become clogged with the exact crap I'm objecting to. The only way to oppose it is to wheel war and push on with no regard for the consequences. Which is what I did. That is also, however, reinforcing the fundamental problem. So there's nothing to do. Until the community gets its head out of its ass, there are no right options. Given a choice of only wrong options, I decline to choose. Phil Sandifer 06:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, this sounds like hyperbolic Chicken Little-ing; Wikipedia worked mostly well yesterday, and, barring further wheel wars, will tomorrow. I get it. "The only way to oppose it is to wheel war" is overblown and preposterous. Edit warriors and uncivil people are fond of saying edit warring is the justified to correct POV, or that they don't need to be civil to POV pushers. And we're all fond of telling them that edit warring is never warranted, and that civility is not negotiable. I never thought I'd have to tell an admin that wheel wars are never okay. If there is something so fundamentally wrong with the system (IAR and all) that you cannot act without wheel warring, then perhaps you ought to say that and fix the system before wheel warring. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, Phil! You fucked up. Saying "I fucked up" and following it up with "but I was justified" is not the impression acknowledgement of responsibility that you seem to think it is (and baiting Aaron while you do it is pathetic). Wheel warring is rarely (I really want to say never) justified, and was certainly not justified in this instance. "But I had no choice!" is something we've heard from other people engaging in such tactics, people you may remember: Everyking, Stevertigo ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to me that I'm being very unfair here, not to Snowspinner ... but to Everyking. I've looked into his RfArs, and after a brief skim I can't see anything about wheel warring. I apologise unreservedly to Everyking: I should've done my research. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here are the behind-the-scenes details of my block:

1. Phil is complaining about the userboxes on #wikipedia, and mentions that if someone makes a {{user furry}} he'll go apeshit.
2. I am rather surprised that it doesn't exist yet, seeing that we have Category:Furry Wikipedians, and figure it's better for Phil to go apeshit on me than on some hapless noob who creates it.
3. I create it, and Phil accuses me of disrupting Wikipedia (how?!?) and thus violating WP:POINT. So he blocks.

--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry to see the frustration with the situation has reached this point. I welcome further review of my actions, which I have already tried to explain above; please leave comments here or my talk page. -- SCZenz 06:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't envy you your choice, SCZenz, but I just wanted to say that it's clear to me that you're trying to be reasonable. So whether or not the involved parties see it that way or not, I just want to say: thank you. I, and I'm sure a lot of other users and admins, are glad you took the reins. That way I didn't have to. Nandesuka 06:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with your actions, SCZenz, you tried to diffuse the situation by giving all sides a time-out. Seems very reasonable, at least in my view. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept your actions as good faith use of administrator discretion. I remain dismayed that you contributed to the problems you were trying to solve. Phil Sandifer 06:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you did and I wish you had blocked them longer. This is insanity has to stop, and it looks like neither of them is going to end it themselves. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, you actions were reasonable and supported by policy. With otherwise good faith contributors, there is no need to jump straight to the 24 hour block even for a 3RR violation, the policy says "up to" 24 hours. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The shortest 3rr block I could find in the last 2000 blocks was 12 hours by Woohookitty of LGagnon and Leyasu, both after this all happened, and one by David Levy of ChrisB, also for 12 hours. Can we at least be _honest_ about the double standard? - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This 3RR block is shorter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Users in good standing are naturally subject to shorter blocks than well-known troublemakers and (sadly) newbies and unknown editors. There's nothing wrong with being more lenient to admins, who as a general rule (there are exceptions) have a looong history of good behaviour and trustworthiness. The issue becomes when one decides that an admin has used up his supply of goodwill, and I'm not certain we're particularly good at judging that. When admins do meet up with the Cluestick of Fate, they seem unreasonably surprised, and that's surely an indicator that something's wrong. Speaking of things that are wrong ... uhhh ... shutupshutupshutupshutup ... what are you still doing here? Get on IRC and get off Snowspinner's back! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we ought to not use the full 24 hour block for 3RR violations unless it is a repeated violation. The main idea behind the 3RR is to stop people from edit warring, not to punish them for doing so. That is why we don't block people for 3RR violations which are a week old. If a one hour block is sufficient to stop the user from edit warring so that s/he can return to make good edits to other articles after the block has expired isn't that better than imposing the full 24 hours? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

a 24 hour block basicaly forces the editor to sleep before they continue editing.Geni 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(this might not be the best place for this) I started really adding to WP a little bit back (about a month). I thought I could really add to something to WP, by editing, getting experience - I was aspiring to be an admin to really help make this an encylopedia to is useful to me and others. But see what has happened (to KM, above) and seeing that even admins act like immature brats as well has made me totally disheartened and I think that the situation is now getting to the stage where it is driving editors away from WP. This is getting rediculous. (will I get blocked for this?) novacatz 10:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• ScZenz was absolutely in the right here, If I were him, I would have done the exact same thing.
• Since nobody was responding on AN/3RR, I had to IAR and stop Snowspinner's premature IARing since there was no policies or guidelines backing his actions.(all of this could have been easily avoided if Snowspinner went to WP:RFD instead of feeling that he was above doing so like everyone else)
• Novacatz has gotten it right, and I think the comment he says at the end says it all. Right now certain people at the top echelons believe that they're above anything and can destroy users acting in good faith at their whim. If this continues, you will have a never ending series of things such as what happened last night or a never ending series of people leaving because they feel as though their voice will just be ignored. I've seen two people this week, and several more on the verge(when Redwolf24 is almost there, you know it's gotten bad)
• I didn't particularly want to do what I did, but I'll act similiarly if I have to. And at this point, it looks like I probably will unless the community at large says to people like Snowspinner and Kelly Martin and even me that acting unilaterally is not necessary and will be stopped. karmafist 13:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner and Karmafist have both acknowledged that they broke process and 'acted unilaterally', but have stated that this was necessary for the good of Wikipedia. No. Not breaking process is what is necessary for the good of Wikipedia. How can anyone see that it is wrong and harmful for <person A> to go outside process, but not for them to do so? Wikipedia operates on consensus. This shouldn't be a new concept. Someone does something you don't agree with you go through the process... think those userboxes are harmful? Nominate some on TfD, start an RfC on whether they should be deleted, and/or talk to Jimbo about it. Wikipedia will not collapse and die if those userboxes stay around a few more days. Don't like a shortcut to an RfC on the mass userbox deletion? Put it on RfD... Wikipedia will not collapse and die if that redirect stays around a few days. Don't like the summary deletion of the shortcut? Put it on DRV... Wikipedia will not collapse and die if that redirect is missing for a few days. The fact that someone else violated process or policy (CIV/NPA come to mind) is the worst possible reason to do so yourself. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Putting your own viewpoint of what is good for Wikipedia over the will of everyone else is 'killing Wikipedia to save it'. Consensus is the cornerstone of everything we do here. Putting oneself above that consensual process is always wrong... even if you are completely correct in your views of 'what is best'. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

CBD, you could have easily stopped things last night rather than getting up on your pulpit here, once again. Snowspinner would have likely reverted on DRV, RFD or elsewhere in this case since he feels justified to do whatever he wants, something you've said about me. Our world slowly is going blind, and that's not going to stop until fullscale reforms of all policies and guidelines occur. Until then, eyes will be continually taken for eyes, as you quoted above. karmafist 15:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So it's 100% Snowspinner's fault and 0% your fault? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 16:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Karmafist, I spent last night experimenting with the complexities of WeebleCode vs hiddenStructures and inventing what I think may be a radical new way of performing content variation (or a way to give all the devs coronaries... the jury's still out). I couldn't have 'stopped' last night 'cuz I wasn't part of the bickering last night. I provided some examples when requested and disagreed with the view that calling something 'moronic' wasn't a personal attack, but I was pulpit free. Yup, today we've got a pulpit. It needed to be said... even if you didn't hear it. Maybe we're taking out 'ears' too. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

This mess has stemmed from the actions of two people, yet seems to be dragging a whole lot more folks into it, as well as the image of admins in general. Overall, the issue that has been argued over is, as usual in these circumstances, a tiny one. We know that Karma and Phil both violated 3RR, and wheel warred into the blue with themselves and others. Blocking again is just going to cause more problems, and is ultimately futile anyway (though ScZenz was right in his actions). So, Karma and Phil should both volunteer a total 24 hour wikibreak - no blocking or unblocking or reverting, just step back for a day, take a nap, get a bite to eat... the differences between the involved parties seem too large for them to drop it, but they should at least try to chill a bit when they come back. Anyone else involved should leave them alone, too, if they aggree. If they aggree, January 4, 0:00 UTC to January 4, 23:59 UTC seems reasonable to me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

While neither Phil nor Karma have responded to my proposal, Phil has left a note on his page saying he'll be back on Thursday. They have both ceased activity at about 5:00 UTCish, though that could have been each user going to bed... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Jeffrey, if I leave now, there might not be a Wikipedia to come back to. I won't stop until I can feel secure in the fact that there will be no more comments like the ones at this edit.[6]

I feel more than justified to do whatever it takes to stop those who feel justified to do whatever they want, at least until we can finally get a stable rule of law on Wikipedia that isn't some vague set of project pages that don't contradict each other and are decided on some talk page somewhere. And trust me, i'd like nothing more get the rule of law followed by all on Wikipedia so I don't have to deal with all this anymore. karmafist 12:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an experiment in bureaucracy. Perhaps you need to find a new hobby, karmafist. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on the capriciousness with which new rules ephemerally appear and disappear to suit the conveniences of some, you could have fooled me. Nandesuka 13:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy either, but you missed that part apparently. I'd also suggest to you to get a new hobby, but apparently trying to silence those you disagree with is an enjoyable enough hobby.karmafist 07:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle

Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs) I'd appreciate input from other admins about this user. S/he's been here for just over two weeks, seems to make very few useful edits, and spends most of her time causing problems and insulting people. She has 500 article edits (most of which I guess are reverts), but 1,633 on talk, project, and template pages. [7] I get e-mails every couple of days from editors she's offended wondering how long they have to put up with it. She's been warned many times and blocked 10 times, but nothing makes any difference. I asked her to stop again today, [8] but her response was to change the header of my post, [9] delete my second post, [10] then alter my first one. [11]

As this is an encyclopedia, I'm wondering what the benefit to Wikipedia is of her presence, and I'd like to know whether anyone agrees that the account should be blocked. Or if I'm wrong and she is in fact contributing constructively in some non-obvious way, I'd appreciate hearing about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My experience with this user is limited, but I do have some, and it hasn't been positive. She was extraordinarly rude and disruptive at Zatanna over a fairly minor issue. I believe, if I'm remembering correctly, that I also blocked her there for violating 3RR. While blocked for 3RR several anons began to show up to continue reverting. The article remains protected, in part because she (and other users) cannot agree on this continuing problem. You may also be interested to inspect this diff [12], the results of a sock check suggesting that Miss Selina Kyle may be User:Chaosfeary. (I note that she left a message on Chaosfeary's userpage as well [13]). · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

However, the last block of User:Mistress Selina Kyle, by Kelly Martin, may have been a bit of a stretch. See User talk:Kelly_Martin#Chat transcript for why the block was done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes - (s)he should send karmafist a thank-you letter for cleaning up after her/him. Anyway, I do agree that if it continues kyle should be blocked - but lets take it in increments please...Start with a day, then a week, etc.. Simply outright banning looks bad - and that's the last thing that is needed at the moment. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've been watching this user quite closely. She is an unrepentent edit warrior on multiple pages. She has an uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia's politics for being here just two weeks. She's been attacking and disparaging multiple users. Blocks of ever-increasing length is a good strategy, until/unless someone can confirm whether she's a reincarnated banned user. -- Netoholic @ 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon comparison, I am absolutely convinced that this user is a reincarnation of User:Chaosfeary. -- Netoholic @ 19:40, 3 January 2006

Hmm, you have a point there. Started contributing just after Chaosfeary stopped, too. User:Chaosfeary wasn't permanently banned, I thought? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced they are one-in-the same based on some specific editing quirks of both users. Chaosfeary was getting blocked progressively more often and longer. In fact, SlimVirgin mentioned a permanent block, right before Chaosfeary's last edit on Dec. 9th. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of her other contributions... but see this revision of {{User antimonarchist}}. There were at least two others like this that I saw. Given the timing of her block, I also strongly suspect it was her behind User:N000 (see its deleted revisions, if you don't mind waiting a long time for it to render), User:Saveus, and the other two IPs I blocked on the 1st in relation to this whole mess. —Cryptic (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am 100% convinced she is a reincarnation of SOME long-time user, banned or not - nobody truly new leaps into Wikipedia and instantly starts MULTIPLE wars on known contentious subjects and knows how Wikipedia works like that. I haven't seen any credible theory on who she might be a reincarnation of, however. The sockpuppetry allegation should be checked out, that's for sure. I would support blocks for excessively warring behaviour; we are here to produce an encyclopedia, not to argue as a goal in itself. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but just a brief note to confirm that MSK, in my experience, has contributed only hatred and disruption. Zora 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I met MSK when she was replacing pics of Jimbo with those of a video-game megamaniacal warlord and I was doing vandalism patrol. After a few 'pleasant' comments on my appearance in the photo on my userpage I made a joke, she felt bad, and we have since gotten on fine. She is a handful to be sure, but does make some constructive contributions to the article space from time to time. My favorite editor? No. (that'd be me of course)... but not beyond hope or redemption. Guide upwards... not crush downwards. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Mr Data (talk · contribs), a new account that turned up to revert to MSK's version at Aisha just after she was blocked for 3RR, and another one on the same day, forget the name, both of which she claimed were friends. CBD, can you direct me to any constructive contributions she has made? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A user with the name "Mr Data" screams "I'm randomly looking around my computer desk for a new name to use". Mr Data is a company that makes cheap recordable optical media. --Kiand 00:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[14], [15], [16], Macro virus, Macro_virus_(biology)

Likewise to CBD here. I think she's her own worst enemy, and far too vitriolic when facing those who disagree with her, but not a bad faith editor. I've let me know that she's just making it worse for herself, I will only intervene again if she's blocked by someone she's having a dispute with or she needs a friend. These are trying times for all Wikipedians. karmafist 20:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. El_C 20:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Willy on wheels seems to hate me, surely I can't be that bad? more than 10 impersonators, wow.. -_-

1. 18:03, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Ky1e (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
2. 18:01, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress-Selina-Kyle (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
3. 18:00, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Discuss my sockpuppets (mistress selina (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
4. 17:59, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle creating a sockpupp (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
5. 17:54, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle - Wikipedia prostit (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
6. 17:53, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle = ME = THE WIKIPEDI (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
7. 17:51, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle personally attacks (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
8. 17:50, 30 December 2005, Antandrus blocked Mistress Selina Kyle hates Pigsonthewing (infinite) (contribs) (abusive sock)
9. 17:50, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle hates Pigsonthewing (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
10. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's second sockpuppet (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
11. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's Sockpuppet for va (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
12. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Antandrus blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's second sockpuppet (infinite) (contribs) (sock for personal attacks)
13. 17:20, 30 December 2005, FireFox blocked Aspergersgeek9 (infinite) (contribs) (WoW)

um anyway joking aside I'm not a vandal or whatever and I'm definitely no-one's sockpuppet: And those other people (Mr Data, CSB and N00000) are NOT me: I bet SlimVirgin never even checked first - *They were* internet friends though, but in getting people to help me I was just doing the same as what Yuber was doing at the time: going round to other editors and getting them to revert for him:

(example, Farhansher, who immediately afterwards went on every Islam-related article and reverted back to Yuber's POV version) - I was just trying to help stop the rampant POV-pushing going on

One example

• Labelling the Pro-Islam source "evidence" while the other is a "claim" is wrong: they're both claims as I tried to point out, I talked to Svest (talk · contribs) and he was ok with it after I explained in more detail on his talk page and pointed Yuber towards that but he wasn't interested and carried on revert-warring
• And it's true that there's no way someone could end puberty at 9. I mean come on, that's a relevant observation: It's a sick joke to say someone at 9 is post-pubescent.

See Lina Medina and think again. alteripse 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• The labelling of one view/opinion as "traditionalism" is wrong, it's just another side of the story: The fact is there's no proof on either side and that's something that's accepted, which is why there's two sections (proof for, proof against etc) in the article already -_-

Some of the edits by Yuber are just blatant censorship and SlimVirgin supports him all the way: Anyone accused of being a "sockpuppet" against him is banned immediately, while anonymous IPs with no contributions tend to appear out of nowhere and revert for him and no action is taken at all

What you say is demonstrably false. I submitted evidence in a fairly recent arbcom case against Yuber, and have taken recent admin action against him. But I will support him when he's being unfairly attacked and possibly stalked, as seems to be the case here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

She really seems to have something against me, probably because I tend to oppose her blatant nepotism and cliqueism (as I have said before). Recently she decided she'd paste on my talk page a link to Irishpunktom (one of her editing friends) insulting me on another article's (Islamofascism (term)) talk page and then complains when I change it, that's what's triggered this off she seems to REALLY want the last word.

