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

Is it just me...

Moving long thread over 50k to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford Round Table. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Future datestamp: 16:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talk • contribs)

Would somebody make sure this thread gets archived properly? Somehow I don't think shunting it off onto it's own subpage is going to allow that to happen. Pairadox (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the thread has died now anyway. That tends to happen when these sort of threads get moved to a subpage. The thread was also naturally coming to an end, so maybe it would have archived automatically after a day, but we will never know now. I know Betacommand has been manually archiving some noticeboards. Maybe he could deal with this subpage? Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And it still sits there, abandoned and forlorn... Pairadox (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Orderinchaos 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the thread as it is over 50k. People who have slower browsers find that this page especially loads up very slow, because of the big threads. D.M.N. (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to do a cut-and-paste archive of the ORT subpage, but I'm not sure which archive to put it into--should it go into the latest archive, or should I try to put it with other stuff that was discussed on Feb 11-12? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've added the thread to the end of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366 and redirected Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford_Round_Table to the archive. I hope I didn't screw anything up... --Akhilleus (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Handling sock puppetry (block review)

• Griot (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Sedlam (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Hi. I've only tangentially become involved with one or two sock puppetry cases in the past and would appreciate assistance from someone more experienced in dealing with them. Revisiting Incivility...Griot above, an editor to whom I'd given feedback on a BLP concern asked my advice on my talk page how to proceed in the case of suspected sock puppetry. He (pardon if I'm using the wrong pronoun) followed up at checkuser and confirmed that User:Sedlam evidently is a sock puppet being used to thwart policy by User:Griot. I know that per policy User:Sedlam is blocked as a matter of course as an inappropriately used alternative account. (Please correct me if I've left the wrong templates.) I'm not sure what's to be done about User:Griot. A warning? A label? He is a long-standing editor who has as far as I know has never had a problem of this sort in the past, although it seems he was blocked on the 31st of January, 2008 for edit warring, I presume on Matt Gonzalez based on this note. My only experiences with Griot prior to this were in relation to the article Cabretta, and though we haven't always agreed he seemed like a constructive contributor. Perhaps some political topics are too emotionally engaging? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If he was using a bad-hand sockpuppet to edit abusively, then both the primary and bad hand account should probably be blocked (based on a review of the edits in question). This is something the checkusers or checkuser clerks typically take care of, have they weighed in? Avruchtalk 00:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than confirming the check-user and the policy thwarting use of the account, no. I'm not sure they're going to. I notice that the matter was completed at 20:50 on February 8, and at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, it says "In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, uyou will have to do this yourself." I'm not sure which cases constitute most. This is as close to check user as I've personally ever come. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And so they did. :) Thanks for weighing in, Avruch. If I ever wind up in this situation again, I'll just wait a day to see if this falls into one of those "action to be taken" or "action not to be taken" situations. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot indef blocked?

Though we punish people who abusively sockpuppet, Griot is a longtime user in generally good standing prior to this incident.

However, the current block levied is indef against his main account.

This appears to be excessive and uncalled for. I agree that his sockpuppetry was abusive, but not indef-blocked abusive. A week, maybe?

Comments sought. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with this assessment. I have no data relevant to this specific situ, but I do have years of positive experience with User:Griot. If indeed Griot is guilty, then he has some serious explaining to do and perhaps penance of some kind. But indef block seems way extreme unless the sockpuppetry is repeated and sustained. BusterD (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no input on the proper length of a block for this situation, obviously, or I wouldn't have brought this here to begin with. :) I did not block the primary account myself because of his history, but as I said above, I have no experience with sock puppetry to speak of. I would like to note that the editor who initially requested the checkuser believes that Griot may have abused other accounts as well, as he indicated in a more recent note at my talkpage (a belief mirrored by the now blocked IP editor above). I don't know on what evidence or if these allegations are correct, but other suspicions seem to have been confirmed by checkuser. Is this the sort of thing that should be investigated prior to making final calls or only if Griot returns and concerns persist? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the editor who requested the checkuser on User:Griot. I have no opinion on any action to take. I would like to add the following, though. User:Griot didn't simply switch back and forth and revert and be done with it. He made a self conscious planned out effort to deceive, and presented not just reverts, but purposively deceptive talk page commentary. For instance, on the talk page, to portray some sort of "compromise" having been reached, he writes "Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:" and then lists himself and his confirmed sock puppet (and one other editor of unknown relationship to this). Then, he logs out as Griot, logs in as User:Sedlam, and writes ":You can add me to this list of compromisers." On the BLP noticeboard , Both Griot and another likely sock User:Feedler, both gave input. As Moonriddengirl mentioned, I have reason to believe the sock puppetry by Griot goes back a ways on Nader-related articles, but wasn;t caught (although the issue seems to have been raised, but the complainant seems to have gotten blocked). Griot seems to have been vigourously edit warring on Nader article for a year or so. Elsewhere, he has confessed to have a serious personal grudge against Nader. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The indef block is abnormal in this situation and unwarranted, in my opinion. Has the blocking admin commented? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, here, where she has indicated a willingness to go along with consensus and suggested this discussion. Personally, I'm wondering if a topical ban would be appropriate in the event that the block is made definite. It seems the sock account was used primarily to thwart consensus building and disguise edit warring on Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. Perhaps this is evidence that the user is too emotionally invested in these articles to contribute to them as he does elsewhere? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Looking at the history of those articles, it looks like there's a lot of editing by drive-by IPs, SPAs, possible socks, etc. We know that one of the editors on the "other side" from Griot is a persistent sockpuppeteer. So my question is, has Griot been editing abusively for a long period (in which case I'd support a topic ban), or did he only turn to sockpuppetry recently after getting frustrated by the editing environment? (Either way, the use of socks is not good, and if he does it again, the block should be much longer...) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I suppose it might be worth asking Boodlesthecat the proceed with investigating his other suspicions to find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Adjust the block to be slightly less than that used against the person who opposed the user via the same tactics. Lambton ^T/_C 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean slightly less than the IP editor recently blocked for 6 months here as a sock of User:Telogen, who was indef blocked here, or are there yet more Nader-fighting socks that I don't know about? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reduced block

The handling of this matter was over the top IMO. As an uninvolved editor/admin, and after reading the above, I have reset the duration to one week (it says 6 days, but note a day had elapsed since the block was enacted). Consensus here should determine whether further reduction or an unblock is warranted. I am particularly surprised at the treatment of the user's user and talk pages, which I have reverted to their pre-9 Feb state, and the ignoring of the blatant incivility of Boodlesthecat by those handling the case. I will be placing a warning on his talk page shortly - ([1] done). Orderinchaos 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My response to the inference of incivility is here.. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Orderinchaos. As a relatively frequent reviewer of sockpuppetry cases at WP:SSP, the standard practice has been to block named abusive socks indefinitely, but to block the master account for a finite period if it appears to have at least some constructive potential. I typically block for 72 hours (see User:Lucy-marie, for example), though others use anything from 24 hours to a week. In any case, the master account (Griot) should definitely be blocked, but for a finite period (72 hours to 1 week). Further confirmed sockpuppetry should result in a lengthy or indefinite block, but an indefinite block for a first offense by a somewhat-constructive account is excessive. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding sock puppetry by Griot

I filed another Checkuser showing the very extended sock puppetry of Griot over here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page

Resolved

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which I don't think is allowed is not allowed on Wikipedia talk pages, so reverted it back to the original conversation. This can be seen here along with my comments on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history This must be considered uncivil behavior. I reverted it back to the original and he did it again. He has done it again, saying (this is my talk page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=190710037<br\> However Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for purposefully misrepresenting fellow editors in a bad light.<br\> WP:Talk_page states that Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.<br\> And I am certain they are also not meant to be used in the way Griot is using his. Can someone please have him either remove all conversations between me and him from his talk page or leave the whole conversation exactly as it originally was? Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I or did I not warn you to stop edit harrassing and warring with him on his talk page?

Anyone who wishes can see the old versions and edit history. Stop bothering him. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Case of "nothing to see here, move along". Seems the guy archived or removed some comments from his talk page. Orderinchaos 09:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Amongst the comments removed are challenges to transparently false statements on his talk page that attempt to portray his history on the articles he has edit warred on for years in an undeservedly favorable light. Which of course is his right. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I told Billy, the history of what people have commented on there on his talk page remains for anyone who cares to dig. Our user talk page policy allows one to remove comments and warnings once they've been read, though a lot of people object to it. Policy remains what it is, though, so Griot is within his perogative, and edit-warring to restore content there is against policy etc. Best for everyone to just drop the situation - everyone knows about the CU results now, that's not going away, if he wants to clean up the talk page and protect some personal dignity then leave him alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently BillyTFried considers what has been left on Griot's Talk page is a personal attack on him. Perhaps the personal attack should be archived the same way Griot archived the other material. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do consider it an incivil personal attack and attempted defamation of character. And its beyond me why nobody is doing anything about it. Not even just telling him to either delete all my comments or leave them the way they truly happened. Seriously, I was warned and even blocked for a couple hours once for calling him "hysterically paranoid" on my OWN Talk Page. How is this any different? Is Griot somehow immune? BillyTFried (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya know, would it be ok if somebody posted a setnence on my talk page that said...<br\>

• Hey Bill I wanted you to know that I plan to kill the whole trivia section of that article that you wrote.

And I changed that user's comment to say...

• Hey Bill I wanted you to know... that I plan to kill... you.

Would that be ok with you guys? Hey, it's all in the "history" right? BillyTFried (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper Article<br\> I just wanted you to know that the reason Griot did this and that I am so VERY upset about his purposeful misrepresentation of me which you have done nothing about is because there is a Newspaper article about Wikipedia hitting the presses tomorrow morning here in San Francisco and Griot (who is currently banned for abuse) and his abuses and sock puppetry are the main focus of the article and this will surely bring traffic to his page which shows me in an unfair light thanks to him editing out our entire conversation and making it look like it happened in a way that it actually DID NOT. (he actually deleted 90% of his talk page except for the few items left he wants highlighted [inaccurately]) My Wikipedia user name (WHICH IS MY REAL NAME THAT MY HOME ADDRESS CAN BE GOOGLED FROM) is also briefly mentioned in the article referencing that event. Griot is of course an anonymous name. I find it completely unprofessional for his misrepresentation of our conversation to be left intact when it clearly violates Wikipedia's rules on what Talk pages are for and breaks incivility rules. I am asking one more time that you please address this issue before tomorrow when many people that live here in San Francisco will be reading this article, logging on to Wikipedia and then reading an unfairly edited chop up of a conversation I had with Griot that was chopped intentionally to make me look as bad as possibly... as if I was actually threatening him with GUN VIOLENCE, which was not what I was doing AT ALL, and that was ruled to be THE TRUTH by the admins after he REPORTED ME. I was NOT banned by the admins, though Griot said I was on his talk page, and when I removed that 100% lie, he didn't fight back. But his purposely editing out of the rest of the convo to make it APPEAR to be a violent threat with a gun will go over REAL WELL in San Francisco. At the very least please review exactly what has gone on here and ask yourself if what he has done is appropriate and that your allowing it is the right thing to do. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, based on that outburst, interested readers coming here and seeing that are NOT going to be coming to the conclusion about you that you think they're going to come to. --Calton | Talk 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of responding earlier, but you've captured my thinking rather well. Orderinchaos 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And just exactly what conclusion do you think "interested readers" will come to about you from your constant unrelenting defense of a confirmed sock puppeteer? BillyTFried (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the section below, it would seem that there's a case here of the pot calling the kettle black. Orderinchaos 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. At least I'm on the side of honesty rather than the side of deceit or tolerance of deceit, which is exactly what will eventually cause the downfall of Wikipedia. And everyone knows it. BillyTFried (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

At least I'm on the side of honesty rather than the side of deceit or tolerance of deceit - hence your whole-hearted embrace of a long-banned, anger-management-impaired, and self-promoting sockpuppeteer who got her sister to practice a little yellow journalism on the side? Hence your abusive outburst above complaining about abuse? Strange new meaning of the word "honesty" of which I was previously unaware. --Calton | Talk 14:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My whole-hearted embrace of who??? I have no idea what you're talking about and if you want to hold on to what little credibility you have left, I suggest you refrain from making any more false accusations with absolutely no evidence to back them up. Let's get the facts straight here. I have never supported or embraced a sock puppeteer on Wikipedia and never will. I think it's an extremely shameful behavior that I would never want to be associated with. You however very obviously have and continue to do so. You are clearly guilty as charged and so instead of hopelessly trying to refute that charge you instead go on the offensive and falsely accuse me of doing the very thing that everyone is witnessing you doing. That's pretty ridiculous. Is defending confirmed sock puppeteer Griot really worth eroding your own credibility like this? And since you're struggling with the word honesty, here's a hint for you... Leaving people's talk page comments as they originally were posted = HONEST... Removing all but one paragraph to make them appear to have happened in a manner which they did not = DISHONEST. BillyTFried (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, based on that outburst, interested readers coming here and seeing that are NOT going to be coming to the conclusion about you that you think they're going to come to, however well a reporter tried to paint you. Hint: when in a hole, it's best to stop digging. --Calton | Talk 20:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton, I just stumbled in, but I didn't see anything abusive that Billy said. He seems to be in honest anguish about something, and he made some complaints, but he was not abusive. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not much for originality eh? Nothing on my end needs painting. But I believe making false accusations and openly defending a confirmed sock puppet would indicate it is you who is holding the shovel and is in way over his head. BillyTFried (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But I believe making false accusations and openly defending a confirmed sock puppet "Mr. Pot? It's Mr. Kettle on Line 3. He says you're black." The "in way over his head" part is just a bonus bit of irony.

You can put down that shovel any time now, you know. And I didn't realize that originality was a criteria in giving sound advice. Should I move the words around a bit for you, translate it into hieroglyphics, recast it into blank verse? There's no real value in rewriting a message you don't want to pay attention to in the first place. --Calton | Talk 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton, your tired and insulting guilt by association attacks on other editors are getting to be a monstrous snore, and transparently disingenous. It was you who dragged me into this muck with a false and malicious insinuation of sock puppetry on my part, for which you not only never apologized, but instead leveled a steady torrent of abuse my way. On top of which, you never acknowledge your own complicity with the proven sock puppeteer and tabloid pheenom GRIOT. Why not just knock it off already and quit making a spectacle of yourself? Some of us are simply interested in working on articles on achieving a bit of balance on Wikipedia, and really could care less for the silly dramas we get sucked into (e.g., by my having to waste time filing the successful sock puppetry notice against GRIOT while you were busy filing a bogus one against me--not to late to apologize!). Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton, your pot/kettle comment is suggesting that I am the one who has made a false accusations and defended a sock puppeteer. What false accusation have I made? What sock puppeteer have I defended?<br\>

• You have aligned yourself with and defended a confirmed and presently banned sock puppeteer, Griot - True or False?
• You have accused me of "wholeheartedly embracing a long-banned, anger-management-impaired, and self-promoting sock puppeteer" but never named the user or gave any proof of such. What is the name of this user and where is the diff showing me "embracing" or even being involved in a discussion with or about this this person? If what you have accused me of really never happened at all, is that not in fact a false accusation?
• What is your purpose posting in this ANI discussion I started? To purport that Griot altering my comments on his talk page to make the conversation appear differently than it really occurred is NOT incivil? Or is there something else you are trying to accomplish?

--BillyTFried (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the second question is self-evident - this checkuser contains the relevant information. Orderinchaos 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean the FACT that I have NEVER posted a single word ANYWHERE on Wikipedia in ANY discussion with or about that user is self evident?? Let alone wholeheartedly embraced him or her?? You must be part of the Griot/Calton alliance to be bold enough to try and back up Calton's very obviously false accusation. So tell me, are there more troops on the way? BillyTFried (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know either editor. I've seen Calton's work on image copyrights a year or so ago and had seen the odd comment here, but I've never interacted with him. The first I'd heard of this mess was on here a few days ago, as I regularly read AN/I. Please don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of conspiracy - it makes you look faintly absurd. Orderinchaos 16:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

First you make the false accusation about me that it was "self-evident" that I was somehow affiliated with the banned user Telegon, and I pointed out that you were flat out wrong and that I have never been involved in a discussion with or about that person EVER. Then you claim neutrality yourself despite being the one who reduced Griot's ban and posting on his talk page in the section titled "Looks like you've been set up" to which you replied, "Agreed" [2] as if to say you believe he was framed and is somehow innocent despite being a CONFIRMED sock puppeteer. Then you violate WP:CIVIL and WP:PA by calling me absurd. I believe a review of your involvement in this whole situation is absolutely in order. BillyTFried (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS NOW RESOLVED. All offending info has been removed on both sides

Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Now Kurykh is vandalizing my talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BillyTFried&diff=191960070&oldid=191076649 Is an admin going to anything about this or what? Griot is allowed to purposefully misrepresent a conversation with me on his own talk page which I am not allowed to revert back to the original but Kurykh feels it's ok for him to make massive changes to my talk page? This situation is getting more ridiculous by the minute. BillyTFried (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your obsession with Griot is ever the more ridiculous. While I don't know anything about the dispute, and I do not necessarily condone Griot's actions, your posting of gloating and harassing material on your user talk page is beneath contempt and a brazen violation of our policies. And before you make further frivolous accusations, please read up on what vandalism is before further commenting. Making false allegations only debases your own case. —Kurykh 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot removed EVERYTHING on his talk page but the ANI, Mary Spicuzza stuff, and a SINGLE PARAGRAGH taken out of context from conversation I had with him that he deleted all but one comment to make them appear in a way they did not. SO, I did roughly the same thing but included the ENTIRE CONVERSATION. And when I was warned not to revert his page back to the original I made this complain in this ANI and now you have stepped in not revert MY TALK PAGE AND NOT HIS?!?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyTFried BillyTFried (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tu quoque, or lack of, is not a valid excuse. Just because I did not check up on him does not excuse your behavior, or rather, lack of it. —Kurykh 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But if his misrepresenting me on his talk page is apparently NOT a violation of any Wikipedia rules then how is my displaying the original conversation as it happened breaking any? BillyTFried (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about Griot's pages, did I? —Kurykh 01:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed what seems to be the offensive section on Griot's talk page. —Kurykh 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:BillyTFried protected

I've protected BillyTFried's talk page for 48 hours in light of the edit warring and problematic content. If anybody wishes to delete the content or unprotect the page however, please feel free. Nick (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Edit warring" by undoing vandalism of my own talk page??? You guys have go to be kidding me. Report a user for misrepresenting you on his talk page, then get warned for trying to revert his back to the original true version, then type up the convo on your own talk page for anyone to see the convo as to REALY happened, then complain to admins on ANI, theh get told its his talk page and he can do what he wants (its all in the history) then get ganged up on by Griots affiliates, then get you own talk page locked for the same thing you have accused Griot of when you merely are showing the convo the way oft really happened. If this is not a joke I don't know what is. BillyTFried (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This situation is now resolved

All offending material from both pages has been removed. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article in San Francisco Weekly

here is the San Francisco Weekly article that BillyTFried refers to above. I don't think I would be exaggerating too much if I said that it attempts to out an anonymous Wikipedia editor, contains numerous insults that would, if they appeared on Wikipedia, be a violation of WP:NPA, and is by the sister of a banned sockpuppeteer (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen) to boot. According to a previous thread on this board, the reporter (User:Marynega) was in contact with Wikipedia PR and a number of Wikipedians; I trust that nobody knew what the content of the article was going to be, but it's still a bit distressing that this piece got produced with the help of Foundation members. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Crude hatchet-job. I'm surprised she got it past her editors. I've already dashed off a quick Letter to the Editor pointing out a conflict of interest or two that the reporter neglected to mention, including quoting a banned sockpuppet of her own sister without mentioning that fact: seems a wee lapse of journalistic ethics, there. --Calton | Talk 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it this paragraph that makes you feel that way?

“ That's when Jeanne, who is also a writer, told me of a debate over the entry about her in Wikipedia — and of one particular user, Griot, who seemed to be on a no-holds-barred campaign to delete her page after he blamed her for making dubious edits to Ralph Nader's page (which she denies). One Griot note on the talk page of a user called Calton, dated Aug. 27, 2007, reads, "Is there anything we can do about Jean [sic]? It's tiresome. Maybe we should give her back her personal page on Wikpedia so she isn't so lonely." He also accused her of creating several online identities to make a flurry of changes to the Nader entries. "Spicuzza is on the warpath again," Griot wrote to Calton, and made a snarky offer to Calton about my sister: "If you ever need help fending off this multiple personality disorder, don't hesitate to ask." ”

Is what the reporter said about you a lie? What she said about me is certainly hard to believe... ;-)

“ Fried actually struck me as a well-meaning and earnest editor — one of the few willing to use his real name (and even agreeing to meet in person) to talk about his devotion to Wikipedia. ”

BillyTFried (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the ENTIRE article is a crude hatchet-job, an attempt at character assassination by a reporter on behalf of her sister, misusing the resources and name of a bonafide media outlet. And the lie would be, as I've already pointed out, using a sockpuppet of her own sister as a source, without mentioning either fact, and implying the sockpuppet was blocked because it was about to Reveal the Truth About The Evil Griot when it was actually blocked for -- wait for it -- being a sockpuppet of her own sister. And you're PROUD of her? --Calton | Talk 16:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When did I ever say I was proud of her Calton? For the record, I am not pleased with the article myself. Besides a free lunch and a small compliment about me in it all I got out of this was being connected with firearms by my real name in a San Francisco newspaper for all to see, including prospective friends, dates, and employers. Exactly what I DIDN'T want to happen. And did you notice in her blurb about me she says I spoke of my devotion to Wikipedia? Well I did. An hour and a half's worth and she didn't print a word of it. And all my co-workers who I had told about my big Wikipedia/SFweekly interview had a ball calling me a Wikipidiot the rest of the week. BillyTFried (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow this is one of the most creepy cases of ciber and real stalking that I have seen, what is keeping us from indef blocking the user trying to "out" another user's annonimity? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the account will be used ever again. BillyTFried (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

She did post this awkward message today [3] so how can't we guarantee that she won't continue stalking? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the question in my mind is whether we should block BillyTFried for harassment. He's been edit warring at User talk:Griot--[4] [5] are recent diffs; he continues to post to this thread when it would be much better for him to lay off; his user talk page is essentially an attack page against Griot; and there's this super-creepy thread on User talk:Marynega (that's the journalist who wrote the hit piece in SF Weekly) that I've having a difficult time interpreting as anything other than a "joking" threat of violence. I don't see why we should allow this behavior. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a novel idea. Blame the victim. I've never heard of that before. Are you part of the Griot/Calton alliance as well?. Anyone that wants the whole story can just go to Griot's talk page history for the truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history Also, I like how you refer my REVERTS back to the original conversation as it happened months ago as "Recent Diffs" and try to make them seem as if they were new and were justification for blocking me. Jeez! My "attack" of a user page is simply the original unedited conversation as it original occurred months ago that I am asking be restore. The closest thing to harassment I've done is probably my response to his "Letter to the editor" this morning, defending his actions and blaming the article's author for his being banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=190675197&oldid=190673998 BillyTFried (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of people have been victimized in one way or another in this series of events. Please stand in line over there to join the crowd... Although at least my appearance in the article was fairly positive.

I think a lot of people think that your response to that, and your interactions with Griot, have gone beyond the bounds of civil discourse and Wikipedia policy into counter-harrassment. And our policy is that two wrongs equals two warned users, or two blocks. If you break policy or abuse people here in response to legitimate or perceived baiting or abuse by them, you're still breaking policy and will still be held accountable.

