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

Rogue reverter, won't listen or respond

At the recommendation of admin Steve Block, I'm asking on behalf of User:CovenantD, User:Doczilla, other editors and myself who have tried many times and ways to talk and work with a persistent rogue editor, User:Asgardian, over his repeated wholesale reversions to several sites in WikiProject: Comics. He insists he doesn't have to follow the comics project exemplar, he reinserts misspellings and other erroneous edits, he removes authoritative reference sources that I and others have used and cited, and he won't give straight answers to our questions and comments.

There's some discussion about all this at this article's talk page. There had been much more criticism of his edits at User talk:Asgardian — with other editors complaining about his clumsy wholesale edits of Galactus and other articles — but he erases all comments.

Could you suggest a way to go on this? Maybe have a third party compare, for instance, the properly formatted and written version of the short "Awesome Android" article here and Asgardian's consistently reverted, "nyah-nyah-nyah" version here. Just by skimming, not needing to know details of the character, the differences are obvious to the naked eye.

As you can see from these comments he erased from his talk page and retrieved from its History here, here, and here, other editors have tried to speak with him about his wholesale reversions that go against both consensus and editorial policy/guidelines/exemplar. The word "stubborn" comes up a lot in these posts. Several editors are at their wits' ends.

What can we do? Please help us: Dealing with him is taking up so much of so many people's times that could be put to good use writing and helping to improve Wikipedia articles. Thank you so much for any help. --Tenebrae 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes he responds. It's sporadic. Sometimes he takes a lesson to heart when it's explained in great detail. Sometimes. And sometimes he just repeatedly blows off style guidelines no matter how many people disagree with him. I first got drawn into his mess because someone else in WikiProject Comics begged for people to come take a peek and try to help find a way to resolve Asgardian's relentless edit wars over the Thor articles. At that point, he'd only been at it for a month. I think it's been three months now, fighting the same edit wars. See how he stubbornly insists on reverting Hercules (Marvel Comics) to tightly in-universe perspective. One night I spent hours trying to edit his version bit by bit to give him a chance, then he just redid all the same mistakes and guideline violations. It wears you out. So many of us got so tired so long ago of fixing his edits that we just can't devote the energy to selectively keeping his good edits when he makes so many bad ones, therefore a lot of people have to revert articles even when it means reinserting some problems he'd fixed because he did more damage than good. Several of us repeatedly advised him to make one edit at a time so he could learn from each. It's just bizarre. There are now at least two competing versions getting edited, bouncing back and forth for almost every article he keeps hitting. He has some good information. He makes some good edits. He's just so amazingly stubborn.

He got warned about 3RR. He got blocked for violating 3RR. I saw other times I could have reported him for violating 3RR after that, but chose not to because I really was trying to find a way to work with this intelligent, knowledgeable person despite how aggravating it could be. He deleted WikiProject Comics notices about his edit wars until I warned him very strongly that to do so was deceptive when he knew darn well that edit wars were going on. Lately he hasn't been as overtly contentious. Lately he simply hasn't been replying to people as often. Admittedly, a lot of us have given up on explaining all of our fixes to his edits when we've already offered the same explanations repeatedly. I still think there's hope for him. I really do, based on the times he has learned lessons, but after this much time, I question whether he's worth the effort because he creates so much work for so many people voluntarily helping edit Wikipedia articles. Doczilla 02:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary:

• He is willfully lowering the quality of Wikipedia articles.
• He is fully aware that his edits are contrary to various policies and guidelines.
• He isn't responding (well, severely unresponsive) to light methods of behavior correction.

He's doing no good and shows an obvious disinterest in collaborative efforts. Block him for a month; hopefully that will make him realize that, hey, we're here to improve articles together, not single-handedly make them shit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled across this user's edit war with Covenant D over the Thor comics articles about two months ago. Sadly, since that time, I have seen little progress, only regression. The edit war still continues and has expanded to other comics articles. I reported the disputed articles on the WikiComics Project notice board in order to get more people involved and, ideally, settle the dispute. However, rather than trying to work toward consensus, he erased my notice. [1] I know that we have to assume good faith, but actions like this strain credulity. Nonetheless, I have tried to work out compromises by changing problem sections within disputed articles in a piecemeal fashion, rather than a wholesale reversion. Initially, this seemed to be effective, but things eventually degenerated back into blind edit warring with little to no discussion. Occasionally, he will justify his edits on an article's talk page, but he is more likely to ignore or erase requests for discussion. When he does comment on talk pages, he is frequently incivil [2] [3] [4] and more than a little combative. [5] [6] Sadly, he actually makes some valid points in his arguements, but they are all but lost in the edit wars he provokes. Like Doczilla, I, too, had hope for Asgardian. But that hope is fading. --GentlemanGhost 08:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The posters here assume a great deal and present a fairly weak case. On behaviour, their own has been self-righteous and condescending on more than one occasion. Citing users such as CovenantD is also not a good idea given his track record and some of the comments he has made (such as "as long as that silly list appears, it gets reverted"). As for deleting comments on my user page, what of it? At least two of the persons cited do it all the time - as is their right. As for the argument that I am lowering the quality of the articles - I believe that's a very silly thing to say. They both know I have created over half a dozen sourced entries on characters that did not exist. Not for my benefit, but for the everyone's use and enjoyment. I have also added references and tidied up many, many more. They KNOW some of the entries were a mess prior to the fix. Rather, we are tussling over fine grammatical points, NOT revised articles per se (example - much of the Thor article is my version).

On co-operation - the posters here seem to have missed the discussion on Galactus, another comic character. I trimmed it back to an acceptable length, and was acknowledged by some as being quite good. Others responded with petulant insults. It is here that many posters fail - it is NOT about who knows more but the enjoyment factor, and of course presenting the information within a "Wiki context." I then offered another poster a chance at presenting his version of the Galactus article. I don't think he's been able to repost yet, but true to my word I've stayed off the page until he has had his chance and we can then discuss it. If that's not co-operation, I don't know what is.

As for 3RR, the first time was simply an experiment. I wanted to see if Wikiepdia followed through (I wrote a paper on Wikipedia and procedues). The second time I believe the moderator got it wrong - I was editing and improving on an article, not swapping backwards and forwards three times or more times. I explained this and simply received a "you should know better." I actually expect better from a moderator.

I am happy to discuss this, but there needs to be more objectivity and less exaggeration. At present, some of the argument smacks of "X must be stopped!" and is a tad immature. The fact that certain users have followed me to pages they had never previously visited speaks volumes (or those that I've created). There needs to be a little less "my way or the highway" from everyone, not just myself.

I won't be making any edits for the next fews day or so, but would hope that when I do that a discussion can follow - not a simple revert and complaint. They are simple grammatical issues that can be thrashed out courtesy of the Exemplars. So long as people are reasonable and a little less self-righteous, then a compromise can be achieved. I'll start with a topic over there in about two days and hopefully some positive change can come of it.

Regards

Asgardian 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Re: "As for deleting comments on my user page, what of it? At least two of the persons cited do it all the time - as is their right." Actually, I stopped deleting comments on my talk page because a remark someone else made on your talk page made me realize that wasn't how Wikipedia does things. (I'd thought of it like deleting old e-mail. Somehow I'd missed that Wikipedia policy along the way.) The one exception to this in the last several weeks was to revert a heading Asgardian should not have added to my note about my own talk page. Doczilla 06:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Wait a minute. It just hit me: Asgardian, you just said you deliberately violated 3RR as an experiment while writing a paper. You're not editing much this week because you're taking finals, aren't you? Did you start these edit wars as an "experiment"? Doczilla 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • That's it, isn't it? That would explain the thing that has baffled me beyond all else about you. Why else would anyone spend three months making nearly two thousand edits (seriously) on the same bunch of articles over and over, editing, reverting, defying Wikipedia guidelines, reverting, and reverting without branching out and taking an interest in other articles any more than you have? Doczilla 09:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Asgardian's answers here are simply spin. He is at the very least guilty by his own admission of violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Three editors here and a larger number throughout the affected Talk pages are all corroborating the extent and the nature of Asgardian's behavior. I don't know if he's been behaving as he has for purposes of some Sociology or Media class project, but it's extremely unfair to let him continue when so many responsible editors are spending so much time and effort on him. I don't want to give up on the Comics Project, but all it takes for his kind of behavior to flourish is for good Administrators to stand by and do nothing. --Tenebrae 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The comments are still somewhat self-righteous and quite a few assumptions have been made once again. I suggest more discussion on character pages where needed. Have there been any reverts of late? No. Cooperation? Yes - see Galactus. Some of the articles mentioned still need work (eg. Awesome Android) and some will also have to accept that a touch up is inevitable. I'll start with an Exemplar discussion today as some of the "accepted" features need to be readdressed. See you there.

Asgardian 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Have there been any reverts of late? No." How can you say that? Here's the most immediate example of how that's just not true: Your last four edits before this noticeboard report were all reverts.

[7] reverted all changes since [8].

[9] reverted a lot of changes since [10], keeping (or adding, whichever) two little edits

[11] reverted all changes since [12]

[13] reverted all edits since [14]

And we could keep going back through your edits, pointing out how very many of them are reversions. You tend to edit your version of each article and not the version most other people are working on. Doczilla 03:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to forget that I rewrote much of the information on those pages and it is still in use. The changes are also minor and acceptable. You are also not taking in what I've been saying. As this is an Admin Board, forward any direct comments to myself or place it under the relevant character.

Asgardian 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an Admin Board, and this information is for the benefit of whichever admin looks at this because they'll be unfamiliar with what you've been doing, even though I've worded these newest remarks in second person to Asgardian. I say them to you because part of me still hopes you'll work with other editors (remember, I personally made sure you knew about this so you could contribute to this discussion), even though experience says how stubborn you are about not taking other people's remarks to heart. I haven't forgotten your edits. I know you've reworked a lot of things, and I've tried to incorporate your better changes to see if you'd accept that as the compromise you mention further above, but you just don't back off. You've kept reverting and kept reverting for three months. You've got your own version of each of those articles. Someone reverts your version, other people edit, you revert back to your own version, it gets edited, it gets reverted. Notice how many different people have been reverting away from your version. You're the single person repeatedly reverting back to your version in spite of all the reasons people have outlined over the last three months regarding what's wrong with your changes. Yes, some of the edits in your versions still need to be added to the version everyone else is working on. I've entered some of your edits into the other version of some articles and I've left some for you, hoping you'd start working with the other regular contributors to those articles. It's just not working. If you really want a compromise, act on the suggestion that several of us have made: Make one edit at a time and learn from other people's responses to them. There have been good edits I'd have backed you up on if you hadn't made twelve bad edits at the same time. But you've gotten this advice and gotten this advice, and yet here we are now. Doczilla 06:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So let us begin with Exemplars. One final observation I will make is that the more serious contributors seem to fall into two groups - those that focus on technical edits, and those that contribute creative edits (I'd be the latter. I'll let anyone else reading decide what camp they sit in). Marrying the two together seems to be the challenge, which is not always easy. Asgardian 07:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that when you refuse to follow the consensus or the exemplars, you dismiss it as a "technical edit". Being a "creative" type doesn't justify stubbornness, unresponsiveness, incivility, or an unwillingness to work with other editors. --GentlemanGhost 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are making an erroneous assumption.

Asgardian 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Asgardian uses a fallacy called a false dichtomy to try and excuse the fact that he feels the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia do not apply to him. --Tenebrae 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not said. I am making an observation. Most of those I've talked with to date on Wikipedia perform more technical as opposed to creative edits. If still in doubt, ask yourself how many articles you've written or added to as opposed to correcting little technicalities. Anyway, this is not the place to be discussing such things at length.

Asgardian 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Using the erroneous "technical vs. creative" dichotomy not only splits editors along a nonexistent line, but also serves as a futile attempt to demean other editors (in short, an ad hominem attack). Regarding your assertion that it is hard to "marry the two together," apparently many have done so, with positive results. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have to disagree.

"Erroneous" is an assumption on your part. Analysis of many of the comic entries shows that some contribute via a technical "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" edit, while others are creative and may rewrite or create an entire new entry. Edit Histories will show this. It is certainly not a "nonexistant" line - people are different, and their contributions will also differ accordingly. Neither is better than the other, making your claim that it was ever a "futile attempt to demean other editors" a tad ridiculous. As for marrying the two together, not so easy with the comic entries. There's often a greal deal of passion involved but not as much logic. Just study the entry for Thor. It took months to get that article to the standard it is at now. People with pet fetishes, people wanting it to look like a fan site, people insisting such and such happened in issue X and so on. Asgardian 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you used it as example, I checked your last Thor edit. How does, among other things, repeated refusal to follow the exemplar for identifying him as a fictional character help keep the page from looking like a fan site? Doczilla 07:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that since Asgardian has refrained from doing much on Wikipedia this week, Hercules (Marvel Comics) has gone three days in a row without inspiring other contributors to fix it. The last time it went three days (two whole calendar days) without edits was also when Asgardian refrained from immediately undoing someone else's reversion of his work. That just happens to be the only page my watch list includes from Asgardian's edit war list. I expect this phenomenon can be found on other pages he has kept at. This illustrates what I have kept saying about how much work Asgardian creates for other people. Doczilla 07:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You make a good point and a not so good point. The "fictional" issue needs more discussion over at Exemplars (after all, of course Thor is fictional!) as do 1-2 other terms that aren't too clear. As for creating "work" for other people, you again sounding a tad self-righteous. Please remember no one owns Wikipedia, and that some changes are inevitable. There's being conscientious, and then there's taking the hobby (which is what it is) a tad too far...

Asgardian 09:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember no one owns Wikipedia. Words to live by. Can you take your own advice? --GentlemanGhost 22:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since I said it, I should think so.

Asgardian 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not "a hobby", but an avocation. Lay historians are contributing to a new form of academic encyclopedia. A hobby is for fun. We do it from a sense of duty.

And since you asked, go here to see I've created about 120 mostly lengthy articles, including several biographies of unsung, important comics creators such as Syd Shores and George Klein. Your schism of "technical editors" and "creative editors" is false and obscures the central issue: That by your actions you demonstrate your belief that the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia don't apply to you.

The consensus emerging is that you are doing more harm than good by being here. If this is just a hobby to you, and you aren't serious about collaborative historical scholarship, one has to ask whether you would be happier working on a comics fan site. --Tenebrae 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For me wikipedia is just a hobby and sometimes a obsession. Brian Boru is awesome 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For me, yeah, it is just a hobby (more like a habit), one I wish I'd spend less time on. Its being a hobby is a strong reason not to make waves (or at least not massive tidal waves), a reason to defer the exemplars, policies, and guidelines set by those who devote more serious time to it and to the consensus of contributors in general. If I disagree with an exemplar, etc., I shouldn't inflict my will on the articles. I should investigate the logic behind them and then, if I still disagree, I should discuss changing the exemplar. I'm puzzled by Asgardian's talking about the exemplar talk pages here when we've previously told him to take up these issues over there and yet he continues reverting to versions for which he has been repeatedly informed that they violate the Wikipedia way of doing things. Are you saying that you will now only take up these issues at the exemplar talk pages? Are you promising that you will finally stop making changes that you have been told violate the exemplars, policies, and style guidelines set by consensus? And beyond that, what about non-policy/exemplar-related changes you want to make that umpteen other people disagree with? Doczilla 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you contribute to the Exemplar discussion I've started? Two others are participating and some progress has already been made on an issue. Also, Tenebrae - I am not demeaning your contribution when I say "hobby" , but in all fairness we have all gone a tad too far before now. I am the first to admit this. Yes, Wikipedia is important in it's way, but it is not life and death when we are arguing over whether Thor has super speed or not. There is also someone who to judge by their entries sits in front of the computer hour after hour, watching for the slightest change. Condemn me if you will, but I believe that is going too far. In fact, in the interests of OH & S perhaps users should only be able to tweak a finite no. of entries in 24 hrs? It may help reduce edit wars and sometimes, obsession (another Wiki-related sin). Anyway, a good thread has been started at Exemplars. See you there.

Asgardian 08:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • You didn't answer the questions: "Are you saying that you will now only take up these issues at the talk pages? Are you promising that you will finally stop making changes that you have been told violate the exemplars, policies, and style guidelines set by consensus? And beyond that, what about non-policy/exemplar-related changes you want to make that umpteen other people disagree with?" Wryspy 09:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also encountered User:Asgardian, and typically in the middle of a reversion war of some kind (Radioactive Man, for example). I have to agree that the user has added quite a lot of information to Wikipedia (the quality of which, I'll leave to others to determine). To give some benefit of the doubt, attempting to ascertain who's doing what is often difficult because often those who he is in reversion war with do not use edit summaries, or he and they may use the edit summaries to merely attack each other, (which still does not describe the edits in question. and in most of these cases, rather than discuss on the talk page of the article in question, it often becomes a multiple user talk page assault. Imo a LOT of this disruption would be averted if both sides would recall that being bold also means not being disruptive. I think a potential solution (if wanted), would be to suggest that if someone has an issue with a change, a single reversion, with a suggestion that both (and any other interested parties) begin a civil discussion on the article's talk page. And if Asgardian has any issues with the current set of guidelines from the WikiProject, I suggest that the user start a discussion there. consensus can change, after all, but just going against consensus repeatedly, would seem to wear down even my tendency to assume good faith. Hope this helps : ) - jc37 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Propose a ban

I would just like to note that the arbitration committee takes a dim view of people needlessly changing an article to suit their personal preference. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2. I would suggest we are close to a similar situation here, and I would urge participants to resolve this dispute through some method other than arbitration. I would recommend parties file a request for comment on the issues or behaviour they feel most pertinent, and if that fails to settle the dispute, seek mediation. If that proves unsuccessful, then I think ultimately an arbitration request will have to be made. In the meantime, the arbitration committee has made it plain that where editors tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way ... they may be banned from editing in the affected area. I'd like to ask my fellow administrators if they feel Asgardian (talk · contribs) is editing in such a manner that a ban from editing comics related articles for a period may be neccesary. Steve block Talk 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this editor's edits, and I support this ban. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why would we abandon this dialogue? It has actually been quite useful. There have been a few candid admissions from several posters. I've also made no edits for the duration of this dialogue and created a discussion at Exemplars. You also seem to be overlooking the number of articles I've created. I'm going to raising issues on the appropriate discussion boards where I feel it necessary, but beyond that will not play with the agree structure. That said, some creative changes (eg. images, reworking information) are permissible and indeed expected - and can be discussed, rather than being a source of outrage. I also believe that using the term "obsessive" is dangerous and a two-edged sword. There are several posters who have been a tad obsessive from time to time, not just myself. I suppose it is the nature of the hobby.

In short, I find the suggestion of a ban to be premature. I also have to say that I am concerned that someone who professes an interest in comics on their homepage chooses to get involved. Given that the subject matter is comic-related, objectivity cannot be guaranteed.

Asgardian 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:"candid admissions from several posters" Some candid admissions from you would go a long way to help smoothe things over. Doczilla 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would also like my last 6 odd edits noted bfore anyone does anything rash.