Netoholic (talk · contribs)'s not neutral in this at all, he'd love to get me banned not because he's "convinced" I'm a sockpuppet but because I opposed some of his editing on articles like Eminem: He's said before he'd like to get me banned, he's pretty vindictive. After daring to change "his" infobox celebrity (to try and make the image work better, it was resizing ALL images even small ones to be a certain size so messing things up and making them look distorted) he stalked me onto Eminem and reverted me several times and reported me for 3RR on that and then later on Latex, an article he's never even edited —the preceding unsigned comment is by Mistress Selina Kyle (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 January 2006

I've never edited Latex, but I did notice it in your contribs while checking other things. -- Netoholic @ 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try and deal with this in a way which doesn't go into personal attacks. She's still trying to 'find her feet' here, as the metaphor goes. --Sunfazer 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, she's a new user and she does make valuable and valid contributions, so perhaps we should take it easy on her. If she violates WP:NPA, she should be warned with the {{npa}}...{{npa4}} templates and blocked if necessary. But no permanent blocks. - ulayiti (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to start implementing blocks of increasing length for disruption and personal attacks. Karmafist, you said or implied MSK had made some useful edits. Does anyone have any diffs? I'd like to give MSK the benefit of any doubt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to start pasting my contributions onto the administrator's noticeboard because you think I "may not have made enough useful edits" ..That doesn't belong here, and there's definitely no rules about "not making enough edits" - it looks more than anything that you're clutching at straws trying to imply I'm a ""bad editor" --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(Not an admin) I'd just like to point out that some people may have contributed anonymously long before bothering to get an account and log in; their real list of contributions may be more than what is on their user constributions page. Also, some users do not bother to log in unless commenting to a talk page. This may also explain the familiarity of a "new user" with WP. - Synapse 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As Karmafist seems to be MSK's main supporter, I've left him a note asking that we keep in touch regarding how best to proceed. [17] Hopefully, that way we'll avoid wheel wars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is obviously a personal one with me and the fact I don't like how some of your friends act, this shouldn't even be here --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal issues whatsoever with you, and hope you're able to turn into a constructive editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I already am. Your definition of "constructive" seems to mean nothing more than "let my friends walk all over you and revert war all they want" though: This is what's been going on recently. If anyone's "stalking" anyone it's Yuber and Farnhansher doing it to me. For example how Yuber tells him to go around reverting every edit I make all the time on articles he's interested in back to his own personal POV which often include unsourced personal opinions, original research and clear bias: For example like in Aisha how he was venhement in labelling the one saying about that Aisha may have been older as "evidence" and the others as "claims" and reverting when I tried to change this to say both as claims (NPOV): He does this kind of stuff all the time and when he needs help in revert wars he goes to you and you help him: You block my friends claiming they're sockpuppets with no evidence, yet his group of reverting anonymous IPs (with just as much evidence, often with no other contributions than reverting) that appear occasionally when needed are ignored out of hand --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you'd try to defend your editing and revert warring at Aisha with your unsourced, original research e.g. that "post-pubescence at nine ... is unheard of in medical terms ..." [18] and while I've no doubt you have a point (though I think you may be wrong), you need a source for the edit, because your name is not Professor of Gynaecology Mistress Selina Kyle, and the editors who reverted you on the grounds of WP:NOR were right to do so. Your sole purpose in making the edit was to underline that Muhammad, believed to be a prophet by Muslims, was a nasty old pedophile, which shows a lack of knowledge about male-female, male-male, and possibly female-female, sexual relations during that period. If you want to be a Wikipedian, you have to edit and interact within our policies and do at least a modicum of research. If you're not prepared to do this, you ought to leave, though I hope you'll choose the former course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, I was trying to get rid of the POV and disregarding out of hand any evidence that points towards the view that shows otherwise. You don't seem to know the meaning of "assume good faith" that you supposedly hold "highest of all" (quote from your user page) and seem to want to stifle any criticism of anything to do with religion, especially Islam

And offtopic: I do know that it was considered "acceptable" back then for such things but that's nothing to do with it at all: just because middle-aged men having sex with nine year old girls was considered "acceptable" back then doesn't mean it isn't still sick: We know better than to allow people to abuse children now, even if you get certain weirdos occasionally wanting to return to the "good old days" of being allowed to marry and have sex with kindergarten kids. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I read through this all, Selina, the point does not seem to be as much about what opinions you have, but rather about the way you seem to be expressing them. Revert wars, fights with other users, incivil behavior, all must stop. You seem to be accumulating blocks regularly, and that usually has no good consequences. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK -- there is an odd combination of unwarranted hostility toward me (calling me an Islamist and so forth) and an unwillingness to engage with me in discussion, even benign discussion. (For example, my query to you about your vote on the deletion measure for Fascism (United States). This combination of instant hostility and strained silence is strange, since you and I have never had any disputes before. BYT 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK -- I don't care if the user is an incarnation or a mirror of some or a few ex and present users but the behaviour of MSK is to be changed. Seriously!. They have been asked gently many times to refrain from using the ists when interacting with fellow wikipedians. I was one of the first users who noticed the hotty behaviour of the user being curious about about the userbox admin that they posted for fun on their userpage the first day!. I was assuming good faith believing they are really newbies! A few weeks later, still assuming good faith but this time believing I was totally wrong!

One more issue. I am not a fun of festivals of userboxes (I got enough though) but i saw the user creating havoc and anarchy in the community re the issue, which i personally consider it is not the first thing we need here. We need good editors, editing and avoiding useless controversy. I mean, seriously, we have some weird userboxes (i avoid to name them wikiboxes to not participate in their spread and be accused of conspiracy) and see that as a sign of individuality in wikipedia that i am against.

MSK, appart from the non respect of policies (being blocked more than enough) and the amount of conflicts they have had with tens of wikipedians, including myself in the case of Aisha and its relative discussion. This is something serious as it is the problem touches the community and one can never make life horrible for many. We spend more time arguing and witnessing incidents and infrigements (like here) than we do contributing. We got work to do and I can't accept contributing more to this board than to the main reason we all came here for. Cheers -- Szvest 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Just noting here that I've blocked MSK for 12 hours for this edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Projects/Vesa

A user who has been causing general trouble User:Projects/User:Vesa has came out with the following after I reverted his userpage's sock puppet notices: Listen up ahole, the sucket puppet, i dont care where you place it or where you connect to me, that it's me and 10 other people, whatever... I wrote my bio about me and I have the right to blank it, if you continue doing this, I will blank your page from 10 different IP's I have access to and you will have to block all IP's for the rest of your life. Am I blanking your page ahole? Get a life and grow up, you deserve these words! The user has also been constantly trying to recreate the article Rocky Day and putting the same info on the talk page. (Among a list of other things - look at the contributions Special:Contributions/projects Special:Contributions/Vesa. Can anything be done about him?-localzuk 20:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gildyshow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vesa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Projects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As I previously posted on this page, I have collected aboundant evidence about this user which implies he should be blocked not only for sock puppetry, but for several other violations of wikipedia guidelines. Nobody cared :-D And, there's this third discussion about same guy: [19]. Anyway, it's about time somebody does something. Now I'm really sad I rejected that admin nomination, could have blocked him 5 times already. :-) --Dijxtra 23:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted several talk pages of previously deleted articles where User:Projects had called an admin an 'idiot' and posted personal links. After warnings, I blocked him for disruption, trolling and attacks (24hrs). I have since received a series of abusive uncivil threatening e-mails. I have well enough to justify a perma-ban, but as he'll just use socks, it may be better just to watch him. --Doc ^ask? 23:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Watch and revert is the way to go. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I surveyed wikipedia policy (I'm peacefull and calm person and only thing I really can't stand is ad hominem attack, so he made me do some reading) and discovered that for the list of things he did you can get permanent ban and deletion of future accounts on sight. If you inspect the way this users interacts with other editors, I'm pretty sure you'll to come to conclusion that good faith (in which I always tend to act, not only on wikipedia but IRL too) just won't work with this guy. But, of course, not my desicion to make, just my 2 cents. --Dijxtra 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

After 24 hours block on User:Projects by User:Doc glasgow expired, he imediately made personal attack on me. Now I'm asking any more expirienced users that might be watching this discussion: is there any other step I can take now except for presenting the case before ArbCom? I don't want to rush into the request for arbitration unsure if I "explored other avenues I could take". So, is there any other avenue to stop this guy from making personal attacks on me other than ArbCom? --Dijxtra 20:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I request User:Dijxtra2 to be blocked, as it is obvious this acount is yet another sok puppet of the same person, and is stealing my identity. --Dijxtra 21:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I officially abandon this case. I contemplated about this situation and came to conclusion my actions are only worsening the situation and that I'm feeding the troll. I requested my user page to be protected, and I'm not going to do any more reverts of this users actions as he seems to think I'm terrorising him for some wierd reasons (calling me a nazi, d'oh). I made my point, administrators are aware of this guy now. If somebody decides to put this guy before the ArbCom, I'd be more than thrilled to write a statement and do some digging on his contributions (apart from that alreadly supplied). Now I'll go do some usefull stuff. Cheerz, Dijxtra 10:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Invalidly "licensed" image

This image [20] was uploaded about a year ago, identified as a "private photo," and supposedly GFDL-licensed by an editor who did not have any rights in the image to license. None of the standard IFD processes appear to apply in this case. The image is plainly not a "private photo"; it is clearly a video capture/screenshot (note the characteristic distortion at the bottom of the picture). The image is drawn from a commercial bootleg video, and therefore cannot be validly licensed for Wikipedia use. What action is required to delete the image, which is currently available, quite inappropriately, on Wikipedia Commons? Monicasdude 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it could possibly be "fair use" in an article about that particular bootleg video. Regardless, I notice that User:JDG is the uploader. Does that user claim to be the author of the video (which it clearly is from)? If not, it needs deleting both here and at Commons. We need reliable authorship / copyright-holder information for all of our infringing material. Jkelly 06:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The image was tagged GFDL by User:Mailer diablo, not by the uploader. Jkelly 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The screenshot was not even created by the uploader; it was pulled from a moderately well-known Dylan fansite which doens't require copyright clearance, and wasn't even original to that site. [21] [22] It showed up on Wikipedia shortly after the "picture gallery" went live; the underlying video had been circulating for several years before that, going from VHS to VCD to DVD. Monicasdude 14:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This image very obviously falls under fair use. It was not "pulled from a moderately well-known Dylan fansite". It was sent to me by an acquaintance in 1998. Other uses he may have made of it don't concern me or Wikipedia. Whether it is a photo or a still from a video is also irrelevant. The law is quite clear about fair use of images of public figures (as Dylan assuredly is) and there is no problem with its inclusion here. Jkelly, I suggest you take your cue from the history of similar fair use images that exist by the hundreds in Wikipedia and have attracted zero litigation. JDG 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:JDG, thank you for responding. The issue, unfortunately, isn't entirely settled. The most important problem is that User:Mailer diablo has asserted rights to the image that they do not have by tagging it GFDL, which means that copyright-infringing material is now at Commons. I will tag it for deletion there. Further, please review Wikipedia:Fair use. Simply because Bob Dylan is a public figure and appears in the image does not automatically make it fair use in our article about Bob Dylan. Finally I cannot bring myself to agree that inaccuracy in labelling images (as a private photo vs. a bootleg video screen capture) is "irrelevant" -- it is quite important to creating fair use rationales. If our conversation has inspired you to help out in keeping Wikipedia free of copyright-infringing material, please feel free to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. Thanks. Jkelly 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If GFDL is inappropriate then our grounds-for-use should be changed to "fair use" and the image retained at Commons. This argument regarding images of public figures has been had many times over and the consensus has been to retain the images. Your work to keep Wikipedia free of copyright-infringing material is laudable, but whose copyright is being infringed by this image? Answer: nobody's. JDG 00:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images are not kept at the Commons, so the copy there will have to be deleted. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:JDG is repeatedly restoring this image to the Dylan article without even correcting the source information or providing a legitimate "fair use" justification. His claims as to the image source are demonstrably false. This is an image file created for dvdylan.com (a site organized for the unauthorized distribution of video concert recordings) and was originally created no earlier than June 2003 [23]. Precisely why the uploader is insistent on misrepresenting the source of the image is unclear, but it should be clear that the decorative use of an image like this violates Wikimedia Foundation policy regarding fair use. Monicasdude 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

www.questia.com

Rjensen (talk • contribs) has added lots of links to this external commercial site on a few pages. I'm normally an external links nazi, but am not familiar enough with this service to make an educated judgement. I've put a note on his talk page saying that I'm a bit uncomfortable with it and referring him here. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Questia.com is a legitimate publisher of out-of-print books. It is a commercial outfit with low prices ($20 for 30-days access to all its books online). Wiki recommends listing publishers and so Questia seems to fit in the guidelines. (Questia's name does not appear on the Wiki pages, only a hot link like this: Freeman, Washington. I have no connection whatever with Questia, except I paid $99 for a one-year membership. But the reason I link it is not to sell a product but because it offers two very useful services, free to everyone. which fit very well I think with the Wiki goal of maximizing access to information through the www. You can read the first page of every chapter of every book in Questia (and cut and paste), and you can do a full text search through its huge database. It carries mostly old and out of print books, that have been selected by librarians to be of value to researchers, and historians like myself. Reading every first page will help people decide if they want to buy the book through Amazon or Questia, or order it through their library, or track it doen in the stacks of a major university library. When you have a bibliography of maybe 30 titles and have to narrow it down to a couple, Questia is a godsend. The online feature means you will not wait a week for inter-library loan. I am told that some libraries will pay the Questia fee (which is a bargain, considering that libraries say an interlibrary loan costs them $20+ to process.) Rjensen 09:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm hearing myself speaking in favor of any commercial link, but Questia is indeed a good deal and a good outfit. Their niche is to sell subscriptions only to private individuals, at very affordable prices; they're not available to libraries. This is a Good Thing. It counteracts the tendency for texts to become more and more easily available to academics, and less and less to everybody else. Such a tendency has arisen because so many big, yummy databases are now on the web—stuff like the huge Early English Books database (yum, yum), the OED, the latest Encyclopedia Britannica, the Chadwyck-Healey complete English pre-copyright poetry and drama text collections—drool— but are in practice only accessible to University employees. Their subscription prices are so outrageous that only Uni libraries (and far from all Uni libraries) can afford them. Questia is not exhaustive like these library-aimed services, but it's big all right, it's very useful and cheap, and as far from a scam as you can get. One thing that impressed me specially when I was trying to decide whether to get a Questia subscription for a friend was that my own University library —a big, stuck-up outfit (through which I enjoy access to many goodies) which is extremely puritanical about commercial links—actually recommends Questia to staff and students. That was an unusual sight to see. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

they're not available to libraries. This is a Good Thing. It counteracts the tendency for texts to become more and more easily available to academics, and less and less to everybody else. There is such a thing as non-academic libraries. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but non-academic libraries won't carry even the big juicy services -- don't want them -- and Questia would be of no more interest to them than Ebsco, e.g. Only in very large cities, at very central branches, do public libraries, at least in the US, feel that their patrons want dry, scholarly services. (NY pub lib is fantastic, as we know, but the Reidsville public library wouldn't want Questia.) I think, though, that Questia is able to purchase copyrights because they can assure publishers that the works are being accessed by single users, a la being checked out of a library. Geogre 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On a cursory check, it looks like the benign sort of link. It provides some evidence that a hard-to-find book actually exists, lets you confirm publisher information, and probably lets you read the first few pages which could be useful to get a feel for its usefulness as a source. All that for free, and a potentially useful source of additional facts for people who can subscribe. My only question is whether similar free services are available: is there any overlap with Google Books, for instance? The Land 10:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I use Questia, myself. If the links are, in fact, to books/articles on Questia, it seems like licit behavior. If the links are to "subscribe to Questia," probably not, unless the article containing the link is on things like "books on the web" or "web publishers." In general, Questia is a kick *ss site that does a great service for us all. One reason that folks in universities might not hear of them, though, is that Questia is not available for institutional licenses. It's aimed solely at individual scholars (and I mean scholars). Great stuff. Geogre 14:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Geogre. I would also like to add that a citation to a source is useless unless people can actually locate the source. I happen to work three blocks from one of the largest municipal libraries in the U.S. and I live near a sizable private university, but I still use electronic access (through my local public library) to another company's online offering (ProQuest) for materials for certain types of research. A citation that tells me that an electronic publisher has the material available in a real time saver. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked. Still don't like the look of ten links to the same site on a page, but the unholy combination of Geogre and Bishonen is enough to convince me. Can someone else spread the news to Rjensen? I'm not sure how he'd take it from me. [24] - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote of the Day

I found this quote somewhere on Wikipedia and found it strange enough to point it out to the rest of us. I do hope it wasn't a serious one. BJAODN time? Radiant_>|< 11:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"I'm considering opening an RFC against Brion and Jamesday. Their intransigence is unacceptable and highly destructive to the project." - name withheld.

"Name withheld"? C'mon, this is the 21st century... you had to know we'd google that. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to Google it - I remember the comment, and would point out that the user in question recently declared they were leaving over another matter. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who don't want to google it, User:Firebug was the user who made the quoted remark. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser request for User:Beckjord and User:Dr Joe

There is abundant evidence that either 1) User:Beckjord and User:Dr Joe are one and the same, or 2) they are acting in concert. It would be useful to know if Dr Joe is a sock- or meatpuppet of Beckjord, so appropriate administrative action can be taken.

User:Beckjord is none other than Erik Beckjord, a "professional" paranormal researcher who insists on inserting his own unsourced POV claims into Bigfoot and the article about himself. He is the proprietor of beckjord.com; at one point he published a "call to arms" to the readers of his site, asking them to come defend his POV on the Bigfoot article, among others. He has since taken the notice down from his site, but the effects still linger; the article has been semi-protected at least once to deal with repeated copyvio/POV postings. Beckjord refuses to read, understand, or abide by the most fundamental of Wikipedia policies. I have asked him countless times to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, with various brush-offs.

Beckjord has a unique posting style. It is not clear whether or not English is his first language, and he typically inserts unneeded line breaks into his posts, as if it is necessary to hit Enter when one comes to the end of the edit box. Dr Joe has also exhibited this same tendency, as if he either is Beckjord or is being fed material by him, inserted verbatim into articles. They also have the same style of "citing" their claims: [25] (compare to above diff of Dr Joe's edit).

Beckjord recently indicated he is "leaving town" for a time. Less than two days later, he "left the project", that diff timestamped 01:54, January 4, 2006. Enter User:Dr Joe, who made his first edit to the Bigfoot article a scant 54 minutes earlier (timestamped 01:00, January 4, 2006). Dr Joe is remarkably proficient for a new user, even using abbreviations such as rv in edit summaries. He also made one revert (see previous diff) to Mythology; the user he reverted was User:DreamGuy, often referred to as an "opponent" or "enemy" by Beckjord.

