Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Unsourced material/vandalism, 3rr/edit warring, ownership of articles and personal attack problems with Gon4z

As May 10th this issue is unresolved. This incident is in desperate need of comments. MrMacMan ^Talk 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z continues to revert any updates to the following articles: Military of Albania, Albanian Land Forces Command, Albanian Air Force, Albanian Naval Defense Forces. Also his information is outdated, unsourced and he has done about 15 reverts in the three last days. He doesn't read any discussion post: here, here, here, here and here, but resorts to threats, insults and user page vandalism here. Some of his remarks to other editors:

on my (noclador) talkpage:

• "I will take further actions" Gon4z 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• "you did not citise anything its all crap you stright out deleted everything just because you are an anti Albanian dont mean you ahve to go around spreading propaganda you so called contribution of deeting articles are not wealcomed" Gon4z 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• "ok I suggest that unless you have a real contribution you should not edit the article.... tahnk you" (unsigned)
• "you are delusional" Gon4z 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

on user MrMacMan talkpage:

• "I don’t know if you hate Albanians or what but pls do not edit that article unless you have sources from 2006 or 2007 I have been trying to work hard and fix that article I don’t need some one coming to ruin and spread propaganda just because they have a problem with Albanians" Gon4z 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• "Las time I checked it was you vandalising the Albanian military articles using racist anti albanian websites as source i have cetise my figures." Gon4z 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• "I not sure what you are considering an attack, I ahve not attacked you once I have just simplly replied to your comment, it is not nice to play the victim take it like a man you sources are not correct and are ruining the article." (unsigned, but once gain by Gon4z)

in the edit summary of Albanian Land Forces Command

• "I am clearly the only one here providing proof from my figures unlike you two whore are spreading bate propaganda"

My information is based on the following sources:

• The World Defence Almanac 2006, page 95, Mönch Publishing Group; Bonn 2006;
• The IISS Military Balance Report 2006- 2007, page 80, Routledge Publishing; 106 edition (May 24, 2006)
• SIPRI Yearbook 2006, Oxford University Press, June 2006.
• Centre for SouthEast European Studies: Albania’s Armed Forces- 2002 Data]
• Bonn International Center for Conversion
• Albanian Land Forces Command

All this is ignored by Gon4z, who bases his information on the same homepage he criticizes as "Greek anti Albanian website". Also the same kind of edit war and personal attacks is waged by him at the article Serbian Air Force, where he keeps reducing the number of active Serbian airplanes, substitutes the correct grammatical tense with the present tense, vandalises the syntax and tells a fellow editor: "this is the last time i will warn you get a profile because if not then your IP address will be suspended from editing any article" Gon4z 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, according to user MacGyverMagic Gon4z is a “editor who has a history of vandalism, POV and unsourced edits.” comment can be found here.

As Gon4z in continuous violation and a repeat offender of the following Wikipedia rules:

• Unsourced material
• Vandalism
• Three revert rule
• Edit warring and
• Personal attacks against at least three fellow editors

I strongly urge to block him for an extended period of time. noclador 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I am not involved in this issue with this user and today I reported the editor to the Admin 3RR board Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Gon4z_reported_by_User:MrMacMan_.28Result:24h.29 which resulted in his/her 24 hour block. I have really tried to get this editor to explain his reverts and his rational for using his older sources and his actual, apparent lack of sources. I think that this user has disregarded the newer and better sources put before him and has completely ignored all information not coming from his own older sources. When bringing up this newer information he ignores us and makes accusations that I'm biased or using other information that he says is biased (which I wasn't using anyway). I don't understand why he insists without explaining his reasoning so I have to conclude he is not acting in good faith. If this user was explaining his rational for reverting the changes this would be a content dispute but his disregard on this dispute and instead he's been very unresponsive to any comments that have been made to him. I would also say that his blocking period be expanded. MrMacMan ^Talk 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I brought this out of the archive because no one ever addressed the issue Noclador brought up for discussion. I would like to see someone else look over this users edits and tell us what action or their opinion is. MrMacMan ^Talk 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not excessively optimistic in that regard. I've previously reported Gun4z twice on this page for exactly the same reason and in both cases nothing happened. As I said back then, Gun4z's incivility doesn't seem to confined only to his dealings with Noclador, but also to other users. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's horrible. While is why I hope to get some response about this user here and so it doesn't get archived again. MrMacMan ^Talk 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He was referring to when he posted this and no one made any comments about it -- it sits in the archive uncommented upon. MrMacMan ^Talk 05:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The first post got the same fate. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez I didn't even think to search that far back for another incident. Wow. Can someone please notice this Incident report(s) now? MrMacMan ^Talk 09:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the Rules I'm going to completely abuse the system here and plead at the bottom of this page where apparently people are being much more helpful. I will now use a section break to separate my, Valentinian and noclador's messages from 3rd party editors who are not involved with this editor. MrMacMan ^Talk 21:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Update: Gon4z has, in the past few hours, started to edit the articles listed above with similar outcomes. MrMacMan ^Talk 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at this. There are a number of simple problems here, like Noclador's preference for the Queen's english and spellings, and Gon4z' preference for American English, and the use of time-oriented words, like 'currently' and 'recently' and so on. There are also BIG issues. Noclador's writing tends towards the staid and encyclopedic, and Gon4z uses a lot of phrasing that leans in pro-Albanian ways. Despite his claims that all the others are 'Anti-Albanian', Most of the versions he opposes read in reasonably neutral ways, while some of his revisions seem to have a 'Albania will soon be a strong military power' anticipations.

I am addressing this because there does seem to be some talk page lack of interaction on the part of Gon4z, but would recommend that MrMacMan and NoClador try WP:3O or WP:RfC for this. ThuranX 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John

User:Prester John has been removing every mention of the word "God" in Islam-related articles, even when next to the word "Allah". Obviously, he wants whoever reads these article to believe Muslims believe in a god called Allah. See his contributions for more detail. He has even created a userbox entitled "Allah is Satan". People like this have no place in Wikipedia, people like this have a certain agenda that they wish to apply. I hope immediate action is taken regarding this user. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See this as well. He has been warned too many times. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the user to explain the "God" removals. We'll see what comes of that. Some of the userboxes may be T1. I've already taken User:Prester John/Userbox/Hate. ··coelacan 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, User:Prester John/Userbox/Moman was only intended to inflame. I don't know why I didn't catch that the first time around. ··coelacan 20:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest, if it's technically possible, looking very carefully through the history of articles this user has requested be speedied? I've noticed that the third of three ways listed on his talk page to "welcome new users" reads, "When a Liberal writes an article you may need something like this: {{db-author}}." He may be tagging things he doesn't like with spurious db tags in the hopes that admins won't look very carefully at the speedydelete request. --Dynaflow 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh Dynaflow, please look through my history to aleviate your fears. Klaksonn People may have a different opinion than yours that doesn't compromise their ability to edit in a "Wiki" fashion. There is no agenda. The referencein the incident you are refering to uses the quote "Allah". Why would we not use the phrase that is part of the reference? It is POV to render this to "God". There has much debate for over a thousand years as to if this is true. Many scholars conclude that Allah is in fact Satan, another POV, albiet the polar opposite POV. To avoid confusion or favoring one opinion over another, let's just use what the reference uses shall we? As per Wiki normal procedure. Prester John 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Klaksonn. about being "warned too many times", I think you are refering to other past incidents, where I have actually complied with the final ruling. In great contrast to yourself I might add. Prester John 01:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He is in violation of WP:MOSISLAM.--Kirby♥time 02:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Read it again. This time pay real hard attention to the phrase "unless used as part of a quote." Prester John 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

These edits were not inside quotes. ··coelacan 02:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No. They are WP:OR. Prester John 03:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To cut to the chase: you are engaging in tendentious editing and promotion of the notion that Allah is Satan. The word اﷲ translates to God in English, and there's no original research in that fact. If you continue to remove "God" from Muslim articles without gaining consensus on the articles' talk pages, I will block you to prevent further WP:POINT disruption. ··coelacan 03:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait. Your contention is that it violates WP:OR to equate the word "Allah" to the word "G-d"? Does that apply as a matter of linguistic schism, meaning that 'Dios' 'Dieu' 'Gott' and so on should be eliminated by the same rules, or as a matter of religious schism, meaning 'Ad-nai' and 'El-heynu' should be removed because they might not translate into 'G-d'? Your coments that 'Allah' is actually Satan suggest the latter. If so, how do we handle matters of Latin and Aramaic/Amharic words for 'Supreme being'? Do we go by chronological manifestation, or by 'this is the English wiki so use English'? ThuranX 04:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is very offensive to Arab Christians.--Kirby♥time 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen. Both of you. Here's what you are going to do. You are going to go and read, and cognitively understand, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). Once you have realised that these issues have been dealt with long before us, you will accept that all quotes (per general wiki procedure) and all WP:OR will be rendered as per wiki policy. Threats of blocking just do not cut it. Especially from admins. Prester John 04:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going to be resolved until you understand that "Allah" is an Arabic word. Nobody in France prays to God. Neither does anyone in Germany. They pray to Dieu and Gott, respectively. It's the same fucking thing, except in a different language.--Kirby♥time 04:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think I don't know that "Allah" is an Arabic word? Like I said, This issue has been resolved in Wikipedia many times before us. Please read, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). In summarry If Allah is used in the quote we use Allah. Prester John 04:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So then... [1] canbe explained how? ThuranX 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the MOS page on Islam-related articles, and I understand the quote exception to be intended to prevent tampering with text taken directly from sources (in line with common good journalistic practice). I do not read that to apply to all texts referencing the quote, which seems to be (and forgive me if I am mistaken) Prester John's assertion. I find the justification of the above edit as application of the no original research policy rather odd and would appreciate further explanation of this. What's more, I'm very unconvinced that simple transliteration of "Allah" into "God" is at all a contentious editorial decision. I'd like to point out that Christianity does not own the word "God", even the capitalized form. -- mattb 05:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see this [2]. A greater attempt to offend a class of people I have not encountered. Prester John 05:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Should a person like him be allowed to edit this encyclopedia? ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It's our model and we are incredibly lenient in most issues. If he continuously violates consent then he can be blocked but a preemptive permanent ban is not something we do. For better or worse we are very liberal in that regard and many users who probably hurt article quality are allowed to edit but 'kept in check'. I would say attempts to provoke are very unhelpful... but, that's life on our little Wikipedia. And that's not good. Even when Prester is making good edits such as his recent cleanups on Sahaba from (R) and Prophet attacks his edit summaries are "dream on", "yeah yeah yeah", and "wikify". Removing "Prophet" is not wikifying... you should be clear in your edit summaries especially when you're doing useful work. gren グレン 04:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

His edits are disturbing, I'm surprised no one has suggested that someone who says "Allah is Satan" should be banned from editing. Some are even defending him. What a shame. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

From the main page: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It doesn't say "anyone who agrees with our point of view". We don't require people to subscribe to our own idealogies as long as they can play by our rules. The problem isn't the existence of different, even diametrically opposing, viewpoints, but rather when editors' expressing those viewpoints becomes disruptive somehow. -- mattb 19:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You can HOLD personal ideas diametrically opposed to anyone. YOu may not hand them out on wikipedia; especially contentious and extreme minority views like 'Islam is really Satanism', which is what was being done. Policy was clearly cited here, and should be enforced. So long as he stops with ridiculous agenda edits, he can edit freely, within our rules. Remember, Wikipedia's rules are more like those of the High School Debate team than those of a Revolution. Free as in beer, not free as in speech. I love that adage-set.ThuranX 23:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Account hijacking

I have come back from my wikibreak, after my original account AndyZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was blocked. Someone told me about this today. This is my new account, and the password is secure enough to prevent a repeat of the horrific hijack.

Is it at all possible to allow me to have admin status on this account.

Thanks, guys for your work. --Speakmans Hour 22:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)How do we know you are the same person? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am doubtful that this will be done at all, especially without proof that you are who you say you are. I know of many who are pretty upset with you have (and have lossed their trust in you) by that neglectful mistake. This would need more discussion and a proof of you being AndyZ first. Cbrown1023 talk 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Check User will not be possible. So, no matter what, even if you are who you claim to be, you're kinda screwed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to recommend checkuser, why not? ST47Talk 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Odds of this actually being AndyZ ... roughly 10%. Sorry, but we don't just hand out admin accounts to anyone claiming to be a former admin. --Cyde Weys 22:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As it is, he'd left: why would he want it back now suddenly? Majorly (hot!) 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Cyde. This brings about the issue that there is no official system in place to identify admins. The current situation seems to dictate that there should be one. A discussion should be initiated on this. hombre de haha 22:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If AndyZ had enabled email then he would have been able to reset his password and post a notice on his talk page identifying his new account. Unfortunately, he didn't do so. -Will Beback · † · 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't do. Surely the hijacker could have changed the email... WjBscribe 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. -Will Beback · † · 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Arr, how so? Biometric identification? Phone number storage? I suppose e-mail authentication would work, but then you have the possibility that someone has the same password there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How does one identify who you say you are "in real life". Generally through the use of Identification numbers that correlate to that person's account. Whatever the IT synonym to that is should be thought about. Or just make admins install really awesome thumbscanners on their computer before they log in :D

Of course, if these people and others that are put in the same situation are expendable, and should be punished for their carelessness, then we should just act like we don't need a way to identify admins. "Adminship is no big deal." hombre de haha 23:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

roffle, this reminds me of the time that someone registered the account Rick Kerrigan or something, claiming to be RickK, and asked for his sysop bit back. It didn't fly because users pointed out that RickK never gave up his sysop powers. Ah, here we go: From ANI on BJAODN. hbdragon88 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"AGF is not a suicide pact. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)" That is applicable in so many ways to so many things. Nice link. Teke 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange. It seems that someone removed it, because I Googled the exact term and I didn't see it in an ANI archive. Fortunately it still lives on in BJADON. hbdragon88 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This problem makes for a good argument that we need more Wikimeetups. Meet each other in real life, get to know each other, trade phone numbers -- or at least email addresses. I happen to know (I'm guessing) several dozen Wikipedians well enough (unfortunately, none of those who had acompromised account) that if one had their account compromised, I'd be able to vouch that they are who they claim to be -- & hopefully vice versa. -- llywrch 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention keysignings -- Avi 23:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense for hiim to log onto the AndyZ account to apologize and request an unblock? That's what I'd do, if my account were hijacked. And then I'd change my password. Instead of "password," I'd make it "drowssap." -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mark, as a secruity measure, logged into the compromised account and changed both the password and the email.[3] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that AZPR (talk · contribs) appears to be a long time semi-bot account operated by AndyZ, and AZPR is now requesting that AndyZ be unblocked. That would convince me, unless the password to User:AZPR was also "password". User:Mark knows what AndyZ's original e-mail was before he blanked it, so I guess Mark will ultimately know whether or not to unblock. Thatcher131 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately (as I noted on my talk page), my password was password too. (The idea behind my login was that I could show that I am aware of my activities before I took my wikibreak) I did e-mail Mark though, so hopefully he can clear up the entire situation. Oh and btw, I just happened to notice the post that started this thread - that is NOT me. APR _t 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's really bad that we have 2 users claiming to be AndyZ, does anyone know AndyZ by email so we could get clarification of which account is his? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Speakmans Hour as an imposter account, there were only 2 edits, it seams clear they were only after the admin bit. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(Its fairly obvious that the aforementioned user is making false claims, his contribution list is 2 edits Edit conflict: thanks Ryan) I have e-mailed Mark. I would e-mail someone else who e-mailed me before, but that leaves User:Bobblewik (emailed regarding his date/unit fixing scripts as an inclusion in the PR one) who has left and a bunch of trolls (like User:Titanicprincess, User:Rptng03509345) who send e-mails around regarding some evil admins. APR _t 01:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is where other people need to weigh in, Andy - I didn't know you before (sorry), but you've got to understand the trust that has been lost with your account being compromised - it's not we don't trust the original user, it's the fact that we don't know who is actually attempting to use the account now, or want's to be known as the user formally known as andyZ, I haven't got any suggestions. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least you had a second account known to be yours. That would be a good countermeasure for hijacking, although I would prefer keysigning. -- ReyBrujo 01:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree completely with Ryan, but also we're discussing reinstating a user (hopefully not also resysoping) that used the word "password" as their, well, password. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So? People screw up royally, and you're talking about having "password" as a password as if it were a crime. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOT policy saved me here :). APR _t 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, and I would go thru the same exact steps as you have if I were dealing with someone who returns right after his account was hacked for vandalizing the main page. I don't mind at all the suspicion; I probably would be suspicious myself if this had happened to someone else. Thanks a lot for your understanding, APR _t 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspicion? Lets see if I can overdo it. Isn’t it ironic that AZPR is a quite famous piece of password recovery software from ElcomSoft? --Van helsing 09:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User verification

One problem is to get some verification of a person's identity, such as for restoring control of a username. What permissions should be given that user is a different problem. For users whose identity is unknown, there may be some information which could be used for verification within their Wikipedia contributions. For example, if they've used some obscure books for sources and they still have those books they can at least verify that they are a person who does have those books. They can quickly look up any desired section of a book, and others can verify the information (even if it takes others a while to get a copy of the book, the quick reply to a challenge helps verify access to the source). (SEWilco 05:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Once again, an argument for setting up something like a web or wiki of trust. -- Avi 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than books as a source, I would suggest uploading own-work images of similar topics to images uploaded by the user before and where the metadata can be verified as being same camera, same date, ... Eg if you have provided an image of a place, you possibly have available more images of that place that you haven't uploaded.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest full body shots. Men need to scrawl "Wikipedia Rules" across the chest in Sharpie.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, exactly how do you verify that my photos were all shot on this Edixa of mine? Compare the dimness of the picture at various points? Employ some other advanced photoforensics? This thing doesn't exactly leave a ton of metadata leaving around, being 1960s camera technology - not getting exact exposure date/time and shutter/f-stop values kind of sucks, but since the thing works perfectly, I don't see a reason to switch =) Plus, we all know how EXIF data is extremely infallible and almost impossible to falsify, right? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Children of Curpsbot

Curps (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (now retired) created a multi-function adminbot starting circa September 2005. The most well known function of this bot was to watch for pagemove style vandalism and counter it by issuing rapid blocks. In doing so, Curps countered a major problem Wikipedia was having at that time, and this use of his bot was widely endorsed and openly celebrated. However, Curps's bot did not stop there and he also added functions to counter vandalism with reversions and blocks and to block newly registered accounts with questionable names like Mr.AssShitHead. These later functions, which Curps never publicly explained in detail, were more controversial. In particular, many criticized him for using the vague statement "user..." in issuing username blocks and not clearly identifying which actions were being done by a robot versus which actions were being performed manually. Even back then, engaging in these sorts of actions with little discussion or approval was not really in keeping with the spirit of the bot policy. Curps retired in July 2006.

However, unknown to everyone (as far as I can tell), is that two other admins had secretly started running Curpsbot derivatives before Curps's retirement. On the plus side, this meant that page move vandalism was still protected against. On the negative side, these bots continued issuing username blocks and engaging in other activities (like vandalism reversion) without being identified as bots, or being acknowledged/discussed by the community. I only realized what was going on after reviewing Wikipedia log data. In each case the bot has been modified and evolved from the original Curpsbot design. For example, in one case the annoying "user..." summary was eliminated, and in another case the operator apparently scaled back the level of antivandal activities. However, I consider the log evidence incontrovertible that two admins have run Curpsbot derived adminbots for large stretches of more than a year.