Asgardian 08:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, something like RfC, a ban, or more could certainly be more appropriate if the previous edit wars resume. But now? I go back and forth on this. We already took the step of bringing this to the incident board, after all. If Asgardian is actively trying to work with consensus and striving to play by the rules Wikipedia set for its sandbox, that's all we really need. (Is that what Asgardian intends to do? Unless I missed it, he still hasn't explicitly said so. Not fully.) Skeptic that I am about pretty much everything, I would nevertheless like to assume good faith. Given the history, though, we need some strong assurance. One week of backing off (a week when Asgardian had already said he wouldn't be editing much), well . . . it isn't a lot to judge by when weighed against three months of edit wars, is it? I would certainly support a ban IF that mess resumed. His apparent lack of humility (telling other people to be smarter, calling other people self-righteous or rash when his repeated edits have worn out their civility, lack of acknowledging that he has been pushy no matter how many people oppose his edits) can make it hard to want to work with him. If we were going straight to a ban, though, I'm not sure why he'd have been given the opportunity to discuss things here and change his actions. Doczilla 09:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the being the voice of reason, Doc. I think Steve block's suggestion is after the fact, given that you and I have just cooperated on and improved two entries. I also don't think Chris Griswold even read the rest of the discussion. At any rate, I think this has gone on long enough and needs to be resolved. As previously indicated, my edits of late speak for themselves.

Asgardian 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Like Doczilla, I remain skeptical. Are we going to have to go through this again in another month or two? I'm not a crystal ball, but User:Asgardian has edited responsibly at one point after complaints came up, but he only did so temporarily before all this flared up.

One has to go through with things or else some people will always call your bluff. A month or so ban to show how seriously the rest of the community takes Asgardian's actions would drive the point home once and for all. Maybe then the rest of us can get some rest and channel our time more productively.--Tenebrae 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in calling anyone's bluff. By the by, you should avoid making comments on behalf of everyone else. "The rest of us can get some rest" is a tad melodramatic. Again, just follow the recent edit trail.

Asgardian 04:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• But you didn't address Tenebrae's point. (Admittedly, a lot of points have been brought up, and not every one has to be addressed directly as long as the key issues get covered.) The recent edit trail is a spit compared to the bucket of nearly two thousand prior edits. You still haven't addressed the concerns regarding (1) showing concern for what you should have done differently over the past three months and (2) what you're committing to doing in the future aside from discussing exemplars. Again, some assurances in these areas would go a long way to help smoothe things over, to help convey that you're not just making nice again for a couple of days only to go right back to the edit wars when the heat's off. I hope that's not the case. You're the only one who knows your intentions. So please help clear this up: What are they? Without some clear and strong assurances, a ban of a month or two from the pages you've edited most seems likely to be pursued soon. Doczilla 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would think that my actions of the past few days speak for themselves. Nothing has been a blind revert. If in doubt, I have discussed - you know this. Given that I've changed some of the articles, and others have made some additions which I've then added to, it would be counter productive to revert. Close examination reveals that most of the entries are still my words anyway - I was just getting stuck on the minor points, which can be discussed (eg. fictional). This will be my modus operandi in future. What WOULD help, however, is if we all took this a little less personally, which might make the discussions a tad easier.

Asgardian 09:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think perhaps a probation might be the best move then. I suggest a probation of two months whereby Asgardian is to discuss any changes, to avoid reverting and is to follow civility and good faith assumptions. Does that cover the behaviour? If an admin deems Asgardian has breached the probation, short blocks can be imposed. Maybe we should consider the idea of mentorship, too. Steve block Talk 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice this section was a part of the above until after I posted there : (

I think probation sounds like a good idea. Though I'd like to re-affirm my suggestion above that he (and others interacting with him) should make better and more use of article talk pages, and edit summaries. - jc37 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Doc will attest to the fact that I have already been doing this. As for probation, I would have assumed I am already on it, yes? At least three people seem to keep track of my movements. That said, I think this has gone on long enough and business as normal can resume (if there is such a thing on Wikipedia). The only thing I would ask of fellow posters (the reasonable ones at any rate) is that there is a little lessv "the sky is falling" if edits are made on some entries (someone recently said that their edit on an entry was more or less perfect, which I can't agree with as nothing is perfect and change is inevitable on Wikpedia) and more discussion. Jc37, thanks for acknowledging the contributions I've made thus far.

Asgardian 00:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has a probationary status? Where can we find details on how that works? One might argue that an example should be made to deter other edit wars (and it can be a strong argument), but if that were the only acceptable outcome to this discussion, then the step of coming to this page should have been skipped. Tenebrae's question was "What can we do?" not "How do we get rid of him?" Given that people bothered to come here instead of going straight to ban discussions, probation seems appropriate and Asgardian has indicated willingness to work with that. If he continues as he has for the last several days, he will make useful contributions to Wikipedia. If he's just lying low as some suspect and waiting to resume old behavior, he'll get busted out for violating probation. (Boy, that sounds dramatic, but those are the words, aren't they?) As for the "mentorship" suggestion, it would need to involve an objective party who hasn't been particularly involved in this along the way. And how does that work? Where is a link for information on Wikipedia mentorship? Doczilla 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia:Probation details probation, which "generally follows an Arbitration Committee finding", but if it helps avoid taking this to arbitration, and all parties agree, then I don't see why it can't be adopted here as a community probation. We have community bans after all, listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users. Mentoring is described here, Wikipedia:Mentorship, but it appears the Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee has shut up shop, so that may be a blind alley, although maybe we could see if anyone is willing to take on the role. There's Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, maybe that would work? What I'm proposing, though, is that if all parties agree, I can take the agreement to the admin's noticeboard and get a consensus on whether it should be adopted. I can't see why it shouldn't. It basically establishes what sort of behaviour is expected anyway. Once it is accepted, any transgression of the probation should be reported here, I would think. Steve block Talk 16:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think this topic has now overextended itself and past expiration (other discussions have been and gone). My edits of late speak for themselves. Folks will watch at any rate. Let's leave it at that as this is also becoming a tad condescending. Thank you.

Asgardian 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• First, I would like to believe that everyone has the best of intentions here. And I have empathy with the idea that being "on the stand" can start to feel like everyone is accusatory, and standing against you. But I think that at least some of the Wikipedians above have concerns, and are looking for a way to balance the several sides of "what's good for the encyclopedia". I think we all would rather that you have the continued ability to positively edit this encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but at the same time, we all really need to find ways to hopefully avoid these continued disruptions to articles and altercations with other editors, and hopefully start working together towards consensus. (I think there is a rather large difference between having a heated talk page discussion, and the disruptive POV reversion wars that have been occurring of late.)

• I think Steve block has a rather good idea. If the community can ban, the community should be able to suggest probation. This would seem to be the perfect "middle-ground" for this situation. That said, we should lay out some very specific points in relation to the probation, so that Asgardian isn't unduly attacked with just the reason (excuse) that he's on probation. I believe Steve block and CrisGriswold are the current administrator members of the Comics WikiProject, so I think that they would be the ideal choice for monitoring the situation, with notices here, should the situation warrant. And if unacceptable behavior continues, then I think there would be no choice but to submit a request for arbitration. - jc37 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• jc37, I have to commend you. You must be one of the most reasonable posters I have encountered on Wikipedia thus far. What I can gather, the probation process needs to be pioneered as it doesn't exist. I can only say again, that I am in effect already on probation as at least one poster would be watching. No one seems to have had issue with the edits, which have helped improve several articles. jc also raises a good point about undue attacks. I think some edits are reasonable, and should not be seen as outrageous and a cause for confrontation (in theory anyway, but I'm sure it's happening on a few comic pages somewhere). I would hope that when there is a need to discuss issues in future, people will be reasonable.

Asgardian 04:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just please remember that that specifically includes you, even in situations when consensus is going against you : ) - jc37 08:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• • The probation process doesn't need pioneering any more than anything else on Wikipedia does. It's an established process, and monitoring user behaviour is part of the admin role. There's nothing being stretched out of place here, and if there was, it would have been pointed out by now by another admin. And discussions hang around as long as people discuss them. They are archived after no-one has posted to them for a set number of days. Since all people have agreed that probation is an acceptable outcome, I think we should move ahead on that route. Steve block Talk 09:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have to disagree. I am also concerned about objectivity here. You came out of nowhere and proposed a ban and are now trying to drive the consensus toward a probation. As I've already stated, I'm on virtual probation and are no doubt being monitored. The fact that no one else has responded would seem to suggest that there is hardly a cast of thousands pressing for this. Once again, the edits from the last week speak for themselves. Even if it came to such action (which is unnnecessary) I would have to insist that a person who was not associated with comics - and therefore objective - made the ruling. I really think this can be dropped now.

Asgardian 21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition

Can someone please review my actions on Goa Inquisition. I first became aware of the problem when Rumpelstiltskin223 reported Xandar to AIV for repeated blanking (see this edit for an example, it's basically just a revert war between those two versions: [15]). When I reviewed the case, I decided it wasn't obvious vandalism and was actually a content dispute, and blocked both users for 3 hours for 3RR violation. I also reverted the page to Xandar's version, since I felt it was best to have the version which didn't make controversial accusations be the one visible while the issue is discussed. User:Bharatveer then reverted my revert, giving a very similar edit summary to mine (how his version can be considered the safer version, he didn't explain). I reverted him and left a message on his talk page asking him not to revert again and saying I'd protect the page if he did. He did revert again, leaving a message on my talk page about placing disputed tags rather than removing the text. I reverted again (my 3rd revert, for those counting), and protected the page. Opinions, please. --Tango 15:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch Tango. I endorse your actions. The last 100 edits all seem to be edit-wars. I also see a lot of 3rr evasion and gaming going on. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be related to the Joan of Arc vandal. Akhilleus has included Xandar in his checkuser request on suspected JoA vandal socks WP:RFCU#AWilliamson. One day after a different checkuser request specificially related to Goa Inquisition got declined I spotted CC80 on the list, whom I strongly suspect of being a JoA vandal sock. Durova^Charge! 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Tango (talk · contribs) used admin powers in an incorrect way to further the edit war. He could have merely protected the article in interim but since he reverted a user on the article, I dont feel he had ample right to protect it. Xandar's version is the vandalized, censored version of the article. Wikipedia doesnt publish what is "safe" it publishes what is verified. With durova's new evidence. I smell trolling on the part of CC80 (talk · contribs) and Xandar (talk · contribs) (who most probably are the same person).Bakaman 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree that admins should protect whatever version is showing when they get there but, in cases of controversial accusations, I think it's best to play safe. There was debate on the talk page as the whether or not the accusations were verifiable, so playing safe meant I assumed they weren't and removed them. I didn't investigate to see if they were valid or not (I since have, and I don't think the source given is very reliable, it's an opinion piece.) - that's a content issue and is "not my job" for want of a better phrase. --Tango 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Checkuser request mentioned above has been done. User:CC80 is a sock of AWilliamson, and has been blocked. User:Xandar is probably a different user than CC80. For more details see WP:RFCU#AWilliamson. 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving discussion from below, I see now reason not to keep it all in one place. I know people check the bottom of this page, which is why this section was put at the bottom when I first created it. There is no point putting it at the bottom again. --Tango 18:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tango and use of admin privileges

In a edit-war that ensued on Goa Inquisition, User:Tango who is an administrator, used admin tools to revert-war three times with another user. Misuse of rollback and then reverting to his own version – [16] [17], [18], and then protecting the page – [19]; after reverting to his own version, calling it a safe version in his edit. A discussion over this is avaiable here – WP:ANI#Goa Inquisition. However, instead of apologising for this misuse of admin tools and intimidating non-admin users he insists that it was a safe move and within admin discretion; hypocritically warns them of a block here – [20] and asks them to assume good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with nick - I feel like I cant post my replies anymore on that talk page, for fear I will be blocked for "incivility". I myself have found an academic journal to source most of the page (do refer to The Goa Inquisition. Being a Quatercentenary Commemoration Study of the Inquisition in Goa - Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 84, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1964), pp. 483-484) but am afraid if I quote sections of it and comment, I may be insulting people an therefore will be blocked under a variety of false premises. Instead of encouraging informed debate, Tango is stifling it. Bakaman 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Protection_policy#How → Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, this seems to be a bad month for administrative... contention. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I told Nick on my talk page, this has already been discussed here. Try scrolling up a bit and put your comments there. --Tango 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have provided the link to that discussion here. I believe this location would provide a view to a larger audience. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the same page. How can it provide a view to a different audience? --Tango 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point of the discussion really. Users/admins tend to look at the bottom of the page, rather than coming down from the top. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The earlier discussion focused on sockpuppetry.Bakaman 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Though i have not edited Goa Inquisition myself, i am compelled to comment here. User:Tango appears to have prematurely blocked the article without an objective analysis of its recent edit hostory. Goa Iquisition of late has been plagued by POV-pushing-sockpuppets. While check user on User:Xandar may have been inconclusive, his edit patterns do bear striking similarities to CC80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s...

User:Xandar though largely civil, seems to be highly prejudiced and obtuse in his dealings with Indian editors. He for one simply rebishes every argument and reference presented to him as "unrealiable". The situation has become unworkable and i doubt whether discussion on the talk page would be conclusive. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 18:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Tango protected an unsourced version of the article. I disagree with his actions. article should be either protected to the correct version, or uprotected. He protected xander's version who seems to be vandalist troll.--D-Boy 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever might be the issue here, m:The wrong version is not. Don't complain about the wrong version getting protected. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What kind of talk is that? I'll remember that when try to go for admin. Keeping false info protected like that and abusing admin privileges hurts the credibilty of wikipedia.--D-Boy 06:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's put to rest one recurring complaint: although CC80 was a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal butXandar isn't. The checkuser came up unlikely and my investigation also determined they're probably different. This article has several problems and I've only cleared up one of them. Durova^Charge! 15:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I object to the behaviour of Nick. He initially asked me for an explanation on my talk page and when I asked him to be more specific he responded sarcasticly (bordering on uncivil) and reported me here without actually discussing the matter with me first, what was the point in going to my talk page if you weren't going to actually talk to me? He then created a new section which has the only effect of giving his comments more weight that those that have gone before. He has misrepresented my actions in his description - he says I called my version the safest version, which is nonsense, when I used that edit summary it was my first edit to the page, how could it be my version? I was never in a content war, I was simply determining what version should be there while the discussion takes place, I have no opinion on what version is the better one, only which is the safer until consensus is reached. Also, he quotes me as saying I used "admin discretion", I never used that phrase or anything similar, I have no idea what he's refering to. He says that I didn't apologise for my actions when I explained them here - that's because I was the one that brought the matter here. Why would I apologise when I hadn't been told I'd done anything wrong (other than by someone already involved on the page)? I was asking for a 2nd opinion (and the one I got was that I'd done the right thing), if I felt I had anything to apologise for, I simply wouldn't have protected the page in the first place. Nick is trying to make out that I've refused to listen to criticism, which is complete nonsense, I was the one that came here to ask for criticism in the first place! --Tango 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Dont lie. You made three reverts rv1rv2rv3 and then protected to your version. After that you threaten me [21]. I should have reported you on AN/3rr (at least for going against spirit of 3 revert rule). The worst part was the threats, I was afraid of getting blocked by an abuser of admin powers. I demand that Tango (talk · contribs) recuse from harrassing editors on the page, and to find another (preferably impartial) admin to take care of it. You're back on ANI for threatening users after abusing admin powers.Bakaman 22:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Tango saw that xandar kept repeatedly deleteing sourced material. He not only rved a couple times but he protected it. and imparital admin would be better.--D-Boy 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I am concerned that this seems to have turned into a kick-a-man-while-he's-down incident against Tango, by what seems to be users with similar interests. I think that until a neutral admin reviews this, neither side should attack the other any further. – Chacor 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing us of POV-pushing? I find it incivil on your part to examine users' motives through your POV on the matter. I happen to be the main contributor to the Goa Inquisition page and have worked for months to fight vandals and find reliable sources (refer to the one I discussed above). If were kicking Tango while he's down (for abusing admin privileges) then I could theoretically assume you are here to back up a fellow sysopstruck out see below. Note that at least two admins have posted here attesting to the findings.Bakaman 04:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am neutral, and have not looked at the article. NEither am I a sysop. It is very inappropriate to mischaracterise my actions as you have done. – Chacor 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And accusing me of "kicking someone when they are down" is appropriate? especially when they threatened to block me? Quite hypocritical on your part.Bakaman 04:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of kicking someone when they're down. I said I'm concerned a group of users seem to have turned this into such an incident. – Chacor 04:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It only looks as if User:Tango seems to be bent on justifying his protection of the article, after misusing his rollback and revert-warring on it. Bordering on incivility? (Although, I don't think I ever was), I believe that it is better to be uncivil rather than abusing your admin privileges. We are not given muscles to protect/endorse our own versions while asserting neutrality and intimidate non-admin users with blocks. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 04:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I read Chacor's comments and did not think they were directed at a specific group of people. However, I did notice a group of people responding as though it was directed at them. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What is done, is done (unfortunately)

This is my assessment of the situation and some comments; feel free to respond below.

• There was an edit war on the article page Goa Inquisition – [22] , User:Tango protected the page – [23].
• User:Tango used his [rollback] tool in order to revert another user, – [24], [25], and reverted once manually – [26], calling this a safe version.
• Tango then protected the article to "his own version", so the talk regarding the "The Wrong Version" is not really the point of discussion here, Amarkov. Not material at all.
• This is where Tango says that he meant to keep the article safe, as the did not believe the source given was reliable enough. – [27], – Nothing but exercising your discretion and protecting your own version.
• I requested Tango to explain what he meant by this – [28], and his reply was rather convenient – You're going to have to be more specific... that's just a history page. – [29], I did not see any point of discussing this with him any further.
• In a single edit, Tango tackles the content dispute and warns other users of a block in general to assume good faith with him. – [30]. I am monitoring this discussion, and will be handing out 24 hour blocks to anyone violating these guidelines.
• In his complaint about Nick's behaviour – [31], – he states He has misrepresented my actions in his description - he says I called my version the safest version, which is nonsense, when I used that edit summary it was my first edit to the page, how could it be my version? I was never in a content war, I was simply determining what version should be there while the discussion takes place – I am not even sure if Tango understands what really is a content-dispute and how administrators are expected to behave in/respond to a particular situation. I have no opinion on what version is the better one, only which is the safer until consensus is reached. – well there's his point of view. (see the diff)
• Regarding Chacor's comment here about kick-a-man-while-he's-down – The man has kicked himself once again, by repeatedly showing that he disregards the community's guidelines and policies.
• I never wanted Tango to apologise to me, or any other person for that matter. Just express his sincere regrets to the incident and give his assurance that it would never happen again. The matter could have been sorted out, there and then.
• The point in having this conversation was that the community should be aware of the facts as they happened there; as I, personally see no point in unprotecting the page and having the other users revert-war over their own version.

