User:Persian Poet Gal/AdminToolbox/Noticeboards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This page may take a long time to load on 56k connections
Click [show] to reveal the noticeboard.

[edit] WP:AN/3RR

Click to reveal noticeboard

General help	General issues • Site directory • Image & media copyright • Userpage help • New user help • Community assistance
Report abuse	Vandalism • Spam • Edit warring • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sock puppets • Copyright violations • Long term abuse • ISP reporting
Request assistance	Editor assistance • Page protection • Checkuser • Oversight • Arbitration • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Wikiquette alerts
Noticeboards	Administrators' • Incidents • ArbCom enforcement • Conflict of interest • Biographies • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources

3 revert rule noticeboard

Shortcuts: WP:AN3 WP:3RRN

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.
If you have not used this page before, please read the detailed explanation section.

Skip to violations • example report format • (purge cache)

Instructions

This page is for any user to report apparent violations of the three-revert rule in current or recent editing disputes. Please feel free to leave a message or report a violation. Do not submit reports of anything other than edit warring here.

If you find yourself in a revert war, you should ensure that the "other side" is aware of the three-revert rule, especially if they are new, by leaving a warning about the rule on their talk page, for example using the template {{subst:uw-3rr|Article}}. Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned. If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page: [[WP:AN/3RR]]. Consider the arguments of the "other side": perhaps you can provide an edit that satisfies both sides. Consider also trying Wikipedia:Dispute resolution without asking that your "opponent" be blocked for 3RR violation.

To report a violation:

Make a copy of the example template at the bottom of the article, append that copy to the bottom of the violations section, and fill out that copy. Please do not edit the original.
Remember to sign and date all contributions, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically. The page archivers really need the time information.

Administrators: Once you have dealt with a report please make a note so that other administrators don't waste time responding to it. You can use {{AN3}} to assist in doing so.

Click "show" for a detailed explanation of the 3RR rule

3RR rule

Main article: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

The 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24-hour period (not calendar day); it does not include self-reverts, reverts to deal with simple vandalism, or removal of unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living people. Other exceptions are described at WP:3RR. Administrators will look over and discuss whether a user has truly violated the three-revert rule, and take appropriate blocking action if necessary. A user who has not violated the 3RR may still be blocked; administrator discretion is the most decisive factor.

Quoted from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule:

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

Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block.

What the three-revert rule does not cover

Please report simple vandalism to WP:AIV. Likewise, disputes over page content or complaints about abusive editors should be taken to the respective dispute resolution procedure.

What this page is not for

As stated above, this page is not for simple vandalism, behavioral conduct investigation, or debates. Please just fill out the report template, including a short (no more than 3 sentences) comment giving crucial details if necessary. If you have been reported, you may respond with an equally short statement; administrators will review all evidence before taking action, so please do not debate on this page.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

this header: view • edit

</noinclude>

[edit] Violations

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

[edit] User:Andyvphil reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Stale. )

Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

12:56, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ revert "bold" deletion of Ayers")
23:24, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Claim that there is consensus to omit Ayers from this article is bogus.")
13:06, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "undo deletions performed by edit warring hagiographers")

Although not strictly a violation of 3RR (the editor in question waited 24 hours and 10 minutes before performing the same revert again), this is still a clear case of edit warring (the reason for 3RR in the first place), and for exactly the same material as he was previously blocked for a week. These particular edits are both contentious and tendentious, and violate WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the third revert wouldn't have violated 3RR even if were within 24 hours of the first. Takes four to do that, so there was no reason for me to "wait". I just happpen to get in from work about the same time every day. Anyway, if you look at the talk page you will find that Scjessey offered seven alternatives for the treatment of Bill Ayers in Barack Obama and got virtually no support for his preferred option (#1) of no mention at all of the former Weatherman in Obama's bio. Despite the ongoing discussion and majority opposition to his course of action (even Scjessey had given up on #1 in favor of an excessively anodyne #3) Shem decided it was time to initiate WP:BRD by deleting all mention of Ayers from the page.[1]. BRD of course allows for "R" (my first edit above) as well as "B" and is supposed to be followed by "D", not immediate repetition of "B" until it sticks. Both Kossak4Truth and I have restored Ayers to the page, and the minority of editors (the poll was quite clear in it's result -- "no mention" got maybe two votes out of about 20) who want no mention of Ayers have edit warred it off. And as I speak, it is still off, since I won't violate 3RR (and indeed have not violated 2RR) to restore it. A sockpuppet IP reported me for "violating 3RR" a bit further up this page on the basis of one revert, and now Scjessey wants me blocked for three (not four) in 25. He has himself made three reverts in the last 17 hours. He is clearly engaging in knowing abuse of process...as can be seen by examining Scjessey's own edits:

00:00, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "rm original research")
20:08, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Campaign */ - restored original section title of "U.S. Senate campaign" - weird that it should've been changed in the first place")
20:13, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217381741 by The Rogue Penguin - restore image order (can't have people's backs facing text, looks weird)")
02:18, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */ rm absolutely ludicrous categories")
10:29, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217474873 by Foxcloud (talk) - rv category insanity")

Andyvphil (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think an article ban would be better than blocking. Andyvphil, you haven't had one single edit that lasted. You've been reverted by numerous users. Do you think it's time to quit (editing that article, I don't mean Wikipedia)? There must be something wrong with your edits if you're being reverted all the time. Not everyone is a vandal or an edit warrer, do you realise this? No violation by either but I think a voluntary article ban for both user's would save them from being blocked. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but even a cursory glance at the edit summaries of my edits above will see there is no edit warring on my part. Two of those edits concern minor formatting issues, and the other two concern miscategorizations. Furthermore, you will see from the article's talk page that I am engaged in a lengthy consensus-building exercise, which I initiated, and in which Andyvphil has taken almost no part it. I filed this report because Andyvphil was obstructing the consensus-building process with identical contentious edits concerning the material being discussed, rather than revert any of those edits myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure your reverts were good reverts and my reverts were bad reverts. In your mind.

Noroton has for several weeks vigorously pursued the dispute resolution process and has been tireless in refuting the bogus arguments of Scjessey and others that it is somehow inappropriate to clearly describe Ayers in "Obama's" article. There is little reason for me to duplicate his thankless and unrewarded effort, though I have chimed in where I have had something to add.

To repeat, as I've pointed out, since Scjessey offered seven options for treating Ayers in the Early Life section of Barack Obama (which was not how the subject came to be discussed, contrary to Scjessey's implication) both the mention there and the mention in the Presidential Campaign sections have been removed by the hagigraphic clique which "owns" the article with no regard for the ongoing discussion of how to treat the subject, which discussion has decisively rejected Scjessey's preferred option of deleting all mention of Ayers. I's been six months since the clique first deleted my contribution to the article of the information, cited to the NYTimes, that Obama's pastor and church were Afrocentric and highly political (this was before the videos hit and brought the significance of those facts to national attention) and I've had plenty of time to conclude that AGF-based effort is wasted on the likes of Scjessey. I'm obliged by the rules of Wikipedia not to say what I really think of them, but I'm not obliged to conceed their ownership of the page. Andyvphil (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody plans on doing anything here, I'm going to suggest closing it as moot, since 24 hours has passed and neither party has edited the article. --B (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have every intention of restoring mention of Ayers name to Barack Obama, in accord with NPOV. Not mentioning Ayers has only minority support, but I would not be dissuaded even if the local claque of Obama campaign volunteers mustered a local majority. "Rough consensus" is determined after examaining the qualty of the arguments, and theirs are indefensible. Andyvphil (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think I've ever seen such an emphatic declaration of the intent to edit war before. Incredible arrogance. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're in the minority, Scjessey. You cannot claim consensus. Furthermore, Anonymous Dissident (an admin) has clearly stated that the material can be included without violating WP:BLP if neutrally written and reliably sourced. Since you wrote Options No. 2 through No. 6 on Ayers, I think you'll concede that they're neutrally written and there is abundant RS material out there. The only problem is deciding which of the multitude of reliable sources should be cited, and taking care of edit warring POV pushers like you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is stale unless someone wishes to submit a new report with fresh diffs. And, guys, please take the discussion elsewhere. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Truthmaker1 reported by User:Damiens.rf (Result: Declined, request review)

Three-revert rule violation on Carl Freer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Truthmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 10:33, June 5, 2008

1st revert: 16:35, June 5, 2008
2nd revert: 20:26, June 5, 2008
3rd revert: 09:58, June 6, 2008
4th revert: 10:56, June 6, 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 10:20, June 6, 2008

Declined. The user in question is reverting away from a version of the article that has a clear negative slant and in which undue weight in this short article is given to criticism of the subject. Consequently, his reverts are exempt from the 3-revert-rule. See WP:BLP and WP:3RR. However, this is not a cut-and-dried case and I invite further review. CIreland (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This article has been controversial for BLP reasons, but I don't see Truthmaker1's repeated removal of the reference to the Times article as having a BLP justification. The forgery charge is supported by that article. Reliable sources do indicate that this man has had a checkered history. The version to which Truthmaker1 reverted appears sanitized. Due to the complexity of Freer's dealings, it is possible that the details of his past troubles are still not exactly correct in the article. But deleting the Times reference can't be a reasonable step to take in fixing that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is NO evidence he had a checkered past. A gag order was instituted on Freer during the Gizmondo investigation by the court appointed liquidators. Therefore the articles cited were created without any way for Freer to pursue justice and keep them fair. The 2 journalists in the articles you cite are under indictment and awaiting trial for slander. This is NOT sufficient material to warrant publication of for you (the editors of Wiki) to assess him as having a "checkered" past. I will contact Freer and urge him to pursue a legal action against Wiki for slander if these false entries are not removed instantly. Truthmaker1 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Truthmaker1

[edit] User:Jazz81089 reported by User:Appletrees (Result: No vio? Request extra review; Review: both blocked 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Blade of the Phantom Master (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jazz81089 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 2008-06-05T23:22:38

1st revert: 2008-06-05T19:06:45
2nd revert: 2008-06-05T23:30:29 61.119.133.163 (talk · contribs)
3rd revert: 2008-06-06T00:52:18
4th revert: 2008-06-06T16:23:16

Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-06-05T23:22:38

I happened to know the article due to repeated vandalism on manhwa by OCN ISP anon [2][3] who also vandalised the page of Blade of the Phantom Master as blanking the nationality of the artists.[4] The main dispute is that it is only manga, Japanese comics, or manhwa. However, the two are translated into Japanese / Korean cartoon, so I presented a compromised version like " the work is a cartoon and an animation series created by Korean manhwa artist..., specializing as Japanese manga published by a Japanese publisher"....However, the anon removed all Korean mention and manhwa. I think this disruption is unfair, but have tried to resolve the dispute enough, as opened a discussion at the talk page, left message at Japanese OCN ISP anon(s) for discussion several times, even filed RFC and went WP:AIV, WP:RFP. But nothing returned from the other, and the anon keeps ignoring all WP:DR methods and removed Korean mention which originally addressed on the article. However, too obvious sock account (return after his/her 8 month break and under 15 edits in total). There is no other participant in dispute, the anon is highly likely Jazz81089. I went to WP:RFCU, but due to his scare total edits made Checkuser hard to judge anything.Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou

I believe that this case is related to a banned user who did the same thing on the article in question last June, and the anon/Jazz81089 also already violated 3RR rules.

lst revert 2008-06-04T23:41:48 by 220.104.47.22 (ocn)
2nd revert 2008-06-05T07:31:56 by 61.119.129.25 (ocn)
3rd revert 2008-06-05T19:06:45 by Jazz81089 (overlapped with above 3RR)
4th revert 2008-06-05T23:30:29 by 61.119.133.163 (ocn) (overlapped with above 3RR)
5th revert 2008-06-06T00:52:18 by Jazz81089 (overlapped with above 3RR)

I don't see that he has any intention to cooperate with the opponent (me) and regard a consensus. Judging by the circumstance evidence, the dynamic anon could be none but Jazz81089. He violated 3RR rules twice, so I think he needs a lesson on his violations. --Appletrees (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To other admins - I see Jazz81089 has made 3 reverts in 24 hours, which is edit warring. If the IP can be proven to be him then it's 4. Would a block be in order for Appletrees and Jazz? They've both made 3 reverts. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both editors are engaging in edit waring, waiting in some cases as little as 30 minutes after the dealine to revert again. They are both Gaming_the_system --Selket ^Talk 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Selket's action seems correct. In case the situation continues in the future, notice that Jazz81089 appears determined to remove mention of any Korean connection from Blade of the Phantom Master. This work, though published in Japan as manga, was created by a Korean author, so Jazz's repeated removals don't seem well-advised. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.243.88.114 reported by Q ^{T C} (Result: 24 hour block )

Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

21:38, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
21:43, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
21:44, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
21:51, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
21:56, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
22:01, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
22:03, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
22:03, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
22:04, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")

Diff of warning: here

—Q ^{T C} 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Wafa Sultan reported by User:M1ss1ontomars2k4 (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on Wafa Sultan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).: Time reported: 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the history page. They're having a rather unamusing revert war which I attempted to mediate; meditation failed as one IP refuses to listen and the other refuses to assume good faith. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I reported the user for vandalism because this is what he is doing. He repeatedly removed references from the Jerusalem Post and the Sydney Morning Herald and replaced them with one that cites Wikipedia as a source, and after I warned him, he decided to continue with his vandalism, while copying my edit summaries and even added a warning template to my talkpage. 63.216.113.163 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's because you did the same to the other IP. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected. — Werdna talk 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anyeverybody reported by User:Crum375 (Result: Article protected)

Three-revert rule violation on Arrow Air Flight 1285 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 03:16, June 5, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png

1st revert: 22:35, June 6, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png
2nd revert: 00:08, June 7, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png
3rd revert: 00:18, June 7, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png
4th revert: 02:18, June 7, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png

Diff of 3RR warning: 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is about User:Anyeverybody reverting 4 times within 4 hours, after being warned, and being asked to revert himself, to no avail.
He persists in adding his own self-made images into an accident article, where what happened is in dispute, violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. He has also violated 3RR, and I have asked him to revert himself, which he has not done. I have unfortunately had to run up to three reverts myself, and as involved admin I am stopping to let others deal with him. Crum375 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody choosing to block Anyeverybody over this should, in fairness, block Crum375 as well - he's made the opposite reversion himself about 8 times in the past week (though never more than three times within any actual 24 hour period as far as I can see). Actually, without resorting to blocking, I'm trying to get these parties actually talking constructively. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If performing 8 reverts in a week is a violation, I am not sure where that's stated. I also suspect most active Wikipedians would be "violating" that routinely. This page is about WP:3RR, and this editor has reverted 4 times in 4 hours. Crum375 (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You might care to re-read WP:3RR and note that the whole purpose of the rule is to avoid edit warring, and that it's possible to violate this even having made fewer than three reversions in a 24-hour period. Reverting over and over again is not going to resolve a dispute... --Rlandmann (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As you have protected the article, there is no threat of disruption and thus blocking anyone is inappropriate. Blocks are preventative, not punative. --B (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Crum has been reverting more than the image; his/her evidence actually shows him/her reverting improvements to the page besides the image. Moreover his/her response on the article's talk page seem to indicate this as well as they seem to refuse to enter into discussions about expanding the article on the talk page. Anynobody 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlandmann has protected the article. There is nothing more to argue about here. Anybody blocking Crum375 over this should be desysopped faster than you can say arbitration. --B (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the case weren't moot due to the protection, in my view a block of Anynobody would have been appropriate. A self-made computer-generated image of what the airplane might have looked like under one of the scenarios can't be justified by any reference to reliable sources. He did go over 3RR while Crum did not. It's hard to make a defence of Anynobody's edits as being within policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure - I agree it would have been appropriate. I eventually protected the article as an alternative to blocking both of them. I'd rather have them talking. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yahel Guhan reported by User:Bless_sins (Result: No action )

Three-revert rule violation on Mecca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 21:23, 4 June 2008

1st revert: 04:01, 6 June 2008
2nd revert: 04:06, 6 June 2008
3rd revert: 03:11, 7 June 2008
4th revert: 04:44, 7 June 2008

Please note the user reverted the same material 4 times in 24 hours and 43 minutes.

In each revert, the user adds the following material:

This law has been criticized for religious discrimination against non-muslims. Freedom House showed on its website, on a page tiled "Religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia", a picture of a sign showing Muslim-only and non-Muslim roads.

Diff of 3RR warning: I warned the user twice before making this report: 04:59, 7 June 2008, 05:08, 7 June 2008 saying that I will not report him/her if he/she self-reverted.Bless sins (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I never violated the 3rr rule, as my edits are not within a 24 hour period. Second, you are an equally active member in the dispute, as you alone have reverted the inclusion each time I added it ever since the first time I added it. Not to mention you recently got away with 2 3rr violations without being blocked. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the last 40 hours I've made 3 reverts to the article while you've made 4 in just over 24 hours. Secondly, I'm giving you a chance to correct yourself. If I was given the chance to do so, I would only be too glad to self-revert.Bless sins (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NO. I made 3 reverts, not 4 in 24 hours, and so have you. You are probably just waiting for me to be blocked, or an hour to pass before you revert me agian. Instead you make more false allegations of a non-real 3rr violation. Conviently just one day after your incorrect stalking report. This is simple math; it is 3, not 4. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to admins, Bless Sins appears to be forum shopping for a block of Yahel Guhan. See also: [5] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: blocking: I've stated 3 times now that I will retract this report if Yahel self-reverts. Had I wanted to see the user get blocked I wouldn't have have warned him twice ([6], [7]) before coming here.Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You want your way in the article, and am willing to make up allegations of a falsified 3rr report in order to get it. You want that clause deleted inspite of it being well sourced and within wiki policies. Warnings are a required step in making 3rr reports, and even though you did the math incorrectly, you know a warning is required before a block is ever made. I love how you attempt to hide your real intentions. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are well aware of the 3 revert rule, and have been blocked for it in the past. Hence no warning is necessary. ITAQALLAH 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to other admins - YahelGuhan, despite being just outside of the 24 hour limit (40 or so minutes doesn't count, as that's gaming the system), has violated 3RR. Both users, in fact, are edit warring, but I am unsure of how to proceed. I would suggest a block for both. Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 06:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Since Yahel Guhan's last revert I've not made any reversions (though I could have). The edits you see that I made after Yahel Guhan (in the history) are uncontroversial improvements to the article.Bless sins (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are probably just biding your time. Afraid you are going to get blocked, you are trying to temporarily depict yourself as a better editor. I doubt it will last, as your editing shows you do still want that paragraph removed, and you have a history of edit warring to get your way. Second, my intention was not to game the system. I didn't plan to be reverting 40 minutes after the block expired. YahelGuhan (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave it be, unless and until we see more disruption. — Werdna talk 08:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable --B (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Both editors are urged to discuss on the talk page instead of reverting. Trebor (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:62.178.118.77 and other IP-numbers reported by User:WaldiR (Result: No vio)

Three-revert rule violation on Otto Erich Deutsch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 62.178.118.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and other IP-numbers: Time reported: 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 08:21, 23 September 2007 Then repeatedly inserting incorrect "Jewish" nationality to replace correct "Austrian". Article includes Category: Jewish Scolar already.

Diff of 3RR warning: No warning. How? 1st: Anonymous (in contrast to almost all other editors of this article), 2nd: changing ip-numbers, 3rd: editing anonymously for the sole purpose of this one edit. Clearly knowing that he/she is doing wrong.

I ask for permanent article protection against logged-out-edits. (Of all 41 editors of this article, only the troublemaker and three others were not logged in. Judging from the stubbornness, morosity and the long time endurance of the editor, peace will not be found otherwise. Excuse my righteous anger :-) WaldiR (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No violation. Stale, and it needs to be more than three reverts in 24 hours. --Selket ^Talk 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just found the correct place for my request. --WaldiR (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dvaaeg reported by User:Aramgar (Result: 24 hour block; suspected sockpuppet)

Three-revert rule violation on Florina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Dvaaeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

1st revert: 13:37, 7 June 2008 User removed content in violation of talkpage consensus.
2nd revert: 17:23, 7 June 2008
3rd revert: 19:24, 7 June 2008
4th revert: 20:02, 7 June 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:36, 7 June 2008

The edit summary provided on this diff indicates that this is an established user who prefers to engage in Plague-style edit-warring under a series of disposabe SPAs.

The user has not been active after the 3RR notification, therefore it is reasonable to assume s/he has been offline and unable to become aware of the warning. If they persist, please make a new report and make an explicit reference to this one. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If my assessment is incorrect, please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to review and/or reopen this issue. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: I have blocked the user for 24 hours as a holding action since I believe that this may be a new sock of a sockpuppeteer who I blocked a while ago (namely Aegeanhawk (talk · contribs)). I suggest that the best way to establish this would be to take the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. An admin with checkuser privileges would be better able than I to determine whether this is, as suspected, a sockpuppet. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I defer to that judgement, my original assessment has been based on taking facts at face value. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the 24-hour block. There are not quite enough edits to show that Dvaaeg is a sock, from behavioral evidence alone (he has only 7 contributions). An initial impression is that he wants to deny any recognition to the Republic of Macedonia (which WP no longer requires to be denoted as FYROM), or to allow Slavic names to be included in the articles on Greek towns like Florina. This was also the pattern of edits of Aegeanhawk. I don't see any proof yet that they are the same person, but we should keep an open mind. If checkuser finds this person to be the same editor, then an indefinite block of Dvaaeg would be indicated. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chenyangw reported by User:Cumulus Clouds (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Tibet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Chenyangw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 12:09 5 June 2008

1st revert: 12:09, 5 June 2008
2nd revert: 14:36, 6 June 2008
3rd revert: 22:12, 6 June 2008
4th revert: 12:28, 7 June 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 14:58, 6 June 2008

This user has been previously blocked for edit warring on this article in attempting to revert it to this same diff. 3 different editors in 48 hours have reverted this back to a neutral nonbiased version but this editor has continued to revert back after his 4th edit is more than 24 hours old. This is the only article this user edits and this is the only edit this user makes. Discussion on the talk page has proved unproductive with this editor being unwilling to engage in dialogue about neutral phrasing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. 3RR is not an entitlement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:NuclearVacuum reported by User:24.77.204.120 (Result:24 for both)

Three-revert rule violation on Template:Gliese 581 c.

NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gliese_581_c&action=history

1st revert: [10]
2nd revert: [11]
3rd revert: [12]
4th revert: [13]
5th revert: [14]
6th revert: [15]
7th revert: [16]
8th revert: [17]
9th revert: [18]
10th revert: [19]

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. - both users. There is no valid reason whatsoever to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Olahus reported by User:Xasha (Result: Reverted, protected)

Three-revert rule violation on Moldovan language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) . Olahus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 09:55, 7 June 2008

1st revert: 14:01, 8 June 2008
2nd revert: 16:43, 8 June 2008
3rd revert: 16:51, 8 June 2008
4th revert: 18:12, 8 June 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:07, 8 June 2008 (in the edit summary)

User explicitely refused to abide by the 3 reverts rule (see the edit summary of the 4th revision). Note also the personal attacks against me and the false claim of neutrality (he considers "neutral" calling 'stalinist' a language mentioned since the 17th century) in the same l4th revision. Moreover, the version he is reverting to is the same put by User:Ourscrazy2009, a blocked sock of banned User:Bonaparte (edit which I reverted, per Wikipedia:Banned#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits andWikipedia:3RR#Other_exceptions ).Xasha (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the article for 36 hours, so you (Xasha) can file a request for checkuser or suspected sockpuppet report. If the inquiry comes back positive, I'll remove the protection (or it might just expire) and further reinstatements of the edit by Olahus could lead to a block. If the inquiry comes back negative, I'll revert back to Olahus's version (as it was the latest version) and see where things go. If an edit war continues in that situation, the article will probably be protected (or one of both of you may be blocked for violating the 3RR). -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I already filled one yesterday, but due to wrong formatting, I think it was ignored by admins. Now I've repeaired it and I hope someone will be able to handle it.Xasha (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:TragedyStriker reported by User:Kww (Result: 24 hour block )

Three-revert rule violation on The Mickey Mouse Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). TragedyStriker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 05:44, 6 June 2008

1st revert: 03:18, 8 June 2008
2nd revert: 16:31, 8 June 2008
3rd revert: 16:39, 8 June 2008
4th revert: 20:24, 8 June 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 16:42, 8 June 2008

TragedyStriker is virtually an SPA promoting Zachary Jaydon. After attempting unsuccessfully to put include him as a mouseketeer, he has recently come up with some fairly obscure paper sources to justify the inclusion. Consensus among other editors is that the change can only be included after someone other than TragedyStriker has verified the information. TragedyStriker seems quite unwilling to accept this. Kww (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

TragedyStriker is me, and a Wiki editor interested in Zachary Jaydon. I am not a SPA, and not an artist at all. The sources are not obscure at all, but Disney Channel Magazines; official sources from the very television station that broadcasted the show. There are also a NUMBER of online sources that have been deleted by 3 editors, one of whom maintains a hate website on the subject. I have scanned the articles and sent them to half a dozen other editors regarding Jaydon, and will have others reinclude the information. It seems ludacris that I am being told that an "uninterested" editor has to reinclude this information, when it goes completely against the spirit and policies of Wiki. Assuming good faith is the very backbone of Wiki, and it's very discouraging to run into editors like this. I have provided everything that this select few have asked for and at this point, all of it has been pushed aside. If I am taking the initiative to research the sources to create a more informative and more accurate article, I don't think it's too much to ask for other editors to take a small amount of time to look at the same sources provided if they have any questions. Please advise.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For those watching: the "hate website" that TragedyStriker mentions is real: this article is an example page. I don't know if I would characterize it as a "hate" website, but I can see why he objects to it. I believe that is published by User:thegingerone (based on this statement by her), but she has not edited the article during this recent dispute.
I also have a hard time reading I have scanned the articles and sent them to half a dozen other editors regarding Jaydon, and will have others reinclude the information. as being anything but a threat to use meatpuppets to bypass blocks. If he has scanned the articles, why doesn't he send them to one of the editors that is insisting on validating the sources?
Kww (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked TragedyStrike for 24 hours for edit warring. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say that I support the result. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Strongbrow reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: user warned)

Three-revert rule violation on Israel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Strongbrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 01:55, 9 June 2008 All reverts are variation son this theme. Although each is worded slightly differently, they all revert the article's stating that Jerusalem is the capital into some for of a claim that it is disputed, or that Tel Aviv is the capital.