That is until recently. One of these two admins has recently announced his retirement. The other has apparently disabled most (all?) of the adminbot's functions during the last few months (possibly deliberately, possibly because Mediawiki changes caused those functions to stop working, and possibly because I told him I was going to start this discussion). Given that the bots are now largely inactive, I am going to refrain (for now) from revealing the two admins in question. Rather than trying to lynch the specific operators of these bots, I'd rather have a discussion about adminbots in general and Curpsbot functionality in particular (there are plenty of examples from Curps' logs). Are these acceptable activities for bots to run, and if so how should they be discussed and approved? What should happen to adminbots run in secret (p.s. these two are not the only bots in the logs)? If we are going to give more than lip service to the notion that bots need to be approved, we would need to both send a clear signal that secret bots are not okay, and provide a viable forum for handling these issue. (I think the amount of hassle and unnecessary overhead created by past adminbot debates largely encourages such activities to be run in secret.) Dragons flight 02:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand is the most recent discusion that had some discussion on the use of semi-automated tools that users with administrators powers used. hbdragon88 03:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The community seems unwilling to discuss the idea of an admin bot without resorting to hysteria, so it is possible that these admins had to ignore the rules to improve Wikipedia. I cannot be sure without looking at the log evidence itself. Is there any particular action that seemed incorrect? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a few examples of things I would consider mistakes. Things analogous to blocking "ThePenIsMighter" because the bot saw "penis", come to mind, but the problems I saw were quite rare (probably less than 1% of actions). Also, it is worth noting that if adminbots can run from many months without drawing attention to themselves, then they clearly aren't doing much harm. If I thought they were harmful, I would have blocked them already and the above would have been a much different post. Dragons flight 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(I'm hoping that I'm inserting this into the proper branch of this discussion.) The situation that led to the ArbCom discussion about Betacommand grew out of the fact that Betacommand never uswefully responded to concerns about his automated edits. I mention this only to point out the lesson there for anyone wanting to run an AdminBot: explain yourself often & completely -- & be willing to admit mistakes & be overruled from time to time. Do that, & I expect opposition to AdminBots would decline. -- llywrch 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't like the idea of adminbots, and I like the idea of secret adminbots even less. If these were autonomously blocking people, we need to come down on it hard, to prevent a recurrence in the future. The operators should both lose whatever bot flags they have, and also their seats on the BAG (if they have them), at a minimum. As for the other stuff, it's hard to discuss acceptable degrees of functionality without knowing exactly which tasks the modified bots were performing. Can you provide a list? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that (pending community consensus otherwise) admins should not be using fully automated bots. I have no problem with admins using scripts and semi-bots to expedite deletions and so forth as long as each action requires a final manual confirmation, and with the understanding that if the admins screws up by confirming things he shouldn't have (using bad judgement in other words) he can't blame it on bad bot code or something, but has to take full responsibility. Thatcher131 03:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem though, if we outright bad the legitimate uses of adminbots (there are a few places they could help), then people are going to feel strongly enough and run them "underground". The only way to stop illegal adminbots, is to legalize some, and provide restrictions. It should increase quality, since the code will be reviewed. It reminds me of Prohibition, where people would drink alcohol regardless of legality, and the lack of standards in the illegal distilleries made for toxic concoctions. Prodego ^talk 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That analogy's not great, since people here feel more strongly (and uniformly) against adminbots than the average US citizen did against booze. Given that this is the case, we also have an option that wasn't open to the US Gov't regarding alcohol sales: extremely draconian penalties for violators. If it were public knowledge that anyone running an unauthorized adminbot would be desysopped (if appropriate), permanently lose the approval to run bots of any sort, and pick up a lengthy block (i.e. several months at a minimum), I doubt we'd have much problem. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And that would be a very ridiculous response to actions that were A) intended to improve the encyclopedia and B) did improve the encyclopedia. Whatever else I may believe, I certainly wouldn't stomach giving out months long blocks unless someone's actions were actually shown to be harmful. Dragons flight 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't think that ignoring policy and running an unauthorized bot would do harm to the encyclopedia, or that people can inadvertently cause problems while intending to improve the encyclopedia? For example, if there's an admin running an unauthorized bot that blocks bad usernames, and the bot gets a screw loose and blocks a big run of reasonable names for valid contributors, how would that not damage the project? It'd damage our credibility, it'd bite newbies, it'd drive away good contributors... the list goes on and on. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking an editor for months because their bot might have problems and go on a rampage is a lot different than blocking someone because they did go on a rampage. Dragons flight 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd be blocking them for a month for betraying the community's trust and doing an end-run around the processes designed to regulate a very controversial area of the site. In that sense, blocking for what the bot might do is much better than blocking for what the bot did, since it's preventative rather than punitive (insofar as someone who got caught with an unauthorized, malfunctioning adminbot is extremely unlikely to have any positions of authority to abuse in the future). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that process and transparency matter. If an admin wants to improve the encyclopedia, he has lots of ways to do so that don't involve breaking the rules and violating the community's trust. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as being in no way an AN/I issue, and should be brought to a wider audience if possible. A number of compromise suggestions have been proposed in previous "adminbot" requests, such as strictly limiting the number of sysop tools the bot had, and providing some sort of throttle/panic button for admins in case the bot goes rogue. Overall, though, I have to wonder (emotionally, not logically) if the recent wave of compromised administrative accounts will make people less likely to support adminbots in the future. There's a wide latitude of valid opinions between "I for one welcome our new robot overlords" and Skynet-related hysteria, and dismissing it all or arrogating decision to a subset of users seems counter to Wikipedia tradition. I in no way endorse the use of unauthorized adminbots though; if we need more admins to provide these 'automatic' functions, we should be trying to promote them, until such time as the Turing test is met. -- nae'blis 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an incident regarding admin privileges. For the record, as well, I prefer to edit-summary my username blocks as User... in a tribute to curpsbot. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• pops head out of locked room labeled 'work'* Many of you likely do not know me, some of you may... my feeling on the whole issue regarding this is that there are some functions which are legit. Auto-unprotecting and protecting pages, or performing page moves for certain reasons. I do have a suggestion on the whole matter of an adminbot: Since the majority of the functions require an administrator flag, any adminbot must publish its source code so that users who have an understanding of the code can interject when they see a potential problem with the code, as like any other OpenSource software. Anyway, that's my two bits on the issue. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with the above, there would also be some disadvantages to publishing the complete source code to a "Curps-like" bot. In particular, I believe part of the reason why Curps never made his bot code publicly available is that, if the vandals had known exactly what rules it used for detecting bad usernames and pagemove vandals, it would've been trivial for the vandals (at least some of whom were also using bots) to avoid them. After all, if you know the bot will block you if you make N page moves a minute, all you need to do is to program your vandalbot to make N-1 moves a minute instead.

That said, it would certainly be possible and reasonable to publish most of the source code, except for a few configuration details that need to be kept secret. There's an interesting analogy here: MediaWiki itself is, of course, open source. However, MediaWiki contains a little-known feature that prevents anyone from saving any page that matches a certain regex. This regex is specified in the site configuration file, which, on Wikimedia wikis at least, is most definitely not public information.

Of course, my personal opinion on adminbots in general, which I've stated before, is that it shouldn't matter how you do your edits or your admin actions — what matter are the results. If I block an account named JimboWalesFucksLittleBoys, who cares if I do it with a bot, with a script or entirely by hand? Conversely, if I go and block Jimbo himself for no good reason, or do something equally silly like deleting the Main Page, I expect to be blocked and desysopped for it — to prevent further damage — just the same regardless of whether the immediate act was done by a bot or by my own fingers.

I don't run any bots myself, nor have I ever, though I did think about setting one up once. (I ended up patching MediaWiki instead to prevent the problems the bot would've been watching out for.) I have, though, written and used a lot of user scripts, including some for doing semi-automated admin tasks. In any case, I'd consider myself equally responsible for my actions whether I did them manually or with the help of a bot or a script. After all, I'm the one who made the script do those actions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• This situation isn't nearly as bad as some people think. There was an RFA nom for an admin bot about a month ago that would have passed if it were not withdrawn just before the ending date. There was some hysterics, but not much, and overall the community accepted the idea. The main quibble is that people wanted the bot to be open source. >Radiant< 10:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• ProtectionBot was needed to solve a major problem at the time and its task was relatively uncontroversial. I don't think we can expect to enjoy the same level of support for an evil fair use-deleting bot, or rampaging proxy-blocking bot. – Steel 12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Try it. Do not a priori assume that the community will reject it. Do not base that assumption on incorrect evidence. Try it. >Radiant< 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that adminbots are The Way Forward and the quicker we get rid of this ridiculous, irrational skynet-type hysteria the better. If admins have to run bots in secret until then, so be it. Philosophical objections along the lines of "I just don't like adminbots" are equally unhelpful. – Steel 12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is not, nor has there ever been, such a creature as a "Curpsbot derivative". —freak(talk) 22:00, May. 8, 2007 (UTC)

Time to let the cat out of the bag: One of these admins is Misza13, who issues username blocks not even a second after the username is registered. I do not know whom the other one is. Dekoibi 21:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No big secret - all VCN members who hang out on IRC are aware of its presence. Somehow, there were no complaints (vandals excluded) about it since it started operating (Oct '06). Thus, I see no reason to change the status quo, as on the occasions of username vandalbot attacks it decreases fellow admins' workload significantly (it watches over pagemove vandals too). Миша13 14:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, and I view it as a serious violation of trust based on policy and precedent. Since you have made yourself available for voluntary recall, please see your talk page. -- nae'blis 20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Misza13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) runs a blocking and deletion bot. No, he is not one of the two I was talking about above. Dragons flight 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See relatd discussion at WP:AN#User name blocks. DES ^(talk) 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr strike my leg stop i dont like fly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – Mr strike my leg stop i dont like fly has been blocked by Ryulong. Knowpedia 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is new to me. User creates account to hand out barnstars with no previous contact with the recipients.[4] Also has been warned for other vandalistic edits. [5] User:ZeroTheLoser seems to be the focus of User:Mr strike my leg stop i dont like fly's obvious vandalism. Timeline of events:

(13:24, 7 May 2007) New user account created.

(13:27, 7 May 2007) Within first 3 minutes of account creation 4 unabashed acts of vandalism.

(20:36, 7 May 2007) Three hours go by (must of been nap time) and the unusual handing out of barnstars begin.

(21:34, 7 May 2007) Tops off the barnstar handing out by awarding the user page they vandalized first with a barnstar.

Strange. --Knowpedia 03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the signature displays his name as "Can't we hate our allies and love our enemies". Definitely someone who knows his way around WP. --Masamage ♫ 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I got one, and was very leary. I thought it was a joke, or a poke. I need a lot of info to take things for granted. LOL. I do think it's mean though, for those who believe this is legit for Wikipedia. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was was very odd as well... at first I thought it was legit, then I looked at his edit history... and he's handing out the same exact one to many other people. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was weird, I guess. The random awarding is maybe a form of vandalism, but since it's all on talk pages anyway I would say it's pretty harmless. - Rainwarrior 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar flooding is an uncommon form of vandalism, but I've seen it before. Usually it's ten or twenty barnstars per person, instead of just one. It's still a vandal-only account imo. Anybody object to an indef block? ··coelacan 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about a indef block. I do think it's semi-harmless, to a degree though. It is a hoax, in a way, so in that respect, not cool at all. Perhaps blocking the user name, and not an IP, since it just seems to be on user talk pages? Lets keep this open for a while, so others have time to comment. Some may be in bed, at work, out, etc. JMHO. Thanks. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say give the guy a fair warning, first, that the semi-random barnstarring is kind of weird and that he should stop. Don't ban him unless he fails to comply. --Masamage ♫ 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I also just noticed user has edit summary for all 31 edits, this is not common for a new user but most established user will not press "save page" without the edit summary. Noted the edit summary for my barnstar is different from the rest... weird!--Knowpedia 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If this person's not going to use the account for anything but awarding, then it's pointless to let him continue this weirdness. Wikipedians are here to improve the articles, not to give random awards. 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk}

I agree with the block here. This user reminds me too much of Buenoma (talk · contribs) and Payple (talk · contribs), both of whom I blocked for the same thing (well, they were actually the same user). --Coredesat 09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a silly award. I don't know why he gave it out? Any action (or non-action) is fine by me. I feel so unspecial now =/ --ZayZayEM 09:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think he should be blocked just tell him what hes doing wrong and if he continues then take action mabye ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 10:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I did to get targetted, but I am curious about what to do with a barnstar it appears I haven't earned. If all of his edits are barnstars, I can see a reason for banning him, though someone needs to talk to him first. Rebochan 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Noted user is apologetic for handing out the Barnstars and has asked for forgiveness. [6] --Knowpedia 17:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

hes apoligised in a wired third persion way saying we insted of I is that of any importance 81.145.242.43 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, reminds me of meta:role account behaviour. We block on sight if any account claims to be operated by more than one person. ~Crazytales 12:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

should we ask him?? he might just have a weird speach patten or they might be 5 guys using it ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough it reminds me of a IP-hopping death-threat vandal[7] with an interest in Chaos (Sailor Moon) manga[8], blanking[9] and redirecting[10] pages, random barnstars[11], bad grammar, and with an IP of 81.145.* However this is probably a coincidence so I'm willing to assume good faith at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I had the same thought. --Masamage ♫ 17:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

block review, personal attacks, 31 hours

Meet Prester John. You may remember him from such threads as #Incivility, possible baiting at User talk:Kirbytime, and his eponymous debut, #User:Prester John.

He and I were discussing some T1 userboxes and the possibility of taking his "Allah is Satan" show on the road, at User talk:Prester John#"God" in Muslim articles, when he popped in here at ANI to call for Kirbytime's blocking.

Fine and good, and I support the 1 week block. Prestor John said of Kirbytime's "Piss Christ" comment: "A greater attempt to offend a class of people I have not encountered." I'm a bit surprised by that, since Prestor John baited Kirbytime, then noted that the comment, directed at him, was rather off-target, and collected it for posterity. But hey, we all handle stress differently.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I noticed that only a half hour before demanding Kirbytime's block, Prestor John was making his own personal attacks, calling other editors "leftist scum". A few quick Ctrl-F perusals of his talk page for "personal attack", "npa", and "civil" are quite revealing; he's well aware of the policies, but ignores them.

I feel that this is part of a pattern of disruption along with his insistence on maintaining an inflammatory userpage and his "Allah is Satan" campaign, and that this disruption needs to be brought to some kind of halt, albeit temporarily. I have made a 31 hour block and request that other admins review it. ··coelacan 09:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the block acceptable under the circumstances, Prestor John is aware of the policies on civility,NPA etc as they are all linked from his user page. Gnangarra 09:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block and the justification. -- mattb 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin, but it seems reasonable to me. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support block. Prester John (talk · contribs) stating this about any other user is one of the most flagrant WP:KETTLE situations I've seen in a while.--Isotope23 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, but i'm no admin. ThuranX 20:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Besides these personal attacks, of which I was not aware, he has been warned several times not to add inflammatory userspace content, but has persisted nevertheless. If he objects to the translation of Arabic "Allah" as "God," I and the MOS strongly disagree, but that is one thing; announcing from his userpage "Allah is Satan" quite another.

It is long past time to put these userspace games to an end.Proabivouac 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, though 31 hours is far too lenient. Raymond Arritt 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My good faith unprotection of his userpage was rewarded by this, this and this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for enhanced Admin identification and security

I was wondering if it would be possible to set up some sort of secure secondary identification system for Admins (and perhaps all users). This would be similar to what bank and credit card sites do now (i.e. require answer(s) to some random question(s) or just a secondary password).

The purpose of these secondary IDs would be two-fold. First, they would allow compromised account holders to reliably identify themselves in some manner (again the technical details are vague, but perhaps a secure page where they could login and have some confirmation produced on satifactorily answering a question or two). Second, perhaps this could be used to further protect the Main Page, announcements that go at the top of all pages, and other WP:BEANS items I have no idea about (so before you deleted the Main Page or added something to every page as a banner or blocked Jimbo, you would have to enter a second password unique to yourself).

The secondary ID would not be needed for routine edits or routine admin functions, just those that could really screw up the encyclopedia. It could also have much more stringent failed attempt limits to thwart brute force attempts to crack it (two or three wrong tries to log in and you are blocked for an hour or a day). I hope this idea is helpful, Ruhrfisch 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PGP key signing would be a pretty good way to do it. --Cyde Weys 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

see the next heading, Cyde -- Avi 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins (or any users) with PGP keys

Perhaps those of use with PGP or GPG keys should at the very least engage in encrypted challenge-responses with some subset of each other, and even if we do not sign each others' keys, we WOULD have a method of confirming a user's ID, even after comprimisation, by using their key to verify themselves from any address. -- Avi 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm communicating with Avi right now; anyone else? --Cyde Weys 16:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually performed an encrypted challenge-response with Alphax, but then I changed my e-mail address and decided to generate a new key instead of changing the ID on the old key for various reasons, so this new key does not have his signature, but he is open to the idea. Then again, he has not contributed in months. I hope everything is OK. -- Avi 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My PGP key has been sat on a subpage since I started editing. This would seem to me to be proof enough that it belongs to me. As long as it's uploaded or properly identified by the account before the account is compromised it should be good enough. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If Avi shows me his passport, I'll sign his key. :-) Wikimania 2005 had a keysigning.The keysigning session at wikimania 2006 didn't happen, because the person who was supposed to organise it bugged out at the last moment. Can we have a keysigning in Taipei this year? Or someone already submitted a proposal? (Submissions 'till May 15 :-) ) --Kim Bruning 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No way I can make it to Tapei, Kim. Sorry :( If you care to drop by the middle atlantic states of the east coast of the US in the near future, maybe we can arrange something . -- Avi 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So how do we know that I am who I am so my key belongs to the person I say it belongs to, namely me? I've been looking for a reason to use GPG since it's so shiny. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is why encrypted challenge-responses are a poor substitute to face-to-face meetings. Newer versions of GPG allow for a level of confidence in the signature--intentionally vague:

• 0 - No comment
• 1 - No verification
• 2 - Casual verification
• 3 - Extensive verification.

Compare how the levels are described here: http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/121645/49 with http://www.aperiodic.net/phil/pgp/policy.html

While one would think that nothing beats face-to-face with government-issued ID's, some people would still only rate that a "2" and would require years of relationships (brother-sister/co-worker) to go 3. It is up to you to decide on a recognition/identification scheme if you cannot make a face-to-face, and then how much trust to give that. -- Avi 18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively it is possible to have full trust (after proper email verification) that my key belongs to me and I am who I say I am. No passport required. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If somebody could direct their fellow users to a crash course in how to use this PGP shit, this thread would be significantly more useful. —freak(talk) 18:04, May. 8, 2007 (UTC)

So... how do the people who only speak English ensure their security? :) – Riana_ऋ 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Our articles on Public-key cryptography topics might help. It goes something like this: Download GPG; generate a keypair (two related keys are created - a public key and a private key); keep the private key very private, and widely distribute the public key. When you want to prove you made a message you sign the message with your private key and others use your public key to authenticate the signature. It's impossible*¹²³ to discover a private key from a public key or a signature, and the private key is kept safe at home and is even password-protected, so you generally know that the person who uses the private key to sign a message is the owner of the public key. For example, I have published my public key in my userspace. Anyone signing a message with the matching private key is me. If my account is compromised and gets blocked and de-sysopped, I could make a new account and using a PGP-signed message ask for it to be immediately re-sysopped (subject to other approvals), having proved I am the same person who uploaded the public key, ie zzuuzz. But as Avi says, it won't prevent your account being compromised in the first place. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This still doesn't make sense (to me at least). How are the public and private key connected and how do you use someone's public key to authenticate their private key? John Reaves (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The public and private keys are mathematically related. If I have your public key, and you sign with your private key, even if I cannot tell WHAT your private key is, your public key responds to it, so if I trust that you are the owner and controller of the private key, I can safely feel that everything signed by your private key comes from you, and everything I encrypt to your public key can only be seen by you. -- Avi 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind signing a PGP key but I have next to zero experience with that. Radiant! 10:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony's quick-and-dirty Mediawiki key-signing method

This is easy and it'll at least help to prove that you are who you were when the key was signed.

1. Produce a GnuPG key pair.
2. Record a sound file containing the sound of your voice reading the fingerprin of the key pair.
3. Upload the sound file to Wikipedia, whilst logged in, and link to it from your user page.
4. Put the public key, ascii-armored, on the sound file's page or your user page or somewhere, whilst logged in.
5. Arrange to contact another Wikipedian by phone and read the signature to them,
6. If they agree that the voice on the phone is the same as the voice in the recording, they download your public key from Wikipedia, sign it and upload it.
7. You download the signed public key.

If at some point you need to confirm your identity, send email signed with the secret key. It can be confirmed against the public key. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course if you're already known and trusted by another Wikipedian whom you've met then you probably don't have to go through the pain of this, but it might be nice to sign your friends' keys and then offer to be the signer for people whom you don't know but are prepared to phone you and read a fingerprint at you. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not have all admins submit a public key when they pass their RfA? Then at the very least we know we have the same person we promoted. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No magic bullet

The idea of using some type of key-trust network will not make any admin's account any more safe than it is. There is no substitute for a strong password. What this will allow us to do is verify the identities of wiki users. For example, let us say that my account gets compromised, and gets desysopped. How am I to prove that either 1) I have regainded control or 2) this brand-spanking new e-mail address is really Admin:Avraham? I can meet with someone (steward/Bcrat) in person and show my bona fides, or I can show knowledge that only Admin:Avraham would know. If I can show that I control a particular public key that someone already has checked and knows it belongs to Admin:Avraham, then that is pretty good proof (pun intended) that this new account is the Admin, and not a hacker, and sysop powers should be returned.

But there is absolutely no substitute for a strong password, unless we all go to RSA tokens (like some of us have at work) -- Avi 19:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the point of uploading signatures, yes, so that you can recover the account once your account has been compromised. -- ReyBrujo 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any other place on Wikipedia where this is being discussed? I'd like to go complain about the current 'log in with our special image to type thing.' I didnt screw up with an idiotic password like 'F*ckyou' or 'Iluvwiki'. If i'm going ot have to go through Maxwell Smart rigamarole to log in, why bother? ThuranX 03:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The captcha only appears if you mistype your password once. If you input it correctly, the captcha won't appear. So, take it easy, this is not the end of the world. -- ReyBrujo 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

THe 'Captcha' hit me because in ligth of all this I CHANGED to a MROE secure password earlier today. I had an alphanumeric, but decided to go for a more complex, random pass earlier. Somehow, Wiki didn't accept it after all, so I had to use my old one. ANd I hit the captcha. IF the captcha's really only a new feature for the bounced attempts, it might be ok. but if that's going to be an every time occurance, I think WIki will lose a lot of people. ThuranX 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Committed identities

Somehow I missed this thread. A couple of days ago, I created Template:User committed identity, which helps you publish a SHA-1 commitment to your real-life identity, for exactly this type of situation. The nice thing here is there's no need for a key infrastructure, and it does what is probably needed in this circumstance. Mangojuice^talk 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Tony the Tiger

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) has been going around, calling himself Director of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago. I didn't know we had such a title, but apparently they do; and if it makes him happy to push people around there, fine. But now he is singlehandedly insisting on adding Jon Corzine to the purview of the WikiProject, on the grounds that he once attended the University of Chicago. This has been strongly objected to by Alansohn, Grammaticus Repairo (the preceding link was changed from an 'edit link' to what I presume Septentrionalis meant Carcharoth 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)) actually this one, thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC) and myself; but he continually reverts. Not yet to the point of 3RR violation, but could some admin have a word with him? He seems to have an undue appreciation of the power and glory of adminship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my side of the story at TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that this ANI seems to be retaliatory as a result of the post I am directing you to. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so; I didn't know it existed. Tony's argument appears to be quite literally that the Project can do whatever it likes, bot-assisted, and any objection is a claim to WP:OWN the project. Perhaps it would be sufficient to call off SatyrBot, which is doing all this pointless tagging. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If this article is going to be tagged by the Chicago Wikiproject, they need to be putting in time and effort expanding and improving the article. If they will do that, I see no good reason not to let them tag the article as coming under their project. I do agree it's a bit of a tenuous link though, but if they're going to help improve the article, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. -- Nick ^t 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup Nick. We are working with User:SatyrTN and his bot User:SatyrBot just to get our articles tagged. We don't make any promise of editing any one of the 7500 articles tagged by us already or the 5-10,000 or so that will likely soon be tagged on any schedule. We will be using our tags to assess where our efforts are needed and will tag all articles to better assess where we will put our efforts. As I stated, we are currently taking inventory. When we get everything properly tagged then we can assess articles. Then we can determine where our editorial efforts will fall. We will in general help articles we tag, but of course make no promise about any particular article. We welcome any editor who want to contribute to our efforts. Come partake in this week's WP:CHICOTW. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There has recently been significant agreement at Bot approvals that mass tagging with project templets is a dubious use of a bot, and that any such bots ought to be specifically approved for such use. This editing appears to me to be marginal at best. DES ^(talk) 00:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have seen this coming a mile off. If anyone (in this case, Tony) engages in widespread and rather indiscriminate bot tagging of articles to fall under the "scope" of a WikiProject, they will (quite rightly) rile editors when they get a few false hits. See also the discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#WikiProject scope. I would urge Tony, if he must continue with such bot-tagging (and it might be better to stop, given the Bot approvals comment above), to politely remove the WP:WPChi tag if people keep saying that such-and-such articles are not really within the scope of the project, and to reassess his inclusion critera. Carcharoth 01:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've struck the parts of being "director" of a Wikiproject. Such titles don't make a lot of sense on Wikipedia. >Radiant< 10:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am the person who makes WP:CHICOTW run and who is attempting to get WP:CHIASSESS and WP:WPChi going. title or no. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And that is much appreciated. But you get the same salary as the rest of us. >Radiant< 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

dispute resolution accepted. I am drafting a neutral statement of the issue at User:TonyTheTiger/DR bot. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I actually asked Tony about this bot job earlier: User_talk:Ccwaters/Archive2007#Chi_athlete_tags. Indiscriminate project tagging has little if no effect on the individual articles. If anything, it waters down the project. That's the project's problem. Its a battle I choose to walk away from. ccwaters 13:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers

DragonflySixtyseven indefinitely blocked (including username creation) my account without warning after I posted this and then this comment to the deletion review of <the number we are not allowed to utter on Wikipedia>. Despite clear Wikipedia policy stating single-purpose accounts are not forbidden, the sole reason for the block given at the time was:

single-purpose account that has served its single purpose

The blocking admin used this same reason to block at least 3 other accounts at around the same time. DS (DragonflySixtyseven's nickname for his account) went on to post to the same deletion review this and then this. No one, of course, blocked DS. I posted an unblock request with reason:

I do not believe I have done anything inappropriate to warrant the block placed on my editing privileges. My edits have been made in good faith and represent a legitimate attempt to communicate my opinion on the titular subject of an article that I feel is important to Wikipedia. I believe the blocking admin has incorrectly and without reason assumed bad faith on my part.

