The Block (album)

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Proposal to unblock Sceptre

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

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

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

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the 3 month block (per his own transcluded comments at the top of the linked page) to wanting it, essentially, rescinded entirely?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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More important issue: article quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong opposition to Sceptre's unblock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article and talk space restriction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mentorship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive?

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

Maybe subpage it and transclude an active section, otherwise, yea, archive. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive. Nothing of substance has been posted in the last day or so and there is clearly no consensus to unban. Jtrainor (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban needed for two edit warriors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Procedural oppose. Sorry, but I just can't get behind any proposal to topic ban whose presentation is based solely upon links to account names and two articles. Future Perfect, I have the highest opinion of your judgment generally, but just isn't the sort of precedent we ought to set: AGF requires the rest of us to assume that no action is needed, and places the burden of proof upon you to demonstrate more clearly why it is. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support the edit warring is pretty clearly the only issue that's a problem. If this will end the issue, it is a good solution. I can't make any sense at all out of Durova's justification for a procedural oppose. *dryly* It's as if you're saying we shouldn't take the word of trusted admins on these issues based on the evidence they put forth. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the community are not incapable or unable to look at the relevant pages and decide for themselves - I doubt this could be characterized as a case that is too hard to follow without some sort of guidance from the complainant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No matter how justifiable this particular request is, we should expect a substantive presentation in every request for community sanctions. The time it takes to prepare a set of specific diffs etc. is trivial compared to the effort it takes for the requesting administrator to determine that a request is necessary in the first place. We all know that wikilawyers abound: I intend to avoid setting precedents they could manipulate on future occasions. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Often, those presentations are lopsided to begin with, so they're often not very reliable on their own because they don't paint the full picture - in which case, we end up having to find the relevant pages for ourselves. I agree; we should still insist on them painting a picture for every case (more than just saying 'I want him banned' or more than just 'look at this page. do something'). But if uninvolved users have looked at it for themselves, then I'm not sure about the validity of such an oppose. While Fut Perf. did not provide any diffs, there was a substantial description given by more than one user as to the duration of this dispute, and the extent of disruption it is causing, and the sorts of pages that are affected by it. If we genuinely couldn't find anything, then I'd be opposing with you on the grounds that I couldn't see anything to support the need for a sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Question and Comment Has any form of mediation been saught? eg. MEDCAB or MEDCOM Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos of battle damaged Buffalo MPCVs

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response from image uploader: First of all, I strongly disagree with the premise that the military prohibits posting pics of battle damaged vehicles on the internet. If this really is the case, you'd better tell the army that[7][8][9] and you should really tell the department of defense that[10][11]. Secondly, somebody please tell me how anything in this picture gives an advantage to any enemy who sees it. There is nothing in it that violates operational security other than to display the fact that it is really, really hard to blow up a Buffalo. It is a well known fact that the military releases photos of MRAPs hit by IEDs to show the enemy that it cannot hurt us. And even if it did give the enemy an advantage, it's not Wikipedia's job to take sides in a war. It is Wikipedia's policy to maintain a neutral point of view and editors should be bold and unopinionated with their edits. Also, don't we have an obligation to show folks back home what is going on? How good is a democracy that burns books and keeps it's citizens blind? Lastly, there is not a single Wikipedian rule or policy this image violates. It isn't copyright protected. It is pertinent, notable, and encyclopedic. Honestly, there isn't a single objectionable thing about it. You have to be careful, because if you violate Wikipedia's censorship policy and censor this one it opens the door to a whole lot of other images about related and unrelated images alike. How different would censoring this be from China censoring google search results? IraqVet225 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

IraqVet, I doubt anyone has any problem extending good faith to you -- or to almost any contributor, even if that person made only one edit. (My suspicion was directed at the OP, not you, just in case it is not clear.) However, knowing just how critical military secrets are, whether we are at war or at peace, do you believe that the Pentagon would simply leave a message on WP:AN asking that this be removed, or would they send a detachment of commissioned officers & government officials to the WMF to lean on the people there until the image was deleted from not only Wikipedia, but the database? If there was any chance this was a military secret, the image would have vanished within 24 hours of its posting as an OTRS action & there'd be a long thread full of demands to know why the image was removed. (And having written this much, I'm letting the topic drop since we should not feed the trolls.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

A military regulation on this doesn't affect Wikipedia at all... Federal US law might, if there was a law that said that you couldn't publish photos of damaged US military vehicles, but there is no such law and such photos are released regularly by the military and taken by press and independent people. This is either a hostile troll attempt or someone who is terribly unaware of how the military regulation on what its people can do is inapplicable to what other unrelated people can or can't do. Ignore. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I figured I should post here, instead of my userpage for a more rapid recognition of this message. Can someone restore my userpage history, without restoring the less than admirable edits? Also does anyone know if I can change my home wiki to, for instance, [12]? -PatPeter 18:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reblock?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I absolutely agree with you that "Everyone should be given an opportunity to mend their ways," I want to emphasize that "an opportunity" is singular. It appears that one more opportunity had already been squandered in this case. I'm all for second chances – it's the third and fourth ones that give me pause. — Satori Son 17:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree SS.

And I'll apologise in advance for the possible lack of good faith, but when a previous sock puppeteer pushes for an unblock, receives it, stomps off for a "birthday party", doesn't come back to the discussion, and makes only 2 edits in several days, should someone wonder if there's possibly new socking? (Made possible by the recent unblock?) - jc37 09:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Huge backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

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

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

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

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

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

Off to do some CSD I8 deletion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's off to more than 500 entries now! It really needs a joint effort of a dozen admins to be coped with, please join in! TIA SoWhy 07:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bong video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Error in "Bundling" at AFD

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

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

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

1RR enquiry

Per User_talk:Boodlesthecat#1RR_restrictions and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive474#Proposed_1RR_restrictions, and per text of WP:3RR (Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material), can we consider the following edits a 1RR violation: revert 1 and 6h later, revert 2. PS. Proof that I am involved in this article and w/ regards to this very content: [14]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I'd already blocked Boodlesthecat before noticing this. In my opinion, [15] is a clear revert to [16], and [17] is another one back to [18]. Even though the edits that they're reverting are different, each one counts individually, and also towards establishing a pattern of hostile editing; there's a partial revert here on the fifth, and another one here. This is fundamentally edit warring to the maximum extent that one thinks that one is allowed daily, and it isn't healthy. The intent of a 1RR sanction is to stop hostile behavior, not establish a numerical hoop that must be jumped through every day. We might need a different solution if unconstructive editing practices continue. east718 // talk // email // 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would be less cynical if Bstone didn't have a long history of yelling "admin abuse" every time something (usually not involving him) comes to one of the AN boards that might involve an admin having done something wrongly [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24][25] and ad nauseam. Black Kite 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the record, Boody has asked to be unblocked via unblock template twice in the past few hours and been declined twice ([26], [27])... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oversight request