Thanks, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You do mean that m:The wrong version is really the point, right? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"His own version" is precisely my point. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 06:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my thoughts from above: I do agree that Tango should not have used rollback on a content dispute, neither should he have protected the page, but rather gotten someone else to look at it. – Chacor 06:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion a better way User:Tango may have approached this by requesting protection at WP:RFPP or ask other admins to protect the page since he reverted the article OR revert then immediately protect, WP:PPol did say that admins are allowed to "Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy.". Though I would say the outcome of the page is likely to be exactly the same as it is currently, so I would say this is more of a procedural issue than an abuse of admin power. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The article in concern has been experiencing an onslaught of edit-wars from 21^st August 2006. Tango did not revert to that version at all. He has admitted that he reverted to what he termed a safe version. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 07:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ach, this isn't good at all. It's always better to get a second opinion when tools are needed in a content dispute, and I think Tango got involved wrt content here. RFPP would have been a good neutral option if the page needed protection. And mentions of blocks really just ends up escalating the situation [32] -- Samir धर्म 07:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rollback is to be used only to revert vandalism. Pages should never be protected if you're involved in a content dispute.--MONGO 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourselves, you're just wasting everyone's time. I know I reverted three times and then protected, I said exactly that when I initially brought the matter here. You don't need to accuse me of something I've admitted to doing. I've given an explanation of why I did it, and so far no-one has even tried to explain why they think that explanation is flawed. If you have a problem with what I've done, argue against the points I've made, don't repeat things I've said myself... --Tango 13:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove? You are not only assuming bad faith but your comments are audacious. You never admitted that you used the rollback tools. Do you have any idea what a content dispute is? Kindly familiarise yourself with the admin how-to guide. In case you did not notice, I have also responded to the comments you made before this. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not responded to my comments, you have simply quoted them. Tell me why it was wrong to revert to the safer version. As for using the rollback option - why should I revert manually when I can revert automatically? The only reason I can see is to give an edit summary, but it's fairly obvious that I did the 2nd and 3rd reverts for the same reason as the first. --Tango 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

/me facepalms. I will wait for somebody else to comment here. Keep watching this page. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rollback is only to be used for removing vandalism. If you're mechanically reverting someone thrice over, you might want to take a step back and realize, that while technically not violating 3RR, you are violating the spirit of it. Ideally you want to cool-off revert wars; one good way to do that is to put further rationale in your edit summaries. If you don't provide any new information and use a standard admin rollback edit summary, they're just going to keep pushing back. Please stop using admin rollback except when dealing with the specific situations it is authorized for. --Cyde Weys 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

There's a problem at that page. It desperately needs some serious intervention by uninvolved parties to try to clean up/mediate the dispute. It's also obvious that Tango should never have protected the page after getting involved in a content dispute, and definitely should not have reverted it after protecting it. The important question is "what next"? Tango has reverted to what he called a "safe version". That would be ok if this were a BLP issue, or some other libel issue. However, the version he reverted to lacks sources, while the one he reverted is sourced. A quick look over the talk page suggests that the issues have been discussed and the sources are fairly reliable.

1. Page protection seems reasonable. Tango shouldn't have been the person to do it, but that's just bureaucracy. He did the right thing even if he broke some rules.

   I think the page should be protected until the issues can be sorted out finally and more outside editors involved.

   I trust that Tango will bear in mind these issues in the future.

2. Reverting after protection was uncalled for - there were no burning legal issues, as far as I can tell (I may have missed something, there's an awful lot of back and forth here). The other version is better sourced, but per "wrong version" that shouldn't be the issue here.

   Assuming that there are no legal issue, Tango's revert should be undone. The page should spend its "protection" in the version that was actually protected.

What do people think? Guettarda 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see some WP:BLP issues; butThere are none. This is one of User:Tango's reverted edit – [33]. I see removal of sources, whether disputed or not; and then revert-warring once manually and two times using rollback tool. Tango should have ideally protected the first version he came upon or asked some other administrator to exercise his discretion without getting himself involved. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

All right I'll speak frankly: Tango stepped into a very rough situation and did (his?) best. As Sir Nicholas states, I agree it would have been better to have either protected whatever version was current or to have asked other administrators for input. Any page protection during a content dispute is likely to draw accusations of administrative bias or misconduct (no matter how spotless the administrator's conduct and reputation actually are). So by rolling back or reverting for anything other than the most narrow paramaters such as WP:BLP compliance, an administrator runs the risk of inflaming the dispute rather than quelling it. I think I see the point Tango was trying to make in the caution, and I also see how that went over: sysop tools seem much less important to people who have them than to people who don't. Administrators are expected to have the wisdom of Solomon in the messiest situations, so even when I might choose differently I usually respect others' decisions. Yet I've been uneasy about this particular action because it's right at the outer limit of what's acceptable, maybe a few inches beyond it. I wonder what's the fairest way to take a few steps back and defuse the dispute. Durova^Charge! 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin, and I'm involved in the discussion on Talk:Goa Inquisition.) I don't think the page should be changed at this point. The edit war is stopped and users are discussing sources on the talk page. The wrong version got protected, but at this point, any version will be wrong--the edit wars have been going on for a long time. I'd recommend letting the discussion run its course, but if another admin could step in and monitor the procedings, that might be helpful. (Or we could go to some form of mediation.) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No one here wants to change the page. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear--protecting a different version (which Guettarda suggested above) would be changing the page. I think the page should be left as it is now until discussion is completed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Yeah. However, let us discuss on the talk page and then go by consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I apply the principle of WP:BOLD to administration, just as I do to editing. I do what I think is best (within my interpretation of policy, and using WP:IAR where necessary), and then if I think what I've done might be controversial, I come here and ask for people's opinions. In this case, I recieved two responses in the first couple of days, one was an admin endorsing my decision, and the other was a non-admin involved in the page who questioned it and then didn't reply to my response. If what I did was so terrible, why didn't anyone say so when I first brought this matter up for review? This page is watched by a large number of admins, I'm sure plenty of them saw my message and they obviously decided it did not require comment, which is an implicit endorsement of my actions. Had an admin suggested I undo the action when I first made it, I would probably have done so (depending on their reasoning), but no-one did. There is now a discussion going on on the talk page, and hopefully those involved will soon reach a consensus, if not the matter can be refered to the dispute resolution procedures. Undoing an action like mine 2 days after it happened would do more harm than good. I strongly support admins reviewing eachother's actions and speaking up if they disagree, but reviewing days old actions is of limited use. Try monitoring this page more closely in future, and perhaps your opinions can be taken into account before a decision becomes difficult to reverse. --Tango 18:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Tango, it is fine to be bold to stop a revert war. It is not fine to become involved in a revert war, use your admin rollback button in that revert war, and then protect the version you prefer. I can understand the accidental use of the rollback button to revert something that is not obvious vandalism, but twice? And protecting an article where you have just been engaging in an edit war is unacceptable. We hold the admin tools in trust. You have betrayed that trust. I normalloy would not be commenting on this, but you do not seem to understand the seriousness of what you have done. Your actions, and your refusal to acknowledge how wrong they were, cast a cloud over all admins. -- Donald Albury 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe I was involved in any kind of content dispute, and I have explained my reasoning for that. Until someone at least tries to refute my points, why would I acknowledge any wrongdoing? --Tango 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you keep reverting? It was an edit war. You used your admin rollback button. Are you claiming you were reverting vandalism? That's the only excuse for doing what you did. But, protecting an article that you have just reverted three times is the biggest problem. Once you reverted the article the first time, you were obligated to not use your admin tools. If you wanted to stop an edit war, you should have protected the article without making any edits to it. Appearances are, in a sense, just as important as intentions. You have created the appearance that you have used your admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute. You may say that it was not a content dispute, but I don't understand then why you were edit warring. -- Donald Albury 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept that every version is wrong and a discussion of sources would do this article much more good. If keeping the current wrong version helps that discussion move forward then so be it. Tango, the reason I didn't speak up sooner was that when I saw this I scratched my head a bit, wondered whether the uneasy feeling was just me, and moved on. I noticed this was ongoing today and realized I wasn't the only person who had some misgivings. Maybe I should have spoken sooner, in which case I apologize. I hope you'll take the candid feedback to heart. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me try and work out exactly what the problem is here. Consider this alternative: Rather than reverting 3 times, as I did, what if I'd protected after the first revert (the manual one, so rollback doesn't come into it)? Is the problem that I chose a version to protect, or is it that I reverted to that version a few times before protecting? --Tango 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The second one, and your threats on the talk page. First you abuse rollback, then you threaten to abuse the block button?Bakaman 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The simple solution I use is to just hit "protect". Nobody from the Goa Inquisition is alive today. After an initial burst of eep, that's wrong the editors usually settle down to discussing their differences. Since I haven't altered anything - and reject any thanks or complaints - the editors usually accept me as a neutral party if I need to give block warnings. Durova^Charge! 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The next time I see him doing this, I will apply his very own principles of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR and drop the banhammer. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating others here, since you still don't seem to grasp it, this is the problem. First, you shouldn't have been edit warring at all. No matter what the problem was, that is not how we solve disputes; we use calm and amicable dispute resolution. There should be no admin who doesn't hold that opinion. You shouldn't have been using rollback on good faith content edits. It's rude and furthers ill-will. You absolutely shouldn't have protected when you were involved in the edit war, and even more so should not have protected to your preferred version. That isn't really negotiable at all. Administrators are expected to protect the version they encounter, not the one they prefer. Finally, after all this, clear involvement in the dispute, you shouldn't be making threats to block other editors on that article's talk page. You seem not to be understanding the distinction between your involvement as an editor and your invovlement as an administrator; don't mix these. To answer the specific question: no, neither of those are good options. Why is "talk," rather than hitting your admin buttons at all, not one of your solutions? Dmcdevit·t 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't repeat what Dmcdevit and others have said above. I would only like to say that I do not endorse the use of roll-back. I would have protected the article as it was if there were no concerns about BLP. The use of roll-back combined with protection looks bad and makes it look like Tango wanted to protect his "own version" after revert-warring. I appreciate what Tango tried to do but it is now obvious that one side of the edit-war will never see Tango as a neutral admin. So I advise Tango to allow any other admin to mediate the dispute. I am willing to look into the matter if no other admin is currently mediating the dispute. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was never involved as an editor, as I've repeatedly said and no-one seems to understand - I've never even read the article, I've just looked at the diffs and the talk page. I was reverting to what I felt was the safer version to have showing during discussion - I know there is no BLP concern, but a quick look at the talk page will tell you there are some very strongly held opinions on the subject nevertheless. Even if I was wrong to select a safe version in this situation, that doesn't change the fact that I was acting as an administrator, not an editor and was not involved in any content decisions. And how you can call Bharatveer's reverts "good faith", I don't know. He was using misleading edit summaries and reverting when as administrator had specificly asked him not do. I don't think it quite counts as vandalism, but it wasn't done in good faith. --Tango 15:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Tango, I understand why you don't think you were involved in the editing dispute, and honestly, I don't think you chose a side or have a preferred version of the page--to me it looks like you were trying to get editors to discuss whether a controversial source should be included or not. And personally, given the tone of some of the comments on the talk page, I also think a warning about incivility and personal attacks was warranted.

Still, if a page is undergoing an edit war it's best to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Once you revert an edit, no matter what your intentions, it looks like you've made a decision about what the content of the article should be--in other words it looks like you're no longer neutral. Like Aksi_great said, some of the editors in that dispute will never see you as impartial now, so it would be best if Aksi_great or some other admin could step in. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that is something I can agree with - to someone who is thinking very emotionally about the issue (as those on the talk page are), my actions could easilly be mistaken as a conflict of interest. That's one of the reasons I came here - if another admin endorses my action (as they did), it gives me more legitimacy in any subsequent arguments. However, the recent comments here have not been about appearences, they have been stating as fact that I was involved in the content of the article, which is simply incorrect. --Tango 18:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As a protecting admin, it is not your job to decide which version is safe, which is not. Both are wrong. You protect the first version you come up with and not revert other users edits. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you disagree with my judgement on an administrative decision - that's fine, and I can certainly understand where you're coming from. I fully intend to follow that guideline in future - trying to protect a safe version clearly causes more problems than it solves. However, that doesn't mean that I was involved in a content dispute - I was acting as an administrator the whole time, incorrectly at times, but I was still handling administration, not content. --Tango 14:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube link deletion

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has been removing all links to YouTube (and Google Video) from a large number of sites, despite the utter lack of consensus on WT:EL regarding the validity of YouTube links. In at least the case on Barrington Hall, the link he has removed is claimed, with no contrary evidence, to be on YouTube with the copyright holder's permission.

There needs to be significantly more clarity in the policy, or this sort of thing will continue to happen ad nauseam. As it is, I am tempted to obtain a copy of AWB so I can go reverting all the unjustified deletions. Argyriou (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would resist that temptation. Just my opinion but the gross copyright violations on Youtube render all such links invalid. As I understand it, that policy does have consensus support. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading Links normally to be avoided i understand that YouTube is to be avoided and that Sir Nicholas was being bold in removing it:

• Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content
• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read the multiple screensful of argument on Wikipedia talk:External links, I see no consensus that YouTube links are automatically invalid. I won't rehash the particulars of the arguments here, but suffice it to say that there is enough legal content on YouTube that anything other than case-by-case examination of each video for copyright and relevancy is an action which does not have support of a community consensus.

YouTube links are not Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content. The guildeline states: It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media. That is exactly what one gets with a YouTube link. Argyriou (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "Direct link" point is not relevant here. We still have the much more relevant copyright problem, of course. --Conti|✉ 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Which, in the case of the Barrington Hall video, Talk:Barrington_Hall#you tube, is not relevant, either. We have an assertion from the copyright holder that the YouTube link is not in violation of copyright, and no evidence from anyone else that the statement is not true. As the content is not hosted on any Wikimedia project, we don't need the ironclad proof we would need for content hosted here, merely enough to create the presumption that we are not contributing to copyright infringement by linking to the YouTube page.

However, there is still a larger policy problem, because there is quite a lot of content on YouTube released by independent filmmakers who would rather have the exposure than the royalties, and we have deletionists and wikilawyers like Sir Nicholas who continue to remove content without checking the links for copyright issues or relevancy. Argyriou (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following has been copied from my talk page. This user has not only assumed bad faith with me by putting a vandalism warning on my talk page; and then goes on to ruleslawyer about WP:EL, when it is clearly stating the obvious. It is obvious that he does not understand the policies and guidelines provided on Wikipedia.

Relevant links –

• User:Dmcdevit/YouTube
• User:Dmcdevit/YouTube links

Oh, so URLs are copyright violations now, are they? What is the world coming to, when adding a simple URL is considered a copyright violation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grockennnnheimer (talk • contribs) 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrington Hall

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Barrington Hall. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. See the discussion on the Talk:Barrington Hall page - you are incorrectly interpreting the policy. Argyriou (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kindly review the concerned guideline and revert yourself. Also your warning, to a edit made in good faith came as unwarranted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the YouTube links are not reliable sources as any person with an internet connection can upload any kind of file over their website. Many of the vidoes uploaded are copyrighted by their respective owners and links to those should not be used on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion on Talk:Barrington Hall and [[Talk:WP:EL]]. There is no consensus that it is against policy to link to YouTube videos which are not clearly infringing copyright. That particular video clip is claimed to be allowed to be posted on YouTube, and nobody has offered any evidence that the clip exists on YouTube in violation of copyright. Deletion of a link which does not knowingly violate copyright, which has been discussed at grat length on the talk page, is not a good-faith edit. Neither is wholesale removal of links to YouTube throughout Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? We do not need consensus on Talk:Barrington Hall for deciding if we need to keep YouTube video links on this website. Speaking of WT:EL, the guideline clearly states –

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. – YouTube is not an authority, there is not reliability as anyone can upload new videos, including copyrighted ones. Facilitation of copyright violations is not a choice with Wikipedia. Either link it to the website retaining the copyrights over the video or remove the link to YouTube.

Kindly get yourself familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines of reliable sources and external links and revert yourself. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the videos you delink? In the Barrington Hall case, the video is not some talking head talking about Barrington Hall, it's a video of the actual building; it is by its very nature, a reliable source. The restriction on personal websites, besides being controversial (see the WP:EL talk) is also a guideline to the potential reliability of a link. The guideline is titled "Links normally to be avoided". It does not read "Links always to be avoided". The guideline assumes (not entirely justifiably) that in the "normal" case, most personal web pages are not reliable sources, but it does not ban such links.

If you were removing video links after having examined them, and tagging them as copyright violations or irrelevant to the article, or such, you'd be doing useful work. But if you're just going through articles and automatically removing all YouTube links without checking them, you're vandalising Wikipedia. Please stop. Argyriou (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fys above (and didn't want to miss the chance to say so). I think virtually all of these links should be removed. Any that are to be kept should have their inclusion justified individually. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The particular link in the Barrington Hall webpage has been repeatedly justified on Talk:Barrington Hall, but because of User:Dmcdevit's misguided YouTube deletion project, users like Sir Nicholas will continue to blithely delete every single YouTube link, irregardless of whether it has been justified previously or not. As I stated at the top, the issue is larger than the specific case - having looked at Dmcdevit's page, I think his project ought to be stopped until he can put in some protection against deleting previously justified YouTube links. As it is, he provides the information necessary to allow AWB users to find and delete YouTube links without any protection against removing valid content. Argyriou (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

MOST links on wikipedia to YouTube should be removed. (Yeah, not all... but most). It is not ok to copy a music video, upload it to YouTube and add a link to it from an article. That’s copyright infringement and that’s basically what 9 out of 10 YouTube links on wikipedia are. I haven't seen the Barrington Hall video yet but, I will when I get home so I can respond about that link directly... however, reverting all YouTube link-removals would be disruptive and against numerous policies. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I took a look and don't see the problem with the link. I commented on the talk page of the article; shouldn't we be discussing this there? --NE2 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as reverting all YouTube link removals would be disruptive and against policy, so is mechanically removing all YouTube links without examining the articles or talk pages to check if the link has been justified. Argyriou (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has stated on his talk page

“ Unless the video's copyrights are exclusively owned by YouTube, no – you cannot link to the site. ”

Anyone with such a blatant misunderstanding of WP:EL, WP:COPY, and the DCMA should not be mechanically removing links from Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Or if the user has uploaded it as free-licensed. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither do we entertain unreliable and unverified sources on Wikipedia nor copyrighted videos uploaded by general users of the internet on to that website; which is clearly facilitating copyright violations. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS does not apply to WP:EL. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We have two problems, first we cannot be sure that whoever uploaded the video is actually the person who shot the video, making it so we cannot confirm copyright status. The goal is more then just not being liable, but on building an encyclopedia with content that anyone can use freely. The other problem is blanket rules being applied blindly. Considering some publishers and people have put work on YouTube, to state that everything on it is copyright and can be removed is also false and quite disruptive. Those who decide to take up the task to remove an item need to research it and find out who made it as best they can and if it was put on YouTube as an advertisement etc. If the person is not willing to do this correctly then they should not do it at all. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS does not appy to WP:EL? Is that so, dear sir? I request you to read the guideline carefully. Every guideline and policy is inter-related in one way or other. We are here to build an encyclopedia, which is free-for-all and has free-content. However, linking to copyright violations and unverified research sites like YouTube – damages the reputation of the encyclopedia and makes liable for a legal action by the real holder of the copyright. Neither do we violate copyrights on this website nor do we facilitate blatant copyright violations. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct it does not apply, saying everything is inter connected is like saying anything I post on my talk page has to be cited per WP:CITE. Most external links are not WP:RS if they were they would most likely be sources, wouldnt they? I mean think of all the home pages on BLP articles, fan sites on movie/artist sites etc. So perhaps you need to go read WP:EL, it does not say sites need to be WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Egad. At least conduct a little research before commenting here. From WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided –

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 10:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see a huge problem with the video - it contains a copyrighted music track with no evidence of permission to use it. Also, there is no verifiable information to show that the uploading user is in fact the copyright holder of the footage. This is about as clear cut as you can get - it is a more than probale copyright infringing clip on a site that is reknowned for its availability of such copyright violating clips.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else involved in the YouTube cleanup project, but I review the link in the context of the article. If it looks obvious (like, 10 min clip from The A-Team) then I nuke it(WP:C). If it's redundant to other links, I nuke it(WP:EL). If it's irrelevant to the article(WP:NOT), I nuke it. If it doesn’t provide any new information for the article I nuke it(WP:NOT). If it's being inappropriately relied on as a source, I nuke it(WP:V). If it's not obviously inappropriate, I look closer. I've found very few that are truly legit. The best I can usually get is "likely legit." So I leave... 1/50 usually... and I'm the most liberal of the 4 of us.