1st revert: 02:18, 9 June 2008
2nd revert: 02:22, 9 June 2008
3rd revert: 03:03, 9 June 2008
4th revert: 03:35, 9 June 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 02:23, 9 June 2008

Similar edit warring on Tel Aviv, with 3 reverts so far ; [20]

42 edits and last edit indicates they are off to work. Warning left on talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example

<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VERSIONTIME] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

[edit] See also

Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide
3RR report helper tool – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

[edit] WP:UFAA

Click to reveal noticeboard

[edit] WP:ANI

Click to reveal noticeboard

[edit] I am the banned user Flameviper.

I was banned in '07 following a long string of nastiness and broken edits. I came back under a couple other accounts (user:Two Sixteen and this one). As Two-Sixteen, I was blocked after Jpgordon did a checkuser and confirmed my identity; I created this account to see if I could truly contribute productively or whether I was really just a bad person. I leave my fate in your hands, Wikipedia. Can I stay here and edit? Or should I be banned? Ziggy Saw dust 00:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For further reference, this link is a previous digression on my ban.

Seems fine to me. John Reaves 00:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(I should note that Nick and I are not the biggest fans of Flameviper and have dealt with him considerably). John Reaves 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Nick (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I also support an unban, though on some sort of probation where people keep an eye on you and admins will more readily block for infractions. If you screw up this time, though, you probably won't get another chance, so use it wisely. --Rory096 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you are already banned, so the question "should I be banned?" doesn't apply here, but rather if said ban should be enforced. A more pressing matter is the fact that we seemed to have skipped a step here. Where is the community discussion that decided Flameviper could come back and edit? It's clear at least some admins already knew you are Flameviper well before this revelation.--Atlan (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to his current account, I suppose- and this is the unban discussion. --Rory096 00:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this is an unban discussion. The point is, why did this discussion not take place much earlier, when admins were already aware of his identity? I like to know why admins helped Flameviper violate his ban.--Atlan (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not support this user returning, especially because of the immaturity that is still showing. Edits like this, this, this, and all his recent edits with "~desu" in the summary are totally immature. Metros (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, the ~desu was a modification of Twinkle - no more intrusive than "TW". Ziggy Saw dust 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It links to a completely unrelated article. "TW" does not. I can imagine this confuses inexperienced users. It's entirely unhelpful.--Atlan (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See, that's exactly what I mean. You think it's perfectly cool and kosher to link to that. And the fact that "desu" is a 4chan meme is just a strange coincidence? Metros (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So what if it's a chan meme? Does this have any relevance to the discussion at hand? Ziggy Saw dust 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pertinent to your behavior, which is no doubt the most important aspect of an unban discussion.--Atlan (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Categorical oppose. This editor is asking us to validate the violation of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK. I categorically refuse to send a mixed message. Despite productive contributions from one individual, too many banned users who are incapable of contributing positively under any account or persona violate the same policies, and their collective disruption to the site is considerable, and their abuse would only increase if we validate that abuse of policy by sometimes granting it legitimacy. I wish Ziggy had instead demonstrated the ability to contribute positively in a wiki environment on any of the other hundreds of Wikimedia projects where he or she is not sitebanned. Should this person wish to do so, I volunteer to be his or her mentor on any other project where I am active and, after a sufficient interval, I will open an unban discussion on this noticeboard myself. Yet for now, under these circumstances, absolutely not. Please retire this account and contact me; I would like to help you. Durova^Charge! 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Accounts

It looks like the bulk of his sockpuppetry ended in September 2007, over 8 months ago. He tried to evade the ban in late January as Lumberjake but that only lasted 3 days. Three other accounts confined their edits to their user and user-talk pages and administrative pages, which is only a minor sin. We should treat him as if his ban started on February 2, the last time he tried to edit an article. That was only 4 months ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Oops, forgot to check his current account, which started February 6. And the clock start... NOW. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My love of Suiseiseki notwithstanding, I'm going to oppose an unban right now. In addition to the problems with user contributions noted above, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ziggy Sawdust raises a whole new set of red flags for me. --jonny-m t 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Others

- Just a quick procedural note as well, but isn't this discussion more appropriate for WP:AN? Or does it matter? --jonny-m t 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Apoplexic Dude and Ilfird the Third are not me. Ziggy Saw dust 01:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note I've blocked the account as a sockpuppet. There's no reason to let a banned user continue editing like this. If unban is called for by consensus, go ahead and unblock whichever account is decided upon, but, for now, he's blocked as per his ban. Metros (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I support both a block on the latest account and not removing the ban. Daniel (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. naerii - talk 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some general comments:

Without reading or commenting on Flameviper's situation, I generally believe in second chances. The purpose of a ban is to discourage future behavior and provide a disincentive for others who would do the same thing.

Before unbanning any editor, he would need to 1) address each and every issue that led to the ban to the satisfaction of those who banned him, be it arbcom or the community, 2) promise to abide by the same rules as everyone else, 3) wait a suitable cooling-off period with zero edits, not even anonymous ones. The cooling-off period is to prove to himself that he isn't a Wikiholic, or if he is, to give himself a start at recovery. I recommend at least 30 days but up to a year if it's a 3rd- or 4th-chance.

Any non-office-related ban (e.g. threats of legal action) for more than a year, i.e. "indefinite," should be summarily lifted if the person asks politely and promises to live by the rules. This only applies if the person has honored the ban for at least a year. Office actions are outside of our control.

Since this editor has a history of sockpuppetry extending past his last block, I recommend he: 1) go 60 days without any involvement with Wikipedia except maybe reading it, 2) use the mailing lists or IRC to request his user_talk page and mail privilages be unblocked, 3) create an article requested on WP:AFC on his user_talk page to show he is serious about editing, and 4) request that this article be reviewed and moved to the main space and that he be reinstated on parole. The terms of the parole would be related to the reasons for his initial and subsequent bans. Finally, I recommend he try to be the next Valiant Return Triple Crown winner.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Valiant Return triple crown is available only to editors who make a legitimate return to editing, which this person has not (so far). In fairness, we need a better structure for people to return to good standing. That's an area where I've been putting some focus lately and I'd be glad to put my head together with more people on both sides of the fence. If you can edit legitimately right now and are interested in sharing ideas please post to my user talk. I may open a subpage to discuss a better framework. If you happen to be sitebanned and want to participate, please use the e-mail function to contact me: I ask that you respect the spirit of the ban while welcoming input and feedback. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove the ban, too many productive editors are banned these days, and the treatment of some of them is appalling really (see Metros's talk page for a shining example of good commmunication skills from an admin). As long as he promises not to sockpuppet, there's no need to keep banning. Bans are just a completely negative way to go about things and makes the atmosphere worse than it already is. Al Tally ^talk 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep banned. Unlike in real life, on Wikipedia it is possible to start fresh, with no baggage from previous dramas. Anyone who is truly reformed would be ashamed of their previous indiscretions, and would embrace the opportunity to disassociate themselves from their previous identity. Conversely, anyone who would come here to boast of their previous banishment, and the fact that they have successfully evaded the consequences, is not reformed. Hesperian 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some subscribe to the philosophy that the first step in reforming is to publicly admit your sins. That's not the same as bragging, but it is the opposite of hiding under a new name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unban, but with hefty probation - oddly for exactly the reasons that Hesperian is using for his !vote on continuing the ban. Yes, on Wikipedia it is possible to start afresh, and that is exactly what ZS seems to be trying to do. Rather than dissociating himself from previous indiscretions, which would be to attempt to hide them from others as well, he has chosen to make it clear to us exactly what his past has been and request the opportunity for a second chance. I don't see it as boasting, but as an attempt to come clean. Consider the other thing that could have happened. ZS could have kept quiet, and eventually might have been found out. That would have led to a permanent ban on ZS. Or he could have boasted about it on some blogsite somewhere. By admitting to his past on AN/I - not boasting about it in a chat room, but formally stating it to those who have the power to ban him - I see a genuine attempt to ask for some form of forgiveness. I'd suggestan unbanning with some six months or more of "parole" in which problem editing is more likely to result in severe consequences (rather than the usual slap-on-the-wrist of a 24 hour block). Grutness...wha? 02:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, this thread that exposes rather than dissociates ZS comes 11 minutes after his previous identity was disclosed on his (now closed) current request for adminship. I'd like to AGF, but the timing of his desire to come clean doesn't sit well. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For a bit more clarity, he's stated that the reason he started that RfA (which he must have known was doomed to fail) was as a means of revealing his identity. --Rory096 03:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There would be far better ways to reveal his identity with the hopes of gaining the trust of the community, but, for clarity, where exactly is it stated that the reason he started the RFA was to expose himself? --Onorem ♠Dil 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, IRC, I thought I wrote that. My bad. --Rory096 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Onorem. With all the RFAs he's had in the past, I really think he just highly desires being an administrator. He has mentioned in the past, though, that he really wanted to pass an RFA and then, basically, say "Ha, I just got adminship and now I'll reveal that I've been Flameviper all along!" I'll see if I can find a quote/link later. Metros (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that he seriously thought he could have won with barely a few months experience, 1000 edits, terrible question answers, etc. --Rory096 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AN#user:SwirlBoy39 unban proposal, a concurrent thread on WP:AN, for how an unban request should work. A previously agreed-to mentor takes the lead, no dishonest RfA that surprises the admin who was aware that they were trying to come back, no lulz-inspired goofing around. I suppose if you can find someone willing to mentor, I'd support an unban with a similar very tight leash. Otherwise, no. I do, however, support the general idea of unbanning rather than quietly sneaking back without telling anyone, per Grutness. --barneca (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn. I'd like to think that people can come back from being banned, and my first response was that Ziggy had made a good effort to demonstrate that he could do it right this time around. However, then johnny-mt posted the link to the recent RfA, where it was apparently necessary for Ryan Postlethwaite to "unmask" Ziggy. This puts things into a very different light from my first impression - that the creation of this thread was entirely voluntary. Some of Ziggy's over-zealous actions in AfD, which I was inclined to write off as good-faith newbie inexperience; I'm now not so sure about. I think Durova makes a very good point too. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In many cases, some extremely prominent users have given banned users the advice to "come back, don't go back to the same misbehavior, don't edit the same areas, and we'll never have to know it's you" - no-one ever disagreed with people giving that advice either. In light of this, I cannot agree with the people who are opposing solely on the grounds of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK. Don't forget, we recently let the original Willy on Wheels come back. --Random832 (contribs) 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to give that same advice. Could you link that WoW discussion? I missed that one. --Geniac (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the block - FlameViper has his share of compulsive edititis, and his effervescent sense of humor can certainly grate on the nerves, but even at his most annoying, he's just on a level with your average outspoken radical inclusionist on AfD. I'm not a fan of the "Admin Cabal" style of argument, but in the case of FlameViper, it seems that from the start certain folk were so annoyed by his presence as to take positively baffling leaps and jumps to paint his admittedly-less-than-stellar edits in a malicious light. Annoying? Sure! Malicious? Get real. His worst edits deserved a patient, level-headed explanation of what exactly was wrong - not this hyper-militant power trip that he got. I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not a baby-sitting service, but this isn't baby-sitting - it's being a functional, communicative community. The bitching and moaning over his infamous edit to ElaraGirl's talk page was the utter nadir of this juvenile Wiki-policing - ElaraGirl herself, the "wronged" party, understood the tone in which it was intended, but this couldn't, wouldn't, and didn't satiate the thirst for blood on the Votes for Banning of the time. The failure of most of Wikipedia's most trusted faces to even acknowledge his goofiness, treating him (in some gross sort of manifestation of the total travesty that is Zero Tolerance) like some sort of serious threat, is, ironically, itself rather immature. This is a community that bent (and still bends) over backwards to extend last chances to completely useless ~~trolls~~ human beings such as the great Mantanmoreland and the positively unforgettable Gordon Watts (not to mention the excessive outpouring of oral-testicular manipulation that the departure of Everybody's Favorite Tenured Professor inspired). Does anyone have even the slightest inkling how positively humiliating the demands for baby-sitting and nannying must feel to Flame? It's no small wonder that he'd sooner start from scratch with a new sock-puppet than subject himself to what, no matter how it actually is in practice, is always expressed in the most petty, tin-pot dictatorship terms. Yes, he does head-scratchingly dumb things sometimes (I certainly cringe at the edits to jp gordon down-up-down-up's talk page), but when he feels - and more rightfully so than not, really - persecuted to such a ridiculously petty degree, what do you expect him to do? Handle it rationally? There are grown adults who can't remain completely stable under stressing circumstances like those. He's a kid. Kids are more transparent about their panic. Kids do stupid, stupid things when they panic. Kids also, however, have pride. No matter how much he reminds us of ourselves in that eternally awkward, embarrassing stage of our lives, he deserves the fair break and respect that we ourselves wanted when we were "back there". Maturity does not spontaneously occur in a void. The "vocal minority" of the community approaches him in about as flat-out wrong a manner as can possibly be accomplished. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual, Flameviper is dishonest about pretty much every aspect of why he's been banned. He's wasting our time, again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for similar reasons to Durova and well, Jpg. Heard it before from this user then find out he's yanking our collective chains. If I recall correctly, the last time he pulled this exact same stunt, even convinced an established admin to mentor him, he used another sockpuppet in the very unban discussion...Please... enough time wasted. Sarah 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Lots of kids can behave "grown up" on Wikipedia, some can't. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And this justifies the nasty manner in which he is constantly and consistently dealt with? I'm not the biggest fan of linking WP:CIVIL by any means, but in this case, I think we could really do without the upset ruffled-feather shenanigans. Give him a chance to learn from the graceful example of the Wikipedia community, if nothing else. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per various arguments above. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Opposeplenty of users above have noted that the problems which led to the ban in the first place haven't been resolved. I would like to add that under this new account he has made inappropriate GA promotions which were reverted and has used inappropriate edit summaries. Durova is correct that we shouldn't be condoning violations of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK either. Hut 8.5 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

oppose per durova and diffs provided by Metros. On 22 May, even, this editor was using edit summaries such as [21] which includes the words "I suck c**ks" (his version didn't have asterisks.) This would merit at least a warning/advice not to do so in intself, and that he is a blocked user too does not bode well. Here he was on AN/I asking to be unblocked when only the week before he made edit summaries such as that, which he must've thought people might've considered when viewing his contribs due to his starting this discussion. Sticky Parkin 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, kind sir, those two asteriks saved me a world of psychological upheaval. Were it not for them, I do not know how I would cope with seeing the letter "c" next to the letter "ocks" on a computer screen. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I've been watching this user for some time, wondering when the block would be coming. Aside from the diffs already supplied, I'll supply a personal observation, which is that the user seems to be attention-seeking, pushing things further and further until, failing to get the attention they crave, they actually come here and blurt out "look at me". This doesn't seem like someone who has the intention of contributing to the project. And I do apologise for commenting on the user rather than the contributions, but I think it's a pattern of behaviour that is likely to continue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose While I disagree with Durova's position (I feel forgiveness is always an option, no matter what WP:BAN and WP:SOCK might say, as long as the user demonstrates a genuine desire to contribute constructively), the diffs provided by Metros, all of which occurred in the last five days, are a deal-breaker. Flameviper is asking to come back, with the understanding he'll be on a very short leash -- but he's already biting the leash. While those diffs might only result in a civility warning for a new user, for a previously-banned user they are the kiss of death. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
Oppose For the reasons given above. Also, a banned used should request unbanning via e-mail, not on-wiki. _{1 != 2} 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose unblock. Flameviper has been the subject of numerous admin discussions (including 1, 2, 3; there are many others in the AN and ANI archives). He resorted to sockpuppetry in order to seek an unblock. He's been given many chances, and he openly admits here that he enjoys seeking attention. If he were truly interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, he would just do it without all this disruptive behaviour. --Kyoko 15:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah I can't even spend a week away without being dragged back by something like this! Curse the global login cookie. Anyway, I support unblocking. Why? I supported the same for Cream (formerly known as w00t, see archives), and things have turned out well there. The key thing to do is, now that Ziggy has "come clean" about his identity, is to nurture him around to being a productive contributor. This means defining the limits. Saying "he's already blown his chance" doesn't fly with me. He was never given a chance - he was constantly hiding and hoping not to be "outed" by any of those he had confided in. Banning a user repeatedly is useless. They come back angry and cause issues. It doesn't work. No point bearing a grudge, even if "policy" "says" we should. Urging reconsideration and care, Martinp23 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He did not "come clean", he tried to become an admin and was unmasked. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I love about this place. There's so much assumption of good faith. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. He's not the bloody Phantom of The Opera being "unmasked" (or something - I'm not a great dramatist (honest)). He's a real person, like you or me. Now think about that. He's real - he's like you, sat here behind a computer. Now tell me that you can honestly make a judgment like that based on the prejudice of actions of a year ago, simply because of the WP:BAN tag? If you can, then I despair. The point is - if a user is coming back again and again despite a ban, then they want to be here (more than I do, frankly). Why should we stop them when we can put in a bit of effort to turn them around into useful contributors, and save ourselves the pain the the future? Martinp23 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I really do try to assume good faith and if you honestly think I've failed to do so, please point out how / where. All I said was that ZiggySawdust filed an RfA and RyanPostlethwaite pointed out his former identity. If he had not filed the RfA, and had announced of his own volition who he was, I'd be urging that he be unbanned - just as you are. But that did not happen. All I've said, really, is that a confession loses some of its moral value when one's hand is caught in the cookie jar. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unban and move on with your lives. By creating this account, he took a huge risk, and I for one admire Flameviper for admitting that and risking making his situation worse. He wants to edit here, so as long as he's not causing any trouble and being monitored to check he's doing fine, everything will be fine. Good luck. Qst (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Causing trouble like creating nonsense redirects you mean?? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RfD it if it's so evil. Martinp23 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's not "evil", but neither is it productive or helpful. Nor is this. I don't feel like trolling through the contributions to find more examples, but they are there. What I honestly don't see is the evidence of reform. I don't think anyone is suggesting it's not possible, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Or "testing" like this: [-Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive418#Need_an_admin_to_reverse_pagemove]=? Metros (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tried talking to him about your concerns before jumping to block? I'd honestly like to see more admins do that for serious cases - if you can talk the user out of being a dick (if he/she is being one), then the problem is resolved much for satisfactorily for all than using the buttons. Martinp23 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. It was a silly move which wasn't the best for his reputation, but its not the end of the world. Qst (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support unban. This is ridiculous. Ziggy is annoying, but in no way harmful. He is not Greg Kohs or Don Murphy and does not deserve to be banned. howcheng {chat} 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Completely support unban - this user is certainly not the worst member of our project, we've probably unbanned far worse users before. This latest account of Flameviper is far better than previous accounts, and has done some fantastic work here. I see no reason to reblock him (yeah, I'm aware it's already been done) for actions that happened relatively long ago. I'll certainly offer to mentor him, I think that could help and I'd welcome thoughts on some editing restrictions. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I never saw anything too problematic from the Ziggy Sawdust account, and he seemed like a productive editor. I'd support giving him a chance and unbanning him. I'm very disappointed that he's been blocked so quickly too, rather than being allowed to talk here. Acalamari 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not now. He's shown too much annoyance, both on and off wiki. We've been here before, where he promises to do good, then ultimately fails. ~~My decision stands.~~ Oppose an unblock. -Pilotguy contact tower 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest- have many people received mails from this person in response to this thread? Not that I minded it- it's always nice to get mail :) and it wasn't particularly abusive, however I was careful (I hope) and used the 'email this user' function to respond, rather than revealing my email addy. (No disrespect meant to Ziggy and I'm not trying to say he's a wrong'un or anything like that - I just try to be cautious online.) Sticky Parkin 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you ask, Flameviper emailed me, too. Just so you know, I believe that the "email this user" function does reveal your email to the recipient, so that they can reply. Someone please correct me if this isn't the case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the case. Speaking as someone who uses the email function often, sending an email to someone reveals your email addy to them so's they can reply. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No email here - I don't even think I have that option turned on. At least I hope to God I don't. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No real strong opinion on Flameviper himself, but the fact that he socked again to get around his ban doesn't sit too well with me and makes me none to quick to think we should unban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait. I'm willing to consider the unban, but on a short leash after a month or so long wait. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Support unban. This discussion is disappointingly filled with the idea that the user is an unreformed scoundrel, needs to repent, needs to abstain from improving the encyclopedia as some kind of gesture of goodwill. It appears that this user has been editing in a mostly constructive fashion and wants to continue doing so, but feels that his participation should have the approval of the community. I find all that to be very encouraging. Everyking (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose unban - I hate to sound like I'm not showing good faith, but AGF says "assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary". I have reviewed the edits of all the accounts in this saga and I am not convinced that unbanning this account, the latest in a long line of socks (some of which were used to support his last blocking request, others of which even fairly recently were simply vandalism-only accounts) will have any net benefit for the encyclopaedia. Others such as Poetlister and Moulton that we've unblocked are potentially strong contributors capable of improving the encyclopaedia, and any controversy surrounding their edits did not extend to living Wikimemory of the unblock requests. It's very easy to stay under the radar simply by sticking to speedy deletions and script warnings. From the last two weeks alone - unhelpful edits like [22] and [23] suggest someone will have to spend a lot of time running after him fixing up, and needlessly offensive edit summaries [24] and [25]. I'm not seeing the "constructive editing", sorry. Orderinchaos 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If unbanned

If this user is unbanned, what kind of restrictions/policing/guidelines do those who say "he needs to be put on a short leash" believe need to be put into place? I don't believe that he should be just "turned loose" without any structure to guide his actions and an understanding of what would happen with disruptions. So for those of you who support an unbanning, what do you feel needs to be done after the unbanning to prevent any of the issues that led to the banning and the issues that occurred under this account. Metros (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If we really must unban; immediate short blocks in response to any unnecessary use of foul language or other obscenities which aren't in a context that could be construed as necessary or relevant for building an encyclopedia. Including edit summaries. Sticky Parkin 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Foul language is not grounds for blockings. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sticky Parkin is correct, it can be evidence of incivility. Kbthompson (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then block for incivility, not for a few f-bombs. "Evidence of incivility" - if you find yourself needing to play Sherlock Holmes or start a spreadsheet to determine whether or not a user is being incivil, it's a good sign you're looking far too fucking hard. Best - --Badger Drink (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If a user demonstrates an inability to distinguish between when profanity is acceptable and when it is incivil, I think it is entirely appropriate to prohibit them from using profanity altogether, as a purely preventative measure. This is not about censorship; this is about helping people be civil. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Whoa. Strongly disagree with a general profanity ban, although I agree with everyone's points about it being innapropriate in certain places. When a rule like this is cooked up, people have to realize how hard it is to enforce. If he uses profanity in a mild way, it would be ridiculous to then block/ban because of this rule. If he uses it in an incivil way, deal with that, no need for such a wide-ranging rule. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Every dog has their day (in court), which is why I say evidence. It's usually enough for someone to be on a behavioural probation for them to concentrate on avoiding such situations. Kbthompson (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We never ever ever should block someone for incivility. (policy states, last I checked) Martinp23 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No it does not, and in fact policy states the opposite, right in the 3rd paragraph:

The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern. A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, one single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or extreme profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough to result in a block without any need to consider the pattern. (WP:CIV, 3rd paragraph)

I really have no idea where you get that from, to be honest... Incivility is probably the most disruptive problem the project faces. Vandalism is easy, you just RBI. Otherwise productive editors who are incivil, on the other hand, are a serious quandary. You hate to block them, but then how many countless productive editors have left the project because they got sick of taking shit from incivil arrogant (but otherwise productive) editors?? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Jay, plenty have left indeed. Me included for most purposes. I don't know where I get that from - I seem to remember some discussion concluding that it was a bad idea to do "block per WP:CIV", if there is no personal attack or sustained disruption. Looking at the quote above this does indeed still seem to be the case, hence my opposition to a block for a single bit of incivility. Ah - I remember now. "Cool down" blocks are a bad thing, and this is effectively what a "short block for incivility" is, if not a punishment, and blocks are not for punishment. Yes, a sustained pattern of issues after his "probation" proper starts would call for a block, but being imperfect does not warrant a sanction like that. Do you see what I mean? Martinp23 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To say that we cannot block editors for persistent refusal to comply with an established policy is equivalent to saying that the policy is without force and void. At some point, sufficiently egregious violation of any policy – including WP:CIV] – will draw a block. It's also worth noting that the ArbCom has imposed civility paroles on editors before, recognizing that persistent incivility is harmful and disruptive to a constructive and collaborative working environment. (See for example [26], [27], [28].) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I worded my comment badly due to not having been active. Persistant inciv. can result in a disruption block, but isolted incidents shouldn't do so. More incivility is likely to result from such a block (for most people (I don't say that lightly)), so a block only on the basis of saying a swear word or whatever is stupid. Martinp23 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify that when I proposed prohibiting Flameviper from using profanity, I did not mean that a single "damn" should result in a block, far from it. I just meant to make it clear that, unlike other users who are trusted to use their own judgment as to when profanity is acceptable, this user should be asked to refrain from it altogether, and understand that if he uses profanity it will be automatically considered incivil. This is actually intended to help the user -- since he obviously can't tell when it's okay to swear or not, if he just assumes it's never okay, then by definition he'll never "accidentally" use profanity inappropriately. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between profanity and incivility, I think, so we ought not make a "profanity=incivil" judgment, rather look at any issues on a case by case basis. But yes, I think he can expect that he will inevitably be held to a higher standard than others (much as I personally dislike the fact, I can see why it is the case, given a degree of mis-trust and, perhaps, anger). Martinp23 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan has offered to mentor the user - I think this would be great. Limits do need defining - I'd suggest basically, in a nutshell: "avoid personal attacks, remain civil, and don't mess about too much ["too much" because a bit of fun is good]. Try to work on building the encylopedia". Thanks, Martinp23 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion on the issue yet but i am still studying it. JeanLatore (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You and Ziggy Sawdust/Flameviper are a lot alike in your flippancy and love of the help desks, so I'm interested in your conclusion of what reasonable limits might be. I don't support unbanning for reasons stated earlier, but how would you feel, if you were the user, about a ban on participating at the help desks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If Ryan wants to mentor, I've no particular objection. But my first introduction to this person was as a drama-seeking child with little self-control; this entire theater piece is an example of that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we way too often give attention-seekers what they want. This keeps them coming back for more. Can we find a way to ship this kid off to some other website or chat room or something where such behavior is a better fit for the environment? Friday (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Flameviper has another sock, KONATA KONATA KONATA (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) as confirmed in this diff.

I'm not personally convinced that Flameviper has reformed, but if Ryan is still willing to mentor him, fine. I do hope that he can become a productive contributor and win the community over. I have seen it happen before, rarely. If Flameviper is unbanned, I strongly encourage him to refrain from any profanity and even heated remarks, and furthermore, I hope he avoids any situations where he might be tempted to say something regrettable. --Kyoko 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for unbanning

I think it would be good to put everyones cards on the table and I'd like to offer some proposed community sanctions should he be unbanned....

"Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is unblocked and is allowed to resume normal editing, under a community editing restriction. He is placed under community civility parole. Should he make any comments which are personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or any other comment which is perceived to be incivil, he may be blocked for up to one week. He is also banned from editing any reference desk, or help desk pages indefinitely. Ziggy is permitted to use just one account and any further instances of sockpuppetry will lead to his ban being reinstated. Further to these restrictions, he is placed under the mentorship of Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)."

Any thoughts on this? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Very important point: no more socks. --Kyoko 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot to add that in. Now done. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me with one reservation: That the user (Ziggy/Flamewiper) be placed on something of a "probationary" period for one year, under my or someone else's supervision, where the user be required to make at least 100 contributions (edits) to wikipedia articles a month. The contributions may either be substantive or minor, but the total must exceed 100 a month. If at the end of any month the user's article edits are less than 100, the "probation" will be revoked and the user perma-banned. That way we can not only rehabilitate this user, and monitor him, but also get some productive work out of him in building the encyclopedia. JeanLatore (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems awfully strict. It would be better if we eased him into articles, which I could do with mentorship. I don't see this probation as productive - it essentially says that he should be banned if he doesn't do enough graft in one month as a volunteer - that's not right. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel it's unreasonable to demand an edit quota out of someone. This is a volunteer project. Making 50 (or five) good edits a month is something to be applauded, not something that a person should be banned for. Everyking (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Any good contributions are good contributions and are welcome. Wikipedia is not about racking up a high score. Friday (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If I wasn't assuming good faith, I might think this was a deliberately ridiculous proposal by someone trolling ANI (again). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope it isn't, and I would also hope that he is closely watched and infractions scrupulously policed. Orderinchaos 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, my comment above is directed at JeanLatore's ludicrous mandatory edits proposal, not the request by Flameviper to be unbanned, nor the proposal by Ryan Postlethwaite to mentor. While I don't support the latter two proposals, I don't think they were suggested for the purposes of trolling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[after edit conflict]The distinction is that this is not a volunteer project when it comes to the user in question, as the user in question has been previously banned from the project. Therefore, if the project allows him to come back (thus overturning their decision) the project does reserve the right to impose a less-than-full set of "rights" to him for a while, and making the user produce some article edits would be a good way to turn the probation/mentorship time into improvement of the articles. JeanLatore (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How could we justify banning him in July if he made fewer than 100 edits in June, provided all the edits he did make were good? I think any number of good edits is better than zero. One imagines a starving man pushing away a slice of bread—"I'm starving, and you think I'm going to settle for that?" If he makes bad edits, then we could consider a penalty, but that's a different story. Everyking (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. If you create a requirement like that, volunteers who work mostly with content will have to fix 98 articles he felt obliged to edit. By past experience this would mean dozens of useless tags per article. Orderinchaos 01:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying he is incapable of helpful edits to articles? JeanLatore (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying if you force numbers on people that they will make up the numbers by whatever means. It's human nature. Orderinchaos 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Still oppose on principle. This proposal would send a subtext to every banned editor who pays attention: Don't sit out your ban; come back and sock. And if you're sly and political enough about it, the site will even reward you for that by lifting your ban! You've got nothing to lose anyway--you're already on the outs. So sock away... Life is waaaay too short to deal with the fallout of that message. We don't owe one difficult individual a free pass at the price of charging our productive volunteers that heavy a price. My previous offer to mentor on another project stands: I'll open a new unban thread myself in due course if he does good work elsewhere. But this way? No way. Durova^Charge! 05:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Durova: rewarding editors for violating sitebans sends, to put it lightly, quite the wrong message. And Ryan, please stop misplacing your efforts towards mentoring people that have proven to be useless in the past and redirect it towards productive contributors who haven't yet been able to pass the hurdle of enculturing themselves with our wacky customs. Or put your considerable talents at mediation to use in resolving a dispute somewhere... something, anything besides wasting your time on incompetent editors. It's pure hubris to think that you'll finally be the one to turn a banned editor around, and it never happens; the proverbial fall inevitably comes around in the form of the person in question becoming recidivous. (Okay, maybe there's the one exception, but that's not happening again soon. :]) east.718 at 05:57, June 7, 2008
- Agree with Durova and East. People do not get banned for no reason, it's usually done at a point where community patience has been exhausted, and they have usually done a lot to get there. I've been at the other end watching someone being given chance after chance and then finally the last straw where they get banned, but usually only after driving productive contributors off the project. It wastes project and volunteer time to unban people who cannot offer us anything and have demonstrated an unwillingness to work within the rules. I've seen mentorship work at close range, but it only works where the mentoree is basically there but has regular lapses of judgement. This is not one such case. Orderinchaos 06:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
People who get banned and sock are either going to help the project or hurt it. In my opinion, you can't reasonably decide what to do with them until you judge which course they've taken by evaluating their edits. Banning people is a practical measure that should intended purely to prevent them from causing harm. If unbanning Flameviper sends a message to other banned users that they can sock, work constructively, and get themselves unbanned as a result, then I'm happy to send that message. What if Flameviper wanted to donate money to the project—should the foundation refuse to accept his money? It makes no more sense to reject his good edits than it would make to reject his money; in fact it makes even less sense, because the improvement of articles is our highest priority. Everyking (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming capability here. Please show me one article he has significantly improved under any of his nicks. Good faith alone doesn't cover bad behaviour in the absence of positive contributions. Orderinchaos 08:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I scanned his contributions going back through mid-May and found that it's overwhelmingly tagging and notifications for speedy deletions, coupled with many minor edits (I don't want to dismiss this kind of work, but clearly it's not on the same level as content addition). However, I did find a few examples of him adding substantial article content: Lutetium is the best example, followed by this edit, which also appears to be high quality. So my evaluation of his work through that time is that he is someone who spends a lot of time patrolling new pages, but is also capable of adding an occasional bit of quality, referenced content to science-related articles. On the other hand, he does tend towards occasional silliness, but he doesn't seem to do so in a harmful way. The best example of this is User:Ziggy Sawdust/Avril. I don't really know what's going on with that page—the questions are obviously not genuine, and the page is bizarrely popular among users who don't edit anything else. It would be easy to assume he created all those accounts as sockpuppets for fun—since they're doing nothing but editing his own "reference desk", I'm not sure I could define that as disruption, but it's obviously not something we should look very kindly on. Everyking (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What this proposal and its supporters are overlooking is that it not only sets a bad precedent; it's unnecessary. There are plenty of other projects where this editor isn't banned and could demonstrate a good history legitimately. I extended an offer of mentorship to him for another wikiproject days ago. He evaded his ban to post to my user talk page, so I blanked he ban-evading post and replied to his IP's talk page with instructions about how to follow up legitimately, via e-mail. He hasn't replied. With that already on the table before Ryan extended his offer, there's no excuse to bend the rules. I'm an admin on Commons and I edit a variety of other WMF projects. I'll put my reputation on the line at any of those to offer Flameviper a policy-compliant return. That should be more than generous enough in this situation. Durova^Charge! 09:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Durova, East and Orderinchaos and I'm very troubled about the precedent the community is going to be setting if this happens. I regularly get emails from Eddie Segoura, the "Exicornt Vandal", saying that he wants to be unbanned. He has appealed without success to the ArbCom several times now and he has had a few socks that have been productive by all appearances but he has also had many sockpuppets that were not productive. Shall I tell him to keep creating sockpuppets and when he has a constructive one that has gone unnoticed for awhile, to come here and announce who he is and he'll be unbanned? Seriously? He watches the admin noticeboards and I know he would be most delighted if this is the precedent we are going to set for future appeals but I'm not so thrilled with it myself. I'll guarantee that he'll be creating socks minutes after he sees flameviper is unblocked. Also, for informational purposes, I received an email from flameviper after commenting on this subject earlier and he indignantly asked me to point out one policy he had violated since he was banned. Ugh, SOCK, BAN, BLOCK? That he doesn't get even *this* much is extremely concerning. But maybe that's just to me... Sarah 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Durova and east718 here, too much headache for so little a chance of success, seeing this user on IRC, I do not see there being any chance of success IMO. I'll note that there are 24 users in Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user who to my knowledge are not banned, socking, etc. Rather then rehashing every good ban we've ever done (something I've seen more and more of recently), I've got to echo the feeling that we need to be workong on helping totally new contributors learn to contribute at progressively higher levels of quality. MBisanz ^talk 11:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and a good wider perspective on the matter. Orderinchaos 13:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Durova too that Ziggy S. got banned for a reason, seems intellectually incapable of making productive content additions to the articles (which is -- or should be -- our priority), and clear evidence of Ziggy's current sockpuppets being disruptive at the very time his "main" sockpuppet account is begging to be re-instated probably doesn't sit well with other editors either. My proposal above still stands, however, I would like to clarify I would like to see about 125 solid, referenced article content edits a month out of him for a year before he were to be granted full user status. Most people don't even want him back under any circumstances. JeanLatore (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful with syntax: a reader could infer from your statement that I've insulted his intellect. I haven't, and I ask you to refactor the opinion itself. It's one thing to point out behavioral problems, another thing to speculate about a person's intellect or state of mind. He's banned and not allowed to respond here. Durova^Charge! 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy about unbanning him, because Durova, Sarah, and other people do have a point about the principle of a ban. Furthermore, I don't get any sense of contrition in Flameviper's/Ziggy's unban request, and he was dishonest in not revealing his identity in his RfA, and in his unban request (four socks I know of post-ban, not two as stated). Ryan, could you please explain further what convinced you that he had reformed?

As a side note, I find Jean's proposed requirement of "125 solid, referenced article content edits a month" quite demanding. I don't believe I satisfy that requirement myself. --Kyoko 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you are not banned and asking to come back for no reason. This gentleman is at Wikipedia's mercy right now, Wikipedia might as well turn that to its advantage. If Ziggy/Flamewiper wants to come back, he'll do so as a constructive article editor for a year...if not, then CYA! JeanLatore (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He's already past CYA, and the burden's on him to come back from the corner where he's painted himself. There are open doors from that corner to Commons, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc. And from there we can unlock a door back to Wikipedia without ruining the paint job. Durova^Charge! 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding to my last message: I'm not convinced that he has reformed, after discovering his edits to Lutetium, in which he adds content but also adds inappropriate ref tags. I don't want to repeat them here, but I've removed them. I did only a cursory reading, so there might be other hidden jokes. While he might conceivably feel this is just harmless fun, I think it conveys the message that he doesn't take Wikipedia seriously. I'm not saying that Wikipedia should be a joyless enterprise, but I also think that I or other people should not have to screen his edits for possible hidden messages. Sorry, Ryan, but I don't think he should be unbanned. --Kyoko 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this looks like it's going to have to go before ArbCom because I'm seriously ready to unblock. It's sad really - we've allowed many users back who have caused far less disruption than this. Flameviper is in the minor leagues as far as disruptive users are concerned. This guy created WP:ADOPT and it's clear he wants to help the project. He hasn't had a single opportunity to have an experienced Wikipedian to help him along the road - this is what I'm offering. It's not an easy way back in, it's the last chance saloon (something we've given to many users in the past). Yeah he's created socks to evade his ban, not to harm the project, but because he's a good faith user who really wants to help out. Yeah he's made his mistakes, but I'm willing to keep Ziggy on a tight lead. Even if I have to give a couple of short blocks to get him back into line, we really can shape him into a good Wikipedian. As far I'm concerned, it smacks of double standards compared to the treatment we give to other users that have been banned. One question - would we have banned him if he hadn't have admitted it here (or I'd have admitted my knowledge of it on his RfA? I seriously doubt it because nobody saw him as a user that needed a ban (nothing like in fact). This really isn't right. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I understand where you're coming from but you don't seem to be following our objections and I still have a major problem with the way we have got to this point. If there hadn't been socking and you had come here and posted another mentorship/unbanning proposal (you said he hadn't ever had the chance at mentorship but he did have the opportunity, he just squandered it by using a sock in the very unban discussion) I wouldn't be really keen because I think he's too immature and just an attention seeker but I wouldn't have such a strong objection to it and wouldn't have tried to stand in the way. What I have a problem with is users who are banned creating sockpuppets using them to make lots of mainly minor edits, tagging and such and then if we don't happen to notice who it is in time and block them, they come here a couple of weeks later, reveal their identity and we reward them for socking by unbanning them? Are you sure that this is the precedent that you want to set for dealing with banned users? Why is there a rush? Why can't he request unbanning in the usual way without socking around the ban? Also, have you looked at his contribs and did you see his offensive edit summaries? I get that you think you can turn him around and kudos to you for that and I don't want to stand in the way of you trying to make a productive editor out of him but I really don't think this is the right way to do it. You said that "it smacks of double standards compared to the treatment we give to other users" - who else has been unbanned after announcing they're a sock of a banned user? To my knowledge, historically we've always blocked socks of banned users and I don't recall any sock of a banned user being unbanned in this way. Again, I have a problem with the way we have got here and the precedent it is going to set for future cases, but I am not particularly against him being a second chance if he were to stop socking and either appeal in the usual way or follow up with Durova and edit on another project for awhile. I'm not seeing what the rush is about here. Can you please respond to some of the points that have been raised by Durova and others above? Thanks. For the record, I think the idea that he should be forced to make an edit count quota is ridiculous and I would object on principle to that requirement being applied to anyone. Whether someone is on mentorship or not they should never be required to edit more or less than they want to. Sarah 01:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My frustration at this basically stems from this recent unbanning from WP:AN. Here, we see SwirlBoy39 evaded his ban, after creating numerous socks used to vandalise Wikipedia and when it was finally announced who he really was, he was unbanned to edit constructively. Then in this thread, Ziggy, who I don’t even think has used a previous sock (he had far less socks than SwirlBoy) to vandalise the project, gets relatively strong opposition to an unbanning. This is why I talk of double standards. The only reason why we even know the correlation between the two accounts is because I revealed it on his RfA, then he came here requesting an unban. I respect that this wasn’t the best way of going about things, but unfortunately we can’t turn back time. By having Flameviper editing under an account we can watch closely (let’s face it, he’s most probably going to create a new account, and this time tell nobody about it, so we won’t have a clue who he is), we can keep him on a tight leash and his edits will be open to scrutiny given the problems he caused in the past. I’ve certainly seen the incivility in the edit summaries, and even some on talk pages, but under the editing restriction, this would see him blocked – I’d block him myself because I’d be keeping an extremely close watch on him. As Everyking has pointed out, there is some constructive work in his editing and with a bit of help, we can cut out his poorer side (with short blocks if necessary at first) and help him become a better Wikipedian. I certainly look forward to doing a tag team on an article with him, talking him through our editing policies/guidelines so his content edits can be the best quality possible. Ziggy hasn’t had an opportunity to work with someone – he’s never had a mentor, or someone to turn to if he’s not sure what to do. This is exactly why I want to help him – if it doesn’t work out, oh well, we tried and we can block him indef again, but if it does work out, we’re going to have one more productive contributor who is obviously extremely enthusiastic about helping here. On a side note, I’m not a fan of Durova’s offer – Ziggy doesn’t seem to have an interest in working on another Wikimedia project (after all, they’re all very different), he simply wants to help out here- I don’t think it’s good having someone edit in a place they really don’t want to be editing at. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you unblock plz. enforce the 125 referenced article edits a month requirement, or something along those lines. JeanLatore (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

JeanLatore, you're the only one advocating this. It's not going to be implemented for the various reasons discussed above. We do not force people to edit articles as, essentially, repentance. Yes, there are topic bans for those who demonstrate disruption in particular areas, but this kind of restriction is not "what we do" so to speak. Metros (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be possible: he could be banned for one or two more months, then unbanned and allowed to edit (if he doesn't sock in the meantime) under Ryan's mentorship for one or two months after that, and if Ryan deems the mentorship successful, then he can edit without restriction. Everyking (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So socking one's unban discussion earns a ban reduction? I've already offered a more reasonable compromise, and he's lucky it's still on the table. Durova^Charge! 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to whether one believes that it's better for the health of the project that banned editors serve out their bans regardless of circumstances, to encourage respect for the rules, or whether one believes bans should be lifted at any time if there's a reasonable expectation that the person will not behave in a harmful manner, to facilitate direct improvement of the encyclopedia. Everyking (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, have you looked into my offer? Right now I'm increasingly dubious whether a reasonable expectation exists that he'll be productive. This discussion has stretched to nearly 80k so I'll put a parameter on the situation: my offer to Flameviper of sister project mentorship now has a shelf life of 7 days, maximum. Over 4 of those 7 days have already passed. I may shorten it. It is a generous offer because I would put my reputation on the line at the project of his choosing. Then, if he lives up to the generous hopes some people have for him, I would open another unban discussion here myself. While this offer remains on the table he may contact me via e-mail to accept it. Durova^Charge! 07:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, my assessment of his editing over the last month, which I detailed above, is that he has been productive, albeit in a rather limited way, so I feel that we could reasonably expect continued productivity if he's unbanned. I don't know that your offer is such a great one. It feels like it could be almost be conscripting him into work on a project he isn't interested in so that he'll be allowed to edit the one he is interested in, sort of like making him pay to do volunteer work. I suppose maybe he does have an interest in other projects, though. Everyking (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an alternative proposal: instead of being allowed full reign to the encyclopedia, the user is allowed to use their talk page again. Using {{helpme}} (or some other template if people want), they can request edits to pages be done for them. This would encourage serious content-creating edits, but would be reviewed through someone else first (plus the lack of ability to do real-time work adds to the pressure which I want to him under). I would propose that he cannot sock but is allowed one user talk page to conduct this test. If he does not indicate an serious interest in helping the encyclopedia during one month (either no real edits offered or some bad habits during that period), then he remains in the banned condition. Any socking during this period is an immediate violation (and socking to get around the reviewing process is a complete done deal). Any other views? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. If he makes some major content suggestions during that time without causing any trouble, I think that would make the case for unbanning more clear to some of the doubters. Everyking (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is getting more clear. It stuns me that with a generous and nearly unprecedented offer already sitting for four and a half days, respectable editors propose to go beyond that and create a dangerous precedent. I am very tempted to withdraw my offer and walk away entirely, as protest. Durova^Charge! 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You may see your offer as generous and unprecedented, but there is no obligation for him to take you up on that offer. Having said that, a polite decline of the offer would be reasonable. First, though, do you have evidence that he has seen the offer since the latest reblock? Secondly, your offer shouldn't prevent others from making suggestions, or you from commenting on those suggestions. It would be nice if things were discussed in sequence, rather than in parallel, but it is nearly impossible to do that in large discussions on Wikipedia. Wait for the discussion to die down and then renew the offer privately and see what response you get and then announce it somewhere, like you did with Matt Sanchez. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, the answers to all of your questions are already on this thread. Nearly 5 days ago I extended the offer. He's seen it; he evaded his siteban yet again to inquire about it at my user talk page. So in accordance with WP:BAN I blanked the post; I also went to the talk page of the IP address he had used to post at my user space and left instructions on how he could follow up properly; via e-mail. I later summarized that here among my several updates to this thread. It is unreasonable to demand that I explain these points again, or to imply that I haven't proceeded with due diligence. As of now, I reduce the time span of that offer by 24 hours. Durova^Charge! 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the earlier stuff. I think you would be better to withdraw the offer now, rather than have some deadline that you are reducing in some effort to force a response to your offer. Either that, or leave it open for him to contact you at some future point when things have calmed down. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I owe an apology too. Now that I check my own page history I see that was a different banned editor who replied via IP. This one has contacted me by e-mail now and I've outlined the offer plus a selection of other sites where I've done some work. The ball's in his court. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am volunteering to help mentor the user to help enforce the article editing requirement I could put him to use doing some research for me on articles I am writing on supreme court cases and other things. JeanLatore (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

JeanLatore, as has been explained, there is not going to be the article editing enforcing if there is an unban. Metros (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

dont you think that writing articles is the best thing one can do here? It is an encyclopedia after all, not myspace. JeanLatore (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theory and BLP issues - eyes requested

Muhammad al-Durrah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Israeli-Palestinian wikiwars have flared up again on the article on Muhammad al-Durrah (and tangentially Charles Enderlin). A number of Internet activists and bloggers have been promoting a conspiracy theory asserting that the latter (a French TV journalist) had faked the death of the former (a Palestinian boy) in a shooting incident in 2000. This has been the subject of a recent French libel trial, one of several libel actions over this matter. The outcome of the trial two weeks ago has led to a number of apparent SPAs (Julia1987 (talk · contribs), Southkept (talk · contribs), Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs)) and some existing editors (Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs), Leifern (talk · contribs)) trying to revise the article to make it state that the conspiracy theory is an established fact, or to give the conspiracy theory equal billing with the mainstream viewpoint. However, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the case do not mention the conspiracy theory at all, although there is a legitimate and widely documented dispute concerning who fired the fatal shots.