Please tone it down some. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And as for Calton's behavior you have what to say? BillyTFried (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the constant, unending escalation of tit-for-tat in this AN/I report alone, much less all the links around it, can we just block Calton AND BillyTFried for a while? Griot is already blocked, or I'd list him too. This is ridiculous. ThuranX (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ridiculous is the right term, all right -- though not in the way you think it is, or for that matter, about what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Block me for what offense? Reporting in this ANI Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page and then weathering the onslaught of attacks and false accusations from those defending the confirmed and banned sock puppeteer while the admins stand by and do NOTHING about Griot's or Calton's abuses? BillyTFried (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably your near constant violations of WP:NPA in this venue. Orderinchaos 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is YOU who has violated WP:PA by calling me absurd in your comments above. I however have made no such personal attacks or false accusations as you have by accusing me of being affiliated with banned user Telegon whom I have never had ANY involvement in any talk page or article on Wikipedia EVER. BillyTFried (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read what I actually said and what it was in context to, you'll find it was quite different. I said your actions were making you look absurd - I did not call you absurd. I did not say you were affiliated with a user, I merely highlighted the irony of you attacking someone for sockpuppetry using comments by a proven sockpuppeteer to back up your argument. I think you need to become a lot less aggressive and a lot more introspective. Orderinchaos 12:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Article in San Francisco Weekly (II)

But seriously, folks, it was just a fine article. Very interesting and informative. Nicely edited, too. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And a very creative way to post libelous material in name of a banned user... - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So, George, you've forgotten that if you want to pull off the disinterested innocent bystander act, it helps if you say something even remotely believable, otherwise you blow the gaff. So, are you another of Jeannie Marie's relatives here to do her dirty work for her now that her dozen or so sockpuppets have been blocked? --Calton | Talk 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am a relative, but anything is possible because we both live in California. Does she have red hair and blue eyes? I do. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusing a fellow editor of trying to pull off an act of some sort doesn't seem very civil to me. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim or is it just another in your ever growing pile of false accusations dished out to anyone who does not agree with you? BillyTFried (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a person whose sister is a checkuser-confirmed sock, and her mates accusing Griot of sockpuppetry. It's beginning to look to me like a well-planned, long-running case of harassment on and off wiki, and when someone fights back inappropriately, an attempt to hang them for it. To GeorgeLouis's defence I would note he has been a continuous and fairly hard working editor for almost as long as I have been, although I am genuinely curious as to his role/involvement in the situation. Orderinchaos 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor point: Griot is guilty of [sockpuppetry. Pardon this no doubt novel insertion of a fact into this discussion. On a side note, is anybody on this board in an admin position ever going to say something to Calton about the endless number of accusations, including false ones, and mean spirited diatribes he levels against other editors? Does he have incriminating tapes of you all, like J Edgar Hoover? Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not a matter of ACCUSING Griot of sock puppetry because he has been CONFIRMED to have been doing it fervently for a long time. That seems to be a meaningless footnote to you. Do you feel he was innocent and was unjustly banned? Obviously he does! And nobody involved in this discussion is my "mate". Again another false accusation from you. I have not had any correspondence with anyone here prior to this event, unlike you and Griot, Calton. BillyTFried (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

continual lack of good faith and WP:OWN displayed by one editor

I wish to report the behaviour of user User:Mathsci who continually has tried to discourage me from contributing and editing articles on French localities in a significant display of WP:OWN and particularly WP:OWN#EVENTS. This first started with accusations of being lazy and unconstructive [6] and being disruptive and having no "special knowledge of French or France" [7] and [8] then reverted a legitimate edit of mine [9] which I believe this was solely done as I did that edit. This developed into a personal attack as shown in the edit summary of [10] and still displaying WP:OWN in [11]. And then accused me of "not aiding the WP project" today at [12] At no point has this editor assumed good faith about my edits. I have tried to reason and warn about lacking good faith on numerous occasions to no avail [13], [14], and given warnings [15], [16]. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have hardly edited recently [17] because I am busy giving a graduate course/preparing a book. I did buy an 800 page book on the history of Marseille (in French) on a recent brief trip back to France: I have used this a little to check historical details mentioned by other editors on the page of Marseille and have suggested using it as the source for a detailed article on the chronology of Marseille (a similar article already exists on the French WP). Michellecrisp appears to have followed me to Aix-en-Provence. I own neither of these pages but have them on my watchlist. Much local information (eg detailed local history) on both these places is only available in French. If dates are added which contradict the chronology in an authoritative and encyclopedic history they will be corrected using the reliable source. Michellecrisp seems to have gone on a tagging spree on information added mostly by other editors long ago and has not tried to source the information on her own (such as population estimates from INSEE). Often sourcing information is not hard to do with a knowledge of French: the official information is often only available in French. I have no idea why she has brought this to WP:AN/I. Her choice of the word "continual" is odd considering my recent wikibreak. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My original comments stand. I am not questioning Mathsci's knowledge of French topics. but the violation of principles of assuming good faith and clear WP:OWN (I have given seven examples above of this which has occured over the past month) which has regrettably developed to personal attacks. It is against Wikipedia principles to discredit or put down other editors for lacking knowledge. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your content dispute does not represent what happened on the actual pages, where you added faulty information (mistaking a TGV station for an SNCF station, quizzing the climate of Aix, dismissing the ancient monuments of Marseille, getting dates wrong). I have no idea why, without adding any significant content to either of these pages but merely tagging indiscriminately, you have seen fit to bring your grievances to WP:AN/I. You have not made any very clear arguments on the talk pages and most of your taggings that I have had time to look at are easy to justify. They mostly concern long standing additions by other editors. If you tag without discussion and add faulty information, is it not to be expected that somebody with access to detailed information will check the information and add sources? That does not constitute ownership of an article: it merely means that sources are being provided. Data from dubious websites that contradict acknowledged encyclopedic history books will be corrected in this process. This "dispute", of your own making, should never have been brought here. Your tagging was provocative: you seem now to be objecting when proper sources have been added to justify material of long standing by other editors. That seems unreasonable on your part. It seem odd that you have been tagging with no intention of checking the information for yourself, which cannot be so hard, even in Australia. I think you have misrepresented the recent editing history: you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Mathsci (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute but an issue of user behaviour. My issues is here are your comments that you have directed to me that violate assume good faith and WP:OWN#EVENTS. ownership of article includes trying to discourage others from editing not necessarily "owning" in the literal sense. Please let this be reviewed by an administrator.Adding faulty information such as the SNCF edit was done in good faith. I have never deliberately added faulty information. Feel free to check the history of Marseille or Aix-en-Provence where I have found some references and tried to improve wording. I have brought this grievance here because after repeated warning you fail to assume good faith and have developed into personal attacks, and a deliberate campaign to dissuade me from editing articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"a deliberate campaign to dissuade me from editing articles"? On the contrary you have chosen a very public place to misrepresent my WP edits. Bonne nuit. Mathsci (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very clearly a content dispute. Please take follow the policy Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in resolving this issue. Your dispute does not belong here. If necessary, please request mediation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify how this is a content dispute? I am reporting the issue of user behaviour, specifically WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS as evidenced in my diffs in the original post. This is not related to specific content. I am not disputing the content of any article mentioned, I am disputing the validity of editors asking other editors not to contribute to certain articles. One of the things Mathsci is questioning is my right to tag articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed "content". You still need to work through dispute resolution to get this taken care of. That's what it's for. So far, I don't see anything that specifically needs an administrator to do anything. Any user can warn another for violating policy or guidelines. You are having a dispute with Mathsci, and the steps on WP:DR are there to help you work through the dispute. Please take advantage of that information and the steps found there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have said that I am on a wikibreak because I am otherwise occupied in real life. Michellecrisp is needlessly wikilawyering here because I have added "of note" after the word "fountains" in Aix-en-Provence to describe two particular fountains, picked out in the cited Guide Michelin for Provence. From her contributions here and on my talk page, she is simply trolling to make a highly ill-conceived point that appears at the bottom her user page. She is being highly disruptive. The presence of this inappropriate report suggests that she is set on harrassing me and does not properly understand how WP works. I unfortunately have no time at present to engage in interactions with Michellecrisp unrelated to actual content in WP articles. Thank goodness she has stayed away from mathematics articles. :) Mathsci (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Michellecrisp has added fresh citation tags to Marseille. She has inspired me to prepare a WP article on Pierre Corneille's play Médée when I return to France. Can someone please award her a barnstar? Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone note the continual lack of good faith displayed by Mathsci towards me and less than subtle personal criticism in their above comments? Could an administrator please read my original post? I have attempted to warn the user in question of potential WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS violations and only came here because the user persisted with this behaviour to this point with no cessation as shown in the rather rude edit summary here [18]. I have made several warnings which I stepped up to higher levels (the next level being reporting here) but this behaviour towards me continued (as shown in the seven comments I have provided in diffs above). I would like to continue editing or tagging article I see fit without being rudely discouraged each time I edit an article. With the exception of Masalai I have never experienced this in the 20 months I've been on Wikipedia. An example as shown in my original post was Mathsci reverting one of my edits simply because it was me, I changed some text to conform to policy WP:LAYOUT and removed non-relevant links . [19] is not a content conflict but one based on one editor disliking me editing French geography articles. Where is the evidence of my disruptive behaviour? Tagging is not disruptive but as per WP:CITE and WP:PROVEIT Michellecrisp (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no revert war. One revert of your edits does not warrant the needless and inappropriate drama you have been creating here. You are behaving out of all proportion, apparently because you have been upset when some of your errors have been corrected. Please desist. Normally people with some knowledge of France or the French language edit pages related to France (the pages on Aix-en-Provence and Marseille are not "geography articles" as you quite wrongly suggest). When this is not the case, such errors are to be expected and should not be taken personally. Now you seem intent on exacting some form of revenge, quite outside wikipedia rules. Why not make yourself a nice cup of tea instead? Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a revert war, therefore not a content dispute. The above comments still reflect a lack of good faith and WP:OWN#EVENTS as displayed continously despite my repeated warning. This continues with Mathsci's recent revert of my comment[20]. I might have said geography but perhaps more broadly cities and towns fall under a category of geography and places. My original complaint stands as a violation of WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS. Comment on content not editors as they say. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Michellecrisp, please, please, please, take some time to learn about WP. I can remove any comment on my own talk page if I wish. Your complaint is absurd and, as an administrator has already said, whatever your grievances, no administrator can help you. One remedy is to get a detailed book on the history/recent history of Marseille or Aix-en-Provence, read and digest the contents and then transfer that information to the English wikipedia. If the only books are in French, polish up your French. Become an "expert" on the topic. You are wasting time, space and energy here. Go and have that nice cup of tea now, it's starting to get cold :) Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW you risk being blocked if you continue publicly harrassing me here. You have read but ignored that I am on a wikibreak. You are starting to be extremely disruptive. If I am not editing/reverting how can you continue to make these very unreasonable claims about wikiownership? Please stop now. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not harassment, I am reporting your behaviour of accusations of being lazy and unconstructive [21] and being disruptive and having no "special knowledge of French or France" [22] and [23] then reverted a legitimate edit of mine [24] which I believe this was solely done as I did that edit. This developed into a personal attack as shown in the edit summary of [25] and still displaying WP:OWN in [26]. And then accused me of "not aiding the WP project" at [27] At no point has this editor assumed good faith about my edits. I have tried to reason and warn about lacking good faith on numerous occasions to no avail [28], [29]. Become an "expert" on the topic. is classical WP:OWN#EVENTS. Please provide diffs of harassment to back your claim. I have provided diffs of violation of WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS Michellecrisp (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

An administrator has intervened to tell you that you are mistaken and yet you persist. This might suggest that you have some kind of personal problem. Kindly address this problem in private and stop using this page as a WP:FORUM. Since I am not editing mainspace or talk pages at the moment (that is what "wikibreak" means), your behaviour here constitutes harrassment. You raised your points three days ago and nobody has agreed with you. What exactly do you expect to happen? If you have difficulty understanding these issues, please seek help privately elsewhere. Your comments on my advice "Become an expert on the topic" seem quite unintelligent. You should probably also remove this inflammatory comment on your user page:

One thing I don't like is when editors display WP:OWN. No one owns articles on Wikipedia and no one can dissuade other legitimate editors from contributing. There is no hierarchy for more "experienced" or "qualified" editors.

It suggests that you are looking for "test cases" in your own faulty misreading of WP policies. You are acting as a vigilante and that is quite a serious offense. It suggests that you are set on disrupting the project to satisfy your own personal agenda. Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect (and noting full well I used to do the same in 2006 when I didn't know any better) administrators are merely users with extra rights and there's about 1,500 of us, so citing one of us is not going to mean much. However, you're of course welcome to cite *me*, as I like feeling important. :P Orderinchaos 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you: I am quite aware of this. The editor User:Michellecrisp seems to be wikilawyering. In the two articles under discussion, she has not added any actual content and seems intent on creating some kind of dispute. As I have already said, I am too busy at the moment in real life to edit the wikipedia, except en passant. Mathsci (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

with regard to your claims to harassment, unless you can provide diffs (which you have failed to) then it's WP:KETTLE. Secondly, an admin made a comment, but haven't you noticed that generally a resolved icon is shown to close off the incident report. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are a particularly persistent individual who has made a faulty accusation that you are incapable of supporting. Since there has been only one reversion so far, your behaviour here seems to be highly irrational. Please nurse your bruised ego elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, without making any attempt to analyse your mental processes, the fact that you have posted this non-existent "incident" is a proof of harassment. You have given no evidence of repeated reverts (because there have been none) or any other abnormal behaviour. You merely seem to be inordinately displeased and now seem intent on extracting your revenge. Is there something I might be missing? I am all ears, Michelle. Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[30] ;)Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning any reverts except one. "Incapable of supporting" my claim? My complaint centres around your seven comments to me displaying WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS that's in my original post. It's that simple. It's plan to see that you have assumed bad faith about me all along.Michellecrisp (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Mathsci claims above that "the two articles under discussion (Marseille and Aix-en-Provence, she has not added any actual content". Well I've added a few references to strengthen the articles, [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] how is that not helping? This is again another example of bad faith of MathSci. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

11,000 images tagged NFUR in one day

Note: this issue is now at Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 cMickMacNee (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And 6,000 yesterday [[37]]. All to be modified in 7 days or face deletion. How can that possibly be squared with with betacommandbot's stated desire of not wanting to delete images? I have had 7 tags appear in my watchlist today, and looking at comments on the bot talk page from another user with 7 and an 11, that seems about average, with one admin getting an unholy 65 direct talk page tags over the 2 days. I, like other well meaning editors who have not uploaded these images do have a willingness to investigate, fix and educate where necessary, but are simply put off by the sheer number of tags in a short space of time, with no tags applied for the preceeding 5 days. The intransigence/absence of betacommand on the bot talk page is also frustrating many. I have also seen the speedy deletion of images purely on the say so of uploaders getting fed up with the bot and just jacking it in. The majority of uploaders just seem baffled/confused/annoyed, with none really making any headway faced with tag explosions like this. Many image tags wont even be seen by the uploader in 7 days. Something seriously needs to be done about the way this bot is operated/scheduled. MickMacNee (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that I am not the only one angered by this. I find it incredibly disruptive and destructive to Wiki. While I understand that the policy is clearly written, the policy was recently changed, but in most of these cases, the image does qualify as fair use, but it simply needs to mention the specific article its already used in. Why can the bot just do this automatically? Some of the users it is notifying aren't even active anymore to change the image. --Veritas (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This policy has been effect since mid 2006. and bots cannot write valid rationales. β^_command 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this. While tagging images is necessary, tagging them at this rate overwhelms the ability of Wikipedians to deal with fixing fair use criteria, the ability of admins to delete the images without a script, and the ability of people to review that the bot did tag the image properly. Please slow down the bot to reasonable levels. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Even still, why does a bot even need to do this? We're sacrificing reason for efficiency at a destructive and brutal pace. If it is not possible for a bot to operate in a constructive manner it should be shut down. It is clearly not capable of fixing problems, but only pointing them out and often to users who are no longer active and unable to do anything about it. Thus, what happens? Images are deleted and we will wait a year or so until someone else comes along to add new images. A ridiculous waste of editor time thus indicating that the bot really isn't all that efficient in the long-term. --Veritas (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree we need a bot to tag these to conform to policy. But given that we have 40+ days, I'd urger that we work on this current backlog past the 7 day limit. Its worked before and can work again. Also, a schedule of when runs would occur, would be most helpful. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of the intransigence. Just completely brushes aside any criticism. Not everyone has been here since mid 2006, especially many new uploaders, and many images pre-date 2006. This bot has got to be one of the most divisive things I've seen on WP, and yet, no direction is given to a precise summary as to consensus for this bot's usage. This is not about the policy, this is about the effectiveness of the bot to apply it. I have seen nowhere in the myriad of talk pages about this, any actual analysis of whether the bot statistically meets it's stated aim of not seeing an end result of deleted images, rather than being just a very fast and efficient deleter of content, valid or not. Denying that the bot plays any role in the admittedly final human decision to delete is just outrageous, especially given the timescale, numbers, and the reactions to it's tags from users of all experience levels. MickMacNee (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that BC is being intransigent, but that the use of this bot must be monitored and restricted due to its damaging side-effects that tags images faster than other, active, editors can step in to fix the backlog of destruction it leaves behind. BC seems to have a tendency to closely stick to policy. That's the safe route and there's nothing wrong with it save the fact that it doesn't always account for the human element of Wikipedia. --Veritas (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Veritas, when ever BCBot makes a run that day's limit is normally extended. since we are getting closer I thought Id identify as many as possible so they could have time to fix them prior to the deadline. β^_command 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure of the technical aspects of how the bot works, but I know that I haven't had any complaints about it until the past couple days so I'm not sure if something has changed recently. It is troubling though since I do feel that the bot's actions are negating is usefulness. Perhaps we can extend these 7 day deadlines until the back-log is cleaned up? --Veritas (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, why is this convo going on at AN as well as AN/I? --Veritas (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That convo looks like a general gripe, I am raising issue with the incident of NFUR tagging 15,000 images in 1/2 days, and the multitude of issues that comes from that. MickMacNee (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3)That is reasonable to ID them now so there is a greater opportunity of the uploader seeing and fixing them. Would it be possible to extend the delete date in the tag to say 14 or 21 days to reduce the incidence of uninvolved Admin X wandering across the image, not knowing about the extension on the Cat page, and deleting it? MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue has come up several times. Part of the problem is that instead of tagging a few hundred images each day, the bot runs on this task only once in a while but tags many thousands of images instead. There is no need to extend the deadline, really, this will create a huge backlog when it comes time to delete these things anyway, so the deadline will effectively slip. It would be nice, though, if this task was run more frequently but at a lower rate. Mangojuice^talk 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What use is that if the tag says 7 days, and people just chuck it in because they haven't a clue what to do? There is no information anywhere about this deadline we are getting close to. Of the 7 images I have seen marked, 2 required a 10 second mod, most had specific tags that can direct to organised interest groups such as applying dvd cover templates, and none actually deserve deletion. Some even date from Nov/Dec 2005, so why are you rushing this through now? Why has there been no attention earlier by people who know what needs to be done to satisfy this bot? MickMacNee (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The copyright tags on the images clearly state what is required of the uploader to fulfill policy. There are also a few hundred active admins and a help desk for anyone confused to contact about what to do. I really don't see how this is something the bot can be faulted for. Lara❤Love 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree and disagree at the same time. Ideally, that is how it should work, but clearly not how it works in practice. I am tending to favor Mango's suggestion here that the bot run the task more often. This would create a far more agreeable tagging to editor-intervention ratio that is actually maintainable. --Veritas (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am planning more runs, I had a massive run about a month ago. this cleared what I missed last time and future runs should not be as bad, Im hoping to run this ~2 times a week. β^_command 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That fits from the admin who said it wasnt her job to explain the procedures on the project page she patrolled, necessitating edits of the instructions by the user themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What project? Lara❤Love 05:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing at all wrong with this. I just cleaned up one myself, and i'm lousy at writing these things. Luckily, it's pretty much boilerplate, and if you can remember most of it, then you're fine, and if you can Cut n paste to fit the use of a given image, then it's easier. there's a bit of mix and match, running down your entire notification list with one clipboard text-set would be bad, but it's not that tough to do. And this doesn't affect every editor, just those who never read the full 'how to upload images' guides, or who disregarded the tough part about writing something. Those editors will get the notes, as will all editors who have any article with such an image in their watchlist. I just grabbed one, and will probably find others in the next few days. This isn't as big a deal as it is being made out to be. And, it does keep WP out of legal dangers and hassles. Would it be nice if the tagging bot ran more often than now? Maybe. It would probably irritate the serial violators more and a few might quit uploading, and a few might start writing, and then we'd have less for the rest of us to do. Or maybe not. But that we have 18K unfurred (sounds dirty, don't it?) images is even worse. ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know how to write FUR's, it's easy, I did one right off the bat, but when 7 pop up in your watchlist in one day, in the middle of a big article project yourself, none of which you uploaded but want kept, all of which are not violaters, some pre-dating the policy at all, some that could blatantly be fixed in seconds, some you know full well will not get the attention (it's not all project based images), but the effect of lumping it all in one, and with attitude of the operator, and the complete lack of historical guidance, you have to wonder if the stated aim of not wanting to delete images is correct. Had I just seen one or two flagged, I probably wouldn't be here now, and be none the wiser as to the tip of the iceberg surrounding this bot. MickMacNee (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Three of us on the ice hockey project fixed about 40 images in a very short period of time. There is no reason why we have to hold to a hard 7 day deadline if the backlog cannot be adequately tackled, but if editors with an interest in affected articles and projects are dedicated, it can be handled fairly easily. It just takes some time. Resolute 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Beta just said that he's planning on having the bots do more frequent runs. I am in favor of a large number of these being tagged now so long as the bot does regular and fairly frequent runs in the future so that users interested in maintenance have time to step in to fix the often minor adjustments that are required. --Veritas (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, for the day when there'll be a "11,000 images fixed in one day" thread. MickMacNee, if these images are so easy to fix, why are they not being fixed? Why is it so that years down the track, this bot finds thousands upon thousands of bad images each time it runs? --bainer (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are clear issues surrounding the lack of links and interest from the bot operator to inform aggrieved users of the past discussions about this bot (are there any agreed consensuses? Not about the policy, but the specific use of the bot). The issue is not clear cut when most advocates of the bot are expert admins, and most aggrieved by it are new editors. The issue is clearly affecting many many editors. Just needing a 17 point not my fault header on the bot talk page that has an archive for every month should tell people something is wrong. I say again, has any analysis been done on the effectiveness of this bot on gaining rationales to meet policy? As opposed to just hastening deletion of perfectly acceptable material? MickMacNee (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The material is not acceptable if it's not fixed; that's the policy, and the bot is just alerting admins that there is a deficiency. As for Betacommand and his communication skills, yes, they leave something to be desired, and I've had my own 2 cents to say about that a time or two. Nonetheless, the bot shouldn't stop running just because it's delivering the bad news that there is a lot of stuff that needs fixing). Mangojuice^talk 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You absolutely cannot ignore the scheduling issue, and the complete lack of any historical links or summaries. 'see the archives' is all you will get, if you're lucky. It has changed my willingness to fix things today, it has caused an admin with 60 odd tags to flip out, and caused others to just give up and say they want the images deleted rather than deal with bcb anymore, which were probably fixable. MickMacNee (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the time you've spent debating here, you could have fixed a few dozen images. Also, Wikipedia isn't really hurt by copyrighted images being deleted, appropriate for fair use or not, so it's not damaging the 'pedia. It's an inconvenience for some, obviously, but it's a bigger issue for Wikipedia to be improperly using copyrighted images. Lara❤Love 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I know this probably doesn't matter to the deletionists, but there are a lot of editors (myself included) who have simply given up on uploading images. BCBot takes a subsection of a subsection (10C is it?) and uses it to tag tons of perfectly acceptable images for deletion. Then we have admins who simply plow through the backlog, deleting without bothering to check if it's something simple to correct. I'm done with trying to add images to this project, at least until BCBot is reined in or shut down completely. Bellwether ^B_C 05:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's silly to say that deleting images doesn't hurt the articles. It's also a little strange to give up on uploading images. It's not hard to do it the right way, if the image is truly appropriate per policy and guidelines. I won't opine on the schedule though. Sooner or later we do need to get to a resting place where most of the images have the data they need. Wikidemo (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that many of the images at hand were uploaded correctly, then the guidelines changed, and suddenly there's a bot coming by screaming about the coming image apocalypse. BCB is bad diplomacy; Wikipedia rules are in flux, and when they change, thousands of articles are affected. How do we deal with this? Do we make it easy to bring the old ones in to compliance with the new rules? Maybe get a bot to fix that? Or do we get lazy and just send a bot out to tell editors they're wrong and their work is being erased. Even if the form is easy now, why should I trust it? Why should I assume the rules aren't going to change again such that the band name or record number has to be included with every album cover, and suddenly BCB rolls by with another 11k nastygrams per day? Allowing this to proceed unabated costs Wikipedia the trust of its editors. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 11:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't really hurt? A picture tells a thousand words. How about the editors chucking it in left right and centre every time this thing runs like this? In the time you've spent debating here, you could have fixed a few dozen images, As said above, I do fix images, but on days like today you think what's the point?, especially when you research and see the background to this issue, and see the massive effect one user is allowed to have without comeback. The copyright issue is all well and good, but again, this bot today has tagged in my watchlist sample, 30% of images that were loaded in 2005, and not a single actual copyright violator (after modification to meet a seemingly ever changing policy). Would you create content if you knew you might have to do it 3 times after each deletion retrieval? How does anyone expect any other jobs to get done in the face of that kind of lunacy. MickMacNee (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• My main problem is that he's taking a subsection of a subsection, and applying it like it was the effin' tablets brought down from the mountain with Moses. And the admins that mindlessly plow through the backlog, without checking each image carefully aren't doing the project any favors either. There's just next to no common sense applied here. Bellwether ^B_C 06:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the time you've spent... is such a horrendously fallacious argument to make. In the time I've spent correcting correctly tagged images so the bot stops bitching I could have made substantive contributions to the project. We have X hours of editor manpower, yet a machine insists on determining exactly how we'll get to use those hours, and it has decided that forcing editors at gunpoint to perform dull, meaningless bureaucracy is the best use of our resources. And those hours are gone: whatever it decides, plus the lost hours from the editors who just bail from Wiki altogether when they get spammed by a machine, plus the lost hours from editors who will eventually have to reupload the same image because there was nothing wrong with it before aside from botardedness. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 10:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What is silly to me is to stop uploading images because of BCBot. Just upload them under the policy. They don't get tagged if they meet the requirements. Lara❤Love 06:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, what is silly is treating a subsection of a subsection like it was holy writ. And dismissiveness is usually the best option when dealing with those less experienced than you. I uploaded my first image maybe a month ago. I haven't uploaded a new image in a couple of weeks at least, after getting bludgeoned by BCBot, both on images I'd uploaded, and on images at articles I contributed regularly to. I'm tired of it, and I'm not going to be uploading (or working with images at all) until this bot is either reined in or shut down. Bellwether ^B_C 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• The issue is also non-uploaders wanting to fix things, faced with ridiculous conditions to do so, the issue of minimal exposure images being lost due to an arbitrary 7 day deadline, and images that were uploaded under the now out of date correct policy, being tagged multiple times every time a phrase changes. The issue is also the us and them attitude, there is absolutly no link from the bot page for a collaberative effort for experienced editors to fix things in a coordinated manner, nor any links to major consensus regarding the bot, it's all hidden all over the shop, all that exists is a long list of excuses and get out clauses. Most loaders hit by the bot only know to go to the bot page if that, and realy struggle to even comprehend what is required of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 06:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What would be a better time frame than seven days? "Arbitrary" doesn't seem appropriate considering these are images that infringe upon copyrights. Lara❤Love 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Wikipedia policy with U.S. law. The former is far more restrictive than it legally has to be. Most of these images do not infringe upon copyrights; they simply haven't had a specific rationale for fair use written yet. An appropriate time frame would be one that gives actual humans (not bots) time to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to each individual image, and to write a rationale if the image is to be kept. *** Crotalus *** 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not infringing until examined and challenged in court. The one I corrected today was patently legally correct, it just did not meet whatever matching criteria the bot uses (these are I believe kept secret, why?). Many of these are not infringing at all, it is purely the bot design that tags them. Giving 7 days notice on an article loaded in 2005 along with 15,000 others at the same time is patently ridiculous. It is also my understanding that an image with a few keywords but filled with gibberish does not get tagged. MickMacNee (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know the quesiton was rhetorical but it would make more sense to tag all the images at once rather than haphazardly, and give people a very short time to correct new uploads but a long time (say, March 1 or March 15) to correct older ones. That way people could plan their work load, and rest assured that once they addressed all their notices they would be done with it. That's not going to happen, but just my $0.02. Indeed, the vast majority of these images don't violate copyright and are perfectly fine for Wikipedia, they just lack some data fields on the image file. Wikidemo (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that people who either don't understand the Wikimedia Foundation policies or don't understand how to write a proper fair use rationale are having their images deleted. It seems to me like they want someone to blame. Either Betacommand, his bot or the deleting admins are taking flak for enforcing the policies laid down by the Foundation. The policy is not decided by Betacommand, his bot or the deleting admin. Also it is not always simple to write a FUR if you are not the uploader. How can I know the source of an album cover that someone probably google searched? Also with regard to Bellwether's comment "No, what is silly is treating subsection of a subsection like it was holy writ." - If any part of this section is not met, the image may be deleted. It's written in the "enforcement" section right below the one I linked to. You may think that 10c is trivial but the Wikimedia Foundation (ie the owners of the servers and they set rules which we cannot override) do not. There's nothing silly about a bot pointing out violations of policy. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are issues on how it is being scheduled. There are people who want to fix things, this bot is not helping by going the extra yard and scaring new users and annoying old users that have complied with a now changed policy. At the very least this should have been an internal project bot to highlight first issues for an experienced group to review/quick fix, without going straight to tagging the uploader, placing a massive incomprehensible tag on the image, and deleting within 7 days (that isn't being enforced because it is not working, so why say it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus nobody it seems is aware how the bot checks to decide when and when not to flag, it's whole design and operation appears to be in one persons hands. That to me is wrong when it affects so many other editors. MickMacNee (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no-one more suited to writing a fair use rationale than the uploader. If they don't know how, then they shouldn't have uploaded the image. New/inexperienced users may not have known about fair-use and the policy, but the message given by BetacommandBot links to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I think tags such as {{no rationale}} are pretty clear, but if you can think of a better way of phrasing the message that needs to be conveyed by the tag, go for it. Finally; even if the images aren't being deleted within 7 days it provides an incentive to provide a valid rationale now instead of procrastinating. We can't change this policy even if it is overwhelming for new users (I stayed away from fair-use for a long time). James086^{Talk | Email} 07:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The images I'm often seeing tagged are ones where the uploader is usually long gone due to issues like this bot. And I don't get this idea that you can jump straight in and add text without any knowledge, and it will usually be fixed if wrong, yet woah betide you if you add an image with even the most trivial of non-compliances. Only a small subset of images really need the uploader's actual knowledge. Understanding the rules around nfcc is a nightmare. The bot is damaging efforts for new uploaders and experienced fixers at the same time. To suggest all is hunky dory at the moment is daft. The lack of group effort or consensus regarding this bot is also amazing, as fixing furs at the rate they are being tagged is way out of the league of even the most wiki-addicted. MickMacNee (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying to MickMacNee: As far as I can tell, the bot has a very simple algorithm. It takes the name of the pages an image is being used on and looks for them in on the image page (note that the links at the bottom of an image page are automagically generated, and so don't count). If any of the images are precisely named on the page (doesn't even have to be linked), ie. including things like "(diambiguation bit)", then the bot passes it. There is even a toolserver link around somewhere to a tool where you can check your images to see if Betacommandbot will tag them or not. So MickMacNee is correct to say that you can write gibberish on a page and the bot won't be able to tell as long as you include the name of the article somewhere. Of course, if a human spots this, the image will be tagged or corrected, and the editor who did this would get warned and, if they didn't stop, blocked. There are images I know of, which lack rationales, but which have the article name on them for other reasons. The most common reason is when the description bit says "picture of random article name" (with or without the link). The bot won't be able to detect these. It does, however, detect ones that say "picture of subject of article" without naming the article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's Just That Easy™, why does the bot fix the fair use rationale? What information is it missing? For that matter, if it only detects a linked article name if the article has been wikified, that's a bug. A fair use rationale has to name the article it's used in, but does not explicitly have to link to it.