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

Oversight has been requested. Kevin (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Radοžda

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

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

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

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

The title blacklist contains a few entries designed (presumably) with the intent of avoiding the use of characters that look like standard English letters - but aren't - in an attempt to get around other entries in the blacklist that target particular unwanted page titles. I do agree, however, that if the proper name uses an omicron then either the article or a redirect should use the correct character, something which an admin would have to take care of. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that the proper name does not contain an omicron, or any other Greek letters for that matter. I've no idea how it originally ended up in there, but apparently someone typed it that way somewhere and everyone has since been cutting and pasting the broken version around. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

remove from blacklist russianfootage.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Russia with Love

Hello Dirk,

would you please make an exception this time, and not be that very judgmental, we really have a lot of interesting video which would benefit related wikipedia page, well if its a tabu to insert the links on any other pages, please allow to do on stock footage page, which is directly appeals to people looking for stock footage, please allow them to know where to find the stock footage . professional video in Russia … I never ever inserted irrelevant links to wikipedia pages, and I read comments later on realizing that I am actually doing something wrong… truly was not my intention ... Full awareness came after U blocked the sites...But I promise we will not divert our links to your pages ( even if our video benefits it) ...Please whitelist our websites

Oxana— Preceding unsigned comment added by oxana s (talk • contribs)

Oxana, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. If you have content to add, then please do so. If that needs to be referenced, and your site is the only site that can verify the content, then you can contact the local whitelist and request if the specific url can be whitelisted.

If you believe the link has merit, then I would suggest to you is that you contact an appropriate wikiproject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject, or you can look at banners on talkpages of pages where you think your link is of interest), or contact regular editors on pages you want to edit (see the history of the pages, and find editors who expand the pages), and ask them what they think about the link, and the information it provides. I hope this explains. I am not going to make an exception after this long history of sockpuppetry and continuous link-additions, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I will second the decline based on the evidence above. Its a link that has a known history of spamming, and was added to the blacklist for good reason. Account that seems related to the link asks to have it removed, no thanks. —— nixeagle 16:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy closing an RFA?

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

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

Editing a user's posts

Resolved

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

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

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

Bad faith AfD nomination

Resolved

 – Was closed as speedy keep. — Realist² 20:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Aggressive tendentious edit warrior - community ban/sanction proposal

Problematic conduct

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

Edit-warring

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

The first occasion: PrinceOfCanada made the following bold edits here. G2bambino then reverted in part over the 3 or so edits here here. PrinceOfCanada then reverts here. G2bambino then violates his restriction and reverts for the 2nd time here. 2 days later, he was reverted by another user here. He then reverted again [28], which was reverted again by PrinceOfCanada [29] with the request it be taken to the talk page.

The second occasion: G2bambino makes an edit for the image change [30]. Another editor makes a revision in between, and G2bambino revertshere. PrinceOfCanada reverts this [31] then G2bambino reverts for the second time in violation of his restriction [32].

Similar edit-warring can be found on other pages.

Problematic edit-summaries

G2bambino has also been using uncivil edit-summaries that could be considered as baiting. [33] Suggestions (in edit-summaries) that warnings or concerns will only be legitimate if others are admins is again unhelpful. [34] Hurling accusations of personal campaigns is again unhelpful. Persistently referring to these image allignments as unsightly in edit summaries were not helpful, [35] [36] [37], nor was hurling accusations of personal campaigns [38]. Then furthering it with assumptions of bad faith/incivility/implied personal attacks that others have problems with their eye-sight is another troubling issue [39].

Tendentious editor

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

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

The conduct problems of this user seem to have begun very early on User_talk:Gbambino/archive1 and continued to be a problem today. Even more recent implied personal attacks/incivility/strong assumptions of bad faith [40] further lead me to the same conclusion. Not all users are blameless for letting the atmosphere get disgusting [41] [42] - although the latter does seem to illustrate the crux of the dispute to an extent. This diff is also relevant to the dispute [43].