The pattern here is obvious, but I am asking for CheckUser here so we can nip this situation in the bud with definitive evidence, if it exists. It's clear that neither Beckjord nor his supporters are interested in contributing meaningfully to Bigfoot or other articles. android79 14:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Dr Joe and Beckjord have done anything which makes their sockpuppetry improper (any 3RR evasions, block evasions, vote-stacking, or anything?) so there may not be grounds for a CheckUser. Checkuser or not, I'm also going to note the slightly-differently-spelled DrJoe (talk • contribs) (note, no space). I noticed this curious character editing crop circle and then systematically mildly vandalizing then repairing Butter, Cheese, and Black pepper, which by a wild coincidence (I'm sure) happen to be the three articles I've brought to FA. They're prominently linked off my user page, and I've had run-ins with Beckjord.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

From WP:SOCK: In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position. This kind of behavior is disruptive and unnecessary for any potentially legitimate use of sock puppets. "Illusion of broader support" appears to be the aim here. Normally I wouldn't get so incensed over such obvious sock/meatpuppetry, but given Beckjord's other disruptive behavior I feel this is necessary. It should be noted that Crop circles is one of the areas that Beckjord claims expertise in, and is the article that User:DrJoe appears to be most interested in. android79 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:JackJackson

This entirely new user has been adding templates to Mistress Selina Kyle's userpage which are simply false. MSK has not been blocked as a Wikipedia is Communism vandal, and her userpage is not protected. Suspect that JackJackson is an abusive sockpuppet of somebody (nobody starts off their Wikipedia career by adding templates to other people's userpages). What to do? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block. It's obviously an abusive sockpuppet of someone, and it doesn't really matter who the master is. android79 14:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert and warn once, if he continues, block for 24h. If he comes back and continues vandalising, block longer. On the third time, block indefinitely as "suspected sockpuppet, vandalism only account". Lupo 14:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a clarifying note: I have no problems with Android79's proposed immediate indef blocking. Lupo 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Whitewalls showed the same odd interest in Male bikini-wearing earlier this week, and also messed with MSK's user page. This is an obvious troll account that we can do without. android79 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

JackJackson has continued adding {{protected}} templates in a disruptive fashion, that is, to articles which are not protected. I have been extremely mild and only blocked the account for 24 hours. I hope that is sufficient but I fear that it isn't. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

He has since requested that he be blocked indefinitely on his talk page. Not sure of the form, so I'll leave it to somebody else. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block applied, though I'm sure this fellow will be back with a new account sooner or later. android79 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sago Mine (page move) disaster, need immediate intervention

The history got left behind at Sago Mine Disaster. I have no idea where people have copy&paste moved and redirected to by now. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The history seems fine now, so I assume it's fixed. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Karmafist and the issue of fair use images in userboxes

Karmafist (talk · contribs) seems to be on a self apointed crusade against WP:FUC wich he percieve to be illegitemate, created as a ploy just to censor people and unreasonable "copyright paranoia" (so much for WP:AGF). First he tried to "fix" WP:FUC itself ([26] [27] [28] [29] [30]), after it became clear that the consensus on WP:FUC was against him (what he calls "the mob"), he instead started to simply revert templates where fair use images had been removed (chiefly the {{User democrat}} one) based on WP:FUC (and/or WP:UP), after stating that he would never stop reverting because WP:FUC has "no basis in reality" and is just "wiki-law" [31]. On a couple of ocations he have also cited Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Democrat userbox in edit summaries (even on other templates), but the use of fair use images was barely a topic at that RFC at all, it was a dispute over wether or not the userbox should be used for the US party or for people who favour democracy in general. A couple of attempts to "talk him down" have been made with little result [32] [33], he keeps insisting that Wikipedia should not be more restrictive than US law regarding fair use. Here is a sampeling of some of the "battlegrounds" [34] [35] [36] and [37] (the last one seems to have been resolved by inserting a free licensed image instead though).

He is clearly not willing to listed to me, and I've made myself a party to this "dispute" anyway, so if some other "neutral" admins could please try to explain to him why he should be following the rules even if he disagree with them, in a way that doesn't trigger his rebellious streak I would apreciate it. Hopefully some gentle "peer preasure" will be enough, so we can avoid yet another dispute resolution process based on these lovable little boxes. --Sherool (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a chat with him next time I see him. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad to edit war but fair use should not can not be used on userboxes and templates (outside of article space) no matter how argumentative those who want them there want to be. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I spoke to Karmafist on several occasions, both on here and IRC, and he really just wants to wait for a real world response, which I frankly told him there will be none. I state this since laws take a long time to catch up to copyright and until "our issue" is dealt with by the courts, we will have to follow the guidelines on what we have at WP:FU and WP:FUC. Fair use is a grey area that many of us have little to no understanding of, but I stand behind the efforts of the above posters, and myself, for removing all Fair use images in userboxes. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently "consensus" can be gained now by a few random people on a talk page or IRC Channel or e-mail list somewhere without any justification other than fear of a Crystal Ball. Whatever. I've already lost friends and respect standing up for what I believe in, I can't stop now. Kelly and her troll brigade will likely put their NPA vios below this regardless.karmafist 07:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist (2)

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)

I don't know whether this a vandalism, or lack of good faith, but ScienceApologist is making destructive edits, and without following Wiki guidelines.

• I created a new article called "Intrinsic redshift" (latest version [38]), and invited other editors to take a look and comment (which they did).
• Within 24 hours, ScienceApologist created an Article for Deletion page [39] (AfD), fair enough, but without any discussion with any of the editors.
• I note from the Wiki Guide to Deletion page the following guidelines: "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith". (my emphasis)

• Yet a check of the AfD history shows that ScienceApologist has indeed moved two comments to the AfD's talk page (1) [40] (2) [41]

• Now ScienceApologist has withdrawn the AfD, and "rewritten" or "blanked" most of the existing article [42], again without any discussion.
• Unfortunately ScienceApologist's User page is protected, so I am unable to place a Vandalism template on it, though I have made this clear on the article talk page [43]
• There were over 50 citations in the original article that have been deleted.
• Wiki policy on Verifiability states that "Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable"

• Yet ScienceApologist is currently claiming [44] that ""Plasma redshift" doesn't exist. It is a figment that I haven't seen mentioned in the literature.", which ignores the citations I provided earlier where it is clearly mentioned [45]

What can I do? --Iantresman 18:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the user is a creationist partly pretending to be an anti-creationist (hence the user name). I.e they intend to produce a straw man, which they can then knock down easily. Red shift is one of the arguments concerning the age of the universe which creationists frequently have issues with. Personally, I would block the user for being an obvious sock puppet - straw men need someone to knock them over. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

@ -Ril- : You are severely mistaken. User:ScienceApologist is a most valued contributor in physics, especially in cosmology. He was nearly driven away by harassing, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2

@ Iantresman : Your citation query adds weight against your own opinion. If a term is only used by one author, more often than not it is not suitable for an encyclopedia.

Pjacobi 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The user in question is an established sockpuppet of User:Joshua Shroldinker, the very person whose continued campaign of personal attacks was responsible for driving away Uncle Ed, he his continued War on Ed despite several blocks, and a handful of socks, and continues to harass ed, even while he isn't here to defend himself - anon

Valhalla legends

It's getting hit a fair bit. I recived an email on the helpdesk asking for it to be removed. Does anyone know what is going on here?Geni 18:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What does the email say? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

email text was as follows.Geni 00:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone has posted an entry about my server's functionality that I did not approve.

I would like the article removed. Not only is it highly incomplete, nearly everything it said is inaccurate, and the entry proposes that we are engaged in illegal activity, which is not true.

I will check back tomorrow to make sure it is removed.

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

Thank you,

Grok

owner/operator

valhallalegends.com

Well, regardless of the threat/request, the article doesn't in try to establish encyclopedic-level noteworthiness in the least, so I think it should be removed. DreamGuy 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

further reading they don't seem too upset so probably safe just to list this on AFD.Geni 00:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

70.81.117.175: dealing with repeated sneaky vandalism

70.81.117.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This anon has commited repeated sneaky vandalism over a long period, entering distorted or completely false figures—details or on the vandal's talk page. Has been repeatedly warned and blocked, and is currently blocked for 48 hours. I have spent hours cleaning up this anon's damage on several occasions, and believe that it requires a long-term block or ban.

I don't know what is appropriate or allowed, and a second opinion is probably a good idea before taking more drastic action against him. Advice, please? —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 19:22 Z

Thanks for dealing with this, Hall Monitor. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 20:34 Z

SlimVirgin & fair use images on her user page

While I was leaving a note to SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) due to a server error which caused an odd error while she was leaving a message, I noticed that two images on her user page were fair use, which is not allowed per our fair use policy. I left her a note telling her about the server error and the fair use messages, she replied saying she could have them, I replied again, she ignored my comments. I then removed the images from her talk page, and she has reverted me. Could someone else handle this; I don't want to start an edit war but policy clearly states that no fair use images are allowed on user pages. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 02:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Talrias's tone certainly was not the most constructive in that. Comments like "this is so full of lies", "patent nonsense", "you are ignorant, not malicious", etc, don't really help. The full discussion is at User_talk:Talrias#Enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. He has removed or altered some posts: where he calls me a liar (which I'm glad he removed, so thank you for that), and where he was warned about personal attacks. [46] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to read the full discussion to understand the context behind those remarks. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to set an example. If the policy says X then admins should abide by it regardless of whether they think the policy is wrong. If you think a policy is wrong, you should try and change it first, and not go around behaving as if you are the law. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ril. I find that scary, however. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

She claims that Image:Kamelia shojaee.jpg is okay because it is a promotional image. How is that any different from most of the logos that userboxes were deleted for, most notably the one on {{User democrat}} (which has had a long edit war). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a public spat about this, but I'd like to note the background to Talrias' complaint, which I see as malicious. My first contact with him was when I objected to his engaging in a wheel war over User:Marsden, twice reversing an indefinite block, [47] until Jimbo ended the dispute by blocking Marsden indefinitely himself. Shortly afterwards, on an unrelated talk page, Talrias accused me of stalking him, talked about my "absurd comments, rude remarks, and argumentative nature," [48] and restored the comment several times when I tried to delete it. Today, he accused me on the mailing list of "whining" because of a post I wrote about the need to improve the way we choose admins (I wonder what makes me think that), then later deleted images from my user page, called me a liar, [49] ignorant, [50] deleted an admin's warning about WP:NPA from his talk page [51] (in fairness, at the same time removing one of the personal attacks), proceeded to add this report here, then went to Wikipedia:Fair use and changed it from a guideline to policy as if to lend weight to the report. [52] It adds up to inappropriate behavior for an admin, in my view (whether he's right or wrong about the substantive issue), and I am asking him once again to stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

How much of that is actually related to the fact that you have fair use images on your user page, when you are not allowed them? Yet again there is a selective version of history going on here. How many times must I correct the "background" which you present? Here we go: I didn't undo an indefinite block of Marsden, I shortened it and discussed it fully at all times when I was performing admin actions (which few others were), I have also opened an RFC asking for comments on my actions; I reversed some of your actions which were specifically against policy; the email you wrote on the mailing list was actually a gross distortion of new admins in general and deserved to be criticised; you were making untruthful comments on my talk page which is why I called you a liar (a comment I later removed); and our Fair use page is policy, as you can see by the recent comments by the Arbitration Committee. I'm asking you to stop thinking I have anything other than the best interests of a free content encyclopedia at heart here, assume some good faith and stop posting "background" to all of my actions when I've refuted a number of your claims only to have my comments completely disregarded by yourself. Thanks. Talrias (t | e | c) 06:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Per Phroziac, I find it deeply disquieting that I agree with both Ril and SPUI on this page. 'Promotional' image or not, making our user pages more attractive just doesn't seem like a sound fair use argument. That said, I hope that we can limit the amount of heated invective that this discussion generates, and I will be very disappointed if this turns into a 'pile on to SlimVirgin' thread. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea if someone could make a bot that would go around leaving nice messages for people with fair use images on their talk or user pages directing them to the relevant policy page and asking them to remove them themselves. Looks like a big job... Dmcdevit·t 06:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. We always need more good images taken or created by our own contributors, so perhaps a message could encourage their creation to replace the, er, borrowed images. I bet most editors have a breed of pet, variety of flower, cultural landmark, or outcropping of minerals that would be useful to have a picture of. Let's decorate our pages with our own (and each others) images. -Will Beback 08:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have left a rather more polite notice. Please assume good faith on Sarah's part, and make sure you keep to WP:CIVIL. [[Sam Korn]] 12:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

An even worse example

Trekphiler (talk · contribs) Fred Bauder 02:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

lol. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Aieee! My eyes! --Calton | Talk 04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't that bad. --Must... keep... straight... face... 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

soooo.... many..... user.... boxes.... -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 05:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out User:GeekGirlSarah for even more userboxes, in a table no less. Without the misused fair-use images, though. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 18:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

GGS may have more userboxes, but at least they're not strewn around with the fairuse images in the way Trekphiler's is. A lot easier on the eyes. --Deathphoenix 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes were left but they were removed by Trekphiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [53]. User:Trekphiler was protected and the userboxes removed. Fred Bauder 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Two small (hahaha) points

1. The "WP fair use policy" is a guideline, not a policy.
2. From what I'm reading, the spirit of this guideline is that it applies to article space.

Tomer^talk 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And copyright law is a law, and it applies everywhere, including Wikipedia. Policy is extremely clear on this one: no unlicensed media in user space. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to show me which law you're talking about Kelly. Then again, nobody's been able to show which law you're apparently talking about at Template talk:User democrat for weeks now except BDAbramson, who by the way is an actual lawyer in Florida basically saying FUC's stance on User pages is full of shit more than likely. karmafist 07:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, you might try reading Fair use: you might learn something. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarify please, how these "fair use" images here are prohibited by copyright law. Tomer^talk 07:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, many people are arguing that copyright law does not forbid such images. The typical response is that policy trumps law. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, WP:FU is a guideline, not a policy. Tomer^talk 07:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Many people are arguing out of their posterior. It needs to be clearly set as poicy just so the whiners and complainers don't ignore it. Legally speaking, not making it policy would make the site look like it doesn't care and will let people violate the law if they want to, which, if it ever comes to a lawsuit, means we're totally screwed. DreamGuy 06:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Propose it as a policy. First off, there's no violation of law with legitimate fair use. Second, until you propose a policy, you should be careful about whom you accuse of arguing out of their posterior. Thirdly, your previous history with Slim casts doubt on your detachment from this discussion. Finally, your statement "it's not a laughing matter" is disingenuous, since it's quite clear that the "hahaha" was in reference to my use of the word "small", not in reference to this discussion as a whole. I recommend you lighten up. Tomer^talk 07:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OBVIOUSLY there is no legal violation IF something falls under fair use, but the claims you and others have been making about fair use simply do not hold water. My "previous history with Slim"?!? Dear lord, she stopped harassing me months ago once she realized I was right about Gabrielsimon, and we haven't interacted any since then. It's pretty ridiculous to claim something from months ago has any relation to raising points now. I recommend you lighten up, read about Fair Use law before making ridiculous claims about it, and follow all the assume good faith fun happy stuff. DreamGuy 00:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Kelly's comments about gray areas in fair use law, and how Wikipedia should explicitely avoid those gray areas, was an extremely good explanation, and I'd like to see that specific thing mentioned in official policy. --Interiot 06:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In which policy, precisely? Tomer^talk 07:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy --Interiot 07:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Great. So, like I said previously, Slim's usage does not violate this. Tomer^talk 07:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"The following section of this page is an official policy on Wikipedia" ... "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." --Interiot 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of wikipedia policy, fair use is a facet of copyright law. Essentially, we cannot reproduce copyrighted images unless we can claim an Fair use exception, such as that the image is used to illustrate or critique some specific point. This means wikipedia does not own the image in anyway, but in that specific case we are asserting that we do not have to. If someone uses that same image on their user page, it is typically NOT fair use and is a copyright violation. The exception here would be if the user page itself qualified for fair use (for instance, if i had a critique of something on my user page then the image could also be fair use there). The general point is that most users using fair use images have them just for decoration, which is a copyvio. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing is SlimVirgin vehnemently supported Kelly's deletion of userboxes with fair use images on them. Seems she thinks the rules apply to anyone but her. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems a rather broad accusation, Selina, based on this (rather trivial) incident. Is there another example you could give us where you feel Slim has ignored WP policy? BYT 13:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So then, the question is, since Slim is saying that the images are being used as an advertisement, whether or not the community judgment is that that claim is accurate [not sufficient, just accurate]. I haven't seen any argument here yet that indicates that anyone is even thinking about, much less addressing that question, which is the only relevant one in this entire discussion. Tomer^talk 13:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted one of them, which did say fair use, but the second says "released for promotional purposes," and used to be tagged with a free licence, so I'm keeping it until I can find out why the tag was changed and what it should say. However, using a hypothetical example of an image we know is correctly tagged as "released for promotional purposes," what would be wrong with using that on a user page, and where on Wikipedia or elsewhere are the conditions for using images like that written down? It seems to me that an awful lot of people are jumping to conclusions about copyright law when none of us are copyright lawyers, and even if we were, we couldn't be sure because there's no case law about images in Wikipedia.