Yamla acted as the reviewer for my unblock request and denied it stating only:

User clearly acting in bad faith.

Without any reason given as to why Yamla had concluded bad faith on my part, I asked on my talk page why Yamla believed this and expressed that I was frustrated with both administrators for appearing to assume bad faith on part. Yamla responded on my talk page:

AmendmentNumberOne, your apparently deliberate attempt to get Wikipedia sued by posting information you know will cause the MPAA to target us is a clear indication that you have no business being allowed to edit here.

I explained to Yamla that he or she was mistaken, that I had not posted any such information, and expressed my frustration at the continued assumption of bad faith and new false allegations. In my response, I quote what Yamla had said to another editor on their talk page, JNighthawk's, about what I had done. The claim Yamla made that I had been "posting the HDDVD/Blu-ray DVD decryption key number" is patently false. DS made similar false claims:

That user was banned for making a lot of (now-deleted) articles containing the HDDVD string, and for tantrumming about how Digg was being an Evil Awful Censor.

Both claims are false. And then:

Deleted articles don't show up in the contributions log. More to the point, I freely admit that I may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction, but he showed up with a Frea-Speach (sic) name and immediately started fussing about in the HD-DVD Decoder String Deletion Review. A single-purpose account if I ever saw one, and I've damn well seen lots of them.

So it appears to me I was blocked by DS for what I wrote in the deletion review, in contravention of explicit Wikipedia policy:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute.

Despite my desire not to have an email account in order to be allowed to edit on Wikipedia, I read through the various policies and guidelines and concluded the only course of action left to me in order to be able to edit on Wikipedia involved setting an email account in my preferences. I sent DS an email yesterday and he now has unblocked my account. But DS still has not explained his actions (his unblock comment was: "==Meh== Whatever. I'm too nice sometimes. You're unblocked. Don't screw up." and he has not sent me any email reply.) At least with respect to Wikipedia policy, I do not know why he blocked me without warning and indefinitely after I posted my opinion to that deletion review. Not knowing what my "mistake" was, I feel incredibly uncomfortable asking DS directly at this point. He could just re-block me again. So I am bringing this matter to the administrator noticeboard. This is a complaint about DragonflySixtyseven's misuse of administrative powers in blocking my account as outlined above. I also believe a misuse of administrative powers occurred when Yamla declined my unblock request without having a reason supported by evidence nor Wikipedia policy to continue the block. -AmendmentNumberOne 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to deny a block request if you believe the person should not be unblocked. The account seemed to be a SPA and so far, the only contributions from this account are in relation to that number. If I am not permitted to decline unblocks if I agree with the blocking admin, though, please do let me know. I'm a frequent reviewer on unblock-en-l and monitor the unblock category so I am likely to decline quite a number of unblocks in the future. Obviously, I also unblock quite a number of people. --Yamla 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For a block, you must have a reason supported by evidence. The reason must be founded in Wikipedia policy and the evidence must exist. When reviewing an unblock request, agreeing with the blocking admin is not enough. You must agree with the blocking admin's reason because Wikipedia policy and actual evidence supports it. And you also must take care that the editor being blocked has been notified of the actual conduct that resulted in the block. You cannot keep this information from the editor being blocked.

And note that you should not approve a block over a content dispute. Posting the number to an article about the number is a content dispute. Posting the number to a deletion review of speedy delete of the same article is a content dispute. Since I did neither, and instead posted my opinion to the deletion review that the article should be kept, your denial of the unblock review was truly in error. -AmendmentNumberOne 12:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also that this user has, deliberately or not, posted that number as an examination of his contribution log clearly shows. --Yamla 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked by the blocking admin. Chick Bowen 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Chick Bowen, this matter is most certainly not resolved. Unblocking me does not do anything to prevent arbitrary blocks like this from occurring in the future. It also does not address my complaint that this block was performed in an unfair manner in violation of clear Wikipedia policy. Please remove the 'resolved' tag from this discussion. -AmendmentNumberOne 01:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we need blood, blooooood! Is that an accurate assessment, ANO? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No apology was given for what was, as far as I, a neutral third-party, can see, a block based on a content dispute. Blood is not necessary, but DS acting as if he is doing AmendmentNumberOne a favor by unblocking him is insulting. - JNighthawk 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The block was not arbitrary, it was deserved. That number can get us in a lot of trouble we dont need. You were unblocked, so go contribute the the encyclopedia to show you deserved it instead of making a fool of yourself on AN/I. -M^ask? 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this is not resolved. The reason given for blocking was invalid, and the reason given for denying his unblock request is demonstrably false, as I don't believe he was "clearly acting in bad faith." Also, posting of the AACS number does not violate any current wiki-policy, and Jimbo has said himself that there is the Foundation currently has no opinion on posting of the number. From what I, a lowly non-admin editor, can see from his contribution log, he had done nothing wrong and was banned for being involved in a content dispute, which is thoroughly against wiki-policy. - JNighthawk 01:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with AmendmentNumberOne's statement, I've removed the Resolved tag, as the issue is still open. - JNighthawk 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts. With regard to Yamla's concern that the contributions of User:AmendmentNumberOne reveal that he posted "the number" ... the article title, which in this case was "the number," was the title of the DRV section relating to that (former) article. It automatically appeared as part of the edit summary without the user's having had anything to say about it or probably having even noticed. Frankly, we all should have realized that this would be the effect of not changing or redacting the title soon enough, but that cannot be blamed on this user, or on any other user who participated in the DRV.

I happen to strongly disagree with User:AmendmentNumberOne regarding the merits of the underlying issue. I also am not convinced that this DMCA dispute raises a viable First Amendment claim (and certainly not a claim against Wikipedia, which is a purely private and non-governmental entity). However, if this user is correct that he never created an article relating to the number and that his account was used solely to comment in the DRV, then while I disagree with the content of the user's comments, and I generally deprecate SPAs that take overly strident positions, it is not at all clear to me that this was a strong block.

Having said that, I understand the reasons the block was implemented and I hope that User:AmendmentNumberOne can as well. The amount of spam posted and the number of SPA accounts created that day regarding "the number" left us inundated and the people, including DragonflySixtySeven, who did have concerns had to react very quickly. I hope that User:AmendmentNumberOne can understand that these were good-faith concerns even if he did not or does not personally agree with them, and would join in urging him to accept that he has made his point and ought now to drop the matter and begin to contribute to the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia.

In response to Yamla's earlier comment, he is to be commended for taking a leading role in acting as a previously uninvolved administrator reviewing a large number of unblock requests, both those posted on-wiki and on the mailing list. Needless to say, upholding as well as reversing a block are appropriate actions depending on the reviewing admin's evaluation. Any criticism that may come along of an individual block/unblock decision is like comments that we all receive on any of our administrator actions—as long as it's kept civil and reasonable, just part of the job description sometimes. Newyorkbrad 01:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct there, and I hope AmendmentNumberOne will accept that even if there were a misunderstanding here, it was a legitimate one. We had a ton of spam problems with that thing.

Now, this being said. Where do we review a Deletion Review? (Deletion Review Review?) While at the time bainer's close may have seemed appropriate, the Foundation and Jimbo have pretty thoroughly indicated that whether or not to use the number is up to each individual project. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, please explain to me what I did to warrant the block by DS and on what basis Yamla, an experienced administrator, could conclude "User clearly acting in bad faith." -AmendmentNumberOne 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my attempt at diplomatic phrasing here was a little bit too subtle. In case anyone else was confused, "not at all clear to me that this was a strong block" = "unless there is something that I am not aware of, disagree with the block." Newyorkbrad 13:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, while I would like to conclude this was a legitimate misunderstanding, I do not think this was so. The blocking admin was contacted after the block and notified he had made a mistake and still persisted in making multiple false claims, claims he has not yet fully disclaimed, and did not lift the block until I sent an e-mail to him to either explain himself or unblock me. He took the easy way out (in my opinion) but that still does not explain how this block happened. The evidence shows that I posted an opinion to the deletion review (I agree it was closed inappropriately) and shortly thereafter an administrator with a different opinion indefinitely blocked my account without warning. -AmendmentNumberOne 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I concede that I acted in haste, and thence in error. We were dealing with a flood of spam, and I made a snap judgement. I regret the inconvenience, and I apologize for the hurt feelings that clearly were caused by my actions; however, I will not be committing hara-kiri, nor will I be ceding my administrator privileges. DS 02:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is asking you to cede your administrative privileges, although I do not think you are in a position to decide whether you retain them. While an error in judgement at the outset could be accepted, you were unwilling to entertain this possibility for me or yourself during the incident. Instead you continued the conversation by making up stuff about what I did. It is hard to imagine why you did not carefully consider what you did after you were asked this:

Hi. Would you mind explaining how that user was acting in bad faith and deserved a permanent ban? His contributions only show what appear to be good faith edits. Agree or disagree with his argument, it is not a reason for banning, especially with no warning and no reason. I believe he was unjustly banned.

Worse, when you realized that you "may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction" instead of carefully examining the matter, you denigated my username, admitted my posting to the deletion review motivated you, and procedeed to repeat your initial faulty reasoning for permanently blocking my account without warning. At this point, you knew exactly what my edits were. You had just referenced them. I really cannot accept your apology when you wish to absolve yourself simply by saying you acted in haste. You did not act in haste. You knew what my edits were. -AmendmentNumberOne 05:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This was a perfectly proper block. Your username indicates that you may not have understood that Wikipedia is not free speech (free as in beer, yes, but not free as in speech), the issue is highly contentious and this account seems to have been registered solely with the purpose of contributing to that deletion review, displaying in the process a knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and working that is incompatible with the good-faith assumption of a genuine newbie. Read: sockpuppet. Frankly, since all you've done since is troll, I think the block should be reinstated and you can go back to your main account. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Threatening to re-block me for bringing my complaint about DragonflySixtyseven's arbitrary block to the Administrators' noticeboard is highly inappropriate. Calling me names is likewise. The good faith assumption applies to all users. You cannot disregard WP:FAITH because you do not like the edits of a particular user. You cannot disregard WP:FAITH because the editor takes the time to inform themselves during an indefinite block incident about Wikipedia policy. You cannot disregard WP:FAITH because you suspect something about an editor without evidence. Blocking policy is very clear: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute." 'Must not' is very strong phrasing. Provided the policy is respected and not arbitrarily ignored, actual limits do exist to the exercise of administrative privileges for the good of Wikipedia. -AmendmentNumberOne 11:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You've described the concerns you had, and received an apology. In an attempt to avoid churn (basically, when a conversation degrades to the point where folks are just talking about the same thing over and over again), I'd like to know if there's anything else you're looking for at this point. Where would you like this discussion to go from here? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking, JzG?! Whether that is his main account or not, his knowledge of Wikipedia procedures should be commended, not scorned. Likewise, calling it trolling to bring inappropriate admin action to light is unbelievable. Gotta watch out for each other, eh, JzG? Either way, DS has given an apology and AmendmentNumberOne has been unblocked. As far as the individual level is concerned, I think that's about what's required, unless AmendmentNumberOne is looking to go higher level with policy changes. - JNighthawk 14:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, again

I have blocked AmendmentNumberOne indefinitely for not contributing at all to the encyclopedia portion of the project. He was never here to write articles, from what I see in his contributions, and in the two days that he was unblocked, he solely editted here and on his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I go for months without editing, is it time to ban me? This whole thing is a fucking joke. Boy am I glad there's admin oversight here on Wikipedia. What? There isn't? Oh, well. Carry on, then, abusing your powers. The admins in this case have broken WP:AGF, along with nearly everything Wikipedia stands for. An open encyclopedia means that you are going to run into areas where you disagree with other editors. Learn to deal with it, rather than banning them. Ryulong, you have violated the banning policy. I'm notifying you that I plan to file an RfA about this incident. - JNighthawk 03:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you have editted articles. AmendmentNumberOne had not. Second, I have not violated any policy. It was very obvious that AmendmentNumberOne was not an account to be used to edit an article on say puppies. It was an account created to stir things up at the DRV of the article on the HD DVD encryption number (the number itself, not any other related articles). He had made no attempts to even touch an article in the time he was unblocked, and was only unblocked by DragonflySixtyseven as it was felt that he was wrong and he apologized, but that did not get any response from #1. And as I stated on my talk page before I discovered your comment here, it was not a ban. It is an indefinite block. I am not saying that if #1 creates another account and avoids the topic completely that he is banned from Wikipedia under that account. Just the one that started this thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Right on WP:BP, it states "Blocks are used in order to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." He was not disruptive, nor damaging to Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether a user edits in mainspace or not, as long as his general goal is to improve Wikipedia. Under WP:AGF, I'm assuming that was his intention. As he is now blocked, he is unable to edit this page and provide any insight or reasoning for his actions. Yes, while it should have ended after DS apologized, he was not overly contentious in his response. You also say that he is not blocked from creating a new account and using that, but my question there is: why would a user, unjustly "banned", want to create a new account for a project that has already shown what it does to users who attempt to help? Who knows if the user intended to become a contributor to the Wikipedia mainspace later on? None of you gave him a chance. He has shown that he's familiar with Wikipedia policy by bring this up in AN/I, and by following correct form in the AfD and DRV. There was absolutely no reason for this second block.

As is stated clearly in WP:BP, "Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam policies, should be warned that such edits are against Wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week. If such edits persist after the block, the account may be blocked indefinitely. A legitimate content dispute is not a valid reason for such blocks." There was no warning. There was no one week block. Both you and DS immediately skipped to blocking indefinitely, in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. - JNighthawk 04:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He was damaging and disruptive to Wikipedia. And the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. Not initiate threads like these. And I would assume that the original block was a decent enough warning that if he repeated being disruptive, he would be blocked, again. And entirely new users who are so familiar with the processes of Wikipedia are generally suspicious accounts to begin with. I have blocked accounts in the past that have had absolutely no article space edits and solely user page/user talk page edits. While AmendmentNumberOne actually editted outside of his user space, it was solely to this board and the DRV for the code. It was clearly obvious that he was not here to write an encyclopedia, but to stir up trouble.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"And entirely new users who are so familiar with the processes of Wikipedia are generally suspicious accounts to begin with." Suspicious of what, exactly? Lurking before becoming an editor? Actually attempting to get familiar with the Wikipedia process before contributing? I disagree that it was clearly obvious that he wasn't going to help write an encyclopedia. I can easily see a user's first edit being on a topic he is highly passionate about. Regardless, it looks like this discussion is going nowhere, so I will be continuing through with my RfA. - JNighthawk 04:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC)There's plenty of oversight. Don't think so, do what I do. Monitor this page. The guy zero'd right in on an incredibly contentious issue. We know that using SPA's for deletion debates is highly frowned upon, unethical, and prohibited by Wikipolicy. That he now makes a mountain from the molehill he dug, and plays out all this to 'defend' the Constitution, is just shoveling dirt onto the pile fast. An Admin blocked what certainly acted like a SPA. Good for him. Keep it up, I say. I'm not an admin. I'm a user. This isn't bad admin, no donut, this is good admin, donut. and so was the reblock. ThuranX 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts are not against Wikipedia policy. I disagree that he made a mountain out of a molehill. He was unjustly blocked. - JNighthawk 04:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, you've linked to an essay, not a policy or guideline. Just think that distinction needs to be made when you link to it in the same breath as "not against Wikipedia policy". EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but WP:BP also states that single purpose accounts are not, in itself, a violation of Wikipedia policy. However, I would argue here that this user was not even given the chance to prove that it was not a single purpose account. - JNighthawk 04:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully support this block. That person has done nothing of value to the encyclopedia, and 100% of his edits were whinging about censorship and abusive admins. We're an encyclopedia, not a free speech message room. Block and move on. We get trolls like this all the time. Antandrus (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. He's done effectively nothing but bitch on about how the man is keeping him down. He'd be better off with a myspace page, since that's effectively what he's using here as. HalfShadow 04:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ron liebman

• Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - name conflict with living notable person (see Ron Leibman actor biography) - user account has edited the article about the actor. It may be the actor - anything is possible - but the account is also closely associated with a cloud of New York Library internet access socks (see User:Moe kaplan and associated socks), which is pretty suspicious for a working, active actor. Admin with experience handling username confirmations etc requested to review. Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • From this user's edits to Ron Leibman, this user is apparently someone else with the same name, apparently a baseball statistician or something, which is consistent with their edit pattern. I don't see a real problem here. Let's just make sure the user says they aren't that person. Mangojuice^talk 23:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know that it's not an impersonator. The whole series of sockpuppet accounts, including a bunch who have been nothing but disruptive, had the same "First last" cap-lowercase username pattern. Another editor believes that this is a serial pattern vandal who tried to impersonate the real Leibman from the start. At least, someone should try and verify that it's really him. Georgewilliamherbert 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Moved this from WP:UAA; if this is wrapped up with a possible sockpuppet situation, it's more complex than what UAA was intended for. I have no problem blocking the account if it's a potentially disruptive sockpuppet, but I think it should be on that basis. Mangojuice^talk 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
        • A suspected sockpuppet report has been filed for this user at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ron_liebman. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
          • A new IP address is doing the same thing: 149.4.108.154. -Ebyabe 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
            • And yet another one: Special:Contributions/149.4.108.130. Plus he's kind of been making unpleasant comments towards me. Check his edit summaries, please. See, I'm nice, at least. :) -Ebyabe 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this how Wikipedia greets newcomers?

I am not a Wikipedia regular and make edits to Wikipedia where I feel they are necessary. Today, I was insulted and humiliated by User:Fowler&fowler just because I misspelled At least [12]. And goes on to call me illiterate [13]. The user fails to give logic reasons while reverting my edits (says rv undiscussed IP edits when I had already raised the issue on the talkpage). I had heard a lot of stuff regarding the credibility of Wikipedia. Now I understand why Wikipedia is not credible.. because the users who want to make corrections get humiliated and insulted by some of these nasty, disgusting people. --Sriram Deshpande 03:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about how he treated you, but you do have to realize that there is no way to force everyone to be nice. -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm particularly disgusted by the 'hide behind an anonymous ip' remark. This sort of elitism has absolutely zero place on a collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It seems like some users get a few edits under their belt and assume that they're more valuable then a new user can ever be. It's pretty sickening. -M^ask? 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I went and warned him. I'll keep an eye on that talk page as well.--Wizardman 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)Yes, he was a bit uncivil, but maybe you shouldn't have baited him. "Guys.. keep this nationalistic crap out of Wikipedia please. And Fowler, yr userpage says u r a prof. Atleast you should be matured enough. Makes me feel it might be the same case as Essjay." And what about this? "I think you should stick to being a prof. Lol". You both could be a bit nicer to each other, and try not to make it personal. Sean William 03:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand. I am sorry about that remark. I got carried away after I read some of the previous remarks on the same issue. I'll be more careful from now on. But I must say, a lot of people at Wikipedia are not very good role-models either. --Sriram Deshpande 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also warned the user with regards to his comments. Sean William is also correct with regards to your comments. Please read WP:CIVIL to see what kind of language is expected when conversing with other Wikipedians. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of the IP posting here when he was the one poking fun at Fowler in the first place; also the comments referencing Essjay indicate familiarity with Wikipedia, and not the first edits of a proclaimed "newcomer". My suggestion is that the IP/Sriram should apologize to Fowler -- Samir 04:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

there is no clause in WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA that states they are to be followed except if you weren't the first one to be uncivil in a conflict. That sort of thinking is incredibly shortsighted. -M^ask? 04:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone insults someone else, then comes crying to ANI saying they insulted them back. Not shortsighted to realize this is a waste of time, buddy -- Samir 04:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Warnings have been issued, I think at this point the best course of action is for the editors originally involved to try to keep away from each other as much as possible for the time being. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with the Essjay controversy because I found it highly amusing. I used to use Wikipedia for my research work and after the controversy arose, I became a bit hesitant on using Wikipedia. When I was browsing through the concerned talkpage, I read some of the remarks left by Fowler and then I saw that his userpage said that he was a Prof. All I told him was that since he was Prof he should act in a matured manner and since he wasn't doing so, I felt that it might be the same case as Essjay's (as everybody knows.. he tried to gain credibility by telling everyone that he held numerous PhDs). The way he reacted to my comments has now made my belief that he is not a prof much more firm (I can't imagine my profs reacting in this manner). Anyways, I don't know why has this entire talk of me apologizing has come up? I don't think I did anything wrong. He blatantly reverted my edits without giving any reasons and that definitely aroused me. Nevermind.. good luck Wikipedia.. --Sriram Deshpande 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I had worked long and hard for a PhD and somebody said that I might not actually be a prof lol, I might be upset about that. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, fact remains that if I get a PhD, I won't publicly tell on Wikipedia that I have one because in that case, the main motive of me doing so is to gain respect and credibility. If Fowler demands respect and credibility by claiming that he is prof, then he should also behave as one. I mean look at the tone of some of his previous comments. Obviously, if write on my userpage that I am a Prof, others will look at my edits in a different manner. It makes me more credible in the eyes of others. I just felt he wasn't behaving like a prof but that definitely does not justify his reactions. --Sriram Deshpande 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a brand new user knows about the Essjay Controversy, can wikilink to it, knows how to add project tags, and found this noticeboard immediately. Yes, this guy was stupid, but people rarely act out unless they've been baited indeed. The Evil Spartan 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So, new users aren't allowed to post here? Maybe you should write that at the top of the page or put it in the welcome message given to new users. Welcome to Wikipedia and oh, by the way, if you seem to well-informed about how things work you may be called a sock. Using the duck test can be perfectly okay as a way to make sense of otherwise convincing evidence. If no such evidence is present I don't think it's very civil to do so. MartinDK 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

General comment - we've got 4 million registered users. Just from the sheer numbers, we pretty much have to have our saints and our villains. Be assured, the good, the bad, and the ugly are all adequately represented. Please don't judge the community as a whole by the behavior of any given few. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the history of this dispute lies in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan ... Where User:Fowler&fowler lawyered for a bunch of Pakistani users who edit warred over a wide range of articles including Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. All i'd say "project tags" arent meant to signify national ownership as the banned Pakistani triad seemed to think. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar is a part of Pakistan project, based on mere technicality as he was born in what is now Pakistan! Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd party admin intervention requested

Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have started working through Category:Micronations in an attempt to bring the articles there into line with our policies and guidelines. These efforts have included:

• Starting a guidelines proposal at WP:MICRONAT
• Seeking licencing clarification on several dubiously tagged images
• Nominating articles for deletion in good faith and with clear reference to our policies and guidelines
• Attempting to remove undue weight and opinion which isn't neutral in viewpoint or supported by the reliable sources (I haven't got far on this yet, but I would refer you to Lazarus Long (micronationalist) where I have meticulously trawled through the sources provided and rewritten the article to reflect what the sources actually say).