Remember: this website is NOT a linkfarm. Our guiding philosophy is to make an encyclopedia. It is our job to make the articles great and include as much relevant information in the article as possible. Adding tons of semi-relevant links to questionable material does not advance our goal and it puts us in bad position legally. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You have repeated this in three places, and are wrongmy mistake - one of the two links has music, and the other does not; I changed the one with to the one without; there is no music or sound at all in the video. Let's take this discussion to the talk page so I don't have to debunk you in multiple places. --NE2 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page. Please can someone else comment on the fact that there is music? I have checked this on several computers now, so it does have apparantly copyright infringing music.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe further discussions are to be continued at Wikipedia talk:External links. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department" ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a talk message for User:Mahlenmahlen who supposedly made the Barrington video, suggesting s/he GFDL the video and upload it to Commons, but that user hasn't logged in for a while so might not see it soon. I think the video is of interest for the article. It documents the subject and it provides a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a featured article (WP:EL). There isn't a serious WP:RS concern since as someone explained, it's a video of the building itself, like a photo of the White House. I didn't notice anyone questioning anything about its content, just that it's hosted in a "ghetto".

I'm not a YT fan but I don't believe there should be any type of project to remove every YT link from Wikipedia blindly, since that's what the spam blacklist is for. There are occasional situations where they're appropriate and the deletion frenzy seems to be a bit much. We import suitably licensed pictures from Flickr etc. all the time without going berserk about verifying the licenses unless we have some reason to think something is amiss. We similarly allow totally anonymous contributors to insert potentially-copyvio text directly into the wiki. We should not link to known copyvios but we are also not in the business of finding every way we can to protect the interests of the MPAA. See: m:avoid copyright paranoia. 67.117.130.181 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This non-music version seems fine. I do remember this one... I looked at it weeks ago. The argument at the time was copy-vio.... and it was. The music in it was a problem. However, this one seems to satisfy all my main conserns. I'll let others argue for/against relevence... thats not realy my main issue. ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no project to remove YouTube links blindly. A bot could be made to do that, but AWB is not a bot, it is a program designed for user oversight. Any editor removing links for it is responsible for what they remove. Having said that, the video in question still has no licensing information, so, while I'm not interested in arguing about it, and while I'm not going to make any reverts myself, I don't mind it being delinked. I'm not going to waste much time on this single link, though. The bigger problem is blatant copyvio like music, TV, and movie clips, of which there are probably still thousands on Wikipedia. Attacking the project to help that is counterproductive, especially for one borderline case. Giving vandalism warnings for it is offensive and uncivil, and will probably get you blocked if you continue. Part of the problem I've noticed is people who respond with an argument like "no one's going to sue us or we're not legally responsible for linking to copyright infringements"; no matter how true this is, it is absolutely opposed to the Wikimedia vision, to create reusable and free (as in speech, not beer) content. Dmcdevit•t 07:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are being willfully obtuse if you believe that "(t)here is no project to remove YouTube links blindly." Editors like Sir Nicholas and others are taking the information you've posted, and removing every link to a YouTube page without checking either the talk pages of the affected articles or the videos being removed.

People like User:J.smith and User:Tom harrison are correct when they say that most YouTube links should be removed. But most is not all, and your project is encouraging people to remove all YouTube links, without any checking. Tom Harrison suggests that each YouTube link requires individual justification, but how is someone running AWB with the regexes you supply supposed to know that there's a talk page with 30k of discussion on why that particular YouTube link has been repeatedly justified?

Ok - I've just answered my own question. Will you, and the people who are part of your YouTube deletion project, honor notices like the one I've placed on Barrington Hall? I've placed it in a way that it's nearly impossible for an editor to miss. Note that I don't agree with Tom Harrison - I think the burden of checking should be on the deleter - but if people in the YouTube Deletion Project are willing to actually stop and notice that there is a history or justification behind a particular YouTube link, I'm willing to accept that it's up to the person linking to YouTube to justify and restore (once!) the link. Argyriou (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, don't expect anyone to heed you once I've given you a warning for incivility and your response is to repeat the very same incivility, and then even come here to point it out. Vandalism is a bad-faith attempt to harm the encyclopedia, not a disagreement over links. Stop it. Dmcdevit•t 04:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...you are way out of line talking to Argyriou that way. First of all, his vandal warning was clearly given in good faith. Bringing the issue here is precisely what he should have done, and also done in good faith, not "pointing out incivility." Moreover, you are not The Arbiter of civility (and I have personally noticed Argyriou to be more civil than I have noticed you to be). Last but not least, it is a gross failure to AGF to decide that you will ignore a reasonable request/refuse to engage in reasonable discussion "as an authority" because of something you have decided someone did in a previous conversation (i.e., if Argyriou had been blocked and returned, that would not be sufficient reason to render any reasonable edit he made "ignorable," now or in the future, as you are well aware.) The fact that the whole YT issue is something in which you are very subjectively over-enagaged makes this much worse, in my opinion. This is the second time I have observed you to be rude and threatening to someone over YT, and I believe that you may be so ill-equipped to objectively assess any situations in which YT is involved that you should recuse yourself from acting as anadmin with regards to YT disagreements. I may file a report. Cindery 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

User:NE2 has revert-warred with established users on Barrington Hall page – [34] and has been blocked for disruption by revert-warring and breach of WP:3RR. The page has been protected for now. However, some users have been misrepresenting User:J.smith words and are saying that this page falls within the ambit of an exception. As far as I can see, the uploader of the work on YouTube has not provided any licensing information, and in case he is the creator of the clip, he has not free-licensed or allowed expressly for use on Wikipedia or other sites. Discussion at Talk:Barrington Hall and WT:EL. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 10:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The presence or absence of a free-license would be relevant if the content were being copied to Wikipedia or Commons. No such free-license is required in order to link to that video. As long as the YouTube upload commits no copyright violation, Wikipedia commits none by linking to it. It is being viewed there, not here. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:18, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• Wait, are you saying the link must be removed because its (presumptive) creator has not free-licensed it? If we are to delete every link to sites whose content is not free-licensed, do we also have to get rid of links to CNN, BBC, New York Times, etc.? Andrew Levine 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hold your horses right there, buddy! CNN, BBC, New York Times *hold* the rights to the content they host on their pages. Either they secure the contents (media files, pictures etc.) by the way of journalism or by providing the appropriate remuneration to the original holder of copyrights. Many of such news agencies have general tie-ups with other news agencies such as Reuters, Associated Press etc. In this way, we are properly accrediting them with their work, hence none of the copyrights are breached. The case is not the same yourself with "YouTube – Broadcast Yourself", any person with an internet connection has the ability to upload any kind of media, without seeking any kind of permission. Although, YouTube discourages uploading copyrighted videos of any kind. Have a look at YouTube's policy on contents here – [35]. I have unblocked User:NE2 because he assumed good faith and wanted to edit other articles. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 12:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Copyright tips from YouTube – [36]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 12:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• But we are talking about a situation where the copyright owner uploads the clip. You said, "in case he is the creator of the clip, he has not free-licensed or allowed expressly for use on Wikipedia or other sites". In other words, if we assume that YouTube user mahlenmahlen is telling the truth when he says he filmed the walls, and that its hosting on YouTube thus violates no copyright law, that somehow the fact that it's not free-licensed means we can't link to it. Andrew Levine 12:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The user Mahlenmahlen must mention on his YouTube page which shows the clip, or on his user page, if YouTube provides one; that he is either free-licensing it or releasing it in the creative-commons. Such assertions that he was the uploader of the file on YouTube cannot be under any terms of reasonability be accepted. The Wikimedia Commons developers and user are considering starting hosting media files such as videos. In case, that is implemented – Mahlenmahlen can upload that file onto the Wikimedia Commons server. Any default on the policies and the copyright laws would then be treated like we treat other kinds of plagiarism. HTH, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 12:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, that applies to uploading the content to Commons. The topic here is linking to an off-Wiki site, as long as the linked location is not violating copyright. The link takes readers to that site to view the content. The content is not being viewed on Wikipedia, so it does not need to be released to Wikipedia. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:18, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• seems like there's a lot of resistance from contributors to your policy. is there no way we can challenge what we view as overly conservative policies? why not assume good faith w/ the linkers and remove only the links that are proven to be copy vios? u are basically convicting based on the assumption of guilt rather than the assumption of innocence. moving away from the copy vio issues, if u're talking about reliability, all the information from the liquid and glowsticking articles can't be easily verified from published sources b/c they are, by nature, underground activities performed by a smallish group of ppl. the videos linked in those articles is about as concrete evidence as you're going to find as to their existance. all other evidence exists in the form of forum posts on various streetdance websites. why not just go ahead and remove those articles completely since contributors can't find a source that's reliable? the reasons given by User_talk:Spartaz for keeping the liquid videos while removing the glowsticking video is completely arbitrary. Wongba 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gee Thanks for not mentioning to me that you cited me on AN/I! I answered on your talk page in detail concerning the removed links. --Spartaz 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nick, there is no reason to believe that Mahlenmahlen is not as he claims the copyright owner of the film. If we followed your logic, we would have to delete nearly every user-made free-licensed photo in Wikipedia, since there is no way to prove that the user actually made the image instead of stealing it. Tell me how these two cases are different:

1. A wire story owned by the AP is hosted on the CNN website, per an agreement between the AP and CNN, and Wikipedia links to it;
2. A video owned by Mahlenmahlen is hosted on the YouTube website, per an agreement between Mahlenmahlen and YouTube, and Wikipedia links to it.

• So since we accept on faith, absent reasonable evidence to the contrary, MahlenMahlen's claim of authorship of the video (just as we accept on faith the claims of authorship on user-made Commons images) and since there is no difference between the two examples above, your proposal is inconsistent. Andrew Levine 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We, on Wikipedia do not assume things. The law does not assume or make any kind of presumptions. Please see my comments below. When we upload an image on Wikipedia, and if it is any kind of copyright violation, we treat it as plagiarism – and the user gets blocked along with his IP (in cases of long-term abuse). This happens when some other entity claims that they hold the copyright over the works. Ask Mahlenmahlen to assert on this YouTube page that that those are his contributions and that he has no objection for their usage anywhere in anyform. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But linking to that YouTube video is not uploading it to Wikipedia; it is not using it anywhere else, or in any other form — but directing readers to view it there and in that form, where he has already uploaded it for public viewing. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:27, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

You are still asking for a standard in excess of what the law and Wikipedia policy requires. For links to external content, Wikipedia must not knowingly link to material which is in violation of copyright. To protect Wikipedia from the copyright lawyers, I'm happy with a policy which requires delinking to things which a reasonable person would infer are violations of copyright - major media outlets don't give away their rights, and anything from a major studio or tv network or major record label which appears on YouTube is likely to be copyvio, and any reasonable person would know that. However, there is a large class of "small-time" content producers who are willing to allow free distribution of their content, most of the time because the exposure to people who might give them paid work in the future is worth more than the (probably zero) income they could obtain from their productions marketed on their own. Such content appearing on YouTube is not something which a reasonable person would infer is automatically copyvio, and therefore does not violate the DCMA or Wikipedia policy, until someone reliably asserts that the linked material is copyvio.

In the Barrington case, there is the additional factor that material produced before 1989 is not copyright unless it was properly registered under U.S. law. The particular video is claimed to have been made in 1988, and there is no copyright notice, just a credit. So the video may not even be copyright. Argyriou (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - has anyone considered getting the YouTube uploader to upload the video to Internet Archive? That has verifcation and strict rules that limit copyright infringment, I believe). -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works –

If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).

Quote from Wikipedia:Copyright problems –

What's copyrighted? Copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the GFDL, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source.

So much for my inconsistency. Please don't meddle with lawyers. >:) — Nearly Headless Nick 09:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What you cite does not require that copyrighted works, legitimately posted off-Wiki, be GFDLicensed or made public-domain or otherwise released in order to be linked from a Wikipedia article. In order to be copied to Wikipedia or Commons, yes; in order to be linked, no. The criteria for WP:EL don't require such a release; they require the absence of copyright violation by the site being linked to, not the same thing at all. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 16:47, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Obviously. We can conveniently link to those sites which provide the licensing information and/or own the work. YouTube, unfortunately does not. The users on YouTube merely copy the media from other sources and post them without authorisation. There is no reliability or any kind of onus on users uploading copyrighted or fake work. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick, please look over the above paragraph and consider whether it might contain some degree of over-generalization. Do you really mean to assert that in no case does a copyright holder or other authorized person ever upload legitimate content to YouTube? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 15:50, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

RfC on this issue

• I've filed an RfC on this issue. Argyriou (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion at EL, it should be a user conduct RFC against Nearly Headless Nick, Dmcdevit et al. Furthermore, serious consideration is due Wiki policy on libel, and the legal jeopardy engendered by accusations of copyright violation without evidence. Cindery 03:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cindery, would you mind letting the RfC on the issue proceed to some conclusion first? And then waiting a bit to see whether user conduct conforms to that consensus? Who knows, by then the conflict might be over.

Otherwise, certainly nothing prevents you from filing your own RfC on user conduct right now, without asking Argyriou to withdraw his issue-oriented RfC... but I think reviewers might hesitate to judge conduct by compliance or non-compliance with a guideline still being discussed. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:03, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Before you start accusing other editors of poor conduct I suggest that you review your recent contributions and ask yourself whether you are entirely blameless yourself. You as much as admitted in the RFC that your tone was intentially designed to inflame the discussions. This seems like more of the same. --Spartaz 09:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth fake image

File:Wikitruth poses with Jimbo Wales.jpg

Wikimania 2006 participants pose with Jimmy Wales as part of a Wikitruth scavenger hunt.

The following is a fairly obvious fake image added to the Wikitruth article. Can we make sure it doesn't go back into the article again? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the photoshop'd image rather amusing, but I'd have to agree. Could this image be removed? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Done Alex Bakharev 08:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish I would've been able to see it :( - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

View it over on their site http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Image:Wikitruth_poses_with_Jimbo_Wales.jpg as far as I can tell this is not a photoshop job. I'm surprised everyone seems to think it is.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in it :-O Cyde Weys 11:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So then you verify that its real and not a photoshop?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, of course it's fake. Proto::► 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes you so sure it's fake? I don't see any Photoshop artifacts when I look up-close. --Cyde Weys 12:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a real one. But were you there as well Proto? I see you pretty sure about the pic being a fake one. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding? Real photo, fake texts (the identical handwritings are a give-away clue for starters), so in toto a fake image which was rightly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

while I don't know exactly what highjinx went on at wikimania I suspect it is real Judgeing by the comments of those who did go.Geni 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really so unbelievable to think that one person wrote the majority of the signs? --Cyde Weys 13:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

wikipedians working together?Geni 14:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, having fun! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its a plot by those from Wikitruth to defame the cabal. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Or vice-versa. --Cyde Weys 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem NPOV when put like that, but I guess that's to be taken up on the article page 163.1.188.201 22:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell for sure if it's fake or real, but what I can say is that if it is a fake, it's a damn good one, and someone must've spent a significant amount of time getting the details (such as paper translucency) right. If it's a fake and whoever faked it is reading this, congratulations! However, a rather different issue is that the image file contains a JPEG comment saying "Copyright 2006. All rights reserved." Given that someone must've deliberately inserted that comment there, I would take the uploader's GFDL-self claim with a very large grain of salt. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The original copyright notice actually is "(c) 2006 The Wikipedia Cabal". --Cyde Weys 04:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see where the original text has been wiped from the sign the lady at the bottom right is holding - the paper is translucent everywhere except just around the text. It's easier to see if you invert the colours. Proto::► 13:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me as though the woman at the bottom right is holding two signs, a smaller one in front of a larger one. Just my opinion. --BostonMA ^talk 13:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since people are apparently curious to know the truth - no, the picture is not a fake. After the closing ceremonies of Wikimania 2006, as people were leaving, I had an idea - I wanted to win the Wikitruth scavenger hunt. So I got everyone who hadn't left together, called Jimbo's cell (he was in his hotel room about to take a nap) and told him to come back to the auditorium pronto. We posed for photos (Greg Maxwell took the one here) and everyone did laugh very hard. (If any Wikitruthers are listening - I WON YOUR CONTEST) I also got Jimbo on video saying "tell the Wikitruth" and (to get even more wikitruth scavenger hunt points) "Tell the Wikitruth, dammit!" Afterwards, we all went out for dinner. Raul654 07:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - I'm the one in the red shirt, sitting down -- third head to the right of Jimbo. Raul654 07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No doubt Jimbo was taking a nap. Look at his eyes. So i believe in Raul's story. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I was there too :) It's not a fake, we won the contest :D Btw, there should be some other photos from that event - here is another one :) And this entire threads needs to be archived in WP:BJAODN - with the gallery :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Raul654, I guess whoever faked that image got to you too. What did it take to break you? --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was clearly fooled. A good thing I usually stay out of all things image-related here and stick to texts :-) Fram 14:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in there too, in the back with a sign hooked over my glasses. It wasn't a fake. --Improv 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD running out of control

Could someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey? This AfD ran out of control when one deletion proponent got rather upset about what he suspected to be a WP:POINT article creation and a votestacking campaign on the keep side (an unproven but not quite baseless suspicion). Debate ran extremely hot bordering on personal attacks; then the article was moved and merged with other material while the Afd was still running; wherupon some votes were changed and the whole picture is rather muddled now. Right now, spirits are hopefully quieting down again. I've suggested an early provisional close, for later reexamination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

<edit conflict> You beat me to it... It would be better for them to continue on the article's talk page for the time being. yandman 16:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've closed it - you're right, it was out of control. Hopefully the discussion about the article can continue on the talk page, the vote stacking claims elsewhere, the Turkish discussion on the Turkish wikipedia and the personal attacks nowhere. Yomangani^talk 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are some concerns over vote stacking at that spesific afd. The concern is that there are way too many greek voters on a topic that isn't about Greece but about a 'historical enemy' Turkey. I hereby request an independent review of the vote stack claim. --Cat out 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of votestacking in the past on both sides when it comes to Turkey-sensitive articles. This is hardly new. Patstuart^talk|edits 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This way to Deletion review → Guy (Help!) 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As per star trek deletions I am absolutely certain WP:DRV and AfD are both broken procedures. --Cat out 23:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are they broken? Because you didn't agree with the result? Please consider taking the time to express any concerns you may have about these procedures at the village pump, as you may have valuable insights other Wikipedia editors may have missed. Proto::► 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind it when people disagree with me, I just find the entire afd procedure broken for quite some time. Star Trek afds are a mere example.
Think it this way: if vote stacking did happen in the afd, history will simply repeat itself on deletion review.
--Cat out 13:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the recent Star Trek afd+drv rather show that these two processes work. In spite of "I like it" (!)votes. I know that saying "process X is broken" has been on fashion for some time (e.g., it's commonly repeated on the mailing list); however, that does not make it true. Tizio 13:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be a deletion process with an extended probationary period to allow for discovery of reliable sources, and then an objective decision based only on the multitude, reliability, triviality, etc. of the sources. —Centrx→talk • 10:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Captain Thomas Graves

In the article on Captain Thomas Graves

someone added irrelevant material that should probably be in its own seperate article.