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

Specific sanctions proposals

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

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

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

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

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

4) G2bambino is subject to a 0RR restriction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To reply to the above. I'm sorry but we can't not punish an editor because they have taught you something or because they are a good editor. If their behaviour has causes problems, then good editor or not, they should be banned. It's a dangerous precedent to say people get away with edit warring, rude behaviour etc etc if they are good contributors. Also, bearing in mind G2bambino's constant POV-pushing, evasive behaviour (seen on an discussion I had with him at Autumn Phillips), it cannot go ignored because he's an otherwise good editor.--UpDown (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. However, claims of POV pushing aslo tend to be cancelled out when he who is making the claim could himself be accused of POV pushing right back. It takes two to tango, eh? --G2bambino (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest a lot of the time, no, I believe its only you POV-pushing. If ignoring the POV issues, theres a lot which in my humble opinion needs to be looked at.--UpDown (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I imagined you believe that. But, yes, I'm sure there are things that might need looked at; as nobody's perfect, there usually are. --G2bambino (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from the accused For the time being, I'm going to refrain from any comments directly related to either my behaviour or that of PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs). I will, however, raise the points that: A) PrinceOfCanada has been in contact with admins on WP:IRC (as shown here and here); this is not evidence of communication between PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs) and Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs), however there is no record of them having been in prior contact in Wikipedia; it should be remembered that when the IRC channels "are used to attack Wikipedians, or when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships." B) The summary and opinionating contains phrases such as "G2bambino's train wreck block log", "one of the worst edit warriers Wikipedia has seen", "the user seems to be generally unreformable", and the like. C) The summary uses commentary such as "factually incorrect" and "flat dishonesty about what sources say", thereby taking a side in an ongoing dispute elsewhere. D) The participation of the other party in recent disputes has been generally ignored, and even borderline excused by comments such as "G2bambino is a root problem to the ongoing conflict in the area". E) The summary contains inaccuracies and presumptions. Thus, the neutrality of this summary and opinionating has been compromised (though the extent to which may vary, depending on the veracity of some of the above mentioned unknowns), and this should be taken into account. --G2bambino (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We talk on IRC, yes. I did not ask him to do this. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Then there is an increase of the possibility that only one side of the tale was told, and in a manner greatly beneficial to the party telling said tale. --G2bambino (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I recommend any further discussion of G2's Wiki conduct? be held here only. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have encountered this user directly at the Canada article and have observed G2's actions since then. My impression was that G2 single-mindedly promotes the authority and prominence of the monarchy of the UK, and pays excessive attention to the minute forms where that authority and prominence can be expressed. This could perhaps best be exemplified by the discussions at the talk archives for the Canada article, however, the attitudes are evident in many other places. In the case of the "Canada" issue, I personally thought that G2 presented wearisome arguments for the primacy of the monarchy which were quite at odds with actual reality. I personally would support options #3, #7 and #8. Indeed, implementation of #3 would likely solve most problems, at the risk of depriving G2 of their reason to edit at all. There is also a definite conflict between G2 and PoC - but I'm not sure where that's coming from. Restrictions on G2 would also need some attention to the nature of the conflict with PoC. Franamax (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought the issues exclusively between the two fall more under harassment issues when I considered remedies, but I'll have a think about it later today. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• As a previous blocker of G2bambino (i.e., the first), I have been asked to comment here. Both on that occasion and in a subsequent dispute, I found G2bambino to be quite difficult to get along with, essentially for reasons outlined above. However, I am inclined to see the way forward in BirgitteSB's unsolicited advice. Hesperian 05:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For added information, here is a record of how Hesperian made my acquaintance; not a moment that gives me pride, though it had an inauspicious beginning. Bridgitte's advice is noted, and appropriate. --G2bambino (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Okay, if you're going to complain about a lack of neutrality, here are a bunch more examples. I have generally not provided specific diffs, because with the amount of material here it would take hours to dig up each individual edit.

Take a look at Talk:Autumn Phillips#Date format; more refusal to cooperate and a lot of WP:IDHT when it is explained to him that he is wrong, by User:Tony1 and User:JavierMC, amongst others (related MOS discussion by G2 here, containing the same attitude). Interested readers may wish to keep reading down the Phillips page -- more shifts of focus and nitpicking over edits to distract from the main points.

One might also wish to look at Talk:Monarchy of Australia, particularly this, which is more obfuscation and refusal to actually address points in favour of belittling others (particularly lawe), as well as demonstrative of his general attitude that other users must justify edits, but he is exempt.

Or there's this, from 2007, which is towards the end of a long discussion, showing yet another user's observation that "...there is a difference between a thing's being unsatisfactory to you and its not being a compromise," and that G2's replies tend to be "unresponsive."

This edit, alluded to by Franamax, from 2005, which was more POV-pushing under a previous version of his username.

Then there's the whole discussion at Talk:Republicanism in Australia, with the comment here, where he belittles lawe by asking if it's his nap time, and then complains in his next comment about lawe's ad hominems, or here, where he tells the same user "Don't be frightened, it isn't rocket science." The same attitude prevails here, where he prefers personal attacks to engaging the substance of lawe's points, including a sidelong attack at me, referring to me as "obsinant and uncooperative."

Or this, from 2007, showing more evasion/refusal to provide sources as well as alluding just above to yet another long-term conflict G2 was involved in (this time with TharkunColl.

I was uninvolved in all of the above discussions.

Or, for something I was involved in, this is an excellent example of refusing to cooperate. I asked a simple question: sources for some terms used in the article. G2 refused to provide them, preferring to insult me and twist my words instead. (This one isn't tl;dr. It's pretty short).

This was a discussion I started with G2 in response to his edits after I did this, ensuring conformity of images with WP:ACCESS. He centred all images in the section (something I have seen nowhere else on WP), admitted that his edits were unnecessary (though, apparently, 'superior') and characterized my edits as a 'mess' on the talk page. I asked him to restore the article and discuss, he didn't, another editor restored it and explained on the talk page. G2 didn't comment any further, which makes me suspect that the only purpose to his edit was to make some sort of WP:POINT, as we were under a 1RR restriction with each other by that point. Which he broke there, but again, I felt it made more sense to simply deal with the edit and move on rather than poke a hornet's nest.

Really, this whole animosity between us arose from a discussion regarding image placement and removal of whitespace. G2 was told two years ago that "...the article's appearance greatly depends on the size and resolution of the viewing computer display, choice of browser and browser window size (not everyone maximizes their browser). Undoubtedly, that which looks good to you won't necessarily look the same for anyone else, let alone be readable." He quoted the same thing at me, and yet doesn't apply it to himself. I'd also point out that he started a MedCab case with me over the issue, and then stalled it because--his words--I didn't give up enough in the mediator's proposal to end the dispute. The mediator in question is currently on his honeymoon and will be back in a few days. I think he should comment on this.

I freely stipulate that I have not acted perfectly throughout my involvements with G2; my block log shows this. It is worth noting, though, that barring a minor disagreement here and there, he's the only user I've had trouble with, and it is only disagreements with him that appear on my block log. And so have many other editors. This discussion is about G2's behaviour, and so I have asked several other editors to comment--both, before someone brings up WP:CANVASS, those he has treated poorly and those he has not. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 07:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be baiting for an argument, perhaps knowing already that I can be an easy catch, but I won't bite, not this time. But, know that you're not the first person on the losing end of a content dispute with me who's said I'm the only person they've ever had a problem with and dragged me before higher powers in order to have them rule on my behaviour. The result is usually that I'm easily angered, can be borderline uncivil in specific circumstances, and quick with the revert button; and they're right. But it's also observed that, generally, I don't violate policy and contribute more than I disrupt (what you've pulled out, whether valid examples of any violation or not, is but a tiny percentage of what I do; I edit here a lot). This was exactly the finding at your previous two attempts (here and here). All the others with whom I'm in content disputes will arrive here and gleefully bandy about all sorts of accusations about how rude I am, and how I don't listen to them; two already have, and I expect Lawe/Dlatimer will be along anytime. But, I deserve a fair trial like everyone else, and I'm sure this will all get worked out in the end, whatever that may be; que sera sera, as they say. Stifle suggests dispute resolution, and I tend to agree with him. Will you? --G2bambino (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've previously blocked G2bambino for edit warring. I don't know if any of these sanctions will pass or help. I think this should continue in the dispute resolution process — either with mediation, or, if that does not work, arbitration. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