Another bug is that the bot is too stupid to tell when a targeted page has been moved and replaced by a disambiguation page, which triggers a false NFC. If it was a human eidtor who falsely harassed a few dozen users and deleted images under false pretenses, they'd be banned for vandalism by the fifth instance. We should not be more lenient for bots than we are for people.

Another issue is how totally confrontational everything about this bot is. Look at User_talk:BetacommandBot: you're greeted with screen-tall stop sign and 17 rules that all essentially say "piss off I'm right about everything." Then read the discussions below where it gets even worse. (Seriously, read it.) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 10:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Form issues

The issue is obviously that most uploaders are ignoring the page that appears prior to the upload formula, if the users uploading Fair Use images where presented a blank form and filling it was obligatory to complete the upload we wouldn't be dealing with a backlog of 11,000 pages due to something as simple as FCC#10c. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, the issue is that WP's policies regarding image useage are so arcane and stringent that they allow bots to tag perfectly acceptable images for deletion, based on a subsection of a subsection. When this project brings their image use policies more in line with actual copyright laws, perhaps the deletionists won't have such a field day, and new uploaders (and image workers) won't become discouraged and give up. Bellwether ^B_C 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You've stated this four times now. What we're discussing now is a possible way to prevent images from being improperly uploaded to begin with. Lara❤Love 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• And you've ignored the root cause I raise four times now. The problem isn't good faith uploaders who don't know the subsection of a subsection of the NFCC that BCBot uses to tag images for deletion. The problem is primarily with the policy that allows the "letter of the law" enforcement that BC demands from initial uploaders, and the tagging itself, which seems like killing a gerbil with a bazooka to me. Bellwether ^B_C 13:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. A change that I would think could be easily implemented. And what would be the negatives? Lara❤Love 06:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many images that predate the bot specs and were uploaded perfectly correctly. MickMacNee (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You really have to separate this issue into two parts, old images and newly uploaded ones. Or maybe three - brand new, a few months old, and really old. Older images are a real problem because people get blindsided by the tags and by deleted images. For people actively uploading new images they can get spanked around a little bit until they learn how. "Arcane" is an overstatement, it's just a weak user interface. People grumble but I think that's more in the delivery of the message than the task they have to learn. In less than 1/2 hour you could learn most everything there is to know about how to upload images properly. It's a lot faster than learning the markup language, or learning where all the policy pages are. Nevertheless, anything that could make the process easier to get right from the start is good. Wikidemo (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• The negatives are that oftentimes an image is used for articles other than the one it was specifically uploaded for, which then triggers the bot to tag it per 10C. Bellwether ^B_C 06:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've pushed for this in bugzilla:12452. No word yet on its implementation. If someone could write the css/javascript code, we might be able to implement it locally. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting a option to prevent a simmilar situation in the future, this is supposed to kill the problem at its root. About sideffects, the only one that I can perceive is that the upload process would take longer, but then again when that is compared to the time that admins spend cleaning image backlogs that effect proves meaningless. Please note that this blank form (wich should be designed so even the most dumb of bots can understand the resulting rationale) would only appear if the user selects one of the Fair Use licences, wich means that users uploading free or public images wouldn't encounter this problem. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Most first time uploaders probably don't even know the difference between free and non free, but the editors that do are being given the runaround by the reverence being held for this bot, and ignoring the massive issues it creates and continues to create with it's tidal wave operation. The culture is also now I believe, we have a bot that fixes that, so let's not do it ourselves, or guide good faith violators. The tag box is huge and intimidating to a new user. MickMacNee (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, if a new user is going to upload a image he/she will receive the instruction page before uploading, now if they choose to ignore that, chances are that they will most likely end uploading without a rationale wich will only add to the backlog, we can't have a competition between a bot that fixes images and several tagging them, and we can't let the 'fix bot' choose if he removes a notice placed by another bot before. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would support a redoing of the image uploading procedure where incomplete uploads were prevented from happening. If a user does NOT supply a required piece of information, the page should send return an error message and stop the upload until all required info has been provided, INCLUDING the article where the pic is intended to go. This would reduce the problems on the back end that leads to all the grief this bot takes. I have no idea how this can be techincally done, but it seems a good idea. On the flipside, regardless of how inconvenient it is, the bot is doing necessary work, since images which are protected by copyright should NOT be used inappropriately on wikipedia. Remember, even "fair-use" is a violation of copyright, though being done in an "excused" manner. If you wish to excuse the violation of the rights of someone else, you should probably be very clear as to how and why and for what reason you are doing so. The bot only cleans up situations where people have not done this adequately. If it tags too many images, its probably because most people are doing it wrong, which is why we need to fix it at the "front end" before being uploaded. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get hung up on first loaders, as I've said, there are wider issue with those about them not having a clue at all. But I am seeing a very large proportion of these flags being like this: [38]. Perfectly fixable in seconds by experienced editors, yet we are being swamped, and who is coordinating these efforts, and from where? And is there any information at the page causing all these tags, the bot? No. Leaving fixes to uploaders and pontificating as such by the bot is also wrong when like this, it was loaded 18 months ago. MickMacNee (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WT:TODAY should give some insight into coordination. But its rather dormant now . MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For those images uploaded a year and a half ago we will have to deal it with patience and using the current methods. Please note that my proposal is focused in the images being uploaded in the very close future so we don't have a similar discussion eighteen months from now. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to make the same point - it's not fair to say uploaders should've enforced a policy that didn't exist at the time. At the same time, though, people should keep a check on their uploads. Will ^(talk) 13:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair-use image deletion deadlines

Partial repost of previous post at WP:AN

Please click "show" above and have a look at the backlogs arriving soon in the "disputed fair use images" dated categories. Normally, these images would be deleted after 7 days. The practice so far has been to extend the deadline some indeterminate amount. Given that these runs by Betacommandbot were done rather close together (looks like an extended run over three days), what would be the best way to determine a suitable extension here? An extra week? An extra two weeks? I asked Betacommand on his talk page recently (a few weeks ago), and he said he was near the end of doing these runs. Previously, I put dates of 10th and 17th February on the other backlogged categories. I'd suggest putting a date of 2nd March on these categories. It isn't terribly clear where this sort of thing should be discussed, or with whom, and it seems no-one else is attempting to manage the backlogs. To avoid future disputes, I'd appreciate it if people could object to or endorse this action, here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I only do logos (and some symbols and seals). Right now AWeenieMan's tools say I have ~3900 images to process. Given real life commitments and what, I would need about 3 weeks from today to get through them all. MBisanz ^talk 07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend giving them a month at least. Give the original uploaders (who might not be very active) some fair time to see the notices. I know the policies are strict and all but 18,000 images obliterated in a week just seems brutal (though kind of impressive). • Anakin ^(talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakon (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Solution (for the future)

Stop uploading so many non-free images, and use fewer non-free images. Less time spent writing rationales, less time spent fixing images, Wikipedia is more free — its a win-win situation. Mr.Z-man 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is much more fun looking for free pictures, anyway! One thing I would say, is please, please, take care over old black-and-white photos. Some will be public domain though we are not aware of it, and some will be genuine historical photos and of great educational and encyclopedic value (and hence exactly what fair use is intended for). For now, to deal with the backlog, I've put a deadline notice of 2nd March (around two weeks) on those categories. I would also like to see Betacommand do a schedule for the runs he intends to do in March. Tagging thousands of images a few days before the Foundation's deadline (23 March 2007, or seven days later depending on your interpretation), would not be appreciated, I fear. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that we have about 500 non-free uploads per day, Im guessing that my future should be around 1000 images about twice a week. β^_command 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Next BCBot Phase

What BCBot has been doing is tagging images without any valid rationales. The issue with this method is that if a image is used in multiple articles, but only one valid rationale, it violates our NFC policy, but the images should not be deleted. My next planned phase was to remove the image usage that does not have a rationale. Comments or suggestions? β^_command 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What BCBot has been doing is tagging images without any valid rationales - This is fundementally an incorrect statement, your bot does not tag images that have complete garbage as a rationale but mentions each usage once. Your bot should not be the first and only assesment of the presence of a valid rationale before the placement of huge tags on images and talk pages with phrases such as invalid rationale (is it? on what basis did this get decided?), The rationale is (not) presented in clear, plain language, Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale (which may already exist), or in some other way, the image will be deleted . MickMacNee (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit premature to talk about changes to BCBot when there is clearly no consensus on its continued operation AT ALL. My feeling is that until BCBot can accomplish its work without angering editors, it shouldn't be running AT ALL. If you don't choose to stop BCBot, then you should be forced to stop running it. The root problem with BCBot is that it is enforcing a policy that demands more work from volunteers. This must be done gently, if at all. And it's clear from reading the hostile messages here that BCBot is not gentle.

May I make a suggestion for a resolution of this issue? You and Hammersoft have claimed that you are operating with the support of many admins and editors. If you feel that this work is so important, then you should be willing to do it yourselves. If you cannot find volunteers to work on this project, then attempting to coerce editors (FIX YOUR IMAGE RATIONALE OR ELSE THE IMAGE GETS IT) does not improve Wikipedia. Better to let it die under the weight of copyright lawsuits than to create so much unhappiness. RussNelson (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have much sympathy for people unwilling to comply with our policies, which have been in place for a very long time. Nor do I have much sympthy for people canvassing to get support to ban the bot [39]. And by the way, I'm not operating this bot. I support what it's doing. Betacommand operates it. And no, I'm not going to perform the work because it involves thousands upon thousands of images. No small number of people can handle it. I recently estimated that if it took 10 seconds per fix it would take 11 straight days of editing to fix just a portion of the images tagged by Betacommand. The problem is absolutely massive. The bot is a tool to get it under control, to change the culture of liberally uploading fair use under whateverthehellsomeonethinksistherightwaytodoit. It's GOT to change, or we might as well forget about ever getting into compliance with Foundation dictums on this. I personally don't care if the people liberally abusing this policy are unhappy about it. They should be *glad* to work towards compliance with policy, not fighting it like it's the second coming of Satan and the end of the project if their precious non-free image gets deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

People aren't generally "liberally abusing" the policy. Many of them don't understand it, as it hinges on a highly technical definition of "rationale" that is not obviously different from copyright tags. Many of them uploaded images completely correctly, before the 10c-rationale policy existed. If you want all of Wikipedia to follow a new policy, you have to make the policy easy to follow and not demonize people who don't instantly change what they're doing to go along with it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)So BC, if I understand thise new phase, BCB will go through articles that use an image, but that the image has no FUR for. What sort of FUR will it look for? A valid backlink? the article title? a FUR template? etc. I'd say I'd support BCB generating lists of images that are used in articles where there is no mention of the article title on the image page. My fear is that if BCB edits the articles to remove the images, people might not notice and know to write a separate FUR. How many images are we talking about (FUs in more than 1 article)? My rough guess is 5%-10%, but I'd like a firmer number (xx,xxx) for example to figure out the impact of this phase? BTW, how many images are left in the current phase? MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with MBisanz. Betacommand needs to give the community an idea of numbers before starting new phases. He should also have the courtesy to state when a previous phase has finished, before rushing on to the next stage. I support a lot of the work that Betacommand does, I just wish he would be just a little bit more organised about it! I'm going to start a new section below, and maybe even a whole new page, like Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. We need to do this systematically as a community, not on the whim of Betacommand (though he has done much sterling work and should be thanked profusely). Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So much horror over a bot, and no horror over the policy violations

I find it amazing that certain vocal people here are absolutely desperate to do SOMEthing to stop this bot, to get it banned permanently. They stand in horror that 11,000 images would be tagged in a single day. You guys want to take a guess how many fair use images are improperly uploaded/licenses/tagged/rationaled every day? If we didn't have a bot to help manage this problem, we might as well give up on ever having the fair use situation brought under control on this project. All of you horrified at the work this bot is doing, which is completely in compliance with policy, should be absolutely MORTIFIED at the rampant abuse of policy performed by ungodly numbers of users who simply just don't care about our policy. Or maybe that's the point? You don't care about our policies? --Hammersoft (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the tag itself adequately sums up the rationale, and no additional words are needed (e.g. {{screenshot}}. Ron Duvall (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But the tag doesn't say which article it should be used in (Example), or the source of the image (www.), or a description of what the image is (Logo of IBM from 1971). MBisanz ^talk 06:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's obvious, as when the image itself clearly shows the screenshot, and "what links here" takes you to article on the software. And the source is irrelevant with screenshots; someone could have hit Printscreen and then pasted it into Paint. Ron Duvall (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But, it could also be a screenshot from a news article, so we'd need the user to say either "I took it" or "I got it from NYT.com/132543". And the "What link here" section only shows articles containing the image, it doesn't define if there is a rationale under copyright law for the use of the image in that article. MBisanz ^talk 07:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

All of you ... should be absolutely MORTIFIED at the rampant abuse of policy performed by ungodly numbers of users who simply just don't care about our policy.

Why should anyone be mortified, when such behavior is completely and totally predictable. You set up a project in which every Tom, Dick and Mary who shows up at the door can jump right in and participate, and then you wonder why they don't care about your policies? Start with: Why should they care, since the system of enforcement is weak at best and random for the most part, and the chances of their being caught are minimal (unless, of course, they're just stupid or don't care if they're caught)? Then go to: there are so many damned policies that even if someone wanted to play it straight, it's practically impossible to do so -- and the interpretation of these myriad policies differs from administrator to administrator, from case to case, from circumstance to circumstance.

This is the system you've set up, which inevitably lead to the rampant disregard of your upload policies - so why be "mortified", just fix it.

Unfortunately, the only way you're going to be able to do that is to in some way change the essence of the project. It's going to have to be more tightly administered, but the only way to do that is to reduce the number of policies down to a manageable lot that both editors and administrators can understand without taking a lifetime course in Wikipediology.

The structure and design of the project set yourself up for this, and, ultimately, the only way to make it better is to change the structure and the design. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You could apply that rant to pretty much any set of rules. Why bother with speed limits? Why bother with copy protection on music? There really aren't that many rules on Wikipedia, and the ones that are the most important are the ones based on common sense: keep a neutral point of view, don't be a dick, and don't put copyrighted material on a free encyclopedia, just to name a few. --clpo13_(talk) 08:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, my friend, but that's not the case at all. Speed limits are just there, they're regulations created for a reason, but they can be there (as in most of the U.S.) or not (as on the Autobahn in Germany, and for a while in Monatana), they can be set high or low, they can change or they can stay the same for decades -- nothing about our system of justice or social regulation determines or requires that there must be speed limits. That's not the case here, where the problems are essentially systemically determined by the structure and philosophy of the project.

Oh, and not a lot of rules on Wikipedia? Are you kidding? We've got "guidelines" out the wazoo that most people treat like Holy Writ, and they specify, sometimes down to the comma or dash, what you can and can't do. Worse than that, the rules overlap, they conflict, and they are subjected to myriad interpretations, so if someone doesn't like what you're doing (regardless of its potential value) there's almost always a rule that can be cited to use to revert it. From this lack of clarity and too much complexity comes, inevitably, corruption. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize for disagreeing. You have your Wikipedia philosophy and I have mine. Of course, considering how you think things should be run, I'm beginning to wonder why you even bother sticking around Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is as deeply flawed as you think it is, and if you refuse to go through the usual channels to suggest a fix, then it's not going to change simply because you want it to. Perhaps you'd be better suited at Scholarpedia or Citizendium. I was actually visiting a fork of Wikipedia with stricter editing policies just recently, but I can't remember what it was called. Ah well. At any rate, if you oppose the open policy of Wikipedia, it's clearly not the place for you. --clpo13_(talk) 09:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is the place to be, since it has become the current de facto standard, the first place people look for information on the Web. I think the project has fabulous potential, but I worry that its inherent contradictions will do it in before it has a chance to reach it. The infoworld moves fast and its past is full of de facto standards that fell by the wayside. My hope is that Wikipedia will resolve its systemic problems and become (in a phrase that's vaguely familiar) "all that it can be", so I'll stick around and do what I can to help out.