Quote:

"William Solomon Graves was a full-blooded Cherokee whose parents died on the Trail of Tears. His name appears in the Guion-Miller roles along with other Cherokees with the surname Graves. The Graves family was kind enough to adopt the young boy into their family. The full family chronology of this branch of the family has been ignored by the Graves Family Organization who prefer not to embrace this part of the family's pureblood heritage." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natwebb (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

User's overzealous {{prod}}ding of articles

User:Alan.ca (see contribs) seems to be going on a {{prod}} spree, and at times is tagging geolocation articles as old as from 2002 (Fountain Green, Utah) for {{prod}} on the basis of "non-notable" and lacking in sources (also, Jules Joffrin (Paris Métro) with a ridiculous prod reason, and Alconchel de la Estrella). Prod is not cleanup, and looking through his contribs that there are many articles tagged for prod simply for missing citations (animal fat? It'd get kept in an AFD almost certainly as a speedy keep!), an admin should keep an eye out for further misuses uses of {{prod}} that may not meet criteria. – Chacor 11:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The user has been notified. I see some difficulties here and after a cursory glance have reverted two of his edits – [37], [38]. Although, the animal fat article was not sources, I see no need as to why it was prod'd. I request the user to stall his work over prod'ing the articles till it is considered by the community on the noticeboard. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No intention to offend anyone. I made a multitude of edits in the last 24 hours, some of which were prods. I'm not aware of what policy I would have violated, if someone could point that out I'm definitely open to reviewing another point of view on the matter. The most common theme in my prods would be wp:v. As far as I know, if an article isn't verifiable it fails to meet 1 of 3 key pillars of the project and would be subject to deletion. My further understanding of PROD is that anyone can object to it by simply removing the prod tag. I don't have those articles on my watchlist and figure if anyone disagrees with my prod they would simply remove the tag. Alan.ca 14:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Marcos Valle article was originated by me because he is a noted musician and producer of long-lived success; I have several albums of his, and some compilations produced by him, yet there appeared no mention of him here. So I read several biogs and record company promo literature and summarised what I saw. Is there a generally-accepted way of noting this? John Warburton 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted a note on your talk page, if you would like my assistance I may be able to assist you. Alan.ca 14:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see here though is that much of what you've PROD'd doesn't fail WP:V, it's just unverified not unverifiable. WP:V is a reason to delete if an article absolutely can't be verified, not just because the editors who contributed lack knowledge about the policies here (or in some cases are just too lazy to follow them). A better tactic would be to see if sources are out there and just tag the article as unsourced if sources exist.--Isotope23 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, please refer to wp:v#Burden of evidence. It clearly states that if an article is lacking sources wikipedia should not have an article on it. I am confused by this whole discussion, as the articles I prodded clearly violate wp:v. Alan.ca 15:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Where does it say that? It says unsourced edits should be removed... there is no rationale in wp:v#Burden of evidence for deletion of an article.--Isotope23 15:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Send Kappa (talk · contribs) on him . Problem solved... Duja► 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can count at least 15 reverted prods. I'd suggest the user just AFD articles he thinks fails the criteria. – Chacor 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, you're welcome to remove the prod tagging on any or all of the articles I had tagged. That's the beauty of PROD. I don't feel strongly about any of those articles, in fact they're not even on my watchlist. If you want to understand the basis for my prod in most cases, please read wp:v#Burden of evidence. If you review my talk discussions you will see that I am always willing to assist an editor who has sources to include in any article. Alan.ca 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left him a note on his talk page and asked him to cease this temporarily. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This user below was the maintainer of an article I prodded Alan.ca 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support the use of prod on the Murchison Region of Western Australia as a valid prod - for a start SatuSuro 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That editor also removed your PROD from the article. All it took was some Googling, a page move, and a few minutes of editing to make this a good, sourced article at Murchison Shire.--Isotope23 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he corrected it, the PROD instigated improvement. Alan.ca 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a highly disruptive way of looking at it. PROD is not {{cleanup}} or {{unsourced}}. – Chacor 15:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly; PROD should not be used where a Cleanup Template is sufficient. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Guys, this debate could go on until the cows come home. The fact is, verifiable sources are one of the 3 pillars of wikipedia. If as a group, the editors in this debate believe that failing to meet one of the 3 pillars is not criteria for deletion, there's not much I can say further. The point of a PROD is to see if there is objection to deletion. I have no hard feelings about anyone removing any of my prods and I believe I am inline with the policies of the project. Failing someone citing an arbcom decision, I am through discussing this topic. Alan.ca 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you truly believe an article should be deleted due to lack of sourcing, when someone deprods an article you should AFD it. But if you're just going to ignore the article after prodding it I'm quite certain that's disruption to make a point. The best way forward to be to actually finalise something, and not toss it aside because you think everyone else is wrong. – Chacor 15:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple solution to a discussion that can go on for a long time: if a prod is removed, AfD the article. If enough AfD are defeated, the nominator either learns and stops or starts to get blocked for trolling/pointing/etc.; if his AfD go through he is proven right.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment and threat

I believe that this is a threat, and constitutes harassment. Can someone please have a look and warn him? – Chacor 01:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Titoxd has left a note, but I'd appreciate it if other admins ensure this doesn't get out of hand. – Chacor 01:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User has summarily removed the message with a relatively uncivil edit summary. Can we please keep an eye on him? He's most definitely refusing discussion at this point, so what next? If he continues with questionable PRODs I'd say it's most definitely, at the very best, not conducive. – Chacor 02:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

More harassment and trolling. Please, please, please, someone take a look. – Chacor 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Chacor, I have debated this topic ad nosium with many of you. I have even initiated a discussion on the verifiability policy talk page. I have a right to terminate the discussion on my talk page if I so choose. Alan.ca 02:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you don't, especially if it's a friendly message asking you to improve your conduct. Stop harassing and trolling me. – Chacor 02:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not that simple, Chacor ... the topic of user modification of user talk pages was discussed a few days ago - please read through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive66#User clearing talk page before that discussion gets rehashed here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Their was a lengthy dsicussion about it, as stated above. The result was very unclear. There is no clear policy for or against, and the vandalism text is ambuguous. I'd say that it leans more towards that cleaning, blanking, or archiving your own talk page is not considered to be vandalism. Atom 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of a policy against removal, removal is permitted. Of greater concern to me is that it's rude to "terminate the discussion," especially if other users are expressing concerns about your behavior. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you in this case, I am ending the conversation on my talk page for efficiency reasons. If the debate is about PROD tagging articles based on the wp:v policy, that debate should be discussed in a place where it can be archived in relation to the policy. As for my conduct, I see that I ruffled some feathers with a run of PROD tags and so I'm backing off from it. I'm not backing off because I think I'm wrong, but when you hit a bunch of opposition sometimes it's best to let things cool off. Part of backing off is that I don't want to have a circular discussion on my talk page, this noticeboard and the policy talk page. There is no new evidence to discuss, if anything we're debating policy wording and that discussion has been started on the appropriate page. Please respect my request Chacor, I am more than happy to debate the subject with you on the policy talk page. Alan.ca 03:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan's request to discuss policy on the appropriate policy talk page is quite reasonable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents because I have recently become involved in disputes with Alan.ca. It appears to me that he is fairly new to Wikipedia and is not yet clear on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and how people interact on Wikipedia. This is leading to numerous unnecessary disputes with other editors. Having said that, I have looked at the edits that Chacor has cited as evidence of threats and harassment, and I do not agree that they constitute threats or harassment. In fact, in these cases, Alan.ca has been civil. Ground Zero | t 13:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet Truli

I have the impression that User:Truli is a sockpuppet of User:Mark us street (editor of "Tiraspol Times", known also as User:MarkStreet and blocked already 3 times for 3RR). Mark us street anounced few days ago he will quit Wikipedia, I suspect he just changed his name to avoid scrutiny from other editors and imediatelly appeared under this new name. Other editors had the same impression: JonathanPops, William Mauco, TSO1D, with some doubts, there are similar edit patterns and interest for the same article (Transnistria). Mark us street was often block for edit warring, Truli also shows the same behaviour. Some of hius edits I would qualify as vandalism [39], [40], [41], [42]--MariusM 16:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely see a troublemaker, and one who knows Wikipedia a little too well for a true newbie. Can you show us some diffs where the blocked user made similar edits (esp. the wholesale deletions)? Or have you considered filing a checkuser? | Mr. Darcy talk 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet = visit WP:RFCU and remove either one or two words from that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I followed the advices and filed a checkuser.--MariusM 19:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Marta.com

Has anyone else run into "xxxx.com" spammers? I've found 220.30.248.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 81.29.194.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) , 66.192.59.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 144.216.3.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) etc.. all spamming medical pages with commercial links. The speed and the way the edits are made makes me wonder if this isn't a bot. yandman 17:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added "pelendrek.com" to Shadowbot's blacklist for automatic reversion. Shadow1 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently blocked 6 IPs that I found doing this type of linkspamming. I blocked for 24 hr, but would it be safe to assume they are open proxies and switch to indef? Some previous offenders of identical spam have already been indeffed as open proxies. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for the Meta spam blacklist. --InShaneee 17:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Blacklisting has already been requested there. [43] --Ed (Edgar181) 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Three more: 72.3.140.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (on 3 blacklists), 200.88.46.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (on two blacklists), 210.0.176.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). MER-C 02:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The above link has been blacklisted. Any IP addresses involved in linkspamming like this are to be blocked indef as open proxies. Naconkantari 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Scaring a possibly useful vandal

User:Robster07 (talk) has been causing much trouble at the Decatur High School (Georgia) article. See [44]. There are a few very helpful edits in there as well, so I'd like to see him get a nice scare from an administrator if possible and within guidelines, to get him in the right direction, so he can start helping out in other articles. Is that possible? (you might even enjoy it :D)

\/\/slack (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I adjusted that link to target=Robster07 from target=Robster07There because it was leading to a blank page.--Isotope23 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're interested in following this up you could always try Durova's school vandalism solution: based on the edit history and IP info it appears that some of the vandal edits were made from a school computer[45][46] including a marijuana pun[47] that matches the registered account's vandalism.[48] Now this is probably someone who's underage so I don't want to be too explicit about this, but it isn't hard to guess that this is a male senior who plays on a particular sports team - and what his first name is. That narrows it down to a very small number of students and the class schedules, correlated with the time stamps on school IP edit history, would probably give a definitive identification to the school administration. If you feel like following up on this, the administration telephone number for Decatur High School in Georgia is (snipped). I'd suggest the best remedy is to assign this young fellow a special project to improve the school's Wikipedia article under the supervision of the teacher who sponsors the school newspaper that Robster07 doesn't appreciate.[49] Cheers, Durova^Charge! 23:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have suggested a final warning on his userpage, to the effect that he is being monitored and better cut it out, long before anyone suggests calling his school. He's never even been blocked. Reaching out to real world authority figures in a user's life, even a rotten user, is a extremely serious step and certainly is not in accordance with policy at this stage. Newyorkbrad 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that when I've done this in the past it's been after many warnings and previous blocks. I don't see how it violates policy. Arguably there are suggestions of underage drug use here, which in my view makes it appropriate to at least discuss whether responsible adults should be informed. We're not Big Brother or even Big Babysitter. Yet - at the risk of another bad pun - I've got something of an urge to nip this in the bud. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Um ... you've done this before? I'd like to see a broader discussion of whether that's appropriate because I have serious qualms about it. In the interim, having scanned this user's contributions (and it's possible I might have missed something or some edits have been deleted), I didn't see any reference to drug use except for a mediocre pun on someone's (a 1959 graduate's) name. There's a combination of school-spirit edits and mild vandalism edits (e.g., changing the words of the school song, denouncing the quality of the magazine). Maybe I'm missing something, but the idea that someone should call a user's employer or (as here) school to report something like this, with who-knows-what real-world consequences, strikes me as completely unwarranted. I will admit that on a quick check, I didn't find a specific policy on the matter. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Abuse reports to ISPs are permitted by policy; where the ISP is a school or corporate network, a report to the responsible administrators is the correct action. (I've done a few myself.) However, abuse reports are only warranted where there is no other way of preventing continued disruption; this situation doesn't rise to that level. This needs to go through the normal channels before such a thing is ever considered: counsel, warn, block, block longer, block indef, ban, abuse-report. Essjay (Talk) 03:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; that's exactly what I thought. Note also that in this case, there seems to be no basis for assuming that the ISP for these edits is the school; from the contributions link above the edits were all at night, US time. Newyorkbrad 03:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In a case where the edits are not being made from a school/work computer, contacting school/work officials would be inappropriate (and would border on WP:STALK; we already have vandals reporting admins to thier employers, we don't want to sink to their level). Abusive use of corporate or school networks is an issue that (after the above steps have been taken) should be reported to the appropriate administration/management. If the user is not using corporate/school resources to do so, then it isn't a matter for concern by school/work officials, and reporting it to them would be a very, very bad idea, not to mention far outside policy (and subject to sanction, if it rose to the RFAR level). Essjay (Talk) 04:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I've said, when I've contacted schools before it's been after numerous blocks and warnings have failed. Durova^Charge! 05:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay; I agree those situations are different. Coming back to the original question in the thread, I'll leave a note for the user in the morning unless someone else does first. Newyorkbrad 08:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Meisterchef

User:Meisterchef is asking for another admin to review his indef block. The block was previously reviewed by User:Ryulong and another editor has initiated a sockpuppet investigation. It might be beneficial for another admin to review and/or leave him a message.--Isotope23 20:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoping someone can look at this - user keeps changing template to request review again [50]. Thanks. Not a dog 14:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A brand-new good faith user whose first action is to repost the arguments of a known and recently blocked troll? Sure, happens all the time... Guy (Help!) 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

user:OrphanBot

The Orphanbot is out of control. It is removing content that it should not be removing. Please ban this bot from Wikipedia before it causes any more harm. Mrcfjf 21:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's behaving normally. Can you give diffs or specific examples of images you feel it should not have removed? Chick Bowen 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And, Mrcfjf, please do not vandalize Carnildo's userpage. You can talk to him about the bot, but vandalizing his userpage isn't the way to go. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd still like to know what the cause of all of this is. The only article Mrcfjf has ever edited is Cessna 152, which OrphanBot has never touched. Without specifics, this seems to be yet another bad faith OrphanBot complaint. Chick Bowen 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User made no edits for months (the Cessna article was in August) and since returning has no edits other than complaining about Orphanbot. Fan-1967 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am no friend of OrphanBot, but this doesn't seem like a good faith complain, suggest closure and moving on.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since no evidence has been presented I agree. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There's obviously more to this story. Look at this edit and these contributions. Somebody is running a sock farm, clearly. Someone who's good at detective work (Durova, are you listening?) might want to investigate. Chick Bowen 02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked into it; those two seem to be the only socks for now. However, when I went to block the IP for a week, I found it was already blocked anon-only for six months due to abuse (I'd blocked it several times for different lengths due to abusive use, and another admin instituted the six month block on that basis). As there is nobody else using it, and this individual has been a problem for some time, I've blocked the IP for a year against all edits, anon or otherwise. Essjay (Talk) 03:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad that's solved. Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Halle Berry

The musical career section reads: "Rolling Stone.Com and An Article in All Headline News confirms that Halle Berry is releasing a new album from EZ Records, entitled Halle. The album was planned to be released on January 9, 2007, but due to filming conflicts it was rescheduled to February 6, 2007.[17] It has been widely reported that this is a hoax.[18]"

Ref #17 links to rollingstone.com, where I am unable to find any article about Halle Berry's music career, if there is one. Ref #18 links to this article accusing Wikipedians of creating a hoax, partially based on this TMZ.com article]. This All Headline News article does confirm the album, but I have never heard of this source before and have no idea how reliable it is.

Could some other admins please look into this? If this is a hoax, we need to move on this now. I am currently connected through staticky dial-up on a very crashy computer, and so my Internet abilities are limited. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No reliable sources, it should go out and to Talk. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also see Halle (album). Jimbo came into #wikipedia on IRC yesterday talking about this. A few of us investigated, and we're pretty sure that it's a hoax, but it's possible it's not. The article is currently prodded. --Rory096 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I lied, article was already killed. --Rory096 06:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Needless full protection of University of Phoenix

University of Phoenix was recently fully protected due to an "edit war" over the inclusion of a link to http://www.uopsucks.com. However, the links were inserted by various IP addresses, and two single purpose accounts. Therefore, a better course of action would be to semi-protect the article, and to block PhoenixStudent and Rdenke for disruption, as these accounts have been used for the sole purpose of adding the disputed link to University of Phoenix, then, in the case of PhoenixStudent, protesting the removal of the link in a manner amounting to a serious violation of WP:POINT, if not outright vandalism [51]. Due to the fact that the registered accounts have no substantive contributions beyond insertion of this link, it is likely that both registered accounts and the IPs being used to insert the link are being operated by the same person. We shouldn't fully protect articles every time someone engages in transparently obvious sockpuppetry to insert a dubious link. John254 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

First place to go to in this case is the admin who protected the page, NOT AN or AN/I. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You could also try going to WP:RFPP--there's a section for unprotection requests. jgp ^T_C 09:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block: User:ChessMater

Vandalism (Grafitti)-only account: Blocked for repeated inappropriate page creation and editing related to praising 'Kate McAuliffe' and creation of User is blocked pages. Blocked by User:Lucky 6.9 ... but that was because they beat me to it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, this user was previously User talk:67.81.102.11. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Preventative warning: Rosie vs. Donald citing wikipedia.

I was reading up on the feud and saw this blurb

In an entry posted Wednesday night on her Web site, O'Donnell duplicated an excerpt on Trump's rocky financial history from his biography on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is written by users.

Original MSN.com link

If this, which is making national TV and news coverage, is drawing sources and ammunition from Wikipedia, we need to be very careful that the related articles are not vandalized, either with the intent of libeling other side, or with the intent of maliciously changing the information to give false information to either side.

Stupid? Yes. But something that needs to be watched. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Scrutiny on both articles is suggested. Danny Lilithborne 03:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Might be a good idea to notify the office and/or the Communications committee so they can be prepared for any legal/press issues. Essjay (Talk) 04:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So what's been done so far?⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Donald Trump has just publicly stated that he will probably sue O'Donnell, if he feel he has even marginal reason to do so he might sue wikipedia as well just for the hell of it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for everyone's convenience, the link: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The relevant sections appear to be heavily edited now. Sandstein 05:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• We need to get to a clear version (yeah, I know: "right version") and do an S-protect and add the slashdotted template. If nothing else, we need to warn folks that the fluidity of the article may mean that its claims are contentious. Geogre 13:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

NLP article specific examples of promotional obscuring of facts and relevant views

Hello again everyone. Further to admin Guy’s helpful pointers I understand that some may be scrutinizing the NLP article already. Here is more easy to access information for admin who find themselves far to busy to scrutinize the confounding amount of edits that are occurring on that page every day (on average about 30-40 a day and recently as much as 70 odd). I’m posting this up here because it seems to me that core facts and highly relevant views are still being systematically obscured. Here are a few examples:

• I added straight and representative quotes (with the help of user BenAveling) [52]) and user Comaze seems to have minimized it. [53].

• I added this set of straight sourced definitions to the introduction in order to give the reader some idea of what NLP practicers do (eg assessing eye movements and postures…) – Comaze removed them from the intro to criticisms section adding something more promotional to the intro (what NLP authors say NLP can do for you) [54].