Because of the ongoing libel case - which is not over yet, as it's being appealed - I've been keeping an eye on this article for some time. There are obvious WP:BLP concerns over how to report a conspiracy theory that accuses living high-profile people of professional fraud. There are also major WP:NPOV issues about attempts to present a tiny-minority POV as being just as important (or more so) as the POV expressed by the vast majority of sources. It's pretty much the same kind of issue as we've experienced with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, which led to the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories.

I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN and WP:FTN and I've tried extensively to explain on the article talk page what's required by [NPOV, BLP and V. However, to put it bluntly the SPAs and conspiracy theory advocates are not listening and are attempting to edit-war their view into the article. There is some very blatant soapboxing going on (see e.g. [29]). This is despite the fact that the article is under arbitration sanctions per WP:ARBPIA#Remedies - I've notified the editors involved of the sanctions but it doesn't seem to have made any difference to their conduct.

Moreschi (talk · contribs) has commented on the matter on the FTN (see [30]) and has requested more eyes to review the article. It would be helpful if some uninvolved admin(s) could take a look and advise on what can be done to resolve this matter before it ends up in arbitration enforcement. (Perhaps it should go there anyway?) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I’d welcome some new, uninvolved editors’ eyes on this. Just to set the record straight, though, it would help if those joining the discussion note that the statement currently in dispute (“reportedly been killed”) has been the consensus version in this article for over two years, and that contrary to User:ChrisO’s one sided presentation above, it is actually ChrisO and friends (User:Tarc; User:Nickhh; User:CJCUrrie) who are trying to change this long standing consensus, and replace it with a new statement introduced just 5 days ago with this edit, after they had agreed to the previous wording for a long time.

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the case published since the recent French court’s ruling have either labeled the incident a “likely hoax”, or at a minimum, treat the theory that he was killed as being very suspect. ChrisO did indeed notify some participants of the ArbCom sanction – but curiously all those notified happened to be holding a viewpoint different than his, while his fellow editors named above received no such notice, and unsurprisingly, alongside Chris (who has already been reported for violating 3RR on the article), continue to happily edit war over this statement, some of them (User:CJCurrie, User:Moreschi) blindly reverting without bothering to participate at all on the Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As has been mentioned by ChrisO before, the notification was made only to users not registered/notified at the time of the ArbCom case - and thus to the SPAs. (The SPAs all happen to be on one "side".) This point has been made by ChrisO so many times that at this stage making the above statement is practically sanctionable. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ChrisO has given that "explanation" several times, but the problem is that it is false. I am one of those who received the notification - but I was registered at the time of the ArbCom. Not only that, but I had already been notified of the case, months before, as was clearly evident to ChrisO becuase it's still on my Talk page. It is also evident that he knew this because when he went to log his notifications, he somehow forgot that he had notified me, and logged only the notification of Tundrabuggy and Julia. Please cut out the nonsense that criticizing a questionable act by ChrisO is itself sanctionable - This is Wikipedia, not Stalinist Russia or Cuba, and we are allowed to question authority without fear of retribution. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

oops! here we go again with the accusation that I am a SPA! Will nobody check out my contributions to see if there is any truth to this before making these accusations over and over again? My reputation at wiki has been damaged by ChrisO's assertion [31] which is being repeated by others who repeat it without personal verification. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Will nobody check out my contributions to see if there is any truth to this...? Okey doke. Let's see: 93 total edits, 45 of them to Muhammad al-Durrah and its talk page, plus 5 to BBC claiming that they're biased against Israel. Knocking off the 17 edits to your own user space, then yeah, it's pretty much a textbook case of single-purpose account and not an "assertion". I'm certainly not seeing what reputation you have that's being "damaged" here. --Calton | Talk 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked out CM's contention that "reportedly killed" has been consensus for some time, and that's just a fact. Since we are accusing those of us currently editing the page of 'promoting a conspiracy theory', perhaps some of these other users who have argued the point that this is a legitimate controversy and not a conspiracy ought to be notified that their position is now being relegated to 'conspiracy-theory' 911-conspiracy theory dustbin, subject to sanctions: 66.81.115.85 [32], bibigon [33], Humus Sapiens [34], Jayg [35], [36],KazakhPol [37], Slim Virgin [38], Netscott [39], Viriditas [40] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs)

After Tundrabuggy was informed of the sanctions, the user edit warred, and so in my humble opinion, a ban / block could be applied. Stating the blindingly obvious, that doesn't apply to the editors listed above. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please put up the diffs demonstrating that I initiated an edit war. I argued my point (I have considerably more edits on the talk page than on the article) and was not the one that began edit warring, nor did I try to "finish" it. Please look closely. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you initiated the edit war. Nor does it matter that you argued your point. You edit warred after being notified of sanctions, and in this context a ban / block could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please demonstrate with diffs. The use of the word "reported" had been established through consensus over the years. To suddenly rip it out without consensus is wrong, whether it is done by an admin or not.Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV cannot be superseded by editors' consensus, as WP:NPOV states. If a previous consensus (and I'm doubtful whether this was really a consensus as opposed to going by default) reached a conclusion that violates NPOV, it can't be sustained. In addition, consensus isn't immutable. If a consensus was reached two years ago as you claim, don't you think it's about time it was reviewed? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing is trying to justify your position by wielding one wiki "policy" after another as a club when others have disagreed with your POV. I certainly do not object to reviewing a consensus but as the WP:BOLD policy states

substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view.

The article had carried the word "reported" or "reportedly" for something like 2 years before you apparently changed it. It had been hammered out "after long and arduous negotiations." You have been adamant that you would not accept the previous consensus view under any circumstances, despite the fact that the latest verdict makes the "reported" tag more appropriate today than ever. Your means for achieving consensus was/is to knock off all the users who do not accept your POV, by logging warnings, then shopping for "uninvolved" admins in forums such as this and the WP:FTN who would apply a ban or a block on other users. Basically it is the politics of intimidation, some might call it "bullying." Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you consider changing the article was 'wrong', then ok, that's your opinion. However, it doesn't justify revert warring. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here about the use of the word "reportedly." That word has been in the article for a couple of years, as I recall, and it seems to be the most accurate rendering — the boy was reportedly killed (i.e. was reported to have been killed) during the incident. There is actually no evidence that he died: no forensic evidence was offered by either side, and in fact evidence was destroyed, which is why there is a dispute. Having said that, most reliable sources accept that he died, with just a few notable dissenters. That is why "reportedly killed" was felt to be appropriate. It casts less doubt on the killing that "allegedly killed," or "claimed to have been killed," but it also does not imply that the killing is an undisputed fact. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Reportedly" seems to be the better word choice in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"reportedly killed" indeed casts less doubt. Given the new doubts that now emerged does "allegedly killed" seems appropriate ? --Julia1987 (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would say "reportedly killed" is still appropriate. There are indeed new doubts emerging, but it's nevertheless the case that the boy's death was widely reported, and so far as I know, most reliable sources would stick by those reports. I feel "allegedly" signals more skepticism than most reliable sources would say was appropriate. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said on the article talk page, "reportedly killed" still gives far too much prominence to the conspiracy theory viewpoint. We do not say that the Apollo astronauts "reportedly" landed on the Moon or that the World Trade Center was "reportedly" destroyed by hijacked aircraft, even though there are some prominent skeptics on those issues. I did some research a few months ago to determine the relevant prominence of the POVs on this particular issue, using Lexis-Nexis and other databases, and found that (1) the overwhelming majority (thousands of works) state definitively that al-Durrah is dead; (2) there is no general agreement about who killed him; (3) a small number of articles (a few dozen works) describe a conspiracy theory that he is not dead and attribute it to two particular activists; and (4) a handful of articles (less than 10), mostly op-eds which we cannot use for statements of fact, endorse the conspiracy theory. This is clearly a situation where the undue weight provisions of NPOV apply. As WP:UNDUE says, "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." The problem we are having is essentially the same as with the 9/11 articles: a number of editors have a strong personal belief in the conspiracy theory and do not accept either that it is a tiny-minority viewpoint among our sources or that policy requires tiny-minority viewpoints to be treated differently from overwhelming-majority POVs. These principles were very recently endorsed by the ArbCom in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Principles. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, it's a while since I've looked at this page, but my memory is that mainstream newspapers were reporting the doubts that he had died, and were discussing the video where he appears to have moved after the shooting. That he didn't die is still a minority view (so far as I know) but not a tiny-minority one. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A Lexis-Nexus search "a few months ago" would have been done before the France Appeals Court saw the available evidence in relation to the hoax theory, and said that it was not libelous to claim that Charles Enderlin & France 2 "knowingly mislead[ed] the watching world about the death of the Palestinian child Muhammad al-Dura in the Gaza Strip in 2000." [41]Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that, given the reliable sources on this issue and their respective prominence, the words "reportedly killed" reflect a fair and neutral compromise. On the one hand, we have some sources (including linked video footage, which I have viewed) telling us that the boy was not killed, and that it was all an act. On the other hand, we have many other sources who tell us he was in fact killed. Overall, it seems to me that there are more sources supporting the "killed" version than the "faked" version, so it makes sense to use the term "reportedly killed", as opposed to "claimed killed" or "allegedly killed" as suggested above. Crum375 (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"More" sources? Try "nearly all". In fact, try "all" really reliable sources, judging by a cursory look. We don't push fringe viewpoints like this, particularly not in the first sentence of articles. Whichever 'consensus' arrived at "reportedly" was absurdly mistaken, or perhaps dated to before WP woke up to the problem summarised in WP:FRINGE. "Reportedly" is precisely the kind of weaseling fringers and truthers like to introduce, and its as unacceptable here as elsewhere. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, it's exactly the situation envisaged at the start of WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words can imply that a statement is more controversial than it is. For example, saying "some people claim that The Beatles were a popular band" unnecessarily raises a (false) question about the statement's truth." To be fair to the people who arrived at the earlier consensus, they may not have done the kind of detailed research that I recently undertook to determine the relative prominence of the various POVs on this issue. It took some time, required some specialist databases and cost a fair bit (good thing I wasn't paying for it!) so it's understandable that not everyone would be able to do that sort of thing. But having now done it and obtained some firm empirical data which we didn't have before, we need to ensure that the article reflects it. By the way, when Crum says "there are more sources supporting the "killed" version than the "faked" version" he's understating it - the former outnumber the latter by a ratio of at least a hundred to one. The latter is a tiny-minority viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Although what really happened there is unclear, the strongest source is the complete and uncensored video footage itself, which appears to show fakery, including in related incidents shot on the same day. The other sources are mostly interpretations of that footage. Crum375 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely that's original research from a primary source? The fact is that reliable mainstream media sources all count the boy as having been killed. When the media report someone as dead, we have to take that as read. In virtually every case there is of course no "video evidence" of their death. The problem here is that precisely because there is some video evidence in the public domain, people with an agenda have taken it upon themselves to offer the world their own personal interpretation of those images, and to claim there is doubt as to what they show. However no source - even an unreliable one - has provided details of how the supposed hoax was carried out, or located where the boy is now happily carrying on with his life. This really has to stop, it's getting silly now. --Nickhh (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. The video I saw was primary, but it was accompanied by a POV source making the point while showing the footage. So you could argue the POV issue, but all sources have some POV, and that doesn't rule them out as sources. Also, in this case the footage speaks for itself. Crum375 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Rationalist magazine has published an interesting piece on the background to the conspiracy theories - see http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/78/p38_AR78.pdf . It's worth a read. The bottom line in this case is that some political activists are trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting a fringe hypothesis. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a one-page Op-ed, written by a work colleague of now-discredited FT2 freelancer Talal, written before the most recent court verdict. Why we should rely on this dated, partisan opinion piece rather than on current German TV reports calling the incident an "alleged murder" is for ChrisO to explain (unless of course, he succeeds in banning all his opponents as he is threatening to do) Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't advocated relying on it, as you very well know; all I said was it was worth a read. Please stop deliberately misrepresenting what I say; it's getting very tiresome. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Some sources who report doubts about the killing:

A Reuters story reporting that a court has supported a critic who claims the French tape of the reported killing may have been doctored.
An International Herald Tribune story reporting the doubts over the tape.
A Los Angeles Times report (reproduced by Jewish World Review).
The Esther Shapira documentary, "Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?", shown on ARD television in Germany, which contains the extraordinary interview with the original cameraman who shot the footage, who laughs when asked why no bullets were recovered.
A Wall Street Journal Europe opinion piece (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).
Then there is the original footage itself, which anyone can view, and from which the correspondent/cameraman clearly cut out a scene at the end, where the boy appears to move.

These are just some of the reliable sources who have published doubts about the mainstream view. We have to report those doubts dispassionately. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now, SlimVirgin, you're an experienced editor; you know what WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR require. Your first and second sources are neutrally worded reports on the conspiracy theorists, attributing claims to them without endorsing them. Your third, fourth and fifth sources are all opinion pieces, which we cannot use for statements of fact. Your sixth source is a primary source and your comments about it are bordering on original research; it's not our job to analyse grainy videos on partisan websites. ("All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." - WP:NOR). The article does indeed report the conspiracy theories (in rather too much detail, to be honest) but the key point is that any such reporting should be in proportion to the prominence of those views, as WP:UNDUE requires. That means we do not give tiny-minority viewpoints as much attention or weight as overwhelming-majority ones. But you know all of this. Why do I have to repeat this so many times? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote this article a few months ago to make it more neutrally worded, and I think the end result was okay. This is roughly the version I'd stand by. Since then, it's been battered back and forth by both sides, so I don't know what the current issues are. What I do know is that it's a statement of fact that the boy was reported to have been killed, and that several people -- including non-partisan, responsible people, such as the independent French journalists who investigated it -- have disputed the France 2 version of events. Some of them believe the boy is dead, but that he didn't die the way France 2 claimed, and others believe he didn't die at all. Their views have to be included, and the presentation of the views shouldn't serve to undermine them. Having said that, there are also some non-reliable sources claiming the boy's alive. This is why it's a difficult article to work on, because it needs cool heads to evaluate the sources fairly, and the back and forth reverting doesn't help to achieve that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Difficult or not, the vastly overwhelming number of sources state as fact that he was killed, and saying anything other than that is unacceptable weaseling. SV, you know better than to inject that into articles. We report conspiracy theories, we never give them credence or support through our language. How many articles have been written about 9/11 truthers? How on earth does that mean we do not "undermine" their statements in our presentation? (After all, it is also a statement of fact that "allegedly" Al-Qaeda did 9/11.) We present the mainstream facts, and then the interesting point that a tiny fraction of sources dispute it. We do not say "allegedly" and "reportedly" and "supposedly", which is doing the fringers job for them. Relata refero (disp.) 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"overwhelming number of sources" - all before the new verdict and all of them based on the single false report by France-2. --Julia1987 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't second-guess what causes the overwhelming number of reliable sources to form a conclusion, thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

However, we must take into account new information as it appears and this is the crux of the issue now: court have heard expert testimony and ruled. You and ChrisO are as disruptive as people who would still cling to the theory of "flat earth" after a voyage around the globe have been completed.--Julia1987 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAMERA known to be pushing this case

Can I draw everyone's attention to the fact that CAMERA, known to be trying to infiltrate Wikipedia, are taking a special interest in this case, with a massive 33 articles devoted to it.

CAMERA's director, Andrea Levin makes their intention clear: "CAMERA has taken some cautious steps into the non-English-speaking arena. One subject of particular interest is the Mohammed Al Dura issue. ... We, like many others, do not consider this a closed chapter. The more so as the journalist who made the report, Charles Enderlin, and his cameraman are still employed by France 2." Under these circumstances, new SPAs should be treated not just with caution, but with suspicion.

It's important to recognise that this article does us no credit in the first place, being written to a one-dimensional "Israel suffers unfair allegations" narrative, when this incident (whether true or false) is much more important than that. It's closely linked to the Second Intifada, particularly to the lynching in Ramallah of two Israeli soldiers 12 days later and the beheading of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan 4 months later. We're even specifically informed of this linkage at the ~~CBS~~ article we're citing 7 times - and yet, this real historical importance has been edit-warred out. (The obverse has happened too, the article on the Ramallah lynching is aggressively patrolled and all mention of Al-Durrah edit-warred out of it). As an Israeli newspaper story reminds us "no other case in which Palestinians ... hit a Palestinian child" and "even if there is some doubt, it is certain that the IDF has killed and is killing children ... [at] a frightening pace". Haaretz continues: "Al-Dura became a symbol because every struggle needs a symbol" - and that's largely what we should be aiming to document. This article was quite severely compromised before these un-labelled SPAs arrived, demanding that a fringe theory be high-lighted and BLP be broken. (I have no problem with documenting the real doubt about the origin of the shots, perhaps we should give this element some prominence and as much as 1/6th of the entire article).

Can we also take note that there have now been several examples of established editors carrying out deliberate cheating, often behaving as if they had complete impunity. In (all?) cases they seem to have been on good (even exceptionally good) terms with other established editors of a "similar" POV. This is another factor we should be worrying about, since it is dangerous indeed. PR^talk 10:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "CBS News" article you're linking seems to be something else entirely - an outfit called Cybercast News Service, which I've never heard of before. I have no idea whether this is a reliable source or not. If you think it's worth quoting, I'd suggest taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard for verification first. Second, I don't think there's any evidence that CAMERA has been involved with our al-Durrah article, so I wouldn't want to point the finger in that direction without proof. The recent court verdict has been widely reported by conservative bloggers - it wouldn't be a surprise if some of them have linked to our article. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, please take a more conservative approach with potential CAMERA-Wikipedia connections. We also know, for instance, that in early 2007 Microsoft attempted to hire a blogger to edit a Wikipedia article. This does not mean Microsoft attempts to manipulate Wikipedia content at every article that relates to its business. Durova^Charge! 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I may be paranoid. But we've now seen a number of really long-standing cheats caught out, and in each case they seem to think they've both got, and should have, impunity (in general, but in particular to sock-puppet abusively). Furthermore, each of the ones I've noticed seem to have been treated in an almost excessively collegiate fashion by editors who, IMHO, are themselves genuine but should definitely have known better. I fear the same thing is happening here, very suspicious behavior is being AGF'd well beyond the point where it's reasonable to do so. PR^talk 18:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been many more organizations, including highly partisan ones, pushing the view that the boy was killed, than the view that he wasn't. We don't ignore either view just because one or another side is particularly enthusiastic about it. We just report what the reliable sources have said, on all sides. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so, in proportion to the prominence of each significant published viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, do you have any significant recent reports that reject the doubts about France 2's footage? My memory of the sources is that the ones supporting France 2 are all very early sources, written around the time of the incident, when almost nothing was known. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't operate like that about extreme minority viewpoints, for good reason. Conspiracy theorists are not engaged by mainstream sources. See WP:PARITY. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but just why is this content issue being discussed in an ephemeral forum like WP:ANI. I move that the whole thread be relocated to the article's talk page. Kelly ^hi! 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, there are two important policy issues (interference by outside bodies with a special interest in this particular case and excessive AGF to editors apparently determined to trample policy), along with a general grouse about the content of the article. I have struck through the latter, I agree it doesn't really belong here. PR^talk 20:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that was a rhetorical question, but the answer is that it is here because the administrator who started the section (not this subsection, which is a different issue) thought that this was a more effective place for him to troll for people who would agree with the POV that he is trying to push into the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, that would be everyone? This isn't WikiProject Pallywood, you know. Hardly canvassing! --Relata refero (disp.) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Only one person started this section. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] make it stop, please

it keeps removing sound clips from the page im editing. it isnt even in article space, it removed the photos too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What did? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a little checking, so let me try to rephrase Ritzbitz00's complaint so other's can understand it:

Ritzbitz is working on a draft article in userspace: User:Ritzbitz00/Maximum Bob (singer) (Not sure if this would pass WP:Notability, but let's remain agnostic about that for now, shall we?) He is adding non-free images and sound clips to the draft article (again, remaining agnostic for now as to whether the NFCC justification is valid or not). BJBot is removing them since non-free content is prohibited outside of article space -- BJBot does not realize this is a draft article.