Also, for the record, I neither opposed nor supported the deletion of fair-use images in user boxes. I know nothing about the subject. What I opposed was the RfC about it, which I saw as an excuse for bullying. I also see the attempt to delete my user page as bullying. It's all rather more disturbing than the use of a picture of an Iranian woman and a field of flowers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, well done, and kudos to Slim for her actions. I personally think the current guideline/policy (not even clear WHAT it is due to edit wars over its status) regarding fairuse images is in need of review, although it currently seems to clearly say they should not be used in userspace. Promotional images are, well, promotional and should be fair game in userspace. The infamous Firefox logo being an example. Any future commercial distribution of WP is not going to include userpages now, is it? --Cactus.man ✍ 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

{{promotional}} is very much a fair use tag, what the firefox gang is trying to do is to re-introduce "by permission" in userspace only. As for commercial distribution, I dunno, but most mirrors copy everyting verbatim and slap on some goodle ads or whatever. Here is your userpage at bibleocean.com cooldictionary.com for example. Theyr stylesheets sometimes leave something to be desired though. --Sherool (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked 220.247.240.0/20

This block (4096 addresses, 220.247.240.1 - 220.247.255.254) was meant to stop vandalism from:

• 220.247.254.120 (talk · contribs)
• 220.247.247.199 (talk · contribs)
• 220.247.254.109 (talk · contribs)
• 220.247.241.79 (talk · contribs)
• 220.247.247.61 (talk · contribs)

I unblocked because it had been about three hours and it was catching a legitimate user. If there is further vandalism from this range, you can assume the vandal to have been warned but you might want to block for less than 24 hours, given its a range on an ISP. Demi ^T/_C 06:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring template

Look at this: [[54]] to see a new template I have designed that will alert the editor that an article is subject to edit wars. I would like to know if this is a good template. --Sunfazer 11:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of it is. How would you see it being used? Secretlondon 11:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh edit warring shouldn't link to edit conflict. They are different things. Secretlondon 12:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The nature of a lot of article space templates is of a 'temporary alert' style, indicating something within the article is needing of attention. We've got templates to alert others to wikify this, to copyedit that, and to expand this too. I feel your template comes across as more of a permanent alert. -- Longhair 12:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Having seen the Jeremy Clarkson talkpage and the edit history of the article, I thought this would be a useful idea. It can be removed when the edit war cools off. --Sunfazer 12:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We have a controversial one somewhere. It has less of a "this article is broken and should be ignored" feel about it. Secretlondon 12:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Would Template:Controversial work? Secretlondon 12:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

I didn’t want to do this, since I figured it’d set a bad precedent for future instances, that people would feel a need for it to be required, but I’ve come to believe the exact opposite after a bit of thinking about it, hopefully you people will realize that nobody on this board knows anything about copyright law, including myself, and that anyone who tries to claim themselves knowing anything more than the very basic levels is basically just trying to go through with how policies and guidelines are actually made, or at least partially made(since nobody ever follows them) around here – grab a group of people that agree with you and intimidate your opponents into submission.

My next door neighbor’s best friend from High School is Mike Tamburro, the General Manager of the Pawtucket Red Sox, the top farm team of the Boston Red Sox, which means that he has alot of interaction with their head offices. I’ll ask my neighbor to ask Mike about the Boston Red Sox logo in regards to userboxes.

I also know a man in my town named Gaetan DiGiangi, he’s a member of the Democratic National Committee, and being as such, knows just about everybody who would have any claim to proprietorship over the icon in Template:User US democrat.

I can almost guarantee you knowing both of them that instead of these groups having a hissy fit like some editors on here and screaming bloody murder to cut off their nose to spite their own face, in all likelihood they will probably be overjoyed that they have so many supporters here on Wikipedia and will ask that the userboxes have official links to their respective websites or something in an attempt to grab some grassroots viral marketing.

And, since pretty much everybody’s ignored BDAbramson (talk · contribs)’s assessment of things on Template talk: User US democrat in regards to images such as these, I have another lawyer friend here in town, I’ll try and contact her and get a statement from her, although I have a feeling that’ll be little good since those of you who have disagreed on this have done so to the point where you’re unlikely to listen to any reasoning of any sort.

No, this is sheerly about Wikipolitics now. This is about if 100 users say 2+2=5 and 1 or 2 users say 2+2=4, if those 100 can intimidate those 1 or 2 with blocks or harassments or deletions or edit wars or attempted deletions of user pages against those who disagree with them.

I’ll be back fully in a few days with what they’ve said and if needed contact information to verify my claims. Hopefully by then Wikipedia will have regained its sanity.

Oh, by the way, did anyone enjoy the irony of Template:User support Kelly Martin? I wonder if she or one of her cronies will try to summarily delete it like they did with userboxes that they don’t like. I sincerely doubt it. karmafist 15:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm.. you do know that was deliberately ironic don't you? -- sannse (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist, I'll wager you'll be surprised at the responses you get from the Red Sox guy and the DNC guy. Marketing departments like viral marketing and such. Corporate lawyers hate it. Hopefully, I'm wrong, though.

I got some great advice from BDAbramson awhile ago; he obviously knows his stuff regarding fair use. It's rather annoying that the actual lawyers are being ignored, but that's to be expected. This is Wikipedia, where everybody is an expert in everything.

No doubt the Foundation has its own legal representation. Perhaps we could appeal to Jimbo to get them to weigh in on this matter? If Jimbo is $DEITY, then certainly $DEITY's lawyers' word is law.

Then we could all get back to, oh I dunno, writing an encyclopedia instead of worrying about silly boxes. android79 15:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Would BDAbramson's comments be the ones where he says that fair use may allow use of logos like the Democratic National Party logo, because that logo has been designed to allow people to use it for self-identification? Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal Guidance vs. Consensus

I suggest that someone delegated for this task by User:Jimbo Wales posts links to external sites that give some copyright FAQ where certified lawyers certify some Q+A that is directly relevant to Fair Use questions on Wiki.

Many years ago, I participated in the organization of games conventions. Similarly to Wiki, there were tons of volunteers, all ages, all opinions, struggling to achieve consensus, where some topics should be excempt from that process. I volunteered to run some play money game tournaments, and tournaments using duplicate scoring, where the players could bid on positions in games like Diplomacy, and the winnings be from the bidding pot proportionally based on how well they did. Several other volunteers claimed my plans were illegal gambling. I took my plans to 2 lawyers on the convention committee, and to the Chief Prosecutor for the City of the convention. All said my plans were perfectly within the law. However, I got nothing but grief from people, where their opinion was more important than that of lawyers. User:AlMac|^(talk) 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:204.218.244.11

User 204.218.244.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a long history of vandalism, and the account has been blocked several times, the most recent on January 3 for three months. Unfortunately, it's a shared account used by several people at a DOD school. The Help Desk mailing list has received an email from one of the teachers at the school complaining that his User id, User:jefftaylor@xwb.com, has been blocked because of the IP block. Should we unblock this IP address? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Also, allow me to keep watch over his contribs so I can revert them on sight. Which would be made an easier task if Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges were still active. Still, I think if I and perhaps another user had a link to the contribs located in a easy place (maybe the userpage), reverting vandalism and quelling it would be much more managable. -MegamanZero|Talk 19:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that a teacher is involved, maybe Help Desk can ask him to get people (their IT folks?) to start clamping down on people who use those school computers to vandalise. Barring that, I guess this IP should be treated like any other shared IP (ie, only blocked for short periods of time). --Deathphoenix 19:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But I still want to take responsilbility and watch over reverting vandalism. Can we get Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges active again..? I'm quite serious in this endevour, and would like some assistance; rollback would be very favorable.-MegamanZero|Talk 19:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Update- I attend this school, and e-mail between teachers is imparitive. User:Hall Monitor neede to lift this block now, before it impedes the learning and communication process. Also I saw nearly 30 different cases of vandalism on my watchpage at school and was unable to revert them due to the block. Needless to say, they remained there until I arrived home and took action. Need I remind anyone of this issue..? -MegamanZero|Talk 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy is irrelevant here, especially in light of the block sanctions. Over the past 12 months, an extreme amount of disruptive vandalism has originated from your school's network, resulting in an appropriate block from editing. The learning process has not been impeded in any way; anyone who attempts to access Wikipedia from your school will be able to read content normally, but not make page changes. Make note that this institution has been blocked over 10 times in the past [55] and received a long series of warnings beforehand. If necessary, please escalate this issue to your school or district's system administrator. In the meantime, it would be appreciated if you would reserve your edits until after school. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. I am well aware of those constant blocks. Which is preciseley why I ask you let me take responsilbility and keep up on the IP's contributions. Note that the last 10 times had no one keeping an eye on the contributions enough to revert. I will take this seriously, and I request you give me a chance to do so. And regarding learning process, I was not referring to wikipedia, I was, in fact talking about how blocking the network prevents e-mail between teachers, and possibly even more problems. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

May I ask, what does a Wikipedia block have to do with the ability of teachers to exchange email? -Will Beback 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know... however, if a teacher has to bring it to our attention, then there must be some problem, and the point is just that this IP needs to be unblocked so I can attempt submmission on the matter. However, a 3 month block on any place of learning or schoalarly anaylisis is a bad idea. I mean, 3 months..? -MegamanZero|Talk 21:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice it was blocked for 6 months without a complaint.

# 17:16, October 18, 2005 Tony Sidaway unblocked User:204.218.244.11 (Requested in email)

# 11:30, April 5, 2005 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:204.218.244.11" with an expiry time of indefinite (Has been vandalizing for months on end with multiple warnings)

Given the amount of similar vandalism we see from IPs like this, I have a certain sympathy for HM's position. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A detailed account of the activity originating from this IP address has been forwarded to Jeff Taylor so that he may bring this to the attention of the staff responsible for your school's network. I am awaiting his response. Hall Monitor 21:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have unblocked. But if there is not effective hadling of vandalism from this IP expect future blocks. DES ^(talk) 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have also put a link on my talk page from which i can easily chek the contribs of this IP(see User talk:DESiegel#special watches). I advise other interested editors to take similar measures. DES ^(talk) 22:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will take this to the upmost seriousness, and I won't let blatent insolense and disregard for hard work sulley wikipedia's good name. Thank any and all who assist me in this endevour as well. Now, if we could get Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges back into effect, reverting this vandalism will truly be a force to be reckoned with. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback only saves 1 or 2 clicks, and isn't available on every relevant screen anyway -- i often don't use it even though i have it. If you want the functional equivalent, see user scripts look for "godmode lite" I think. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with this unblock but I just checked the contribs and the first (and only) edit since the unblocking was blatant vandalism, if this continues then this IP will probably have to be reblocked. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Just recently...? That's...strange... because school is closed right now. So no one can use the Comps... -MegamanZero|Talk 23:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

22:49, January 5, 2006 (hist) (diff) Probability distribution Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then students are not the only vandalists at work here- school is closed, and no clubs or socities meet at 1:41 AM. I'm going to look in to this tommorow. -MegamanZero|Talk 23:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps we should block the IP address during non business hours instead.  ;-) Hall Monitor 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that frequently more than one school uses the same IP. The school where i work is quite often blocked for vandalism and I know it's not us. School blocks should be treated similar to AOL. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that the middle school/elementary school shares the same IP, however they also share the same operating hours as well. Plus, I find it highly doubtful that middle schoolers and below would be so persistant (also take into account they are almost never allowed on the internet anyway). Perhaps some malicious user(s) is using the school IP to vandalize from his living room. I know its possible to use another location's IP from a different comp.... Oh boy... this is becoming even bigger than I imagined. Regardless, I will work on suppressing this maliciousness tommorow. -MegamanZero|Talk 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The IP belongs to eu.dodea.edu if you look at thier website http://www.eu.dodea.edu/all.htm you will see that there are a lot of schools. It's prefectly possible that a huge number of these schools use the same IP. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn it....This is being very difficult. I do not see a way out of it... Curse DODDS schools and their cheap budget! Why not get their own networks...? Geez. I'll figure something out. -MegamanZero|Talk 23:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• LOL the user was first blocked for a duration of $2 Is this what things have come to? admins askng for 2 dollar bribes? lol--64.12.116.5 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It will take more than $2 to bribe most admins and some of them (myself included) are honest enough not to accept bribes at any level... at least below the million dollar mark :) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Think about it. Everything an admin can do, can be undone by another admin. I'll do the unblock, you do the reblock, we split the profits. No harm done and we get rich from the vandals. Wikipedia can even take a cut. Everyone is happy. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: WE ARE NOT SERIOUS, ADMINISTRATORS NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL TAKE BRIBES. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Show me the policy page that says we don't. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Note: still kidding.

Are you sure? I know one administrator who has a "tip jar" linked to Paypal on their user page. Dragons flight 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC) No, I don't really think it is for bribes.

• Damn. And things were going great for awhile too. I missed some vandalism, despite I was looking at the contributions constantly. Its utterly amazing- 5 or so cases of vandalism all in the course of 3 minutes. We need to find a time frame of when and when not to block, because its clear that my school is not this persistant. Someone must really have nothing better to do... I can't understand someone wanting to be this malicious agaist wikipedia. -MegamanZero|Talk 12:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Undeletion request/deletion review

i was just made aware that the page for the band "The Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza" was deleted from wikipedia. i read over the reasons, and only of them seemed to acknowledge that they are in fact a real band. i have th one of thier albums, and although it's pretty extreme metal, it's entertaining and pretty good. they are a completely valid band who gigs and everything, not to mention having a snappy name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Tony_Danza_Tapdance_Extravaganza

please consider placing this page back into deletion review.

Chris fatecreatr@gmail.com

The proper place for requests like this is Wikipedia:Deletion review, but you're unlikely to get the consensus overturned unless you can prove that the band meets the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Roger Dangerfields

Created a patent nonsense article (Glyn's Mum) and nominated it for Featured Article [56] I speedy deleted the article [57] twice and R3m0t also deleted it once after me, then blanked and protected the article page. Now User:Roger Dangerfields Contrib has it posted on his/her userpage. The latest is a sudden change in the infobox image for the Ariel Sharon article. [58]. Suggestions?--MONGO 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Now he has given me a slice of pie too...[59]--MONGO 20:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC) And awarded a "barnstar" easy chair to Jimbo [60]--MONGO 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The User page has been deleted, it doesn't matter where they are, attacks are speedyable. If he commits one more act of vandalism, I'm all ready to block him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Saw that..thank you!--MONGO 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't vandalised since being warned.
• The Ariel Sharon change was completely justified. The other picture had no source information and was too small to fit in the box (So it looked stretched and distorted on the page). I simply restored an earlier version as a result.
• Everyone gives non-rudimentary awards all the time, what I've awarded is nothing new....I was expecting it to be taken light-heartedly so we could put my acts of vandalism behind me, but instead it has been shoved back in my face. I've reacted angrily and so unsurprisingly I'm the one been branded a troll:

File:8e 2.JPG

I am actually new to this username wise.....I'm just about getting the hang of things, but I continually am pestered instead of helped. I hope you understand that this is why I responded with anger. I hadn't created an article before (You can't by IP) so I wanted to try it. There is no such person called "Glyn" it's just something childish that came into my head. I hadn't finished testing and I didn't see a problem in you waiting for me to finish......I could have marked {{db}} on the article myself. I'm not that stupid. Roger Dangerfields 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you need to create test pages, please do so in your user space. For example: User:Roger Dangerfields/test page. It's not considered appropriate to test in article space. But it's understandable that you didn't know that. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• IN addition to the above, he has uploaded the image above and provided no source and it is currently tagged as a possible copyvio and will be deleted [61]. Roger Dangerfield apears to have today turned to wikistalking me as he voted for my nominee for adminship here then this "newbie" ventures into Afd voting here and over to Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive here. The next wonderful edit is over at the Wikipedia:Sandbox here where he makes an entry stating "Roger was hungry. He went to the fridge and to eat some pie. He found a talking one, of which told him to kill his next door neighbour. Summonly he stabbed her in the face with a bayonet and enjoyed a post humours anal rape with her. The End." Two minutes later he's at Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox where he fills it with 50 images of, well, take a look, then over to Wikipedia:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox where he inserted about 50 or 100 images of a ferret [62], next on to User:Sandbot [63] which, like the last two edits he did is reverted, he is then warned by User:Curps [64] and responds with a racial epithat [65]. I am requesting his vote for my nominee for adminship be removed, and I am indefinitely banning him for trolling and personal attacks. The account exists solely for disruption.--MONGO 20:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversial block

I've just blocked Netoholic (talk • contribs) for 24 hours. I'm posting here to let other admins know about it. The blocking policy does allow for blocks of disruptive users, but deems them controversial. Hence, the post here. Netoholic has a history of taking policies and using them beat other people around the head with them. The latest policy is WP:AUM. Whereas Netoholic has been useful in drawing attention to the policy and working on ways to reduce templates' excessive server load, it has been done in an abrupt and rude manner. After frequent calls to discuss changes first, Netoholic today began switching from the agreed template:language to his own template:Infobox Language. The former uses 'meta-templates' that cause server load problems. However, the latter has been rejected as an imperfect solution that has received no backing. I am involved in the dispute, but still feel this is good judgment. Any thoughts? --Gareth Hughes 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This post sums up my view. Garzo has been stonewalling attempts to move Template:Language (ugly meta-template mess, look at the source) into compliance with WP:AUM. My best alternative plan, without unduly disrupting articles, was to create Template:Infobox Language and start migrating articles slowly onto it. My intent at all phases was to only move articles that the template could support without loss of information. It's a good plan. Garzo, though, for days, has stonewalled me on the subject. He's been reverting me left and right, for no reason that can reasonably counter WP:AUM. I really think he feels too much ownership over the previous template. I've openly invited him to help with the effort, since admittedly, I am no linguist. This block was entirely inappropriate. -- Netoholic @ 21:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro and consensus poll

I have unilaterally declared that there is a poll for determining consensus for whether or not Fidel is a dictator and whether or not Cuba is communist state. It is located at Talk:Fidel Castro. i expect that there could be some outcry over this. Notifying the admin community so that they may validate/chastise. Wikibofh_(talk) 01:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikibofh was suggesting a remark be placed here if we felt his handling of this was a mistake. Well at least a couple of us do. One from each side of the arguments, so we can claim a balanced view!