• User 58.178.195.26 limiting controversy to therapy only (not representative of the article at all) [55]

• User 58.178.195.26 obscuring the basic facts again (moving them out of opening) calling them “peacocking”. [56] and again (note) erroneous and unsupportable label- skepticism based psychologists [57]. No idea who added that last point and its too much work to search the edits.

• Some more by other unaccountable editor [58]

• Use of argumentative writing (claims and other commentary) [59]

• Selective editing (the negative end of the paragraph is omitted) [60]

• User 58.178.195.26 denying that there is a problem and actually encouraging the behavior [61]

I think all that’s required is to find a way to ensure the basic facts are presented without any sort of minimizing – overloading with unsourced commentary – moving out of context – de-emphasizing - or negating science with hyperbole – testimonial - and non-sequitur. Apart from the recent helpful scrutiny of Guy, I get the feeling I’m pretty much working on my own on the NLP article and the relevant facts are just not getting presented properly with due weight. Promotional obscuring of facts seems to me to be an overwhelming problem and part of it seems to be achieved by persistently overloading the article with edits. I know I have more to learn here - so if any admin thinks my assessment needs qualifying in any way – please contact me here or on my talkpage. Thanks. AlanBarnet 06:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. User AlanBarnet obviously hasn't read the instructions on this page. Indeed AlanBarnet seems to have trouble following any of the Wikipedia guidelines towards collaboration. 58.179.175.12 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible bad faith AfD

Someone might want to check out this AfD, it appears to be a bad faith nomination and it's getting kind of bizarre - it seems like it should be closed and perhaps, if someone wants to, they can start it again? --Dmz5 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed without prejudice against another trip to AfD.--Kchase T 06:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

→ WP:DRV. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Malaysia Banks troll?

See [62] and the contributions from the IPs in the range 219.95.xx.xx, in particular Special:Contributions/219.95.214.172. This user has been removing "Banks in Malaysia" categories from many banks, completely refactoring the above page, and removing content from many other pages, without any explanation whatsover. I'm not sure these edits are even bad, but the pattern sure seems to reflect an editor with an agenda. Can anyone else figure out what is going on? -- Renesis (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it very fishy, what is he up to anyway. I can't figure out what he is trying to do. I will be watching over him for some time in case, this sounds something up to no good. But to AGF, let's see how it goes. Terence Ong 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible socks

I have recently been editing a very, very arcane article that, I came to realize, used to be the #1 hangout for a rather notorious, now-banned user who focused a huge amount of energy and ill-will defending his extremely POV version. Recently, three new users with very similar names were created practically at the same time and appeared at this article. They, as well as a fourth user (an anon ISP), seem remarkably familiar with this obscure topic, right down to the obscure references. They have only been active on the talk page so far, but they are subtly (and almost overly-civilly) pushing the same POV (e.g. "don't bother checking that reference, I'm sure it's correct" and the like). Another user has already made the (so far uncountered) claim that they are probably all socks of the banned user. What's the procedure here? I am being vague because if this is a non-issue I don't want to attract attention to it, and I don't want to just accuse the users of being socks, although it seems very likely the three new accounts are one person. I can give specifics if necessary. Nothing "bad" has happened so far but I figured I would be a bit proactive. --Dmz5 06:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the new accounts is also editing a group of different articles the banned user was fond of. Seems likely there's at least one sock.--Dmz5 06:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess:

• UneJolieMelodieViennoise (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• FriendOfCatholicMusic (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• InManusTuas (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 66.31.250.134 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Looks like our old friend User:LorenzoPerosi1898 is spawning more footwear on his sock farm. He's not letting go any time soon. [63] LOL. They're all socks. Bet the "farm" on it. Antandrus (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes. --Dmz5 07:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I think it's ironic that it took me 30 seconds to find a simple citation on the Grove that might have shut him up in October and avoiding all the huffing and puffing that ended up going on.--Dmz5 07:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And this [64] is the last edit by the user whose first edit [65] was a claim he didn't know what "sockpuppet" or "banned user" meant. Sometimes you just have to shake your head. This guy is knowledgeable and could be an excellent contributor if he'd just make an attempt to abide by NPOV and NOR, but he wants to be a one-man-sock-army versus all of Wikipedia. It's a tune we've all heard many times. Don't know what to do other than keep the article on the watchlist, and block socks when they become disruptive. Antandrus (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not being allowed to contribute, Help!

Hi I've been trying to contribute towards the Ireland article but I have an Administraor who won't let me contrubute anything. His name is Guinnog and he wouldn't even let me put a map of the British Isles in the article or let me write under a map that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK. All he ever does is revert my stuff and tell me off for apparently not getting "enough consensus" when he's the only one who's even minds about what I want to contribute and there's no one else saying anything to apparently get enough "consensus" from, and if I try to contribute again he threatens to block me and has blocked me before for just wanting to contribute. I think it's basically that he likes the article a certain way and won't let others contribute and change it. Somethingoranother 08:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A whole bunch of people have reverted your changes there. Why aren't you listening to what they are saying about your changes on the article talk page and your talk page? Are the comments not clear, or do you disagree with them? Georgewilliamherbert 08:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a whole bunch of people it's one administrator and his friend who just won't let me contribute at all. I've discussed everything on the Discussion page and made compromises but simple won't let me do anything. I've tried to contribute many times now but he just reverts them and they're only the most minor of contributes. I mean am I not allowed to contribute here? He says I need consensus from othere users but how am I meant to get consensus when he's the only one who even cares about me contributing as others haven't said anything about it and don't care. I've contibuted to many articles over the past year and I've never once had anyone showing this kind of threatening behavior, and the contributes I've made to other pages were far more changing. It's to the point of being ridiculous now where he just totally dominates the article and uses his administrator powers to block those who dare to contribute towards the article. I really just don't get it anymore, please help me. Somethingoranother 09:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you've been repeating the same edits that got you blocked the first time for 3RR (adding "(Part of the United Kingdom)" to every mention of Northern Ireland) by adding "part of the United Kingdom" to each mention of Northern Ireland after the block expired and then adding a map of the British Isles, pushing a similar opinion. Please stop while you are ahead.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So adding a picture of the British Isles was wrong was it? I think you'll find that's not against wiki rules so why bring it up? Also those 3RR where simple contributes which should never have been reverted and he only reverted them because they didn't fit his point of view. I thought wiki had a NPOV policy? That's not what I've seen so far. And what I'm being ganged up on here now? Somethingoranother 09:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies to all users. Admin and non-admin alike. It is really unnecessary to tack on "Part of the UK" to each mention of Northern Ireland in an article about the island.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I only tried to add part of UK in 2 places, hardly every mention of Northern Ireland, but I'm not allowed to even contribute anything. As soon as I do it gets reverted and I get threatened with being blocked. Besides I thought Administrators would be helping me out not trying to back up the idea that I'm not allowed to contribute anything because basically the page now belongs to him. Somethingoranother 09:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple people seem to agree that you're doing the wrong thing for the article here. It's not just Guinnog; look at the article history, you had four separate people revert you.

If multiple experienced editors, including an administrator, are telling you that there's something wrong with the contributions you want to make, you need to take a step back and listen to what they're trying to tell you.

Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for anyone to post anything they want. We're an encyclopedia; we have content standards and community consensus discussions on how to best present information, all of which you have to abide by to participate in the project. It's bizarre to think that you could get to do what just you want to by coming here and complaining.

If you believe they've all got the wrong idea for what belongs in the article, take the discussion to the article talk page. If you have a new idea for something to add, which isn't just re-doing the controversial things, and you think it is consistent with Wikipedia policy, then feel free to add it to the article. If it's ok it will stay. If someone disagrees and it turns out to be controversial, then you need to justify why you've got the right idea on the talk page and get at least some of the other people who edit that article to agree with you.

If you're really interested in contributing, please take the time to engage in the community discussions that serve as our quality control process. If you don't understand why they're objecting, please ask them. If they were to just revert you out of spite and refuse to talk to you on the article talk page or your or their talk pages, THEN that would be the time to come ask an administrator for help, or if you couldn't find one perhaps ask on ANI. Asking now is really not good. Georgewilliamherbert 10:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

George, I appreciate your taking taking the time to explain our policies to this user. I tried very hard to be patient and to help them, but it seems my efforts were unappreciated. It may well be that this user will need another block as they continue to controversially insert a non-consensus pro-British POV into Ireland-related articles, and I was somewhat perturbed by their last edit and signs that the editor is adding incivility to their other problematic attributes. Can I ask others to keep an eye on this, as I think it would look better if someone other than me enacted their next block, should another one be necessary. Thanks a lot, --Guinnog 17:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Modification of Policy wp:v

I'd like to get an opinion on an edit to a key policy. Verifiability Diff. I reverted the edit and received a lashing. Alan.ca 09:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well your edit summary of "vandal revert" appears out of line, the addition most certainly wasn't vandalism. The statement seems pretty accurate in the context of the policy, but personally I don't care for the wording particularly no in the prominent position in the policy, so I've reverted again. I guess some discussion on the talk page of the policy would be good as to (a) if it is needed since it seems to follow from the rest of the policy anyway or (b) how and where such a statement should appear in the policy. --pgk 09:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The "lashing" was due to the reversion summary, not the edit per se. See User talk:Alan.ca. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for it. WT:V should be fine. If not, you could go to WP:VPP. Or maybe file a request for comment, but that's a bit overkill. jgp ^T_C

I hate to tear anyone off topic, but I wasn't sure how seriously we are to monitor the key policy pages. Alan.ca 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As closely as possible. That's not to say that they're frozen and not changable - but changes really, really should have consensus first, particularly if it's at all controversial... Georgewilliamherbert 10:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Community ban for CltFn

This last block of CltFn's for 3RR is his sixteenth block in his time here at Wikipedia [66]. His last block before that was for 2 weeks for a pattern of edit warring with no sign of stopping. After that block, CltFn sent me an email indicating he intended to turn over a new leaf, and so I removed the sockpuppet tag from his user page and let him start over. He didn't though; the disruptive behavior continues. He has, since then, continued to engage in edit warring especially on the same old articles. His current block for 3RR on Bat Ye'or is almost a year after is first block for 3RR in that article. I'm convinced that he absolutely will never change his ways, that his disruptive behavior is a serious drain on the community and good editors that have to deal with it, and that sixteen blocks is many more than enough to exhaust the community's patience. Consequently, I've extended the block to indefinite, but this action is, of course, up for review. Dmcdevit·t 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Regretfully, endorse perma-community ban. There was an WP:RFC over his conduct – Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CltFn – where he asserted that he would mend his ways, but what I see is completely opposite. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hard to argue with this. Sixteen strikes and you're out... Guy (Help!) 12:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Add my modest support to this list. My reasons were discussed at the above mentioned RFC. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the issues discussed at the RfC i must add a note re their total non-respect of WP:NPOV (see Talk:Samira Bellil and Sulh history) -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't approve of long blocks in non-clear cases without a DR procedure first, but if an RfC was held first, and a majority of those who commented on the RfC supported increased blocks if he doesn't change, than a year-long block seems fitting for the 17th violation. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that a standard? 17 blocks per year gives you a year ban! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the block, but note this block log. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That as well. IPT's behaviour is no different than CltFn's one. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't start getting at my good friend Irishpunktom. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 14:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your friend? He is one of my wikifriends as well check this. Friendship is one thing and abiding by the rules is another thing. Admins must be totally fair and neutral. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, based upon the outside RfC view of User:Grenavitar and RfC talk of User:Zora. I've not had much contact with CltFn but after having read that outside view and talk I understood what he was about. In the interests of full disclosure, I filed this last 3RR report so my view is likely tempered by my own final personal interactions with this editor. (→Netscott) 14:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The 3rr is bad policy. CltFn should not be handed a permanent ban on grounds of inability of other admins to handle him properly. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 14:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right, he should be handed a permanent ban on grounds of inability to handle himself properly. --Cyde Weys 15:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • 3RR is one of the many infractions CltFn has committed. NPOV violations, edit warring non-stop, sockpuppetry (see his sock User:Amenra), copyvio, personal attacks, harassing admin. This is not fiction. It's all in the block log. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're suggesting we should do, as not blocking him when he engages is revert warring doesn't strike me as likely to be a worthwhile strategy. Absent a suggestion for a better way to handle CltFn, I endorse blocking him indefinitely—until such time as we admins get our acts together and develop tools for allowing him to edit productively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Though it's moot (he's already blocked) as one of the previous blocking admins, I endorse this block as well. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano's rampant incivility

When did posts like this become acceptable? It seems to take years of established history of WP:CIVIL and throw it out the window. I'll reproduce it here, so you can see what I'm talking about:

Kindly refrain from littering my talk page [67] with your infantile and hostile warnings in the future, or you will find yourself de-sysoped and banned. Irpen and Bishon were quite correct to revert your antics and your revert warring with them did you little credit. Giano 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This all stems from a simple boilerplate civility warning I left him (which is apparently "infantile and hostile") after he was getting too out of control on Mackensen's talk page. Now he turns his glare on me. Threatening to have me desysopped and banned? C'mon. And yeah, the usuals (Bishonen, Geogre, Ghirlandajo, and Irpen) are going to step in now and defend Giano ... but they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together. I'm posting this here to solicit some response from other administrators: is this kind of behavior really acceptable? Do you want to work in an environment where users routinely have blow-ups like this and are only encouraged by admin inaction? --Cyde Weys 14:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unlike some people, I am going to spell out exactly what it is in your above post that is a personal attack. "he usuals (Bishonen, Geogre, Ghirlandajo, and Irpen) are going to step in now and defend Giano ... but they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together." is a personal attack. Consider this a warning. If you persist in this type of mischaracterization and denigration, you may be blocked. HTH HAND. Geogre 18:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no incivility in Giano's posting, just a mild warning. "This little back-scratching clique together", however, is blatantly incivil and I demand apologies. Such comments may indeed lead to desysopping. If your posting is expected to trigger an uproar from all sorts of IRC fairies who habitually indulge in incivilty on IRC and then pontificate about civility during their occasional appearances on-wiki, I suppose it would be nice to see them here. Foundation employees have no wild card for incivility, for what I know. The community is aware that your dispute with Giano goes back to the time when your energetically defended Kelly Martin's postings demanding "an enema and a major fight that flushes 20-30% of the en-wiki community". This page is not part of dispute resolution procedures, so I advise you both to move your dispute to Requests for comment. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I rather feel Cyde may have a gone a step too far this time "they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together." I think that is rather a serious charge to make. Perhaps Cyde would like to withdraw it and apologise while it can still be contained to this page alone. It is Christmas and I am in a forgiving mood. Giano 14:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If I ever make a manual in civility or diplomacy, the first rule on that list will be: Never, ever, ever tell another person to be civil, and never, ever, ever, accuse another person of being incivil. We can work backwards from there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, from other administrators? I'm page banned from your posts on ANI, perhaps? That's all right, Cyde. The way you speak of me, you must be a civility expert, so I'll just listen. Bishonen | talk 14:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

The problem is that incivility does happen, and incivility is harmful to the community especially when it results in ever-increasing tension between two groups. It would be nice if there was a way to address incivility before it gets to the point that arbcom gets involved, and before it gets to the point where people leave. --Interiot 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the persons here (not least because I'm guessing I've already been pre-emptively dismissed as an 'IRC fairy', which Ghirlanajo won't consider to be uncivil). But, please, if we are going to have a conversation about civility, can we perhaps compete to outdo one another in civility, rather than the reverse? We all know where this is heading unless we cool it.--Doc^g 14:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This time I concur with Doc. There is no need in pressing the issue, although the real grounds for Irpen's irrational block above should be eventually investigated, to prevent further outbursts in the future. We need to put an end to gaming WP:NPA and WP:CIV policies for pursuing one's personal vendettas. Everyone may read incivility in the postings of his opponent, however courteous they may be. We should understand that endless appellations to WP:CIV is a bad ground for solving long-standing differences. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to de-escalate the situation. Thank you. Luna Santin 14:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"...or you will find yourself de-sysoped and banned" is hardly a "mild warning," and "they're all in this little back-scratching clique together," is hardly going to calm anything down. This continued squabble is disrupting the community, and has been for too long -- everybody, please take a step back and breathe. -- Luna Santin 14:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Both sides telling the other to stop being incivil? This appears to be a case of WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed... I'm not an admin and I'm not familiar with the history of this dispute, but neither side is helping themselves much here. It's sort of hard to argue that the other guy is wrong when you are engaging in behavior that is no better. You both need to chill.--Isotope23 14:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, If he would just stay off my page I would gladly ignore him; unfortunately though this time he has allowed his obsessive hatred of me to overflow and has now insulted others. Is this the behaviour of an admin? Giano 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just walk away. All of you.Geni 14:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Particularly in the light of Cyde's edit summaries on User talk:Giano II about letting Giano defend himself, I'm not clear why Cyde got involved in the first place, he was not a direct party to the discussions at User talk:Mackensen and given what I've seen of their history his intervention was hardly like to calm matters. David Underdown 14:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I find Cyde's reverting of the removal of the talk page warning particularly ironic when he asked whoever posted it to leave it and let Giano deal with it himself. By that logic, shouldn't he have left Giano to undo the removal of the warning, and limited himself (Cyde) to posting a new message pointing out to Giano that the warning had been removed? Carcharoth 22:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think this needs some type of dispute resolution such as RFC or MedCab. This is not going anywhere if this is going on and on. Both sides should stop fighting and this is getting the community tired of all this. Just cool down guys, we can settle this. Nothing both of you say makes any difference, just be civil to each other and don't tell each other to be civil or vice versa, like what Sjakkalle said. Both sides are telling each other not to be incivil, this doesn't sound too right. I suggest both parties stay away from each other for a while to cool down. Edit conflict again... Terence Ong 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised to find out that the discussions on my talk page have prompted this affair; if there's any mediation to be had, it's between Lar and Giano. I've never seen a civility warning have it's desired effect--no one likes being told their being uncivil. At the same time, I don't see the need for allegations of de-sysoping. The Arbitration Committee has set ample precedent that you have to abuse your admin tools for that. Finally, I agree with Cyde on one point: Giano is more than capable of taking care of his own talk page; we all are. If I think someone's cluttering my talk page I can do it myself without anyone else's help. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:PAIN? On another note, we seem to need a policy on civility notes. Who can issue them, and who can rever them. It seems that recently there is a trend to remove such notes (ex. [68], [69], etc.), which in turns causes other users to complain that they were removed... I'd suggest that only certified editors of WP:PAIN, who should be elected like admins, should have the right to issue such notes, and that in those cases the notes issued by them should not be removable by non-PAIN certified users. This will put an end to the problem.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is who may be considered a "certified editor of WP:PAIN". Who is supposed to "certify" these guys? The problematic warning you cite was added by a non-admin who is active on WP:PAIN. When I attempted to discuss the issue with him, he simply removed my messages from his talk page on several occasions. Do you consider yourself a "certified editor of WP:PAIN"? I see you have been commenting on each message posted there during the last day or two. Do you want to run the board and "issue" warnings to your opponents? If so, I would rather oppose your proposal. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is so broken that we need to introduce a new class of user. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Whew, is there something bigger going on here or is this really just a tempest in a teapot? From my experience at WP:RFI and WP:PAIN I suggest petitioning a neutral third party to review contested user warnings that arise from a dispute. This isn't policy or even guideline, rather practical experience: deletion of a user warning by an involved party often fuels more quarreling. If parties in this dispute accept me as suitably neutral (I've collaborated with Ghirla a few times and handed him a barnstar) I'll volunteer to be the template referee here. And please stay away from hot button words such as infantile - no good comes of them. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No No No Not another bunch of wiki legislation to enforce civility. You can't do it. Civility needs to be caught and taught not enforced like that. Speak nicely to people and perhaps it might catch on, ignore people when it doesn't. Personal attack blocks should only be used in open and shut cases....and even then (as I found out) it seldom works. Has anyone known any of these processes do anything bar escalate the problem? I've put the template in question up for deletion [70] --Doc^g 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• No to turning this section colors and saying it's over and settled. Cyde has announced that "it's time to stop" another user whose primary crime is making Cyde unhappy, apparently, or saying things Cyde seems to dislike. There is no divine right of admins. If there is, then my divinity is as great as his. Geogre 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No one is trying to do so; it appears to be the result of a formatting mistake about halfway up the page. Mackensen (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Mackensen, for that clarification. To the issue at hand: What I see, so far, is personal. Cyde is taking things very personally and becoming personally involved in trying to "stop" persons, etc. This is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. The fact that, above, he would even try to reach back to the Giano RFAR to mischaracterize Fred Bauder's rejected finding on the meaning of a policy is simply more evidence that Cyde is extremely angry rather than anything else. He had not been involved in interactions with Giano II on Mackensen's talk page, had not been involved in any interactions with me, and yet his vote on my ArbCom run, his desire to "stop" "people like" Giano, etc. is showing a very deleterious mindset at present. I hope that I am wrong (I often am), but I honestly cannot see any justification whatever for Cyde's words. I would love to "assume" good faith, but my imagination is not sufficient for finding a way to do that when someone comes along and announces a campaign to "stop" another user. It's rather like those people who want to "stop filth on television": they should not watch the show. Similarly, Cyde can not scanning everyone's talk page for "evidence." A good administrator waits for a complaint. He doesn't go looking to create one. Geogre 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