Not sure what the policy is here...? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this article was previously deleted here and endorsed at deletion review. However, judging by the discussions the problem was lack of content which appears to be fixed now. I suggest moving the article to mainspace and allowing Ritzbitz to continue working on it. BradV 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy is to make the images links rather than inline: [[:Image:Example.png]] instead of [[Image:Example.png]]. When the draft is moved to mainspace, convert them back to inline images. --Carnildo (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I had userfied this after a DRV and unless there are some sources it needs to be deleted again and am in contact with rizbtitz for this part. I advised him generically on fair use, and that the sound clips can't substitute for references. As far as i see licensing info is incorrect. If it can be fixed they might be usable in the Deli Creeps article, but I am not much into sound and images. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it correct to use a FUR to temporally "save" the sound sample until the draft is restored to mainspace? See my test addition of a userspace FUR. Or it's better to just delete it in order to disincentive non-free content, and let him re-upload the sample when he finds an article for it? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

When drafting or storing an article in user space, one can use nowiki like this: <nowiki>whatever should not be in user space, like categories</nowiki>. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For the oggs and other stuff, I don't find it appropriate to "save" stuff. Let it be deleted as orphaned (comment it out in the draft) and when moved back, simply ask an administrator to restore it. That would not be a controversial deletion and restoration, I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Block the bot This is, once again, an instance of copyright paranoia taken to the extreme. There is no reason whatsoever to ban fair-use from userspace. Do you honestly think someone can sue based on namespace?!? Of course not, Wikipedia is a project taken as corpus and as such it is immaterial what namespace an image is used in. The only possibly valid complaint is the context in which the image is being used. Since drafts are obviously intended to be articles, there is no substantiated argument for removal here. The bot should be stopped at once from further vandalism. Enough of the wiki-lawyering, let editors edit in peace without stupid bots making their lives harder. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a perfect good reason to ban fairuse from userspace: it's against policy. If you want to argue policy, argue it. Don't blame the bot for people not following it. --- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a violation of WP:AGF for a bot to remove it. Stop making extra work for editors attempting to contribute in good faith. I suggest this is an excellent reason to apply WP:IAR to WP:NFCC, since it is hampering the good-faith contributions of editors simply because a WP:FRINGE group of so-called "freedom" activists WP:OWN the WP:NFCC policy pages (what WP:IAR was made for). There is no benefit to the project by enforcing this ridiculous rule in such an absurd manner. I would submit it is simply policy for policy sake and not the rational application of such. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent evaluation of what is happening here:

“	This is an mind-numbingly stupid discussion. Everybody remembers my old userpage, and nobody gave a fuck about it until I ran for arbcom. Of course, it was summer, I was busting my ass for this site, editing around the clock, and most people (myself included) felt like I was doing something useful, so nobody cared. These days I find it more interesting to stare at the ceiling or out the window. Editing this site has clearly lost all of its recreational value for me. I don't think I'm alone in my sentiment. And it gets worse, every time some a critical mass of limp-dicked busybodies assembles to write their life-saving new rules, not because there is any real problem to be addressed, oh no, but because they have a biological need something for something easier to enforce. You're already in their crosshairs, they've just been fabricating a good enough reason to fire. To anybody reading this, if you feel like I'm describing you, please unplug your computer, box it up and take it back to Wal-Mart. You'll thank yourself for it and I will too.	”
—Freakofnurture 05:25, Feb. 14, 2007 (UTC)

It could be said that the same is happening here... --Dragon695 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Melmoth

An editor who has previously displayed serious WP:OWN problems with the above article has recently reverted sourced material from the article. He has repeatedly reverted assessments of the articles, by three separate editors, myself included, as can be seen on the talk page. He has also, as indicated, reverted souced additions to the article. I regret to say that I have no reason to believe that this tendency toward WP:OWN problems this editor has regarding this material are likely to be addresed without formal warnings. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? Which editor? Hard to tell from page history, although I admit I only did a cursory look...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He's talking about Geogre, who reverted John Carter's apparently plagiarized version of the article. There is only a single source for this article about an obscure 18th century religious pamphleteer. The dispute is about whether or not the article, because of the paucity of source material, should be assessed as "Start" or "B" class, and what the value of assessment is when the assessor knows little about the subject and instead is looking for things like subheadings and infoboxes and images. Risker (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute the term plagarized; I saw the edit summary myself, and, honestly, it is mistaken. Regretably, Geogre has repeatedly had a history of reverting assessments, such that twice to receive comments on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity page. I added much of the material which he had earlier deemed not worthy of inclusion from the article, only to have it reverted on the basis of the, I believe, scurrilous charge of plagarism. I would be willing to have anyone investigate whether the charges are accurate. To date, for several months, he has regularly insisted that he have ownership of the article. I think he needs to have some outsider perhaps inform him that policy does not permit that. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would seem to me that this is either a general content dispute, in which case dispute resolution is down the hall and to the right, or it is a copyright issue, in which case it should be at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Risker (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If that editor wants to raise copyright issues, I wouldn't object. It is however the editor's absolute insistence that his view of the article, including it having only the text he permits and having any assessment of the article be one that agrees with him, when in fact both of the other editors who assessed it have to date called for someone else to support it, which is I believe a serious indication that this editor has very problematic WP:OWN issues with the article. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Geogre highly experienced user, certainly well aware of our better-known policies. Ownership accusation against him scurrilous in itself. Unless WikiProject Christianity perhaps own article? bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

He may well be, and, no I don't think the project owns the article, although it is the only one which has shown the slightest interest in it. He has also, as per the article talk page, regularly insisted on adjusting assessments on his own say-so, apparently often not even bothering to inform anyone that he had done so. And there is a difference between being aware of policies and thinking they apply to oneself. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And there is difference between "sourced material" and "relevant material". Also between unreasonable block threats and responsible discussion. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

All the material added, and since removed, was directly relevant to the life of the subject, or at, best, his family, like indicating how his wives happened to get some money he liked having. In fact, prior to a short power surge, I had started a separate article for the book itself, moving the bulk of the content there, only to have the power failure kick in a few seconds before I was going to save. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Few questions, John. When you added information using the DNB as a source, did you substantially reproduce its content? Is the article, prior to your edits, a substantial reproduction of the DNB entry? Do you think its a generally a good idea (or helpful for collaborative editing) to mark an experienced, longtime contributors removal of a template as vandalism and evidence of a COI in your reverting edit summary? Mountain out of a molehill, I think, in this case. Find more references, if there are any, and in the mean time use the talkpage to post your argument about why your additions are not violating the O-DNB copyright. Avruch^T * ^ER 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ansers: The content was pretty much relevant, although I did remove the content about the book, as per the above. The article as it has since been reverted omits some information from the DNB book, but the content it does have is clearly all from that source. When an editor who has a history of unilateral reversions, such as this one acknowledges, and rather arrogant reversions at that, does so, and I regret I didn't check his history at the time, reverts, yeah, particularly when it is on such small basis, I tend to think that there is a big ego there. I honestly thought he was newer, as his page at the time didn't indicate any real experience. I also noted that Tinucherian indicated that Geogre was an admin when he first requested the reassessment here, and George apparently isn't, which lead to think that Geogre had lied somewhere about being an admin for some reason. That was an additional cause for concern. Also, for what little it might be worth, one of the bases I try to use for selecting DYKs for the various portals is whether the article in question is the assessment of the article, trying to choose the better ones, so, in that sense, the assessment can be important. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Geogre most certainly is an administrator and has been for some time. Otherwise, he wouldn't be helping out with the deletion backlog today. Do check his logs, or check the WP:List of Administrators before making such an allegation, please. Risker (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

John, take deep breath, drink cold water. Geogre admin since 2004, and Geogre page indicate truckloads of experience. "lead to think that Geogre had lied somewhere about being an admin for some reason"... sheesh. Good job you not talking with people who issue block threats for personal attacks. Time to back-pedal, hard. Get some sleep or something. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

For what it's worth, I said when I ran that I wouldn't be blocking, just doing banners. and I think at the time of Tinucherian's request I did check the log, which I have known about for some time, having given a few rollbacks, and for whatever reason either mistyped or whatever, but the name did not appear with an admin flag. And, like I said, the book by his son, who also is in the DNB, had his last book be a biography of his father, so it is generally available. But, like I've said before, the temper does get a bit heated, particularly when dealing with what strikes me as, dare I say, arrogant, undiscussed, and unilateral behavior, particularly when it is in disagreement with several others as well. Also, I just saw that at least one book of Christian "masterplots" type works also includes a bio of the subject. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing your posts here and those on Geogre's page, I hardly think your RFA would have succeeded under any conditions if you had behaved like this before it. If I were you, I'd stop going on about the other person and give a full and frank apology, it's high time. [Wow, zilla obviously very upset to go into not merely verb but subjunctive mode.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

This is a content dispute. On my talk page, John Carter tells us that he has rated 40,000 articles, and "many of them" are biographies. I can only assume that I am the first person to have ever had the gall and temerity to disagree with a rating. I have read their guidelines, and the article doesn't fit "start class." It simply doesn't.

I don't care if it has an assessment. I don't believe that assessments do any good whatever, but I am capable of reading, and, if it must have one, it simply isn't a "start class" article. How do I know? Well, aside from spending my entire life studying the period and nation involved and doing the primary research on the fellow in the first place and writing the article (more to flesh out the many red links found in the ____ in literature articles than any abiding interest), I did additional research.

Additionally, John Carter has asserted that it is the duty of an encyclopedia to repeat whatever is found in outside sources, but in a legally protected manner. That's a different issue, but one I feel strongly about. Wikipedia is not "legally skeevy duplication of the web." It's an encyclopedia, and that means having a thesis, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and economy of expression.

This is a silly content dispute, but it shows absolute rage and campaigning irrationally by John Carter. If he has assessed 40,000 articles without anyone ever disagreeing, then he should continue to pat himself on the back. If they have disagreed, though, I worry that he may have used his admin status to buffalo them. I'm not very easily cowed, myself. Geogre (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on this here. Essentially I think John needs to stop warning people (in this case Geogre) when they strongly criticise him, and should instead engage in frank discussion, even if it might mean one side or the other having to swallow their pride at the end of it. One thing I think is unhelpful is John warning people as a result of what they say to him - he isn't in the best position to judge things there. He needs to seek independent opinion on whether Geogre should be warned. Me personally, I wouldn't warn either of them, as they make points that should be debated, and strong criticism may be part of that, but I have given them advice, as in the link I gave at the beginning on this post. The advice was for Geogre to tone it down a bit (it is possible to point out foolishness without calling someone a fool), and for John to try and engage with what Geogre is saying and not getting distracted by the way Geogre is saying it. Carcharoth (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And the comments are welcome, as they acknowledge the questions raised by me, with Geogre to date has ignored in his own dubiously acceptable comments. There are other sources, which I have indicated I know are available, considering the bio by his son is in a publicly available library in town here, which fill in gaps in the article, and at least one additional volume regarding religious literature which has biographical content relating to the subject. Evidently, the editor above thinks that there is no reason to think the DNB is anything but perfect. As I have found out through personal experience, on the Arthur Bryant article, it can be and at least occasionally is both incomplete and definitely non-neutral. It should also be noted that, in response to the several questions I asked directly relating to the content of the article on the talk page, I received not a single real response. I believe that this ongoing, almost absolute, belief in his own opinion, and his almost worshipful opinion of the DNB, is a serious question, and, as should be noted, one that has yet to be addressed at all, although he has made several insulting, off-topic, and sometimes clearly unknowing and prejudicial statements in the interim, nothing he has said directly addresses the points I made. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The key element of this discussion is that nothing indicates the need for outside administrator intervention, even though this content dispute happens to involve two administrators. You both know as well as anyone that this forum isn't very good for solving content disputes, only inflaming them. Can you both (Geogre and John Carter) agree that arguing this issue further on this page is unnecessary? Avruch^T * ^ER 22:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- (Er.. cough.) Avruch, do you really see it as urgent to get Geogre to agree to desist from all his inflammatory ANI arguing and quarrelsomeness? He has posted once (having been elaborately attacked), giving his opinion that "this is a silly content dispute" and using the edit summary "My position, and this is all I'll say here. Shouldn't even be an AN/I thread. Silly stuff".[42] Bishonen | talk 08:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Ivo Andrić

We are having vandalism in article so... I have seen many nationalistic genius but this is my absolute winner. Suspected puppet of banned user Velebit (user:71.252.83.33) has deleted statement confirmed with 5 NPOV internet links that parents of nobel winner Ivo Andrić has been Croats and changed with statement that his parents has been Serbs [43]. "Sources" of his statement are obscure book and internet link which is not saying nationality of his parents. It is important to notice that 1 of deleted links which this user has deleted is New York Times !

I know that somebody of administrators will think that this is not vandalism but editorial dispute, but after that we are having genius moment of this user:Velebit puppet. He is demanding that picture "Ivo Andric declaring himself as Croat" is deleted from wikipedia because of Copyright violation [44] ! Can somebody explain me how is possible to first delete statement confirmed by many sources because they are "false or bad" and then demand deletion of "wikipedia" document which is supporting "bad" sources with claim of copyright violation.

Earlier today he has been warned on his talk page of possible block because of his earlier vandalism in this article so I will now ask for that block and possible page protection.

Can somebody please finish Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment so that this nightmare can end. Thanks --Rjecina (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

On wikipedia commons user:71.252.83.33 has confirmed that this picture In which Ivo Andrić is declaring to be of Croat nationality is authentic document so we can now close discussion if he is vandal or not when he is declaring other things on wikipedia [45]--Rjecina (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment is confusing and the evidence is hard to follow. If you want admins to take action on this a better story is desirable. You could well be right, but the case seems to demand either total confidence in your statements, or a great deal of new research. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

About checkuser case I will this tuesday (or maybe little sooner) ask administrators which has earlier worked in case user:Velebit and user:Standshown because they know situation. Now I am going on small wiki break but hardest evidence is 1 earlier block of IP from this range. Look this --Rjecina (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment See my explanation of the Ivo Andric article changes here [46]. I provided three biographical notes written by people of formidable academic background and who are world-renown personnae - who were close Andric's friends and whose biographical notes were known and approved by very Andric. Contrary to that, Rjecina gathers some Internet links which are written by anonymous people, which are not primary sources of information nor they (authors) gave any information what their primary sources are. This person Rjecina is interested only in chasing away as many people as possible - in order to impose his/her point of view i.e. gain the right to censor other people contributions.

From the case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment I'd like to highlight this warning against a campaign of harassment conducted by Rjecina - written by Fut.Perf.:

Also, his harassment of other users is already noticed by an administrator and proper warning is given here [47],[48] which reads:

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([49]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

--71.252.83.33 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

- You have not shown any NPOV internet source which is saying that his parents are Serbs. On other side I have shown New York Times and 5 other source which are saying that they are Croats. Deleting statements confirmed by NPOV internet sources is vandalism. I have never seen editor which has deleted 1 statement confirmed by 6 internet NPOV sources. You must recieve reward for that because it this is not vandalism I do not know what it is. --Rjecina (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No need for any NPOV internet source showing anything - McNeil is clear: Andric's mother was a Serb, which denies claim in the New York Times. McNeil is world-renown historian and was a close Andric's friend. All your 'NPOV' are not revealing any primary sources supporting their claim (Andric' parents were Croats). So - all they are worthless scribbling.--71.252.83.33 (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppeteer here

I am writing here in regards to an edit on my talk page. User:Toddst1 has placed this tag on my page in regards to an incident that occured over two months ago seen here. Basically, in a silly brankster bout, I blatantly vandalized various pages in order to see what admin reactions were under various circumstances. I wanted to see how blocks worked from the vantage point of the vandal. Once the issue escalated to this board, however, I owned up to it in order to diffuse anything and apologized to everyone involved individually. It was a stupid thing to do and I was properly reprimanded and given a short block.

I promised not to do such things again and knuckled down in my edits here on Wikipedia to try and redeem what had been an obviously stupid thing to do. I began by driving toward improving articles of my interest. I contributed significantly to the September 11, 2001 attacks article and successfully nominated it for good article status. Afterwards, I contributed toward the American Airlines Flight 11 article and nominated it for Featured Article where it seems to be doing all right so far. I've also been active in the 9/11 talk page trying to enforce the arbitration decision. Most recently, I've been following the footsteps of the Flight 11 article and have improved the American Airlines Flight 77 article to try and achieve Featured Article status here as well. Besides these dedicated works, I have been active in enforcing image copyright violations.

Since that stupid incident of mine, I've logged over 600 good edits dedicated to the improvement of Wikipedia's articles. My bottom line is this: Do I really need a belated Mark of Cain on my talk page for an incident that occurred long ago? One that I've taken responsibility and apologized for, one that I've promised not to repeat, and one I feel I've redeemed myself for? I'm not vying to be an admin; I just want to keep editing without one idiotic episode of mine from the past haunting me. Thank you for your time. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As marks of Cain go, that one's pretty weird. It says you're a proven sockmaster, but there are no links to suspected or proven sockpuppets. Perhaps Toddst1 would like to comment? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Gladly. I was called away and hadn't finished that thread. Amazing that it made it so quickly to ANI. Here's the confession/evidence. It was an extremely disruptive episode where Vegita was logging in under a range of IPsocks and harassing the heck out of a bunch of admins. I ended up issuing what was a bad block (should have been much longer - not symbolic) and did not go back to the incident. I just came across this editor again when someone else complained to me about him/her and I remembered I should have added the well-earned sock tag. I'll finish the ipsock tags now. Toddst1 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying what happened. I just disagree with the view that I need a sock tag for all eternity when I've made amends for my mistakes. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Todd, I agree that the original block should have had some sting to it, but what's done is done. IMHO, based on their behavior since then, I'd recommend taking the sock tag off his user page. I can't really see what good it does anyone at this point. The block is in his block log, now the sockpuppeteer tag is in his talk page history, let's call it a leasson learned. --barneca (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with barneca. I remember the strange incident from when it happened, and given that Todd recorded it in the block log, I don't think an additional sock tag should be added. Let's not punish this editor further, because I think he learned his lesson. Enigma ^message 03:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Mark of Cain"??? That's quite victim complex for a guy who still going around threatening to block users on the basis of bogus rules.[50][51][52] Kauffner (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Those DIFFs show nothing of the sort. The rules arent bogus, and VegitaU wasn't threatening to block you, or pretending to be an admin as you said. Dayewalker (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bogus rules? I think Todd has already informed you about this. And this section isn't the place to discuss your violations of arbitration decisions. If you need a second opinion, make a new section. Thanks. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had such a hankering to see what being blocked is like[53] Huh? Are you a member of a cult that requires you abase yourself? Did you start this thread to once again experience the joy of public humiliation? Kauffner (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That DIFF is two months old, and seems to have been brought up more for the purposes of making a personal attack than an actual point on VegitaU's current behavior. Dayewalker (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to remove it for 3 reasons (the first being the main one):

The tag is accurate and appropriate. We were close to issuing a range block of an entire University because of this vandal's behavior. It should have been there months ago. If the editor had the scruples that he/she claims, should have placed it there themself, taking responsibility for their own action.
The user didn't discuss objection to this with me at all, instead went straight to ANI
The user didn't have the courtesy to inform me that it was being discussed on ANI.

I think the only reason to remove the tag would be because if it was inaccurate or violates a policy. If anyone feels it is inaccurate, please remove it. It's not punitive or a "mark of cain." It's an accurate warning to other editors that this editor has engaged in seriously deceitful behavior in the past, resulting in multiple blocks of IPs and identifying them. It should be there to assist in identifying any future similar problems. Toddst1 (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you, acting as an admin, placed a sockpuppeter tag on his page that said "please do not remove." He might have figured your opinion on this issue was already formed and came to WP:ANI to see if it was an opinon, or a firm policy.

I would think the block log would be sufficient evidence of his past transgressions. I don't even understand why he's not allowed to remove it. Unrepentant vandals remove warning and sock notices from their pages all the time, and wikipedia policy is to allow them as per WP:TALK. Here's an editor who's trying to make amends and is following the rules, I think he should be allowed to remove the notice. Since there's already a block on his account, it seems like punishment and not prevention. Dayewalker (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How on earth is placing a tag considered punishment? Is placing {{repeat vandal}} on an IP's talk page after their third block punishment? No - it is a way to help other editors/admins know what they're dealing with without having to wade through a lengthy history. If you think placing such a tag is punishment, then you probably shouldn't do vandal patrol. Just like the repeat vandal tag, the same applies here - it's not punishment.

All that being said, if another admin feels strongly enough to remove it, I will not object. That doesn't mean I agree, however. Toddst1 (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's listed in his block log, it can already be found easily. The tag seems to be overkill to me. If he socks again, an admin will see the block log and reblock accordingly. If he doesn't, then every other editor he comes into contact with will judge him and his contributions as a formerly blocked user.

I'm just saying, you don't have to look far to find other examples of wikipedia editors who have gotten off to a bad start, and who are going through proper channels to try and become responsible editors and get a second chance. (You can find a couple of examples on this page, although some editors appear to be doing a better job of turning over a new leaf than others.) If there's no way of allowing blocked users who demonstrate the willingness to come back into the fold and earn wikipedia's trust again, we're going to make enemies out of potential friends, and wind up driving away people who could help the project. Dayewalker (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and address your points.

I did take responsibility for my own actions. And I was reprimanded then and warned about it and blocked. Then, everything calmed down and I began to make efforts to edit in a much more decent manner. Even you noticed, Todd, that I was doing fine editing when suddenly, you slap that tag on me, two months later. I don't understand why, with a history of good edits since and no relapse, I need that tag on my talk page. I've apologized and made amends for that one lapse in judgment. Is it possible you can forgive what happened and let me continue editing unabated? I haven't been correcting typos these past few weeks, I've edited major articles to Good and (hopefully) Featured Status. I mean I'm making a big effort here to scrub my past clean.
I'm sorry I didn't bring this up with you or inform you about coming here. But this is the place to seek another opinion for a ruling.

I'm not trying to make you my enemy or stir up bad sentiments, but is it possible you can actually trust me again, Todd? I apologize again for those pranks I pulled. -- VegitaU (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly interpreted the above discussion as an indication that the template can be removed- so I have done so. The editor appears contrite and recognises the stupidity of their actions. As commented, the note remains in the block log. I note that Toddst1, a sysop I think highly of, disagrees with the removal while not disallowing the action, but I think that AGF is the over-riding consideration here. To VegitaU, I suggest that Toddst1 has no reason to trust you, nor to consider you his enemy, but only to apply AGF in any further dealings with you - which I am certain will be the case. You have apologised, I have removed the template, and now we can all move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Raul654 and indefinite full protection of 10 global warming related pages

Global warming pages have had a recurring issue for many months now with sockpuppets of a banned user: User:Scibaby. In response to the following two user accounts which are allegedly two more sockpuppets (here and here, whose edits aren't even disruptive), User:Raul654 took the step of fully protecting all pages global warming. He intends for this full protection to last "until we know he's lost interest," which seems to indicate an indefinite duration. This step was taken with no discussion before the fact, and after the fact discussion at global warming talk, which includes several editors, has overwhelmingly opposed this action in favor of continued vigilance against these sockpuppets and potential indefinite semi-protection. The blocking admin refuses to budge, though, so I figure this is the next place to go to get these pages unblocked. Oren0 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support indef. semi-protection, but full protection is excessively too much, unless of course, a full-scale edit war or something of that scale broke out. If Raul654 is refusing to budge, it sounds like he's attempting to create disruption and make a point with this protection. Seeing as he is using admin tools "to his advantage" it could be said, maybe a WP:RFC is warranted here to see if he has abused the tools with this. In any event, I think his protection should be reverted as many people are disagreeing with him. D.M.N. (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection seems excessive. Edison (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Though not necessarily agreeing with this, I can at least understand why Raul made the full protection indefinite as any limited time frame would only likely cause the sockpuppeteer to wait for expiry before resuming their crusade. It's a shame that there isn't some way of only allowing more established users from editing certain articles. Maybe in future some way could be found to allow only those with rollback rights to edit these high vandalism target articles, or would that be to difficult to implement? RMHED (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-semi-protection. I like this idea. Cool Hand Luke 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oren0's description is both biased and factually wrong. The articles in question have been under attack by one determined banned user (Scibaby) since december. I semi-protected the articles several months ago, but that was ineffective at stopping him from editing them using sockpuppets. (He's the most prolific sockpuppeteer on Wikipedia, ever -- he's used 500 of them, and dozens/hundreds of IPs across many ranges. All of which have been blocked). Full protection is the logical next step. And contrary to Oren's description, discussion on the talk page has been mixed - everyone recognizes that this is a problem, and that full protection is the only thing not yet tried. Raul654 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that full protection is inappropriate. I assume the articles are pretty heavily watchlisted, semi-protection should do the job just fine. Kelly ^hi! 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you'd care to explain why we should expect semi-protection to start being effective when we've already tried it for two months without success? Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"And contrary to Oren's description, discussion on the talk page has been mixed - everyone recognizes that this is a problem, and that full protection is the only thing not yet tried" - At the time I placed my initial notice here, not one editor who had replied endorsed your protection by my interpretation (since then User:Stephan Schulz has). I agree that Scibaby is a problem; I've reverted his edits in the past as well. But I still maintain that this is entirely overkill. Vandalism comes with the territory on Wikipedia and if we're going to have a freely editable encyclopedia this is just something we have to deal with. Nobody is requiring you to monitor and continuously block IP ranges if you don't want to. We can undo the edits and get the users blocked when they become nuisances. And I'm not convinced that even your full protection will stop these socks. Another suspected sock has been editing hockey stick controversy and global climate model today. Do you want to fully protect those too? Where does it end? Oren0 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely Raul654 wants to keep these pages fully protected for very long. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The way you say that it sounds like Raul654 owns the article. D.M.N. (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess so but I didn't mean to make it sound like that. Core, controversial articles nettled by sockpuppets are tough to handle, hence he's done something bold. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a hard call. There are repeated and annoying socks on these pages and the socks have tried lots of means to waste everyone's time deliberately. I see the alternative to protection would be blocking more aggressively and assuming good faith less when each batch of new accounts with 20 edits comes back and starts vandalising these pages. But that would have more risks in terms of damage to Newbies falsely identified and is more in the face of WP policy, which does accept protection for some things. Page protection isn't that much of a catastrophy on fairly mature pages, although no one wants it. Perhaps it is for the best for a bit? Alternatively don't blame Raul blame Scibaby. --BozMo talk 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, what is the reason for assuming all of the "dozens/hundrend" of individual IP's are this scibaby person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't assume anything. Their behavior from account to account is the same (inserting global warming denial propaganda - often using verbatim text and edit summaries), combined with checkuser results. Raul654 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's obvious (he likes to insert the same bit about cow flatulence causing global warming on multiple pages). But some of them (like, in my opinion, the latest two linked above) are hard to identify sans the checkuser evidence. Oren0 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Scibaby, but I'd been struck by the similar way of working of the two you mention (as well as 3 others) on the global warming pages recently: small changes to intensifying adverbs, epistemological modifiers or modal verbs, which quite change the sense, marked as m(inor) without further explanation. The last one's preserved on the frozen Global Warming page. I didn't do anything, because i) the changes all got reverted and ii) I didn't know if it mattered that one person was running several accounts, if they weren't supporting each other on talk pages or the like. N p holmes (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My previous comment was overstated: similar way of working of one of the two, compared to 3 others. N p holmes (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We have had endless socks on these pages. Lets not get hung up on asking Raul about CU evidence - thats pointless. I trust him on that, without question, and urge Oreno not to worry about "alleged" socks. The issue here is what to do about these socks. My opinion is fairly close to what Bozmo said: There are repeated and annoying socks - buts thats all they are. They make minor, trivial, easily reverted POV edits. Global warming will suffer from these forever, whether scibaby exists or not. As soon as they do anything non-trivial, they can be recognised and blocked. Full protection - especially over so wide a range of articles - is overkill. A minor level of trivial vandalism is the price we pay for freedom, and we should be prepared to pay that price. Several of the protected pages weren't even semi before. Please can we have those, at the very least, restored to an editable state William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Protecting these pages seems a bit overzealous to me. The edits themselves are easily handleable and you are always going to get those kind of edits on a highly emotive topic such as global warming. Sure, we may not have the same powers as Raul here, but there are enough people watching these articles to revert any small POV or whatever by Scibaby and his many socks. Blcoking the IP ranges is fine by me, that's up to those in the know so to speak, but I definitely think these pages should be unprotected if they aren't already. Deamon138 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But also, the 'regular editors' should watch thier behavior as well. 'Undo's' need to at the very minimum come with a fair reason (preferably one that does not show a double standard.) Otherwise it's no different than what this scibaby is doing. Raul and others should respect that AGW is controversial. I personally have noticed a little vandalism, but not this huge amount being described. Raul should ask himself is this is really not just an attempt at justifying the blocking of others' opinions. This move looks to me like a serious abuse of power. And that's putting it lightly (Trust me, I'm being tolerant here.) I suspect others will see this as pure information control and the articles being protected will lose credibility as a result. --Sirwells (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We cannot and must not institute systems of full protection on high-visibility articles as a matter of course. LaRouche-related pages is pushing it, these (and Names of China) are absolutely unacceptable places to do so. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of course - it's being done specifically in response to a sustained campaign by a resourceful banned user to disrupt the article. Every other method has been tried, and this is the last one in the cupboard. Raul654 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "as a matter of course in articles targetted by resourceful banned users." And as for "last one in the cupboard" - I've checked the article, it looks fine. Are you sure the other processes weren't working? Or were you taking on too much of the load personally? --23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine because I'm spending an inordinate amount of time with checkuser hunting down his socks (an average of about two per day; about one hour per week on my part) and blocking them before they ripen. After 6 months, it's *quite* clear that is not tenable. And when I don't hunt them down (like earlier this week when I was traveling) nobody does anything about them. Raul654 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Do less, then. Behave like the rest of us when dealing with the resourceful banned users we know something about. When a particular edit that bears their hallmark turns up, check contribs and run rollback, and then apply for (or run) a CU - only if you think you haven't got everything. It works well with Hkelkar, who has a much larger set of target articles than scibaby. You might also want to write a summary of scibaby characteristics on a subpage and spam the link to users with those pages on their watchlist. There are many ways to handle this without abandoning our basic principle, the one on the top of every page. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