DR so far hasn't really worked. He regularly ignores third opinions, and stalled a MedCab case that he himself started because he didn't get enough of what he wanted/I didn't lose enough (those are his words). Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• IIRC G2B has already had an RFC and it hasn't affected his behaviour. He is an unrepentant edit warrior and incapable of compromising or giving ground. I personally would support a community imposted civility/NPA probation including a limitation to 1RR per week to befollowed by escalating blocks for each subsequent offence. To be honest, i don't think he is the only offender in Canada related articles, I'm not following them so I don't know how active the fire there is right now but an RFAR may be a better resolution if there is still more then one user responsible for the disrution. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • On another matter, I appreciate the effort that has gone into preparing the list of sanctions but I would personally prefer to discuss the problems first and only have firm proposals emerge after a semi-consensus or the relevant issues have been identified. Its a more wiki way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • By all means, an ArbCom case may be needed for the other set of disputes that occur in that area. However, at the present time, per the block log, G2bambino has been engaging in disruptive conduct including edit-warring from June 2007, up until now, on an ongoing basis. He has been, and still is under under a 1RR restriction per page per 24 hours - he's unambiguously violated that twice on 2 different pages in the past few days already and edit-warred beyond that too (diffs to prove this are already provided above under 'problematic conduct'). Therefore, it is clear that the current sanction is not working, and what's more alarming is that the disruptive conduct has not ceased after 16 months of blocks and sanctions. This is a major immediate problem that needs to be resolved by the community now, and is essentially what has prompted me to open this discussion as I have. We've never put our heads into the sand for this sort of problematic conduct, and ArbCom cannot provide us with a resolution to the immediate issue for quite some time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

...he's unambiguously violated that twice on 2 different pages in the past few days already and edit-warred beyond that too. That is incorrect. If you insist on making accusations and judgements about me, please make sure they're accurate first. Also, the bold font yelling is not necessary; I am not such a threat that Wikipedia has to go into emergency lock-down. My block log shows five (not fifty) valid edit warring charges since June 2007. I'm not going to say that's excusable, but this was a sincere statement. --G2bambino (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

here and here on Commonwealth realm on 2 October, and here and here at Coat of Arms of Canada on 1 October are unambiguous. {{British Royal Family}} could go either way; depends on whether Tiptoety considers it 'Canadian monarchy' related for the purposes of our restrictions. In any case, I felt it would be more constructive to attempt discussion rather than run off and have you blocked. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not a revert. --G2bambino (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Tiptoety's comments on my talk page, it is. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could show me the version I reverted to, then? --G2bambino (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an argument with you. Tiptoety made his reasoning clear on my talk page. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well. But, it stands that Tiptoety never commented on anything remotely pertaining to Coat of Arms of Canada on your talk page, likely because you did not either. This is the first time you've ever presented those two particular diffs from that article, and the first one was not a revert. --G2bambino (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not going to get into an argument with you. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you. --G2bambino (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • I was invited to contribute. I am loath to cast stones because the first one I would throw would be at myself. But I will make some observations and I beg G2 not to take these as insults. G2 is a passionate man (though she could be a woman I suppose) in a particular field of thought. So are many, probably most of us. The august dynasty of the Saxe-Coburg Gothas interests him greatly, and he reveres the crowned heads of the Sceptred Isle to the point of idolatory. Republicanism he sees as blasphemy, a blight against God and mankind! But what is the sin in being passionate? God knows G2 and myself have had fascinating and long conversations on the subject. True, I believe the crusade against republicanism has all the glamour of Don Quixote charging against the windmills. I long for the day when Betty Windsor chucks her tiara into the sea and trots down the pub with her girl chums for a large pink gin. But I respect his sincere beliefs, and he and I have had some enjoyment tilting against each other (well, I have anyway). True, passion may blind us to certain facts and even to invent new ones. But who can say they have never done this? Should we ban a man for his passion? He can be uncivil. He can aqttempt to avoid concluding certain facts. But how often do you read in a discussion, 'yes, you're right! I completely change my mind!'. Not often. Some sanction may be necessary, perhaps. But banning? No.--Gazzster (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• No opinion. I've been asked to comment here, but have no time to acquaint myself with the issue. In general terms, for dealing with long term problematic editors, I prefer to simply apply escalating blocks - up until indefinite - to time-consuming discussions about elaborately tailored restrictions.  Sandstein  14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, clearly the time put into this is not worth it, and I don't intend on wasting anymore on this either. I'm well aware of what RFC/ArbCom have to offer, so the sorts of reasons cited by Mangojuice for example, are plain insulting. Anyway, I opened this discussion as someone uninvolved, so the fortunate part about it is: I won't have to encounter these problems by the editors in this area of editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This needs to be an RFC. I dislike this idea of "voting to ban," which this is. Go to RFC if you want community input, go to Arbcom if you want binding sanctions. At least then the decision will be made after a thorough examination of the evidence. G2 and PoC are already on 1RR restrictions. Mangojuice^talk 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I too believe a joint RFC would be the right way to proceed. --Cameron* 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have no objection to such a course of action, especially given that I asked about just such a thing earlier. --G2bambino (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. G2bambino has shown a clear track record of edit warring and disruption. He recently expressed that 3RR provides an "entitlement" of three reverts, despite the contrary being explicit in WP:3RR and having the contrary explained to him on multiple occasions. I do not believe a full ban would be appropriate, as this behavior has exhibited itself across a relatively small span of articles and in conflict with a specific set of editors. A topic ban or revert restriction in combination with mentoring may be in order. However, I am not comfortable with solely imposing on one party to this ongoing dispute. Other editors have been involved in the edit wars and disrupting the same set of articles. We don't need an RfC or ArbCom to tell us that a specific subject area is being subjected to edit wars and disruption, to tell us that edit warring, incivility and disruption are undesirable, nor to tell us that sanctions should be imposed on disruptive editors. Vassyana (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He recently expressed that 3RR provides an "entitlement" of three reverts I'm afraid I said no such thing. My actual words were these, and what I was agreeing with was this; namely that "3RR is not an entitlement" [emphasis mine]. The lack of accuracy on the part of those who are advocating punnishment is becoming disturbing. I'll stand to be judged, but only on actual evidence, not misreadings, exaggerations, and downright fantasy. --G2bambino (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The actual comment I was referring to preceded that exchange.[44] Given the diffs you've linked, I'm taking in good faith that the more recent exchange is the more accurate/current picture and strike the relevant comment above. Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in that comment, I borrowed the word "entitled" from the user with whom I was conversing; though, as this makes clear, I did think 3RR was a simple, black and white rule that applied the same to everyone. But, yes, all that took place before MangoJuice's comments were made to PrinceOfCanada, and I read them. --G2bambino (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I don't know how that got removed--Firefox crashed while I was adding a comment. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, G2 is a productive & valued editor. As noted above, I've learned alot from him about the Canadian monarchy ('though I still want it abolished). I hope this ANI report agrees. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose He is a very constructive editor, who albeit sometimes a little overzealous does not cause the disruption that would be warrented for these sanctions...Gavin (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose We have clashed in the past but I certainly wouldn't want to see G2bambino banned or restricted. ðarkuncoll 00:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• slight oppose- my only concern is that from Ncmvocalist's own account at the start of the thread, PrinceofCanada seems to have been editing in an equally stendentious manner, and people are saying other editors are behaving similarly on these articles too. Why is G2B being picked out for sanction? It sounds more like a more across-the-board action is needed such as (I hesitate to say) an RfC or Arbcom on the articles or editors involved, for fairness' sake and for a long term rather than piecemeal solution. Sticky Parkin 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I've said that G2B isn't the only editor who's engaged in problematic conduct, and I've used a diff of PrinceOfCanada's conduct at the bottom of that page. The reason G2B was singled out was because his edit warring problems have begun and continued since June 2007 - PrinceOfCanada's block log begins from last month, so it's too early for any sort of restrictions (and his blocks have always involved being in a dispute with G2B). My other concern was that G2B has expected enforcement of restrictions against PrinceOfCanada, while failing to disclose the fact he'd violated those restrictions on two occasions himself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Parkin, the root issue is G2bambino. When he's not involved, there aren't problems, generally speaking (there are a couple of other tendentious editors involved in the same articles, but they only tend to pop up every few weeks). Multiple editors have precisely the same problem with him, and his incivility and refusal to cooperate is a pattern that goes back to 2005. And I note that he has once again successfully done what he does so often: evaded and obfuscated the actual issue, which is his behaviour. The enormous number of diffs provided need to be responded to, and he has not done so. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some parts of this proposal are just bizarre. 2) isn't even legitimate, anybody can appeal to ArbCom at any time. Mandating a one-year cooldown period before clemency can be sought from the community seems overly draconian to me. 0RR and 1RR/month are verging into the realm of ridiculousness; if somebody cannot exercise that much restraint by themselves, we are better off without them altogether. On the other side, I'm finding the talk of IRC to be an annoying red herring. Nothing that has transpired so far has resulted from events or conversations in a chat room (except this proposal maybe - but I cannot speak to that). For the record, I was contacted on IRC, but the action I ended up taking was something that the person who was talking to me is probably still unhappy about. east718 // talk // email // 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the fact that it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's going on at IRC is what may - note, may - play a part, and only a part, in this affair. Couple PrinceOfCanada's revelation that he was talking to admins on IRC while under block here because of a 1RR report I filed, with his very publicly expressed, highly negative opinion of my personal character, then add the sudden arrival of Ncmvocalist on the scene, after having talked with PoC on IRC, and he with never a single word of introduction or inquiry my way, yet with an evidently very quickly formed opinion of me that coincidentally almost parallels PoC's, as well as an analysis of a dispute between PoC and I that greatly favours PoC's position in said dispute, and one has to wonder just how untainted the roots of this "report" are. I won't go as far as Ncmvocalist just did, and make judgments of ill motive without a shred of evidence to back them up, but I do think the possibility exists that there are personal motives at play here, and that this whole trial was biased from the outset, regardless of the bias that's been displayed after it was launched. --G2bambino (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think a few things need to be clarified before I take this to RfC--and no, I will not enter into a joint RfC with G2. It's extremely clear that the problem is with him, across multiple articles and with multiple users.