A consensus can't be produced by a vote, a consensus is won by exhaustion, there aren't any short cuts. The 'dictator' issue has been resolved, a stable version has held for a day and a half. All the vote will do is stir up calmed waters. The second question is: what is the correct description of Cuba government to put in the info box? This can't be resolved by a head count of opinions. The question behind it is: what is the standard criteria for defining 'Government' in a country info box. The battle on the Cuba pages will go on, vote or no, until legitimate sources of the information are defined.MichaelW 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"War on blogs"

Another group of AfD nominations have been made in the GNAA "War on blogs". See User:Timecop/The war on blogs. It's getting old. Several GNAA members are attempting to delete as many blog articles as possible. It's true that some of these articles don't belong here, but many of the nominations are of good articles about well-known subjects. It's clear that a group of 7-8 editors are coordinating their efforts off-site so that they all vote for deletion quickly after an article is nominated, and they care little about whether the subject is actually notable. Rhobite 01:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOJO Works, where they got the article speedied after it was vandalized by another GNAA member. (That it was later deleted properly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOJO Works 2 is immaterial.) —Cryptic (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's more a commentary on the admin who speedied it than on the participants in the AfD. If "trolls" want to improve wikipedia by finding and nominating for deletion non-encyclopedic material, more power to them. We can certainly encourge them to make better nominations, or to space them out more, but ad hominum remarks are pointless. If the material isn't up to scratch then it should be deleted. Bad nominations are best countered with calm, rational explanations of why the article is about something notable, with appropiate references WP:CITEd. Noting very new acccounts is fine, and putting the "sockpuppet beware" template on the AfDs is a good idea, but dismissing contributions based upon the contributor is a poor precedent. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:26, 6 January 2006

We definitely shouldn't start munching on newbies, but I still don't think it's a good thing when people vote quickly and uniformly, almost without thinking about it. [66] [67] [68] [69]. I'm sure they're good people, it'd just be nice if they put a little more thought into their votes, and at least give the appearance that they came to the AfD with an open mind. --Interiot 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Eve Plumb

The idiot who keeps adding Eve Plumb's address and phone number has now gone on to vandalize the Maureen McCormick and Susan Olsen pages with the same info. All three are now sprotected, but I'm sure he'll move on to other Brady Bunch articles. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I sprocected Eve's article and did the whole cleanup stuff. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the same was done in the following: Barry Williams | Christopher Knight | Mike Lookinland | Florence Henderson | Geri Reischl | Robert Reed | Ann B. Davis. --Wknight94 (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And these same people all were on Brady Bunch? If so...hmmm...what else can we do. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism @ Biff Rose

there seems to be a continued deletion of a photo of the subject over at biff rose, the licensing is accorded, it is actually the man, with some of his art work. please check it out.Jonah Ayers 03:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Willconnolly

I think blocking might by necessary for this user as this name (IMO) is trying to impersonate User:William M. Connolley, a well-known climate modeller.

His/her has eight contributions. (2 on sandbox, 2 on BJAODN discusion, one vandal (which I reverted), one legit edit and 2 on user page) SYSS Mouse 04:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Connolly and Connolley are rather common surnames, aren't they? This very well could be this editor's real name. android79 04:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a nicely written note explaining the confusion and requesting the user to make a name change is inn order? -- Essjay · Talk 04:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a *new* editor would likely decide and figure out how to add userboxes on their 5th edit. I think this editor has prior experience. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 05:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So what? You are allowed to use your real name. Many people read and study before they edit. Secretlondon 20:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandal node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had deleted imporatant parts of other user's personal pages [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheresa_knott&diff=34048985&oldid=34041970 ]]. Bad behaviour. Very disturbant character. Watch this guy please. His only contributions to Wikipedia is to make controversial edits on Romania, Moldova related articles. Until now he did this to the following articles Moldova, Moldovan language, Transnistria, Anti-Romanian, Moldovans, Demographics of Ukraine and so on. Bad behaviour. Bonaparte talk 07:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheresa_knott&diff=34048985&oldid=34041970

Wow, it takes balls to say that node_ue only contributes by making controversial edits to Romania/Moldova related articles. Especially considering that node_ue has been editing here since 2001, and you joined us exactly two months ago. Especially considering that node_ue has edited an incredible variety of articles, and your very first edits were to make a beeline for Romania and Moldovan-related articles, followed by a flurry of talk page edits and then "file a vandalism report on user User:Node ue". silsor 07:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of Node's statistics, he vandalized that user's talk page by removing their own comments. He did this two times. He was asked by user:Cyberevil why he vandalized her page, but Node gave him no reply. He did, however, made other edits, which means that he read the comment, but chose not to reply. --Anittas 08:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind you all that I received a barnstar "The Red Crystal" which is representative of politically and religiously neutral humanitarian aid, so I think that silsor's suggestion that only by the fact that node was editing since 2001 is just irrelevant. He may have edit since 2001, but I ask you with what kind of contributions? Just trolling. So, it doesn't matter the since you edit but the quality of edits. I would like that silsor to withdraw his statements. Thank you. Bonaparte talk 08:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow a BARNSTAR, never seen one of those before! </sarcasm> seriously, if Teresa knott has a problem with Node_ue editing her page she can sort that out herself. Bonaparte, seriously dude, if you know whats good for you, you'll stay out of this argument, all its going to do is make you look bad to many long term contributors.  ALKIVAR™ 10:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Which of my statements would you like me to withdraw? silsor 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Node is a passionate supporter of the rights of speakers of minority languages. The Romania/Moldova issue is extremely political - poorer Moldova's lesser internet access mustn't blind us to this fact. People have been screaming vandalism over political disputes since the beginning of the project. Secretlondon 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte, you know that isn't true, Node edits many other minority language articles, such as Montenegrin language. - FrancisTyers 17:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah Francis...I almost forget about his hidden project of creating "invented langauges" even where is not the case like Zlatiborian language, or the above link. Like I said except the fact that he makes a lot of noise and blatant trolling he does also vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheresa_knott&diff=34048985&oldid=34041970. Bonaparte talk 18:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should all assume good faith. Node ue may have made a mistake, it's a very easy thing to do. As he didn't leave an edit summary (we can assume that he does know about them given his time here and the fact that he has used them before) and didn't repeat the edit once reverted, gives us no good reason not to AGF. Bonaparte is in a content dispute with Node ue and when things get heated, we see vandals and trolls everywhere. Bonaparte, please don't refer to other users as vandals and please don't use the {{vandal}} template. It is inconsistent with WP:AGF (unless there is evidence of clear vandalism - a content dispute doesn't count). User the "user" template: Node ue (talk · contribs). Izehar 19:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

blocked?

from ISP: 207.200.116.13.

I think because I tried to edit something without being a registered user,

I have now registered as McScooti, could the block be removed?

Quite obviously you're not blocked. If you were, you could edit only your own talk page, but certainly not here. Lupo 09:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, your IP was never blocked, whether past or present. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Could have been an autoblock (which wouldn't show up in the blocklog for the IP) of a dynamic IP and the user was assigned a new IP. -- Essjay · Talk 09:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Lupo, the situation is more complex than that, not to say nightmarish. It does happen that (especially AOL) users get blocked in a way that they can edit other pages besides their own talkpage one minute, but not the next. Please refer to the block collection page of the unfortunate and virtuous User:WBardwin, especially the input from JRM. There obviously is a problem with the range McScooti mentions, since WBardwin was just hit by Marudubshinki's block of 207.200.116.132, see User talk:WBardwin. McScooti, I apologize, from us all, please keep contributing. Bishonen | talk 10:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User RJ-45 has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:RJ-45 has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Was indeed a WOW, cleaned up and tagged. Thank you Curps. -- Essjay · Talk 10:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL user. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've lifted the autoblock on that basis, but obviously left the account-block in place. -Splash^talk 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice's user page

User:Deeceevoice was blanked and protected by Snowspinner at 08:25, 6 January 2006. I reverted the blanking, because the page was how DCV wanted it, offensive content at the top, and a discussion of the offensive content below. I did not unprotect it, though. Now Anthere has blanked it again. Isn't DCV allowed to have her user page as she likes, especially since the offensive content is not of her authoring, but was vandalism that she chooses to keep there as testimony? --Angr (tɔk) 11:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that several people appear to have accepted her right to use that userpage (its purpose was to shock and attract attention, and definitely not to advertise for anti-semitism), I think it would have been far more prudent to ask for community input at WP:MFD, which is the forum we have for discussion of troubling userpages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think WP:MFD would be the place to go. No one's suggesting her user page be deleted outright as if she were a vandal. I suppose the questions here are: (1) Does DCV's user page comply with WP:UP? (2) If it doesn't, does it matter, since WP:UP is a guideline, not policy? (3) Is protecting a non-vandal's user page so that she can't have it the way she likes an abuse of administrative powers? My answers to these questions are (1) Yes, (2) not applicable, (3) yes. --Angr (tɔk) 11:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored DCV's text but without the offensive photos and insults for the moment. This has been debated before on AN; I'll try and dig up a link to it. — Matt Crypto 11:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on this issue from a couple of weeks ago can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive20#User:deeceevoice_user_page. — Matt Crypto 11:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you consider the racist caricature of a "mammy" eating watermelon, which you left there, to be inoffensive compared to the other images you removed? --Angr (tɔk) 11:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think I find the racist caricature inoffensive? Assume Good Faith! I just missed it. — Matt Crypto 11:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry; if you just missed it, that's an honest mistake. But saying you removed all offensive images when there's one offensive image still there is bound to create confusion as to your definition of "offensive". --Angr (tɔk) 11:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. I think for most people, the real problem is the obvious "shock" stuff; i.e. pierced penises, naked women in bondage, a person hung by their neck. The racist caricature is offensive, but doesn't have the same instant "shock" factor. — Matt Crypto 12:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one opinion. Me, I'm more shocked by the racist caricature than by pierced penises. (I've seen dozens of them in real life, so they don't make much of an impression on me anymore.) --Angr (tɔk) 13:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is ridulous...by leaving that filth on her userpage, the vandals win. That's why they put it there so why let them have it their way?--MONGO 11:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The vandals put it on her talk page. She moved it to her user page to document the vandalism her talk page has received. It was her active choice to have it there. --Angr (tɔk) 11:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update:) Point is, as insulting as that trash is, like all vandalism, it should be removed...why cater to the bad guys by making it even more visible?--MONGO 12:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Userpage policy says that, "If the community lets you know that they'd rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a year or so, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it. If you do not co-operate, we will eventually simply remove inappropriate content, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate)." — Matt Crypto 11:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, WP:UP is a guideline, not a policy. Secondly, I think the most relevant part of the quote above is "After you've been here for a year or so, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it." She's been here since May 2004 and has definitely written lots of great articles. --Angr (tɔk) 11:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, another key phrase here is "the community". As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no consensus on this issue. The page has been blanked and restored numerous times, by many admins. That means a default keep. — BrianSmithson 14:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• At any rate, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, I have asked the ArbCom to consider the userpage policy as a relevant principle. Also, let's stop the edit warring on a protected userpage which Deeceevoice herself is currently unable to edit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

While we do allow a lot of leeway on what users have on their pages, common sense dictates that user pages should be vaguely "work safe". On Wikipedia, the norm is that you go to a user page to find out more about the user. You don't expect to find genital piercings, bondage, swastikas and large racist slurs thrust in your face in the manner of a shock site. For example, say you're editing in a public library, or at a relative's house, or in the company of children etc, you know not to visit genital piercing and sexual bondage, but it's reasonable to expect to be able to visit user's pages without being confronted with such things.

I understand that Deeceevoice wants to make a point about the vandalism targeted at her, but a more community friendly way would be to provide a series of diffs. — Matt Crypto 12:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

DCV has asked me on my talk page to do something about the fact that her user page is not how she left it. I'm unprotecting it so she can edit it again. --Angr (tɔk) 13:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Crypto, you repeatedly have assumed that the "wikipedia community" is monolithic. Quite the contrary. I've received several e-mails and notes on my user page from users who agree with and support what I've done with my user page and who've applauded me for bringing the racism and intellectual bias of this website out in the open -- not to mention e-mails from two white guys who've left Wikipedia in protest over the racism at Wikipedia that it and the RfC/RfAs have exposed. Don't assume your sensibilities are shared by everyone. deeceevoice 17:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that my sensibilities are shared by a lot of people. You have even said yourself that you find at least one of those images "distasteful/repugnant". A user page should not be a shock site. — Matt Crypto 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh great. Not this argument again. --Deathphoenix 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Matt Crypto claims he made a "suggestion" about simply having links on my user page. I view it as something else. He unilaterally -- while this discussion is still ongoing -- took it upon himself to delete all the images he deemed offensive, leaving the lock in effect. I view this action as entirely inappropriate, precipitous and an abuse of his admin privileges. Not only did he blank the images because he wanted to, but he did so without notifying me of his intent -- leaving the page without images or links and, with the lock still in effect, with no means of inserting them had I desired to. Crypto claims he didn't institute the lock. But he altered my user page and left the lock in effect. (What's the difference?) There was no edit tab for me to undo his changes. But I soon observed that he returned to remove an image that -- oops! -- presumably didn't strike him as sufficiently inappropriate/offensive (see how the slippery slope of censorship gets more and more difficult to tread?) initially -- that of the watermelon-eating, snaggle-toothed mammy. I also saw that the edit option was, all of a sudden, available. It was at that point that I took the opportunity to restore my page. Now, I don't know how any of this works -- whether it was the result of Matt Crypto's actions (not likely) or of Angr, whose assistance I sought when I realized I could not edit my own page. But, as Angr says, he unlocked my page.

Keep in mind that these are images that can be found in the pages of wikipedia. These are not imported, unsanctioned pics. How are they so intolerably offensive on my user page to illustrate a point -- and not deemed so elsewhere? IMO, it makes no d*** sense. deeceevoice 14:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Context makes a huge difference. Duh. Hu 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Angr.

I don't know how you guys operate, but a good start would be to agree to take no action until you come to a consensus. That way it would at least look like you're all on the same page. Doncha think? (Bad boy, Snowspinner! deeceevoice 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Just read this on my talk page.[70] So, Matt removed only the image of the watermelon-eatin' mammy,[71] (sorry -- but yes, you did, Matt) but, in effect, sanctioned Snowspinner's actions by leaving his changes intact and leaving the lock in effect. Sux. Get your act together guys. This is getting downright silly. deeceevoice 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. Matt, did I say thanks for at least restoring the text? No? Thanks. deeceevoice 14:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I am happy to say it again, but I believe Deeceevoice should have the right to leave her userpage in that state if she so desires. Yes, it is shocking, but not more so than the harassment that she has had to endure while trying to contribute here, which is after all the point she is making. As this seems to be a recurring issue, could we try to get a definitive RFC or something to determine consensus on this rather than wheel warring and/or leaving the page in a state that even DCV can't edit? Dragons flight 15:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes - but then her userpage becomes disruptive to prove a point. Still, I take the general point, and have overturned myself here partially - I've moved the flurry of offensive content to a user subpage, starting her userpage with the "beware" section. The point she is making is still there, but I think it's done now in a way that causes less immediate strife. Phil Sandifer 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that she's in the middle of an ugly RfAr case as it is, I see no need to complicate things further; I'd suggest we let her express herself through this process as she sees fit, even if it contains offensive imagery gathered from elsewhere in Wikipedia. If people don't want to look at it--surely they can just avoid Deecee's user page? It's not as if this is our article on the History of Azerbaijan or something. Once the Arbcom has ruled, we can take another look at her page in light of that. --Dvyost 16:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's worth considering that the page contains so much vandalism not because Deeceevoice has been specifically targeted, but because vandals have discovered that it is a 'safe haven' for their nonsense. They've found the one page on Wikipedia that they can deface without restraint, and they're taking advantage of it. Given what Matt Crypto has has observed regarding community expectations of user pages–that is, that they not contain extraordinarily offensive and eminently non-work-safe material–perhaps a warning at the top of the page would be a minimum acceptable change?

We tend to govern our other pages by a 'principle of least astonishment'. If you go to penis, you expect to see a penis on the page. If you go to George Washington, you don't. I would suggest that a reasonable compromise would be to have a full-page of non-vandalism content at the top of the page in question, including a visible warning/explanation of the content to follow. It reduces the likelihood that our other editors will get in trouble at work, but lets Deeceevoice maintain her vandals' playground. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in the issue, but after seeing Ten's suggestion, I wanted to drop in an idea that occurred to me when I first saw this discussion: What about something like SPUI has, with a "censored version" option? -- Essjay · Talk 17:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is her user page. Her space to do whatever she wants with, so long as it's Wikipedia-related. That's what WP:UP says: what you do in user space should be Wikipedia-related, and everything on her page is definitely that. WP:UP never says a user page can't be shocking, but it does say not to edit other people's user pages except to correct minor typos and revert vandalism. In other words, leave her page alone! Do not create a subpage in her user space where you think she should express herself. Do not blank her user page because you don't like its contents. If you don't like her user page, don't look at it, but no one else besides DCV gets to decide what she keeps on it. --Angr (tɔk) 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, Ten. This vandalism occurred as a direct result of my editorial activity on the website. And, if anything, this unseemly and utterly ridiculous admin edit war is simply calling greater attention to the page.

Further, it seems quite clear to me that no one has a right to tamper with what I choose to put on my user page. Leave it alone. I take particular exception to repeated, unlitaral attempts by users like Snowspinner, who seems to think he has the right to decide what is and what is not appropriate on my page. Any further alternation of my page that is not a revert of changes unauthorized by me will be considered vandalism. And I will take appropriate steps to press a formal complaint against such action. Kindly refrain from altering my user page. If you don't like it, then vote with your web browser and simply don't visit it. (Gee. Now, there's an idea.) deeceevoice 17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not "your" page. It is a page you are given wide leeway to update as you see fit. There is a difference. Phil Sandifer 17:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're arguing that user pages are like web sites, where a user has the right to put whatever they want on it. This is not the case. If certain user pages obstruct or disrupt the goal of the project, then they have absolutely no right to be hosted on Wikipedia. User pages aren't spaces for unrestrained freedom of speech. Having said that, I believe criticism is healthy and we should let user pages be used to criticise, even harshly, the project (as long as they avoid personal attacks). On the other hand, I believe that a user's main page is not a good place to hold "shock" images. You say, "if you don't like it, simply don't visit it". The obvious rebuttal is that noone knows whether you like a user page until you (and all the kids in the public library) have already looked at it. And there's no reasonable expectation that a user page will be a shock page. I think it would be better for everyone if you either: A) moved this to a user subpage, linked to with a warning about what it is; or B) added long disclaimers at the top of the page warning about graphic content; or C) replaced it with diffs showing the vandalism. — Matt Crypto 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to outspoken, textual critisism of the project. I have a strong objection to "shock" images on user pages. A couple of good suggestions have been made for alternatives, and another is for deeceevoice to get an off-site page to use as she wishes. User pages are not a user's property. You do not have the right to put anything you like on them. We may have developed a culture of permitting a lot of leeway on these pages, and of avoiding editing "someone else's page" (something I wish we had discouraged more strongly when it started), but the fact remains that this is not a hosting company. In my opinion, this page is not acceptable -- sannse (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the vandals?