But also I think you may misunderstand me -- I'm not calling for stricter editing policies of things as they stand now, I'm calling for stricter and more coherent enforcement of a vastly simplified and more open set of policies. First the policies need to be whittled away to the essentials, and then they need to be properly enforced.

But this conversation is getting to be a little too esoteric for this venue. I simply wished to respond to the editor who seemed to think that we all should be beating our breasts about people uploading pictures they shouldn't, when, in fact, that behavior was perfectly predictable from the start! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, not just on Wikipedia, but everywhere all over the world, "usual channels" are the places where people who live to make sure nothin' ever changes no-how hang out. "Going through channels" is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in a bureaucracy or a strict hierarchy, if what you want is to order some new paperclips or get a soldier discharged, but channels aren't much good at dealing with change, since they exist to make sure the same kinds of things happen in the same kinds of way over and over again. Besides, (maybe you've noticed?) I'm not much of a fan of that kind of thing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Individuals come here and upload items and articles that for various, sometimes complex reasons, shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. In order to maintain openness and get as much good "stuff" as we can, we have admins, and bots, and experienced users, who use tools to weed out and sort that information. So should users be Mortified, probably not. Should we abandon policies simply to get more "stuff", probably not. Even though some things could be made better (and many of us are trying our darndest despite the lack of a paycheck), there is no deadline MBisanz ^talk 09:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Paycheck doesn't enter into it. Your reward is that you get to delete stuff, and for your kind, that's priceless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! MBisanz is one of the "good guys". There probably are people who delete because they think it needs doing and don't think too much about anything else, but MBisanz isn't one of them. Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand has more power than an admin, because of closed source

Just by running a bot that's allowed to make so many edits so quickly, Betacommand has more power than admins to set policy. In particular, he uses this bot to enforce a very particular interpretation of WP:FURG 10c that is not required by the Foundation or by copyright law. I don't like the way 10c has been handled in general, especially the paranoid rush to beat some imaginary deadline, but even the kind of enforcement we do now -- by which I mean the kind of enforcement BetacommandBot does now -- could be made much more intelligent.

One very noticeable aspect of this: BetacommandBot approves of a rationale if and only if it repeats the name of the article exactly. Being a robot, BetacommandBot of course has no common sense, and there are many rationales out there that anyone with common sense can tell are correct but don't fit this narrow criterion. But when this discrepancy leads to disputes, Betacommand and Hammersoft (in particular) define the rationales that aren't understood by the bot to be against policy.

In effect, the bot is a de facto policy, but this policy cannot be discussed or edited by the rest of Wikipedia because Betacommand will not share the source code. When the bot does the wrong thing, sometimes the only way to get Betacommand to fix things is to block the bot. However, the bot holds other things such as the RfC process for ransom. If you block the bot, new RfCs can't be created. So BetacommandBot wins policy disputes with admins automatically -- it holds the power -- despite the fact that neither Betacommand nor his bot would realistically pass an RfA.

I believe we need to decentralize the tasks performed by BetacommandBot, and most importantly, open up the source code. Wikipedia runs on open source. I cannot see why Betacommand will not cooperate with Wikipedia and open up the source code to his bot -- "security through obscurity" is rather unhelpful here. Opening up the source code, in addition to being just a good idea for preventing bugs, also allows people to suggest patches and different ways to do things. Imagine if people who cared could fix these issues instead of just repeatedly complaining about them:

• BetacommandBot could tolerate near misses on article names instead of demanding an exact match. A rationale correctly identifying an album cover as being used to illustrate "the article on the album '!'" is a perfectly good rationale for using the image on ! (album).
• BetacommandBot has poor scheduling of the order in which it tags images and leaves notices, which causes it to disruptively spam users' talk pages.
• BetacommandBot leaves messages with misspelled words in them, making Wikipedia policy look amateurish.
• BetacommandBot edit wars, blithely retagging images when people contest the tag. (A possible alternative is to create a noticeboard for disputed tags, much like the PROD->AfD process. There are probably other ways to deal with this. They would require discussion, but right now discussion is hardly possible.)

My point here, remember, is not to simply point out these failings in the bot, but to point out that these failings could be fixed if Wikipedians could read the code and suggest patches or get their own version approved.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Then people will just be warring over the code. Our best work is being done by bots who closed source their code. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zscout370 could you list some of these bots, and perhaps some that aren't closed source? Thanks. Mccready (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is such a noticeboard Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk for Beta related comments. Beta doesn't get paid to do what he does, so I really don't like the idea of trying to hold him to a schedule. 20,000 images is a lot at once, but its certainly not unmanageable with tools lik FURME. Yes, 10c is a rigid interpretation, but this process was approved by the Bot Approvals Group, which is sanctioned by the Bureaucrats, and the bot does enforce a policy that has consensus. For the RFC process, there is a backup bot, and I know Beta has been working for sometime on trying to split up the functions the bot performs. MBisanz ^talk 10:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It takes approximately no time to release the source code to a program. It can take effort to make the code well-documented, or runnable on someone else's system, but I'm not actually asking him to do that. On the other hand, Betacommand is holding us to a schedule by running the bot so quickly that no one can keep up with fixing the rationales. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that's an argument for closed source, Zscout. You realize that there's a difference between the copy of the code that's running on a server and the copy of the code that's put up for public review? People can't just edit the displayed code and make the bot do something different. However, people could suggest that Betacommand incorporate changes in the bot he runs (this doesn't require a "war"), or split off their own version of the bot and get it approved through the BAG (and I hope that Betacommand would recuse himself from participating in the approval decision). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

People are giving suggestions, here and on his talk page. Hell, there is a discussion about this bot on a weekly basis. So he is taking their suggestions to mind. But no matter what anyone says, the only person who can decide to put the code out there is BC. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. What I am saying is that the discussion could be more useful and less adversarial if the source code were open, because people could suggest actual patches to the bot instead of saying "BC, you need to figure out how to code this". How is your response an argument for closed source? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbers, numbers, numbers

Can we please have a central place to record typical numbers surrounding image issues? I suggest Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance for now. Some typical questions:

• How many images does Wikipedia have (give an idea of numbers over time)?
• How many free and non-free images does Wikipedia have? (And under what circumstances are free images kept and not transferred to Commons?)
• How many free and non-free images date from (were uploaded in) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008?
• How does Wikipedia identifiy its free and non-free images? (License tags - are these systematically kept under control?)
• How many images are uploaded each day? (Split the number between free and non-free)
• How many images are uploaded each month and how many are deleted? (deletion needs to be averaged over a month - varies too much daily)
• How many non-free images have non-free use rationales?
• How many non-free images lack non-free use rationales?

After we have clear answers to these basic questions, we may be able to set up a system that works more smoothly and has more vision than the current one - or at least a more articulate vision that the current one. Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Some stats at:

• Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 25#Updated stats
• Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 29#Towards keeping track of image-licensing template usage
  • Example of stats

But more are needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you'd need to contact a developer at MediaWiki to get most of that data. I just don't think its available in a format that even a script could extract from the encyclopedia. MBisanz ^talk 15:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaints about BCB are often rebutted with replies claiming the size of the task. It would be nice to have a centralized source, as proposed in Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c where I am trying to centralize a consensus for specific NFCC10c changes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia currently has 773,658 media files Normaly it's about 300K unfree images. Tags for unfree images are pretty darn systematic. less so for free.Geni 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. :-) Any tips on how to answer the other questions? By the way, where does the 773,658 number come from? Is that some magic word or something? Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The number of media files is on Special:Statistics.

Most of these questions can be done easily with the database (toolserver) except that I can't differentiate between free and nonfree images that way. I do have a database query that will gather stats on taggings, deletions, uploads of images. Perhaps I can run it over the last year later today. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Generaly the best attack line for answering the questions is to take a smaller sample so for the simple free unfree spilt you pull up 100 random images and count.Geni 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And by that method I estimate we currently have a little over 200K taged unfree images and a worrying number of copyvios.Geni 20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So my prediction that the obsession with the NFCC would lead to people failing to check for copyvios has come true? Well, that's good to know. Now, all sarcasm aside, what is the best way to deal with this? Should there not be as much focus on checking sources and weeding out invalid claims of free images, as there is on rationales for claims of non-free use? Geni, could you definre what you see as the difference between a non-free image and a copyvio? I think I know the difference you mean, but many people think that non-free image claims lacking a rationale are copyvios, when in fact they are not. I see a copyvio as something like an image with no fair use claim at all (not even a copyright tag), or a copyrighted image incorrectly tagged as free or public domain. Do I have that about right? Carcharoth (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah the image namespace has been lousy with copyvios for years we could knock out a fair chuck of them by going orphan zapping. Fixing that is the next thing to do. In this case by copyvio I mean an image with say a GFDL tag that I don't belive. Non free image means something with a fair use tag of some sort.Geni 23:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my stuff. The 'date' is by week. This means that in the first full week of 2007, we had 16806 uploads, 6582 deletions, for a net gain of 10224. and none of the bots made any taggings. In the first full week of 08, we had a net loss of 841 images (free and non-free included here, remember) with bots making about 6000 taggings. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

+--------+---------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+-----------------+
| date   | uploads | deletes | net_change | STBotI | BetacommandBot | ImageTaggingBot |
+--------+---------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+-----------------+
| 200653 |   15430 |    9668 |       5762 |   NULL |           NULL |            NULL | 
| 200701 |   16806 |    6582 |      10224 |   NULL |           NULL |            NULL | 
| 200702 |   19384 |    6691 |      12693 |   NULL |            442 |            NULL | 
| 200703 |   19027 |    9415 |       9612 |   NULL |            844 |            NULL | 
| 200704 |   20418 |   10131 |      10287 |   NULL |           6730 |            NULL | 
| 200705 |   18804 |   27043 |      -8239 |   NULL |           3299 |            NULL | 
| 200706 |   18204 |   10096 |       8108 |   NULL |           3217 |            NULL | 
| 200707 |   18672 |   10308 |       8364 |   NULL |           1997 |            NULL | 
| 200708 |   18940 |   10477 |       8463 |   NULL |           3122 |            NULL | 
| 200709 |   18868 |   11518 |       7350 |   NULL |           1644 |            NULL | 
| 200710 |   19119 |    7684 |      11435 |   NULL |           1774 |            NULL | 
| 200711 |   19470 |    7527 |      11943 |   NULL |           1163 |            NULL | 
| 200712 |   19011 |   11122 |       7889 |   NULL |            387 |            NULL | 
| 200713 |   18766 |    9469 |       9297 |   NULL |            653 |            NULL | 
| 200714 |   19975 |   11849 |       8126 |   NULL |           2972 |            NULL | 
| 200715 |   19276 |   10312 |       8964 |   NULL |           1407 |            NULL | 
| 200716 |   18532 |   11924 |       6608 |   NULL |           2956 |            NULL | 
| 200717 |   18456 |   13181 |       5275 |   NULL |            111 |            NULL | 
| 200718 |   17389 |   10570 |       6819 |   NULL |           5831 |            NULL | 
| 200719 |   17170 |   30934 |     -13764 |   NULL |           3805 |            NULL | 
| 200720 |   18253 |   13030 |       5223 |   NULL |            587 |            NULL | 
| 200721 |   18168 |   11972 |       6196 |   NULL |          22225 |            NULL | 
| 200722 |   19529 |   19790 |       -261 |   NULL |          62662 |            NULL | 
| 200723 |   17637 |    9196 |       8441 |   NULL |           2451 |            NULL | 
| 200724 |   16805 |   13605 |       3200 |   NULL |          13403 |            NULL | 
| 200725 |   17398 |   19702 |      -2304 |   NULL |           4392 |            NULL | 
| 200726 |   17731 |   16973 |        758 |   NULL |          12172 |            NULL | 
| 200727 |   18195 |   23334 |      -5139 |   NULL |           8473 |            NULL | 
| 200728 |   17544 |   16781 |        763 |   NULL |           9015 |            NULL | 
| 200729 |   17113 |   21325 |      -4212 |   NULL |           5464 |            NULL | 
| 200730 |   17632 |   20553 |      -2921 |     32 |           6331 |            NULL | 
| 200731 |   15914 |   12006 |       3908 |   2873 |           4632 |            NULL | 
| 200732 |   16492 |   10832 |       5660 |   3958 |           1364 |            NULL | 
| 200733 |   17258 |    9891 |       7367 |   2452 |           2783 |            NULL | 
| 200734 |   13122 |   10716 |       2406 |   NULL |          12550 |            NULL | 
| 200735 |   13843 |    7803 |       6040 |   NULL |           5308 |            NULL | 
| 200736 |   12876 |    9269 |       3607 |    994 |          14208 |            NULL | 
| 200737 |   12197 |   18171 |      -5974 |   2837 |           9523 |            NULL | 
| 200738 |   11993 |    9864 |       2129 |    491 |          10063 |            NULL | 
| 200739 |   12993 |   12442 |        551 |   3595 |           8437 |            NULL | 
| 200740 |   11960 |    9683 |       2277 |   4369 |           4921 |            NULL | 
| 200741 |   12612 |   15307 |      -2695 |   2278 |           4050 |            NULL | 
| 200742 |   12511 |   10498 |       2013 |   2683 |          31843 |            NULL | 
| 200743 |   12911 |   17762 |      -4851 |    864 |          10358 |            NULL | 
| 200744 |   18094 |   16616 |       1478 |    302 |          49991 |            NULL | 
| 200745 |   11421 |   37841 |     -26420 |   1003 |          15117 |            NULL | 
| 200746 |   11824 |    9134 |       2690 |    388 |           3840 |              20 | 
| 200747 |   12180 |    5378 |       6802 |   2069 |          19049 |            1145 | 
| 200748 |   10898 |   12379 |      -1481 |   2604 |           9599 |             716 | 
| 200749 |   11124 |   13256 |      -2132 |   2232 |           7292 |             854 | 
| 200750 |   17773 |   13009 |       4764 |   1166 |          12370 |            1478 | 
| 200751 |   12634 |    8681 |       3953 |   1766 |           4878 |             940 | 
| 200752 |   12367 |    8348 |       4019 |   4381 |          57858 |             613 | 
| 200801 |   12283 |   13124 |       -841 |   2865 |           1960 |            1119 | 
| 200802 |   13864 |   11159 |       2705 |   2506 |           5982 |             855 | 
| 200803 |   12623 |   11855 |        768 |   2854 |          31301 |             719 | 
| 200804 |   11495 |    7652 |       3843 |   3559 |            164 |             487 | 
| 200805 |   11005 |    7356 |       3649 |   5867 |            293 |             133 | 
| 200806 |   11323 |   11318 |          5 |   5437 |          76583 |            1056 | 
| 200807 |    1255 |     687 |        568 |    362 |            900 |             201 | 
+--------+---------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+-----------------+

Hey, thanks for that! :-) I've copied it over to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. Could you put any more stats you find on the talk page there? Carcharoth (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Warbringer47 (talk · contribs)

• I have reason to believe that Warbringer47 (talk · contribs) is an incarnation of an anonymous user who has been repeatedly blocked for revert warring on Sol Badguy, Ryu (Street Fighter) and Guile (Street Fighter) and has been attempting to harass me. (See [40], [41], [42] (Sol Badguy), [43], [44], [45] (Ryu), [46], [47] (Guile), [48], [49] [50] (his vandalism to my talk page). He has a long history as an anonymous user and I don't think he should get a pass now that he has an account. JuJube (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And he's revert warring again. JuJube (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Warbringer47 has dropped the issue of alternate storylines and is now insisting on trying to get height/weight added to these articles. He knows very well that this was a contentious issue a few years ago that led to the items being removed. Considering he's told me that if I'm sick, I should stay at home and not edit, I believe this account was made only to harass me. JuJube (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• User has been blocked, so this should be marked as resolved. JuJube (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

More V-Dash socks

User:Supertoolbox is going around and changing the userpages of User:V-Dash socks to make it appear as if they were Jeske socks. Anyone want to handle this? shoy 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. But, we should ignore these to whatever extent possible. I see no value in bothering to create userpages for throwaway troll accounts. Revert, block, ignore. Creating a collection of trophies only encourages them. Friday (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(merging duplicate threads)

User's talk page has a personal attack against Friday and Jeske... dont know how this started or who's sock this user is, but it should be investigated. Queerbubbles (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! The user has been blocked. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. It's nice to know that I can sit down and play a video game without worrying about getting blocked due to this guy. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeke_Couriano is another V-Dash sock who is going around...he just tried to say I was Jéské sock. -Sukecchi (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ombudsman

Ombudsman following a RfA is under indefinite Probation. "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing"[51]. He has recently repeatedly deleted commentry on his involvement on vaccine related topics at Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics (1, 2 and 3 in the last 2 days). Edit summary claim of moving to to talk page are not borne out by this where material and Ombudsman name not included.

I find this disruptive editing and accordingly have notified Ombudsman of a ban on further editing.[52] Could other admins please review my action under the RfA probation. David Ruben ^Talk 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked to see if this is connected with Whaleto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Guy (Help!) 20:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They are almost certainly not the same person, though they share an agenda. I'm not neutral here, having run into Ombudsman before. Still, the "longstanding history of tendentious editing of medical articles" identified by ArbCom has hardly abated. He was indefinitely blocked by Jimbo in October '07 and unblocked out of a desire to show forgiveness ([53]). Based on his lack of engagement and deletions of appropriate commentary from the noticeboard, I think a ban from that particular page under the terms of his ongoing ArbCom probation is reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ombudsman may not be the ideal editor but I really can't see him being whaleto.Geni 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Personal Attacks

FInally, I have got to ask for help on this. In spite of agreeing in the past to leave me alone and to cease personal attacks in general, SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back, editing my talkpage (something I had requested he not do and I have agreed not to edit his...which I have abided by) multiple times, removing an obvious self-deprecating joke, and now is making his personal attacks on me again. This user, with a long, distinguished list of blocks and interventions, has been begging for a indef block forever. Granted, he's not calling people "Nazi scum" or even calling people "rude brat". Now it's these: "I would sum up your comments as trolling" "your foramtting is lousy and your refusal to fix it is typical of your arrogant behaviour". Can something be done? He has worked very, very hard to antagonize, vilify, harrass, and belittle many users on Wikipedia. Something has got to be done about this highly disruptive, verbally violent user. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) if more links and diffs for history of attacks is needed, let me know... but they'd fill up an entire page.

I think it's safe to say that the patience of the community is wearing thin. I, for one, am very tired of seeing the same names appear at AN/I with issues. I recommend that both parties find a way to solve this on their own, because I have a feeling that if administrator action is required, it will be of a grave nature. - Philippe | Talk 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We did, and he is reneging on it. I leave him alone, I do not edit his userpages, but I cannot get rid of his following and attacking. I have worked hard to not be involved with him. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through some history and at the risk of taking sides, I have to say it looks to me like SqueakBox is the short fuse in this dispute. He's very quick to use colorful adjectives to describe other people and their actions, in statements that could probably often be considered personal attacks. I think at the least, he could use a stern reminder about civility from an uninvolved admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:47, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Squeak is a decent person. I blocked him in the past, and he impressed me with his ability to understand that a time out was right in that case. What SqueakBox doesn't like, being a decent person, is any hint of the promotion of pedophilia, racism and a number of other things that decent people don't like. Each time I've investigated an issue with Squeak recently, it's turned out that the problem was excess of decency. Make of that what you will. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Translating that into objective terms, he acts inappropriately but since he does so in accordance with your POV then it must be okay. In the interest of neutrality I don't think the cause he's fighting for, even if it's the majority POV, should be a determining factor. Considering blowing up at people as an "excess of decency" means little since "decency" is subjective, and even if his views were considered decent by matter of fact, you can be excessively decent and still conduct yourself appropriately. We don't judge people based on their views but on how they act, the two being mutually exclusive. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:44, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Pro-pedophile advocacy brings the project into disreupte and has led to bans. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing, not pro-pedophile advocacy or anti-pedophile advocacy in particular, leads to bans. And regardless of the reasons, inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. You can't justify it by saying you were acting for the good of Wikipedia. If you want to do good things, you do it the right way, or you leave it to someone else. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:00, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

The history is perhaps more complex than you have seen, Equazcion, this is perhaps a case for dispute resolution (possibly arbcom) and I have initiated that while also resolving the current flame at VPs talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say that Squeakbox has a long fuse, but that it's been re-lit over and over by a succession of POV warriors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rules should be applied consistently - you get the same sentence for assaulting sinners as saints... oh, and assaulting a sinner makes a sinner of the assaulter. i.e. If you are on the side of the angels, then act like one! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's a denial of human nature. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• this is wikipedia, not the nsdap. its not the job of any editiors on here to attack verbalyl any users that he doesnt like just becuase he feels that they are "acist" "pedophilic" or any other pejorative. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Spot on , as usual, Smith Jones. Thanks for cutting through the "acist" crap, again. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I just don't understand why it was necessary for Squeak to even edit Vigilance's page. I didn't see any attacks, I saw the (rather odd) addition of a template. How does that involve Squeak at all? Why even get involved? Frankly, if I were he, I think I'd have walked away from that, even if I thought it was incredibly offensive, because of previous involvement with Vigilance. Strikes me as an astonishingly bad choice to even engage there. - Philippe | Talk 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with SJ and other users. As demonstrated in a (now deleted) subpage of VP's, this user has a history of disruption and repeated harassment of editors on stigmatic, personal grounds. I would not personally support an indefinite block, but see the umbrella WP:PAW as a good dividing line when it comes to what articles this user should e allowed to edit. Lambton ^T/_C 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• VigilancePrime's deleted subpage was an attack page against Squeakbox that contained similar content to the material currently on VigilancePrime's user page. The subpage was deleted by MfD:
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox

with comment from the closing admin that : " The subpage is serving no other purpuse besides serving as a attack page against another editor..." When content is deleted by MfD as an attack page, what is the policy on re-creating that content on a user page? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be holding up a mirror on his talk page. It is not disruptive to simply list edits that you dislike. Lambton ^T/_C 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. You brought up the deleted subpage, not me. So I provided the MfD link and the quote from the closing admin, who found that consensus in the discussion considered it an attack page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I should note, though I had hoped to stay out of this, that EVERYONE in that discussion saw it as an obvious keep except: SqueakBox (of course, as it quoted his poor word choices), you, Jack-A-Roe (always jumping to his defense and a partner with him in deleting content you don't like), Will Beback (same difference), and Pol64 (who was very soon after permablocked for the same type or aggregious personal attacks). As one user said, "Quite frankly, I just don't see how accurate quotations (supported by diffs, no less) constitute personal attacks." Other comments about the former page: "The piece is neutrally worded and consists almost exclusively of literal quotes with links.", "no apparent policy vio", "does not violate bad faith or civility", and finally "This is not an attack page; it makes no decisions or judgments about the comments themselves, merely puts them on display in a concise manner. There is no reason for this page NOT to exist, and quite frankly, looking at the diffs on display, it's a wonder such a page hasn't surfaced sooner. Clearly something needs to be done about SqueakBox's conduct." VigilancePrime (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