As with the last time I attempted to decruft the micronations articles, User:Gene Poole has popped up and:

• Accused me of vandalism and bad faith
• Canvassed the small number of regulars who support his viewpoint to !vote on AFDs
• Breached WP:OWN
• Rolled back some of my changes with rationales no greater than "this is how the article was before", without any rationale as to why the old version complied with policy and my version didn't.

If I were not involved in the dispute, I would block or warn him for the vandalism accusations and ownership issues at the very least. I can't, as I am involved.

I am therefore requesting a 3rd party admin to:

• review my contributions (if I am overstepping the mark, please say so!)
• review Gene Poole's contribs and roll back any unwarranted vandalism accusations and any changes which haven't improve the articles
• if unacceptable behaviour is found, warn or block him.

While I'm here I may as well also ask for interested admins to contribute to WP:MICRONAT, which is currently under construction.

Thank you. --kingboyk 11:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him. See [14] and [15]. – Steel 12:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• (edconf, and I endorse the above) Gene Poole should be more civil and should refrain from canvassing. I don't see anything particularly wrong with Kingboy's edits. Note that Gene has a long history of non-constructive actions with repect to micronations, as well as of incivility and of persistent vote stacking through canvassing and sockpuppetry (for more information see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gene_Poole). I remain of the opinion that people who canvass for a particular debate should be blocked for the duration of said debate. >Radiant< 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • His reaction was, shall we say, predictable: [16]. >Radiant< 12:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• [ec] Obviously you have failed to realise that any attempt to delete a micronation is necessarily an act of bad faith, an evil act of censorship and is motivated solely by your slavish devotion to state corporatism. Or at least that's how they see it. In my view a goodly number of these articles are blatant vanispamcruftisement, so you are doing the right thing reviewing them, it's not a surprise that the reaction is extreme and aggressive, because it always is. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, I wasn't expecting such quick reaction. Please, if I do overstep the mark on this, let me know, and also, please, if anybody wants to join me in rewriting these articles in a neutral way or discussing a guideline (and whether or not we need one) come on over to the new page. Finally, could somebody have a look at my user talk and remove any nasty messages, if there are any? (I haven't read it this morning but I've seen plenty of "vandalism" notices in his edit summaries). --kingboyk 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also that he removed {{PUIdisputed}} from various images I had listed for licence clarification (not deletion) at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#May_8. That's despite the notice saying "Please see that page for discussion. If you don't want the file deleted, please provide explanatory information about the copyright status of this image. Please do not remove this notice while the question is being considered." (rolls eyes) --kingboyk 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That block has been most effective, thanks guys. We now have some sensible dialogue going (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazarus Long (micronationalist)) on both sides. I hope it can continue when Gene Poole's block expires, but if not expect to see me back here asking for an extension. --kingboyk 15:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat infuriating. Again and again we see established users calling other established users vandals, and then we have templating the regulars, by regulars, which I think he did as well. I wish they wouldn't. It's very disruptive and very annoying. Regardless, calling editors vandals when they patently aren't is just a nasty form of personal attack, and should be treated as such. Peace and Love, eh? Good block. Moreschi ^Talk 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now, this all isn't fair. Gene's abrasive, but a block w/o warning for a single borderline comment on my talk page?

Kingboyk, this is really insensitive. Trying to make a real policy out of Gene's informal micronation notability guidelines was a great idea. AFDing a couple of related articles in the middle of that smacks of POINT, and coming here like this smacks of blocking for advantage in a content dispute by proxy. Your AFD nominations seem to be in conflict with the notability guideline you're seeking to establish, which is intensely frustrating and inconsistent.

There tends to be a lot of hot air in micronation debates on WP. What is overlooked a lot of the time is that Gene set up the first policy proposal for reasonable notability guidelines, and has deleted over time far more of the random micronation related cruft than the rest of the WP editor pool combined. He tends to be demonized in discussions, because he's not very PC and is abrasive, but in point of fact he's spent considerable effort in doing the right thing.

Kingboyk, you do not need a block to protect you from big bad Gene Poole. Gene doesn't need a block to keep him from grossly abusing anyone; this is clearly punitive not preventive. Georgewilliamherbert 21:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It was his policy, and I used that to start up the page. He then said he didn't want a policy. Sigh. My current wave of nominations is based on existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It would be great if you would !vote to delete one or two of the worst ones, I'm sure you dislike cruft as much as I do. --kingboyk 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please stop accusing him of canvassing. There's nothing wrong with giving people involved in a project or article a heads up when admin stuff happens related to it. The small list of people Gene notified are all longtime regulars working on Micronation articles. It's rather annoying (bordering on grossly offensive) when someone claims I was canvassed into participating on something on my watchlist. We have a SPAM policy - if he violates that then I'll block him myself, but him notifying me and others wasn't such a violation.

Gene being blocked when uncivil acusations like this are flying in both directions is not cool. Georgewilliamherbert 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Gene doesn't need a block to keep him from grossly abusing anyone So what do you suggest? Nothing else seems to stop him. Certainly enabling such behavior doesn't discourage him. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

GWH, you appear to be misstating the situation. Gene has done quite a lot more than making "a single borderline comment". For instance, as demonstrated on his RFA, he has quite the history of canvassing,a nd not just to "longtime regulars" either. >Radiant< 08:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that with the exception of Gene Poole, people on both sides of the debate seem to be deal with the issues as adults. I've had useful dialogue with George W.H. and others over the last day and a half.

Gene Poole on the other hand is back, and following me around:

• soliticing another editor to revert war against me
• [17], [18] labelling my well argued AfD nominations as "spurious"
• Rolling back any change I make and labelling it as "no consensus" --kingboyk 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

List of cuneiform signs

Could some other admins familiar with our image use policy take a look at the Cuneiform signs uploaded by Mstudt (talk · contribs) for List of cuneiform signs. Mstudt, one of the copyright holders for these signs, has uploaded them granting permission for Wikipedia to use them, but not releasing them under a free license. They have been tagged as "fair use". (Please see Image:B578aellst.png and Image:B333v4ellst.png for randomly selected examples.)

When I informed Mstudt of our policies regarding non-free images and that such images would be considered replaceable, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) expressed concerns regarding my intelligence stating that I am "obviously uncapable" of realizing that we could use these images.

Because it is possible for someone of the requisite skill and determination to produce freely licensed versions of these images, I believe that they do not qualify for fair use under WP:FAIR#Policy #1. Could another admin take a look? Thanks. --BigDT 15:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this an example of an image in question? File:B007ellst.png (My apologies to anyone running a high resolution, I'm balancing viewability and page usage.) Anynobody 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Iamunknown 05:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC) No, that is not one. It is a public domain one from Commons. --Iamunknown 06:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

They're ok to use¹ because the editor created and uploaded them to the commons and released the copyright into the Public Domain{{PD-self}}. (¹ Unless you can show that it isn't the editors work, in which case it probably should go). Anynobody 06:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No they are not, this image is un-free and stored locally (unless I'm missing something, where are these public domain Commons images?). --Iamunknown 06:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

::::You're missing something: go to the image itself, on the preview page below the image it you will see a box that says:This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below.. Follow the link to the commons. Anynobody 07:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For anyone wondering, Fair Use only applies to images with a copyright, when someone could conceivably sue for infringement but for the Fair Use rule. Public Domain is free to use. Anynobody 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you link me to one of the disputed ones? Anynobody 07:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry didn't see the link right away, yep you're right this technically should go. The author probably should also change the copyright though. Anynobody 07:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the ones in Mstudt's log are the disputed ones. The uploader is claiming copyright over them (which is fine, though I'm not sure if they are eligible for copyright) but licensing them unfreely. I, however, think that free equivalents could be made and these images thus fail our non-free content policy. --Iamunknown 07:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at User talk:Dbachmann. Just for background: the uploader is an academic expert on the topic and co-author of the book from which these images were taken. If I understood correctly, she at first planned to make them available free (that's why some were uploaded on commons), but then had second thoughts, apparently because she felt copyrights of her co-authors and/or publisher might be infringed. Now she and dab have been trying to find ways to secure the images and still take her concerns into account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How much information do I need to provide to stop a user from following me to every conversation?

Resolved

 – Users advised to disengage for a while

Almost every edit I make, in every conversation, with every person and on every page.. Smee shows up and posts an innocent comment.

I don't want to file something improperly, but I feel that I'm being harassed and stalked. Whether or not it fits the definition of it here, I do not know.

I have asked him pointedly to stop, yet he persists.

Presumably his motives are to get me to tell him to stop, so he can create logs of me making accusations.

But if he would stop.. I wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Its called creating the conflict.

He improperly labeled my 1st (one-time-use) account a sockpuppet, and then only when an admin gave an opinion, did he go back and correct it to something less accusing.

He created a sockpuppet category. He created a suspected sock puppet category.

He reverts my 3O requests. He deletes my article tags. He comes from out of no where and begins editing the exact statements in an article that I'm working on, then he stops editing that article as soon as I leave.

I made an attempt to get an agreement from him, based on civilized conduct, to not delete my article tags, unless he had consensus, 3O, wiki ruling, or my permission, and he repeatedly refused to agree. Yet a 3O opinion was given which supported exactly the agreement I was trying to gain from him.

How much information do I need to provide to make this stop? Lsi john 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am afraid to even comment here, for fear of further baseless accusations. In any event, it should be noted that where appropriate and possible, when this user has complained, rightly so or not, I have stated that I am willfully refraining from further comment on pages User:Lsi john has commented on. Smee 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
  • See? exactly. He is so enmeshed in this he cant help but place an innocent comment. Check the time stamps on that promise.
  • And please feel free to read the history of my posts today from my user contributions and when you get there, look and see how many times he popped in.. just to say hello or help explain MFD, presumably because an admin/editor wouldn't have been able to explain it himself.

• • I believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest he is harassing me, if anyone cares to really look and see all the 'coincidental' and 'helpful' times he enters a conversation.

He's trying to drive me off wiki. I told him when we went to MedCab before, just tell me to leave and I'll leave.

Smee I ask again, just tell me to leave and I'll leave. But otherwise, I really need you to stop harassing me. Lsi john 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please, see my comments to this user on his talk page. I have stated that I will do my best to avoid posting on users' talk pages where this user has previously posted. His claims of "harassment", are incorrect, and inappropriate. Smee 18:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

There's no reason to avoid posting where Lsi john has already posted, and to do so, in fact, would be difficult since Lsi john is posting to many Scientology-related articles where Smee has been posting since long before Lsi john was even a Wikipedia user. Smee does need to, IMHO, tone down his approach to his edits, his talk-page posts, and his automatic reverts, but I don't see any evidence that Lsi john is being harassed or stalked by Smee or by anyone else. wikipediatrix 19:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For a little more history, folks, please see this conversation on my talk page this morning]] - Alison ☺ 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

and [here] and [here] and [here] and [here] for a bit more background.

Some of that is repetition, others of it will contain specific pointers to examples.

And [here] is a specific example of where he repeatedly refused to give what was a simple good faith promise to honor article tags.

This is not a new development. It is an on-going situation of 'polite abuse' and harassment.

Lsi john 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please pick your battles. Although I essentially agree with your analysis of Smee's stubbornly contentious editing, this is not the same thing as "harassing and stalking". The fact remains that Smee is a valuable editor to Wikipedia who has contributed greatly to many Scientology articles, even though he and I often differ on his methodology. wikipediatrix 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• wikipediatrix, coming from you that is most appreciated. Thank you for the kind comments. Smee 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Sockpuppetry

(copied from my talk page. There were accusations of sock-puppetry due to Lsi john having admitted to having more than one account. Smee had previously tagged one as being a sockpuppet of Lsi john [19] - now speedy-deleted)

I've looked over the creation dates and activities of the two accounts in question here and believe there is no case of sockpuppetry to be answered, at least not amongst these two accounts. The username block and the dates make it quite clear that it was a newbie mistake on Lsi john's part. I see this has all moved to WP:ANI again so I'll address it over there - Alison ☺ 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever about what happened previously, I felt that Smee's tagging of John's old account was inappropriate as there had already been issues between the two of them at the time and, given the history of both accounts, it's obvious that it was just a poor choice of username, followed by a username block. I'm not sure why Smee did this, but it was bound to annoy John - Alison ☺ 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And after clarification from a neutral, previously uninvolved editor in the matter, I tagged the associated category for speedy deletion. Smee 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Smee is a veteran editor. Smee knows the rules very well. Smee knows policy and procedure very well. Yet time and again, Smee has to wait until a 3O is given before he politely reverts his position. It is these repeated events which come together to form harassment on his part. And yes, I have opened AN/I because it has now gotten to bad that he is popping into conversations with admins/editors just to define MFD for me.. as if I needed it.. Its designed to harass and annoy me, not help me. But its nicely worded to look like help. Perhaps its called Gaming the system?
    • By the way, I've offered Smee the opportunity to simply tell me to leave. This isn't about accidental overlap of articles. This is about him intentionally seeking me out and following me around and editing conversations, discussions and articles at the same time I'm there. Not mere coincidence. Lsi john 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It got significantly more pointed after I filed my previous AN/I which I felt that I had to subsequently withdraw in an effort to get him to stop. Lsi john 19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• I have stated repeatedly here and on the user's talk page that I will do my best to avoid commenting on talk pages where the user perceives some sort of "harassment", if such commenting can be avoided. And my obtaining of Third Opinions is part of the process, and my reversal of my stance after such opinions are given only goes to show my willingness to engage the process. Smee 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
  • FYI, I am going to remove this page from my watchlist, so as to avoid further conflict from a user that is frustrated and upset at circumstances. Thank you all for your WP:AGF in all this. Yours, Smee 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I am currently co-editing certain articles with both Smee and Lsi john, so I will not get involved in admin actions in this case, but I would advise both Smee and Lsi John to stay away from each other for a while. I would also want to offer specific suggestions to them, as follows: To John: If you perceive harassment or wikistalking, keep a log of these incidents, and if that perception remains you may need to file a user RfC so that the community can address the issue and provide feedback to both you and Smee. To Smee: You may not be harassing/stalking another user, but that can be his perception and the perception of others. You may want to re-read Wikipedia:Stalking. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'll endorse that!! Definitely. BTW, User:Lsi john is currently indisposed, having been blocked for 3RR violation - Alison ☺ 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect because that solution sounds ideal, and fair minded on the surface. However there is a circumstance which leads me to a couple of questions. I'm presuming you are unfamiliar with this, but very recently Lsi john proved a bit elusive on one of the talk pages. The whole discussion is about editors who may have issues with a source from either the GAO or the FBI, I understood what his intentions were and that I wasn't going to actually get an answer, but I wanted to make 100% I wasn't being unclear. This is from Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports:

• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]

• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]

• [28]

makes it difficult to WP:AGF I realize that Smee and myself haven't been perfect. However given the other person's behavior it seems unfair to make Smee stay away from regularly edited articles. Anynobody 05:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-editing

I've had a very quick look at both users recent contributions. This isn't just Lsi john's imagination; of the pages Lsi john has edited recently, Smee has edited about half of them. But this is not necessarily a worry either, because the overlapping pages are all on similar topics, topics that both users have been editing for a long time. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (Originally posted at 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC) and seemingly accidentally removed [29].)

You're right Ben Aveling they have both been editing the same pages for a while. Here's a couple of examples

List of groups referred to as cults in government reports Smee: Created article 07 March 07 Lsi John: 1st edit reverted Smee around May 4th

Youth for Human Rights International Smee: 1st edit: Revision as of 18:50, 23 March 2007 added template Lsi john: 1st edit:Revision as of 22:10, 5 May 2007 removed cited source

Anynobody 11:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User continually removing {{Non-free use disputed}} from image

I have nominated Image:254524.1020.A.jpg, uploaded by Machocarioca (talk · contribs) for a non-free use review, since I do not believe the fair-use rationale given explains any critical commentary in the article as required by Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. This user keeps reverting me without changing the fair-use rationale. I consider this tantamount to removing a speedy deletion tag from one's own article, but I won't edit war over a random movie poster. Can someone, or a couple of someones, step in and either confirm my interpretation or explain why I'm wrong? (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a poster for a film, being used in and only in the article about that film, to "to illustrate the film, event, etc. in question" to quote from the relevant tempalte language. That looks like a classic caase of aceptable free use to me. Does anyone else disagree? DES ^(talk) 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was already a picture of the DVD cover on the page, so why would an additional picture of the movie's poster be useful? One should be good enough. Phony Saint 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That is another question, but it is at least arguable that a poster from a date much closer to the original release of the film is better than a recent DVD cover, to provide better historical contextx. Also the older poster is far less likely to actually impair any comercial interests than the newer cover. While excessive use of images under a fair use claim is clearly a bad idea (and agaisnt policy) I'm not aware of a strict limit of one to an article. DES ^(talk) 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If it has to be one or the other, I think it would be better to keep the movie poster, for the reasons specified above. *** Crotalus *** 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick again - request block of self-proclaimed sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet was blocked.

Hi - I've been dealing with a number of sockpuppets of the banned user Billy Ego (talk · contribs) (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Regulations). Would someone mind blocking Reguboard (talk · contribs), a self-proclaimed sockpuppet who showed up to disrupt my RfA? Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AIV. --24.136.230.38 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

PDFbot

Resolved

 – Bot was blocked indefinately until resolved.

Please shut down PDFbot. I have outlined several, recent errors that it has made on its creator's talk page ([30]) and Dispenser's user page says that s/he is on hiatus/wikibreak, so it is absolutely imperative. « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AIV. --24.136.230.38 20:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems have been dealt with, please unblock. —Dispenser 04:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuous violation of WP:LIVING concerning a President in office

Sefringle (talk · contribs) has continuously reinserted libellous information on Ahmadinejad article.[31][32] The sources which is used for the information has nothing to do with the information provided. It seems that Sefringle is misusing his support from certain Jewish admins who monitor the article, to vandalize the article contrary to the WP:LIVING.[33] Unfortunately the highest level admins (namely user:Jayjg) not only do not stop this editor, but force other editors who try to fix his vandalism into blockage contrary to WP:IGNORE. [34] (Also removing tags informing the readers about the problems in the article, which will further encourage his violations.[35])

I have noted the wrong claims on the article's talk page as well as the user talk page, failing to receive any response for his edits, either from him or from the certain renowned admins involved in monitoring the article.[36][37]

The following is simply wrong, let alone uncited:

• Uncited and wrong claim of 50% quota - one whole paragraph, see below.
• Uncited claim that a student leader wants to topple Ahmadinejad's government, see below
• changing back elderly Iranians... -> "numerous Iranian..." - contrary to the source which state the former

looking at the paragraphs and sources in question:

In 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government applied a 50% quota for male students and 50% for female students in the University entrance exam for Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy. The plan was supposed to stop the growing presence of female students in the Universities. In a response to critics, Iranian minister of health and medical education, Kamran Bagheri Lankarani argued that there is not enough facilities such as dormitories for female students. Masoud Salehi, president of Zahedan University said that presence of women generates some problems with transportation. Also Ebrahim Mekaniki, president of Babol University of Medical Sciences stated that an increase in the presence of women will make it difficult to distribute facilities in a suitable manner. Bagher Larijani, the president of Tehran University of Medical Sciences made similar remarks. According to Rooz Online, the quotas lack a legal foundation and are justified as support for "family" and "religion."

• Persian source: the source says it's a bill proposed by some MPs and has nothing to do with the government and/or Ahmadinejad

An organization numbering 12,000 students led by student leader Abbas Fakhr-Avar, living in exile in the United States, opposes Ahmadinejad and hopes to topple his government.

• source: the person mentions the Ayatollahs regime/state, and doesn't mention Ahmadinejad's government at all. The only thing he says about Ahmadinejad is that "Ahmadinejad is stupid."

I understand that those "admins" involved are not to be questioned, but a warning or temporary block on this user is in the interest of Wikipedia.--Gerash77 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

plus what has been told above, please review all the contributions of that user in the main space of WP in that article, clearly violating WP:WTA and insisting on it and ignoring all the calls to honor it. --Pejman47 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For content disputes, please pursue the dispute resolution process. If you have WP:LIVING concerns, please use the noticeboard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you are one of the admins I was talking about in my report. Please respect the administrative policies, and don't interfere in matters that you yourself are involved as an admin. Thank you.--Gerash77 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What? He's one of the "certain Jewish admins" you discuss above? I read the article and its talk page. You and Sefringle have sources that say conflicting things. This happens all the time when you're writing articles. It's a content dispute, which should be solved by civil discussion. It's unfortunate that your civility seems to have lapsed on that talkpage.