1. G2 really needs to respond to the diffs and links provided, without red herrings about 'tainted' evidence. Stop evading, and actually respond. The irony, of course, is that there are thirty-odd diffs provided above where he did precisely the same thing: was asked twenty-three times to provide sources, and evaded, obfuscated the issue, and flat-out refused to answer. This is not the behaviour of a collaborative editor.
2. G2's history is being largely ignored. Multiple blocks over a couple of years have done nothing to change his behaviour whatsoever. Look at the log: edit war, edit war, edit war, edit war.. Note also that his block log goes further back, under a different username; [[User talk:Gbambino/archive1#Violation of the 3RR|this] ]is his first block for edit-warring, in 2005, and at the top of the page you can see what appears to be his first block, period.
3. G2 likewise has a history of not cooperating, evading the discussion, and throwing focus away from content. What usually happens is that people get frustrated and give up. I haven't done so, which is why we're here. This is not the behaviour of a collaborative editor.
4. G2 has explicitly said that discussing WP:CIVIL with him is pointless. This is not the behaviour of a collaborative editor.
5. G2 expected sanctions to be levelled against me, while breaking the rules himself. This is not the behaviour of a collaborative editor. I didn't run off to get him blocked because I thought that trying to engage in discussion (on the Coat of Arms of Canada page), and trying to continue discussion (at Commonwealth realm) would be more productive. It seems that I was wrong.
6. G2 has accused a lack of neutrality--that's part of why in the large number of links I provided above, I simply provided links to talk sections to allow people to decide for themselves. That, and the amount of time required to provide diffs would be insane. There is no ambiguity, for example, in one clear fact: I asked him twenty-three times for sources before he finally provided one. Most of the diffs and links provided are similarly unambiguous.
7. The mediator of the MedCab case will be back in a couple of days. His input would be invaluable here.
8. Again, I freely admit that my behaviour has not been perfect. But I have to note again: barring a couple of minor disagreements here and there (which I think every editor has at some point), I have no problems with other users, and in fact help out people using {{helpme}}, and have just recently helped two new editors understand why the pages they created were tagged for CSD and how to avoid it; the articles are now on their way to being well-written. Many users have had a problem with G2bambino, and it's always the same ones: POV, edit-warring, refusal to cooperate in any material manner, insults, belittling, evasion of direct questions. I have to say again: when lots of people have the exact same problem with a single person, the problem does not lie in the people. How we react to him, sure, we don't always do so the way we should. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ho-Chunk mythology