You're entitled to your opinion too, sure. In the situation with your user subpage attacking SqueakBox, the MfD consensus did not agree with your interpretation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up because it demonstrated something (listed edits, just like his user page), not to discuss its creditability as a project, which I would have to look at in further detail. Lambton ^T/_C 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, the MfD Jack refers to was closed against consensus, with comments 2:1 in favor of keeping the page. It went to DRV, and VP, in the kind of selfless act I'd like to see more of, agreed to withdraw their DRV request in exchange for SqueakBox's agreement to stay away from VP's userspace. It's not a matter of opinion; it's reading the MfD & DRV. I believe Jack-a-Roe's description above is inconsistent with the facts. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's the third opinion expressed here about the way that MfD was closed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The process of the MfD resulted in deletion of that page, and the closing admin described it as an attack page. That's the history, not an interpretation. If someone wants the facts they can view the archived page directly, and they can check the DRV too. They don't need me or anyone else to interpret it for them. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I feel I must say a few words here. I'm sure SqueakBox will believe I'm persecuting him but he still has not offered me (or anyone else he has unfairly stigmatized) any sort of decent apology for labelling me a passive supporter of pedophile activists (because of I speedy closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Man/Boy Love Association), repeatedly calling a now deleted Category:Rape victims "your beloved category" (because I asked him to nominate it for deletion rather than unilaterally depopulate it). He has unfairly accused Haemo (talk · contribs) of pedophile sympathies, during his RfA no less. This is the umpteenth ANI thread about his short fuse and while I understand that it's not always easy to deal with POV warriors and the typical sockpuppeting nonsense that surrounds many of the PAW-supervised articles, his behaviour cannot be tolerated. Guy, I've told you this before and you refused to listen [54]. Now all I can do is repeat it and you'll tell me again "ah, deep down SqueakBox is a good chap" and of course, I can't even disagree with that. But tell me: how many times can you say this before doubt starts creeping in that maybe a good chap can sometimes go overboard, way overboard. If need be, I'll go back and dig out all the diffs that have popped up in the numerous ANI threads and User talk threads where SqueakBox's behaviour has been utterly unacceptable. There are many people who have the courage and patience to work with PAW but somehow, SqueakBox is the one that keeps generating ANI threads. Where does it stop? Fighting the good fight doesn't buy you a get out of jail card. SqueakBox has got to stop or leave. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PS for Guy. It had been a while since I got involved in that crap. But I just looked back at the details of our last conversation about SqueakBox. I was trying to explain that SqueakBox was not a good idea to mentor Pol64 (talk · contribs). As far as I can see, that experiment did not work out so well. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop editing altogether or be blocked from editing PAW? For me, based on his disruption and its rather narrow focus, a modest and workable solution would be a permanent curfew on PAW. I have saved quite a few of his mistakes, and would be happy to set up an e.mail so that I can communicate them to you off wiki. digitalemotion 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch needs more good-faith editors like SqueakBox, not less. Those topics are difficult areas for Wikipedia. More editors participating can help air out what otherwise might be a dark corner. Concerns about those topics affect the whole community, so the community is best served by more people becoming involved. It doesn't matter what POV editors bring, more participation is better in highly polarized situations. With more editors, it's less likely that discussions devolve into POV-pushing arguments. With more editors, it becomes easier to find actual community consensus, because there's less chance of getting sidetracked into arguments between indivudals or small groups.
• Whatever else comes of this AN/I report, I hope that more administrators and other editors visit the WP:PAW project and bring their skills to the various articles involved with those topics. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jack should probably specify that he/they only want editors that will edit to their liking. NPOV is not the goal, "SPOV" or their POV is. Fair warning: If you have even the slightest disagreement, you'll be labeled a pedophile, vilified, harrassed, personally attacked, and listed at Wikisposure. Contribute at your own risk, as this phenomenon has been widely documented (though much of it has also managed to have been deleted). VigilancePrime (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't twist my words. Your opinions and ideas are yours, not mine. I wrote what I intended to write. All POVs are welcome - a wide cross-section is preferable, to avoid POV-pushing - the editing must be NPOV of course. Broader attention on these topics can only be a positive thing for Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it comes across as assuming bad faith. Beyond that, I made it clear to VigilancePrime that the Arbitration Committee is willing to provisionally open any^[55] related case put before them, but that such a case needs to be submitted privately via email. VigilancePrime, however, does not wish to disclose his email address to the Arbitration Committee.^[56] Which is his right. I, for example, refused to disclose my real identity to the OTRS (a condition to joining), therefore, I don't do OTRS (although, it isn't as if VigilancePrime disclosing an email account amounts to the same thing, privacy-wise). But there's no way around this: arbcom-l is the venue for complaints about these topics (and, yes, it being a private procedure is not optional), so, VigilancePrime may wish to avoid editing that set of articles, because the constant public complaints are becoming increasingly disruptive. Thx. El_C 07:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I twisted nobody's words. I added my own. Stop the false-issue whining.
2. How is this complaining? Oh, "I was asking for it", eh? And reporting abuse is wrong now?
3. I have stopped contributing to those after being driven off those articles by Squeak, Jack, Will, now-perbablocked Pol, and the admin Herostratus. This choice was made after all the above actually happened to me and a couple other editors. If we don't edit to their satisfaction (meaning their bias rather than to actual neutrality), WP:STEAM and WP:PA become the license of the day.

If you want the littany of diffs that demonstrate the longstanding harrassment and name-calling and personal attacks (getting back to the issue at hand, from which many seem to be trying to distract), let me know and I'll post them all right here.

VigilancePrime (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly act as a go-between: If VP wants to make any submissions to ArbCom, they can email me and I'll pass them on. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In one edit to my talk page, Squeak described me as a troll, an idiot, hysterical, uncivil, a liar, disgusting, intolerable, rude, and a brat. In his defense, he did end his comments by saying thanks. I could cite multiple examples of similar commentary and worse, either in edits or edit summaries. Part of that history is hidden by deleted edits, however. I've tried very hard to assume good faith in Squeak's conduct, since it's motivated by pure motives. But, at some point, even the most ardent and righteous zealot must forswear zealotry in favor of harmonious editing. I sympathize with SqueakBox's frustration, but not with how he expresses it. In my view, he doesn't understand that his approach to these conflicts creates a vicious cycle whereby his sharp comments don't get him the outcome he seeks, which frustrates him more, so that his next round of comments is even more strongly worded, and so on. His ArbCom case and his history of warnings and blocks bear out my concerns about his conduct.

There's another side to SqueakBox, however. He's got a significant contribution history (41,415 edits), largely undeniable improvements to the encyclopedia. Similarly, he's undeniably passionate about the topics he covers, and about this project. One example that springs to mind is when he & I worked out our differences on the inclusion of a photo in a biographical article. We started on opposite sides of the question, but we maintained open communications and worked things out. Over the time we've collaborated here, I've had several thoroughly enjoyable interactions with him, and, aside from Wikipedia work, he's been patient enough to help me with my Spanish.

I'm honestly in a quandry . He's made multiple contributions to the encyclopedia and I have a good deal of respect for him. Conversely, he's engaged in the same pattern & practice of contentious commentary and tendentious editing on multiple occasions over multiple subject areas. He's been warned; he's been blocked; he's been to ArbCom. None of these have worked to modify his behavior. No matter how good the reason, we all have to play nicely if we're going to play in the same sandbox. SqueakBox does that, for the most part. But, when he breaks from that, he does so spectacularly. --SSBohio 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that SSB. There's no denying that Squeak can be a positive force. It's also clear that one can only sympathize with the frustration that comes with editing and policing delicate articles. But random insults and accusations don't help, they make things worse. SqueakBox tends to get away with it because powerful admins like Guy protect him as a useful guardian of these delicate articles. Similarly, ArbCom doesn't want to intervene (I did ask), lest they be accused of supporting pedophile activists. It's just oh so easy to look the other way. But many have demonstrated that it's entirely possible to counter extremism on Wikipedia without resorting to insults, accusations, blatant contempt for Wikipedia processes, etc. It's not too much to ask of SqueakBox. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pascal, I've been tarred with that brush too. It's perhaps the most personally painful accusation I've ever had leveled against me, in any forum. I give no quarter to any harm inflicted upon a child. Those that know my personal history know why. A friend of mine, raped as a child, survived two unsuccessful suicide attempts, but did not survive his third. I've assisted SNAP in my own small way in investigating and bringing to justice Catholic priests who had abused children, including schoolmates of mine. Accusations of pro-pedophile activism against you, me, and others has been part of the problem, to be sure. --SSBohio 19:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime has been canvassing around this, as around so many issues [57] [58] [59], hardly the act of a good faith editor. I am extremely unhappy to not only have to put up with VPs abuse but also his canvassing his friends. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable, will an admin do something about it or will people just allow him to troll me off the site. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been on the receiving end of some of your comments, I'd view VP's action more as a case of victim notification than canvassing. Despite your insinuation, VP & I are not "friends;" However, I'm glad VP let me know about this because, while I don't agree with VP's methods, I agree that your actions have been problematic. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you one thing I find rather irritating right now, no offense, but it's that damn "thanks" in your signature. It's like, dude, what are you thanking me for? If you say "thanks" at the end of each one of your comments during a heated argument with a person, it makes it sound as if you think you've "won" something with each comment you make. Believe it or not, and some might disagree with me, but removing that "thanks" would really help ease some tension in your exchanges with people. Thanks, Equazcion •✗/C • 18:44, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC) (see what I mean?)

I agree. To thoroughly insult me, then thank me doesn't come across as polite, but rather as rubbing salt into the wound. I'd recommend saying thanks only when it appears not to be meant sarcastically. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but where does Squeak get off saying people are behaving hysterical. As far as I know, he can't see me on his monitor. How does he know one is hysterical, without seeing the person's face. Thanks :) Fighting for Justice (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone start an RfC on this? —Whig (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wants to start an RfC because it's not really an effective process to resolve this kind of problem. It's not like SqueakBox just suddenly started having problems controlling his temper. There was an arbitration process a while back that resulted in him being on civility parole for a year. He was blocked 3 times for violating that parole. After he told me and I quote, "if you think there is anything frivolous about propmoting pedophilia perhaps you would care to explain it", he was asked by arbitrator Morven (talk · contribs) to get a grip and tone it down. A few weeks later there was the Haemo incident, Morven asked him to tone it down. A few weeks later, Guy assigned him as Pol64's mentor. The result was SqueakBox encouraging Pol64 to have SSB desysopped. And that's just the incidents I remember hearing about. There have been countless threads on his behaviour here and they always end up dying out because no admin has the guts to say "enough is enough". I can tell you exactly how an RfC will end up: the two conclusions will be "SqueakBox is unacceptably rude and uncivil. He should get a grip" and "deep down SqueakBox is a good chap and he often faces trolls and sockpuppets". And then nothing will happen and new ANI threads will appear periodically. Bottom line is that as long as we continue to tolerate crusaders which are fighting the good fight through unacceptable means, no ANI thread, RfC and I even suspect arbitration case will really make much of a difference. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Userbox!

No, not that sort of drama. Just a userbox for all you guys.

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Wikidrama
Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 03:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooooooooooooooooooooooh that one's for me! Thanks :) Merkinsmum 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Me plz. Will ^(talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The real question is, can we put this on other users' pages as needed? :) MastCell ^Talk 04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Adding it to my userpage now :-) Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That is just awesome. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :-D

Agreed. To my subpage! Malinaccier (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, I was looking for the right place to advertise my userboxes. Now I know that it's Wikipedia:ANI 72.193.12.47 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me!

This user is tired of hearing about "lieking Mudkipz".^[sic]

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you make one for the opposite point of view as well?  :) Antandrus (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash again?

I've noticed that IP 74.202.131.118 is going to each one of V-Dash's sockpuppet accounts and changing the message from "This account is a sockpuppet of V-Dash" to "This account is a sockpuppet of Jéské Couriano". I've begun to revert all of these, but the diffs include [60], [61], [62], [63], and [64], although there are several more instances. It should also be noted that the IP opened their talk page with the message "Jeske is an ass" diff. Jéské Couriano has requested that all potential V-Dash sockpuppets be reported to ANI if the block log for the account is empty (which it is at the time of this message). MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but since the IP stopped over an hour ago, I don't know that a block would be either necessary nor effective at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That, and it's likely V-Dash has moved on to a different IP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User continuing to add slanderous material about a company

Resolved

 – The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive365#Mortgage_Guaranty_Insurance_Corporation, where I recently reported this. User:Justjihad continues to add slanderous information on the above company, and I believe he should be blocked for a day, if not more. This appears to be a SPA to add his own POV in an off-wiki dispute. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Justjihad has been blocked for 1 day for repeatedly adding poorly referenced personal commentary to the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another Creepy Crawler sockpuppet

Godcthulha (talk · contribs) is adding the Category:Soap opera actors to a bunch of articles, much in the vein of Creepy Crawler (talk · contribs) and his numerous socks. Others, including the newly admined Doczilla, have expressed the belief that this is yet another sockpuppet of CC. Pairadox (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been adding that to a bunch of articles...? What's wrong with that? Is he adding them to articles about people who aren't soap opera actors?--Phoenix-wiki 16:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears he's mainly adding it to a lot of people who are already in Category:American soap opera actors or another by country category. They should not be duplicated in Category:Soap opera actors. He has not edited since Doczilla asked him at 09:53 to stop populating Category:Soap opera actors. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rayhade edits on Criticism of Mormonism - no response to repeated olive branches, and continued edit warring

Unresolved

User:Rayhade has been quite belligerent editing Criticism of Mormonism, and I admit I got sucked into an edit war with him/her on more than one occasion. I have tried to talk it out on their talk page, but I can't get any response. This has been going on for a few weeks now I think. I would like someone to look into the situation and let me know if I am being unreasonable, and if not, perhaps we can block Rayhade until they are ready to talk to the community, rather than continue revert warring. I think I have put my best foot forward in trying to come to an agreement, but I get no response, only reverts. Please see my four attempts to discuss on Rayhade's talk page, as well as an attempt to discuss the issue with the community at large. --Descartes1979 (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation, since your requests have gone unanswered and the edit warring has continued, take a breather for yourself and observe what's happening. If the user continues to edit war, warn them about WP:3RR. If behavior continues unabated, then report them for the violation. That would certainly get community eyes on the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of pop culture lists

WillOakland (talk · contribs) has been removing "in pop culture" sections from articles unilaterally. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right. WillOakland (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He also took it upon himself to do this [65]. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I changed the passive "could be" (by someone else, it always seems) to "please do." —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillOakland (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to discuss these removals on the talk pages of the applicable articles, as large-scale removal of such sections generally results in a widespread edit war, which is very much unwelcome.--Father Goose (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit summmary, being WillOakland's third edit since registering, and the user's general behavior strongly suggests this is a sock account.--Father Goose (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree Will seems pretty familiar with the swing of things which does suggest a previous incarnation. Though that in itself is not an issue unless it was a banned person. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This WillOakland is also deleting large amounts of information in Trivia sections as well as taking it upon his/herself to change the trivia template without discussion so it appears that damage is being done on a large scale in different sections. I am talking about referenced items being removed unilaterally not long after a trivia tag is applied also. I really think Admins need to intervene with this person. UB65 (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly did not imagine that a mere change in tone of the template would be a problem. WillOakland (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia and "In pop culture lists" are almost always bad news - they trivialise important and serious subjects and make wikipedia look stupid and tacky. The pop culture list creators make the mistake of saying their subject has something to do with their pop culture item, when plainly it is the other way around *only*. If some video game has the Eiffel Tower in it for example, that is not a fact about the tower but a fact about the game (and thus should not go on the tower page). Further, their inherent listy nature (rather than seamless prose) is a major detraction. People don't read lists, but (bored teenage?) editors love adding their personal favourite pop culture tid bits. GAH!!!

But my rant above is not what ANI is for. Thus, let me say that WillOakland would likely have a better impact on wikipedia if he went about these removals in a more consultative rather than combative fashion. Sudden removal can really annoys people (who otherwise might have been persuadable), entrenches positions in place of reason, and starts edit wars. If he made a clearer case for removal first, and brought people with him, he'd have more luck, create less agro, and improve wikipedia. regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, removing trivial trivia and pop culture additions when they appear is a lot easier than removing established lists which require more consultation. That's where your more likely to get quick results.--Merbabu (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have reviewed some of these edits - Kermit the frog, Leonard Mccoy, Dilbert, parsec. He goes further than I would but they seem to be reasonable edits made with some care, rather than unthinking slashes. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

rg ::PS, Ah, maybe that was what he was thinking in the case that I was mostly concerned with. The information had been a part of the article for some time as far as I can tell and then somebody added the trivia tag a few days ago and so boom, he removes all of it. UB65 (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI at that point I was just going down the list of article that link to Family Guy. WillOakland (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I guessed you were doing. FWIW, my method was to review your contributions and then look at the few articles which interested me. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• It really boils down to retaining the information rather than just deleting it. Incorporating the information into the article takes a few minutes but is much better than losing it by cutting. I agree with Merbabu's statement:

...would likely have a better impact on Wikipedia if he went about these removals in a more consultative rather than combative fashion. Sudden removal can really annoys people (who otherwise might have been persuadable), entrenches positions in place of reason, and starts edit wars. If he made a clearer case for removal first, and brought people with him, he'd have more luck, create less agro, and improve Wikipedia. regards --Merbabu (talk)

PS, articles do look way better with the information incorporated into the article rather than set apart as tivia and pop lists , etc..

UB65 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• In the end, it boils down to "does this information enhance the reader's understanding of the subject?" If the answer is no, then excise it. After all, this is (or was last time I looked) an encyclopedia. (And if the answer is yes, include it in the main article, rather than in a separate section). Black Kite 11:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Having done it a few times before, it is not that easy or quick to integrate trivia into prose. MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Burntsauce reincarnated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, disruptive editing. I'll start to revert these. This kind of disruptive editing does call for administrative intervention. We've been through this nonsense several times before already. If the user won't stop he needs to be blocked. Wikidemo (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't support sockpuppets of banned editors, but I fully support the outright, unilateral removal of poorly written, indiscriminate pop culture sections. When there's mostly bathwater and very little baby, sometimes it's best to start from scratch.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, you can only prune an overgrown bush when you've actually got a bush. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not simply revert these. In some cases, you have reverted original research and unsourced speculation right back into the article. By all means put back specific references if they're notable, significant, encyclopedic, and well-sourced. While I disapprove of this guy's methods, on the whole his edits are improving the encyclopedia. And that should be the bottom line. Nandesuka (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the Fat Man and Nandesuka; such content is rarely useful, and if it could have been integrated into the article, it should have been. Reverting all of them makes no more sense than deleting them to begin with did. And I'm not comfortable with logic like "sounds like" referring to previous banned users. Haven't we learned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I will simply revert these. I am looking through them and selectively reverting - a number of the deletions are clearly inappropriate. In many other cases there is no useful content there so I'm leaving them as is. It's not up to me to chase behind disruptive editors with a broom cleaning up their messes. The editor admits here[66] that he is conducting an "intervention" on Wikipedia. Again, we have been through this ridiculous thing before, and it resulted in arbcom cases, administrators being de-sysopped, and so on. We don't need that kind of thing here. That is not what this project is about. Wikidemo (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nor is this project about defending the inclusion of unsightly, unencylopedic garbage in articles. I have no comment on the editor but generally support the edits.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it is. Keeping up the encyclopedia always involves being on the lookout for people who are more interested in making points than actually contributing. I'm not defending bad content, just dealing with a disruptive editor who is causing unnecessary drama. Again, we have been through this issue before. The issue has been settled already, which is why we have a guideline on the subject. This kind of nonsense always causes trouble. Wikidemo (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's unfair to the editor. What point is this editor trying to make other than every article should be readable, well-organized and well-written? The editor is greatly improving the readability and presentability of articles in a minimum amount of time; I have a problem scolding anyone for that.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. I've looked through and carefully read most of this editors content deletions over the past few days, and reverted perhaps 1/3 of them. As a rule I've reverted when I saw that the deletions eliminated a substantial amount of encyclopedic material, and let them be in cases where there was very little or nothing salvageable. One thing that he, and some other users, gravely misunderstand is that many of these articles (e.g. Kermet the Frog) are pop culture phenomena to begin with, so that the subject's place in popular culture is part and parcel of their notability. For an actor to participate in popular culture (e.g. taking a role, voicing a character) is what they do. An important event such as the Tiananmen Square massacre is important not because people were killed and jailed but because it reshaped culture. To actually deal with the articles this editor disrupted would take days...and that's what we do here, deal with and improve articles. To go about deleting content you don't like is a lazy, pointless exercise that does more harm than good. If you don't like trivia, edit articles for real but don't come here to cause trouble. Wikidemo (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting useless information is "editing articles for real." The text you restored contains encyclopedic gems like: In October 2005, Kermit embarked on a tour visiting 50 "incredibly fun - and some just plain strange - places around the world to celebrate my 50th year in show business." You're pouncing on an editor and calling him names for trying to keep articles free of this nonsense.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting a piece of material you object to is besides the point. If he had wanted to delete that particular line he could have. He didn't though. Instead, he deleted a bunch of other material that another editor partly restored, including some encyclopedic content such as "On Kermit's 50th anniversary in show business, the United States Postal Service released a set of new stamps with photos of Kermit and some of his fellow Muppets on them" and "A statue of Henson and Kermit was erected on the campus of Henson's alma mater, the University of Maryland, College Park in 2003." I did not touch the Kermit article, and nobody deleted or restored the section you quoted. Deleting large swaths of content as "trivia" is a disruptive activity that serves no valid purpose and sets us back instead of forward. It is counter to guidelines. Please don't encourage people to make disruptive edits. Wikidemo (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Including large swaths of content as trivia is also a disruptive activity. Simply reverting removals of it is even more disruptive. It's a very good thing you selectively reverted them, rather than just blindly reverted everything. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, good faith edits aren't disruptive nor are rollbacks of disruptive edits. When someone makes a large number of improper edits all at once, the simplest thing to do is simply restore the old version and I wouldn't fault anyone for that. But with trivia it's worth the extra few minutes to see if there is anything worth saving or not because 90% of all the content in trivia sections is usually useless.Wikidemo (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad people choose to just delete content instead of fixing it. I know it's easier to delete...that's plain enough, but some effort needs to be put into improving articles by integrating content that belongs. No doubt, some content needs to go but it's a little lazy to just delete everything unilaterally. Put a little work into it and you end up with a better article, which is why we're here! RxS (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So we've got a red-linked user, brand new on February 5th, and his first activity is to immediately start to whack trivia lists. [67] Sounds like hosiery of some kind, eh? Aside from that, the meataxe approach contributes nothing. It's the lazy way, the "I don't like it so no one else can have it" attitude. Because actually working on the articles would require a time investment and would not be nearly as much fun as chopping. I feel like I'm repeating myself here. Oh, yeh... words like or similar to what I said about the now-banned user called Burntsauce, whose attitude and approach were similar (though maybe not identical) to this current red-linked user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out to Mr. Redlink that the reason Burntsauce was banned was not because he deleted trivia lists, as such, but because he didn't care what anyone else thought about it and wouldn't take any corrective action to work with the wikipedia community. And Mr. Redlink's most recent edit as of this writing does not look encouraging in that regard either, with its "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" stance. [68] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He's already been warned, so the above is overkill, as of the moment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear... yes, trivia sections should be dealt with... with a scalpel, not a meataxe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester, removing large blocks of material deliberately on the basis of ones personal opinion about content without prior discussion is vandalism; that is not the way toward cooperative editing and is destructive of the encyclopedia. (As you say, the same would apply to similarly reckless additions--and we revert them as spam with hesitation, and block for them to prevent further damage). Vandalism can be reverted. If one doesnt think it vandalism, then it's B as the first step in BRD, and the second step is R. Either way, BB would have been fully justified in just reverting back these deletions, and suggesting that if it were constructively intended, they be done more reasonably. I'm not all that happy with the entire principle of BRD, which i think leads to just this sort of problem, but if B is justified, so is R, as a necessary part of it. The rule does not read BD. The Bold may be necessary to provoke the discussion, and the R shows it is not obvious, and lets the discussion proceed in a hopefully peaceful spirit. Its the subsequent insistence of repeating opposed Bold moves that turns it into edit warring. The plain meaning of "It's a very good thing you ... " is as an attempt at intimidation. DGG (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nihil novi on Spiritualism

I want to flag up a persistent pattern of reversion by Nihil novi on the Spiritualism topic. [69], [70], [71], [72], [73].