At some point there needs to be a conversation about persistent incivility and its effect on the environment we work in. It is not clear to me why we tolerate so much of something we don't really want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In other contexts, other issues, with other disputants, I've objected to "double standards" where one or more parties held others to stricter standards than themselves, and I've argued for keeping a single standard. Now I begin to think that may not be sufficient to the needs. Better still would be to hold oneself to the stricter standard, and extend leeway (and some forgiveness) to others. That way the waves of mutual recrimination would be dampened out at the start, rather than growing, heterodyning in a feedback loop, as seems to be happening at present. Just a thought. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:49, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• I can't understand a word the person above is saying, but he probably agrees with me. I have been reading and re-reading various posts of Cyde's mostly admittedly those concerning me, and have come to the conclusion we are dealing with someone fairly young here, at most a late teens. We all get out of our depth at that age, so lets all say Happy Christmas and forget it. Perhaps though at some stage during 2007 we need to have a big think about junior editors and ages and responsibilities. IRC seems always to be a problem eternally with us, I know James Forrester has decreed IRC conversations off limits but that was in the days when wikipedia was much smaller - and he was more powerful. I think the time has now come to re-think that policy too so 2007 promises to be an interesting period in Wikipedia's history. Wikipedia is going places in internet history, it must not become a victim of it's own history. So lets wish each other a happy Christmas and productive new year. Giano 19:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"I can't understand a word the person above is saying, but he probably agrees with me." That is probably the funniest thing I've read all day... thanks for making me laugh (and I mean that with all sincerity!) --Isotope23 20:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, from your username and the physics metaphors you were using, I can understand Giano (who I think writes on Italian architecture, among other things) not understanding what you were on about. Maybe wikilink your metaphors next time? heterodyne and feedback loop were probably the most obscure terms. Carcharoth 22:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, Carcharoth, though Isotope23 is not the person who used those metaphors. I'm sorry for assuming a more general familiarity with those concepts than actually exists. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:15, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Oh, and regarding Giano's speculation's about Cyde's age, it doesn't really matter what age he is. Judge him by his words, not his age. FWIW, I have seen pictures from various Wikimanias and similar meet-ups that identify someone they claim is Cyde, but again, that is neither here nor there. When we edit and interact on Wikipedia, we are just words. So look at the words, not the person. Carcharoth 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's sort of pointless to bring it up now, but I was asked (via the much-maligned IRC, no less) to note that I think the community should strongly prefer using tailored warnings to communicate with experienced users, rather than templates, since templates are definitely written with new users in mind. Given the heated conversation above, I don't know if it would have changed anything, but anything that can be done to keep a conversation cool is good. --Interiot 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

convenient break

We hear a lot of talk about 'at some point' or 'they can't get away with this'. But I've begun to ask myself: what is the end game here? What solution are we realistically wanting? Cyde banned? Giano blocked? Perhaps others too? The problem is that loose cannons go off, and the various groupings raise the defcon in defence or attack. Where does this end? Actually, when all cools down, I find I actually agree with folk like Geogre on far more issues than I disagree. And some civil conversations with others (yes, in IRC!) convinces me it doesn't have to be this way. I don't want to be sanctimonious, but perhaps all of us could work on cooling it. Are certain people uncivil at times. Yes, and we all know who they are? Are certain people sometimes hostile to the point of trolling? Yes, and we all know who they are. Can these people be otherwise? Yes, I think so. We all know it would be better if it were. Please let's all use whatever influence we have (particularly on those we think might listen to us - and not on those who are likely to react negatively to us) to cool things. It really doesn't take Time magazine's 'man of the year' to work it out--Doc^g 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, we need a level open playing fields for all. No IRC, we are either all there - or all out, editors, admins, crats and the rest. Let the Arbcom have their mailings (confined to reigning members) in camera everything else open to scrutiny. I'm sick of reading "I discussed this on IRC" IRC counts for nothing here, and when all realise that, then we can progress, until then we are in for permanent fighting. Giano 20:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• And you'd agree not to use e-mail either? Actually my point is that the most productive civilised conversations I've had today have been on IRC, and have been with folk I've previously fought with on-wiki. So, I'd actually draw the opposite conclusion. But that's a side issue. Frankly, human nature is human nature: the medium be damned. We either want to fight, squabble, factionalize and and point score, or we want to move on and co-operate. I'm rather hoping we can go for the second option. Hoot if you're with me.--Doc^g 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree 110%, especially on your main point. (and on the side point, I agree that IRC has been the one place where I've had very pleasant and civil conversations with those I probably wouldn't have had otherwise). --Interiot 20:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm glad you are all having such a good time there, and good luck to you, but why do so many Wikipedia admin decisions on blocking etc have to be made there? Please do not insult our intelligence by saying they are not. Giano 20:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure bad blocking decisions have been made via phone or email as well. As Doc said, address the person, not the medium. --Interiot 20:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• You have to be joking! I've been there and have the T-shirt to prove it. They conspire together and come out with WP attack, WP civility and WP anything else the next one can think of. I'd rather fight a nest of vipers than take on the IRC gang, but I frequently do. No lets have the source "eliminate the nest and kill the pest". Giano 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Doc, I agree with you, and I meant what I said above sincerely and at face value. I know folks assume that I'm always up to some rhetorical trick or something, but I'm not. People take things personally, and that's no way to operate. I don't know what "incivility" is in cases like these. Words? Words are just symbols. Intentions? None of us can judge those. Actions? Ok. Worse still, we have taunt and counter, badger and follow, charge and countercharge, and all that can occur then is that the people behind the names get angrier and angrier, and then someone says "booger," and the other person blocks, and then we're at ArbCom. Seriously: when you find yourself scanning other people's talk pages for evidence, you're probably trying to make a complaint rather than addressing one. Geogre 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and the IRC side issue: IRC is a great place to be pleasant, to banter inanely, and to burn some time. It's a fun place to blow off steam, too. How could it not be? That's the function of all chat. It's a horrible place to argue, in both senses of the word. I've never been against bantering with my fellow Wikipedians. I'm generally an amusing and mellow fellow (I got top 2 percentile in chatter and banter on the GRE), but IRC is a terrible place for formulating on-wiki actions unless it is followed by on-wiki deliberation and transparency. It's not that fine a distinction, either. Wikipedia actions have to be established and accountable on Wikipedia. People on IRC should have the sense to know that, whatever IRC says, they have to find their evidences and provide their rationales on the project. Geogre 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Why is IRC rather than the person to blame if someone decides the conversation is over and that there's nothing to discuss on-wiki? --Interiot 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hoot Hoot Hoot to All. Paul August ☎ 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I beg your pardon? Are you going to share with us your views on IRC with us, or just make owl noises? Giano 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I see what you did there, Paul. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
        • I'm with you too Bish. Hoot Hoot. Paul August ☎ 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. to Giano: You don't have to beg you can have my pardon for free. As for IRC, I don't use it. I think it is best if Wiki related business is done on-Wiki, and hoot hoot to you too.
          • What is this? An example of a conversation held in a secret medium? —Centrx→talk • 23:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
            • See Doc's Hoot if you are with me above. Paul August ☎ 03:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh look everyone [71] another little IRC kid has turned up! Now lets see if I get banned for kicking him off my page. It does become very tiresome Giano 22:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, a RFAR concerning the behavior of Cyde, Ghirlandajo, and Giano is certaintly appearing to be a good possibility/remedy, as I can safely say that there has been a depressing lack of assuming good faith here, and this incivility on the part of all parties involved is simply disruptive. Thank you Ghirlandajo for trying to cool down the situation up above at your second post, but I think the fact that we are even here in the first place shows that there are some blatantly obvious problems between editors that needs to be addressed. How would a RFAR sound, then? Cowman109^Talk 22:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I for one would love to see a productive discussion about the policy and accountability implications of IRC's lack of transparency -- in particular the "on-wiki actions should be justified on-wiki" school of thought appeals to me quite a bit, as a rule of thumb if nothing else, and I try to stick to that. IRC is a medium, it's a tool, and like any tool, it can be used effectively to better the encyclopedia, or it can be abused. I think it is a damned shame that the discussion has become so heated -- all of this incessant name calling accomplishes nothing and only makes the problem worse; it encourages "factions," scares people away, and hurts any chance of reaching a consensus of any real sort. As I said, I'd love to see a productive discussion, but I can say for sure that when I see a phrase like "IRC fairy," my blood starts to boil, and the chance of a good talking-over is inherently diminished -- I'm not trying to defend anything, or single anybody out, here, and I'm sure that any number of other examples could be brought up, on all sides. I guess what I'm asking for is this: those of you who really care about Wikipedia, please try to put your petty squabbles behind you, and strive to reach a legitimate agreement. I implore you, all of you, act your age and let the anger go. We have more important things to accomplish, all of us. Luna Santin 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As a reminder to myself, I have just added the following to the top of my talk page:

"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." Proverbs 15:1 King James Version

I recommend this sentiment to everyone. -- Donald Albury 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• An RFAR? <cough> For what, exactly? I've been aggrieved, too, but I don't see anything but bad interpretation of the blocking policy and Cyde being very, very angry. He's entitled. I am reminded of what Mark Twain said: "When angry, count to ten. When very angry, swear." The problem is, we're now getting to the point where no one can be very angry. I'm not suggesting "drunken sailor -pedia," but let's get over this false Polyannaism. We are on the Internet, after all, and the very people offended by someone seeming to be angry are jokingly referring to goatse. You can't be jaded and prim. I don't use the pottymouth words, myself, but I think we ought to wait for people to violate Wikipedia policies, get warned, get negotiated with, have some mediateion, and repeat their mistakes before we block folks. Geogre 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A less painful alternative?

Piotrus left me a friendly response to my proposal about playing template referee and invited me to the PAIN and RFC. Since this has escalated to a proposed ArbCom case I've proposed a less painful alternative: namely that I step into this hornet's nest and try to mediate. Durova^Charge! 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy's block

Chairboy has blocked Giano for 48 hours. Giano is saying on his talk page that this was all decided on IRC. I've asked Chairboy to unblock, particularly if he was involved in an IRC discussion. I'm requesting two things: first, and most important, that Cyde stay away from Giano from now on, and in particular that he stay away from any warnings or admin actions; and second, that people stop discussing admin action against Giano on IRC. It starts to look like harassment, and whether it's intended that way or not (and I'm sure it isn't by at least some of the parties), that's what it looks like to some bystanders and probably to Giano too. Admin actions like this, especially controversial ones, shouldn't be decided on IRC because it leads to nothing but trouble. That's surely a lesson that must have been learned by now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, it looks to me that every time he get or the users that have associated with him get in trouble, they complain about secret IRC discussions they cannot prove happened until the decision is repealed. This is, at best, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. How long are we going to let them bully sysops out of their decisions? Who are the ones making the decisions here? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the IRC rules is that public logging is not allowed, but that shouldn't prevent people telling us what was said and who said it, so long as the actual log isn't posted. I hope someone will therefore elaborate, and say who was involved in the discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If they can actually back up these claims, then we can weigh them on their own merits. If they're just complaining "OMG IRC CABAL" it's silly - we are not in kindergarten anymore, there is a certain code of conduct expected. That these editors are getting away with it on technicalities and unsubstantiated claims is damaging the wiki, in my biased opinion. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no conspiracy. There was no plotting against him. The claim is inaccurate, and if the logs are reviewed, they will show that to be the case. I hope he will excercise good judgement in whom he shares his illicit copies with, and I hope he provides complete transcripts without any editing, but that's that. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The copies wouldn't be illicit; it is only public logging, by which I assume is meant public posting, that's prohibited by IRC rules, at least that's my understanding. I stand to be corrected, of course. Chairboy, can you say whether you were involved in the IRC discussion, and who first suggested the block? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Since, after an IRC discussion, Jimbo has both endorsed and lifted the block, I think it is all a little moot now.--Doc^g 00:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad Jimbo has lifted the block. I don't think the discussion about IRC will be moot until people stop organizing blocks there, particularly if it's anything likely to be controversial. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak but I do have a question: has it been verified that this block was organized via IRC? All I've seen is questions asked of Chairboy and Giano's accusation. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not verified. I've asked Chairboy here and on his talk page, but he hasn't responded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your questions both here and on my talk page, please clarify "he hasn't responded". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant that you hadn't answered the question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this on Recent Changes, and i'd suggest that you just have public logging of these secret IRC rooms, that would prevent the conspiracy theory stuff.Just H 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly save a lot of trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The block was not organized in any way on IRC. The only involvement IRC had before everything exploded was that an admin gave me a diff of Giano being incivil to someone. After that, the decision to block based on his subsequent actions was mine and mine alone. There was a discussion on IRC where I counseled someone _not_ to block him because the block rationale they provided was improper, and another user in the room appears to have misinterpreted that as planning/coordination, but that is absolutely not the case. In response to the assertion that sharing the logs with Giano was proper and licit, I'll have to disagree. It's a violation of the channel rules and undermines the privacy expectations each participant has agreed to. While I know that I have at all points operated on the channel in a manner completely consistent with the ideals and ethics of the project, the fact that someone would make such a gross violation of trust is very disapointing and personally troubling. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy, can you say who gave you the diff of Giano allegedly being uncivil? Also, can you say exactly what the channel rules are? We can't have a situation where a channel that operates in absolutely secrecy has any effect on Wikipedia administrators. I can see the rationale for no public posting of logs, but for no one to be allowed to say anything whatsoever is absurd. This isn't an in-camera hearing of the UN Security Council. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who gave the diff to Chairboy. But I subsequently gave the same diff to Jimbo Wales on IRC. The 'channel that operates in absolute secrecy' (which, incidentally, any admin can join) had an effect on that particular administrator. Indeed based on conversations there, he endorsed the block and, after discussion, agreed to lift it for the wider good of the project. A course of action (that I believe I) initially suggested to him, again on IRC. Any problems?--Doc^g 01:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what your post means. I asked Chairboy who gave him the diff, because it'd be useful to know whether it was any of the people who've previously tried to get Giano blocked. And I asked what the privacy rules were on the channel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my laptop timed out while I was asleep, so I don't have the relevant logs. When I asked, earlier, if the block was planned on IRC, Chairyboy said "absolutely not" and Bishonen said "you'd better believe it." Don't know who to believe, and I don't have the logs. =\ Luna Santin 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then bishonen has called me a liar. I find the claim offensive, incorrect, and a gross miscarriage of WP:AGF. I have attempted to reconcile with the user off-wiki, and she has rejected my attempts. I hope it doesn't spill into the project, we've got enough work already as is. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand the logic here. A block is either a good call or a bad one. The blocking admin is alone responsible for his/her call. This call was a reasonable one (although I think ultimately unhelpful). I'm not sure what is meant by 'people who previously tried to get Giano blocked'. I've previously blocked Giano, does that count? Since everyone in the channel is an admin, anyone who believes someone should be blocked can just do it. However, it isn't the first time I've asked people to take a look at a diff I've caught (wanting a second opinion), and found someone blocked the offender before I did.

All that aside, Jimbo's action was designed to de-escalate this conflict and ask us all to play nice. I'm not sure going through Giano's edits, or IRC logs to see who said what to whom and when, is quite in that spirit. Lets move on.--Doc^g 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth (which may or may not be much depending on Ghirla's decision regarding my offer), I'm not on IRC and don't have any plans to join that channel. Durova^Charge! 01:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, the fact that Giano got blocked yet again tells me we learned absolutely nothing from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean this? Funny, it seems to suggest just the opposite. Or perhaps you meant this? I'm not seeing a "Get Out of Jail Free" card anywhere in there. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Persistent no source image uploading by Rizuan

Rizuan is mass image uploading without providing sources. Persisting after plenty of warnings. ccwaters 15:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Final warning issued, {{Image no source last warning}}. He should be temporarily blocked if he keeps on doing this. Sandstein 17:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing gamer saga

The gamers from the Games Plus LAN (66.93.251.112/28) are having a hard time with challenges to their edits. The latest round started with this AfD, which prompted a series of bad-faith edits from the IP range culminating in this threat and the block of 66.93.251.117 (talk · contribs). After the block, Freakdomination (talk · contribs) — whose history indicates association with the editors in the same IP range — reappeared with less than helpful edits. Since my edits tend to just inflame the group (probably really one individual), I think it would be better if someone with the extra tools to deal with a couple of problems and the reaction likely to follow.

• IGames was created by copying www.igames.org/About.asp and it needs to be db-copyvio'd
• Recent edits of Freakdomination (talk · contribs) need to be reviewed for good-faith

I sincerely apologize for dragging this here, but I think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia for me not to annoy this editor directly since it has started to spill over into other unrelated articles. I'll probably get significant backlash just for bringing it up. I welcome any feedback about how I could have handled this situation more gracefully. Happy Holidays. JonHarder ^talk 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I just speedily-deleted IGames as a blatant copyvio. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User:LuisMatosRibeiro evading his indef block

LuisMatosRibeiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked a few days ago for heavy POV-pushing and as a single-purpose account used to edit the Holodomor page. It was shown by a request for checkuser that he was using the 82.155.xxx.xxx range, which is however huge and contains other accounts.

Today, however, one of these IPs, namely 82.155.63.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) , returned to edit war on the Holodomor page and also removed the indefblocked tag on User:LuisMatosRibeiro's page, which is a clear edit pattern.