Labelling edits made in a content dispute as vandalism is unacceptable, as is calling someone's edits "Jewish propaganda." Accusing someone of bias because of their religion or ethnicity borders on a personal attack. You should also stop asking questions of type "Have you stopped beating your wife?" as they are unhelpful. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't understand the reason for your furiousness. I did not want to name each one of the admins involved in this vicious violation of WP:LIVING, and defamation of a president in office,[38][39][40][41] was because I know what would have happened if I did. My report is very clear with regards to blatant violations, if you could even have a response for one of the libellous insertions, such as the false 50% quota, which is being reverted by this user, and his support from these "admins" who take out the simple tags we have placed there, then I take back my case. In any case, a look at the talk page and history page of the article would reveal the following admins who are not stopping these violations of policies, and taking sides with the violating party: Jayjg (talk · contribs), Avraham (talk · contribs), Jossi (talk · contribs) and Humus sapiens (talk · contribs). --Gerash77 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not angry and don't know where you get that idea. I have no stake in this dispute and am just offering my observation that it is a content dispute, not really something that would require admin tools. I also pointed out that it seems that your behavior on the talk page that is discouraging rational discussion of the dispute. You should confine yourself to commenting on the content of the article and not on the contributors. In addition, as Jossi has pointed out, the place to address WP:BLP issues is the BLP noticeboard. Alternatively or in addition, you could try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have re-checked my posts, and it has become apparent that I never have attacked any Wikipedia editor for their religion or ethnicity, or called any of their edits "propaganda". It seems that my unwillingness to name the admins have resulted in your bad assumptions. Please WP:AGF, thank you.--Gerash77 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You accused them of bias based on their ethnicity, which certainly borders on a personal attack, as I said above. Also, you don't, in fact, appear to have called someone's edits "Jewish propaganda" on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

No. Look at the article: "the Ayatollah regime" "Former President Khatami. 'He was a lie'" (this one I agree with) "President Ahmadinejad. 'Stupid'" ... which part of these Jewish propaganda can be called a reliable source?--Gerash77 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You say they introduce material from a source that is Jewish propaganda. Frankly, I don't see a lot of difference. I have no doubt that you are simply trying to get the article to reflect a neutral point of view, at least as you see things. You do seem to be pretty emotional about the topic, though, and this seems to have impaired rational discussion on the talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this is not a case for BLP discussions. It is a case of a person continuously violating policies, who has put many uncited WP:LIBEL into an article, and revert those who remove these libellous and uncited comments, and hence require intervention of an admin not involved in this issue.--Gerash77 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I did not call someone edits propaganda, thats in reference to an Israeli newspaper, please pay attention to details. Furthermore, please see my above post. Again, if you find one source who claims this 50% quota, or that this person says what is claimed on the article, I take back my case. I doubt that you can find it, which is why you are arguing when the case is an obvious wp:libel--Gerash77 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to find any source. I am not involved with editing the page. I'm trying to explain to you how to resolve a content dispute amicably. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, you are trying to distinguish between "Your edits are Jewish propaganda" and "Your edits rely on Jewish propaganda." I don't see much of a distinction there, but even if there is, use of the term "Jewish propaganda" is not necessary in disputing the reliability of the source and is needlessly inflammatory. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read BLP and LIBEL. The material should be taken out immediately per policies. Constant reversions of the past few days would require intervention of uninvolved admin, hence my report. In any case I thank you for your explanations.--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been called a lot of things in WP, but to be called a "Jewish admin", as if that in itself is a basis for an argument against purported incompatible behavior, is totally unacceptable. This is a content dispute and you have to take the steps in WP:DR rather than place here spurious accusations bordering on the irrational, and waste everybody's time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that no one is trying to waste your .. time. I just noted that you as an admin involved in this issue, can't decide on this case!--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no case, as explained to you by an uninvolved admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

May I please ask you who this uninvolved admin was?!--Gerash77 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, here's an uninvolved admin. Please stop making sweeping condemnations and assumptions of bad faith against an entire class of editors (real or imagined) and make use of one of the links jossi provided you with. This issue does not need administrator attention... Yet. Grandmasterka 05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Existence of Jewish cabal

It seems that some have taken my comments above about Jewish admins to think that I believe in existence of the Jewish or Zionist cabal. I hereby state that by no means I meant to have that kind of impression at all.--Gerash77 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another completely uninvolved admin: I don't care, and I don't much think anyone else does, whether you believe in a Jewish or Zionist cabal. Its that you used it as a descriptor, when it is a religious and/or ethnic label; "Jewish admins" simply doesn't parse in any way which is not at least implying an insult of some kind. Whether you believe there is a Jewish cabal, whether you are personally anti-semitic, or whether you think something else about Jews in general, it simply is rude and insulting and frankly, horrible logic to tie those two words together and expect anything but for everyone with any decency and sense to doubt your decency and sense. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the small (but apparently vicious) Mexican dog. Such prejudiced comments have no place in Wikipedia; in an ideal world, nor would the people who make them. I'm continually amazed that Wikipedia tolerates this crap and defends the people who spew it. Raymond Arritt 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable assumption would be that he is referring to people who he think has an interest in a particular point of view on the article. In that sense, it would be the same as saying "certain Microsofties who monitor the Linux article" or "certain Republicans who push their POV on the Bill Clinton article". Unless there is some prior situation with Gerash77, that's what I would tend to think that he meant. —Centrx→talk • 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Unfortunately, it appears that no matter how much I explain the phrase "Jewish admins", which is the same as any other similar phrases such as "Muslim admins", who in no way has a positive or negative implications, there are some who incorrectly assume that I wanted to present myself as someone who believes in the existence of the cabal, or ridiculously enough, I am antisemitic!!--Gerash77 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I feel like a suitable badass being part of the Jewish cabal....⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For examples of how 'Jewish editors' can be easily taken as hostile, look on this page for the 'anti-albanian' cabal. Also, any angry Litvaks may want to consider DUAL cabal memberships. (I'm JOKING!) ThuranX 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Where can I sign up for this Jewish cabal? Apparently you don't have to be Jewish to be part of it. (A serious comment: in no way does Jewish when referring to a person mean "supporting a Jewish position," it means you are ethnically and/or religiously a Jew, similar to calling someone a Chinese or French admin. It'd be best for Gerash to apologize and find some other way to express admins who support a particular view, rather than clinging on to a bad choice of words.) Phony Saint 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there always a Jewish cabal in every institution? (as one has said apparently... I'm allowed to since I'm jewish) haha. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia admins are bastards" on this page?

Resolved

 – vulnerable template semi-protected - Alison ☺ 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's Happy Hour, but did anyone else just see this in 50-point red font at the top of this page in the last ~8 minutes? Can't find it in the page history or MediaWiki recent changes, but I'm not looking too hard yet, seems to have been transient... -- nae'blis 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's obviously in some transcluded template somewheres - Alison ☺ 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be an edit by User:Jesus the Tank Engine to {{quote}} a bit ago.[42] Looks like he just surfed the list of transcluded pages to find one that wasn't protected and vandalized that. --tjstrf talk 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

and vandalised again by sock, User:JttE. Blocked now & template semi'd (it's highly transcluded) - Alison ☺ 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the transclusion list, shouldn't nearly all those templates and subpages probably be at least semi-protected? We don't need anyone editing the /header page, for instance. --tjstrf talk 23:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, I had a reson to edit it last week, and did that edit. -M^ask? 22:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Were sources provided? (SEWilco 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Do you have to source common sense? _{just kidding don't ban me}--Dacium 02:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Request a bit of help with Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article

I am not sure if I am in the right place to request assistance - this article is on a very active, touchy, politically-charged subject and we are just now about to attempt to break the article into pieces because of its length. It seems to me that none of the presently active editors is completely fluent in the way of the Wikipedia (we have at the moment, no disputes to speak of), so before we get too far, I thought it might be worthwhile requesting some assistance in getting the article into a proper form, e.g., Help with the overall formatting of the article. Creation and use of sub-articles? Proper use of references in the article lead paragraph? And also being sure the article stays NPOV. There seem to be obvious truths about the controversy that can't quite be explicitly stated, e.g. the Bush administration's motivations. What is the policy regarding YouTube.com references? So this is to request a look, a few (several?) quick edits, advice etc. to get us going in the right new direction with the article. (I admit I could do a careful read of Wikipedia policies, etc.; I am learning, but have run out of time for now. Also, a neutral administrator's edits/comments would carry far more weight just now.) Thanks so much - Bdushaw 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a friendly co-editor on the page in question. It looks like the right place for this question is elsewhere, since we're not having any troubles or disputes. It's really a "looking for wisdom and advice" item. I'll check the other administrator or project pages, and post a note here when done. Cheers -- Yellowdesk 00:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think we'll take these general advice questions to the Wikipedia:Peer_review page, after a little planning and effort and discussion at our end. -- Yellowdesk 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Problematic IP editor

Resolved

 – User warned for WP:POINT - then blocked - Alison ☺ 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

75.3.2.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has already had a block for edit warring and personal attacks, and is carrying on with more of the same - [43] [44] [45] [46]. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• ... and I'm a vandal, apparently. Heh! - Alison ☺ 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• And it continues... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Seen enough yet? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• He got warned again by myself and User:Jossi. He didn't stop. I had to block him for 31 hours for incivility/revert-warring/personal attacks. Now, he's ranting on his talk page about racist anti-Irish editors and admins. *sigh* - at least the disruption is over - Alison ☺ 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible troll

Jac16888 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made a bunch of very suspicious edits (mostly on Scrubs (TV series) related pages, but others) today and yesterday. The thing that tipped me off to the possibility that he's a serious troll was that he took a disambig page (Fat Boy), nuked it, filled it with nonsense, and then took it to AFD to delete. Can someone with more time (I have to wander away from the keyboard for a while) look through all his contributions closely and determine if he's a troll? Georgewilliamherbert 22:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that way. Jan noh wan san? blanked the page and added "a designer beanbag. Avalible in many colours and styles. very comftable" with the edit summary of "Created page with 'a designer beanbag. Avalible in many colours and styles. very comftable'". I would assume that Jac16888 didn't know to go through the edit history and restore a previous version but instead thought it was a nonsense newly created article. His edits show that he has reverted other edits by Jan noh wan san? like this and this. Jan noh wan san? was clearly a vandal and was blocked accordingly. IrishGuy ^talk 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When Jac16888 nominated the page for deletion, the edit history did not contain any revisions before Jan noh wan san?'s creation of the page. As I mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat Boy, I only then noticed that the page had once been a valid dab page, restored all revisions and reverted (see the log and this). Maybe I should have not restored everything, as the edit history looks a bit confusing now. Anyway, Jac16888 did a good job removing the vandalism by Jan noh wan san?, although Fat Boy should have been requested for speedy deletion and not brought to Afd. Prolog 08:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:BuickCenturyDriver‎

Please could people review BCD's talk page, he's made a statement that he took over User:AndyZ's account but only after the password was released (read what he has to say, it's more informative than I could put it). We need to come to a conclusion as to what we do now. I now feel that the block is only punitive and BCD should be unblocked, on a servere warning that anything like this is not to happen again. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied from what I wrote this on BCD's talk page: BCD, you were under incredible pressure to admit things. Getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar is always an embarrassing situation. A late admission of guilt is much better than not admitting to things. Yes, admitting this right away would have been much, much better, but we can't change things now. And the fact that BCD did not block every person he encountered until the acct was desysopped does also help me to believe this. In weighing everything, I too will support an unblock (non-admin that I am). I think BCD (as editor) was a valuable contributor, and hopefully will be again. If unblocked, I suspect BCD will have more people watching over his shoulder than almost any other user. I hope BCD can regain our trust, and an unblock will allow him to do so. Flyguy649talkcontribs 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Flyguy649^talk_contribs 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, as I see, do others. Blocking at this point serves no protective purpose and this particular editor has been very constructive in the past and just got carried away, it seems. You can bet they'll be watched like a hawk from here on in. I'm going to wait a while here and be particularly bold and unblock with a heavyweight warning if nobody strenuously objects. This is going to drag on forever if it's not committed to history, and soon. - Alison ☺ 23:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. Here's my explanation on his talk page: Given BCD's apology, and absent any compelling evidence he was the original cracker of AndyZ's account, I think it's reasonable to unblock him, and I've done so. Chick Bowen 00:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd still like to know why I was blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He states that in the apology. Viridae^Talk 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I would like to hear that too, using an admins block button is surely against some sort of policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He does mention so half-way or so down under the section titled "Response" on his talk page. --Iamunknown 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you were the 1st person he saw (no excuse I know). Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that curiosity gave the cat a near-death experience. bibliomaniac15 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a satisfactory answer. I wasn't even editting at the time of my block (we had a bad thunderstorm and I unplugged everything).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your name may well have been at the top of an edit history or somesuch. I'm hoping that the guy's first edits on returning will be a full and complete apology to your good self - Alison ☺ 00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the explanation very hard to believe. This explanation was practically fed to him. Even though the perfect opportunity to get unblocked came, he denied it and avoided it for nearly forty-eight hours. He came up with alternate explanations of his own, and made four unblock requests. And now he "admits" to wrongdoing, basically repeating the explanation that was offered earlier. The sequence of events is just so implausible. Ryulong was not online. He has never edited the Main Page. So how on Earth did BuickCenturyDriver (logged in as AndyZ) "find" Ryulong. And why would someone just having fun, testing the admin features block someone indefinitely with a demeaning block reason? Wouldn't Buick, the dedicated vandal-fighter be tame with his new-found discovery? Or at least block an actual vandal? Or do something about the Main Page? I'm sure Buick just wanted his account back so badly that he thought the best thing for him to do was make up a false story. I mean… I don't mind as long as he proceeds to do good. -- tariqabjotu 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That's certainly plausible, but even if that's true, I wouldn't see any reason to block him again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs)

So, this is essentially a coerced confession, now?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What it comes down to, for me, is this: we don't have enough to consider him community-banned. What he did was lousy and stupid, and of course Ryulong in particular has ample reason to be thoroughly pissed. But there's no precedent here: if you give admin buttons to someone who doesn't know how to use them, of course they screw up. That's why we have RfA. His confession and apology were coerced and sort of half-hearted, but that's not the issue for me. The issue is that we just don't have enough to block him indefinitely. I considered shortening it instead--maybe I should have. If I did wrong, please don't hesistate to say so, but this is what seemed to me the clearest way out of this. Naturally, people should keep a close eye on him, as I'm sure they will (and I would think under the circumstances the checkusers too should feel able to see what he's up to). Chick Bowen 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He's not an admin. He'll likely never be an admin, after this stunt. But unless he decides to do it again, he's got a better-than-even chance to become a productive editor again, and if he does screw up, he'll be banhammered so fast his head'll spin. I say unblock (if not immediately, no deadline). -- nae'blis 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If he steps a centimeter out of line, he'll be blocked (and then banned) pretty instantaneously. I don't believe him or trust him, but I don't really see anything to lose by unblocking him now. Grandmasterka 05:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Dmcdevit about this but he is traveling and may not be able to respond for a while. I'm pretty sure that BCD is not the vandal behind the password cracking attempts, but only the checkusers will know for sure. He probably is only guilty of experimenting with AndyZ's password which was exposed in the deletion log. As such, a short block for disruption and a warning is sufficient. (If the checkusers do feel he could be the culprit behind the whole thing, Dmcdevit can reblock when he gets back.) Thatcher131 05:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Holliston, Massachusetts

Resolved

 – done, anon editor blocked now - Alison ☺ 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

At Holliston, Massachusetts, there have been 22 vandalistic edits by 72.74.231.236. Can an administrator rollback these edits, please? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is 42nd Street-Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line) redirs supposed to exist?

This isn't an article, but it's in article space. --NE2 00:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it needs to exist (the history) due to GFDL concerns... Cbrown1023 talk 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What? I see no information here, I just see a bunch of page moves. It started as a redirect, and every single edit has been to modify the redirect. What GFDL concerns are there? --Golbez 01:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at what I suppose is the reasoning and I still don't get it. The history is merged. The other redirect has no history whatsoever. All of the history of the information is merged onto one page; this "article" can be safely deleted. --Golbez 01:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the history, it seems very doubtful that any of these edits would be subject to copyright, so there are probably no GFDL concerns. The only version with copyrightable content is a cut-&-paste that was never changed on this page. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All that needs to be done is to move that page to Talk:42nd Street-Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line)/History 1 and put a link to it on Talk:42nd Street-Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line). Then the new (empty) page in article space can be deleted. This is documented in the deletion guide somewhere. I'll do it in a little while here unless someone else beats me to it. CMummert · talk 03:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A request for advisory opinion

I have two questions concerning a recent matter. There are two interconnected issues, and the narrative below is presented chronologically.

Background

• User:Certified.Gangsta maintains a UI spoofing banner ("You have new messages") on his user page: see, e.g. [47].
• This has caused much controversy, leading in the end to this policy discussion, which appears to me and to a number of other editors (e.g. [48], [49], [50] to indicate a consensus, if not a policy, against UI spoofing (but no consensus regarding joke banners falling short of UI spoofing).
• Thereafter, User:Certified.Gangsta appeared to acquiesce to this consensus. For example, see my discussion with him at: User talk:Certified.Gangsta#Your user page banner.
• User:Certified.Gangsta's behaviour in this and other matters was at issue before the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, as a result of which User:certified.Gangsta is on revert parole, limited to one revert (other than clear vandalism) per page per week.

Current events

• Following a number of reverts by myself and several other users (of whom, btw, I know nothing)I reverted User:Certified.Gangsta's restoration of the UI spoofing banner to his user page, with explanation referring to community consensus on this point; previous reverts by other users similarly referred to this consensus.
• User:Sean William reverts my edit without an explanatory edit summary.
• User:Sean William posts this message on my talk page accusming me of "baiting" Certified.Gangsta into reverting.
• Because I was at no point trying to bait Certified.Gangsta, I was indignant at this failure to assume good faith by User:Sean William. I removed his accusations, posted this message on his talk page, and reverted his edit to User:Certified.Gangsta with the Undo function.

The questions on which I ask for guidance from experienced administrators are the following:

On UI spoofing

1. Is User:Certified.Gangsta entitled to add the UI spoofing banner to his user page?
2. If so, am I acting within policy in removing the UI spoofing banner?
3. Is User:Sean William entitled to revert my removal of the banner without explanation?

On baiting

1. Can I be guilty of baiting without a subjective intention to provoke Certified.Gangsta into reverting and thereby attracting a block?
2. Can I be guilty of baiting if my objectively determined intention, as disclosed by my edit pattern, edit history, and past statements, was not to bait Certified.Gangsta but to uphold community consensus and policy? --Sumple (Talk) 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you've heard one side of the story; now for the other. User:Certified.Gangsta was recently put under revert parole by the ArbCom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram). I blocked him for 48 hours recently for violating this parole. (The circumstances for the block can be found on the arbitration block log and Certified.Gangsta's talk page.) Now, this user is not the first person to bait Certified.Gangsta to edit war with them; Ryulong blocked another user for doing the same thing. I can't recall who that user was off the top of my head, but I'm sure Ryulong knows. As far as I know, the UI spoofing discussion did not achieve consensus, and nothing was changed (although the practice is still strongly frowned upon). My revert was designed to go back to the original version, in hopes that Sumple would heed my warning and stop revert warring. However, he did not, as you can see. Comments on my conduct would be greatly appreciated; I'm not afraid of criticism. Sean William 01:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:LionheartX—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second here... wasn't this question asked On the Request For Arbitration (Request of Clarification) board ? MrMacMan ^Talk 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sean William seems to be arguing that User:LionheartX's intentions are somehow imputed to me. He continues to fail to assume good faith on my behalf, and he has now added allegations of "edit warring" to his prior allegations of "baiting". In light of User:Sean William's post, I might add another two questions:

1. Is the behaviour of User:LionheartX relevant to determining whether I am "baiting" Certified.Gangsta?
2. Is my ability to edit Wikipedia somehow constrained by the remedy imposed on Certified.Gangsta by ArbCom? If so, what is the justification for that? --Sumple (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the UI Discussion, including the Jimbo Wales letter, indicate that only malicious 'spoofing' is to be avoided, and that banners about new, shiatsu, erotic or swedish mAssages are simple wordplay jokes? That people are now seeking to bust a user on 'parole' for doing something NOT prohibited by policy for jollies, malice, or boredom should be seen as a bigger problem than that he's got the joke. Can we knock it off with any number of these childish things and focus on useful stuff? This whole thing seems like the userbox issues. The obviously offensive should be stopped according to existing policy, and common sense. Arguing that sweidish massage is inherently sexually charged, and offensive, is asinine, as is arguing that having Allah is Satan on a userbox is NOT hateful minortiy view trolling. I keep trying to NOT get frustrated with Wikipedia, but 'issue' after 'issue' of childish beefs makes it very hard to. ThuranX 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not the "Swedish massage" message bar that was being warred over. Sean William 02:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is. That's what all the reverts are about. He's got an obvious parody up, and a number of editors and admins who can't rise to the real challenges are out enforcing their perspectives on policy despite policy either being unclear, or the line defined by said policy being one requiring common sense, which isn't so common anymore, it seems. You can argue about if it's about him exceeding the reverts against his parole, but the obvious baiting by removing a NONoffensive spoof over and over, apparently b y multiple editors who are all waiting with 'baited' breath to pop him on it is 'dick-ish'. ThuranX 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Err no. We were disputing about the "You have new messages" banner on his user page, not the "Swedish massages" banner on the talk page. --Sumple (Talk) 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Six or half a dozen. Big deal, my comments still apply. Go improve Wikipedia, stop baiting the user. This whole mess reads like a bunch of people like to look at those on wikiparole like they are on real parole, and likely to criminally reoffend. They see someone on parole, and watch them like hawks, hoping the wiki-equivalent of jaywalking will occur, so they can get the parole revoked and get them off the project. It's like a truly screwed up Wiki-gentrification. It needs to stop. ThuranX 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We should not accept the presence of such practical joke banners: their only utility is to bring their posters a sense of pleasure at imagining that the are subjecting others to inconvenience and confusion, as they invariably do the first time they are encountered. While arguably a mild example of WP:BITE as they go, they are nevertheless objectively disruptive and add nothing of mitigating value.Proabivouac 02:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sumple: the thing with "baiting" is that it's a blatant violation of the Decency Principle, otherwise known as "don't be a dick". It is entirely possible to act like a dick without the subjective intent to be acting like a dick; it doesn't matter a bean what your intent is; once it's been pointed out you're acting like a dick, you really oughta stop acting like a dick. It also doesn't matter if you're attempting to "uphold community consensus"; you don't get to be a dick even when enforcing what you think are the rules. Regarding other editors' user pages: if you don't like the joke on the page, don't go to the page a second time. (If you fall for the joke a second time, well, oh my.) Stop looking for excuses to be an enforcer; go find some vandalism to revert instead. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And on what basis do you label me a "dick"? --Sumple (Talk) 02:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What the heck?