As one proponent in the development of the page, I am doing in an attempt to "do the right thing" and out of a wish to avoid flaming any further fires by dropping vandalism or WP:3RR warning on an other editors' talk pages.

I am perfectly happy for material to be removed from the topic that others do not feel is supported by the references and citations provided. I am cognizant of the relative policies and need for consensus but I have made the point that if they wish to remove offending content, they can do so with reverting entirely good reference formating [ [74]], improved images [75], [76] or [77] versus [78] and layouts [79]. Indeed, the removal of the Feminist, Abolitionists or religious principles sections is being done with any discussion and that where references were requested for Post-WWII section they were provided [80].

My feeling is that this a particular situation is being contrived with two or more editors performing identical and total revisions as a provocation, e.g.; Nihil novi and Anthon.Eff [81], [82] etc and that the reverting have now become "personal" rather than topic related. There can be no rational reason for removing formatted references, improved images etc.

I offer that the edits I have done stand as good and I would appreciate practical assistance in this matter as it has gone beyond a mere content issue. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick response. User:Lucyintheskywithdada is doubling the size of the article with one edit, in the process removing preexisting text and images. Concerns have been raised that she has copied and pasted material verbatim from websites (if interested, here's where she was told), and that her "sources" don't say the things she claims they say (some discussion of that here). She has therefore been asked to bring in a little new material at a time, to give us a chance to build consensus, both with regard to her additions and her deletions. So far, she's not listening. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN

TTN (talk · contribs) is continuing to mass tag articles for merger (examples: [83], [84], [85], [86]) and is not complying with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities:

“ For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction. ”

An arbitrator while posting the above injunction stated:

“ [...] Favoring a broad interpretation by administrators, geared to the spirit of this, which is to quell the disputed actions whilst the case is in progress. ”

I am not posting this to "arbitration enforcement" as that noticeboard isn't functioning. -- Cat ^chi? 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I would say that the injunction is unclear here - adding merger tags is obviously not "apply(ing) .. a tag related to notability" - this obviously means {{notability}} or similar. Yes, one could argue that tagging for merger is effectively the same as tagging for notability, but I can think of many examples where it is not. I think you'd probably need to raise this at the RfAR page. I have, however, left a note on TTN's talkpage suggesting that he holds off on doing this too, even for obvious examples. Black Kite 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  The injunction is indeed very unclear - it should apply to notability, but ends up applying to speculation, we don't know if it applies to only TV characters, we don't know if applies to groups or just singular entities, etc etc. Will ^(talk) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, everybody was very specific on being literal with the wording of the injunction, meaning that video game characters are not subject to it. I won't be edit warring at any point during the injunction, so I'll hardly be violating the spirit of it either. TTN (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm again - does "TV episodes and characters" mean "TV episode articles and TV character articles", or does it mean "TV episode articles, and character articles in general"? Don't ask me. Just shows how daft and confusing this injunction is - see also this. Black Kite 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

While I and many other people always thought it was the latter, most people seemed to have started reading it literally. If the members of arbcom actually want to clarify it, I'll obviously stop, but I'm going with the literal interpretation until then. TTN (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The injunction is not clear to prevent gaming around it. Common sense suggests if arbitration committee asks you to stop a certain kind of "disputed edits" on a specific topic, you do NOT continue it on a different topic. What is the difference in TTN's previous edits and these? TTN is making the same "disputed actions" on a similar topic. Alas it isn't TV and instead Video Games (which may very well be also TV characters as most video characters are these days). -- Cat ^chi? 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In which case the injunction should've been worded so it was completely clear to avoid end-running round it, ironically enough a favourite tactic of those wishing to keep such articles. Otherwise, it shouldn't have been made at all. Black Kite 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Except the link you site is about your complaint on an AfD about a TV episode which has nothing to do with what this section is about (and falls directly under the ArbCom injunction). JuJube (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom injunction does not need to be christal clear. Wikipedia:Gaming the system in a nutshell states that "playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden." Arbcom temporary injunctions supersedes any policy, guideline, essay, or even community consensus so gaming around them is the last thing people should try to do. -- Cat ^chi? 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but you voted "Keep per ArbCom". What does this mean? What ArbCom resolution? Black Kite 19:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I voted what? I don't remember at all and it is completely irrelevant to this case. Stop nominating pages for deletion (afd, cfd, tfd or any other cfd), stop blanking/redirectifying pages, stop tagging them, stop removing existing tags, stop restoring redirectified content. To put it in a single word: "STOP". You should not need an injunction to stop when a matter is brought to the arbitration committee...
TTN has been told to STOP many times, and was shown more tolerance than anybody else. To date he has pushed that tolerance to its absolute limit gaming around it as much as he can. So there you have it. TTN is the untouchable. -- Cat ^chi? 20:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one that voted "Keep per ArbCom" and I already explained why. A number of AfD's that fell under the ArbCom injunction cropped up, and I simply got tired of typing the whole reason so I just put that. JuJube (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I really suggest to TTN that repeated attempts to evade the clear intentions here are not going to help him. It might even add some ammunition to those who want to ban him altogether, that he seems to try to evade any limit. DGG (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Hrafn

An editing dispute between myself and User:Hrafn has resulted in some behavior that I think is objectionable. The initial disagreement concerned the placement of a Template:refimprove tag on the article Old Earth creationism - the tag was at the top of the page, and I moved it to the bottom, near the references, as suggested by the template page. After some back and forth, there was a call for a discussion about where the tag should be placed. Both Hrafn and I posted comments at about the same time on the talk page. The discussion was ongoing, when Hrafn decided it was "off topic" and put the discussion under a "hat" with an "archived, do not modify" tag on it. Obviously, doing this cuts off all possibility of continued discussion on the topic and prevents any local consensus from forming about where the tag would best be placed. I undid the action and asked Hrafn not to do it again, but that has happened.

Can someone please look into this? I'm not sure what action is appropriate here - I am not seeking anyone to be blocked, I simply would like the discussion to be able to continue.

As I was preparing this complaint, Hrafn has done something else, "userfied" the discussion? I don't quite know what that means, but I've undone it. [Apparently, that meant moving the entire discussion to my talk page.] I'd really like this to stop, if it can, so discussion can continue on the pertinent topic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put a notice on Hrafn's talk page concerning this complaint. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The "suggestion" in the template page also notes that there is no consensus on placement (and there is no consistency among the guidelines for similar templates).
2. I initially complained about his unilateral behaviour on User talk:Ed Fitzgerald
3. Ed Fitzgerald requested that we take the discussion to ‎Talk:Old Earth creationism, so I did so.
4. It quickly became apparent that this was an issue that could not be decided in isolation, and that it had little to do specifically with Old Earth creationism, so I suggested, repeatedly, that Ed take it to Wikipedia talk:Template messages or Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles which are the more appropriate fora for such discussions. When he refused, I first archived ({ {hat}}/{{hab}} ) the thread and then (when he repeatedly reverted the former) userfied it to his talkpage.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not appropriate that we continue the dispute here -- and my complaint has nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of the dispute, it's about your actions in attempting to shut down the discussion. I only wish to say that the initial disagreement was about where the clean-up tag should be placed on that particular page, and since that disagreement continues, it's only right that the discussion continue. It doesn't seem to me that you get to decide which of my reasons are appropriate to be part of the discussion (as opposed to your deciding which one of them is convincing or not, which is certainly your privilege). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really such a big deal to have a dispute about, and I'd suggest to both of you to relax and have a cup of tea. Or whatever. Hrafn's been doing an immense job in keeping the whole range of articles in reasonable order, Ed Fitzgerald's made some edits which seem to me to be improvements, and either way this article does need improvement, not least to the inline references. I don't much mind where the template goes, if an article desperately needs references it's reasonable to have it at the top to encourage readers to become editors, if it's a question of improvement needed to a reasonably referenced article my own preference is to put it in the references section. Either way the article's categorised as needing that attention, which hasn't had quick results. A good outcome will be cooperation on making some improvements. .. dave souza, talk 19:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Hempbilly

Hempbilly (talk · contribs) has violated WP:3RR attempting six times to add poorly sourced derogatory information about accusations of pedophilia ([88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93]) to an article about a noted person whose work opposed America's conservative agenda, in violation of WP:BLP. There is a report above concerning his warring in a similar way yesterday to the same ends on a different article ([94] [95] [96]). He is actively continuing this behavior at the moment (the last such edit was within the past few minutes), and indicated that he intends to continue. I believe we should run a checkuser on this editor inasmuch as he is clearly more experienced than his small edit count would suggest, has shown no interest in discussing or otherwise participating, has refused to answer directly whether he is a sockpuppet, and exists for the single purpose of adding controversial material about liberals and removing such material from articles about conservatives. Wikidemo (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As for Wikidemo allegations, they are groundless. He accuses me of adding "poorly sourced derogatory information" although he fails to explain how its poorly sourced. Its sourced to the National Review, and last I checked, the NR certainly meets all the criteria for inclusion based on WP:RS. It also adds a check to Ritters utterly ridiculous claims that he was "set up" into meeting an underage girl in the bathroom of a BK.

The example Wikideom goves for the Bernie Ward page is similarly baseless. The material was cited and sourced to a WP:RS, and last I checked thats the requirement ... not some strawman about whether the material is too salacious or descriptive.

Another similarly poor argument of Wikidemo’s is that I only trash talk some kinds of people, and strip information from articles about other kind of people. Reading minds is not advised, especially considering that its not possible to do so. And while there may be some truth in the articles I have been editing … so what … iof that was grounds to ban or block me, there would be thousands of other editors who would fall under this wide net. (Don’t see you complaining about the others Mr. Wikidemo)

As for the checkuser request, sounds like someone is a bit to eager to go fishing .... but go for it, this IS' my only account, although I have edited under IP's before.

Hempbilly (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to assess the merits of content, but rather behavior problems that require administrator intervention (i.e. blocking Helpbilly to prevent ongoing disruptive editing). A quick review of Hempbilly's talk page and contribution history reveals an escalating campaign of inappropriate edits, and more recently, cursing in edit summaries, personal attacks, etc). He is now up to 6RR on one article with no indication of stopping, after being reverted by four different editors who agree the material is inappropriate. My conduct is not at issue here. This is a reading of Wikipedia edits, not minds.Wikidemo (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Last time I tried editing on this ID, I was chased off by individuals so hell bent on owning an article that I decided to go anon for a while, looks like thats where I will have to go agian. Congratulations everyone, you won! Now you can relish that victory cookie even more.

And calling my edits "poorly sourced" and "derogatory" would seem to qualify as discusing the merrits of the content. There goes that standard for some and a standard for others that you seem so keen on upholding. Hempbilly (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually surprised that this is here -- I had just filed an AIV report. WP:BLP/N#Bernie Ward has information of Hempbilly's POV-pushing/BLP-vios. at Bernie Ward. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was a good first step. I brought it here because the problem has continued and expanded since you brought it there. It's an immediate behavioral issue concerning more than one article now, and BLP/N is simply not set up to quickly handle people who become disruptive editors overall. Note the admission, and threat, to continue these inappropriate editors anonymously. Would a checkuser show these anonymous IP accounts? Can we do an IP block here? Wikidemo (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Update - this now-blocked[[97] editor has blanked his talk page[98] and user page,[99], claiming as he does here that he is abandoning this account to continue the disruptive edits under anonymous IP accounts to avoid detection. This is a vow of and admission to abusive sock-puppeting. Accordingly I've filed a checkuser request[100] to figure out what anonymous IP accounts he refers to sockpuppeting under so we can check for possible WP:BLP violations in those edits, and also to prevent ongoing disruption under the anonymous accounts. On his way out he tried three times to insert the BLP violations into talk talk pages as a protest against their getting removed from article space.[101] [102] [103] I suggest that a longer-term block and/or IP block is called for under the circumstances.Wikidemo (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got the two pages in question (from Hempbilly) watchlisted to monitor for any abusive changes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just semi-protect the pages in question for a couple of days? Problem solved. One has literally no random edits and the other one that is has said random edits reverted almost as fast as they're made. HalfShadow (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is little justification now that Hempbilly has been blocked for 3RR and for BLP vios. In the case of Bernie Ward, which has seen increased activity in light of recent news, the BLP vios. were reverted within minutes -- although that didn't stop from chit-chat from occurring on the talk page. If it escalates with various socks of Hempbilly or more random IP edits, then one can request RPP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser has confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#Hempbilly that Hempbilly has three other accounts. I haven't even begun to look and see if they have been misused for edit warring, but TDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has quite a history. The checkuser has blocked his IP for 2 weeks, so altering the 24-hour 3RR block I made this afternoon would be largely symbolic, but there is a question of what to do next. The most obvious option is to indef all accounts but the original (User:TDC). But beyond that, can anyone make a really good case not to impose a community ban? That's the direction I'm leaning. --B (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why a community ban cannot be implemented. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits from the three other accounts and only found four recent contentious edits worth reverting, all from TDC. Some raised BLP concerns and others were just contentious. I reverted these four for BLP reasons and so as not to reward an abusive sockpuppet with being able to slant article point of views. All four accounts showed history of disruptive editing, disputes, etc., particularly TDC, which has quite a block history. However, other than the four I reverted all of the problem edits were at least a month ago and now buried under many subsequent edits. Rather than try to undo any of it, I figured it's better to leave things up to the discretion of the the people actively involved in the articles. I'm pretty satisfied that the abuse was real but the damage not widespread. Wikidemo (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

138.23.89.187 (talk · contribs)

This situation was not accepted at WP:AIV because it's too complex, so I'm posting it here: 138.23.89.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Also uses 138.23.77.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 138.23.77.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Probable socks of Pericles626 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Slow motion vandalism of Garrison Keillor, A Prairie Home Companion (film), and related articles for at least six months. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If these are suspected socks, then I would place the requisite template (sockpuppeteer) on the IP's user page to identify that you have expressed concerned that these reflect the activity of a single user. Also, there is no restriction to opening up a sockpuppetry case that deal with anon IPs in order to have admins take a look at it. However, most of the time the outcome comes back to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Douglasfgrego

Resolved

User:Douglasfgrego has attacked other users, including me, just because one of his pages is at AfD (see here and here). He has been warned on his talk page about his actions. Because this user is known for not assuming good faith, and because he has a history of attacking other users (he was nearly blocked about a year ago), I feel that he is definitely not here to improve the project, and may warrant an indef block. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Another insult was just placed here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Final warned, will give this one last chance for reform. Malinaccier (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• What we have here is an editor who seems to be trying to create an article in good faith but whose efforts are being attacked within minutes. It is no surprise that he is annoyed and aggrieved. Please see WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• This isn't a new user. I interacted with him over a year ago, and his actions today are consistent with his actions back then. AniMate 22:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• • He has been extremely disruptive and has been continuously attacking other editors. I indefinitely blocked the user for personal attacks, threats, and disruption. He went way too far. Malinaccier (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• I went through the user's contributions, and also noticed a dramatic change in attitude. Hijacked account? Malinaccier (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • I disagree with your action. A quick search on the matter in question indicates that it is quite notable, being reporetd by the BBC, for example. Since the attempts to block creation of this article were not well founded, Mr Grego's complaints seem justified by undue provocation. He was not especially uncivil, mainly just asking to be left alone so the article could be created. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Quote from talk page:

"to all you anal-retentive assholes out there, who think you are the end-all, be-all of Wikipedia, and that your are privy to some higher understanding of Wikipedia rules, you are not the boss of Wikipedia. You do not have some special authority here. All you have is a computer and an internet connection and too much time on your hands.

This here is my discussion page. See that up there, it says User Talk: Douglasfgrego. That's me. And I'll say whatever the fuck I want to here on my page. If you don't like it, don't come in here."

That seemed especially uncivil to me. Malinaccier (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Furthermore, I just recieved an email from him beginning with "Dude, you are such a dick. Unblock my account..." Yet another personal attack. Malinaccier (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree 100% with the rationale to delete this article, though I don't think that each and every news story of the week needs its own entry. However, this user has a history of extreme incivility. On the other article he created (Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom), any attempts to change the article from the white nationalists talking points to something resembling NPOV were met with accusations of bias and various other recriminations. This isn't a loss to the project in the slightest. AniMate 23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• My impression is that you _are_ biased against him and that this is unduly influencing the action taken which still seems excessive. The article should have been allowed to be created and just tagged for cleanup as needed. Then all of this could have been avoided. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I'd suggest you read up on assuming good faith and no personal attacks. Nothing on his talk page is remotely acceptable, regardless of what happens with the article. Just because someone nominates an article for deletion, doesn't mean that someone is given free reign to make the kind of remarks he made on his page. AniMate 23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that I left exactly two messages on this editors page in May of last yearthat can be seen here. I was not only the height of civility, I gave him advice on how to work through the steps of dispute resolution so he could avoid incivility in the future. AniMate 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've not seen anything that I don't consider fair comment yet. For example, on Ten Pound Hammer's talk page we have:

Dude. Go away and leave the Brian Sterner entry alone. You seem to be determined to destroy this entry as quickly as possible. Go outside. Go for a walk. Go read a book. Go do something else, and leave the entry alone. Let other people visit and expand the entry. God, you wannabe administrators are so goddamn annoying.--Douglasfgrego (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The only point that isn't obvious is the wannabe admin bit. But Ten Pound Hammer has a userbox on his page to exactly this effect and so that's accurate. The rest is just the guy's way of saying to leave the article alone for a while so it can be edited. And that Ten Pound Hammer is being annoying, which again seems accurate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There's this gem:

What's the matter Nancy, did I hurt your widdle (sniff, sniff), feewings? Awww, poor bay-bee!

And this:

Please. Fuck off. Statements made on my own discussion page are not disruptive nor are they personal attacks. This is Douglasfgrego's discussion page, not Tenpoundhammer's lecture room. I'll say whatever I want here. You can kiss my ass. Look! I made that exclamation point too!

If you want to argue about the merits of the article, be my guest, but defending what is clearly inappropriate behavior... I just don't see the point. While civility is subjective, clearly this user is uncivil in the extreme. He was last year and he is today. After being blocked he left this little nugget of wisdom:

I'll tell ya something folks, y'all are a bunch of thin-skinned, hyper-sensitive Nancies on here.

We don't need editors who behave like that, and I think you know it. AniMate 00:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, thin-skinned seems to be the mot juste. If people don't want to hear stuff like this then they shouldn't be so confrontational. Volenti non fit injuria. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's calm down. I think that this case is over. You absolutely cannot ignore the continued disruptions, personal attacks, and poor behavior on the the case of Douglasfgrego. I'm placing "resolved" at the top of the discussion. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible intimidation

I got a 3RR warning [104] on Wikipedia:Reliable sources from User:Francis_Schonken, that I consider highly unjust and intimidating, as well as highly disruptive to a constructive solution.

1. I am here publicly accused of editwarring by the same user that is involved in this dispute on extremist sources (he thinks there should not be any impediment to the abuse of reliable sources in highlighting extremist sources).
2. I made three different proposals to make myself clear and all edits were accompanied by TALK: [105].
3. Since I was seriously discussing a very serious proposal per TALK already, this hardly counts as sterile edit warring, the spirit of the rule.
4. This user did not respond properly to the rejection of his arguments and recurred to reverting instead, thus provoking a 3RR situation.
5. Reverts without TALK or per proven misunderstanding of the edit using TALK should be allowed to be undone per TALK or edit summary.
6. Evaluating the Schonken answers, rephrasing was no luxury since he is obviously playing dumb to my anwers (for instance here: Re. "it is not paraphrasing I refer to". Exactly. We shouldn't need to be worrying about it being paraphrasing or exact quote).
7. I esteem this action creating strife, rather than encouraging to engage in TALK to resolve the issue.
8. If indeed User:Francis_Schonken is an administrator (?), his involvement should be addressed on this level as well.

As such, I experience this undue 3RR warning as an attempt to impose another point of view by force, avoiding TALK. Rokus01 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You were warned that you were about to break 3RR...when you were, in fact, about to break 3RR. It is common for an engaged editor to issue the warning. I also notice Francis edited the talk page concurrently with his reverts of your edits. Further, the fact that you happen to be discussing a matter does not excuse you from edit warring, especially on a guideline page. Just take the warning for what it is, and stick to discussion for the time being, and follow dispute resolution as necessary. There's no need to get worked up over it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Martinphi removal of POV tag

Martinphi removed a POV tag at Yi Ching[106]. Despite being asked to replace it[107], he has not done so. Instead he has place a citation template there (my edit was cited). I do not want to edit war with this user who also wikistalked me to the Project Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid and reverted me there[108].I'd be grateful if someone could help. Mccready (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, this is not a drawn out edit war, and does not need admin attention. I would suggest politely pointing out that the POV tag should remain so long as one editor thinks the POV is present. That said, I also think you two should just stay away from each other and each other's talk pages: use the community talk pages. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User has been trolling on multiple articles which I happen to watch. He makes highly POV, pseudoscientific, or non/against consensus edits, then reverts, then goes to your talk page to scold as if you've broken policy (he apprently learned a small bit from all his blocks, but his basic manner remains unchanged). In the current instance, he is acting as though the whole article is POV because the lead does not mention criticism; the criticism at the time consisted of one sentence. This in spite of an {{expansion}} tag on the section. POV tag was removed per general consensus that it shouldn't be there. And I placed no {{cite}} tags on the article. Look at his block log and edit history Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi is correct in removing the neutrality tag, IMO. Mccready has not explained what aspect of the article's neutrality is in dispute. He has been asked to state the neutrality problem in respect to: WP:NPOV, WP:VER, and WP:NOR. This he has failed to do [109]. Sunray (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin now have a look at this. Both [[User:Martinphi] and User:Sunray have reverted the POV tag despite advice above in this thread and despite advice from another user on the talkpage. of Yi Ching. User:Sunray is also inserting OR. I have requested an apology from Martinphi for his inflammatory, uncivil and wrong accusation of trolling. Mccready (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the tag, but only under the condition that you hash out your arguments on the talk page, and then abide by the consensus. If you believe more of the community needs to be privy to the argument, try WP:RFC. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This should be referred to arbitration enforcement. Martin is under restrictions for making disruptive edits per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

user:Vintagekits

It has been brought to my attention that Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) recently reposted a deleted article, Gregory Lauder-Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As far as I can see, the reposted version was the same as the deleted version, which is a violation of GFDL as well as deletion policy. Somebody who does not have a history with this user (i.e. not me) needs, I think, to find out whether this was taken from a site he believed to be GFDL, or whether it was just another in the extensive series of problem edits from this user. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The page history shows a restore a few days ago, and Alison protecting the page as a redirect. I also don't see it in Vintagekits' recent contributions. Can you be more specific? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, while I also have a somewhat adversarial history with this user, he seems to have been unaware of the backstory involved (User talk:Vintagekits#Are you ill? and hasn't attempted to create this. He seems to have edited a few articles extensively worked on by David, but in a constructive fashion, as far as I can tell. I saw the briefly-recreated article on Lauder-Frost, and his edits to it (I think he added a reference or two) seemed temperate and not for the purpose of making a personal attack on the subject. It appears to me to have been a mistake rather than deliberate misbehavior. Choess (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong: [110] is the diff where VK reposts the entire article, from what source is not clear. It's the deleted article in its entirety, without attribution. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect the edit was in response to the indef blocking of David Lauder et al, whom he had clashed with on this and related articles previously. Its typical of his style to edit like that to make the point that the editor he is in conflict with can't respond. He got the contents of the deleted article from another wiki, I expect, and didn't consider the GFDL issue. He backed of quickly enough, though, when warned to do so, suggesting it was an error more than anything malicious. Rockpocket 09:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He did seem unaware of the lengthy and complex history of that particular article, and as soon as I realised what had gone on I tried to make sure the new history was deleted and redirects protected. I'm not sure what more preventative action could be taken at this stage, three days later. He stepped on a landmine, it's all been dealt with, think it's best just to quickly move on? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I should add that in the course of my research into the history of this situation a couple of weeks ago I discovered at least one off-wiki mirror of the GLF article. Relata refero (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, just a bit disturbing.