Deeceevoice didn't go out and find those images and put them there in order to shock people or disrupt Wikipedia. She put them there as a representation of what other Wikipedia users have done to her. If you're shocked and offended, perhaps it would be more productive to direct your shock and offense to the perpetrators of it, not just the person who drew your attention to it.

The problem here isn't Deeceevoice, it's the vandals who have engaged in a protracted campaign to silence her. Anyone who is thinking of censuring her for speaking the truth about the horrible conduct others have shown her, had damn well better have done something about the real problem first. --FOo 06:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think you'll find that many of the people commenting above have a long history of fighting vandalism on this project. Most of them have no problem with Deeceevoice 'speaking the truth about the horrible conduct others have shown her'. Speaking for myself, I find it a bit rude that I would be accused of 'censuring' her for speaking her mind. It strikes me as a false choice to present our options as either being shocked at vandals or being offended by Deeceevoice's conduct; we're quite capable of doing both, thank you very much.

I don't believe it's appropriate for the bulk of our positive contributors to be hit with swastikas and other highly offensive and inflammatory images and text by surprise. Someone who in good faith wants to discuss an edit with Deeceevoice ends up with a screen full of vitriol. If Deeceevoice wants to write a long screed about the decidedly horrific behaviour of some vandals and trolls, she's more than welcome to. If she wants to keep copies of it all on a subpage in her user space, she should go for it. If she wants to complain and protest in a way that is likely to upset and possibly harm other, innocent Wikipedians, she ought to rethink that approach. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Serial vandal with Bogdanov pattern

A vandal has been overwriting a series of users pages with an article about the Bogdanov affair. It is using multiple user IDs: Sojo 123 (talk), Golbow (talk), Malmar (talk), Joanne Harman (talk), Hu 12:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another pair of proxies

• 204.13.170.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • In the Outback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • HighSpeedDingo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Croc Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Croc Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Kid from Canberra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • No rules, just right (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • SteveIrwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • PaulHogan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Outback Steakhouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Turbo Dingo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Brian Daniels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.214.98.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Shock puppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Warren Hayman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • MarieCallaghan251205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Doc glasgow returns! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kelly Martin (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Just another reminder to all: any editor found inserting backslashes before quotations (single or double) is to be blocked indefinitely and reported directly to me for CheckUser analysis. Edits of this nature are almost aways the result of using either badly-written bots or badly-written open proxies. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The Punisher and ip 72.245.34.187

User:72.245.34.187 added a good deal of information to the Punisher article a while back, however, some of the english seemed broken, and there was some POV content. I did my best to clean up, keeping as much of the relevant information as I could. Since then, he's been adding the information again (making much of it repetitive) and refuses any attempt at discussion on the talk page, resorting to wild claims about Wikipedia as a whole, backing them up with commentary from imaginary editors (it's the same ip), and even, on one occasion, an incident of vandalism [72]. History of the article indicates that the other editors seem to agree with my version, with many of them reverting his edits themselves. I don't think mediation is possible in this case, as I've tried numerous times to have a civil discussion with him on the talk page. If it were up to me, I think an indefinite block would be an acceptable solution in this case.

Note: I have tried to follow 3RR. Though I reverted the page 4 times between 6:28 Jan 4th and the same time Jan 5th, two of those reverts were blatant vandalism, one of which wasn't even by the above ip. I hope that's acceptable. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 17:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Page deleted in error- help!...Saugeen Stripper

Hey all, the page Saugeen Stripper was up for AfD, but after a lot of discussion, the admin there decided it was no consensus and should remain. But now it is GONE! I cannot figure out how to get the page back. Can someone help? Tokyojoe2002 18:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to get into a wheel war but I undeleted it, because I took exception to Adam Bishop's reason of "repairing a mistake of AfD". If he thinks it was a mistake, maybe he can bring it up again, or find a CSD factor for it. --Golbez 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is now listed on WP:DRV, let the process there consider if AfD made a "mistake". DES ^(talk) 18:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the exact phrase he used was "undoing failure of AFD". --Golbez 18:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone restored the article already, but then Adam did this, which does not help his case. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Now Adam Bishop just tried to run and end around again. He obviously does not care about proper processes. This is ridiculous. Here is his latest: [73] Tokyojoe2002 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian evading indefinite block

212.120.225.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is clearly Gibraltarian. Not sure how much can be done, since per above discussions, to effectively block him is to block all of Gibraltar... (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This IP has already been blocked by Splash. Izehar 18:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:64.231.112.130 and User:Hollow Wilerding

Could somebody please check if 64.231.112.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an IP address shared by the indefinitely blocked Hollow_Wilerding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I have a suspician that it is, as the IP archived an ongoing discussion at Talk:Cool (song) where a user raised concerns over the reliability of the article's references [74], as Hollow Wilerding had attempted to do previously for equally dubious reasons ("I don't find it acceptable that Wikipedians were complaining about the quantity of the article"' [75], and also [76]). Also, compare [77] to [78], in which both HW and the IP chose to dismiss Wikipedia's manual of style for their own. On a related note, 64.231.75.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) definitely is an IP used by HW, see [79] and [80]. Extraordinary Machine 18:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Common sense (same IP range + the edits in question) makes it a 99.9999% certainty that that was HW; she's probably moved onto a new IP by now, so a (neccessarily short, it's an ISP range) block won't do any good. I'd go ahead and un"archive" that discussion. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another: 64.231.72.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). With every new account/IP, I see HW still likes to try and trick users into thinking that he is new to Wikipedia. [81] Extraordinary Machine 23:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just roll back her edits

It's an unnecessary detour to apply to CheckUser for the typical Hollow Wilerding editing that we're seeing from IP's in the 64.231... range. It would be absurd to not assume it's HW. At first, I blocked the ones I came across, but I've gotten bored; it's much simpler for her to IP hop than for me to block, write a block reason, place a sock template on the userpage, etc, etc. By the time I'm done, she's gone, and some innocent user may be getting hit by the block intended for her. Feel free to go on blocking these IP's on sight if you wish (please keep blocks to 8 hours or less, to minimize the risk of collateral damage), but I'm not sure it's meaningful. What I recommend instead is that everybody just roll back her edits on sight. No CheckUser, no block, no templates on the userpages, and also no bothering to check whether they're good or bad edits (once you've determined from the style and subject of a few of the contributions that it really is her). Remember this is a blocked user, evading an extremely well-deserved block for abusive sockpuppeteering and a storm of of deceit and disruption. Blocked users aren't allowed to edit. Just roll her back. Bishonen | talk 01:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

A reasonably targeted and short range block — say, a few hours for 64.231.0.0/16 — might be enough to discourage her from bothering, without inconveniencing too many other editors for too long. I know a range block is a blunt weapon, but it's not unreasonable to use it for short periods of time to gain some breathing room. Nandesuka 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I did consult JRM earlier about the possibility of a short range block, but he was against it, on the ground that the range is so huge. Bishonen | talk 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Surrey10

I've blocked User:Surrey10 for three hours for large-scale, disruptive page moves which are against the naming conventions [82]. He was asked nicely not to do this back in November, and I warned him about it more recently, but to no effect. User:Proteus has been egging him on and seems to think I'm wrong about this, so I'd welcome review of this from other admins. Mark¹ 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

For a start, the moves are not against the Wikipedia naming policy. Secondly, I have never been asked nicely not to move pages (and the page I moved in November was a differant situation, and I admit I was wrong according the Wikipedia Policy). The suggestion that User:Proteus has 'egged' me on totally riduclous, I was unaware of his support on this matter until after I changed the pages in the first place! In addition, I think it is very insultive to him to suggest he would do such a thing. And I too would welcome a review of the policy, and if the Naming Policy stays as it is and I am right I would like an apology from Mark for blocking me. --Surrey10 23:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

He did it again, so I blocked him again for 24 hours. Surrey, if you want to have the naming conventions changed, please discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). You should of course read the eight pages of archived discussion for the background. ;) Mark¹ 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a difficult one, this, because the naming conventions on life peers is somewhat fluid. The principle that the peerage title should be in the name except where the person is known without it is a difficult one to judge because life peers tend to have become notable before their elevation (that's why they got the peerage). Surrey10 seems to be of the opinion that most, if not all, life peers should have their peerages in the article title. If adopted as a general principle this would create some badly-named articles, and I don't believe that Mark¹ overreacted because it is disruptive. Perhaps the response to this is to make the policy more explicit. David | Talk 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User:LawAndOrder

Has done nothing orther than put themselves forward as an arbcom candidate. may nead to be cheacked out.Geni 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything malicious, although he may be a sockpuppet; he seems to know about wikipedia quite well for a new user. I'll watch his contribs, but I doubt to see anything other than a failed arbcom candidacy. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a notice on top of every watchlist about the ArbCom stuff, so maybe he followed the links and went there. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Attack templates

I (speedily) deleted {{User oppose Kelly Martin}}; I am appalled that anyone could think this appropriate for Wikipedia. I also blocked the creator for 8 hours (this is not the first attack template created). If I have acted inappropriately, feedback would be appreciated. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — Dan | talk 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I award this Barnstar to Knowledge Seeker for getting the point. Phil Sandifer 20:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll see your Barnstar and raise you a pint. Good move. I blocked him yesterday for a template that called Kelly a 'fascist', but I unblocked (an hour later) when he assured me he would not create templates concerning individual wikipedians. My block was perhaps a little harsh, (without warning) - but it served as a warnign for this, which was clearly disruption. --Doc ^ask? 20:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I sent about four of these templates to TFD before, but by this, there are more out there that need to be deleted or at least looked at. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

These are speedies, to my mind. Phil Sandifer 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another death threat

This one has almost the same wording as the last one. -- Curps 21:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it could be a sockpuppet of Gallian who made libellous edits on the George W.Bush page. Best to block the vandal indefinitely. --Sunfazer 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated violations of WP:AUM

In recent days, I've been working on a non-meta-template version of Template:Language. I've reached impasses on several fronts, and I need assistance from admins in enforcing this policy, with warnings and blocks if necessary.
About one month ago, I posted on Template talk:Language about the AUM policy and the need for the template to be changed to reflect it, but no changes were made. A few days ago, I created Template:Infobox Language so that I could re-design the template and begin converting articles away from Template:Language without trying to make a major change to the main template. Certain parameters and options, needed to change and the articles need to be touched to make slight changes to the template call. Once confident that it worked, I converted a few articles to it.
Garzo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who has worked on the old template extensively, "discovered" this, and began reverting my conversion effort. I took a break on it for a couple days, and discussed on the old template's talk page. Unfortunately, rather than a discussion about the technical aspects of the change, it devolved into arguments about the WP:AUM policy itself. There is also some general confusion about how various methods of avoid meta-templates work.
Yesterday, I began back in earnest working to convert the articles. I made a goal to convert all language articles starting with "C" to the new template. During this, I made some adjustments to the template and to the articles, but, and let me stress, NO information was lost. The infobox at all times showed the same information as before my conversion. These edits have since been reverted multiple times. I was even blocked twice by Garzo for this - the blocks were rapidly undone.
I'd like to ask that admins please give warnings to the following users (and any others in the future), instructing them to not revert efforts related to this conversion. Garzo (talk • contribs), Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs), Khoikhoi (talk • contribs), and CBDunkerson (talk • contribs).
I remain open to any and all feedback, problem reports, or direct criticism related to this, but it's unacceptable that users should ever stonewall against this policy. -- Netoholic @ 22:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic is doing some sterling work in cleaning up a lot of templates, and is dramatically better behaved than when he went before ArbCom. Right now, some users seem to be attempting to provoke him, which I find to be rather stupid and ignorant behaviour. In addition, edit warring over templates - meta-templates, of all things - is a waste of time, and amounts to disruptive behaviour in terms of the constant re-caching it causes. Rob Church ^Talk 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't agree with the accuracy of a good deal of the above, but I'll stick to just three points;

1. I have made precisely ONE revert here - when Netoholic replaced the existing Template:Language with a copy of his Template:Infobox language which, since it has different parameters and calling syntax, caused numerous languages in the article space to start displaying incorrect information. I made this revert only after checking five languages and finding them all displaying improperly.
2. My only other participation in this has been decreasing the usage of meta-templating by Template:Language. Contrary to what Netoholic says above I haven't seen anyone arguing that we shouldn't remove meta-templates. Just that we should discuss and work together on what we replace them with.
3. Netoholic is doing a tremendous job converting meta-templates... but his successes and the recognition of his efforts have been greatly muted by the confrontational and often condescending way he goes about it. His work on Template:Taxobox was excellent, but not quite what the people on that project wanted. Rather than working out the kinks he yelled about 'stonewalling' and beat them over the head with WP:AUM until they decided they weren't going to use Template:Taxobox at all, but rather go back to the old style of calling a separate template for each row of the table. However, all it took was a few minor adjustments and they are now going to use Template:Taxobox after all... primarily Netoholic's work, but almost squandered over the same sort of intransigence and browbeating now going on with Template:Language.

There is no 'policy violation' going on here (except for an increasing civility issue). Everyone is working to reduce the usage of meta-templates. Netoholic just needs to work with people a little more. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 22:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Rob's comments, if this and this is "dramatically better behaved" how bad was he before? The claim that people are provoking Netoholic is ridiculous. He is the one provoking users all over the place. Get your facts right, Rob. Netoholic's behaviour to users on template pages is rude, arrogant, bullying and obnoxious and frankly is a disgrace. He causes needless rows and then blames everyone else for them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic is certainly right that we have to avoid meta-templates and that {{Language}} is using meta-templates. But instead of going to Template talk:Language or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages (where the template is administered from) and saying "Hey y'all, we have a problem, let's work together to fix it", he just creates his own new template and starts replacing the old one with it. Gareth has worked very hard on {{Language}} over the last few months and was justifiably upset to see it so blithely replaced. (I don't agree with his blocking Netoholic over the issue, though.) --Angr (tɔk) 23:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if Garzo feels insulted, but he agreed to let other people edit his work mercilously when he joined up. I did post a "Hey y'all" message on the talk page and I have been asking to work together. Rather than get to work smoothing out any technical problems, all of the editors I've named have spent their days assuming I'm their to shatter their WikiProject. -- Netoholic @ 23:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh... you've 'named' me and I neither assume that nor am a member of that Wikiproject. Mostly I think they just want you to 'work together' before converting the articles rather than after. The new infobox looks very different from the old and doesn't have all the same features. Some of those differences are probably significant to the language wikiproject people and ways of synching things up should be explored. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Netoholic - violations of AUM must stop; it's not a "ooh, wouldn't this be nice" request. It's essentially an order by the developers (and, by extension, the Foundation). OTOH, if we could all just get along that would be nice. :-)

James F. (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not really relevant to the dispute here. Everyone agrees on this point. Nobody is saying 'we are not going to stop using meta-templates'. They are saying, 'the new template doesn't work right'. I've been trying to reduce meta-template usage without disrupting the way the templates work. Since I only started looking at templates like this about a week ago I'm nowhere near as familiar with it as Netoholic is. I also haven't been able to devote as much time as he does. Still, slow and 'nobody screaming bloody murder' has its advantages. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

But that just isn't the case. During this conversion, I have been very careful that no information is lost. The replacement template does work, and so nobody should be removing that. Like everything, if there are changes to be made, people can make them or even post on the talk page and let me implement them. -- Netoholic @ 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the template needs to be changed to come in line with AUM, I'm worried about the way Netoholic seems to be going about it. Posting one comment on the template's page saying "this needs to come in line with AUM," following this by accusing others of trying to "fake out" the software and "assaut[ing]" AUM [83], and then later counting this as an attempt to reach consensus on the changes is innapropriate. Yes, the template needs to be changed, but Netoholic also needed to put more effort into trying to work with those who worked on the old infobox template to make sure the changes went smoothly (his claims that no information was lost are wrong--the color codes for the languages don't show up in the new template; he says the new template is still being improved, and is in use, but he nonetheless implemented it in many articles). I admire his desire to bring the template in line with Wikipedia policy, but he seems to be doing it in an unnecessarily confrontational way (he also tried using deceptive edit summaries to change some articles over to the new template, which I feel is completely unacceptable). Just my two cents on the conflict; please let me know if you disagree. Take care, --Whimemsz 00:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I converted the color codes to work in the new template without meta-templating. Netoholic rightly notes that it isn't prettiest solution, but it works. Anyway, let me know if it helps at all. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 03:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. The issue isn't AUM. It is Netoholic's behaviour. If he worked with people, rather than bulldozing his way through pages, insulting people who question what he is doing, posting swear words on users' pages, issuing threats and throwing tantrums there would not be a problem. He has created the problem and he is the biggest problem with the AUM project. His approach to it has alienated the middle ground, offended genuine users, and sent a loud "fuck you" message to people who have worked on pages for months. Gareth is no vandal, just an understandably offended genuine user who has been shouted at, attacked and bullied by Netoholic. And as the pages Netoholic has been working on show, there are tons of very annoyed users out there, all thanks to his behaviour and his refusal to work with people, just shout obscenities at them and threaten them if they do not let him bulldoze their work out of the way to do what he wants. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I work quite hard and fast... this meta-template problem is strikingly prevalent. I said I'm sorry if the editors ever are offended, but, on a per-template basis, I've gotten more praise from the affected editors than resistance. -- Netoholic @ 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Another point: It looks silly to me, to try to totally avoid meta-templates on enwiki, while this policy is not in use on any (all? some? at least not at de:) other projects. Even if it is technically necessary to radically cut down meta-templates, it doesn't make sense to me, to try eliminate the last, difficult to replace, uses on enwiki, while there are zillions of meta-templates on dewiki. --Pjacobi 15:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Fanboy

Could we get a checkuser on this guy? He's been engaging in the same kind of behavior that Brazil4Linux (a prior user who has an indefinite block) was in, shares the same writing style and the same affinity for calling other people's edits "vandalism" when he disagrees with them.