To me it looks like a clear block evasion using an IP. I would like something to be done with this situation. Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP issues at Talk:Yoshiaki Omura

This edit contains suggestion (though not threats) of legal action by the subject. At the very least, it seems there may be serious WP:BLP issues here. Never heard of the guy myself, so I have no comment, but thought the issue should be brought here. Fan-1967 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is in arbitration. Although you should feel free to make any edits that seem necessary. The short version is that the guy is considered by some to have invented a quack medical procedure, and there has been an edit war over this. Thatcher131 22:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, that page is fully protected, so changes cannot be made. ;) --BigDT 22:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User:24.39.123.238 blanked the talk page to insert another legal threat against Wikipedia, and is now blocked (by me, that is) 48h for repeatedly re-inserting that text on top of the talk page. I've also protected his talk page, where he was soapboxing and making more legal threats. I understand that indef-blocking an IP address is not cool, but what would be an appropriate length of block for violating WP:LEGAL? | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably also User:Richardmalter. 48h seems ok to start, blanking the talk page is a problem too. I'll try and have a word with him about WP:NLT and how to use {{edit protected}}. You might want to drop some diffs on the evidence page in the arbitration case. Thatcher131 01:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Purgeusdhs (talk · contribs)

Judging by this editor's contribs and general tone, he is definitely an abusive trolling sockpuppet of somebody. At a guess, from this bizarre edit I'd say he was related to the gang harassing MONGO. I recommend an indefblock, no reason why we have to put up with this. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam and vote-stacking in AfD

User Jinxmchue added (what I consider to be) an inappropriate message in an AfD. Not only is he soliciting votes for an AfD which he has a personal interest in - he is advising a certain vote that meets his own POV. IMHO this is vote stacking and probably some other WP violation too. I delted the message, and he resposted it. Will an admin please take a look and do what he/she thinks is needed? Thanks link Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed the discussion he was linking to. Naconkantari 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Macedonia

What do people think of this guy? He seems to almost exclusively edit his userpage (though edits articles occasionally), and has a number of similar user pages/accounts on language projects, most (if not all) of which have no edits to anything other than his userpage. --Deskbanana 21:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

possible sockpuppetry

I should have reported this earlier,but it seems that user:Kumarnator is attacking me again,this time using a sockpuppet. I request that the IP adresses of these "two users" be checked.

Compare comments here to comments here

[72]

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=90851488&oldid=90687926 here]

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=91662407&oldid=91624330here]

and [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=91527604&oldid=91525388link here]

A few notes:

• both "users" seem to be interested in where I live.
• both "users" are obsessed with the fact that I'm agnostic
• Kumarator posted "Jai Hind" at the end of one of his comments,the same word this "second user" has used for a user name.
• This "new user" seems to know quite a bit about adding templates to his page for a "new user" as he claims to be.
• The "new user" hasn't really contributed except for attacking me.
• User:Kumarnator is one of the few people that edited his user page.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jai_Hind%2C_Jai_Bharat&action=history

I'd like to know if any connection is found between these "two users".

ThankyouNadirali 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox removing my comments

Yanksox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) tells me that I am not allowed to edit as an IP, and I am not allowed to edit for a month. For that reason he has been removing my comments. [73] and [74].He originally claimed that it was an arbcom rulling (which is not true, see here), then when I tried to talk to him about this he decided to ignore my comments and remove my comments again this time telling me to use my "main account"!!! Now you see the problem is I don't have one any more, I have intentionally locked myself out of it, and I do not want a new account for reasons I have mentioned before. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with an account or without, and I want to edit as an IP. The ArbCom has made absolutely no restrictions on any of my editing, except saying I need to run for RfA again, so why won't Yanksox let me edit? I have never voted for anything as an IP, I have brought some info to an AfD discussion without even giving my oppinion on it, I'm not violating anything. Could someone please help me out. (People responding to this, please refrain from using my old account name, though it's quite obvious, call me 203.109.209.49)--203.109.209.49 00:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, the arbitration ruling says you may not edit for a month. It has not been a month. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You did not read anything I said... it does not say that .--203.109.209.49 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"1) Should (name) return before one month without permission to do so, the block shall be extended for an appropriate period from the date of his unauthorized return.". That means "you are blocked", meaning that an IP is a block-evading sockpuppet. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Fred Bauder: As it stands now (name) is desysopped, but free to edit anytime he choses--203.109.209.49 00:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Now back to the issue - Yanksox is very well aware of this, I have given him that link on his talk page, yet he still removes my comments.--203.109.209.49 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting what was passed by arbcom, not a side comment: [[75]]

Premature return

1) Should Konstable return before one month without permission to do so, the block shall be extended for an appropriate period from the date of his unauthorized return.

Passed 5 to 1 at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that, but that's what they voted. Georgewilliamherbert 02:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, how many times do I have to repeat myself [76] I would go file a request for clarification, but it is clear enough, just that nobody is reading!--203.109.209.49 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Please see this question from me and Fred's answer. Proposed remedies 1 Konstable blocked and remedy 2, Return of Konstable did not pass. Therefore the enforcement provision is void. This is not a side-comment. It was posted in the Implementation notes section of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision, and if any of the arbitrators had disagreed, they could have made further clarification before voting to close the case. Thatcher131 02:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Thatcher.--203.109.209.49 02:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, could you please remove the voided section from the "final result" then? That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable clerk discretion (the section is null), and would remove a clause which we just saw cause great confusion. Georgewilliamherbert 02:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask about it. They knew it was there and voted out the case, so I'm not sure how far to push my discretion. Thatcher131 02:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Having been one of the people active in workshopping that case (although I was not officially a party), this issue was specifically raised by me as well. It was specifically agreed by the arbitrator who had originally proposed the ban that because the one-month ban was not enacted, the proposed enforcement was vitiated and did not take effect. It is clear that this user is free to resume editing at any time. Beyond that, he was a fine editor and administrator until the events that led to the case (which should not be rehashed) and I would strongly encourage him to resume editing. However, I also urge him to assume the good faith of anyone who was misled by the wording on the arbitration case page. Frankly, I was afraid that precisely this would happen and I should have stuck to my guns that the page needed to be fixed at the time (I was the only one commenting by the end of the case and I didn't feel I should push another point, but I wish now that I had.) Newyorkbrad 02:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Thatcher& Newyorkbrad. Before I kill someone I will go stop editing again. Nobody wants to hear my explanations, and even Thatcher's explanation (where he provided the exact same diff as me...) was ignored when I was just blocked. Wikipedia is just too hard. If I don't create a new account this happens, if I create a new account I will piss off other people, it's a deadlock.--203.109.209.49 02:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't kill anyone (metaphorically) and please edit whatever you want to. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume you would rather not have a connection to your old name? Otherwise you could create User:Konstable III and just link to this explanation. If you would like to maintain some privacy, I suggest you create a new account and then e-mail me with the name. If someone thinks they recognize you and asks questions you would rather not answer, you can refer them to me. Thatcher131 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice on Alan.ca's talk page, warning about violation wp:point

Note: This has been reposted here as it seems the relevant location for a block discussion. Alan.ca 01:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I request you in good faith to cease what you are doing? Let the closing administrator judge which note is invalid and which is not. From what I have seen from you before, it only seems that you are trying to make a WP:POINT – [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]. I frankly believe that you are being disruptive. Please assume good faith and be civil. If you are prod'ing articles without checking the verifiability of the articles properly, Chacor and others have the *right* to revert you, in case they think it was not appropriate. Furthermore, please do not make accusations of contrib crawling – [87] – when you are not giving a second thought to what you are doing. Please understand that further disruption from you will warrant a block. Kindly co-operate, we are all here to make a better encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What point are you proposing that I'm trying to make? What policy are you alleging that I would qualify to be blocked under? Alan.ca 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT would be that policy. --Coredesat 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this is a notice to warn me that I am under consideration for a block, it would help if someone would clearly outline how I am disrupting wikipedia. I don't see how advising people about the AfD process constitutes disruption. Blocks are intended to prevent a user from doing something, not simply a punishment. What action is it that the interested admin(s) are looking to prevent me from taking? Is there a related discussion on an admin noticeboard somewhere? Alan.ca 01:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to chime in as I have been a bit unnerved by your actions. For one thing, I can certainly assume that you were going through my edits and contributions, and while that is not something I find wrong, I found it disturbing that you decided to bring a discussion into my editor review page, even after it had been closed. Add the fact, seeing you revert that 3RR warning and calling it "bs" was most certainly something I was not too happy to see. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

#User.27s_overzealous_.7B.7Bprod.7D.7Dding_of_articles, #Harassment and threat, User talk:Alan.ca#WP:V, [88], [89], etc, are all very relevant. – Chacor 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan.ca's edits seem to me to be disruptive, as they must be designed to discourage participation in AfDs. While AfDs aren't votes per se, closing admins look for consensus, and one way to evaluate consensus is to count the relevant "votes" on each side of the discussion. "Stating per user or per nom serves the process no benefit" is inaccurate, and I don't see it as User:Alan.ca's place to make that judgment anyway. In short, it looks to me like an attempt at intimidation, and it should stop. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan has also been cited in violation of WP:3RR. If you take a look at Stephen Harper, you'll see a lot of edits in the past week where he violates (alongside others) 3RR over a copyright dispute. The dispute went further with this image, but it has since been removed and re-uploaded, so the discussion is now gone. I had tried to mediate with him, but he seems to be quite stubborn and unwilling to listen. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff where I reverted the 3RR warning and then just gave up on returning it when he gave me this hostile response. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• There was previously two discussions, to my knowledge, where administrators on this noticeboard have agreed that a user is permitted to modify their talk page content as to deletion and archival of content. As for the 3rr, it was a 3h block, that subsequently, the image of which I was re-including the copyright & commons deletion templates has since been deleted from wikipedia. As to the comments in the editor review, I assert the reason a person announces an editor review on their user/talk page is to notify visitors that they are welcome to comment. If you were seeking positive feedback only, you may wish to state this in future editor reviews. Alan.ca 02:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FOUR admins have now agreed you've violated WP:POINT, and yet you're still saying you haven't? – Chacor 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I care about feedback both positive and negative. However, I do take offence when you are obviously entering the editor review when trying to make a point. It is quite apparent to me that you cannot take criticism well, however, and I am almost spent on seeing stuff from you that I find aggressive and nowhere near friendly. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly seconded. – Chacor 02:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read wp:point the phrase I would ask you to re-read is disrupt Wikipedia to. The fact is, whenever we express an opinion we are attempting to make a point. Alan.ca 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you appear as aggressive here. Let me demonstrate what I see you in violation of:

• don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion
• don't reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process"

Or how about the descriptions of a disruptive editors as defined in Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing?

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

Honestly, it shouldn't take four administrators and me ripping stuff from policy for you to understand this. I think you're intelligent enough to understand that you shouldn't go out of your way to be aggressive when this is a project of collaboration, not who's better than who at this. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Colin, the fact that I am engaged in this discussion here suggests that I am open to the point of view of others. However, it does seem when I seek a broader consensus past those complaining on my talk page that often I find my position is supported by neutral third parties whom have no association with me. Conversely, the support of the opposition on my talk page tends to be from editors who have a past with the person who initially filed the complaint. Alan.ca 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is quite apparent that you're willing to be "open" out here, but as soon as it enters your talk page and it becomes direct finger pointing there, you go right up on the defensive. Quite honestly, you're acting as if there is no wrong in your actions, and I am seeing that there are other people in other situations who have the same thoughts about you. What you say about editors supporting you can be turned around and be said that similarly that there are editors who have no relation to me who have the similar thoughts to what I have about you. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing my open behavour in this discussion. You should note, that, it was me who chose to move this discussion to this broader forum. Alan.ca 03:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You did. However, my comment still stands. Who are these people who back you up? I think if you want to convey your side as correct, I would take those who you cite as these neutral editors should get involved in this discussion and clear what their thoughts are about your actions. Do you feel you are able to make mistakes on Wikipedia? I know make a lot! :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that an accusation of meatpuppetry and incorrect behaviour? If it's anyone whose conduct should be up for scrutiny it's you. What a brilliant show - the second time in two days - of WP:AGF. – Chacor 03:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the PRODing activity: In Alan's defense, the section of policy that he is citing (Wp:v#Burden_of_evidence) is severely written and can be interpreted in the manner that he is interpreting it. However, when actions along the letter of the policy are opposed as broadly as they presently are, this is indicative that the letter of the policy needs to be reconsidered to more appropriately reflect current consensus. It is not unreasonable for there to be an injunction on mass actions based on policy that is under dispute. The question here is whether the section of policy being invoked here is actually in dispute or not when taken letter-for-letter. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ceyockey, that is why I started a discussion on WT:V#Verifiability_as_a_basis_for_deletion.2C_Burden_of_Evidence_Section to give the opponents and proponents and opportunity to have this discussion. Alan.ca 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I notice Alan.ca is very rough with people - he appears to want to moderate without due dilligence (see here where he asks me to cite examples which should be flaming obvious, really!) — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We were discussing a merge proposal, I had presented, as an alternative to the AfD I had initiated. You stated a reason for not making the merge and I asked you for an example supporting your reasoning. I cannot see how asking such a question would be considered disruptive. Alan.ca 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Westlife

The westlife page has yet been again vandalized. I suggest semi-protection because it's the same IP range that vandalized the page. [Please Revert the vandal] --Cahk 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

File a protection request at requests for page protection. The edit in question has already been reverted. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 blocking good users

Hi! I am a mediator with WP:MEDCAB, and I just came across a strange case. It was named Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page, but it seems to reach much further. It appears that Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is fighting people who disagree with him by various actions up to deleting mediation pages and blocking users who, as far as I can see, have done nothing wrong, other than they could be dangerous to him.

Timeline:

time (UTC)	what happened
about 20 December	mediation case was created
21:52, 22 December 2006	SebastianHelm asks Lucky_6.9 if he accepts mediation
01:08, 23 December 2006	blocks SamAndrews indefinitely *
01:12, 23 December 2006	Lucky_6.9 replies with WTF???. Does not reply to question if he accepts Sebastian as mediator.
later on 22 December 2006	Lucky 6.9 deletes the mediation case

The reason for blocking SamAndrews was given as "Trolling, vandalism". However, I do not see any evidence for this. Here are all edits from Special:Contributions/SamAndrews:

time	article	edit summary	edit as summarized by Sebastian
21:09, 20 December 2006	Regina Peruggi	updated, new position	meaningful edit
21:01, 20 December 2006	Regina Peruggi	started page	created nice page - at least I don't see anything wrong with it
20:35, 20 December 2006	m Rudy Giuliani	link	inserted relevant link
20:34, 20 December 2006	Judith Giuliani		meaningful addition
20:33, 20 December 2006	m Donna Hanover	fixed typo	fixed typo
11:01, 20 December 2006	Kashrut	hyperlink for trafe	hyperlink for trafe
09:42, 20 December 2006	User talk:Lucky 6.9	Please do not revert your own talk page, it is meant to be an accurate historical record.	reinserted long list of alleged reversions

Please also take a look at WarthogDemon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who often works very closely together with Lucky 6.9. — Sebastian 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I will investigate this matter. If these claims reveal themselves to be true, I recommend immediate desysopment. With all due respect, of course. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Immediate" desysopment is for emergencies. I see no evidence that this is an emergency, and I am not confident that it is even well-founded. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to overre4act, messedrocker. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SamAndrews is clearly a sockpuppet of someone; his first edit is to start up on Lucky 6.9's talk page referring to previous discussions. At least some of these reverts are reasonable, the latest user's comment ends with "Maybe Lucky should go get a life." Leaving a message "WTF???" is not cool, calm, and collected, though it would be an understandable response to a mediation request by a disruptive user being taken seriously. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Working closely? I offered to help him get rid of the abusive comments from his page. I've tried to be selective and not remove legitimate comments (and on those where I noticed I had, I either replaced them or apologized to the user who's message I deleted). I've stated it was because of Lucky's request so it people would know I wasn't wikistalking or whatnot. Seriously, if this is against policy or something, an admin need only tell me on my talk page and I'll stop at once. -WarthogDemon 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I see nobody had even bothered to let Lucky know that he was being attacked and threatened with desysopping. I have taken care of what I am sure was merely an oversight. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Zoe. We were all the victims of a calculating and very knowledgeable troll who is familiar with this sites inner workings. I hope we can all continue on trying to make this crazy site work. - Lucky 6.9 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggested by Zoe that I just let this thing run its course and refuse mediation. This is a non-event by an extremely clever troll who threw in a few legit edits to cover his tracks and whose very first edit was to my talk page, folks. If you wish, I can restore the complaint, but it's pointless IMO. - Lucky 6.9 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, impersonator just appeared at the WoW wiki. His name? Lucky 6.9. He did try and impersonate me. Coincidence? I don't think so. Besides, I spell better.  :) - Lucky 6.9 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the countering viewpoints, thank you for pointing out I overreacted, let me do the investigation though and I will come to a conclusion as an uninvolved administrator. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the user's first edit and Lucky's explanation I am inclined to believe that this block is valid and no wrongdoings is involved. --WinHunter ^(talk) 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Most of the "OMG admin abuse" complaints on AN/I are bunk. I agree that we can never let that blind us to the ones that aren't bunk, but those usually come with corroboration, usually from long time users. Lucky 6.9 is a pest hunter as well as an editor, and he regularly does the brave and time consuming business of swatting the vandals. For that reason, a complaint against him requires extra time and care. In the past, Lucky has been accused of every crime in the laws of nature or man, but I've never seen him be guilty of anything worse than a salty word. This looks like just another newborn account with amazing knowledge of Wikipedia's rules and processes. That should sound alarms. Geogre 03:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky seems like a decent person, but I am someone whom he has offended not once, but twice. In both cases, I had done about 15 minutes of sincere, well-meaning work (first, trying to improve a squirelly article about "Alaska cruises", then second, trying to comment on this apparently hoax-driven mediation), which Lucky decided to unilaterally delete, without really checking to see if anything valid was in progress. Then -- and I think this is the worse thing -- he deletes any criticism of his actions on his Talk page, then threatens the critic to "ease up" or risk being blocked. The guy merely needs a break; some time for self-examination. --JossBuckle Swami 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Investigation so far... I am not going to jump to conclusions about trolling or not, but the mediation page was not really... needed. Blocking of SamAndrews may or may not have been warranted... and page deletions seemed pretty cromulent. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wikiptan.jpg

Somebody may want to sort this (WARNING - highly graphic) out, its a mutilated vagina, and it seems to be linked to numerous band album pages. - Deathrocker 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF?? I don't see the image in any of the articles it says it's linked in. Grandmasterka 03:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

When I saw it on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, it was ontop of the article... not a part of it, layered. - Deathrocker 03:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Commons admin here that could delete the image? That would be great... Grandmasterka 03:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have requested the image's speedy deletion on commons and added it to the Bad image list here on en.wp. —Centrx→talk • 03:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen it too - on All_That_You_Can't_Leave_Behind - but can't work out where it came from. I can't find it in the diffs. WARNING: I suggest not looking at it. It is particularly hideous with a pool of blood. Makes me nauseous. It was superimposed over the whole article when I was checking diffs. Merbabu 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was in Template:Rating-5. Now deleted on Commons. --Rory096 03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah HA. Found the templale... {{Rating-5}}. Reverted by Naconkantari. Grandmasterka 03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, see contributions by User:CPOD2 ... same thing with another image. BigDT 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, blocked. Grandmasterka 03:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI to anyone who cares, add [90] to your shortcuts bar. This is the recent changes for the template namespace ... it's EXTREMELY easy to find these things when they happen. Just look for the one with the image. BigDT 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to find and revert this vandalism. --NE2 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)