When you didn't pre-emptively deal with the socks, what did they do that required protection of the article? There's also a question I've asked down below about where the decision to apply full protection was discussed, if it was. And since when was Checkuser used to find and pre-emptively block socks? There are some Checkusers who, in my opinion, push the boundaries of the Checkuser policy. I think pushing the boundaries of policies can be good, but not a policy like Checkuser. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the page histories for the pages in question. You'll see that just about every day, a new Scibaby sockpuppet pops in to vandalize the article. And for every account that he manages to ripen, I block about 5 or 6 more before he can use them. That is *perfectly* acceptable - and in fact, desirable, versus letting him use each of them to vandalize before blocking them. Nor is it pre-emptive, since he's been going after these articles since december, long before I started actively hunting for him with checkuser. More to the point - the usual pattern is that he shows up with one account, and I'll checkuser it to find 5, 10, or even 20 more socks ripening. (So again, not pre-emptive) That's the reason for the protection. It's clear that semi-protection combined with blocking his socks, IPs, and IP ranges has not been suffecient to stop him. And for all the backseat driving on this page, nobody has suggested a solution other than page protection (Relata's suggestion of let-him-vandalize-and-block-him-afterwards is a big step backwards from the status quo pre-protection) No, I did not ask anyone about it beforehand - page protection has always been used to deal with high levels of vandalism (main page FAs not withstanding). Less so since the advent of semi-protection, but that does not obviate the need for full protection in cases like this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul654 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protection is the solution that has been offered. Even if full protection had been left in place, you would still have had to keeping checking for his sockpuppets, wouldn't you? Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article were already semiprotected by me months ago. And, I'll say again for perhaps 6th time in this thread (and maybe some people will start to listen) - semi-protection was ineffective. The people "offering" to semi-protect the articles have failed to grasp that. If the full protection goes forward, will I keep checking for him? Yes, if I see him popping up again. Which I don't expect will happen. Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm on the subject - if these articles aren't fully protected, then I will no longer be doing anything to deal with Scibaby. I have better things to do, both on wiki and in real life. All of the people who think it's not a big deal can deal with him themselves. Raul654 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What people were saying is that semi-protection was working, despite you saying it was ineffective. And I thought your checkuser runs and blocking of the socks was dealing with things? Why is full protection needed on top of that? Are you saying that full protection is being used to discourage Scibaby and make him go away? Finding out how he can produce so many sockpuppets (more than one person?) would get to the root of the problem. The message being sent here is that enough disruption of an article will lead to full protection. Why not try short periods of full protection instead? And I completely fail to see why dealing with Scibaby should be in any way conditional on the full protection. Full protection, checkuser, and ANI discussions are not bargaining chips with which to get the result you want. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how people who haven't actually lifted a finger to deal with this problem could see how it doesn't seem all that bad. Even with the semi-protection, and the unacceptably large amount of time I have spent hunting him with checkuser, he still vandalizes the pages every day or two. Speaking as the person who has spent an inordinate amount of time on this issue, I say the situtation is untenable. And, to be frank, nobody is in a better position to know that than I am.

Are you saying that full protection is being used to discourage Scibaby and make him go away? - Yes. Finding out how he can produce so many sockpuppets (more than one person?) would get to the root of the problem. Be my guest. The message being sent here is that enough disruption of an article will lead to full protection. Yes, that's how both semi and full protection work. Is that supposed to be some kind of surprise? Why not try short periods of full protection instead - That's an acceptable first step. And I completely fail to see why dealing with Scibaby should be in any way conditional on the full protection. Full protection, checkuser, and ANI discussions are not bargaining chips with which to get the result you want. - I will not, under any circumstances, continue to spend the amount of time I have spent dealing with him. And if people want to continue with the semi-protection instead of full protection, then they are choosing to deal with Scibaby on terms unacceptable to me, and I will not be doing anything more to deal with this problem. If they don't value the time I've spent dealing with this problem to consider it sufficient to warrant full protection, then I'm not about to continue throwing in good money after bad - I have better things to do. Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, this is a big decision to take. Was it just you that took this decision, or did you ask others? Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree absolutely. Full protection should be used sparingly and with caution. Too much protection can end up introducing bias through lack of free editing of the article, and more to the point, discourages people from editing Wikipedia. Admittedly, some article are not good places for newbies to start editing, as they may get bitten or blocked by a grouchy admin trying to "protect" the article and losing sight of the bigger picture. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that Raul654 has been a vocal opponent of full protection on high-visibility articles. He is the author and main proponent of Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles, despite perennial proposals for protection. Though I note that of the ones protected, only Global warming can be considered highly visible (at ~25,000 hits per day). This protection appears to be the result of extraordinary circumstances, not a protectionist leaning. --maclean 00:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the history of some of these articles and we seem to be doing a decent job of keeping the problem under control through use of rollback/undo/etc. I don't think full protection is a helpful measure here unless normal patrol techniques are shown not to be keeping up. Obviously it would be nice not to have to watch articles for this sort of vandalism, but that is the price of working with a wiki; at some point the measures taken to prevent vandalism can become more disruptive to our standard operation than the vandalism itself and I think that may be happening here. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the past 30 days history of edits on the global warming page. There's only 15 counts total of vandalism. That's only 1 every other day. --Sirwells (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not for lack of trying. Raul654 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As Maclean notes, Raul is strongly opposed to protecting the main page FAs, despite the utterly torrential vandalism those articles receive, so it's very surprising to me that he is pushing for full-protection here. It seems like something of a contradiction to expect admins (many, many admins) to revert vandalism (constant, horrible vandalism) on the main page FA, but feel that such a solution is inadequate in a case involving only one user who apparently is merely adding POV material ("propaganda")—as opposed to, say, the images of genitalia that often greet those who visit an main page FA. The only way I can make sense of this is to suppose that Scibaby is so vexatious to Raul that Raul has made it a mission to stop him by any means necessary, even though this isn't consistent with his usual philosophy.

If this vandalism is really such a serious problem as the proposed solution would indicate, I'd tentatively suggest instead that Scibaby be granted the right to engage in civil discussion on the article talk pages in exchange for stopping the vandalism. I don't know if he is capable of demonstrating the necessary restraint, but offering him an incentive to stop seems like a better tactic than this. Scibaby could always take his campaign to other articles if we protect these, since apparently he has limitless IPs, and this would mean we'd have to protect everything he decides to attack, ironically putting ourselves at his mercy to a greater extent than we do by having the articles unprotected. Everyking (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am frustrated by this sock. I mean, look, once again here we are wasting time. We should go harder on those exhibiting the pattern. The good thing about Raul using CU is that he can catch them in bunches, which makes it more costly in terms of time spent to the villain than to the project. The bad thing is that the burden of time spent chasing the villain ends up on Raul. Perhaps if after running the cu other admins helped him with the blocks (Raul could provide a list)? That way we distribute the task of blocking and templating among many users. Brusegadi (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What about more CUs? Has the number of CUs kept up with site growth overall? - Merzbow (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We currently have 29 Checkusers. As far as I'm aware, logs are kept of every Checkuser action. The current situation is that the Checkusers can see those logs and keep tabs on each other's activities. My impression (and it may only be an impression) is that some Checkusers are more active than others, or to put it another way, two Checkusers that I see frequently popping into discussions to point out socks, or carrying out blocks, in many cases without a suspected sockpuppet or request for checkuser being filed are User:Raul654 and User:Thatcher. I'm not saying that anything untoward is going on, but I do fear that some Checkusers are more willing to use Checkuser than others (off their own bat and without being asked), and that does worry me a bit. I am aware that sometimes checkusers can and do need to be run without a formal request being made, but what I would like to see made available, to provide some sort of public check on this, is the activity of each checkuser. Simply a puiblication of the number of checkuser actions made each month by each checkuser. That would also help answer Merzbow's question about whether some checkusers are overloaded and trying to do too much, while others are mostly inactive (some only need it now and again). I'm going to start a separate discussion at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser and notify Raul and Thatcher on their talk pages to see if they have an opinion on this, and whether either is prepared to say exactly how much Checkuser activity they engage in. Notifying the other 27 en-CheckUsers might be an option, but I'll wait and see what response I get to this first. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser stuff moved to Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Activity levels of individual Checkusers. Checkuser stuff should be discussed there or at Raul's talk page. This thread should go back to discussing the protection issues for the Global warming pages. Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just counted. I've used checkuser 54 times in the last week, and all but 10 of those were on Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection for now

I think that in the first place this protection is procedurally defective. Raul is not an uninvolved user. If the request was made to RFPP, it probably would have been rejected due to insufficient activity. 15 vandalisms per month (and most of these articles are vandalized much less frequently) is par for the course in some topics. The protection—implemented by an admin with strident views on the subject—sends an uncouth signal of ownership. Indefinite full protection is a breathtaking response to this problem.

I've scanned this thread, and most of the minority users in favor of it appear likewise involved. Accordingly, I've kicked everything down to semi-protect. Please get an uninvolved admin to reset them, assuming it's really necessary. At this point, you have apparently not made your case. Cool Hand Luke 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding of policy is wrong. Uninvolved admins issue protection during edit wars between established users. Vandalism protection does not have to be done by an uninvolved admin. Ditto for those supporting that protection. Raul654 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you and Christopher Parham are right; I just saw a lot of reverts done by you. At any rate, there's no understanding of WP:PROT that can support indefinite full protection in this case, and the consensus is against it. Cool Hand Luke 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again your understanding of policy is wrong. In cases where semi-protection is ineffective, we do use full protection. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection was simply not ineffective. The pages appear to be more stable now than in the past. They're well-watched, and there's no known reason to issue such a protection. Only one other case like this has been cited: LaRouche. These articles are not even in the same league as Lyndon LaRouche, where edit wars explode every time full protection falls off. Unilaterally implementing an idiosyncratic reading of policy against fairly clear consensus seems like wikilawyering to me. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's truly amazing to me that people who haven't lifted a finger to deal with this problem are so quick to proclaim that it's not so bad as to warrant protection. Unlike you, I have been dealing with this problem, and I am in a much better position to judge what is and is not effective - and I say the semi-protection has not been effective.

The articles have suffered from vandalism "only" every day or two because I have been spending an unaccetapbly large amount of time blocking his sockpuppets. For everyone account you see vandalize the article, there are 6 or 7 I block before they ripen. I will no longer devoting this kind of time to this problem. (In fact, if they go back to semi-protection, I will no longer spend any time dealing with this problem. As far as I am concerned, the people who dismiss this as a small problem unworthy of protection have volunteered to deal with it). Nor, as you claim, are they well-watched. While I was traveling earlier this week, Scibaby registered a dozen new accounts and made two dozen edits. And not a single person noticed, let alone block him.

As for policy, I'll say again (since you seem to have ignored it the last time I said it) that policy does support full protection where semi-protection doesn't work. In fact - shocking as it might seem - there was a time when semi-protection didn't even exist. We used full protection to deal with vandalism then, too. So your false claims about the protection policy not withstanding, yes, we do use it for vandalism, and we do use full protection where semi-protection is not suffecient. Raul654 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Nor, as you claim, are they well-watched. While I was traveling earlier this week, Scibaby registered a dozen new accounts and made two dozen edits. And not a single person noticed, let alone block him." - Assuming you're talking about the two editors you've linked us to previously, those edits were barely disruptive. From the point of view of editors without checkuser, none of them were obviously Scibaby and without already being him none of them were blockable or even really warnable. There's nothing the rest of us could have or should have done given the knowledge we had until he stepped up to more divisive edits, at which time we'd deal with it. Oren0 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "ignore" you. My answer was direct. In case you didn't see it: "semi-protection was simply not ineffective." Indeed, in some cases, semi-protection was not even previously tried. I didn't snap to this judgment. I looked through this whole thread and the talk page. Virtually no one agrees with you. I don't edit on this topic, but I can read a talk page.

If users are not making disruptive edits, it's not clear why it matters. If, for example, Wordbomb turned out to secretly operate a very productive admin account, I honestly don't care. I think your preemptive blocking strategy is a bit wrong-headed in this regard. You've made this workload yourself, and it's no reason to lock everyone from editing the page. Let's instead ban disruption as it emerges.

The policy does not support full protection where there is no consensus for it. Full stop. Cool Hand Luke 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the changes appear to be misguided attempts to improve the encyclopedia, which is not vandalism. If this actually was vandalism, you wouldn't have to resort to checkuser to ban the accounts. This is a POV war being conducted by a determined banned sock puppeteer. That's why I supposed your involvement was relevant, but I see now that there was no ongoing content dispute. Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he appreciates your attempt to wikilawyer for him, but yes, getting yourself banned and then using sockpuppets to disruptively edit articles and push a POV is vandalism. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no content dispute at issue so involvement is irrelevant. That said, consensus here seems to lean toward semi-protection. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the indefinite nature of the full protection that is not supported by policy. Full protection for a limited time would be acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the policy says much about when full protection can and cannot be used, and I don't think you are correct that full protection here would be in violation of the protection policy. Specifically, the policy makes no significant distinctions between the use of expiring and indefinite protection; only between temporary and permanent protection. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then all Raul needed to say was that the protection was only temporary, not permanent, preferably in the log entry when he did the protection. It might have been obvious to him, but it seems it wasn't to others. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect it to be permanent, but I do expect to leave them that way for weeks or months until we know the coast is clear. Raul654 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully protecting a range of articles from editing when they've been under assault for a long time is standard, and has worked well in the past e.g. with the LaRouche articles, which were similarly under attack from multiple sockpuppets. "Indefinite" simply means that the timeframe isn't known; it doesn't mean permanent. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The LaRouche articles are a he-said she-said advocacy-source disgrace, and nobody can fix them because they're permanently full-protected in violation of every policy written and a few unwritten. That's exactly the worst example to bring up. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me you're kidding, please. You think it is at all reasonable to pre-emptively FULLY PROTECT a dozen articles (some of which are only "potential targets for vandalism") for MONTHS, just to see if the "coast is clear"? Please, show other articles where such a level of response (draconian, IMO) is warranted and justified, because I'm not seeing it here. Achromatic (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go against apparent consensus here and say that I think in this case full protection is warranted. To those that say that it's not "fair" that this article gets full protection when the FA of the day doesn't... I think the vandalism is different, that vandalism is more easily automatically reverted. Also the load is spread among more people (I know that when my one and only FA so far SS Christopher Columbus, makes the front page (hopefully on Columbus Day 2008, :) ) I will be watching it as closely as I can). These articles are watched by a small set of folk, day in, day out. Further, maybe not full protecting the current FA is wrong, not right!!!... but if we are doing thing A wrong it is not an argument for doing thing B wrong too. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR concern

As a sort of tangential issue, some editors have expressed concern that when this protection lapses we'll run into WP:3RR problems dealing with Scibaby. If he has 10 accounts he can theoretically run many regular editors (I'd say the pages are well watched, but there's still a finite number of us) into their revert limits using several accounts and then have his way with articles. Is there anything we can do regarding 3RR when dealing with suspected sockpuppets? Oren0 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to reversions of this type (i.e. of vandalism). Christopher Parham (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR excepts "simple and obvious vandalism." This is the kind of edit we're talking about. I don't think that qualifies under 3RR. 3RR also excepts reverting blocked users, but if we only suspect sockpuppetry can we still justify reversions? Oren0 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not vandalism, but if an edit war is underway, preventative short-term blocks can be issued based on the suspicion of evasion. If CU confirms it, the blocks will be made permanent. Cool Hand Luke 22:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that we are talking about edits made by sockpuppets of Scibaby, they are not made in good faith since he is evading a block, and are excepted from the 3RR. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

When a user uses multiple accounts to evade the 3RR, they're breaking both the 3RR and WP:SOCK. The simple and correct solution is to block them all. Cool Hand Luke 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Coolhand, I've been watching this thread and respect your opinion (especially as a non-involved 3rd party to the AGW sites.) I think there may be a bit of hypocrisy at play on the global warming sites. Would you mind looking at [this] edit war, which began with Cone of Silence at 06:54, 10 May, 2008. Allegedly Cone of Silence is one Scibaby's sockpuppets. Although this particular edit was clearly not a case of vandalism. I tried to preserve scibaby's/cone of silence's edit and an edit war instantly broke out. I made 4 changes, 3 were 'undo's, one was simply providing a better citation at Count Iblis's request. After edit number 4, I received a harsh [notice] on my personal talk page giving me my 'final warning' about 3RR. Please read the reasons provided next to Raul's and Raymond arritt's reversions on the edit war. In my opinion, they don't seem to make much of an effort at justifying or explaining the reversions. Would you consider this to be 'meatpuppetry'? Note, this happens very frequently and I suspect many potential editors on the skeptic side of the global warming controversy have perhaps been discouraged from participating because of this situation. --Sirwells (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Two points. First, Raul is a checkuser. If he says someone is a sock of Scibaby, I believe it. I wouldn't be too surprised if more than one user was at work, judging by the number of IPs Raul has blocked. That doesn't mean that the blocks are incorrect. If you still doubt his findings (which I don't), maybe you could ask another checkuser to review a block you think is questionable.

Second, edit wars are bad. Three reverts should not be seen as an entitlement, so this wasn't exemplary behavior on either side. Cool Hand Luke 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair response. Thank you.--Sirwells (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Range block

Resolved. /24 range block for 48 hrs-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone who knows the intricacies of rangeblocking take a look at what range needs to be blocked to shut down the person at Special:Contributions/144.122.250.138, Special:Contributions/144.122.250.139, Special:Contributions/144.122.250.150, and probably more I don't know about? User talk:144.122.250.139 has a template on it suggesting a long term soft block. All 3 vandalizing random articles and user pages. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also Special:Contributions/144.122.250.140, Special:Contributions/144.122.250.143, Special:Contributions/144.122.250.223. --barneca (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A block on 144.122.250.0/24 (talk · contribs · block log) would cover those IPs, and it's already been done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) 144.122.250.0/24 was blocked by User:Longhair for 2 days. I think 144.122.250.128/25 would've been enough, as I found no related contributions outside of that smaller range. It's an university range, but the only unrelated edits from this and the last month seem to be from 144.122.250.142 (talk · contribs) and 144.122.250.229 (talk · contribs). I think it should be reduced to /25. --Oxymoron⁸³ 20:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The y__-__.pclabs.metu.edu.tr range extends from 144.122.250.130-237 so I'd pick 144.122.250.128/25 too– Zedla (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the rangeblock; don't know anything about it, so I'll leave it to you folks to decide if a smaller range is better. --barneca (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems 144.122.251.18 (talk · contribs) is also part of y-.pclabs.metu.edu.tr. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

The above user has been removing problem tags from images that he/she has uploaded, [54] [55] [56] even using Twinkle in the process. I've twice warned the user, [57] [58] but I got a response on my talk page not to issue any more warnings[59] and the behavior has continued. The user is an administrator so I'm not sure how to proceed. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a difficult situation, abusing Twinkle is serious, so I'd suggest maybe a 24 hr block or something along those lines, and if the behavior continues, perhaps requesting comment? For the record, I am not an administrator Chafford (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly seems to be trying to draw me into conflict or make extra work for me, so I'll keep this brief. He has gone through all my uploaded images, and is liberally tagging them, even when they're clearly PD according to the source, or have been explicitly released under a free licence and have OTRS tickets. Some of the legitimately tagged ones (e.g. of living people before we had such strict rules about them), I've deleted myself. But when it reaches the point of tagging the Eichmann trial for deletion when the Israeli government has released the images, and the source states that clearly, then it becomes make-work and lacks common sense. Add to which that this is his second post about it on AN/I, plus numerous posts to my talk page, image pages, deletion pages, and now "warnings" on my talk page, all of which I am supposed to respond to post-haste. I think an uninvolved admin should handle this, rather than Kelly, if anyone. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a bit, but I will say the above is a complete mischaracterization of my actions and a blatant assumption of bad faith. I haven't posted about SlimVirgin on ANI before, this was the first time. To my knowledge, I haven't tagged any images incorrectly - the Eichmann image had a bad source when tagged. Others indeed have OTRS tickets, but a lookup of the ticket shows that it didn't necessarily apply to the images SlimVirgin placed it on. For SlimVirgin to think I'm out to draw him/her into conflict is distinctly tinfoily; I'm simply cleaning up copyright issues with images, something I have been doing for months. I've had no previous interaction with this user and know nothing about them - I simply noticed a pattern of copyright problems by chance and looked through their upload log for other problems. Attempts to work with the user in a friendly way to resolve this have been rebuffed. Kelly ^hi! 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I advised you to watch out for SV's territory. Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. For future reference, you might want to see the current ArbCom evidence page of C68-FM-SV for more details on why your involving yourself with her property is not advised. SandyGeorgia's experience is particularly relevant to your situation. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have listened to you, but I thought that abiding by Wikipedia policies would insulate me. Silly me! Kelly ^hi! 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked, no outraged that slimVirgin has been removing these tags, surely that's Crum375's job? Is Crum slacking or something? Buck up Crum, Slim needs ya. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comeon, RMHED, that adds nothing to the discussion, more light, less heat please? SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've given myself a damn good talking to, and I've assured myself that it won't happen again. RMHED (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being brought here? If anyone has concerns about images, please post a request with {{fairusereview}} rather than {{badfairuse}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe it would also be an idea to add to the documentation of both templates to make users of one aware of the other, and when each should be used. Also, it should be fairly simple to check where each is mentioned, and to make sure people aren't wrongly being encouraged to use one instead of the other. Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use tags of any sort are inappropriate for public domain images. Durova^Charge! 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be of interest. While I understand Slim's frustration, making sure images are correctly tagged to conform with our policies should not be regarded as make-work. In addition, this seems unhelpful to the process. --John (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So Kelly, you tagged a large number of images uploaded by the same user, slapped them all into one discussion even though the tagging, source, permissions and licenses widely vary and you didn't expect that person to be a little peeved at the way you're handling things? I'm not sure how you expected editors to comment on that listing given the lack of commonality other than the uploader, and certainly the uploader has nothing to do with image licensing.