Resolved. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I came across IP 72.130.32.142 making some death threats during their vandalism, as seen in their contributions. I have blocked them for 48 hours for the time being, and come here to ANI as I honestly do not come across these everyday, and am unsure of where else to turn/go. What is the next step (if any) in this situation? Jmlk17 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 99% chance it's just run-of-the-mill vandalism. If you feel like reporting it to the authorities, go ahead, but there's almost no chance it's serious, and the authorities might not be able to do much anyway. Then again, I might be biased; my friends and I used to joke around all the time in high school that we'd kill each other, and my one time best-friend got caught doing so on a webpage and was hauled before a judge... The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think any death threat that names a specific individual should probably be reported. Reporting to the ISP is easy enough, but can anyone narrow that IP's location down further than all of southern California? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Narrowed it down some to Orange, California. 33.7949, -117.8410. I think that is specific enough. The same search came up with "Is proxy: false" and a Certainty rate of 99%. Regards, — Save_Us † 01:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure, you're referring to the city and not the county? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the search resulted in the parameter "city: Orange". — Save_Us † 02:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've contacted the police and the ISP's abuse address. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, we should have coordinated our timing, I've done the same. — Save_Us † 03:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Question: where did you get this place information? It isn't on the WHOIS and it gives a probability (I would like to have that, as I know WHOIS is often wrong). The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Geobytes. I've found it mostly reliable for static IP addresses, but Geobytes is mostly useless for open proxies or dynamic IP addresses, which results will be misleading. — Save_Us † 04:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(slightly offtopic) I just tried Geobytes with a static IP and it got the country right, but the city was way off. Ros0709 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Block on ISP 75.74.163.231

Resolved

 – User warned, article AfD'd, Tiptoety ^talk 05:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly vandalized the PlayRadioPlay! article, over 8 times now. The information he continues to add is that a member in the band is an Atheist, which is uncited, and clearly untrue. I've asked him to stop but he still reverts my removal of his addition daily. Also, he has clearly had a problem vandalizing other profiles. --~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 00:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a very serious thing - even if it's a band we're talking about, not just an individual person. I would file a report to WP:3RR if the edit warring continues. Also ask for WP:RFC on the talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, this is a band with only one member. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Of relevance, I have nominated the article for deletion. It's been apparently speedy deleted six times. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Since then it's been nominated for WP:AFD - here [111].Regardless of speedy deletion and AfD noms, continue to monitor any further violation of WP:BLP. Warn the IP about adding controversial material of a living person. Start with level 1 and work up. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Block on Tasc0

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This should be discussed at WP:3RR Ronnotel (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• User:Tasc0 was reported twice, once by User:Chubbles and once by me for the abusing the 3RR on the articles Bloods & Crips and Bangin' on Wax. I had tried to explain to him that the info on that page was not about the album but about the group Blood & Crips. He contiued to revert. User:B responded by taking away his rollback due to inappropriate use of the rollback, User:Sarcasticidealist gave the rollback back to Tasc0 and despite warnings by Chubbles, B and myself, Tasc0 continues to revert, stating the group doesnt exist, when it clearly does. Same As It Ever Was (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just my advice on this matter, I would go for WP:RFC first and then follow up with steps 2 and 3 of the dispute resolution process if it fails. If the user continues to violate WP:3RR during this time, file more reports. Unfortunately, content disputes are not vandalism, so no WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this users wants to convince everybody that I have violated the 3RR, which I haven't because both reports ended in no violation. [112].

Refer to 3RR notice board archive to see that I did not break the rule. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not a license to revert 3 times every 24 hours. You have 4 reverts in 26.5 hours and have clearly been edit warring on Bangin' on Wax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --B (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR page clearly states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."

I have reverted the edits of another editor in a different page than Bangin' on Wax.Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 04:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks." I count four edits to Bangin' on Wax 26.5 hours apart. --B (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the "motivation" of the rule is to prevent edit warrings and it states some users may get blocked even though they haven't broke the rule, then someone should edit the policy and add the following: "We don't care if you only made three reverts in a 24 hours period, we will block you because when don't respect our own rules and like to be authoritarian". Since this report, I have stopped reverting. In case you didn't notice, I was the one who tried to talk to the user in his talk page.

And as far as I'm concerned, a content dispute it's not vandalism. Like another user above said. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible Threat?

Hi all, rather than being paranoid, I was wondering if an admin could cast their eye's over this comment [113] and possibly ask the editor in question to cease making such statements. Thanks Shot info (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NP, although I think his parting edit sum [114], gives his/her regard for your efforts. Thanks anyway and hopefully it will make a difference. Shot info (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Page-move nonsense

The article The limit of the semantic web is currently the subject of an AfD, and the article's creator, User:Identityandconsulting, has taken it upon himself to move the article three four times in quick succession, leaving a trail of silly redirects and making it difficult for anyone who wants to participate in the AfD to actually look at the article. Could someone straighten this mess out? Deor (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's being cleaned up, but the copy on his userpage needs to be stripped of all the article categories (I can't figure out what section he has them all in). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm cleaning it up. I left the AFD templated tagged page even though its currently only a redirect, because of the need for the content to remain while the deletion debate goes on. Keep an eye on this user, he's being incredibly disruptive, and trying to game the deletion debate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the link at the AFD (we have to do something so people can find the thing). I would just call it snowballed, but I already commented and would rather avoid any sort of technicality arguments once he gets to the inevitable deletion review stage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot is malfunctioning again

BetacommandBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just removed an image from an article "beacuse "";" (a rationale which I quote in its entirety) , and tagged an image for speedy deletion on the basis of a decidedly vague complaint (perhaps the image needs to be speedily deleted "beacuse "";", I suppose). The bot also substitutes instances of templates occurring in template documentation, as a result of which the description of the template output won't be automatically updated when the template is changed -- see [115] [116] [117] [118], for example. If that weren't bad enough, the bot makes bizarre null edits to userpages -- see [119] [120] [121] [122]. John254 05:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think BcBot uses WP:TWINKLE, Betacommand may have just been logged in as the wrong user. SQL^{Query me!} 06:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be possible that Betacommand accidentally logged into his bot account, then removed an image "beacuse "";" -- except that User:BetacommandBot/monobook.js was blank at the time of the offending edit, so Betacommand wouldn't have access to WP:TWINKLE when logged into the bot account. Which, of course, leaves us with one of three possibilities:

(1) Betacommand logged into BetacommandBot, then removed an image "beacuse "";", and entered an edit summary indicating that he used WP:TWINKLE even though he didn't.

(2) BetacommandBot is a compromised account

(3) BetacommandBot is malfunctioning

John254 06:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see that. Have you notified him of the problems at all? SQL^{Query me!} 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have informed Betacommand of the discussion here. However, given the amount of damage which a malfunctioning bot can cause, I would suggest that BetacommandBot be blocked until Betacommand can fix the problem. John254 06:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Given one messed up edit summary, and the MP templates, I think Beta is testing some code. Note the regex-like edit reverted as betacommandbot.[123] I'm not inclined to block for this, although I'm curious why some edits are recorded but appear to do nothing.[124] Gimmetrow 06:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that further test edits be made in a userspace sandbox, rather than damaging articles, images, and template documentation? John254 06:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I notified Betacommand of this. Tiptoety ^talk 06:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is testing out what he proposed here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Next_BCBot_Phase MBisanz ^talk 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion linked there contains no mention of whatsoever of disruptively substituting templates on their documentation pages, or of making null edits to userpages. In any event, the next time Betacommand or BetacommandBot removes an image from an article or tags an image for speedy deletion, I surely hope that a better explanation than "beacuse "";" is provided. John254 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, the null edits in the userspace is bizzare, didn't think the system would let that actually be recorded. I'm looking at the templates, and they contain images with instructions that the templates should be subst'd in actual use. That leads me to think this is either some weird transclusion error with the image that is messing up the bot or that the bot is searching for instances of a template that should be transcluded and then actually doing it. MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The templates should be substituted in normal user talk page usage, to record the warnings that were actually given, and to minimize the use of system resources (though there's a disagreement as to whether bot template substitution actually consumes more resources than it saves.) The problem here is that the bot has apparently been programmed to substitute all usages of the templates, even where they are used in template documentation, in which they should be transcluded, so as to update the text of the templates contained in the documentation when the templates themselves are updated. John254 07:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The GTA/Brooklyn Bridge was a one-off; that will no doubt be fixed. The bot has not edited for almost two hours. Gimmetrow 07:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is BetacommandBot so controversial? It is performing a necessary task, but must it anger so many people in the process? I suggest instead that Betacommand enlist willing volunteers to work on rationales, rather than trying to dragoon editors into having to volunteer even more of their time. Part of the problem is that the editors are untrained, and BetacommandBot's notifications 1) come across as a hostile challenge, 2) do not adequately tell people exactly what is wrong with their rationale, and 3) will spam an editor who has uploaded multiple images, rather than inserting a single text block pointing to multiple images. These problems are technical problems and could be addressed, but Betacommand is seemingly unwilling to anger less people. RussNelson (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Again I ask people who insist on bringing Betacommandbot issues here to stop doing so. Betacommand has a user talk page, and any admin can block a malfunctioning bot. We don't need to clutter this page with every single instance where this very, very busy bot does something unexpected. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a cryptic message on the user's talk page that advises editors with complaints to go to another source page. Inexperienced users still see the bot's messages on their image and will tend to revert or delete the image rather than revising the image information. The bot does not seem to read anything outside the new templates very well even when the image rationale is written out clearly. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand archives the bot's talk page without responding. I can understand why he doesn't want to deal with all the complaints, but Tony, don't suggest this as a way to accomplish anything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So, who is that authorized this Betacommand character to become lord and master of wikipedia? He can't be getting away with this stuff on his own. Someone higher-up must have told him it was OK to do what he does, attitude and all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Need tag team vandals blocked

Resolved

 – both have been blocked for 31 hours, Bobdole215 indef blocked

192.195.234.120 (talk · contribs) and 216.162.51.189 (talk · contribs) are tag-team vandalizing. I've reported them at AIV, but I don't want to spend all evening reverting these guys. Corvus cornix_talk 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Both have been blocked for 31 hours by ERcheck (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) SQL^{Query me!} 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 06:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

These IPs have come back as User:Bobdole215. Corvus cornix_talk 07:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of user:CompScientist

For a bit of background, I came across user:CompScientist after a WQA report was filed regarding incivility at Nissan GT-R. The problem was a bit deeper, with extensive edit warring by CompScientist and various IP addresses which were recreating content or edits that were, for all intents and purposes, identical or very similar in style. Similar edits were made at supercar and at Vietnam War, where original research was inserted or text that was known to be of dispute were recreated against consensus and/or discussion. In these cases, one of the IP addresses would challenge the validity of the discussion and consensus, and content therein, and there would be accusations of bad faith thrown about.

After CompScientist was blocked for 96h on 01:58, 9 January 2008 for initial sockpuppetry and for filing false AIV reports against myself and possibly other editors/administrators (my memory is a bit foggy), he protested the block but was declined. He was blocked not long after for 1w on 12:14, 19 January 2008 for vandalism at Daniel Case (talk · contribs) and elsewhere.

Checkuser was performed and confirmed that nearly all of the IP contributions at Nissan GT-R and elsewhere were in fact, CompScientist. The block length was increased to 1m on 18:12, 21 January 2008.

Wikipeadian (talk · contribs) soon cropped up, with edits to Nissan GT-R and Vietnam War that were very similar, if not identical, to CompScientist. As a result, the block was reset and extended for 1m on 11:17, 3 February 2008.

As a result, I watchlisted all of the pages that CompScientist was involved in, and noted an edit by Mcknight11 (talk · contribs) on Vietnam War at 01:42, 17 February 2008 that was an identical edit by Wikipedian earlier. Per a comment here, I believe that it is appropriate to call for a community ban of CompScientist, given that this has become a clear abuse pattern. I have listed, with the help of Daniel Case, an extensive list of prior edits and IP addresses and usernames used by CompScientist -- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CompScientist. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully support this community ban. From the first time I encountered him, through spurious reports on AIV, I find him very disruptive and he has certainly exhausted my patience, not only through his constant sockpuppetry but his vandalism to my talk page, in which he has attempted to make it appear to me that an SSP had been opened on me. He has the benefit of a dynamic IP, so we need everything possible to convey our distrust of this user. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 meatpuppeting on WP:LAYOUT

SlimVirgin has been edit warring on the layout guideline page. She wants an expansive view of "see also" sections. She started nitpicking the section in December. Earlier this week she made an undiscussed change [125] and it was reverted. Today she inserted disputed text.[126] The text she proposed two days earlier on the talk page had ZERO positive remarks before she edited the page. Two editors told her this was disputed text.[127], [128]. Her text was removed, and she reverted.[129]. She was called out for edit warring and inserting non-consensus text again [130]. When it was removed again, she made a disruptive WP:POINT removal of the admonition not to make see also into a link farm.[131]. This material has, in one form or another, been in the guideline for nearly two and a half years.[132] When this edit was reverted as POINTy, rather than go through another revert, she had Crum375 come by and perform the edit for her.[133].

This pattern of gaming revert wars by SlimVirgin and Crum375 is well known. Crum375 has never edited this page. Crum375 has never edited this talk page. Quite simply, Crum375 has no dog in that fight and is there to act as a warring proxy so SlimVirgin doesn't cross 3RR. This behavior is the definition of meatpuppetry. This behavior is deliberately gaming 3RR to make a disruptive pointy edit.

Something needs to be done to break up this tag team meatpuppetry. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 08:29, February 17, 2008 (UTC)

Admin action suggested? Any misuse of admin powers? Do you seriously want them blocked for meatpuppetry? (I strongly object to the removal of the section that represents a long-standing consensus as well, as would most people, I think, but seriously - meatpuppetry?) Relata refero (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly no abuse of admin powers, but I have to say I'm curious about the pattern of editing you describe. I've seen other similar reports about these editors; I'd be interested to know what the story is here. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have that page, along with most policies and guidelines, on my watchlist, and have been following the issues there. I happen to believe that "See also" contents depend on editor discretion and talk page consensus, not on rigid rules. I made an edit to that effect, noting my opinion in my edit summary. This was not based on any communication or coordination with anyone. If Schmucky has a problem with my edit, the article's talk page is a better place to address it than here. Crum375 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat is in fact saying he has a problem with what he perceives as meat-puppetry, rather than merely a problem with that specific page. The problem is that shared interests leads to the appearance of meat-puppetry among people who agree and the appearance of wiki-stalking among those who disagree. One must AGF as much as possible or one will see conspiracies everywhere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Crum. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are (at least) three issues here. First, as an experienced editor, SlimVirgin must know that WP:3RR doesn't allow her to revert three times, particularly without consensus. (In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.) After SV reached three reverts, Crum375 appeared. Second, SV often claims "stalking" whenever someone else edits an article for the first time;[134][135] Crum375 had never edited WP:GTL before. Third, this type of editing is occurring on other guideline and policy pages, for example WP:CITE,[136] where SV even started a section heading naming another editor to discuss sockpuppetry (subsequently changed when I pointed out SV's violation of WP:AGF and WP:TALK [137]). There appears to be a double standard; the WP:3RR violations and SV's accusations of "wikistalking" and sockpuppetry should stop, and extra eyes are needed on these policy and guideline pages, where ownership tendencies are apparent (reference the numerous past similar issues at WP:V, WP:RS and others). Policy and guideline pages benefit from stability, yet SV edit wars on them to instate her preferred versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 and SlimVirgin have established this pattern dozens of times before. Edit wars are bad. Meatpuppetry, even the appearance of it, is bad. I don't think it is out of line for administrator intervention to tell these two to stay out of each others edit wars. If one sees the other in "trouble", they can use the talk page to gain consensus rather than continue the poor behavior of edit warring. Two simple and well established rules: 1. Don't edit war. 2. Don't edit war for your friends. Why should this pair be immune to that? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think we should assume good faith here, the Crum375 and SlimVirgin accounts do overlap a lot in their editing interests, and invariably back each other up in editing disputes. However, these accounts are probably just two close friends who talk to each other, not the same person. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not alleging they are the same person. Close friends who talk to each other and whose interests overlap should not be tag team edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ah, sorry, I misread your post. I agree that since Crum375 has never made an edit to that page or its talkpage before intervening in this current dispute to revert for his friend, the claim that he "had it on his watchlist" is highly unlikely. I believe that he either followed another editor's contributions to this page, or was contacted directly and asked to intervene. Any other hypothesis is pushing AGF to the point of credulity. Therefore if revert-warring on this guideline continues, SlimVirgin and Crum375 should be regarded as a single account. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Here's witchhunt #3141529. Will ^(talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requiring editors to play fair isn't a witch hunt. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That Crum is Slim's meatpuppet most of the time, I think has been said by various people, many times before. Good luck getting anything done about it, though :) 'Meatpuppet' is a controversial word if you think about it, and it's usually used towards new users or those who work on a very limited type of articles. Merkinsmum 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Slim's postings are far more subtle, cogent, and bright than Crum's, so I just can't imagine they're the same person. There's too much stylistic difference. The duckling editing is obvious—Crum will show up whenever she does, on disputes. I basically agree with Merkinsmum and earlier comments: most everybody knows he follows her around, and that they must communicate off-site (which isn't disallowed).

But what to do? Admit they have a six-revert rule, and...? *Shrugs.* I mean, really, what can you do? You can't police that stuff.

I think it more important that people know Crum's signature. Slim remains herself: an intelligent, informed, and sometimes maddening presence on policy. Crum is a duckling—ignore his edits, because it's always "per her." That's my polciy. Marskell (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"what can you do? You can't police that stuff." If this behavior is recognized and it's bad, then it's blockable. It's disruptive, it's pointy, it's 3RR, it's gaming. 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. If Crum and Slim are acting together and they go over 3RR, collectively, then block one or both. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Are you an admin? Want to watch their edits together? Block on the first breach of 3RR? Feel free. Marskell (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a recent example from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Animal Liberation Front references, Crum375's sole contribution to the discussion was a post that began with - "I think SV is right" Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point was lost in the shuffle; even without Crum's additions, SlimVirgin edit wars on policy and guideline pages. WP:3RR is not an invitation for SV to revert three times; talk page discussion was underway, and there was no consensus for her version. The double standard troubles regular editors like me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kborer at socialized medicine: 3RR violated several times

User:Kborer has essentially reverted to a specific version (see also talk page), removing a key distinction (that socialized medicine is a term as opposed to a single system) four times in less than 24 hours, and and six or seven times in approximately 48 hours:

one two three four five six seven

Note that while there have been minor changes, the primary fixation seems to be to remove a (documented and referenced) issue with respect to the use of the term. Note that this is also a repeated pattern on this particular page, reverting three times or more within a short period of time. There is a clear pattern of violation of the spirit of wp:3rr.

The use of POV sources is also more than tendentious: witness the lead sentence being changed to "Socialized medicine is any health care system that embodies the fundamental principle of socialism."--Gregalton (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am cross-posting this to the 3rr noticeboard, didn't realise there was a separate one.--Gregalton (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo heads-up - help needed

Resolved

Kosovo is almost certainly going to be declaring independence from Serbia today. This is very likely to lead to a spate of edit wars, POV edits, vandalism and inflammatory commentary on talk pages from editors on both sides of the conflict; we're already starting to see some incidents with new editors and anonymous IPs (see e.g. [138], [139]). Assistance would be appreciated in watching Kosovo and related articles on the Kosovo public watchlist.

I should add that all Kosovo-related articles are covered by the general sanction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, which states that "Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision." -- ChrisO (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rudget already fully protected the page, making Wikipedia looks paranoid and behind the times, so don't worry about the page being vandalized, editors can't even add the nation's flag. I went over there from this AN/I section, and was surprised, and a bit shocked to see that Rudget locked it down. ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My rationale is on the talk page. Flag has been added. Rudget. 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only locked down but 6 admins have since edited it. This is damaging to wikipedia's reputation. IMHO it is plain wrong to protect this article at this time and each admin that has since edited endangers our reputation as admin privileges are not to be used to edit as if somehow admins have extra editing privileges. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The decision to protect was taken with the utmost care. After the downgrade protection by Moreschi earlier on today, edit wars and "revisions of vandalism" prevailed afterwards. Wouldn't that in itself damage Wikipedia's reputation to deliver information to an audience? - surely endless revisions and continuing unhealthy relationships between editors is not conducive to an atmosphere where consensus and corrent information can be displayed. The protection also has an expiry of 19:00 (UTC0, so just over 1 hour left. In this time, discussions have taken place on the talk page and the edits on the page have slowed dramatically to allow for not only corrections but also the appropriate conduct of each administrator which has been active there. Rudget. 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How about blocking for 24 hours all admins who have edited the proteced article then for flagrant disregard of our policies, admins are expetected to act to a higher standard than most but oare currently bringing the page and hence the project into disrepute. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand your exaggerated attempts at a resolution, so I will refrain from making any further comment. Rudget. 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale is that you get to control the page, so we don't RISK troubles with editors who don't agree with Rudget. Unprotect the page, and work with all the new editors we COULD be getting instead of alienating people. This decision makes Wikipedia look bad. ThuranX (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest posting at arbcom enforcement, admins are continuing to edit the article in flagrant disregard of policy while not allowing anyone else to. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:The nightmare hunter

Resolved

 – Moves sorted by SarcasticIdealist, user blocked by ChrisO —αlεx•mullεr 11:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Will anyone see what this user User:The nightmare hunter doing? Special:Contributions/The_nightmare_hunter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This needs admin attention to undo some moves – the one about the college should be done quickly —αlεx•mullεr 11:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. I'll sort out the moves. Thanks for the notification. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got most of the moves taken care of. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. :-) Guess I'm slowing down... -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis Schonken

Francis Schonken is repeatedly violating BLP policy on the Prem Rawat article by linking [[140]][[141]][[142]][[143]] to a anonymously written, self published web sites that contains enormous amounts of unsourced OR and such derogatory unsourced claims as Rawat is "an 'alcoholic'and "Rawat smoked cannabis "four or five nights a week" when in residence at Malibu" and "Dettmers described a collision between a cyclist and a car being driven by Prem Rawat, the cyclist was killed instantly. By Dettmers account, Prem Rawat left the scene without submitting himself to the normal police enquires that ensued."[[144]]. If I try to remove this link in accordance with BLP policy that "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" he threatens me with a 3RR on my talk page despite BLP policy saying "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." I would appreciate it if Admins will ensure BLP policy is upheld.Momento (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a clearcut BLP violation; if you can't get consensus, take it to WP:BLPN. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There's already Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Prem Rawat links. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The allegation of heavy drinking is also voiced in a reputable source i.e. Washington Post Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnaping, Tears; Who Became Kidnapers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru by Chip Brown, Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 15, 1982. Andries (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not a requirement that all of the content on external links adhere to WP:BLP. BLP is for the content of Wikipedia. We don't need to enforce on sites X links removed from Wikipedia. That's not an endorsement of keeping the links; I haven't read them. But saying that we can't link to something because it contains OR is to radically misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? That is new information to me and a positiion that was contradicted by he arbcom in several cases. Andries (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to one? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, rereading my comments, I definitely overstepped my position. Give me a couple of minutes to refactor. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your view Sarcasticidealist is completely at odds with BLP policy which states = "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" and "Self-published websites should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". And further from Links guidelines - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies.Momento (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento,

1. please note WP:FORUMSHOP (part of a behavioural guideline here at Wikipedia);
2. "Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Information Resource" appears like a sound source to me. You're far from convincing me of the contrary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that second point. Who runs this website? Does it have some form of editorial control? What is its reputation for fact-checking? Has it been quoted in known reliable sources? These questions should have been, to quote, asked and answered by now. Relata refero (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Relata Refero. There's very little in the way of citation in the pages of that site. While I'm not disputing the information there, the 'interviews' aren't dated or explained, just random information attributed to the persons mentioned. He doesn't state when he talked to them, and some sections are just 'analysis' of the guys' hypocrisy. Until and unless that information's sources becomes transparent, that site's not up to the level of a WP:RS, and does, in fact, come off as slightly vendetta-ish. I'd say it's very bad form to link it, and that the BLP clauses probably ought to be applied. ThuranX (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review

User:81.145.242.67 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has just been brought to my attention. He has a long history of vandalism and unconstructive editing. WHOIS shows this is an ADSL connection, which I believe to be static, but the pattern of edits is more than persuasive that this is one editor. He has had numerous warnings, and stops when warned only to return with the same pattern of editing. My view is that we could do with a rest from this and have blocked him for a week (I was considering a month) to prevent further disruption and to bring home that his style of editing is unhelpful. There has already been discussion between two editors here, but my opinion is that this cannot continue. Would anyone care to review this block to make sure I'm not out of line please? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a BT IP and probably dynamic. With those you're better off just blocking for short periods. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

IPs in the ranges 81.145.240 - 81.145.242 are dynamically assigned by BT/AOL and best served by blocks lasting 31 hours at the very most. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bamford and that COI tag

User:Bamford is back to removing a COI tag that got him blocked just the other day. Prior thread is here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this diff here which appears to be a "threat" to continue removing the tag, should his block be extended? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for another 24 hours, (see block review below). I'd say he's had his chances at WP:AGF after this one and if he continues, a week long block would be appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 15:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot and NFCC10c - New discussion page

I have created the folowing page Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c to attempt to centralise discussion on BCB and specifically its NFCC10c tagging operation.
MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• This page is nothing more than an attempt at forming a lynch mob for the bot and its operator. From the get go, it is inherently biased. I strongly urge it be shut down as the sham it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is a legitimate effort to fulfill requests to me and others to stop starting 'forest fires' on ANI, and to clear up the confusion caused by general replies to what are specific concerns with the bot, this comment being a good example. You are a complete and utter wind up merchant. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• The page is a witch hunt, nothing more, nothing less. If you continue the personal attacks against me, I will file a formal complaint against you. Please read WP:NPA. There is no need for you to insult me. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternate account

I want to create an alternate account User:Intercontinental ballistic missile. I have some questions.