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

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

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

Contact information for Mike Godwin (he has an article!) can be found at User:MGodwin. It has his phone number and email address. It may be a good idea to refer the user directly to Mike and ask him to contact Mike either on wiki, or off wiki via email or phone, to decide how to proceed. You may also want to drop Mike a note yourself and give him a heads-up over the situation and let him handle it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

userdiete003 has removed all of his contributions to this page, although I'm not sure if the above mentioned attempts at arbitration have taken place or helped. I have stopped reverting his vandalizing edits until this is resolved, but he is currently vandalizing what is left of the page. I keep trying to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and not try to make any of this worse. Would some admins please step in again?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed Mike Godwin. Let's see what he has to say. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I should've probably mentioned I emailed him last night. No response yet. –xeno (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We can wait. There is no deadline for the article to reach its final state. I think the important thing to do in the meanwhile is avoid making matters worse. I considered protecting the article pending a resolution, but didn't want to inflame the situation. As far as I'm concerned, this is a good faith academic contributor who's ignorant of how Wikipedia works and as such it's important not to step on their toes. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He can still remove his own contents even if they are under GFDL, BUT people may continue to use the contents released this way as long as they use the revision (not the later derivative) released under GFDL. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My view is essentially the same as OhanaUnited's. I will note, however, that the facts themselves are not copyrightable, so a recreation of the article that doesn't use this particular author's text but that does include the facts (and links) should be fine. MikeGodwin (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Such things happen from time to time. An example is Buddhism in Korea, written originally by someone who just used his own text in 2003. In 2004, he came along and claimed the text violated his copyright. When he didn't understand that he could not enforce deletion of his text, which he had released under the GFDL by posting it here, I just took his version and rewrote it. That settled the issue for good. Lupo 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Block review needed

Resolved

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

NJGW has been warned for 3RR in the past,[45] and also blocked for edit-warring.[46] It is not necessary to issue new warnings each time, especially in such controversial areas as the Pseudoscience-related areas. --Elonka 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The war was a clear overflow from the other battles at the Chiropractic article, which is also within the scope of the Pseudoscience case and tends to have many of the same editors battling. To be more specific, here are the reverts that I saw from this editor within the last 24 hours:

• revert #1 - re-adding a list of examples of pseudoscience, including "Chiropractic"
• revert #2 - removing a fact tag which was challenging whether "Chiropractic" should be in the examples list
• revert #3 - re-adding "Chiropractic" to the examples list
• revert #4 - re-adding the list of examples, including "Chiropractic"

--Elonka 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see how this started. Levine2112 claimed his revert was reverting vandalism. But his motivation was to delete any mention of chiropractic and not to revert vandalism. Levine2112 blindly reverted to an old version. QuackGuru 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, editors familar with editing can see the difference between editing and editwarring. Unfortunately it seems Elonka still hasn't learnt anything from her RfC. Shot info (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why MastCell's suggestion should not be used here? Anyone? --barneca (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Because NJGW has signed off for a bit, so he can't agree to anything on-Wiki until he gets back. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW is his own man, of course, and may be perfectly happy to accept the restriction. Still, I don't see why he would be bullied into the concession when he shouldn’t have been blocked in the first place. It would be sensible to let consensus take its course and the unblock cometh. HiDrNick! 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this is truly a case of Right^TM vs. Wrong^TM, then I suppose put me down as supporting an unconditional unblock, combined with a request (not a demand) that NJGW avoid the article for a day as a gesture of goodwill and a way to cool everyone down. I will say, however, that an orange bar instead of a block would have served the same purpose without all the fireworks. --barneca (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that last point - it's actually not that hard to go over 3RR without noticing it if you're editing various parts of a highly active article. In such cases, it's an admin's judgement call on how to proceed - a block is justifiable, but for a good-faith editor a word to the wise and a request to self-revert or disengage can accomplish the same thing with less drama. I remember accidentally and unwittingly going over 3RR on a very active article, and I was quite grateful to the admin who notified me and asked me to stop editing the article - which I happily did - rather than blocking me.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to bully anyone into anything, which is why I proposed that both the unblock and the disengagement be undertaken as gestures of goodwill, in a no-fault process aimed at getting back to business. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As an undirected reminder/comment: 3RR is a bright-line limitation, not a right to three reversions. Edit warring of any kind is discouraged, sometimes by blocks.--Tznkai (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to me unreasonable to have taken the various differing edits as editwarring, and the relationship to any dispute at Chiropractic seems tenuous – that article was last edited on the 6th, and while Levine appears in the talk page, I've not found any evidence that NJGW edited there in the last few days. The discussion on User talk:Levine2112 looks very reasonable. Elonka, as a goodwill gesture can you please unblock, and obviously if there is any disruptive return to that article within 24 hours that can be taken up as a reasonable reason for a reblock. . . `dave souza, talk 21:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Dave, with all due respect, I understand that you're an administrator, but you are also an involved editor in this topic area. Other "involved" voices in this thread so far: OrangeMarlin, QuackGuru, Verbal, Shot Info... Which doesn't mean that the opinions are unwanted, but it may be best if consensus is determined more from the uninvolved voices. In any case, if NJGW is willing to promise to avoid the Pseudoscience article for a day, I have no problem with an unblock. I see the block was also reviewed by (uninvolved) User:AGK,[47] who is saying the same thing that I am, which is that if NJGW is willing to give an assurance, then an unblock is reasonable, but until then, it should not be lifted. --Elonka 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • You missed your own name off the list of "involved" editors (for completeness). I support Dave's compromise. Verbal chat 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, now we are getting to the core of Elonka's issue's with Wikipedia. All editors are equal...but some are more equal than others. Shot info (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka points out these four reverts today: [48] [49] [50] [51]. Since the user had been blocked for edit warring before, and this is a bright-line 3RR violation, the block seems reasonable to me. Three of the reverts even include the word "revert" in the edit summary... making it hard to say that NJGW didn't realize he was edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this before, and have no comments on the current situation, but couldn't the 3RR be gamed, with one editor making four completely different bad edits to the same article, and another not being able to revert them all without violating 3RR? --NE2 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could hypothetically be gamed that way, except that normally other editors would be willing to revert as well. There's no need for a single editor to assume the role of "guardian of the article". — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, for n "guardians", the editor could make 3n+1 bad edits. In addition, there could be multiple bad editors, and each "guardian" would have to take time away from "guarding" to ensure they don't go over 3RR. --NE2 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. If the situation gets bad enough, it may require an RFC or some sort of dispute resolution to demonstrate the broader consensus. In some cases protection may even be needed. But there's little harm if "wrong version" appears for while in many cases - this one included. The dispute here is only over a list of examples of pseudoscience, after all. (And, an editor who makes e.g. 20 obviously bad-faith edits in a day would probably draw some admin attention. The real issue here is with edits that are not obviously bad faith). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a violation of the 3RR, supporting unblock. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you comment on the four diffs I have posted above? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. -- Ned Scott 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I also want to respond to Orangemarlin's original post. WP:EW is clear that "keeping the peace" is not an excuse for edit warring, nor is the fact that other people are edit warring too; and WP:3RR is clear that the reverts do not have to be on the same material, only on the same article. So the only objection with possible merit seems to be that NJGW wasn't warned before the block. I do usually favor warning even experienced editors before 3RR blocks. But given the clearly controversial nature of this page, experienced editors should know to be especially careful to avoid edit warring on it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if you concede that the 3RR was broken, I still don't see the edit warring. Verbal chat 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This *does* look like a conventional 3RR violation. (If submitted at WP:AN/3RR a block would likely have issued). In such a case, a wider study of the editor's motives and previous history doesn't seem necessary. This case is a plain old 3RR. (Such violations are easy to avoid if you are reasonably careful). I support the above suggestions that the block could be lifted if NJGW gives assurances. Since this an experienced editor who was previously blocked for 3RR in July, no new 3RR warning is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I also have no objections to Mastcell's suggestion; I should have pointed that out originally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