Brazil4Linux uses a variable IP that almost always traces to Brazil (usually veloxzone or dialuol), so if this individual does too, then it's the guy. Daniel Davis 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

203.134.197.133

Really just looking for a 2nd opinion as the activity in question seems to have stopped: I'm not at all sure if there was any malicious intent, but 203.134.197.133 (talk • contribs) has made a string of strange edits within the space of 2 or 3 minutes. He or she left User:LinkBot suggestions at the talk pages of 20 articles. However most of the suggestions are red links. (And two pages on my watchlist that brought all this to my attention had long been merged with other articles.) But is this something to keep an eye on? Again, perhaps not malicious intent, but I can't figure out what he or she is trying to accomplish. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi

Khoikhoi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (previously Hottentot (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log))

This user's contribs for at least the last few days show what I would estimate are probably 90% reversions, using either empty or aggressive edit summaries. I dunno what's so important, but it's certainly in need of stern attention. See above section #Repeated violations of WP:AUM and reports on the WP:AN/3RR as well. -- Netoholic @ 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Other than his spat with you over boxes (which I don't understand and on which I express no opinion), the reverts seem to be sterling work in stemming the tide of crap. Mark¹ 10:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

138.38.32.84

This user has been warned, and now they have struck again. Not like this deserves a permenant block yet, but a 24 hour one is in order. This is just a routine block, and the case is already a little stale. I thought I'd bring it up.--HereToHelp (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I placed a warning on his talk page, if he does it again, report him at WP:AIV; AN/I is not really the appropriate place for this. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User:SEWilco

SEWilco has just violated his arbcom parole with a blatant reversion to his version on Sea level rise see this diff. [84]. Vsmith 03:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The ruling said: "SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert citation styles on any articles," and that he's placed on probation indefinitely which involves:"If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2." [85]

I suggest a block of between 48 hours and a week. Is anyone in agreement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I cetainly am, I think 72 hours would be appropriate. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

For such a blatant violation of the ArbCom ruling, I believe a 72-hour block is warranted.--Sean|Black 03:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

72 hours will be good. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. Ambi 13:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks everyone; 72 hours it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As dictated by the ArbCom decision, I have posted a notice at the bottom of his ArbCom case about the block, see [86]. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia BattleBots? :P

16:52, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ©úrṕş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ℃úřρś (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ¢ürpş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ℃μѓṕs (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Anonymous editor blocked Ⅽüŗṗş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (username)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Ķuŗṕš (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Кú®ṕŝ (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Ķûŕṕś (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Кυřṕŝ (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Ⅽüŗṗş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ¢υrṕs (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ℃ù®ρs (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ¢uŗpş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ¢ùŕṕş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ₭μŗṗš (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ©üŕρš (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Ķúrρŝ (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Ⅽüѓṕş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Anonymous editor blocked Кυřṕŝ (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (username)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ¢μгpş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ¢û®ρś (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Ⅽüŗpš (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ¢μ®ṗš (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Кúŗρŝ (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Қυѓρŝ (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ℃υŗpş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Çüŗρs (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ©ùŗρs (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Cúѓṕś (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ¢üŕṗş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Çü®ρś (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Ķμrpš (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ©μrpş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Cü®ρŝ (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Çurρŝ (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ¢ü®ṕš (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Ķυ®ṕš (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Çù®ps (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ℃υѓρs (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ℃üѓps (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ¢úŕṗs (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Curṕś (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Çùŕpş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Кüŕṗš (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Ķüŗpś (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Кμгρŝ (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ℃ûrpş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Ķuѓṕş (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked Ⅽùŕṗs (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

16:51, January 6, 2006, Curps blocked ₭ûŕpš (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (user...)

One account created per second? One block per second? Not humanly possible! :P --Ixfd64 04:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Refactored for legibility. (changing indent method only, no text change)

And what's that "Anonymous editor" doing in the middle? :) - SoM 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just helping out Curps with intruders and performing the usual admin tasks. ;) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

requested sock check

Since User:OceanSplash has questioned my blocking of User:Nosharia I am requesting a check as to whether User:Nosharia is reasonably likely (as far as sockchecks can prove) a sockpuppet of User:OceanSplash and/or User:Absent. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nosharia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly a sockpuppet of blocked user Absent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have blocked Nosharia indefinitely. Neither is a sock of OceanSplash. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kelly for clearing my name. An apology by Jtkiefer is not required but it would only show his caliber as a man of honor.

I would also want to remind you that Absent was blocked and that os the reados this person had to come back using another username. He had no other choice. This is not the reason to assume he was playing tricks. Sockpuppet has a negative connotation. In this case it can't be applied to him. The question to ask is why he was blocked in the first place when he was posting as Absent. He was blocked being accuse of being my sockpuppet. When he came back and commited the same mistake of agreeing with me, he was again blocked, ecah time idefinately. This seems to be abuse of power. The right thing to do is to restore one of this person's accounts and apologize to him. His only guilt is to not agree with Islamic agenda.OceanSplash 7 Jan 2006 05:01

I have apologized to OceanSplash on his talk page for wrongfully accusing him of sockpuppetry. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Absent was blocked for bigoted remarks and for uploading a hate image from the British National Party. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The original reason why I suspected that OceanSplash was a sockpuppet or was using sockpuppets was that he is blatantly anti muslim just like Absent and Nosharia, and also shows a similar habit of making baseless bigotted rants including accusing Wikipedia editors of being biased against him with no proof and no basis. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User 65.97.17.55

According to this user's contribution page, this user has never made any factually supported edits. There are POV statements about VMI on The Citadel, hisd criticism of Zippy the Pinhead is that "it sucks", and his notable event for April 6, 2003 was that he played laser tag at his friend's birthday party. When the edit was removed, he posted on the Talk:April 6, 2003 page "I know it's tough to be Jewish on Christmas, but why did you revert my edit?" (all the preceding can be seen simply by looking at the diffs on the Contribs page). No one has yet to warn this user, yet his trend of behavior is clearly not amenable to the Wikipedia community. I would prefer that he be blocked outright, but I think at first that a severe warning is in order. MSJapan 06:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblock of 64.107.0.0/16

I have unblocked 64.107.0.0/16 prematurely from the 48 hour block that Zoe set for it upon emailed request from Blahedo, a friend of mine who I absolutely trust not to be a vandal (and who is not at the institution from which the vandalism arose).

Zoe blocked this rather large range after a series of vandalistic edits from 64.107.220.151, 64.107.220.155, and 64.107.220.164. While a range block may have been appropriate in this instance, the use of a /16 subnet is excessive. 64.107.220.0/24 would have been sufficient to cover the vandal range (as would several smaller ranges, such as 64.107.220.128/26). A 48 hour range block of a /24 range is also rather long given the high risk of collateral damage. Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that range blocks should be reported on this page. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly Kelly, I wish we had a policy on range blocks. We really don't. It's too severe of something to do for it to be just on an admin's whim IMO. And yes, they should be reported here or at AN. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The vandal kept claiming he would keep switching IP addresses and continue his vandalism. Once I placed the block, the vandalism stopped, obviously. I got an email from another user at Knox College asking me to remove the block, and I told him that I would if he could get someone from Knox College's IT department to email me so we could discuss the repeated vandalism from their location. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User DreamGuy

It appears User:DreamGuy has been spamming for a TFD for the Biography Infobox (a highly debated template which recently - Oct '05 - survived a TFD). Besides spamming, I think this is clearly an attempt to force through a deletion at the TFD on this template. I have blocked DreamGuy for 48hrs (24 for spamming, 24 for attempting to force a TFD). I'm sure this is pretty controversial which is why I have posted this here.  ALKIVAR™ 12:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please see directly below for another issue concerning User:DreamGuy. Thanks. Englishrose 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Uhh, were you planning on giving him an explanation on his talk page? The length is a bit long. Internal spamming isn't a blockable offense in and of itself, and can usually be stopped by a warning on the talk page. I've got no idea why "forcing a TfD" would be a blockable offense. He appears to have nominated it for deletion in good faith. What exactly is this block for? android79 17:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We regularly block users who use sockpuppets for "vote stacking" I see this as doing exactly the same thing. This is disruption of the process. Frankly i'm sick of the "well it didnt get deleted this time around... i'll wait 3 days and try again" attitude that seems to permiate *fd debates. This is a cut and dried case of a user spamming people he knows to have voted one way on a previous tfd, to come vote stack a repeat listing. I see no difference between meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry when it comes to forcing a shift in a vote.  ALKIVAR™ 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It was three months, actually, which, while short, seems like a reasonable amount of time for a renomination. The attempt at votestacking is quite troublesome, however. How about reducing this to 24 hours, minus "time served"? In the meantime, please leave an explanation for this block on his talk page. android79 18:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Frankly unless there is a SERIOUS change in an article, the deletion process decision of no consensus should not be questioned and not revisited. That is since just about every revisit leads to the exact same no consensus decision, a la GNAA. Frankly I am really not amused when people decide that they dont like the first judgement and keep relisting it, its akin to cruel and unusual punishment to the users who have contributed to the article up for debate. I know I sure as hell dont want to put multiple man hours of editing time into making something great when the shadow of deletion is continually lingering over it. I'm pretty sure very few people do. Its stuff like this that leads good users to throw up their hands and quit in disgust.  ALKIVAR™ 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • If something ends in "no consensus" that's just what it means: there was no decision to be questioned. There was no consensus to do anything, and the issue may be revisited in the future. I don't think you can take one extreme case (GNAA) and extrapolate that out to every revisited deletion decision. Revisited decisions get overturned routinely, often as the result of WP:DRV. (Of course, the opposite happens, too.)
        • Did you intend to block him for 24 hours from now? Minus time served, it should be about 18. android79 18:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Users: Peter S. and DreamGuy (aladin issue getting nasty)

It seems that Peter S. is pursuing a personal vendetta against those who took part in the aladin deletion review or on the aladin talk pages. He has made several accusations of sock puppetry to users and has made personal attacks on the aladin talk page., such as

Ox, you're a sockpuppet for Aladin, it's so transparent to everyone here it's ridiculous you're hiding behind the next facade. Give up, you've already tainted your image enough. Peter S. 12:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)”

and

“Of course it is, Mr. Sockpuppet. Peter S. 23:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)”

On top of that, he accussed all users who voted keep as being sockpuppets on aladin’s article for deletion page with commens such as

“I'd like to order a full sockpuppet and meatpuppet check on all people that have voted here, with an article of such a bad quality, all those "keep" votes cannot possible be the thruthful opinion of the well-educated general wikipedia public. Please do a IP-Address-Location&Provider-check, not just a "numbers of good edits" check which could be faked by a determined person. Thank you. Peter S.”

He has also created the article aladin (London), which was a personal attack on aladin.

As well as that, DreamGuy is also pursuing a personal vendetta against those who took part in the aladin deletion review or on the aladin talk pages. I feel that comments such as,

“No disrespect, Autumnleaf, but from your history here anything you claim without proof that you can show and verify so that other people can see it doesn;t mean anything to me. You have from the very beginning been pushing Aladin's claims of notability and making unsupportable comments. Claims of having tracked down a paper doesn;t help. Photocopy and mail it to someone trustworthy if they really exist, because I would guess that you are Aladin himself under one of many accounts from your actions here. DreamGuy 03:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)”

“And I would agree that this is probably a sockpuppet anyway. DreamGuy 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)”,

and “The matter you quote has nothing to do with what you are talking about, and for someone who appeared out of nowhere you sure know your way around... I smell sock. DreamGuy”

I feel that these comments are highly offensive to such users if they are not sockpuppets and could put them off from editing again. I feel that they should take their concerns up here rather than directly accuse them.

As well as that, DreamGuy has also vandalised the aladin page and turned to it to a redirect to the differently spelt Aladdin, his given reason was “redirect for typo on common and notable name instead of stub for person who fails notability tests”. I feel that this was malicious.

Regardless of whether original aladin the article is justified, I feel that Peter S has over-stepped the mark. (Personally I think that aladin is real and notable but was originally hyped up beyond recognition, I also question some of claims but that’s another issue). Also Peter S. quite rightfully asked for a check on these notice boards (See here) and the response was that there were no suspicions of sock puppetry. I am all for a sock puppetry investigation (of all voters, including those who voted delete) as I have my own suspicions if it stops Peter S. from continuing this personal pursuit. I think that the issue is seriously getting out of hand and turning nasty and suggest that review both Peter S.'s contributions and Dream Guy's contributions and see some of their comments/actions. Thanks for your time. Englishrose 14:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of Deeceevoice

I have blocked Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours regarding her refusal to engage in dialogue regarding her user page. Please see [87] regarding this issue. Fred Bauder 16:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Fred, I think this action now requires you to recuse yourself from the arbitration. You should have left this to someone else; you now no longer can represent neutrality in her arbitration. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Discourtesy" is not, iirc, part of the blocking policy (all the more, the "discourtesy" of removing a message from you placed on her user page instead of her talk page). In addition, I find it very discomforting to see an arbitrator seek out conflict with someone whose case he is hearing. Guettarda 16:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is truly getting out of hand. I think that Deeceevoice is really making this situation worse for herself by not participating in dialogue, but I also think that these blocks are unjustified. Blocking for personal attacks is, according to the blocking policy, controversial, and DCV was not attacking Bauder himself. She took issue with his posting to her user page (not user talk page) and his blocking her for refusing to let him make that comment in that forum. I think this is at the heart of her behavior; if Bauder had posted to her talk page instead, he probably would have gotten a more positive response. Please reconsider these blocks, especially Sandifer's extension for what he considers "personal attacks". — BrianSmithson 17:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

She referred to his block as a hissy fit. That is about as blatant as they come. Furthermore, let's note that this is a refusal to engage in dialogue after Jimbo point blank said "engage in dialogue." Phil Sandifer 17:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm contesting more your extension of the block than Bauder's original one. And "hissy fit" is, again, describing Bauder's actions, not Bauder himself. — BrianSmithson 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) because I can find nothing on WP:BP to justify Fred's or Snowspinner's blocks of her. And using the {{vandal}} template to refer to her is extremely disrespectful and could be construed as a personal attack and/or harassment. --Angr (tɔk) 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there would be a lot fewer wheel wars on Wikipedia if there were also fewer admins who liked doing things likely to start one. Phil Sandifer 17:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed some substantive something or other on some other page, since this has ranged all across WP, but hasn't DCV made her feelings on the issue pretty clear? That's certainly been my impression. To then block someone for "not engaging in dialogue" is rather, well, confusing to me. Unless that really means "engage in dialogue that will result in you changing your userpage." This whole situation is a mess. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The engagement in dialogue would involve some statement of the form "Gee, lots of otherwise reasonable people are really upset by my userpage. Please tell me, otherwise reasonable people, what I can do to still express my thoughts on these matters in a way that does not so offend you?" Currently, DCV's statements are of the form of "Get bent, this is my userpage." Phil Sandifer 17:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still discussing my user page. It's no longer an issue -- or it shouldn't be. El Grande Cheese-o disappeared it. :p deeceevoice 17:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In other words, then, it's not really not engaging in dialogue, it's not engaging in the right dialogue. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you on that. --Angr (tɔk) 17:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you just pour fresh gasoline on a matter that was resolving itself? Phil Sandifer 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In light of, IMO, Bauder's unseemly actions, I'd like to request that he recuse himself -- or be excused -- from hearing my case currently before the Arb Com. How do I go about such a thing? I'd appreciate a response at my talk page. Further, I am considering taking further action against him. After the tacky RobChurch affair and now Snowspinner, I'm a bit fed up with admins at this point. I'd like some advice on how to proceed. Thanks much. deeceevoice 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

While I think Deeceevoice has done more than enough recently to merit quite a few blocks, I think the specific rationales given for the blocks here were a little shaky, especially the "personal attacks" one (referring to someone's actions as a "hissy fit" is not particularly civil, but it's hardly "about as blatant as it comes", either). Given that, historically, doing anything "bad" to Deeceevoice ends up construed as "racism", it might be best to stick to undeniable cases of disruption before blocking. — Matt Crypto 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

She's clearly generating more heat than light. I don't tend to like blocks much, but this one was justified in my opinion. Friday (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Much more heat. Agreed. Rx StrangeLove 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Threatened block for using the words "hell" or "fuck" on a talk page

At Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy, Admin User:FayssalF is threatening to block users for using the worlds "fuck" or "hell." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good for him. -- 16:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have pointed out that using fuck and hell are bad, and so is blocking for it. Phil Sandifer 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

People have the right to use vulgar language, so long it's not to insult other people, so what's the fucking problem? This was the line that was used: "all the angels in Heaven cannot changing that fucking rule". Someone tell these housewives who were made admins that they have no right to censor people! Shame on you, redneck housewives! Shame on you, you new-born Christians! --Anittas 16:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, let me point out that people can be blocked for disruption. Note: I'm not commenting on this specific situation (I haven't reviewed it), but in general. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am now thinking of Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption and trying to fit everything into the marked slots:

Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks. Users should normally be warned before they are blocked. For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month.