• Can I create such alternate account?
• Will the name User:Intercontinental ballistic missile be acceptable?
• If I create the acoount, then what will be the password. The same password I use for my present account, or other password. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, just make it crystal clear on the user page of both users that each is an alternate account of the other, and don't edit as if you were two people. Use any good password you like. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And maybe read through the policy —αlεx•mullεr 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been created by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus. Intercontinental ballistic missile (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that my log[145] clearly telling that I have created the alternate account, but the other's log is empty[146]. I have no idea why this happened. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It shows up here - note that I used the different text box. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

IP 71.99...

This has been brought up here at least twice before, but the situation doesn't seem to be improving, please skim through the discussions located here: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/71.x.x.x, it started out with this user using some articles as a propaganda machine and me reverting him, since then, he has started using misleading and offensive edit summaries, make personal attacks in English and in Czech and worst for me: going through my contributions and undoing my edits, these edits 99% of the time look to be good faith. The user has been active for months maybe even years, he has acquired over forty blocks and two range blocks, he's not active right this second, but last night he went to undo my edits again, when I reported him, administrators failed to block him and an administrator (not going to name) removed him from AIV telling me to report here, obviously not even looking through the abuse reports from which the situation is very obvious. Numerous users including many admins are familiar with the situation most notably user:Kubigula who has seen him in action and has received personal attacks from him as well. I'm here to seek help since I'm finding it difficult to receive it elsewhere and I'm starting to think that simple blocks aren't working and it's time for something else.--The Dominator (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Since this is my first block, I want to make sure I did it per protoccol. I've blocked Bamford (talk · contribs) for 24 hours as he's fresh off a block for disruptive editing and started blanking pages [147] and [148] and removing tags he's the subject of [149] and [150]. Of course, if I was worng, feel free to unblock. MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I added my $.02 on the above thread about Bamford, however this comment here makes me wonder if 24 hours wasn't long enough. Good catch those for at least the 24 hours, some cooling off is definitely needed, especially with being warned about the removal of the COI tag. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Support block. I suggest to anyone else reviewing this to have a read through his talk page, and a look at his contribution history. He's also made a specific threat to evade any block using different IPs [151]. We don't need this kind of hostile, disruptive editor here. Antandrus (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, over at Wikipedia:COIN#National_Policing_Improvement_Agency, we've caught him or meatpuppets using over 30 different IP addresses. I'm beginning to wondering if this isn't a long-term abuser whose figured out how to spoof an NPIA IP address. MBisanz ^talk 15:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have blocked at least 72 hours. The short ones seem to have no effect. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we WP:AGF with people who are obviously just here to make trouble. This should have been indef IMHO. JuJube (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mattisse

User:Mattisse continues to attribute to me actions I've never done, attitudes I've never had, and opinions I never held or voiced. Her behaviour has escalated over the last two weeks. It seems like she is either unable or unwilling to check edit histories, and instead holds me reponsible as a scapegoat for any activity she disapproves of in the vicinity of the article Uvs Nuur, no matter who actually did what. A listing of the diffs disproving her numerous false accusations would fill several pages by now, but can be provided if necessary.

Her crusade began after I reverted two of her changes to Uvs Nuur (change a, revert a, change b bordering on vandalism, revert b). Before the second revert, I initiated a conversation on her talk page. Although I basically agreed with her intention to split the information about the Uvs Nuur basin from the lake Uvs Nuur, her responses turned increasingly hostile and accusatory, blaming me for a merge that another user had performed a year ago among other things. Other editors tried to explain to her what had really happened, which eventually resulted in an apology, which I accepted. Unfortunately, her false accusations didn't stop after that. After a while she even retracted her apology, for reason that in reality I had nothing at all to do with. She kept accusing me of "unilateral actions" that either other people were responsible for or that never even happened.

After all normal reasoning didn't result in any change, I formally warned her to stop the badmouthing. in her responses, she didn't seem to understand the problem, and tried to present herself as the victim. Other editors tried to talk sense into her, but without success. Caught in her assumed role as the "innocent victim", she continued to attack me with unsubstantiated accusations. At the same time, she announced she would leave the topic for others to edit, even though nobody had asked her to do that.

A number of editors have participated in editing the related articles recently. That activity also triggered some content disputes. I am not directly involved in those content disputes myself, mainly because I haven't formed a final opinion yet on the matters involved. Other than adding some information on the lake, I've primarily done minor formal edits to the related articles. Most of what I did in the respective discussions was to ask questions. The latest episode of those debates has evolved on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia#Trying to make sense of the Uvs Nuur situation. This discussion was overshadowed by an independent user conduct conflict between two other editors. When I tried to get the discussion back on topic, Mattisse took that as an opportunity to attack me once more, as if the uncivil behaviour of another editor had been mine.

Although I have no idea what Mattisse is trying to accomplish with all that hostility, I don't see any sign of her stopping any time soon. After I and several other editors have exhausted our good will in trying to talk with her, I have now finally to ask for admin support. Sorry for the lengthy explanations, and thanks for any constructive ideas. --Latebird (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've interacted with Mattisse on occasions prior to this event (which I have no knowledge of) - I don't mean to come to an assumed position where I am "protecting" her, but in consideration of the much effort you've already put into this statement, could you provide some diffs for the turning responses which were becoming "...increasingly hostile and accusatory, blaming me for a merge that another user had performed a year ago among other things". I know this case is already pretty apparent, but would appreciate some further diffs for clarification, even though we have a sufficient amount of other arguments being presented here, the additional elements can help for the conclusion. Thank you. Rudget. 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Her user talk page below our initial conversation contains a sizeable chunk of that stuff. Interestingly, in her very first response, she already suggested to "have an RFC over it" (over naming questions that I wasn't actually interested in at that time). In my next contribution I stated that I'd support a split of the topics. A little later she claimed "I see you have merged many articles I wrote", which is utter nonsense. It just went downhill from there. Other relevant discussions can be found at the following locations:

• Talk:Uvs Nuur
• Talk:Uvs Nuur Basin
• Talk:Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia (starting here)
• my user page (specifically: User Talk:Latebird#Please do not make unilateral decisions without consensus)

Fortunately, most of the article talk pages (and article edit histories) are not very long, so that it's relatively easy to find most evidence. But of course, I'll be happy to provide other diffs as required to clear up specific questions. --Latebird (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not all are sure what it is you're asking for. The options which appear open to me are Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and maybe Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. The editor appears to have an opinion, perhaps based on some evidence, perhaps not, and seems to be regularly insulting you. Some of the insults might qualify as personal attacks, some might not, but I'm far from certain that anyone would block her on the basis of them alone. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear John Carter, while your comments may look reasonably neutral on the surface, I still suggest that you leave this issue to other admins, who haven't also recently insulted me. --Latebird (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked you a reasonable question about what you wanted to see done. You chose to respond with a completely off-topic snide remark, which was the result of your own irrational and summarily closed request for deletion of several pages because you were "pissed off" at their existence for no acceptable reason, despite having been told in advance that your original basis for complaint was not a valid one. I realize you may have some difficulty in general in assuming good faith, but you still haven't indicated what you seek to gain from your own posting here. The options I indicated are, basically, the only ones available barring some specific outside intervention for cause. Are you indicating that you see some specific cause for action from an administrator? Please respond directly to the question, so that people can know what it is you are seeking to achieve by posting here. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Set expiry date on protection of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates and Wikipedia:Esperanza

I originally posted a request at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Unprotect_Wikipedia:Esperanza, thinking that this needed community consensus. But after looking again at Wikipedia:Page_protection#Content_disputes, this seems to me like a clear-cut issue of policy application. An expiry date needs to be set on protection of these pages. Ron Duvall (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

aside from arguing process, is there a reason you want the protection altered? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned for the reasons listed in m:Protected pages considered harmful. And the language currently on the Esperanza page, "This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's" seems like uncalled-for obiter dictum that should be edited out, although that is a separate issue from page protection. Ron Duvall (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, please lets not rehash the esperanza deletion debates. I can't see any benefit of restarting the arguments and the reason why it was shut down is nicely captured by the wording of that essay. There is no good going to come from trying to rewrite history after all this time. I'd say you need to get consensus to rewrite the essay before trying to get the page unlocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The page goes beyond saying why it was shut down to warn that if people start something like it, their project will get deleted too. I don't propose getting in an edit war over the content but permanent protection is not allowed for content disputes. The standard process, even with sometimes-contentious pages like policy and guidelines, and certainly with essays (which is what Wikipedia:Esperanza purports to be), is to allow users to be bold (within reason), experiment with tweaks in wording, and work things out on the talk page as necessary. Ron Duvall (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not a content dispute. Its a locked page that we don't need any more drama over. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So basically you are saying we should apply WP:IAR in this instance? Ron Duvall (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No that's not what I'm saying. There is a community consensus to leave things as they are. If you want to change the page you need to change the community consensus first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Exceptions? "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The project cannot decide that for 'their' articles, said policy does not apply." Why should the consensus expressed in the MfD override the larger consensus behind the policy that protection is only to be temporary, with an expiration date? Interestingly, neither of those two project pages are listed at our "list of pages that are permanently protected or semi-protected, in line with the protection policy." Maybe it's because their permanent protection was not in line with our protection policy. Ron Duvall (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would only comment that the Association of Members' Advocates may have been substantially replaced by Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility. Maybe it could be turned into a redirect there? John Carter (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't seem to be that similar and there are so many internal links to ama that I would be very loath to endorse a redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur - wikiproject accessibility seems to be trying to improve the project - let's not make any suggested link between their good works and the vile waste of space that project:wikilawyer was. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why an editor would need to change the esperanza page, the community consensus on this matter was very clear and no good reason has been presented to revisit the matter. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Given the extensive warring that occurred over these two, I would say the appropriate date for protection to expire is three days after the fifth of never. I also wonder about a new user raising this topic. What was your old account, Ron? Guy (Help!) 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree-ish. It is not the case that all protections should usually have an expiration date. Quite a few pages are permanently protected. Merkinsmum 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? You mean, not just deleted and salted against re-creation, but we actually protect them and put up a notice like that? What's an example? Ron Duvall (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought there were lol, the one I meant seems to have been unprotected, I bet there are some, though. I don't see why you want this unprotected, except you want to remove the statement thing at the top. But it all reads as very ironic in the light of recent debates about the wikipedia IRC channel :) Perhaps just ask for the bit at the top to be removed, as you would ask for a change on any protected page? Is it not NPOV, what's written there? Looks like it. It just says the concerns people had about it. Merkinsmum 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mctrain

This fellow has gone off the deep end—ranting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Talarico di Capace‎ and on users' talk pages, removing valid tags from unlicensed images here and here, etc.—to say nothing of the damage that he's been doing to the article Barbaro family in this and previous guises. Can he be stopped, at least for a while, to give others some peace? Deor (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Untrue, nonsense, all of my good work is being destroyed because of a belief in a hoax that does not exist. I proved to Deor early on about Vitus as being a real person in www.avoision.com, and you can go to Deor's talk page and get the details on that, details which he choses to gloss over becasue it meant people who wanted to say that he wasn't a real life person, were in fact wrong. I even consulted with Deor early on on his talk page under "please advise" in fear that any work on that particular article was going to be deemed as a hoax- and what has happened exectly that, as it has for any person of good faith working on that topic. Now, Thorp Academy has been flagged, for no good reason, just becaus I worked on that too- give me a break- you people shout hoax, destroy good work that took days and weeks to build, and then you expect people to just be happy with what you did to their work. You people lie, set up arguments that are not based on fact, slander peoples reputation and then don't even have the class to make things right after their work becomes flagged. I see, massive gross mistakes on Wikipedia, attributing families to other families , etc.- but this one topic always gets picked on- enough is enough. Wikipedia is no longer a joy to be involved in, and if Deor can't be fair enough to correct all of the damgae that he created by perpetuating the hoax stupidity- I am gone for good, as have many others before. I have proven that the so called hoax person is in fact very real person, not a hoax at all, and I have also proven that there were people out there who wanted to play games with him by the very crude comments that were made about a very innocent person on www.avoision.com- the source of where all of this hoax garbage started.Mctrain (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I left the user a note to calm down and approach this calmly, but as you can see, it's not working well. As for the 'hoax' charge, I don't think that's true at all, but it's really riling this user up, and he's playing right into a block for incivility and a cooldown. Not a good situation. ThuranX (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

All edits to Barbaro family and any associated articles must be very carefully examined due to the history of hoaxing surrounding this and other related articles. Corvus cornix_talk 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't read the signatures on Image:Gilbert Julian Snowbirds Seriograph.JPG‎ and Image:Gilbert Julian Riverboat lithograph.JPG‎, but they sure don't look like they read "Gilbert Julian" to me. Plus, Mctrain repeatedly removes a request for copyright information from the two image pages, claiming that the claim that they are owned by the artist's descendents is sufficient, despite the fact that there are watermarks on the images which clearly show that the images themselves were downloaded from an ebay sale. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Fulco Ruffo di Calabria information from Skull and crossbones because two of the links are dead and one is not reliable. Corvus cornix_talk 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Gilbert images were put up by the "Joel Gilbert archives" themselves, go check, and people question the images authenticity?. I said many times that if you just search "Ruffo di Calabria skull" you will have your pick of many refrences to chose from that talks about his symbol-and this is what I mean, no matter what anyone does, no matter what anyone proves- a culture of a hoax mentality will continue to exist on wikipedia- and that is proven time and time again. That is why I will not participate with Wikipedia any longer, it is just a waste of time. Final closing remarks.Mctrain (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The links you provided for your claims were not reliable, don't tell other people to go search for reliable links for the claims you make, that's your responsibility. Corvus cornix_talk 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the links weren't working right when I put them in, but I can fix it. All of my work doesn't have to be removed and flagged and everything else that is going on. In any normal situation if there is a problem, one just puts a citation notice- not removal and everything elese that is happening. Things that you know, as well as I, that are only occurring because of some supposed hoax with Vitus. A hoax that only started because people saw his name in www.avoision.com when he posted to take on his title, which is normal. Then they found him in Wikipedia and chose to make him a traget for placement in bogus articles. The guy is proven to be real- and is and was always innocent, and I discussed everything with Deor pior to any work in that area, to avoid just this situation.Mctrain (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

JK Cromwell

Despite having been previously blocked for edit warring, JK Cromwell has continued to disrupt and add unsourced information to multiple articles. For more information, see her contributions. I believe her block should be reinstated and extended. Serendi^podous 18:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have re-blocked and extended this to 48 hours. Returning to an edit war once a 3RR block has expired and replacing unsourced material is disruptive editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of UkraineToday

UkraineToday is a banned user (I don't know how to format a link to a block, but here is the line from Yamla's log: # 20:02, 7 September 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) blocked "UkraineToday (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (violation of WP:NLT, continuing email harassment).

Now UkraineToday's socks are springing up really quickly. We have Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3 named socks, 3 IPs) from January 18, then this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3rd) (2 named socks, 7 IPs] from January 26, then Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (4th) (2 named socks and 7 IPs) from February 2, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (5th) (1 named sock) February 17, and two more IPs (one blocked by Jehochman, the other, User:80.97.94.178 I have not reported yet (the IP has been used by other editors in the past).

I have applied for semi-protection for the article WP:RFP#Ukrainian Parliamentary Election, 2007 he has been trying to edit. Do I just keep reporting the socks as they appear? Is there something else to do? Jd2718 (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

User:Mikkalai has been leaving rude remarks and accusing of be a sockpuppet at my talk page. This was after a Wikiquette alert was filed by User:Hux. I proceeded to become a mediator in the situation by leaving calm warnings at both of their talk pages. User:Cheeser1 suggested bringing the incident here. Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have not, nor will I, endorse either side of this dispute. I simply suggested that since SISKYWARN wanted administrator attention, and was in a dispute with an administrator, that he bring his complaints here. The WQA isn't the place to hash out issues that (at least in his opinion) require admin-on-admin intervention. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to stay neutral initially, but when User:Mikkalai left the messages on my talk page, I stated that on the WQA page and left the user a kind warning. Also at that point, I asked for administrator intervention. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As Southern Illinois SKYWARN says, I was the one who opened up the original WQA. When I first saw that this ANI had been opened, I was going to post to say that I didn't think it was necessary at this point. However, having seen Mikkalai's reaction to that WQA (which I described here), I concede that this ANI probably is necessary after all. Hopefully we can resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction. I really hope it doesn't escalate any further. :( -- Hux (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikka knows what he's doing, and he's (wisely) decided to take a break until things cool down. I think you guys got what you wanted. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to stay cool, but I find the above response outrageous. I was initially a mediator in this case. I left calm warnings on Mikka's talk page, and he responded by attacking me on my talk page. His comments are illustrated here. He accuses me of being a sockpuppet, and calls WQA "Cangaroo courts". Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring to repeatedly add templated warnings to the Talk page of an admin (after he has acknowledged the templated warnings by removing them from his Talk page) is not the way to go about winning friends and influencing people. Corvus cornix_talk 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot is not marked as a bot?

User:Blofeld of SPECTRE appears to be a bot but it is not marked as one. What's the deal with this account? Gary King (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• we did this before. Its just an extremely productive editor iirc. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• We had the discussion about a fortnight ago; it is not a bot, but way more productive than I can ever be. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Productive, terribly prolific, whatever adjective you want to use. Not sure why it was confused for a bot though. Even people can be formulaic or robotic. The individual was creating articles about communes and towns that were obviously missing from wikipedia. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • BEEP DOES NOT COMPUTE --Haemo (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been bot requests for this: Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_16#EditorBot. Link to former AN/I thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#French_village_stubs. Gimmetrow 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes every last village in France notable? Last I checked, WP is not a directory. rudra (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• The notability of villages in France has been discussed before, at ArbCom, who agreed to it. Evidently, they are, I dunno why. And I can attest that Blofeld is not a bot. He is just an editor whose total edits have passed 100,000, including a lot of images, and an extremely productive editor. He decided to create articles on villages in France, for whatever reason, and he did so. If I could prove they weren't notable, I probably would, but I can't. He might not be the only editor who has had many of his edits of strikingly similar phrasing. I have too. And we're not the same person, trust me on this. You aren't tied to MI6 at all, are you? :) John Carter (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Most creative use of a thesaurus in a post?

You gotta love this guy's use of adjectives [152] not sure whether it should be viewed as a personal attack..what do other folks think? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Those words reflect accusations of bitching, whining and moaning. I would label it as uncivil. Personal attack? The user is definitely treading the border. I would take offense to such "adjectives". The user is also acting pretentious for even bothering to use those words. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, umm... I don't like it. It's unlikeable, deplorable, belated, encrusted, bejesused, detrimented, and xenophobic. It is however incidental, occasional, decapitated, rejuvenated, ambiguous, pansexual, accelerated, and altruistic. I would not be opposed to describing him as stingy, cleansed, adamantine, fallacious, erudite, descriptive, infertile, and a whole other mess of adjectives that have nothing to do with him (I don't own a thesaurus. those are just big words I know). Justin^(c)_(u) 20:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

<chuckle> Are you kidding! It's a linguist's dream come true. — Zerida ☥ 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Please see edit here if you need ideas for adjectives. Justin^(c)_(u) 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding User:Douglasfgrego scenarios

There has been a fairly unpleasant incident this weekend with this user getting indefinitely banned as a result. I don't question the process as the user used, to say the least, 'intemperate' language. However, the reason I'd like to broaden the discussion from what anyone can read above - and it's a given that we'd prefer to avoid banning contributors - is that the situation clearly spiralled out of control before everyone's eyes. Nobody wanted the matter to end up as it did but it ended badly because everyone got mad.

Feelings were running high on both sides and I'd suggest that we need a 'red button' that anyone can hit in any such situation. This 'red button', a chill-out button, when pressed, would prevent any addition to any discussion for 24 hours. An enforced time out. Then everyone can come back a day later to sort things out. By button, I don't necessarily mean a red thing on the screen; just perhaps an admin, or maybe any participant, to intervene arbitrarily to shut a heated dialogue down. I think if this had been present yesterday, we'd have avoided the fracas we had. We need to avoid driving contributors away. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky

I have made a report on the 3RR board but it has been suggested that I should state it here due to the nature of the offenses. As seen in this Request for checkuser, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#Attack_accounts, and 3RR report, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Stone_put_to_sky_reported_by_User:Ultramarine_.28Result:_.29, Stone put to sky has used numerous different accounts to deliberately try hide his violation of WP:3RR. I have only reported the most recent violation but the article history shows that he has has used his sockpuppets to circumvent the 3RR rule before this also. Thus also violating Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The reported recent reverts are complex but in all cases Stone put to sky reinserts his view that the Philippines is a United States protectorate or a colony. He has also violated WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name, see the Request for checkuser. Finally, he violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL many times, for example here by calling me a liar,[153] and here being warned by another editor for incivility against me.[154]. As such a I urge for a long ban due to the serious and repeated attempts to circumvent Wikipedia policy and attack me personally.Ultramarine (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)