Sumple removed the userpage banner. This happens to have been something that people have done before, so CertifiedGangsta was annoyed, and reverted it. I don't believe that he should be blocked for that, especially as it is his userpage. But anyway, how is that Sumple's fault, and why are we assuming that anyone who edit wars with someone under Arbcom sanction is deliberately harassing them? -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DICK. You originally edited has page two months ago [51] and to this day seem to be under the impression that the UI spoofing talk actually came to a consensus against spoofing, despite others disagreeing. When somebody outside of you and Certified disagreed with the removal, that's kind of a sign that you should be talking instead of editing, even if consensus was backing you. Phony Saint 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling somebody else a dick is a form of dickery in itself, as Iamunknown points out below. In response to Amarkov: No, people who edit war with people sanctioned by ArbCom are not always harassing the user. However, deliberately starting edit wars with the intention of getting a user blocked is "harassment". I have assumed good faith until given evidence to the contrary. That evidence is here. "All of these show utter disregard for other Wikipedia users and Wikipedia itself. This, added to his offensive, racist, edit-warring behaviour, the refusal to discuss in good faith, frequent vandalism, and edit-warring, makes out a case for outright and permanent ban." Sumple, if you know that Certified.Gangsta is an edit-warrior and insists on having his fake new messages bar on his userpace, then why would you want to edit his userpage to remove the bar? Certified.Gangsta has reverted every attempt to do so in the past. What makes you think he'll stop this time? (I can't help but notice how much this resembles Carbonite's law.) Sean William 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm utterly confused as to why people won't simply be civil, assume good faith on Sumple's part (hey, he or she came here for open comments, he or she wasn't brought here) and just freakin' address the questions. Come on people. This is ridiculous. On the questions:

• Is User:Sean William entitled to revert my removal of the banner without explanation? - no well-intentioned edit, however misguided, should be reverted without at least a note (i.e. the "Undo" tool or a revert and a civil talk page note); preferrably none should be reverted, but using absolutives would not be in our best interest (e.g. well-intentioned but libellous or negative unsourced information of living people should be removed immediately, with a note afterwards)
• Can I be guilty of baiting without a subjective intention to provoke Certified.Gangsta into reverting and thereby attracting a block? - no, because you aren't baiting, simple as that
• Can I be guilty of baiting if my objectively determined intention, as disclosed by my edit pattern, edit history, and past statements, was not to bait Certified.Gangsta but to uphold community consensus and policy? - no, your edit was well-intentioned and you are, quite simply, not guilty of baiting
• Is the behaviour of User:LionheartX relevant to determining whether I am "baiting" Certified.Gangsta? - no, I think that block was a terrible precedent that should not be repeated
• Is my ability to edit Wikipedia somehow constrained by the remedy imposed on Certified.Gangsta by ArbCom? If so, what is the justification for that? - no, the case did not involve you

On UI spoofing, the consensus seemed to be that only malicious UI spoofs should be against policy; others are indeed frowned upon, but not removing them is probably best. --Iamunknown 05:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, and remember folks, those who invoke WP:DICK are WP:DICKs :)

Looking into it, Sumple was previously involved with Certified.Gangsta as indicated at an RfC, the RfA workshop, and Sumple's talk page. Sumple apparently has more of a background with Certified and really should just leave him and his user page alone. Phony Saint 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good investigation. I do wish that folks would just leave harmless (i.e. "new messages" without a link to some disgusting article) UI spoofing alone. But I do not think that Sumple was in bad faith; again, he or she brought this issue here for discussion in an open forum -- few people readily do that. --Iamunknown 19:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I won't comment on the matter of UI spoofing or policies regarding an individual's userpage because I'm not too familiar with those. But this quickness to label someone as "baiting" an editor on revert parole, or even blocking an editor for it when he hasn't violated 3RR, is a little ridiculous. Where's the good faith? And believe it or not, most of these reverts are well justified. There are good reasons an editor is placed on revert parole and in most cases there have been thorough discussions on why certain editors' edits are bad and need to be reverted. Stop treating editors on revert parole with kid gloves. They are fully aware of what they're doing, they don't get to be on revert parole without having been warned about their actions over and over again. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And your previous involvement: [52], [53], and [54]. There's not much good faith when one editor who had a dispute with another editor begins an edit war on the other's user page. Phony Saint 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Your point? Again, I won't comment on the UI spoofing or policies on userpages, and to note, I have not been edit warring on Certified's userpage myself. Having said that, Certified is the only editor that wants to see his version of the articles, there are numerous editors that revert his edits, and this is on the scale of a supermajority here. Believe it or not, some editors just make plain bad edits that need to be reverted, even if a lot of admins refuse to make a judgement call if only once in a while. There's a good reason why Certified is on revert parole and the rest of us are not, and it has something to do with his behaviour not just on one article, but across all of WP in general. Now that Certified has finally landed himself on revert parole for a year after all the bureaucracy of an ArbCom, he is still being treated with kid gloves. When did it happen that whenever someone reverts an editor on revert parole whom he previously had a dispute with, then it must be bad faith? His revert parole doesn't just apply to the articles he has edited before, it applies to all articles, this is an obvious clue to everybody that ArbCom has decided he needs to clean up his behaviour. Just block him if he breaks parole and nevermind accusing editors of baiting him. And I'm saying this as it could be applied to any editor on revert parole. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • My point is that Certified's edits on mainspace have nothing to do with his own user page, and that people previously involved in disputes with Certified should just stay away from his user page. Even if Certified is on parole, Sumple continually edited Certified's user page against the wishes of Certified as well as others - Sean William previously blocked him, yet still reverted Sumple's edits. Sumple cannot act as if he'd had no previous dispute with Certified, and wave away others' concerns about his edits by saying "I have consensus, see WP:USER and this talk page," neither of which indicate anything specific about the matter at hand. Phony Saint 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Sumple did not "wave away" concerns. This conversation was started because he asked if what he did was justified. -Amarkov moo! 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
          • He started when he reverted Irpen, so from the start he was disagreeing with a third party. Sumple already has a negative view of Certified as expressed in Certified's RfA (linked above) and at Sean William's talk page, and now is bothered at the fact that somebody actually disagreed with him and his "consensus" and "policy." Were he just a random person who stumbled upon Certified's page, I would assume good faith wholeheartedly, but as it is, Sumple and Certified have a past history which Sumple has decided not to disclose, making it very hard to believe his intention is purely to improve Wikipedia. Phony Saint 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there is a parallel (but less lively) thread at WP:RFARB here. --Iamunknown 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis - possible desysopping case?

This admin keeps tagging various album covers (which I have put an album cover tag on) because they lack "fair use rationale." Well, I finally did put a fair-use rationale on Fab-fnts.jpg

http://tinypic.com/5xpzig2 Cover of From Nothin' to Somethin' by Fabolous. Copyright 2007 Desert Storm/Def Jam Recordings. This cover qualifies as fair use because it is only used on the artist and album pages. Any other use may violate copyright laws.

Yet this admin felt the need to remove this very descriptive info. I think this calls for desysopping. What do you think? Tom Danson 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Has this editor misused admin tools? Navou 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That is not a sufficient fair use rationale. See WP:FU for more information on how to write a good fair use rationale. Sean William 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think this calls for me to start laughing so hard I blow tortilla chip chunks all over my monitor. No, it doesn't call for desysopping, and you're ludicrously out of touch if you think it does. FCYTravis 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ( blow[ing]] tortilla chip chunks I have not laughed so hard in a long time....) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Laugh all you want now, I checked out what is needed in a fair use rationale, and this covers all the bases. Tom Danson 01:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The laughter was about the chips bits on the monitor and your request for desysopping. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if it were a decent rationale (which it isn't), what does that have to do with abusing admin tools? — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 01:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, if that isn't a decent rationale, what would be? (I'm telling you, album covers are fair use) Tom Danson 01:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale_guideline -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. "This is fair use because we're using it in an article" isn't fair use. For an example of a fair use rationale I've written, see Image:Wotsits-ReallyCheesy.jpg. --Deskana (AFK 47) 01:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Come on, not everyone knows what it takes to get desysopped, be nice. —dgies^t_c 02:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Was Mel Etitis informed of this discussion here? Acalamari 01:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. We're just going to desysop him behind his back. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well I let him know. It's only right if he's about to be stripped of his adminship ;-) Will (aka Wimt) 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heh. :) Acalamari 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not that I consider Mel one of our better admins, but this is -- how shall one say it -- the most tortilla-chip-chunk-blowing stupid rationale for desysopping one can imagine. Raymond Arritt 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• <self-pity>This is why I tried to make a page about the rationales for desysopping, but I got yelled at.</self-pity> Chick Bowen 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the statements above that Mel's actions are not only far from a desysopping offense, but also justified. That said, I think there is a genuine question raised by the original post, which perhaps got sidelined in this discussion. The specific points are:

• If an album/DVD/book cover is used only on the respective album/dvd/book page, does one need to add a FU rationale besides the ones already mentioned in the biolerplate template  ?
• If the answer to the above is yes, can someone point to a specific example of a satisfactory FU rationale on some album cover page (I clicked on some 20 random links in the Category:Album covers and didn't find anything suitable) ? Am I right in assuming that it would be ok to cut-paste this text to other images used in the exactly analogous manner ?
• Is it FU to use a album cover on the respective artist's page ? If so, can someone again point out a illustrative example ?

If, as I would expect, this has already been discussed at some wikipedia talk page, a link would be great. Thanks. Abecedare 02:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, you're making some incorrect assumptions. "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Album covers need fair use rationales, for all articles in which they appear, even the article for the album. For example, a high resolution album cover does not automatically meet the non-free content criteria; in fact, it fails them no matter where it's used. So in this case I agree that we should totally desysop Mel for requesting fair use rationales where they're needed. ShadowHalo 03:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is identifying instances where usage contradicts our image policy. Rationales for including album art in articles in albums are far from uniform, the polite thing to do is help an editor identify several key points (lo-rez, lack of free alternative, etc.). I find it ironic that WP:FURAT provides a perfectly apt rationale template for album covers with the added disclaimer that one should "not copy these examples word-for-word". Before the more anally-retentive elements begin correcting me, fair use rationales are necessary from a legalistic standpoint. However, demanding that contributors supplement a copyright template with a rationale which might as well come in a template is one of the quirky illogical qualities that make our image policy so incomprehensible to newbies. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, how hard is it to take one second to say "I believe this image qualifies as far use on the article blarg blarg, as it is a low resolution image intended to illustrate the topic of the article, and that a free image cannot be found, "? Swatjester 03:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously harder than posting to AN/I and asking for a desysopping. Phony Saint 04:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not a fair use rationale, and I would dispute it if I came across one. A fair use rationale must relevant and specific to the use of the image in the article; a boilerplate text will not suffice. And don't give me the "otherstuffexists" argument, because I would dispute that other stuff too. --Iamunknown 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the most common uses for fair use images is to illustrate the article topic. This is a permissible use under WP:FU; according to section 8, "Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose." This is necessary when the article is on a modern copyrighted work, such as a video game or a film. In this case, the fair use rationale is inevitably going to be very similar among large categories of images (sometimes with only the article title changing) because the images are being used for the same purpose. Crotalus horridus 06:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And before someone points it out, yes, I know this doesn't apply to living people or currently-existing buildings. I was referring to such things as album cover art, movie posters, or game screenshots. Crotalus horridus 06:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be hard for the rights owner of an album cover to argue it was not fair use in illustrating an article on the album (although most of those articles fail WP:NOT a directory), but fair use would be debatable and often flat wrong in illustrating the article on the performer. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Sorry if I wasn't clear; what I meant above was purposes like using an album cover to identify the corresponding album, using a video game screenshot to identify that video game, or using a movie poster to identify that movie. Obviously, for articles on people, we should use free use images if it is at all possible. Crotalus horridus 07:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I've long argued for some commonsense to be applied to album covers, but: this is an issue to be discussed elsewhere, and indeed there's a thread about it at WP:ALBUM. Desysopping? No. Admin intervention needed? No. Next! --kingboyk 11:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To Crotalus: Sorry, but "illustrating" the article topic and "identifying" the article topic is not the same thing. "Identifying", the way I understand it, means to clarify what object is being talked about. This would apply only to cases where without the picture a reader might not understand what the object of the article is in the first place. (For instance, if a book has been published in several editions and the article is going to specifically discuss this publication history, we might need an image of each to clarify: look, this is the edition I'm now talking about.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original issue, one does not need admin-bits in order to tag an image that has a bad fair use reasoning at all, so any chance for Mel to lose his admin-bit is slim to none. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was discussing the issue of fair-use rationales in general; in this particular case, I don't see any impropriety on Mel Etitis's part, and as you point out, admin powers weren't even used. Crotalus horridus 08:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Will and Acalamari for alerting me to this discussion.

It's worth adding to the above that I explained to Tom Danson early in my discussions with him that adding fair-use tags wasn't as admin action. More importantly, he's omitting a crucial point. The images in question had no sources or fair-use rationales, and were tagged accordingly; he removed both tags, adding a source but no rationale — but he wasn't the up-loader, so couldn't know what the sources were. There followed an increasingly bizarre series of justifications, in which he claimed to have been the original up-loader, but mysterious figures had overwritten his images (and, somehow, deleted all trace of their actions from the histories). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also say that the image was far too high a resolution to qualify as fair use. I've scaled it to 250x249 pixels, reducing the file size tenfold, and uploaded the new version. It should be easier to make a fair use case for this lower resolution image, which is still perfectly okay for indentification purposes. --Tony Sidaway 08:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't mean we should keep the image of course. There are many other points to fix. --Tony Sidaway 08:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any of you guys out there but I have a stack of album covers here at my house and every one of them says it't copy right. Im not sure how fair use comes into play here. --  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  16:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

?? If they weren't copyright, there would be no fair use claim. Not sure what point you're trying to make. Fair use is when we use a copyrighted image under a provision of US law. --kingboyk 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dunno, but this one gets shortlisted for this month's "most baseless request for desysopping" award. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle

Lothslo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created his account at 22:20, 9 May 2007. His/her first edit was to add Twinkle script to his monobook. This user than began reverting the contributions of User:Tankred en masse using Twinkle's non-admin rollback function. I have indefinitely blocked Lothslo for abuse. With the exception of the edits made to Lothslo's user, talk, and monobook pages, I rolled back all edits. Based on previous disputes with Tankred, I would not be surprised if the person behind Lothslo is the banned sockpuppeteer User:VinceB, a regular on this page. Olessi 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Before this gets raised, it's no easier to use twinkle to revert vandalize than it is to use god mode lite, or any similar rollback monobook. It's actually harder with Twinkle, because it pops up a window to leave a message for the vandal you've reverted, thus somewhat discouraging mass reversions rapidly (well relatively at least). Swatjester 03:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that option can be turned off. John Reaves (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Twinkle is particularly relevant here - the same reversions, if done by hand, would warrant the same response. Ironically, using Twinkle makes it easier for someone else to notice what you're doing. CMummert · talk 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I had not noticed monobook scripts being used for abusive purposes before, so I figured I would mention it here just in case. Thanks for the explanations. Olessi 04:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: rollback his monobook edits so should he ever be unblocked he doesn't have access to twinkle? Swatjester 07:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If it becomes a serious problem, I suppose we could always rollback his monobook page and protect it. Mangojuice^talk 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with autoblock caused by DavidYork71 sock.

I was looking through CAT:RFU and I came upon PalawanOz (talk · contribs) who has been caught by an autoblock of a sock of DavidYork71. I see no connection between PalawanOZ and typical DavidYork behavior, and in fact PalawanOz predates DavidYork et. al. by 7-8 months, so I was prepared to lift the autoblock. But I see that the blocking admin, Orderinchaos has caused 2 autoblocks based off this sock. Bearing in mind that DavidYork is a notorious puppeteer, I am very wary of releasing the wrong autoblock. Is there any way to find out which autoblock is causing trouble? Am I off-base here? WP:AUTOBLOCK describes the problem well but I've never seen a good page explaining how and when to lift autoblocks. —dgies^t_c 04:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This one might need a checkuser. While autoblocks will affect innocent users of ISPs with dynamic IP addresses (like AOL or some Optus numbers), this IP appears to be assigned to the Australian Dept of Defense, and seeing several Wikipedians innocently sharing that IP seems a bit ususual. Thatcher131 05:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it could just be a firewall/proxy situation. As far as I can tell PalawanOz has never gotten into trouble to it seems a bit strange they would have created a bunch of socks to edit on completely different topics. Usually people get blocked, then make socks. —dgies^t_c 05:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, probably just ordinary collateral damage then. Thatcher131 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mitzy1978

I blocked this account indefinitely for recreating an attack page and other vandalism. It seems to have performed several page moves... Could someone have a look and help me fix it? Grandmasterka 05:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Moves reverted. Voice-of-All 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

...And handle their unblock request. The attack page was Grace Bonney. Grandmasterka 05:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He's dealt with, thanks. --Golbez 05:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Petty stalking by User:Orangemonster2k1

Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs), an editor with a history of poor impulse control (and a recent block for same) and of stalking my edits has, once again, a bug up his butt, insisting on edit-warring over my bog-standard removal of a vanity edit from Corbin, Kentucky. It's pretty clear to me that he's not even reading what he's reverting nor that he actually cares about the content: it's yet another opportunity for his months-long petty little vendetta (which he has been cautioned about), and frankly I've had enough of this nonsense. His normal M.O. is to do bad things, get called on them, and then make faux-sincere apologies. A few weeks go by, and then it’s rinse lather repeat. If someone could have a word with him to get him to actually stop doing it, period/full-stop, I’d be grateful. --Calton | Talk 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Since he was recently blocked for 48 hours for exactly this, I've blocked him for 72 hours. Raul654 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully that will be taken as a message that will actually sink in. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

Chemist3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), especially edits to Astrology - cute, but no thanks. I diagnose hosiery and have blocked, please review. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I smell socks here - right from the first edit ("rvv" on an RfAr??) - Alison ☺ 06:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reviewed, and endorsed. Dirty socks allright.- Phaedriel - 11:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Troll constantly been reverting my edits

It's been happening for the last month and admin request to User:DaGizza proved fruitless so I will report it here. IP User 81.149.27.200 and 88.109.215.0 (who are clearly same if you look at their edits) have been repeatedly reverting my good faith edits on Khatri, Malhotra and Luthra. He also accuses me of vandalism.

I will let you judge the two versions yourself. Our diff on Khatri, Our diff on Malhotra, Our diff on Luthra. He also does not explain to me where the peacock claims on Luthra are, instead changing the category from a sourced one to an unsourced one. I think his motivation there is simply because I rvert him on Malhotra. He believes my surname is Luthra without any basis at all. Hopefully admins can judge the two versions. dishant 06:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

          ==Response to above claim

On the contrary dishant has been Petty stalking my edits and vandalising my and other users entries after his peacock claims about the Luthra family were reverted.

This claim to you appears in retaliation for my being one of four users having supported a Delete case for removal of an entry for an Ankur Luthra [55] which was deleted by an administrator the same day as he filed this report.

Contrary to his claims this has been going on for just a month, Dishant55555 vandalism goes back to March after my Correcting his Vanity claims about Luthra. You can see on this link he has made unsourced vanity claims including -

• "Many Luthra's are extremely successful in terms of business."
• "The Gupta Dynasty assumed control of Northern India in 400 CE, and the Luthras joined forces with the Guptas to maintain law and order in what became India's Golden Age."
• Luthras held prominent positions as rulers and warriors.

and adding alleged prominent people with the surname Luthra who do not meet wikipedia guidelines for prominence

He has since been stalking and vandalising Khatri, Malhotra, Kapoor etc pages by users who have changed his edits to NPOV ones. See his vandalism of the Malhotra page for example where he has removed dozens of lines of entries with external reference links.

Could dishant please be blocked from doing so. He has already received warnings to stop.

Bob2042

Seems to be a single-purpose account for a schoolkid mucking around. Promotion of the nonsense word "bagoscary" everywhere....[56] [57] [58] [59] Saying I am leaving bagoscary...[60] [61] and of course... the old your mum joke.[62] Would be pretty funny if he wasn't disrupting Wikipedia so much. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Alleged cyberstalking at Suzanne Shell

69.20.127.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who says she is the subject of the article Suzanne Shell, says she is being followed and harrassed by the holder of the account Wisemanstudios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in this edit [63] (to the main article page!). Wisemanstudios was warned and blocked for revert-warring and linkspamming in that article a day or two ago, trying to add a link hostile to the article subject to that same article. 69.20.127.250 has apparently gone and directly confronted Wisemanstudios directly on his talk page. Personal attacks are flying, and I have a feeling legal threats are right around the corner. Can a sysop or someone else entitled to the power of the banning bat take this one over? --Dynaflow babble 10:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The can of worms seems to be opening: User talk:Wisemanstudios#Wisemanstudios is using Wiki to stalk Suzanne Shell. They're probably both going to end up needing to be indef blocked before this is over. [EDIT:] I spoke too soon. These are different users attacking Wisemanstudios on Suzanne Shell's behalf: Dsshell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 65.185.137.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hmmmm... --Dynaflow babble 11:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-off-topic, but User:Wisemanstudios should probably be blocked under WP:U, since it probably qualifies as a promotional username (referring to Wiseman Music Studios). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I reported that username to WP:UAA when I warned him for linkspamming. I assume the admin who reviewed it didn't think warranted blocking on WP:U grounds. --Dynaflow babble 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Shell has denied editing her own article, and there is an IP claiming to be her: 69.20.127.250. I suspect the latter to be User:Wisemanstudios, given the edit here (read the very last sentence). 65.185.137.147 is claiming to be an associate of Suzanne here. This is turning into a mess... Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dsshell. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I get for skimming. Going by timestamps, it looks like user Dsshell left a complaint at at Wisemanstudios, and then somebody who might be someone's IP sockpuppet copy-and-pasted the complaint, verbatim, into the article, with the added line at the end about attacking 15 year olds. The other IP left a message on its talk page for Venior [64] saying that vandalism to article KPNX is the work of Wiseman studios. The first IP has a lot of vandalizing edits to that article. --Dynaflow babble 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

From the checkuser case:  Confirmed. Wisemanstudios = 66.233.207.183. Voice-of-All 17:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC) . . . so who the hell is 69.20.127.250? The IP matched with Wiseman studios was doing things like this: [65], which seems to be in character, but that doesn't explain what's up with the other IP. --Dynaflow babble 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That IP was autoblocked eventually as being used by Wiseman: see this. Which presents another conundrum: how was that IP able to edit another IP's talk page and other edits while Wisemanstudios was supposedly blocked (originally on 22:50 May 9)?I am stupid, nowhere does the autoblock say it was that IP. I must be going quackers. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

69.20.127.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just contacted me at my userpage to express his suspicions about who 69.20.127.250 is -- and then apparently realized his mistake: [66] and then [67]. As Homer Simpson would say, "Doh!" That IP has just pretty much admitted it's an impersonator, and we can presume it's also a sock. Block with prejudice. --Dynaflow babble 19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup: quacks like a sock. --Dynaflow babble 20:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Should this thread be copy-pasted to the Talk page of the article in question so, in case this happens again, whoever has to handle it won't have to start from scratch? --Dynaflow babble 21:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for helping Suzanne like this. I have been 65.185.137.147 in this matter beforehand. I have finally created my own login account as MMHen-I had never tried using Wikipedia to a large extent like this before-this was my first foray into this encyclopedic world, and it was to help Suzanne! This guy has been a thorn in our sides for going on two years-there are more than just us he has attacked.MMHen 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ShadowFox_S.T.A.R.S.