<ec>Not to go backwards in time, but just to make sure that NJGW doesn't get a bad rep around here, but his first 3RR block was kind of erroneous. He was trying to stop a bunch of socks from destroying an article, and ended up being "unfairly" blocked. NJGW is not the kind of editor that games the system or attempts to find ways to commit 3RR. I honestly believe he believes (talk about AGF) he wasn't engaging in an edit war. In fact, whether rightly or wrongly, he was trying to prevent edit warring by two different, and honestly, strong-willed editors in QuackGuru and Levine2112. My point was that there are lots of editors who deserve this type of treatment. A review of what NJGW does around here would indicate that there is a lot of latitude can be given. I've seen it time and again that good editors get slack. I'm concerned that NJGW gets support from the "usual suspects" to paraphrase the above, but there's not a review of Elonka's behavior in this issue.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

By pulling the "uninvolved" ace out from the sleeve, editors are seemingly able to invoke some sort of magical immunity it seems. Shot info (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Also, "uninvolved" gets to be self-proclaimed, and "involved" is now an accusation that means "cease and desist." This is not a good situation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW has returned, and promised to stay away from the Pseudoscience article for a bit,[52] so I went ahead and unblocked. --Elonka 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for carrying out the unblocking, I'm glad to note the gracious way in which NJGW presented the promise not to edit the article for 24 hours, so hopefully no harm done. As a point of etiquette, your remark about "involved editor in this topic area" strikes me as uncivil, and note that I was not involved in this dispute and made no use of the tools. In the context of your own involvement with giving Levine free advice about acting civilly at Chiropractic, in my opinion it would have been wiser to give NJGW a well justified warning about edit warring rather than giving a block without warning. Hopefully everyone has learnt from this incident and there should be no repetition of the problems. . . dave souza, talk 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:GAME

Levine2112 assumed bad faith and claimed his revert was to revert vandalism. The comment by Levine2112 is misleading and disruptive. QuackGuru 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For which he seems to be apologising. Why the need to run to mother?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently QuackGuru misunderstands what I wrote in the diff which he provided. I never said that I was reverting vandalism, nor did I describe NJGW's edits as vandalism. I said that I believed that the intermediary edits (those between the one which NJGW made and my revert were either vandalism or reverts of vandalism). Upon further scrutiny and through discussion with NJGW, I see that at least one of those intermediary edits was a robot fixing a Korean link. And for this oversight, I have apologized to NJGW. Anyhow, I think it is clear that QuackGuru's charge of WP:GAME is one based on his misunderstanding (either he overlooked the word "intermediary" or doesn't know its definition). I have explained this too him several times on his talk page and mine [53][54], but he has rudely blanked out my explanations each time. [55] [56] Despite my explanation, he thought it appropriate to post this message here. I think this speaks tomes about QuackGuru. Not much more to say here about this really. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

According to NJGW, That's a bit of a stretch. with the vandalism suggestion. QuackGuru 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's not much of a stretch at all. Nearly every intermediary edit was either a vandalizing IP or an editor reverting said vandalism. And for any "real" edits which I overlooked, I have apologized. I have to say that I agree with Scott MacDonald above with regards to your behaviour, QuackGuru: Why the need to run to mother? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackG, now who is assuming bad faith, after running here to complain about ABF? There's a great new essay WP:SAUCE.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time Levine2112 has claimed an edit was vandalism. Read the edit summary. QuackGuru 23:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

QG, your new example is a bit weak because it's a Twinkle edit, and you are assuming bad faith here. I can't blame you for that under the circumstances, but it would have been wise not to come with the "he assumed bad faith" accusation. (See also WP:AAGF.)

Levine, it's certainly possible that with this edit you went to the trouble of going back to this version from 3 weeks ago thinking "there has been so much vandalism in the last 3 weeks and not a single legitimate edit other than reverting it, so it's best to go back to a very old version to make sure it doesn't contain any unnoticed vandalism", and you also forgot to look at the changes before saving. People do have funny thoughts like that. But personally I agree with QG that the more plausible scenario is that you thought you can hide a substantial edit in this way and have plausible deniability. In either case you should probably be more careful in the future. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC) [edited 00:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)]

The example is strong when you read what Levine2112 wrote about the edit. According to Levine2112: Yes, I consider your previous edit to be vandalism, edit warring, and disruptive. QuackGuru 00:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: This was Leviine2112's recent response. QuackGuru 02:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese New Year

Could some other admins step in and keep a close eye on this article? There is a rather large shit-storm brewing over there, and I am not very much interested in getting into the middle of it. I'm not much interested in taking sides, but there has been an ongoing edit war, personal attacks, and general WP:LAME-ness going on. It appears this may be a spill over from other articles as well, but I can't make heads or tails of it, and I am just asking if a few more admins, who are better at conflict resolution than I, could take a peek at the situation and see what they can do about mediating or stopping the mess. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Help!