The first item you're complaining about is SlimVirgin expanding the fair-use rationale for an image [60] -- why is that a problem? She also reverted your tagging on the Eichmann Trial image pointing out that it was public domain - you don't appear to have given any explanation as to why you feel the image is not in the public domain as claimed? I'd say you need to go back through and give clear reasons you believe the images aren't free - if some have an identical reasoning, it makes sense to group them, but the way it is now, whether or not you meant it, this looks like you're picking on one uploader. Shell ^babelfish 22:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the PUI listing - with the exception of the Eichmann image, which has been struck through, the images all had a similar problem...free licenses are claimed for the photos, but there is no evidence of the free license. It probably does seem like I'm picking on one uploader, but it's typical to look through a user's log for issues when a pattern of copyright problems is noticed. I did my best to consolidate the problems into as few messages as possible, as some people get very, very irate if spammed with a lot of image notification templates on their talk page. Kelly ^hi! 23:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

SV was right on the first diff you show. As for the second ones, if she has a good argument to keep it, then she should put it on the PUI page rather than removing it. So long as she understands what to do from here on out it's no big deal either way. Wizardman 23:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that Slim acts like she thinks rules, policies, and standard ways of doing things are for the "little people", not for elite administrators like herself. Having to deal with a talk page full of annoying notices about image uploads for which some user, admin, or bot thinks that not all the fair-use hoops have been properly jumped through is a pain in the butt, but it's a pain in the butt that all who upload images must go through (I've had to deal with heaps of those myself), so Slim shouldn't think she's too special to be put through it. She's a she, by the way; I have no idea which gender Kelly is. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the main thing I was hoping for a response from her on was some details regarding her statement that good images are being deleted from the Commons, perhaps by someone with an agenda.[61] [62] If true, it's a serious issue that needs to be investigated at Commons. But now I'm starting to believe that maybe this user sees bad faith where none exists. Kelly ^hi! 01:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of any concerns about agendas, Commons does have a bit of a reputation (deserved or otherwise) for seemingly moving the goalposts on what's considered "free", and in particular on public-domain issues, so it's reasonable for an uploader to want copies retained on enwiki. --Random832 (contribs) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Before we speculate too much about the practices of a sister project, could someone supply specific filenames? These are serious accusations indeed. Durova^Charge! 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Commons policy is pretty static. It's here if you're interested. The fact that people don't read it, don't abide by it, have their images deleted, and then complain of Commons being teh evilz, is not actually Commons' fault. giggy _(:O) 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a surprise to me too if anti-animal rights deletions occurred at Commons. If it did happen the problem would be easy to trace once we get the filenames. It comes across as odd that an administrator as experienced as SlimVirgin would resort to hosting valid free images here if she really thought Commons practices were that seriously flawed. About half of overall Wikipedia site traffic goes to non-English editions. It deprives 252 other languages to host at en:wiki if the material really is copyleft or PD. Durova^Charge! 07:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem, in my experience, tends to be a combination of: (1) people failing to put the tag on pictures here when we need to keep copies here, or where it is already known that it is free here but not on Commons; and (2) other people (ie. not the original uploader) being too quick to transfer images to Common without checking that it doesn't fail the more strict conditions there. People do get confused when they realise that Wikipedia labels some images free that Commons does not. Carcharoth (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any cases where images are free here and not free at Commons, with the exception of {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} or {{PD-US-1996}}, and even that is debatable. Kelly ^hi! 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Kelly, if he copies images to the Commons and tags that they may be deleted, to add instead that local copies should be kept, but he refuses, and says I have to do it myself. This alone indicates that he is out to cause me work for no reason, and as people who post on Wikipedia Review are now involved, and Kelly is posting to Cla68, it is very difficult for me to believe that, by chance, he just happened to decide to go through all my images. He is also claiming that images are not PD when they clearly are -- some of them were sent to me by e-mail by the copyright holder and released and have OTRS tickets; others (e.g. Eichmann) were released by a govt, as is made clear on the image page. Kelly will not say why he thinks the images are not PD.

He has been trying for the last 24 hours to drag me into whatever this is, with various "warnings" to my talk page, and I'm just not going to be so dragged, so this is, I hope, my last post on the issue. If Kelly feels that an image is not PD, or that a free licence or OTRS ticket is not valid, he must say why he believes that. If any admin wants to discuss this with me, please e-mail me. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So, the reason why you're removing the PUI tag is because you think WR and others are out to get you? ...I'm hoping I'm misreading that @_@ That made my head hurt. Like I said before, if it's actually PD (which it seems to be) then the PUI will come and go with the image kept, just leave it be before this escalates. Wizardman 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Some people find the alleged "evil WR conspiracy" to be just as useful a smear tactic to distract attention from their own behavior as did the Clintons with their allegations of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", and for that matter the Bush administration with its insinuations about the evil anti-American left. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's get back to business: this is taking on the appearance of a dispute about personalities rather than copyright. Image issues are difficult enough to stay on top of without senior volunteers generating extra work for other people. SV: if you think Commons does improper image deletions, please give examples. Kelly: if you think there's a problem with SV's uploads, please ask a neutral party to review. I've got two restorations to complete for FPC and an image restoration module at Wikibooks to write, and I'm willing (reluctantly) to push back those plans and look into this if the soapboxing comes to a halt. If there are genuine licensing issues at hand I'll look into them: please document the evidence in a straightforward presentation. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I did made a request for neutral review, here. Please take a look and offer an opinion. Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking on the appearance of a dispute about personalities uses passive voice to describe what actively happened right here, when SlimVirgin said: Kelly seems to be trying to draw me into conflict or make extra work for me, ... and it's a pattern. You're right dealing with image issues is hard business, and someone doing it shouldn't be discouraged with this kind of personalization of the issue. I was earlier willing to cede that SV might be able to change with a bit of self-awareness of the effect she has on other editors; perhaps I've been had once again by my inner Pollyanna. I've seen many editors get multiples of hundreds of templated messages on images; SlimVirgin isn't exempt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved two cents- I just want to point out the notion that Kelly is "targeting" Slim's images is rather silly. Kelly is simply going through images, fixing problems, tagging inappropriate licenses and transferring them to Commons. Prior to working on Slim's images, Kelly recently went through all of my image contributions and did a lot of nice work in transferring them to Commons and helping me out with some Flickr issues. Some of my images were deleted because the flickr license change but I didn't feel "targeted" at all. It is just part of the continuing process of trying to bring everyone onto the same page with Wikipedia's image policies and getting more truly free images over to Commons so that other Wikis can benefit. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've seen Kelly's work on images, and she does good work there. Kelly reviews images, and going through other images that people have uploaded when reviewing one of them should be encouraged, not discouraged. From what I can see, the other incident was co-incidental. Sometimes people aren't out to get you, despite what you might think. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin still removing problem tags

This behavior is continuing.[63] The status of this image is still being disputed here. We don't tolerate this behavior from other editors, why is this admin violating policy? Kelly ^hi! 18:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Say why you think it is not PD, or leave it alone. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

sigh* Kelly, don't template the regulars. Slim, leave it up. Let it run it's course, if it's PD then it will be kept. Maybe that particular image should be put on PUI separately, it may solve the problem, it may not. Just let process run out. Wizardman 18:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That particular image is in its own section on the PUI page. Kelly ^hi! 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the template spamming of my talk page by Kelly continues, this time to do with Israel-Palestine. [64] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you need to cut this out. You're warning SlimVirgin for edits she hasn't even made, probably because of the image dispute above. Drop it and move on please. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make false allegations, Ryan. She has edited the page in question, look at the history. Also see this - my mian point is to make sure all parties in that dispute are aware of this decision. I myself am uninvolved in this dispute. Kelly ^hi! 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No chance Kelly - you're harssing SlimVirgin now because of the dispute above. Slim hasn't even edited the page since the arbitration case, yet you warn her? Not buying that - carry on like this and you'll end up blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Ryan here, you were fine until you threw that up. Plus, read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Both of you have made this far more dramatic than it needed to be. Wizardman 20:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, there's a really strong appearance here that you're just interested in creating more drama. I'd suggest that you find something else to do. When you go from arguing over image templates with someone, to digging something out of old history and templating that person, it really looks like you're doing it out of spite. FCYTravis (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, this is looking more and more like harassment. I don't know much about the back story here but if it keeps going down this road a block is not out of the question. I think it needs to stop. RxS (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly definitely must be blocked if he adds a template to SV's talk page once more. Beit Or 20:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, SV is no more special than any other editor. If the regular editor has to put up with the template spam due to a certain group's determined jihad against fair-use, SV should too. Perhaps she could actually use her clique for something useful, say like changing and owning the NFCC pages? If there is one thing I know, you can't beat the SV clique at edit warring on policy pages. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)struck through misplaced comment --Dragon695 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

errr, this was nothing to do with images - she templated SV on a completely unrelated subject that she was not involved in at all. Please, take your comments to the section above because this doesn't have anything to do with what you've just said. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

<undent> OK, this is what I'm not getting. I was monitoring the Muhammad al-Durrah‎ article before I ever discussed copyright violations with SlimVirgin. To make a long story short, I initially was watching BLP violations on Geert Wilders (I have added many articles to the BLP watch category, including that one), which led me to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which led me to Pallywood, which led me to Muhammad al-Durrah. There is a nasty dispute there that I read about on this noticeboard (here), and SlimVirgin showed up there after I did, where I was attempting to offer a neutral opinion and defuse the dispute. Part of the problem at that article seems to be that the Arb decision is being used as as hammer against some editors, and not others. So, in an attempt to neutralize the situation, I ensured that all parties were made aware of the decision, and logged the notification at the Arb case page. I also logged notifications of SlimVirgin's "opponents", ChrisO[65] and Nickhh[66] A formal notification of the case is not a "warning", as I have been told[67], but just a notification. However, my edits that log that SlimVirgin was notified are being reverted [68] [69] and I am being threatened with blocking [70] for logging the notification. Would somebody please investigate and get these admins, and their threats, off my talk page? Kelly ^hi! 21:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, just back out now. Drop it. Let others deal with this. If you continue to tangle in this in any way on any level whether right or wrong, you could end up blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, Sandy, thanks. It seems I have stepped into a minefield, thanks for giving me a map. Kelly ^hi! 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

These notifications are to be used when users are being disruptive on the page so they are aware of the arbcom sanctions that are in place. They are not given to every editor who edits a talk page, or in fact the article itself, unless there's problems. You are yet to show one diff that merits SVs inclusion on that list. I still don't believe for one second that this was just an unlucky coincidence - you were in dispute with a user, then chose to bait them by templating them for something completely unrelated. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I see Kelly posted at Talk:al-Durrah at 13:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC). SV posted at Talk:al-Durrah for the first time in ages at 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC). I think you need to rethink your knee-jerk assumptions. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I echo others' confusion about just what Kelly intended here; as far as I can see, Slim hasn't even edited that article recently, let alone did anything that's worthy of warning given the ArbCom sanctions. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize Slim for (as seen in the current ongoing ArbCom case, as well as the valid concerns Kelly expressed regarding images) without bringing in something as dubious as this. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to ensure all parties discussing the controversy there were aware of the ArbCom case. But apparently making the notifications is controversial, apologies. I would make the accusation that SlimVirgin is stalking me (as opposed to vice versa) but I am out of tinfoil. Kelly ^hi! 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The revert war at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles seems to me a separate issue, albeit tangentially related to the image licensing dispute Kelly and Slim are in. There is no evidence Slim edited a P-I article after the arb case, and the consensus here supports that. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the templating, as unnecessary, but may I point out that the wording of the ArbCom remedy isn't "editing" but "working in the area of conflict". If defending a version that one largely wrote extensively and enthusiastically on the talkpage isn't "working in the area".... --Relata refero (disp.) 22:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As I said, it was only a notification based on the fact that she was discussing the dispute on the article talk page, and I notified the other parties there. Could someone point me to the consensus that only disruptive editors are to be notified? I re-read that decision multiple times and didn't see that. So far as templating goes, the decision seems to encourage that. Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page to end the revert war. FWIW, I think we should consider stipulating that only uninvolved admins should make the notifications. PhilKnight (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, except replace "admins" with "editors". Kelly ^hi! 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think notifications should be restricted to uninvolved admins to minimize drama. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just to note that Rlevse edited through protection to revert the logging. (Possibly on an inaccurate reading of the remedy, as I note above.) Also, I understand any editor can make the notification, but only uninvolved admins can block, and changing that would require a request for modification to be submitted to ArbCom. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Relata refero, yes I guess it would. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why edit directly when you can have your very own meatpuppets do it for you? --Dragon695 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read wp:sarcasm is really helpful? PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The tagging of images (ie, licensing) is a separate issue. Also, Kelly, you are involved in this, and the remedy says P-I "range of articles". You're using the P-I case to get at Slim. And if I'm not mistaken, admins should normally give arbcom warnings, your involvement in the issue clearly taints this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)OK, please read the above. I was involved in the particular P/I article before she was (at least in the recent time frame). I notified all major parties in that dispute, including her. The fact that I also found her copyright violations during a similar time frame is coincidence. SlimVirgin is the person who made this a personal dispute, not me - so why am I getting all the negative publicity? Neat trick - allege fake harassment and get a free pass on everything else. Kelly ^hi! 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Any user can give a warning, the remedy uses the passive. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but exactly which part of the remedy are you talking about, pls quote it. Regardless, Kelly is stretching the bounds of it and using the arbcase to get at Slim. The arbcase clearly refers to a "range of articles", not image tagging. In fact, I can't recall any arbcase that included image tagging. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"...the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.." Nothing about adminship. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure who Dragon695 comment is directed to, but I can't recall ever being involved with Slim or Kelly before and I have a lot of experience with arb cases, and I have to agree it's best to leave the arb warnings to admins, and even if editors make them, they should be uninvolved and Kelly is clearly involved and at the center of this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Without reference to the statement about Kelly, which I have no opinion on except that the timing does not add up, I'd like to point out that ArbCom did not appear to intend the notification be left to admins alone, and doing so would severely hinder enforcement in difficult areas such as AA and EE. --22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Even given that, the warner should be uninvolved and Kelly is not uninvolved and that clearly taints the warning, and in my opinon invalidates it, esp when considered in light of the scope of the arb ruling. Also, making a talk post is no justification for being added to an arbcase warning list. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "warning", but a simple notification of the decision. I'm really not seeing the problem in logging that a particular user has been notified of the decision. Kelly ^hi! 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting someone on an arbcom warning list (notification list or whatever you want to call it) is a warning and makes them subject to those. Plus, you're involved and shouldn't have done it anyway. Plus, you're stretching the scope of case beyond all reasonable bounds. Image tagging is not part of case and talking on talk pages is not disruptive, at least no in the issue at hand. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling specifically defines "involved" as relating to editing in the area of the dispute, not the interpretation you are giving it. This is also for good reason, to prevent problem users from claiming that uninvolved editors or adminstrators are stalking them, an accusation that is common in areas subject to such discretionary sanctions. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Apparently I misunderstood the ArbCom decision, and I see that others are being added at will to that list for reasons I don't understand, but whatever. SlimVirgin is not allowed to be added to that list. I don't know why you're saying I am "involved" because I am not, I went to that article to try to help by offering an uninvolved opinion, apparently that simple action makes me involved. To conflate this issue with totally unrelated copyright violations by SlimVirgin is dumb, I think, but all right. I'll trust other editors to handle this. Kelly ^hi! 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, Kelly today asked for a BLP that I recently semi-protected to be unprotected. [71] He has also asked Tim Vickers who endorsed the semi-protection to explain why. [72] This is clearly no longer about images, if it ever was. He has also removed warnings from his talk page, so I'll link to them here in case they matter later. [73] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the fuss is about here. I see nothing that requires an administrator to be "uninvolved" for the purposes of notifying editors about a general sanctions regime. Moreschi, Fut.Perf. and I are heavily "involved" in the general area of Balkans articles (since we monitor them regularly, work with editors to resolve problems and deal with the nationalist silliness that regularly arises there). Does this mean that we are not allowed to notify editors or block them, assuming that we are not engaged in conflict with them? Some clarification would be helpful here since the log of notifications, blocks and bans is very long already and getting longer by the week... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RV, it wasn't about you, sorry if it gave you that impression. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this definitely requires some clarification, probably from the Arbs. The template itself very clearly states that "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions." and later that "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator ". To me this means it is not at all a warning given for disruption, but merely a notification, but one which can only be given by an admin. If this was not the intent, and it really is a warning that only an uninvolved admin can give, then (a) the template should be changed to reflect that intention and (b) several of the recent logs by ChrisO, a heavily involved admin who has been edit warring on these article he "notified" users on, and did so in a one-sided fashion, should be immediately removed; just like SV's notification has been removed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as official notice of ArbCom sanctions goes, my understanding is that to actually template someone and log it at the case page, is something that should only be done by uninvolved administrators. The exact wording at the P-I case may not put it like that, but it's pretty much standard procedure at other similar cases such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren and Wikipedia:General sanctions. Otherwise pretty much any editor could use these templates and case-logging as a "club" to beat up opponents. It's still fine to post casual reminders about an ArbCom case, but official warnings should be done only by uninvolved administrators. For more, see WP:UNINVOLVED. Administrators dealing in an area of dispute as administrators are not therefore "involved" in the dispute. --El on ka 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, would you please undo all of ChrisO's recent logs related to his edit war at Muhammad al-Durrah, and sternly warn him about abusing his admin privileges in a content dispute. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, I don't know the circumstances here, but to answer your question: you're uninvolved if you have not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing provisions of a decision is not considered participation in a dispute. OK? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, the circumstances here are that ChrisO is a heavily involved edtor on this page. He has edit warred on it (some recent examples - [74], [75], [76], [77],[78]) and at the same time, warned all those of the opposing viewpoint on the artcile, and logged that warning on the ArbCom enforcement page, while claiming he is just "notifying" them of the case. Needless to say, he did not similarly "notify" his fellow edit-warriors who held a POV simialr to him. In light of Elonka's comments above, this seems like a very inappropriate abuse of admin power. If that is the case, his logs need to be undone, and he should be warned about this behaviour. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting pretty far off-topic, but I did look into ChrisO's efforts here. On the one hand, he is definitely an involved editor, so should be cautious about using admin tools in the dispute at the Muhammad al-Durrah article. Then again, I think he was acting in good faith, as the rules at the P-I case page are indeed ambiguous about who can or can't log cautions there. I would recommend that ChrisO not add any other names to the page, but instead alert other uninvolved administrators about the issues, so that they can make that determination. As for the three editors that ChrisO added, I looked into their contribs, and I agree that a caution was appropriate for all of them. So even though ChrisO may not have been the right person to make the warning, the log should stay, since even if he removed it, another uninvolved admin, such as myself, would reasonably just add it right back. --El on ka 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence

User:Happy-melon has taken actions in this article which are wrong.

The article International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence had the word "unanimous" and someone made a comment in the talk page asking to change it to "unopposed", someone made an edit protect BUT NO consensus was reached so the user Happy-melon took a liberty to delete not just the word "unanimous" itself but change the whole introduction to the article.

Here is what followed:

Y Done but the first sentence of the article now reads awfully, and needs to be reworded more significantly than that. I was on the verge of instituting the wording below, but baulked: how does it sound as a new phrasing? Happy‑melon 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

“ The international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence follows Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia, enacted on February 17, 2008 by a vote of the Kosovan Parliament 109 in favour, 0 in opposition; all 11 representatives of the Serb minority boycotted the proceedings. ”

Agree with minor alteration - I would change "followed" to "follows" as the reaction is still ongoing. Bazonka (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Uncontroversial. Change the first sentence of the article to the quote above. (I have changed "followed" to "follows".) Bazonka (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done Happy‑melon 12:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This user finalized an editprotect with 'no CONSENSUS at ALL to completely ALTERED the introduction and changed the wording from "declaration of independence" to "unilateral declaration of independence" all by himself and tagged it "uncontroversial". I must also note that the link "unilateral declaration of independence" leads to 2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence

Key Changes in new Introduction:

1. Deleted intro because no concensus was reached to change "unanimous" to "unopposed"

2. Changed "Kosovar Parliament" to "Kosovan Parliament" (No consensus)

3. Changed wording "Declaration of Independence" to "Unilateral Declaration..." (No Consensus)

4. Allowed an editprotect to finalize with no voting or comments from other editors.

Please reply in my talk page. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it's been some time, I'm not going to respond on your talk page, but basically, this is a simple content dispute which doesn't belong here. Follow the steps at dispute resolution and keep using editprotected if consensus is found. There is no need for forum-shop here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

I’m choosing to write this here instead of on WP:SSP because this is a more difficult case. A couple of weeks ago, there was made a CheckUser request, for which the reason was vote fraud. On no.wikipedia, he has come clean, and the community has decided to give him a second chance, but here he got blocked. Of course he has created another account here, no surprise, User:Alive Would? Sun (confirmed on no:User:Superunknown). What should be done? Should he get another chance here too, or should he be blocked? — H92 (t · c · no) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since he's evading his block, no. The unblock procedures are well-known and if someone won't follow them, then they can stay blocked. Jtrainor (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If he re-establishes a good record on no.wp after some considerable time, then a proper unblock request here should be given careful attention. DGG (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd second DGG's proposal on this. Orderinchaos 07:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] complaint about a ADMINISTRATOR -> User:R._Baley

Resolved. User has decided to leave Wikipedia

Chafford (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

user wrote "At least he keeps the same account, some users manage to get into an edit war, find their own way to WP:3RR, and edit their monobook --all on their first day! It's enough to make a person wonder, what did your block log look like before you used the SomUsr account? R. Baley (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)" diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStephan_Schulz&diff=217841025&oldid=217839611

false accusations of WP:SOCK and falsely claims that i've been blocked under another acc (only "evidence" is that i edited my monobook the first day...)...and this user is a ADMIN! i hereby file a complain against this user! SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the head of this page carefully, in particular the part that says this is not the Wikipedia complaints department in bold red. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

i thought that this might be the right place to do it. this is a ADMIN and not just a normal user. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 23:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

you are somewha tmistaken sir this is for place swhere you need administrators to conduct immediate intervetinons such as in a major vandalism case or other immeintaly threanteing violation of the ruels and regulations of wikipedia. it is nto ga genral place to complain about the behaviors of other behavirosits. Smith Jones (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, as usual, you took the worms right out of my moth. --Rodhull andemu 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, then show me the place where i can file such a complain against a ADMIN. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 00:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

First you should take it up with the admin on his talk page; if that doesn't work out, you could seek a third opinion, or start a request for comment, and if that doesn't work, open an arbitration case. --Rodhull andemu 00:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, first of all your last comment perfectly fits my needs. thank you. and i already tried the talkpage thingy..which...of course, was totally fruitless. i think i might have to step this up a lil' bit. thx for your answer then. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

try not to go directl y to arbcom. i would reocmend trying the first recommednations by Rodhullamdeumu first then go to arbcom if everything totally fails since arbcom cannot see every minor complaint made by every minor person on wikipedia so try to work your way up to arbcom before starting there first with your complaint. Smith Jones (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, in a nut~~case~~shell. Arbcom is the last resort and a case is unlkely to be accepted unless all other possibilities have been exhausted (as am I). But there is no such thing as a "minor person" on WP really; we are all equal and deserve equal respect. --Rodhull andemu 01:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this has absolutely nothing to do with this case, but if that’s not the most bling signature I’ve ever seen, it is certainly in the top ten. :/ —Travis ^talk 01:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

8| Gwen Gale (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I note from the top of the page "If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here" Not that I've looked into this matter in the least, or think it necessarily has merit. DGG (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:SomeUsr has invoked his right to vanish and has left Wikipedia. Tiptoety ^talk 04:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh good. User posts on here, in accordance with one of the notes at the top of this page about a valid issue, is admonished repeatedly by different sources, without anyone paying any attention to the validity of the issue whatsoever, and the end result, "resolved", the user, somewhat unsurprisingly, feels that it is fruitless to continue with the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. No abuse of administrative powers has taken place or even been alleged. Discussions with a user are not a restricted administrative power. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:mathewignash

Hi. At least as far back as October, Mathewignash (talk · contribs) has had difficulties abiding by WP:NFC. I seem to recall it starting with a failure to include fair-use rationales, then those rationales not explaining how the images substantially aided in readers' understanding of the article. mathewignash received a couple of short blocks; long-term ones were lifted after his repeated claims of, "I'm trying to help, I just don't understand the policy." He agreed to cut back on image uploads and I think an admin. undertook some sort of semi-mentorship.