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 hours for breach of WP:NPA - Phaedriel - 11:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin take a look at this user's talk page? The user is constantly changing my comments on their talk page by substituting words for curses etc. to make me look like an idiot. The user also has a hefty talk on why they hate wikipedia with an image saying "wikipeida sucks". He/she is doing this because of edits they made on Resident Evil articles that were reverted or changed by myself and others over a long period of time, as they were not fact nor sourced etc. The user disappeared after a while when a some of us editors found he/she was constantly reverting articles anonymously, but has resurfaced lately. Now all they're doing is continually changing my comments on their talk page and making multiple personal attacks such as "You can blow and be ass raped by a homeless transexual for all I care. ^.^". I added some warning templates but this has just resulted in more personal attacks. I've been patient enough with this user but now its getting ridiculous. Everything is on their talk page, check through the history. Parjay 10:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Dear Sir at first i was not posting anything on shells webpage untill i was accused of it and i didnt read my messages and i got banned and as far as i can tell im still banned But i had to post this so i could defend myself without setting with my hands under my legs and tape on my mouth like i was trying to do..but you guys made the statement that i was the owner of wiseman music studios.com and the owner of that site is named tim meany check the who is on that as i cant spell the guys last name as for who is attacking me its more then just shell the lady that posted was name kay hession she is a crook out of florida whom cant sue me because im posting the truth with my real name and im not breaking the law unlike her..i never posted that sick stuff above and ask mrs.shell why she is the owner and editor of badadvocates.com attacking others and how she is posting peoples home address with that of a fifteen year old up on her website and sense you like dig look at this

http://digg.com/business_finance/Webmaster_Settles_With_IA_Goes_After_Teenager

shell likes attacking people who cant or shell thinks wont fight back and what about shells business profane-justice.org why is it okay for her and not for me? Thank You for your time Billy wiseman

Very bad treatment of newcomers

The treatment of newcomers on Wikipedia is appauling, I am new here and have been insulted and all of myb edits doubted just because some users consider me inexperienced and unable of closing Good article candidates, they said on my user talk page "Some users might not take well to a new user reviewing the article for gGA status". I was criticsed for closing this FPC by a user saying that it was not accurate, there were 9 opposing and 13 in support - this is not the required 2/3 of support for an image to be promoted, then User:PS2pcGAMER thankfully left this comment on my user talk page saying that my actions were right and their was no consensus to promote the image. Could an admin please look at this FPC and please comment on whether my decision of not to promote was right, I believe it was because their were 14 in support and 8 oppose, so could an admin please look at that. I have reviewed several article and failed some and passed one or two for GA status, I then got this message just before saying that my judgement was not suitable and that I stop reviewing articles for GA status until I'm more experienced. I think these comments are unfair and it seems that when a user dis-agrees with a decision by another user they are just not assuming good faith, being uncivil and are bringing up things to use against the user, in this case it was the fact I'm new here, this kind of behaviour is nasty and it will put new users of editing here this is supposed to be a friendly community, you dont have to be an admin or a b'crat in order to make a good decision, whether your account is 2 days or 2000 days old it doesnt matter, as long as you know the policies. See the comments on my editor review as well, I contribute here often with this account and I'm being asked to slow down, you want people to contribute and when they do, you tell them to slow down. The Sunshine Man 11:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked around and found Wikipedia:Editor review/The Sunshine Man on which I think some sensible and useful comments have been made. In particular I'm concerned by your statement that you are "a regular closer of feature picture candidates". If you truly are a newcomer (and your first edit does seem to have been just seven days ago so I'll take your word for it), then you cannot possibly be a regular anything on Wikipedia yet. I also question whether you can have sufficient experience to know how to close featured picture candidates satisfactorily, and your recent experiences seem to bear this out.

So of course you should not be mistreated, and I'm sorry if that has happened. However I suggest that it will probably improve your experience of Wikipedia if you just slow down a bit. --Tony Sidaway 11:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FPC is not a vote, and the threshold of promotion is 2/3 in favour. In this case, the arguments in favour of promotion are stronger than those who oppose. You do have some discretion, see for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Electron shells. As one of the major closers of FPC noms (before my elbow happened), I'd say you were wrong.

However as I cannot shoulder the burden, you have my approval to close FPCs. I don't see any other volunteers, and KFP is too absorbed with admin tasks. MER-C 12:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

With regards to this nomination on FPC, I count only 8 opposes, not 9. One was a combined oppose to a specific edit and a support for the original. Furthermore, it is not a hard and fast rule that 2/3 support is required as the discussion and reasons for support/opposition is also taken into account to better reach the consensus. This is why it was recommended that you participate in more elementary work on Wikipedia before diving into contentious and complicated Wiki Bureaucracy. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It was me that presumably triggered Sunshine Man's complaint when I left him some advice on his talk page, under the heading "Some friendly advice". I'm sorry that he took it the wrong way but perhaps that just reinforces the need for him to get involved in other areas before the administrative tasks. —Moondyne 13:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Moondyne's advice was politely delivered and IMO entirely valid. It rather bothers me that everyone is eternally quoting WP:CIVIL at each other, but we don't even have a WP:THICKSKINNED. We should, and this is a prime example of why. The problem here is not that an editor was uncivil, but that an editor is way too quick to take offense at friendly advice. Hesperian 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a message for this editor, hoping that he won't abandon the project. Basically, I encouraged him to get more experience editing articles before brancing out into other areas. We'll see if it makes any difference. Pastor David ^† 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of malfunctioning bot

Scepbot is fixing double redirects, but not keeping anchors: [68] Another bot that fixes double redirects handles these properly. --NE2 12:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AIV. --24.136.230.38 12:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot until his owner fixes the problem. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I cleaned up the missing anchors on the articles I noticed it on. --NE2 12:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, Sceptre got caught by the autoblock. If this happens again, we probably all ought to remember to uncheck the autoblock flags! Guy (Help!) 13:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect replacement of "Portugese" with "Portuguese"

Hi, MetsBot replaced the word "Portugese" with "Portuguese" in the article "Richard Hakluyt". Unfortunately, in the context, "Portugese" is correct because that is how the word is spelled in a book title of 1609. How do I stop MetsBot (or other bots) from trying to "correct" this old-fashioned spelling? Cheers, Jacklee 12:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

People aren't supposed to be running fully automated spellbots, for this reason among others. Haukur 13:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is true, I would be interested in seeing the the bot approval that allowed that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Haukur. To answer the question, though, the first step is to contact the person involved, which I see you've done. If he's not responsive then is the time to seek admin intervention. That said, I'm curious about this so I will also ask him myself. --kingboyk 14:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to even have spelling corrections listed as one of its activities. It's also a little strange because the owner says s/he's on wikibreak. Anchoress 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Note, Mets501's user talk page says "I am taking a wikibreak to get ready for upcoming exams." ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's right. He'd respond to an email though, I'm sure. He's not totally away from Wikipedia, he's just busy. --kingboyk 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But I think the point is, if s/he's on wikibreak, who's running the bot? Anchoress 14:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, would the bot be stopped from replacingthis word if it had an HTML comment stuck in the middle of it (so Port< !-- don't change this spelling -- >ugese or some such)?

Atlant 16:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll send an e-mail to User:Mets501 advising of this thread. Newyorkbrad 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry about the confusion; that was all 100% manual with AWB, I was just on my bot's account so as to not "litter" my contributions with mechanical edits; I would never run an automatic spell-checking bot. I responded more in full on my talk page. Again, sorry for the confusion! —METS501 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of contributions

I wish to complain about the actions of an editor who calls herself TheRingess. This editor has a long track record of deleting the contributions of other editors, usually for trivial reasons or no particular reason at all. Often it is done purely on a matter of taste, when discussion would be indicated.

She has been doing this for as long as I have been contributing, sometimes to my contributions as well as those of others. She does not discuss things. I have tried to talk to her about this matter but she takes no notice. It has got to the point where she is deterring others from contributing. It is a waste of time when there is a 50/50 chance that she will delete the contribution.

Some relevant articles are:

Siddha Yoga

Chidvilasananda

Bhagawan Nityananda

It is at the point where official intervention is the only thing that might help.

Thank you,

Sardaka 12:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, this appears to be a content dispute or series thereof, rather than an issue that requires administrative action. TheRingess has been active on the talk pages of all three of the articles you cite, in several cases replying directly to you to address your concerns (as here, for example). If you would like to pursue a solution on a dispute within a particular article, you might want to try an article RFC and if that is unsuccessful, a RFM. If your dispute is more with the editing style of TheRingess herself, you might want to try discussing your objections with her on her talk page, since it does not appear that you have raised the topic with her in the past[69]. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiant's Bureaucracy Watch

I would appreciate the feedback of some clueful users on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). As I'm sure you're aware, we have the occasional clash between American and British English, or between AD/BC and CE/BCE notation. It turns out that the same kind of debates occur about the difference between Kilobytes and Kibibytes. At present, the MOS indicates that one of these must be used, despite the obvious lack of consensus for that, and this MOS page is being upheld on grounds that changes to the MOS "must" be voted upon. If some experienced users could weigh in to clear up the misconception, that would resolve a lot. Radiant! 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is a Kibibyte? End of story. My laptop's cache rating is in kilobytes. My mp3 player's manual actually displays capacity in kilobytes: and it's written in Engrish. Bill Gates uses kilobytes. And once again: what the hell is a kibibyte? Seriously, ask any random person on the street which one is "correct" and you're more than likely to get kilobytes. Swatjester 12:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Did nobody else notice (and was nobody else angry?) that the "overlong page" warning was displayed in "kibibytes" yesterday? --kingboyk 13:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

1024000 bytes = 1024 kilobytes = 1000 kibibytes. It's just a case of making it clear which unit you're using. As for which one should be used in an article, the one with a conventional name or the one with a conventional size, that's something that'll have to be debated at the MOS page. --ais523 12:52, 10 May 2007

Well, I've long favored conventional usage for the same reason Swatjester mentions above. But many people disagree with that, and it appears unlikely that a consensus will form to standardize on one type or the other. As a result, I think the best outcome is to set a guideline similar to that on WP:MOS#National varieties of English, urging people to stay with established usage, follow the lead of the first contributor, and not go around changing things to one form without good reason. Unfortunately, there is one particular editor who is insistent that the present guideline must remain until there is a specific consensus to change it, and is willing to edit war to enforce his/her view. If ambiguity is a concern, there are ways this can be dealt with; for instance, footnotes or parenthetical notes could specify exactly how many bytes (usually 1024) is meant by "K", "KB", or "kilobyte". Crotalus horridus 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what we're talking about here, but actually 1024 kilobytes is 1024*1024 bytes, or 1048576 bytes. Thank you, drive through. JuJube 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note that this issue is spawning several dozen edit wars (see here). Radiant! 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Specifically, a user has been altering a lot of articles recently to xis preferred version. This is somewhat reminiscent of that user with the both who kept changing date notations. Radiant! 13:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer binary prefix notation. The reasoning is simple: according to SI definition kilo means 10^3, mega means 10^6, etc. Kilo certainly doesn't mean 2^10, and likewise, mega doesn't mean 2^20. It gets even worse because in computing you will see the SI prefixes alternatively used to mean powers of ten and powers of two. This is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. We need to be unambiguous. So use the SI prefixes when you mean powers of ten (like when talking about hard drive capacity and bandwidth) and use the binary prefixes when talking about cache and memory capacity. --Cyde Weys 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• You're missing the point, Cyde. I'm not asking people to state their preferences. I'm asking for people to realize that there is no consensus to mandate either version in Wikipedia, just like there's no consensus to mandate Anno Domini or British English. Radiant! 13:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not missing the point. I've been following this argument for awhile. I was arguing against the people who are saying the binary prefix notation should never be used, when it is in fact the best way to state something un-ambiguously. --Cyde Weys 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Independent of my personal preferences regarding binary SI prefixes, I agree with Radiant's warnings to several users about edit warring. "Enforcing the manual of style" is not a justification for causing disruption. I would encourage Radiant to lift the block on Sarenne early if he/she agrees to stop until the discussion is over. CMummert · talk 13:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a -big- problem with mandating binary prefix notation, and that is that as a consequence the common usage of "kB" (as in "kilobyte", or 1024 bytes) is changed to a new meaning as 1000 bytes. That is just -not- acceptable. Especially not for articles about older computers. There is also absolutely no sign that binary prefix notation will -ever- become mainstream in it's use. As an example, here you can find an encyclopedic entry from a mainstream computer magazine talks about this. [70] Mahjongg 13:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that a small group of people want to change the fact that the world in general doesn't give a wet slap about the corrcet usage. Wikipedia is not the place to do that. End of story, I'd say. If the world outside is Wrong, then Wikipedia must be Wrong. And when the world gets it Right we can reflect that. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Eloquently put. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Style guides are just that: guides to style. They can be helpful. Arguing over them is a bad idea, and those who insist on doing so get what they deserve. --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Admins and edit warriors alike should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli. Edit warring to enforce a minority point of view, even if you feel it is technically more correct, is unacceptable. Thatcher131 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when has the byte been an SI unit? (there is a reasonable discussion of the point at byte, as it happens) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This debate has gone on for a long time it even had me blocked and labeled as a sock puppet for the same arguments above, ( i might be accused of being one of you for expressing my point) it all started when I reverted User:Sarenne for adding (what at the time I never herd of) MiB and GiB and so on several user including myself have fought against this change. It's not the norm to use the new prefix. My pc surly don't use it and im sure nobody eles does either. --  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's too bad you're so sure about nobody using it, because you're wrong. I've had the pleasure of using several applications now that use binary prefix notation, and many more are making it optional (including Azureus). It really doesn't help an argument to assert that something is true without evidence, and then, to top it off, it turns out to be wrong. --Cyde Weys 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:IStalkNeldav

Resolved

Blocked as username violation. ~Crazytales (argumentum ad infinitum) 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can someone please block this user, as he is claiming to "see me" on my talkpage. Also he is clearly potentialy trying to stalk me as you can see from my username. Neldav 14:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It was done a few hours ago, as a breach of WP:USERNAME. --Dweller 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

School block

User:167.206.181.204 has a history of obvious vandalism, and no good edits except for soem self-reverts. i have just blocekd it indefinately. Accordign to a WHOIS search, it is part of 167.206.181.192 - 167.206.181.207 which is assigned to "Ross School". Should other IPs in this range be checked? Is an indefiante block proper, and should the school authorities be contacted in any way? Note that i have no indication of where the school ios located geographically, althouygh i haven't really tried to find out, yet. Is there any other, or any different, action that i should take? DES ^(talk) 14:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

IPs should never be blocked indefinitely, especially school IPs. For blatant repeated school vandalism IPs a block of a month or two (with account creation enabled? I forget) is usually accepted. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the IP should not be blocked forever. Escalate block up to a couple months if need be, disable account create but leave it anon only. That handle schools much better. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Block shortened. {{schoolblock}} used on talk page. DES ^(talk) 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by Shaligramyadav

Two days ago, I reported this user for deleting text from the Nair article without discussion and making threats and personal attacks. He was blocked for 48 hours. He re-appeared yesterday as Harphool hooda and is making the exact same edits as before (see this versus this). Also, his contributions are being made only to the Nair article. This is exactly the same as the contributions made by Shaligramyadav (minus the one image and the attacks on my talk page). I think it seems rather evident that he is the same person. Do I still need to request a checkuser? The evidence seems pretty solid. The edits are exactly the same. --vi5in^[talk] 15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted in explaining rule on "unfree images of living people"

Hi. I need some help in communicating with User:Custodiet ipsos custodes about the used of an unfree image of a living person in Rend al-Rahim Francke. In a discussion that also involved an AFP image listed for deletion, I have been unable to explain him that there's a policy to follow that is more strict than fair use law (what I believe is his main misconception). As he's about to violate the WP:3RR, I believe reverting his action wouldn't be a helpful step on my part at this point.

Thanks in advance, --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

more...

He's now also doing that for Image:Morgan Tsvangirai.jpg in Morgan Tsvangirai [71]. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on the images in question. In my view two of those are clearly replaceable, the other might be ok. I will leave him a note. Mangojuice^talk 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've also commented, and raised the matter on the admin channel. I've raised the need to get a free image of Rend al-Rahim Francke on the talk page of the article, and tagged the image itself on the page so people reading the article will be aware of the pending deletion. I'll now go and have a little chat with User:Custodiet ipsos custodes . --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brown wikilinks

Whats up with this? Is this vandalism by a compromised admin account? -- Cat ^chi? 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And why only some wikilinks? -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ther is a discussion on the technical section of the pump. It seems to ahve to do with links labeled with "class=stub" and the css settings for that class. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's ****ing irritating. Changing the stub threshold doesn't seem to make any difference — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Has been fixed, I believe. Carcharoth 17:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That was my fault. Sorry. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalistic move and insertion of copyrighted material

User:Ckenniss has moved Decline of the Roman Empire to Decline of the French Empire. He has replaced most of the article text with what user:Stbalbach has observed seems to be a copyrighted text.[72]Ultramarine 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back - the server let me. I gave an "only warning" on the paqe, I hope it's enough. The Evil Spartan 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User deleting warning templates

User:Nikkul has been deleting all warning templates issued to him by various other editors. He was blocked for sockpuppetry approximately 2 months back which can be seen in his talk page. After that he has been warned several times regarding his edits on different pages by different editors. But the user has blanked the page several times using revert tools without explaining anything here, here and here. He was reverted twice but again blanked his talk page. What can we do regarding this? Gnanapiti 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Users can blank their warnings, even though we don't like it. It is interpreted as them having received them. This is why it is important to look at the history of a user's talk page before warning. 142.20.217.152 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that Nikkul has also deleted messages pointing out his copyright violations form article talk pages [73]. Currently there are two suspected but unconfirmed sockpuppets of Nikkul: Johnsmithcba (talk · contribs) and Universe=atom (talk · contribs), the latter of whom has similarly deleted warning messages from his talk page [74] and prematurely archived the Talk:India page soon after the sock suspicion was voiced there. [75] Abecedare 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a stupid, stupid, rule. Surely, people probably warn each other with bad intent or incorrectly, but talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater, in not letting obviously correct warnings stand. The Evil Spartan 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, though, it appears warnings are not the issue. Perhaps an administrator should just block the accounts. The Evil Spartan 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks after Final Warning

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked. Also, I'm apparently a dictator chode with no life who should eat shit. You learn something new every day... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dedman-88 (talk · contribs) - Posts personal attacks on his talk page (diff [76]) after being politely asked (and given final warning) to stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Suggest short block. Yankees76 17:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped. I'll decline to block, but others may differ. howcheng {chat} 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

His last two edits. [77] and [78] - one a random date change, the other a personal attack. Both today. Yankees76 18:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

48 hour block. If he keeps it up (or he changes my comment), I'll bump it up to a week or indefinite (depending on my mood). We've got better things to do than deal with people who have no interest in building an encyclopedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh what good times were had by yours truly. User has had their block bumped up to indefinite, their talk page is now locked down, and I got a couple of new additions to my list. Wheeeeeeeeeee! EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow - it's amazing how some people teter on the brink of being uncivil and then just lose it. Sorry to drag you into this, but thanks for the help! Yankees76 22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalising my User page

User: Suplex66 keeps vandalising my talk and user page. I would really appreciate some help. You can see the vandalisms in the page history. Thanks, Kris 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Have warned about personal attacks. If they do it again, take to WP:AIV. —dgies^t_c 19:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Kris 19:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours. Didn't realize that Dgies was simultaneously trying to resolve the issue.--Jersey Devil 19:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:JOKPL

This just seems odd User_talk:JOKPL. Is it ok to ask the user to remove the images & link? Not a dog 19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove the link yeah, but the image? It's a free-use image. Wikipedia isn't censored, so I don't have a problem with it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to jive with the purpose of a user talk page, though. Not a dog 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's their talk page. Ideally, it'd be on their userpage instead, but that's their prerogative. I've seen plenty of talk pages that are decorated with more than just the necessities (hell, my own has plenty of extra stuff on it). None of it involves topless young women, but that's just my choice. Though now that I think about it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, it's their prerogative to put stuff on their talk page. Check mine out. (: ~Crazytales [talk] 01:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated posting of junk information by 69.140.218.130

Normally I would have requested a block outright, but I was not certain if this qualfies as outright vandalism. The user of this IP has a long history of posting unsourced information of a malicious nature, in particular to Elliot in the Morning and WWDC-FM. This person has ignored all warnings and indeed all communication, seemly focused on their goal regardless of editors attempts at negotiation. The IP address appears to belong to a single person as well. Ideally I think they should be blocked.Legitimus 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

DVD key in signature

Maurauth is using the DVD key in his signature; see User:Maurauth/09/ and following pages. They were marked for speedy deletion, and I have deleted them. Now he re-created them, and complained about their deletion on my talk page. What do you think is the proper course of action? Should the pages be deleted again? - Mike Rosoft 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, and if he recreates them after that, block him. This has little to do with the key itself and everything to do with violations of WP:USER and being purposefully disruptive. --Cyde Weys 20:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this also on my new user page patrol. I concur with the sentiment to delete these pages, which are in existence as I write. 129.98.212.73 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you actually informed people that you were talking about them an their actions when you say things, and not have multiple people saying different things. In no way is it disruptive, and why are they being deleted, the foundation says they have no views on removing the key from wikipedia. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