I kinda fragged Crack cocaine cleaning up giant turds; could someone fix it? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw no evidence of recent turd cleanup, but I did restore two blanked sections, if that helps. (wtf?) -- Vary Talk 03:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

X! fixed it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Compulsive standardization becoming a problem

wat? Are we just going to pull out our handbooks here and go.. green.. blue.. oh here we are.. yellow.. yellow means...

Changing the template that everyone is used to seeing for who knows how long to some compulsive standardization isn't helping the project. No one gives a crap if red means this or that, the template is just supposed to grab attention. It's already an issue at Template:MFD, and it keeps spreading and spreading..

These templates are supposed to help us. How is changing the template that tons of admins are expecting to see into something else helping the situation? Excuse me, I'm going to go hit my head on the wall for a while. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not necessarily endorsing (or opposing) the above, I will say that there are definitely issues with some of the caution/warning templates. In particular the XfD ones.

And having the PROD template look like other XfD templates is a really bad idea. We're confusing people as to what templates are ok to remove, and which aren't. - jc37 04:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I think the new {{adminbacklog}} looks just fine. It's not supposed to jump out and scream at you — if you're already on the page, you can usually damn well see that it's backlogged anyway. The main purpose of that template is to categorize pages into Category:Administrative backlog, and it's doing that just fine no matter what it looks like. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people make silly changes for seemingly obscure and ridiculously pedantic reasons. However, "bah, who cares?" is often the correct response.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this change, for far too long each niche of the project has had their own unique way of formatting things. For an outside coming from one area to another, being able to judge things by color and layout is a great improvement over the old haphazard method. MBisanz ^talk 14:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SJRCC Redirect Page, but will not let me create it

Resolved

 – Created. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 12:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to create a redirect page (SJRCC) for St. Johns River Community College. However, it will not let me create the page because it is protected on the list thingy. I searched for it on there, but I didn't see it (I can understand why most of those are on there, but SJRCC is just an abbreviation). Other pages, schools, etc. have redirect pages, so why can't SJRCC?

I will PWN (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "list thingy" you mean. SJRCC doesn't appear to be protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I had no trouble at all creating it - not one warning. Perhaps you were logged out and saw the "anon users cannot do this" page? Whatever, it now exists as requested. Best to remember that sometimes stuff like this happens around here and it's rare for it to be personally targetted against you or your college. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 12:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It was probably blocked by the title blacklist. Admins can bypass that blacklist with no confirmation that they have done so. Graham87 14:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I just tried creating two similar pages with my non-admin account and didn't have any problem. But it could still be that. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to match anything on the blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Idea for banned users.

For banned users who have a archive bot template setup on their talk page, i propose to remove the template before protecting the page if there is abuse of the {{unblock}} template. The archive bot keeps copying the text without removing, and it keeps doing it over and over. --creaɯy!^Talk 16:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to make a lot of sense. --Rodhullandemu 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to have the bot ops fix this? Maybe something that the bot recognizes the page is protected and does not archive? KnightLago (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cream's proposed solution has the benefit of working immediately on any specific cases that are problems right now, but in the long term I think KnightLago is right. Bots could recognize a given talk page is protected and either not archive (easy) or archive exactly once (little harder). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion closure

The merge discussion for I Am Rich has petered out and needs closing. See Talk:App Store#Relist for more details, including the reason for requesting closure here. Thanks, Orpheus (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Community ban proposal regarding PoliticianTexas is at WP:ANI

There is an ongoing discussion regarding a proposed community ban against PoliticianTexas, a disruptive sock puppeteer. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_copyvio_by_User:LamyQ and its subsections. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

An entire article hidden award in a category

Can an administrator please look at Category:United States Army awards? User:CORNELIUSSEON appears to have written an entire article on top of the category headings. I don't think thats legal per Wikipedia regulations regarding the use of category pages. This user is also known a bit for cutting and pasting large amounts of military text into articles and generally not responding favorably if questioned about it. These edits to the category might need to be reverted and I don't want to have an edit war. Thanks -OberRanks (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on his talk page with a link to an example of another country's article on the same idea and some suggested article titles to move the content to. Let's see what happens. Exxolon (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

His username and userpage hurts my eyes with all those capitalized letters! (Back to topic) This is something that doesn't come up frequently and what we do with it may set a precedent. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

propulsion information

If there is anyone who knows about propulsion in space could you check out this page Project Orion (nuclear propulsion). There is a lot of suspicious claims including some that are almost certainly not true on it. I could look it over myself and improve it however it would be better if someone who knew more about it did it. If no one else does it I'll do something with it and I'm sure it will be an improvement but only beaause there is so much false information on it already. thanks

Zacherystaylor (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A) ANI is not for content disputes. B) Read up on the subject a little. You've made some rather silly comments on the talk page there. Jtrainor (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Tigris the Majestic

Per this [57], and now these, [58] [59], it is abundantly clear that Tigris the Majestic = Gennarous = Yorkshirian. That he/she wasn't escorted to the exit was, I guess, just an oversight at the time of the original AN/I thread. Could somebody take care of it please? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Inprogess CU being worked. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Chevy Chase death hoax

An organized campaign to say that Chevy Chase has deceased (he most certainly has not) from a wide range of IPs seems to have begun. I wasn't sure where to post this, so I'll start here. miquonranger03 (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nipped it; I deliberately left it indef'd semi. Remove when necessary. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sharing account between highschoolers

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place, but I couldn't find anywhere that covered WP:NOSHARE. I placed a vandalism warning template on user User:BentonComp last night and recieved a message stating that he was the teacher responsible for a class of school kids who were doing a project on editing wikipedia, and that he would tidy/delete anything inappropriate left at the end. Should this be allowed? Thedarxide (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think anything that teaches more people how to contribute productively is a Good Thing. Perhaps we need to hammer out how to handle this sort of thing in general? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why can't they all make their own account? Shared accounts are not allowed, see Wikipedia:U#Sharing_accounts. I'll post on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That was my thought. I don't want vandalism "justified" that a rogue student did it, with promises of fixing it later. Use the sandbox. Thedarxide (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can leave problems for someone else to fix 'at the end'. Doug Weller (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New proposal - provisional adminship

See discussion here (permanent link). Jehochman ^Talk 08:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)