Does this apply? I don't really know what to think - being incivil is unacceptable, but can one be blocked for it after being asked not to do it? We should hear FayssalF's side of the story before jumping to conclusions though. Izehar 17:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't apply! Read the talkpage! These is just some religious fanatics that try to impose their conservative ideals on the hard-working editors of Wiki! No censorship on Wiki! --Anittas 17:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As per Phil above, being uncivil is bad. But blocking for minor incivility is bad too. -- SCZenz 17:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, it depends on whether the person is being a) blatant enough and b) disruptive enough with their incivility. Is it beginning to affect discussions or editing negatively? If so, block. Even a short-term block can be effective (3-4 hours, long enough for a cooling off). Otherwise ...... probably not. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Use of the words won't need a block, but if the user is being incivil with them, then I think a block can be used. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

When people are using vulgar language in order to shock and offend (as they undoubtedly are on that page) it is highly uncivil. If people persist in using such language on that page with that deliberate intention, I also intend to block for it. [[Sam Korn]] 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Admins have to use their judgement. I wouldn't block for a statement such as "Wikipedia is f--king cool." That's not a personal attack, nor disruptive. However, a user stating "You are a f--king retard," will recieve a stern warning, if not a short block. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 19:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In that instance, the profanity is being used to add emphasis to what is already a personal attack, so certainly WP:NPA applies, strongly, regardless of one's position of profanity. I agree with Bratsche in that there is a difference between the bare words and how they are used in different instances, and with Sam Korn on intent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking because of genuine incivility and personal attacks is fine. Telling users that "words like hell and heaven not suitable for [the talk pages of] Wikipedia" and then threatening to ban over this issue is...well, inadvisable. Babajobu 20:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Context is key.--Sean|Black 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with what everone's saying about profanity, but what's everyone getting so worked up about? As far as I can see, all FayssalF said was "Next time, I'll start blocking any user disrespecting others" and then "If words like f**k are acceptable here than I must remind the offenders that applying policies is the rule." A threat to apply policies and block disrespectful editors is not earth-shattering. In fact it sounds fine to me; he was trying to address a real incivility problem, after all. If you ask me, Hipocrite is being deliberately provocative, and got what he wanted: a bunch of random people, admins included, to go criticize FayssalF, accusing him of censorship, abusing admin powers, and um, being a redneck housewife. Dmcdevit·t 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Fucking Wikipedia is not fucking censored for the fucking protection of minors; why the fuck should it be fucking censored for fucking prudes? Yes, fucking avoid fucking personal attacks, but simply fucking using fucking language that someone else finds fucking offensive is not a fucking personal attack. (By way of example, I know full well some people find blasphemy offensive, but if I want to interject "god" or "jesus h. christ" into a conversation, or if I want to insult the Prophet on a talk page, I kinda think that's within the limits of generally accepted civility.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BRAVO! BRAVO!!! --Anittas 21:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • That's fucking brilliant :).--Sean|Black 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Fucking ace! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary judgment:

1. No Wikipedian should call Fayssal a redneck housewife.
2. Fayssal should not issue lists of words "not suitable for Wikipedia". Babajobu 21:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys! I am very amazed by all this souk! First of all, have I blocked anyone?! It sounds like I did block people! I did not! No! So what's the problem? Threatening? Mmmmm! Yes! I did! Why? Because of WP:Civility. As Sean Black put it, depends on the context!

Too much of swearing, too much of f**k, too much of s**t, too much of p**s, etc... Aren't that threatening itself?! This is an encyclopaedia and and not a market place! And that's why wikipedians put thier faith on me!

Second thing! Why are you relating this to a religious matter????! Why not relate it to civility and stop there?!!!!

Anyway, (a message to Anittas), please don't judge situations as being religious fanatics that try to impose their conservative stuff. This is in itself a personal attack. So refrain from such declarations. I don't care if someone calls me a housewive anyway. My GF would love that! However, isn't housewive a personal attack itself? Some people are for the slogan No censorship in Wiki!!! C'mon! What about f**k? So, do I have to accept the f**k stuff? Respect is the key! Wherever you go! Including your own home!

Third of all, please have a time to read this at WP:Civility. And please avoid doing the same if you are in a classroom! -- Cheers Szvest 22:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

"Some people are for the slogan No censorship in Wiki!!! C'mon! What about f**k? So, do I have to accept the f**k stuff?" Fayssal, I think the consensus is yes, unless the word fuck is employed as a part of a personal attack, then we must tolerate it. Some people use fuck lightly (JPGordon would be an example) and do not find it offensive or necessarily intend offense when using it. We don't have to share their "beliefs", as it were, but we have to tolerate them. Babajobu 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My take, for whatever it may be worth: If I say 'snot', and Doris Biggles claims to be offended by it, must I refrain from the usage? Then if Doris says 'geranium' and I claim to be offended by it, must she refrain from the usage? Surely the criterion must be whether offence was intended, rather than that offence was taken. If I know that Doris is offended by the usage of the word 'snot' and continue to use it gratuitously, specifically to offend her, I would be in error; if I use the term as I normally would, I am not in error. Similarly Doris in re 'geranium'. Similarly anyone in re 'fuck', 'hell', etc. Sbz5809 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job guys! Keep on filling wikipedia with whatever you want as long as it is not offending anyone! If you take a look at the page where that happened you'd realize that it offended many users. Anyway, I am sure most of the users who are participating in thi sdiscussion forget about this:

Fuck is a strong and generally provocative (and offensive) swear word in the English language. It is one of the best-known vulgarisms in the English-speaking world, and it is often considered the most impolite curse word in the English language. However, today it is used more freely.

It is unclear whether the word has always been considered impolite and, if not, when it was initially considered to be profane. Some evidence indicates that in some English-speaking locales it was considered acceptable as late as the 17th century meaning "to strike" or "to penetrate" [1]. Other evidence indicates that it may have become vulgar as early as the 16th century in England; thus other reputable sources such as the Oxford English Dictionary contend the true etymology is still uncertain, but appears to point to an Anglo-Saxon origin that in later times spread to the British colonies and worldwide. -- Cheers Szvest 23:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

ScienceApologist (3)

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)

I'm repeating a quibble from a couple of days back ^ which I feel has not been addressed; indeed, it appears to have been condoned by another user which may imply the wrong message. Although the AfD in question has now ended, I do not think that negates the actions described below.

• I note from the Wiki Guide to Deletion page the following guidelines: "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith". (my emphasis)
• Yet a check of the AfD history shows that ScienceApologist did indeed remove two comments, and put them on the AfD's talk page (1) [88] (2) [89]

--Iantresman 17:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Excessively long comments are routinely moved to an AfD's talk page, where they are still visible, and where discussion can still occur. They were not removed, and only modified slightly; they were simply moved elsewhere. If you disagreed with the move, you could have simply moved your comments back. The AfD is still open, so you can still make your case. android79 17:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Each comment was "moved" in its entirety. For anyone visiting the AfD, there was no visible sign that the comments had ever been there, so for all intents and purposed, they had been removed. A summary was not been made, nor a couple of lines of the original comments left, nor even a note to say that the comments had been removed. In my books, that is a removal.

--Iantresman 18:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So move 'em back. android79 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So even if it someone ignores the guidelines, effectively resulting in deception, no-one is going to say anything. What a great message to send to editors. That makes a mockery of the AfD process; Leave comments, but if someone thinks they are "too long" just move them elsewhere, despite the guidelines. --Iantresman 18:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a Wiki. You can easily undo just about anything else anyone else does. You "said something" to ScienceApologist yourself about this inappropriate move of your comments. The AfD closer will notice that and take it into account. android79 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's something, even though it's too late. I think it would help the editing process if minor infractions were somehow noted. Especially as I have a long list of similar infractions against the same person, all of which I can substantiate. But thanks for your consideration. --Iantresman 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

For that, there's WP:RFC. android79 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've had at least three WP:RFC's and am happy to work with other editors. I've also started a couple of Requests for arbitration, and been told its merely a content dispute (which it has been, but not the reason I was going through arbitration), and told that I hadn't gone through the Dispute resolution process (which I had, and provided evidence), along with evidence of (a) POV (b) Ignoring Citations (c) Personal attacks and Civility (e) Ignoring Verifiability (g) Association fallacy (h) Ignoring Consensus. Unfortunately all this seems to show is that I am harrassing an individual ^, and the individual carries on without note, comment, concern, etc etc. But thanks anyway. --Iantresman 19:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Iantresman, can't you see when to stop? You have some content disputes with ScienceApologist. Most people from WikiProject Physics which looked at this issue support ScienceApologist. Reddi who tried to tip the scales against ScienceApologist by aggressive editing finds himself on RfAr:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2

Pjacobi 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me see. I make a complaint against another editor, and offer to substantiate it. Your throw it back in my face, without addressing ANY of my points, and suggest that I am making "agressive editing", based on someone else. And, as it turns out, ScienceApologist's idea of "editing" is to COMPLETELY replace an entire article [90] without any consultation whatsoever. And you condone this form of "cooperation"? --Iantresman 23:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, I'm saying:

• There is a content dispute behind your repetive complaints here
• Not you, but one of the few editors choosing your side of the content dispute, is now subject to RFAr for aggressive editing

Pjacobi 23:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Intentional disregard of WP:FU by User:MegamanZero

I happened across an inappropriate use of unlicensed media on a user page today at User:MegamanZero. I removed the inappropriate use and informed the user that I had removed it on his talk page. He has since replaced the removed image. Since I follow 0RR with respect to admin actions, I've merely notified the user that I will report his disregard of policy here. And so I have. I request that some other administrator remove the image again and take such appropriate measures as to ensure that this user returns to compliance with policy in this regard. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: User:MegamanZero altered the license on the image in dispute from "fair use" [91] to "free for any use" [92] in order to get around the fair use policy. This alteration of the license was based on no legitimate claim and was clearly done with total disregard for our copyright policies and the copyright law. I am therefore blocking MegamanZero for one month. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is OTT, though I agree with the block on principle. Would you agree if I reduced it to one week, with a "don't do this again or else" note on the user talk page? [[Sam Korn]] 19:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree he needs a block, but a month seems excessive. android79 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I can live with a week. Note that under policy I'm entitled to block him indefinitely; Jimbo has sanctioned a zero-tolerance policy for this sort of thing. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. Another violation -> month block. Further violation -> indefinite block. [[Sam Korn]] 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A week sounds good - it sends a clear message of "no". And, of course, much longer would be appropriate for any repeat of this -- sannse (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll reduce the block to a week and update the note on his talk page. Thanks for the advice. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This guy is an admin? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Who? MegamanZero isn't, no. Kelly Martin might be; I can't quite recall. -Splash^talk 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That entire statement "0RR in respect to admin actions" does kind of give it away. ;-) Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I must have misread. Thank god. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• These Fair use and other copywrite issues are confusing to many people. Megamanzero is a fairly new user, but he shouldn't have replaced the images under a new proported license. Is a one week block a bit long in light of the fact that he is still fairly new and seems to be quite youthful?--MONGO 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He's not all that new, having been here for at least a couple of months, and deliberately applied an inappropriate copyright tag, implying he knows precisely how copyright tags work. I imagine if he establishes by email with Kelly Martin that it absolutely won't happen again, and Kelly is satisfied of that fact, that the block can be shortened or lifted. But that's up to Kelly. -Splash^talk 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest that a user savvy enough to alter the copyright template on an image in an attempt to get away with copyright infringement doesn't get the benefit of claiming a lack of experience with how we deal with copyright issues. I suggest that the user in question is being treated quite leniantly in not getting indef-blocked. Jkelly 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • NO, it's not up to Kelly. I won't lift the block, but I think he is just very youthful. If he agress and apolgizes for his transgressions, the block should be reduced to 48 hours in my opinion. And an indefinite ban, Jkelly?...you're joking of course? What are we here, a lynch mob?--MONGO 22:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't kidding. There have been a couple of statements recently by User:Jimbo Wales indicating that copyright infringement is serious enought to indef-block for. Jkelly 22:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of those statements by Jimmmy Wales. They pertain to more egregious situations from my understanding.--MONGO 22:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as less serious than two cut-and-pastes from IMDB done over a year ago. I'll grant that its reasonable to disagree with me about that, though. Jkelly 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I will lift the block, it looks like that rfc wasn't enough to end the lynch mob mentality that MONGO's talking about here. You think Kelly would have stopped all of this after that rfc. I try to take some time off, and I see that she's still at it... karmafist 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, leave the block in place, I gave Meagman instructions on what he really does need to do..--MONGO 22:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Karmafist has lifted the block anyway, replacing it with one of his own choice. Karmafist is cruising for trouble. -Splash^talk 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Karmafist, if you are reading this, I request you cease making decisions that are not backed up by consensus. There was not consensus for Kelly's original block. I shortened it. There was consensus for my block. You shortened it. There is not consensus for your block. I don't intend to change it again, but I request that you think more carefully before using your admin privileges in future. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 23:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I can't believe that with an ongoing discussion an admin takes such unilateral action. It shows total contempt for process and concensus and abuses admins powers (hey, wasn't that what Kelly was criticised for in the RfC.... - looks like the pot and the kettle). --Doc ^ask? 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Other stuff

Would you consider similar action in relation to this removal of a copyvio statement? (See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 January 6) for abuse associated with this action). User:Noisy | Talk 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because this says that the material is indeed Crown copyright. (Unsurprising — it's a crown!) The linkedto list suggests it may appear on some userpages, but I haven't checked them all. -Splash^talk 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you read this portion of the page you cite?

Copyright of photographs on this site appears alongside each photograph. Copies of many of the photographs appearing on this site can be obtained from the sources listed below. Pictures must not be copied, used or reproduced by any means or in any format (including other web sites) without the prior permission of the copyright holder.

User:Noisy | Talk 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The odd thing is that at the source where it says the image is from does say it is under crown copyright [93]. Maybe we should send it to WP:PUI and see what they say, or we can just look on the Commons for a crown photo. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 19:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has Image:Kamelia shojaee.jpg on her user page which is also a fair use image, been on there a while it looks like. funny how only certain people get targeted by certain admins isn't it? -_-

This is also just as intentional, see this edit and this edit.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate policy is at Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy (which is an official Wikipedia policy). It states at bullet point nine (my bold):

Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages.

User:Noisy | Talk 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jim16 & User talk:66.17.116.148

History: A request was filed by User:RoyBoy for CheckUser here regarding violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and potential Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, but user own edit here & here effectively admitted to be same person.

Vandalism and attempts at hiding: User_talk:66.17.116.148

Abusive behaviour & violation of Wikipedia:Profanity & Wikipedia:No personal attacks: [94] [95] [96] [97]

Violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry: [98] [99]

Blanking talk page without answering after being informed to assume good faith & cease sock puppetrying: [100]

KTC 20:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Undoing other admins' blocks

I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Undoing_other_admins.27_blocks. Comments from everyone would be appreciated so we can hopefully come up with a way of avoiding damaging wheel wars in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

JAIS (Just Another Iasson Sockpuppet)

Mpaksa (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) inserted a comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Iasson that is basically a repetition of previous Iasson sockpuppets. I have blocked this user indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet and will update Iasson's ban date accordingly. Since this is my first indefinite block, I figured I should report it here to have it unblocked if you think I'm mistaken. It also appears that Mpaks (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is an (unblocked) Iasson sockpuppet, though he only edited under that account on December 10. --Deathphoenix 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Block disagreement

SlimVirgin blocked Everyking today for an infringement of his arbcom ruling. Everyking asked me to have a look at the block, feeling it was unfair. I had a look, and felt that in this case he was not targeting Snowspinner, but specifically arguing Bishonnen's block, so unblocked. I understand SlimVirgin's viewpoint on this, but see things differently in this case. SlimVirgin and I can't come to an agreement on what is best here, so it would be useful to have another opinion. Everyking cannot comment on this page, so please don't let this become a big comment fest on his behaviour, we just need an un-involved admin to review the situation and replace the block if that is appropriate (I will not under any circumstances wheel-war on this of course)

The relevant pages are:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3
• User talk:SlimVirgin
• User talk:Sannse
• User talk:Bishonen
• WP:RFAR#Request for injunction against harrassment by Everyking

Thanks -- sannse (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In future, it might be best to ask for the third party view before reversing the admin action. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I did. Just not on Wikipedia, so not "officially" if you like -- sannse (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if it could be done openly so that the blocking admin has a chance to give an opinion before the block is undone, rather than afterwards. Or better still, contact me directly to discuss it. I'll put up some diffs here for a third admin to review. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time to look over this fully right now, but just pointing out, though, I do believe it was Snowspinner's block Everyking was disputing [101], not Bishonen's. Which is why he was blocked. Dmcdevit·t 22:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are the reasons I feel Everyking should be blocked. I blocked for 48 hours, but because there's disagreement, I'd have no objection if someone were to shorten it.

Everyking's been harassing Snowspinner for months, criticizing everything he does, and there have been several arbcom cases about it, which haven't changed his behavior. He invariably engages in boundary violations, finding loopholes, or claiming not to understand. As a result, the arbcom recently issued this ruling: "Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Wikipedia. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year."

Clarification was requested and Raul654 gave an unambiguous clarification on January 2: ""Everyking is not to mention, gesture, indicate, or gesticulate in any way that implies Snowspinner or any action taken by Snowspinner (including, but not limited, to Snowspinner's edits)." [102]

I warned Everyking on his talk page that I intended to help enforce the ruling. Note that I had not involved myself in this case before, but I was tired of seeing it reach the arbcom. After the warning, Everyking violated it by posting about Snowspinner, so I blocked him for 24 hours on December 29.

On January 3, one day after Raul's clarification, Everyking started questioning Bishonen about a block of hers against User:Hollow Wilerding, a sockpuppet account of a blocked user. [103] He has posted so often about it that Bish has asked the arbcom for an injunction against him posting to her talk page.

Although Bish had blocked HW for two weeks, Snowspinner had extended the block to indefinite three hours later. [104] Therefore, it is Snowspinner's block that Everyking is trying to have overturned.

Sannse says he didn't realize the standing block was Snowspinner's. Even if that is true (i.e. he didn't look at the block log), Bishonen explained on January 5 at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen that Snowspinner was the final blocking admin, and again on her talk page in a response to Everyking at 12:19 January 7. [105]

Assuming good faith, that Everyking didn't know until 12:19 January 7 that it was Snowspinner's block he was trying to have overturned, he still continued to post about it. [106] [107] I warned him at 19:02 on January 7 that he was in violation of the arbcom ruling because the block was Snowspinner's. [108] He acknowledged seeing the warning, but continued posting about it anyway, [109] so I blocked him. I blocked for 48 hours because the previous one had been for 24.

Because Everyking has violated every ruling about staying away from Snowspinner, I feel he needs to have the limits made clear (as Raul654 and the arbcom have done), told what the response will be for transgressions, and then each and every trangression should meet with that response. Otherwise this situation will continue, to Everyking's detriment as well to Snowspinner's. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I was beginning to wonder why Bishonen — now it makes sense. El_C 22:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)