At best, it'd be like a fair use image: you can possibly justify using it on the article in question and only the article in question. But there's no legitimate use for it in userspace, and putting it in userspace is nothing but intentional disruption. --Cyde Weys 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I just want to tell you that other admins have disagreed with removal of key from user pages... I fear linking the specific times i pointed it out for because I fear of war wheeling. But yea, I personally know userpages that have the key. So... this isn't really a settled issue. MrMacMan ^Talk 00:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, how is it disruptive in any way? ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 22:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• You're violating WP:POINT by being purposely disruptive. After all, if it wasn't that number (cue loud organ music), you wouldn't be using it, would you? It's like Cyde said. Using it on the article in question could possibly constitute fair use. Using it in your signature is just being being a bit dickish about it. As much as we are a bastion of free information and so on, Wikipedia is not the place to stick it to the Copyright Man. Do that on your own server. ♠PMC♠ 23:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

Resolved

Compromised reached on the article's talk page gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi all! I've recently been engaged in a dispute with two editors, One Night In Hackney and Mr. Blacketer over their disruption of Wikipedia, specifically the Bobby Sands article, because they are upset about the way the category functions and the edits made by a banned user. I understand their desire to undo a banned users edits, but they are now edit warring with me on the subject of Bobby Sands' inclusion in the Irish Catholics category. This category has no stringent requirements and includes people like Colin Farrell, Pierce Brosnan, Bertie Ahern, and Oscar Wilde. In addition Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_gender.2C_religion.2C_race_or_ethnicity.2C_and_sexuality states that the Wikipedia also supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity. The parent category, simply entitled "Roman Catholics" suggests guidance, which asks before adding an article to this category or subcategory, please consider whether the person's religious beliefs or participation in the Roman Catholic Church are significant to the reasons why that person is notable. For those unaware of who Bobby Sands is, he is a Catholic IRA Volunteer that was elected to parliament while on a hunger strike during the period colloquially known as "the Troubles" in Ireland. He died on the hunger strike and has had an enormous impact on the Republican movement. Given the immense sectarian division that permeated the social and political climate of the time, it's obvious that his being a Catholic is significant to the reasons he's notable. I provided a source from Gerry Adams that stated that the whole reason why Sands got involved in the civil rights and republican movement was due to the Catholic oppression he, his family, and his mates endured while growing up in the north. I've pointed all of this out to both fellows on the talk page and they keep insisting that the category should be excluded. I actually violated the 3RR rule trying to keep their "pointed" edits from infecting the article (I reverted myself after realising this), and am asking for some help and/or advice in dealing with this situation. Thanks in advance! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, the edits by a banned user are not relevant to this article, the category was not added by the editor. As myself and Sam (an administrator) have repeatedly pointed out, the criteria for inclusion in the "Roman Catholics" category and sub-categories are narrowly defined. For further information see here, here and the article's talk page. I've repeatedly asked for a source that shows Sands was notable for his religion, and none has been forthcoming, just blind reverts. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as he's done in the past, ONIH is giving a skewed interpretation of the events. I've tried repeatedly to engage in discussion with this fellow (just look at the talk page to see all the green signatures, hehe), and he's been unwilling to adhere to our community guidelines and precedences. As mentioned several times now, I've provided proper sourcing for this in the form of Gerry Adams' The Life and Times of Bobby Sands. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just another baseless attack by me from this administrator. For further evidence of this, see the debacle on the Gerry Adams talk page due to the whitewashing of the article, and removal of reliably sourced content. This is nothing more than a content dispute, and the re-insertion of the disputed category is equally as pointy if your standard is to be applied. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the Gerry Adams silliness is another example of your unwillingness to adhere to our community guidelines, policies, and precedences. Cheers for bringing that up. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be why every editor (including uninvolved neutral ones) disagrees with your whitewashing, and breaching of WP:NPOV? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mate, that hasn't happened, hehe. You can't just make these outlandish claims... in any case, setting that snarkiness aside for a moment, can we get back to the issue at hand, which is that Bobby Sands warrants inclusion in this category per the proper sources, the community precedents, and the suggestion on the category page? gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Before a disputed category is re-added there should be a clear, sourced statement in the article that the subject belongs in the category. I don't see where in the article it states that the subject was a Roman Catholic. -Will Beback · † · 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I've provided a source outlining that the whole reason why he became involved in the civil rights and republican movement is because of the Catholic prejudice he and his family felt by the RUC when he was growing up in the north. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute, other than your 3rr violation. It would be nice if you would avoid calling other people disruptive just because they disagree with you. Also avoid reverting their edits with summaries that say "rv silliness," especially if you are violating 3rr with it. It's not the other guy that looks silly in that case. Frise 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I went there and offered a suggestion. I'll look in on it. ThuranX 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input ThuranX. It should also be said that while this is still under discussion, making another revert just an hour after the 24 hour limit isn't particularly helpful.Gah One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm... if you'll look closely, that edit and the accompanying talk page post was an attempt at a compromise. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I looked at that, and I have to say, I like his source more than the previous, but ONLY because the other is so poorly formatted. If there's a revert on his edit, and i'm not saying there SHOULD be, it ought to be accompanied by the 'ref name' editing of the source so as to eliminate text saying 'ibid', which is really a sort of dangling participle or hanging chad of a cite, done like that. That said, is there anyone in the project who can access both sources and compare the citations for accuracy and sugestions? And yes, starting an edit war is bad. I'm not sure he's doing that, but I can see how it might look that way. ThuranX 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Resolved

 – User:Gon4z blocked for 48 hours for WP:NPA violations.--Jersey Devil 22:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(See also This ThuranX 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've had enough: Last week user Gon4Z told me on my talk page:

• "its all crap you stright out deleted everything just because you are an anti Albanian dont mean you ahve to go around spreading propaganda you so called contribution of deeting articles are not wealcomed" Gon4z 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC) * "ok I suggest that unless you have a real contribution you should not edit the article.... tahnk you" (unsigned)
• "you are delusional" Gon4z 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Today he added:

• "it is you who is posting propaganda here for some reason, many you might be a Serb or Greek and have some sort of hatred towards Albanians so your claim of $10 billion is if I may frankly say God dam retarded, you’re not a very good propagandist all other sources state Albania’s economy at least $20 billion" here
• and on my talk page: "Naclardo it is clear that you have no knowledge when it come to the military of Albania ... you have something against the Albanian people so you like to vandalize the articles ... you’re a newbie so I can see you are not very familiar so here is something you can read to help you get familiarized with wikipedia ... No one seemed to have welcomed you. Only picking fights with you you are a newbie, hence be patient and don’t give up eventually you will learn everything you need to be a good editor Gon4z 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)"

First: I've over a thousand edits on the English Wikipedia, the same on the German Wikipedia and more on the Italian, French and Dutch Wikipedia. Only today I contributed all this:

• 1 Alpini Regiment
• 2 Alpini Regiment
• 3 Alpini Regiment
• 4 Alpini Regiment
• 5 Alpini Regiment

(plus: I began another 13 articles in my new projects: Articles about all the Alpini units]]

Second, why is Gon4z insulting me? Because I pointed out that his figure of Albanian GDP of "$35-50 billion" is way out with the World Bank $9.033 Billion and the IMF's number: [[79]] This user has a long history of vandalism, insulting other users and posting greatly inflated numbers when t comes to Albania. All the articles I worked on have also been reverted by him. This matter needs an administrator’s attention now! noclador 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 48 hours for WP:NPA violations.--Jersey Devil 22:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass blankings of a series of articles

• Ned Scott (talk · contribs)
• Juhachi (talk · contribs)

User:Ned Scott and User:Juhachi have been mass blanking articles relevant to Air (visual novel) citing WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE. All episode and character (including the main characters) articles have been blanked and converted into redirects allegedly "merged" into two lists. A lot of the article content is not available in these lists. When reverted by another user they reblanked the pages requiring a discussion even though there had been no discussion to delete/blank fictional-character-article or episode-article in the first place.

This disruption is creating orphaned fair-use images as well as removing article content.

I feel such mass blanking borderlines vandalism if not crosses it.

-- Cat ^chi? 22:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would assume good faith on their parts, but if its true they're doing this without discussion, they should at least allow some input from other Wikipedians before they unilaterally make a decision, regardless of what the guidelines say. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay, look, many of these articles have very little content on them and were stubs since their creation last June. Is it Wikipedia policy to create stub articles and then just leave them there to reflect an effort that died off soon after it was started by Cool Cat himself?--十八 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of our articles are stubs. Consider provinces of Tibet or Iran. Some articles on "countries" have very little info. I withdraw the "vandalism review" warning since the users are trying to talk. I would however welcome anyone to get involved in this discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now for another issue. Cool Cat just called WP:EPISODE an essay instead of a guideline dispite the conclusion reached here.--十八 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any "conclusion" to promote it to a guideline. There seems to be an ongoing discussion. Perhaps it should be called a proposed guideline. -- Cat ^chi? 22:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But then why would it have been changed to a guideline from a proposal over a year ago? In the history, one user says that it was apart of WP:CENT, and though I tried to find the actual discussion, I could only find the sub page Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, which is now a redirect, and has no history. Was the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Television episodes? Might I also add this really old discussion here.--十八 23:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose you are right. I'll leave WP:EPISODE alone. -- Cat ^chi? 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The accusation of vandalism is absurd - the content being removed lacks reliably published secondary sources and the approach taken is recommended by WP:EPISODE, which is currently a guideline. This isn't the appropriate forum to discuss this. Addhoc 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to dispute the secondary source (the official website) or the primary source (episode itself)? I already withdrew my vandalism check thing since parties established on my talk page that they have the same objective as I - increasing article quality. -- Cat ^chi? 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The official website is obviously a primary source and if there isn't any concern about vandalism, then you should continue your discussion with Ned Scott and Juhachi. Addhoc 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am doing just that... -- Cat ^chi? 01:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

DeletedIgnored and archived personal attack complaint

Why was my complaint deleted without reason. [80] Is it now beyond the scope of administrators that editors calls other editors "idiot" and "asshole"? For your benefit, I will repost it here:

Dear Admins, User:Lars T. poses a problem on Hans Filbinger and Talk:Hans Filbinger. He has a very strong POV in the matter but does not make any valid contributions. His edits to the article itself consist of repeated unexplained tagging [81][82]with no answer to requests for his reasoning, posting hidden comments [83], frivolously tagging "autobiography" when the man is in fact dead [84], strange edit summaries [85] [86].

On the talk page he ignored my pleas to explain his tags [87] or replied with snipping, incorrect remarks [88]. - In contrast to another recently arrived editor that tagged the article and eventually heeded my request. Lars, instead of clearly making his point he resorted to a cat-and-mouse game [89][90][91] and recently resorted to personal attacks [92]. I reverted these [93] and posted a warning on his talk page to please desist from such behaviour [94], to which he reacted by this and this. Let me note that I did not actually call him a troll but described his behaviour (as shown above) as "trollish" and used the verb "to troll". How far these can be termed personal attacks has been debate before - I directed them not at his person but his behaviour. In any case, his attacks were much stronger and any wrongdoing on my part would certainly not entitle him to this.)

While there is a substantial discussion between the other editors, who have contrary POVs on the matter, Lars is simply a disruptive force. Please do something. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasnt deleted, it was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive240. All threads without a post in the last 24 hours are taken by bot to the current archive. No one deleted your complaint, but simply nodbody found anything in it to warrent a reply. -M^ask? 22:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to an archive nobody will ever take a look at. I am astounded that supposedly no admin found anything relevant in an editor calling others "asshole" and "idiot". Not I am in need of a reply (and I never asked for a reply) - the one issuing personal attacks needs a reply. Which one I leave to the digression of the admin that takes his office seriously. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an extremly busy page. Assuming your post has grounds (I haven't looked) it may just have been overlooked. Viridae^Talk 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lars T.'s remarks were well over the top. I have left him a warning. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lahs08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Moved from WP:AIV, this seems like a more complex situation than simple vandalism due to the nature of their edits.) Grandmasterka 22:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly replacing the names of Fox's NLCS and ALCS announcers in 2002 and 2003 with the names of Simpsons characters, despite being warned not to. Also has been adding random ungallerizable screencaps to the WGBH article that have no clear theme beyond describing the station's logo history in a non-concise manner, and may have been taken without attribution from another site. Nate 22:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Racist User

• Beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized Taliban article several times by placing false claims or POVs about the Taliban being a "Pashtun movement", there is no such report about this. Taliban was not forcing people to become Pashtuns. Also, the Arabic writings next to Taliban is written in Farsi (Persian ), he/she is removing Persian and replacing it with Pashto, which is false. I already explained this and he/she wants to start revert war. It seems as if he has a personal vengence or grudge against other ethnics (Pashtuns).Execu-tiv 22:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The taliban's name and logo are written in Pashto originally, Persian (more accurately Dari, a persian dialect) was only added because its a major language in Afghanistan. "But it was Pashto that was the language of the Taliban, which during their five-year reign forced the language on much of Afghanistan, changing signs and textbooks throughout the country -- even in the capital Kabul, where Dari has traditionally dominated." [95] and "Kābul was besieged beginning in 1992, first by various mujahideen groups and then by the Pashtun-dominated Taliban, which sought to reestablish Pashtun dominance in the capital." from Encarta. anyway, this is a content dispute and not meant to be on AN/I. Take it up with the user and on the article talk page. -M^ask? 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to be more educated, I'm surprised at how some people still don't know what Taliban were or are after learning about them for the last 6 years. They had nothing to do with ethnicity or language, they killed people from every ethnic, including their own. The current leader of Afghanistan (Hamid Karzai), along with his entire administration, is the same Pashtuns from the same southern areas where the Taliban are from, so why are the Taliban fighting against Karzai's Pashtun government? Pashto language has been the official language of Afghanistan since 1747, when the Pashtuns created their own empire (check Constitution of Afghanistan). There is NOT A SINGLE REPORT OUT THERE OF taliban forcing language on people. That's like trying to believe some idiots who claim america is in Iraq and Afghanistan forcing English language and culture on people. Things like this should not be placed in encyclopedias, it's false and it makes no sense, actually it makes a good laugh. About the Farsi words used, so what if Pashto was there for a long time in the article, it's a God dam mistake and should be corrected. You gave a very lame answer, that is Persian words, not Pashto. Check the tag in the bottom of editing page on Taliban article. It says "fa:farsi",,,,, pashto is like this ------> ps:=pashto. The reason I reported this racist individual is because he has nothing else better to do in life but come everyday look for places to add negativity about Pashtun people, it makes him feel lower to know that Pashtuns are very above them and he cant stand to see that. I just pray that God cleans the hate built inside his heart. writing false information in this encyclopedia is sin, its not made for fun as he and others like him do with this editing stuff. I guess its useless to report anyone because you administrators support those who edit with false information, may be wikipedia is a conspiracy to mislead the world and this is the starting point. I am gonna start using Citizendium from now on.--Execu-tiv 01:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Spammer on an IP

See User talk:166.70.79.252. I just reverted one addition, but I've seen a lot of links being added to this website over the past few months. A minor issue, of course, but it's come to my attention often enough that I wanted to inform those of you with block tools. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heads Up! - user is a shared IP belonging to XMission. --24.136.230.38 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Counter-revolutionary

Could someone deal with the stalking of me by this editor please? I reverted vandalism to the Caitríona Ruane article, and he has re-inserted the vandalism. I don't feel edits that call the subject of an article a "snide, hypoctricial cow" should be re-inserted personally. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is, seems to have made a mistake. Viridae^Talk 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated false accusations of vandalism

AKMask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been making reverts in a content dispute and calling them "vandalism". [96] [97] These are clearly not vandalism (they are adding one image that a number of users feel is justified fair use), but good faith edits that are believed to be supported by policy. I know this isn't a huge deal, but I'd appreciate if someone could explain (I've tried) that these aren't vandalism and that it's not assuming good faith to throw around accusations of vandalism lightly. Or if these truly are vandalism, please let me know, that's not the intention. Thanks. --Minderbinder 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that calling you a "blatant vandal" is certainly incorrect as this isn't vandalism. However, I don't agree that the image is justified fair use. For starters, the resolution is way too large for a fair use image. Secondly, I don't believe that the image itself is being specifically described in the text (as opposed to the storyline surrounding it) which is required to justify using a copyrighted image. Will (aka Wimt) 23:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly admit that the justification is arguable. But that disagreement should take the form of discussion, not clearly false accusations. --Minderbinder 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good faith went out the window when you were removing images on other pages after several reversions during the recent episode list crackdown. You know they aren't allowed, and you're being all pointy at this point. Cease it already. -M^ask? 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you doesn't mean he has bad faith. Bad faith means he is purposefully intending to harm the encyclopedia.

Disagreeing with you is also not vandalism. Labeling his edits as vandalism is an example of bad faith in and of itself.

So while you may possibly be right on the acceptability of the end result, the way you are handling it is clearly not acceptable. Your response above in no way admits any error for your actions. Stop labeling good faith edits as vandalism and your arguments for your actions will become easier to accept. If you are in the right you don't need to be deceptive in edit comments. DreamGuy 00:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:VANDAL, which states that image vandalism is Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in ways that are disruptive. Copyvios seem pretty disruptive to me and many others. So mind reviewing what you claim is not vandalism in your above statement? -M^ask? 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Minderbinder was operating as a vandal, just perhaps he/she was not aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes which made it so images on episode lists is now prohibited.--十八 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

She/he was a participant in that discussion. Check their contribs, at least a dozen to that subpage. -M^ask? 00:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I had this page on my watchlist since I unprotected it a few days ago. I agree that the edits were not vandalism, but they do qualify as edit warring. Minderbinder ran up against his 3rr limit despite being advised by several people, including me, to discuss the issue instead of reverting. I protected the page again, for now, but that is not a long-term solution. CMummert · talk 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If Mindbinder was a participant, then why did he/she try to include the screenshots? That seems like a blatent use of WP:ILIKEIT and goes against the policy that was introduced, which is to remove the screenshots from the episode lists.--十八 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd party admin intervention requested (2)

Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), followup to #3rd party admin intervention requested

I've been working all day fixing up articles related to micronations, merging where necessary, improving if I can, adding maintenance templates, nominating the worst for deletion, and having discussions with several micronation enthusiasts without incident.

Now User:Gene Poole has returned from his 24 hour block and is obviously going through my contribs list; commenting on all my AfDs (some of which have very strong, near-speedy, rationales for deletion, one of which I shall probably withdraw as new sources come to light, others in between, but it's all the same to Gene) and calling them "spurious"; inciting another editor to roll me back; and basically rolling back all my hard work from the day citing "no consensus". I don't need consensus to carry out maintenance work, and I don't need to ask the Emperor before touching micronation articles.

I think he should have been blocked for the duration of the AFD he canvassed about; since he wasn't, would somebody keep an eye on this please? I'm off to bed and would be very disappointed to find he'd wiped out my day's work by the time I get up. --kingboyk 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. In the two hours since his block expired he reverted 12 times across 9 articles and only commented on one talk page. That's Edit warring by any measure even if it is not a technical 3RR violation. As this looks to be an ongoing thing, you two should think about mediation on a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion to decide how to treat the different micronation articles. Thatcher131 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good idea. As I wrote to JzG just now, though, I might just give up on this - let's see how the AfDs go, perhaps. I tried creating a guidelines page and that was tagged as rejected; I'm not sure that trying to clean up this little part of Wikipedia is worth the trouble. I can at least say with some pride that the New Utopia article has benefitted greatly, from this to this, with a pro-micronation editor helping out. It can be done! --kingboyk 00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You can only edit where you feel motivated to do so, but if it ever happens that an editor gains de facto control over a suite of articles it might be that other editors were driven away. You could also consider arbitration as this is apparently a long-standing problem. Thatcher131 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Anynobody fishing for my Real Life identity?

OK, I brought this on myself. But still. I e-mailed a government agency to settle a dispute and got a great response back. Please see Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports#Straight from the source, the CRS weighs in. I first posted it with the gov't employee's contact information included but later removed it. User:Anynobody decided that I had not worded the question correctly and e-mails the employee a follow-up question. A follow-up to my RL-identity question. Please see Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports#I emailed them too. Clearly he is referencing my e-mail. User:Lsi john raised the privacy concern which I had not thought of and I asked Anynobody nicely to take care of it. Please see User talk:Anynobody#My identity. He refused to simply comply with my reasonable request. He gives "reasons" but people make mistakes and all I ask is that Anynobody take a minute to do the right thing for another editor to protect my privacy. Please note that Anynobody has a bit of a fishing history, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS and this diff from User:Jpgordon. Can we please show Anynobody that it would be a Good Thing if he did the Right Thing? --Justanother 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for his identity, and as I said to him on my talk page: Even if I was they couldn't tell me because Privacy Laws preclude her doing so without your authorization. Privacy policy of the us federal government Anynobody 01:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[98] [99] [100] Anynobody 01:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on the diff you provided; that was a fairly complicated situation, and I think he was perfectly to suspect the user (which is why I said as much[101]). To point at that diff as damning evidence of bad faith is, in my opinion, unfair. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Evula, no disrespect, but ignore the diff. This is a very serious matter, regardless of his history. It has been very carefully explained and he is flat refusing to write a simple email to avoid an accidental disclosure. He is saying.. ok if she screws up JA can get her fired. That doesn't do much for his privacy though, does it?

He is not being asked to sacrifice his first born. He is being asked to correct an honest mistake. Lsi john 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That a law exists does not mean that every person knows it or that it won't be broken accidentally. Phony Saint 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about:

(name removed)

Coordinator of Communications Congressional Research Service (phone removed)

(e-mail removed)

The position seems to be one that would be aware of the law. Anynobody 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and now you have been made aware that a mistake could easily be made. You did not explain how you got that email. You did not explain who redacted the information. You are gambling that she wont assume you got it from him. However, by refusing to take appropriate action to ENSURE she won't make a mistake.. for me.. AGF is hard to assume here. You can correct this with a simple email. It costs you nothing. This isnt a matter of law, its a matter of making sure she doesn't make a mistake. The only two reasons I can see for refusing are a) pride and b) hoping to get his name. I am open to other reasons. I just don't see them right now. It's not too late, but it will be after she makes a mistake. Lsi john 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[diff] Lsi john 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In the remote, unlikely, and improbable chance she mentions your name I would never post it on here and would even be his witness in a lawsuit against the government if he wants. (I truly don't care who he is, I don't know how to express my complete and total lack of interest in knowing anything about him or spreading his personal information around.) Anynobody 01:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why not send a simple email, to make sure she doesn't? Why dig in? Why not take 30 seconds and do the right thing? Lsi john 01:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I have faith she knows her job and the law, as I've said. If you and Justanother are this concerned nothing is stopping you from copying the e-mail I posted and sending in a reminder not to divulge any names. Anynobody 01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't as I don't have her email address. JA probably will, but he shouldn't have to. Your first email, was an honest mistake. Your refusal to correct it, is deliberate. Further discussion is irrelevant. Lsi john 01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)