The issue at hand: the editor continues to make significant(?) lapses in abiding by NFC's FUR requirements -- specifically, his cited sources are dubious. Many images of toys and boxart he cites to transformers.com, but that Hasbro site has a limited number of toys (movie-related toys, and not the Gen 1 , comic and CGI/animated versions, for those versed in the franchise). I went through his uploads from 30 Mar to today and found ~20 instances of images cited to "www.transformers.com" and tagged them as disputed with a request for a specific URL. (Images from comics, by the way, are cited generically to "Dreamwave comic series" -- not to specific issues/titles.) He since went through and, for many of them, offered URLs -- but to web sites not at all on the transformers.com domain (e.g. this example of boxart). One image he cited to transformers.com he now claims he took himself. And another oddball: mathewignash changed the source of Image:Clocker-cybertron.jpg (and others) from transformers.com to a Hasbro site. However, while that Hasbro site has two similar images, they are not the same as the one posted to Wikipedia. After pointing that out, mathewignash has since changed the source to the vague "Hasbro Transformers series." -- not really a source at all. (And I just don't know what to make of this.)

After all this, I really do think mathewignash really loves this topic and wants to help by offering visuals; this is clearly not a malicious editor. After a few comments on his and a previously-involved admin.'s talk page, he's been quick to respond -- and while I appreciate his, "Hey, help me out here" requests (demonstrating, again, a good faith intent), after several discussions at ANI, image talk pages, and his talk page, I'm just not inclined to (as fully) give him the benefit of the doubt -- even though, I admit, I don't know an answer to his most recent question. I believe him when he says he downloaded many of these pictures from somewhere else, and I can even accept that former hosts may have removed or replaced them. But, then again, given his previous slaps about image uploads, copy-and-paste FURs don't cut it, and I find annoying/troubling the switch from "it was downloaded" to "Oh, I took it" for a couple of images (although I suspect this stems more from a copy-and-paste error than anything else).

Anyway, at the end of this rant, I think the benefit of having these images is not even close to being worth the time and energy needed to continue to look over and tag/correct this editor's image uploads. I know NFC is a bit tricky, but as User:Steel pointed out on the aforelinked talk page, mathewignash has had ample opportunities to get it -- the most basic aspects of NFC -- right, and he still can't. --EEMIV (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me address your concerns. I wish you'd just ask me directly for anything you don't understand, but I'll try to address it here. I added all the specific URLs I could find as you requested. If some pictures don't have them, because the the site changed (the Transformers site removed all pictures over about 2 years old), then I need to know how to site that source now. I had used www.transformers.com, as it's the base for the web site.

I did take this picture myself, the toy is sitting on my shelf if anyone needs proof, I'll take more pictures of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Sureshot-g2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=217857555 I just sited www.transformers.com as the owners of the non-free 3d art, which it is legally owned by. We had this talk, that ALL pictures of action figured are non-free 3d art owned by the original creator, not owned by the photographer.

The picture of Cybertron Clocker IS from the site I mention site, but the original is gone, they had 2 sets of promotional images. I've made requests as to the proper way to source this. Perhaps I should upload the new version of the picture? Let me know.

As for this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Swerve-universe2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=217854613, the source for it was the Chevrolet web site, where it was sold as a promotional item, but it's since been sold out and removed - the robot turns into a Chevy Aveo.

As to your mention of siting the issue of a comic book a picture is from, no one has mentioned this as necessarry to me back when I submitted examples of "how do I site these correctly" If I need to mention the issue number and title, just say so. Mathewignash (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind NFC, what about WP:NFCC?. These Transformers articles (currently 199 articles in CAT:Autobots) are magnets for all sorts of non-free image abuse - see the 19 fair-use images in Bumblebee (Transformers) (tagged for 3 months with no response, so will have to be cleaned up soon) for a good example, but most of those articles violate NFCC in some way or another. Transformers editors should really be fixing the image problems in these articles, not making the problems worse. And that's before we mention the fact that most of the articles need sourcing, copyediting, and the original research and trivia stripping out of them... Black Kite 12:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the forum for talking about the length and number of pictures in all Transformer articles, but if I may offer a suggestion, the pictures of the different Bumblebee toys through the 20+ years of it's existance are pictures taken from my collection. Maybe we should merge all those pictures into a single collage picture and post it as a single image? Let me know if this would work and I'll try it. It would knock down the non-free image count in the article a bit. Mathewignash (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the Bumblebee article covers several different fictional characters named Bumblebee. Perhaps the second largest character should be split off into his own article? What's the tag to suggest a splitting of an article? Mathewignash (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A better idea would be to strip all the plot summary and trivia out of the article, thus reducing its length by about 80%. Black Kite 14:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: Cush - Unapologetic hate speech

I tried to have a reasonable discussion with user Cush about his use of the phrase "Jew Crew," explaining myself in full, but it seems he has no respect for the point of view that Jews should not be universally grouped as nationalist fanatics. See the Jerusalem talk page as well as Cush's talk page. I'm not a fan of the kneejerk approach to blocking, but given his obvious lack of concern over the fact that his language has been interpreted as hate speech, would like to see him blocked until he gets the message. Thanks much to any who get involved in this, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have copied the discussion on his user page, BELOW:

Offensive remarks

Please do not use phrases such as "jew crew" as you did here [79]. It is incredibly offensive, and you can get blocked from Wikipedia for using that kind of terminology. Thank you for your understanding. IronDuke 15:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that offensive? Jews are using it all the time. Cush (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I don't know which Jews you mean who use it "all the time." I can say that I have seen no editors on Wikipedia describe themselves in this way, and given that your post was generally disparaging, your use of that phrase could plausibly be construed as antisemtic. IronDuke 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we all know how much wikipedia is ruled by political correctness. It's a shame. But thank nogod we don't live in wikipedia. Cush (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I put this on the Jerusalem talk page, and thought I'd add it here:

Cush, to quote you from above:"That's the common expression on internet fora for followers of Judaism and citizens of Israel who push for certain issues to be seen their way." I'm assuming you mean by 'their way' a Palestinian-disappearing perspective. I should not have to explain to you that "Jew Crew" implies that all Jews share the same perspective or are in cahouts with each other working always towards the same aims coming from the same perspective. How ridiculous can such an implication get? Do you have any idea how different Jews can be from one another? (I, for example, am a follower of Judaism and a citizen of Israel, yet most of my efforts involve re-inserting legitimate Palestinian history and perspective that has been omitted or deleted, to balance out an exclusive Jewish perspective {which leaves us with inaccurate wiki entries}). "Jew Crew" not only suggests that all Jews are the same but points quickly to 'world Jewish conspiracy' theories (which I should not have to mention led to the displacement of the Jewish population of Europe and directly impacted Palestinian national aspirations in turn).

May I refer you to the cartoon on RolandR's page: "Nazis, Palestine don't need you." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LamaLoLeshLa (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as the shrug: "that's a common expression" - really, don't you think your 'logic' is a bit lacking? I just worked quite hard to 'explain' to administrators that 'Arab Israelis' may be in common usage, but it is not accepted by Palestinians in Israel. Many of the Israelis who were opposed to changing the term used your same 'logic.' (We finally managed to get the category "Arab Israelis" changed, through efforts to conduct a respectful discussion which assumed nothing of people's views based on their baqckground). The 'N-word' was also once in common usage, but this in no way justified public acceptance of the term. You can be dismissive and charge we over-sensitive Jews with political correctness, but don't you think the same charge in reverse (i.e. dismissing Palestinian efforts to change terminology and language on wiki as PC) is equally illegitimate?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Further, in addition to being offensive, you're also implying that everyone who is in support of the original, succinct phrasing is Jewish. Not true. -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WTF do you want from me? There are (Christian) folks who think they hold the monopoly on issues such as god, morals, and Christendom as such. And there are (Jewish) folks who will do everything to control issues such as Judaism, Israel, Palestine, and parts of ancient history. The latter are called the "jew crew" on fora that I have been on and I don't know or care whether that targets all Jews or all Israelis or who may feel offended by that. I did not invent the term nor do or will I give it a second thought. I, for one, am offended by religious fanaticism and nationalism (which both are reasons to present Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of Israel), and by folks who present biblical tales as accurate history (and derive political claims from that). And, does anybody care? Cush (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: I am a Jew offended by racism towards Palestinians. And obviously I'm going to be offended at racism towards myself as well, or what good would I be to anybody. I really could care less about the context of your use of the term, I didn't even read the discussion. There is no justifiable context for such language, towards any group of people on the planet. I was gloing to give you a chance but given your response to my attempt to reason with you respectfully, think I may report this as hate speech, after all. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC) LamaLoLeshLa

END of discussion thusfar (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I support LamaLoLeshLa's complaint. The editor was approached politely with requests for retraction and was hostile to feedback. Durova^Charge! 06:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this really about? I was indicating that those who edit articles to depict Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of Israel (although not internationally recognized) are following a political and/or religious agenda. And I was using a term (without much thought) that targets those who push that agenda at all cost and who edit articles to force their perspective on everybody else. And now I get bashed for it as racist, antisemitic, and whatnot. So really, what is this about? Cush (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What this is really about is your using anti-semitic language. You appear here to be implying that it is about your stance on Jerusalem. Well, if you look at edits of mine such as [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] etc, you'll find that I have been active both in supporting the inclusion of material divergent from the Israeli stance on Jerusalem and in challenging the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. However, I find your stance here offensive. The more you argue against your edit having offended people, the more it looks to me that you really are antisemitic.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to put this into perspective, the complaint is about a single use of the disputed terminology in an edit summary. From there, this little anthill of minor incivility (real or perceived) has turned into the huge mountain of a mess we have now. WP:AGF indicates that we should take Cush at his word that he did not intend to be offensive. I have no problem with that and can accept it. At the same time, it should also be assumed that at least one user did find it offensive. The bottom line is that Cush can't really "undo" the edit summary and while an apology from Cush would be nice, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires him to do so. Cush asked "What...do you want from me?" The answer, I believe, is simple: simply refrain from the use of that term in the future. If Cush can agree to that, everyone lives. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 08:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The complaint is about Cush being unapolegitic about this use of language. People did not come straight here but raised it elsewhere. It is only when Cush himself failed to WP:AGF and accused others of having an agenda in complaining about his antisemitic language that I and others have come to this page. Things have gone sufficiently far for your contribution to strike me as naive. There certainly are policies and guidelines that have been violated here.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to discuss this? The offence is lacerating, and the offender is unapologetic. That Cush should be banned is self-evident. The only question is that of the duration of the suspension. I leave it to administrators, but they should not wait for consensus on matters like flagrant, to use an ugly word characteristic of people who employ this hate-cant, 'Jew baiting'. People who come to I/P articles with that sort of mindset are not wanted and should be blocked, at least remonstratively, until they come forth with a sincere apology.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As a starting point, I have blocked User:Cush indefinitely, but plan to lift the block after 1 week on three condtions:

1) that the one comment is the extent of the inflammatory comments made

2) clear willingness demonstrated that any like comments will not be made/posted by this user again

3) appropriate conduct during the week off

I am sorry that the user in question normally participates in forums where that type of language is deemed acceptible. . . it is not. If civility is to mean anything, it has to create an environment where people can particpate amicably together to produce an encyclopedia --The comment made by Cush stands directly opposed, or in contradiction, to that idea. Once again, this is a starting point, I will of course go with the consensus here. Thoughts? R. Baley (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)I thought about putting a disclaimer here, but suffice it to say, I have no conflict of interest in this matter.

In other words, you're not Jewish? :-P Not sure that its relevant, but OK! Cush' participation and comments in the Israel/Palestinian conflict subject area makes him subject to the remedies of the IP arbitration case. Sanctions against users in this area should probably be logged here. Avruch^T * ^ER 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't :-) As for the "Log of blocks and bans" area, I'm not sure that this applies, because I wasn't using the remedies from that case. Also, it states there that the remedies are to be enforced after a warning about the sanctions (I didn't see Cush's name on the notification list). In any case I think this block stands on its own. R. Baley (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

An appropriate response. If nothing had been done, it would have become open season for all sorts of misbehavior on I/P articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow; this is really an excessive response. As I noted on Cush's talk page, I agree that the statement was offensive and presumptuous, but this comment does not appear to reflect a ongoing trend, insofar as I have seen. He's not apologetic, but he sounds more naive (a la "I've seen this term used on other fora") than truly anti-semitic. Thus, an indefinite block here is just beating him into the ground for something that ultimately was not a big deal, as long as he doesn't continue to use such inappropriate terms. A refusal to provide an apology does not equal a refusal to stop; some people are just unwilling to say "I'm sorry", for a variety of reasons (some more valid than others). So, if he doesn't appear as if he'll continue with the inappropriate remarks, the block is not preventative, but punitive. -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now, he's only blocked for a week assuming the conditions are met (not a pattern, assurances it won't happen again). This can be lengthened or shortened depending on what happens here. I didn't want to set a definite date in the block, because not enough people have weighed in here, and I thought it better to just change once rather than racking up the block log if consensus should change. Also note that I do not require an apology (not that one wouldn't be helpful). R. Baley (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, I think the way Baley has handled this could be used as a template for similar incidents. Cush has used an extraordinarily offensive phrase, and shown zero remorse/sense that it was wrong, or willingness to abide by policy in the future. I think a no questions asked indef would have been okay as well, but this leaves the door open to the user reforming. And tariq, I have every expectation that this user will exhibit this behavior in the future unless and until he says he won't. IronDuke 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's important to point out that the expression "Jew crew", by itself, is not inherently insulting or offensive. It's how it's used that's the problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

R. Baley made a good call here. Several editors had already tried to engage Cush in dialog without success. The ball is in Cush's court now: if he makes it clear that he gets it he can come back. Durova^Charge! 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

At one point in time, the first hit for Jew on Google was to an anti-Semetic site, and Google defended it, in part, by pointing out that Jew was much more likely to be used by anti-Semites then others, who tend to use the adjective form. So it's inherently more offensive than, say, "the Jewish crew", would be. And phrases like "the Christian crew", "the atheist crew" or "the Jewish crew" would annoy me, and using them in any but the most limited sense would be horribly stereotyping. I think "Jew crew" comes pretty close to inherently offensive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's being used to verbally attack Jews, then it's offensive. I'm just saying that the words themselves are not necessarily offensive. It could even be used affectionately if it was used in the right way. It's not the words, it's how they're used. For a trivial comparison, when Billy Crystal had his spring training at bat for the Yankees, another comic said he was the DH - "Designated Hebrew". Is that offensive? Not the way it was used. I think the comic who said it was also Jewish, and that makes a major difference. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that R. Baley's response was a good one and closely echoed what I suggested above (even though I was called 'naive' for it). I, personally, wouldn't have gone indef as this was his first "offense" in 2 years. He certainly doesn't show a pattern of this kind of behavior and I think that this may well be an isolated incident. This incident went from him saying it to it coming to ANI in just a few short hours. He could have just been having an off day. Perhaps that's just me being "naive" again, but based on his spotless editting history since 2006, I think that giving him the benefit of the doubt in this case (and a chance to improve) is fully justified. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my agreement with Baley's response - I think that Cush should get the message that 'casual' use of such language followed by a dismissive attitude to people's considerately expressed concern, does not fly on wikipedia....AND that he should have a chance to show that he gets the message/will not go down that road again. Thanks for your involvement, Baley and Durova. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CONCACAF Champions League 2008-09

I'm having a problem with SuperSonicx1986 (talk · contribs), who has been involved in content disputes and ignored my attempts to discuss the issue on his talk page. In the interest of full disclosure we were both blocked for edit warring about a week ago, though my block was appealed succesfully because it was ruled his unwillingness to discuss the issue justified my reversions of his edits as vandalism, thus the 3rr didn't apply. He has come back again, and it appears that he is attempting to sock his way around the issue by logging out of his account, though he used the exact same edit summary, so I don't see the point. Maybe it's a case of mistaken identity, but all the same please, someone look into this. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this, before an all out edit war begins again? -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grawp

Some of his sockpuppets have included in their edit summaries links to pages that make your Internet window move around, have pictures of sexual organs, and a voice saying "Hey, everybody! I'm looking at gay porno!" Could someone please take down those sites? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 07:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we can't, we neither run the websites or manage the ISP they are connected through. Chafford (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And to be honest it isn't a terribly good idea to go to a website linked to in an edit summary by a pagemove vandal. We could blacklist the link but I don't think that affects edit summaries. Hut 8.5 09:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, someone was dumb enough to actually visit the sites Grawp links to? LOL. And the prize juggins award for the day goes to... Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, that comment was uncalled for. For anybody reading this thread, remember that Grawp's edits (including edit summaries) include links to a shock site with malware. --Kyoko 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know. Apologies. Just couldn't resist...Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, it seems to me that it wouldn't be difficult to fix this particular attack vector. Would it not be possible to ensure that hyperlinks in edit summaries aren't clickable? I seem to recall that the clickability was a fairly new feature anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any of the links hyperlinked. They're just the urls that you copy and paste.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A request has already been filed to expand the blacklist to edit and other summaries - see bugzilla:13599 and bugzilla:13811. I'd suggest commenting and/or voting on those bugs to get the devs to work on it, although it appears that second link is getting some attention. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we just find out who this is once and for all and have someone beat him comatose with a lead pipe? I know: wishful thinking, but everyone has dreams... HalfShadow 05:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Korax1214 moving pages related to Black communities around the world

Resolved. User blocked indefinitely

Can somebody take a look at the recent contributions of a user (who seemed to have been retired but has just become active again tonight), who started moving pages related to Black communities around the world, namely User:Korax1214? The reason I'm asking is that the moves are quite similar to the moves performed by User:CanuckAnthropologist prior to his being blocked (for tendentious editing) yesterday, so there is always the possibility of a sockpuppet at work. A second opinion would be most welcome. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly appears to be the case, although I would like further input from other editors before sanctioning either or both accounts. I have removed the {{inactive}} templates from the accounts user and talk pages, for the sake of clarity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it likely they are the same person (for instance compare [85] and [86] for consistent attempts to move articles beginning with "Afro-") and as such have blocked the account indefinitely. Trebor (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zarbon unblock request

Zarbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

Indefinitely blocked user Zarbon was indefinitely blocked in December 2006 and is requesting an unblock. The blocking admin (MrDarcy) no longer edits, so I am bringing it here without prejudice. From the block log, it looks like he may not have intended an indefinite block (he said that the last block was not showing up in the log - if that was a caching or refresh or some such problem and he was referring to Deskana's 3-month block, then it may have been his intention only to block for 3 months). Anyway, Deskana hasn't edited in 2 weeks and MrDarcy has had 2 edits in the last 7 months. So I'm bringing it here without opinion for consideration. --B (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support unblocking at this time. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser first to find out if he's been socking to evade his block. He WAS indefed for that in the first place, after all... Jtrainor (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Checkuser first. There have been some recent socks floating around Dragon Ball related pages including some vandalism on my user page that has been suspected of being from this user by members of WP:DBZ. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Support unblocking, indef seems a bit long for a user who violated 3RR (even with socks). Tiptoety ^talk 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I oppose unblocking for the moment. All the above seems fine but this user had a MAJOR problem with revert-warring, and didn't express an understanding of that in the unblock request. I'd like to see him address that at least. Mangojuice^talk 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Checkuser shows nothing but him on his self-admitted IP (User talk:72.229.48.178). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mangojuice, FYI, please see his latest comment at [87] where he says "I am going to try my best not to edit war". I have no strong opinion either way, although I would quote Master Yoda on this one - "do or do not, there is no try". When you are going to "try" to do something, that means that there may be circumstances beyond your control that would cause you to be unable to do it, but barring that, you will comply with the request. But there's no circumstance that could ever force you to edit war - so there is no "try". I may be reading too much into this, though ... I freely admit that. --B (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  - Based on [88], I have unblocked him. Feel free to review or whatever. --B (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem user - 3rr, own, vandalism, copyvio

Ertert12345 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) is being difficult at the Oakamoor page. He/she claims ownership (multi-diff at my talk page and Alanmaher's talk page); is adding nonsensical information (several, but typically like this); has broken the three-revert rule (five edits in the last 30-odd hours); and has replaced the page with a copyyvio from about Britain. Anything I say just seems to wind him/her up. Could a third party have a look? Mr Stephen (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Stephen is claiming ownership of the Oakamoor page and vandalizing the site. As anyone can see who actually lives in Oakamoor, the information at the Oakamoor entry is correct. It is provided by the AboutBritain.com website under its Oakamoor entry. I submit that if Mr. Stephen continues to vandalize this entry that his access to wikipedia should be questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertert12345 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back to June 4. Wikpedia is not a travel brochure. Additions such as "Nature lovers will enjoy a trip up Cotton Dell", are entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.--Atlan (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the copyright policy/attitude about copy-and-paste from UK government sites? Ertert has copy and pasted material from this site. Kosher or no? --EEMIV (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that he should be blocked for a week, with a warning that of this behavior continues after the block has expired, then he/she will be blocked perminantly. Chafford (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To EEMIV: The page has "© Copyright Staffordshire County Council 2008" on the bottom. So no, it's not kosher to copy/paste from there. To Chafford: A block would be punitive now, not preventative. He has stopped inserting travel brochure-like info into the article after I notified him of Wikipedia policy against it.--Atlan (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Appletrees

Resolved.

Both parties have been reminded to solve content disputes through dispute resolution. Participants are advised to continue resolving their dispute civilly elsewhere. No further administrator intervention seems necessary at this immediate point. Admins who disagree are more than welcome to re-open the discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

He clearly used wiki sistem to check me as he said, the other use of improvement of the account. Is it a gaming, isn't it? [[89]][[90]]. I wish I knew what I should do in this case. I think this is clealy destructive. Please response to him some. Jazz81089 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what's going on, this isn't a very clear report, but is User:Appletrees implying User:EdJohnston has written or endorses the edit summary in the first diff?--Atlan (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote same content before the User:EdJohnston's statement. But Appletree isn't comprehending of temporal correlation. By the way I put in question Appltrees conduct to use wiki system to check me. I don't want to reply his destructive plot as he wants. Wiki isn't Appletree's toy. Jazz81089 (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Appletrees of this conversation. Perhaps he can help clarify this situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure what the complaint is, either, but it may have something to do with this accusation of sockpuppetry. —Travis ^talk 17:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, FYI: I finally figured out where EdJohnston fits into all of this. —Travis ^talk 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I already wrote same what EdJohnston wrote before he wrote, as I already write in my talk page [[91]]. I think that finally conclusion is the same as yours, EdJohnston's and mine about this item. What I put in question is Appltrees conduct to use wiki system to check me. He reverted the item only to check my opinion without no other reason[[92]][[93]]. Isn't it destructive? Appletrees conduct is too hostile attitude to wikipedia community and the wikipedia as a dictionary. Jazz81089 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not the IP's, and not a suckppetry, as you would be ascertainable. So I would wait your testification. And CU Request was declined. But He will cleary repeat of the same act as he wrote below. I can tolerable of CU again, but I can't do that Appletree use the highly public wikipedia dictionary to check someone as he wants. It's wretched stupidity. Jazz81089 (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's wretched stupidity.? You made the clear personal attack to me at this public place. Surely, admin would not condone such the violation on WP:NPA by you. Of course, this is a Wikipedia, and you do not regard any WP:DR methods unlike me. You just repeat your insistence and you POV to the series of the articles in order to take out all Korean mention from articles that you care. --Appletrees (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jazz81089, stay civil. Appletrees, please also try to assume good faith. The check-user request was not declined; it was problematic for technical reasons. I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to here, Jazz, as you indicate that you can tolerate "CU" but not "the highly public wikipedia dictionary to check someone". Appletrees has no access to any technical tools to check anyone; he can request it of an editor who has been trusted to discretely handle that function if it seems appropriate. I agree that it was improper for Appletrees to edit the article as he did after the block. I suggest you both pursue dispute resolution and edit war no more to avoid lengthier blocks or the full protection of the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not understand that why his highly inappropriate personal attack is just mildly treated. The article was originally written as "Korean-manhwa comics", so his preferred version is a wrong version against previous consensus for long time. I've tried to have a good faith in the anon/Jazz even though I watched their/his continued vandalism on manhwa and others. I've done and waited him to response to the normal dispute resolutions but what he has done? Nothing except this.--Appletrees (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, I am not the IP's and sockpuppets, so it is no problem to me to CU more and more. I only want to stop to use the wikipedia system not to use to make a good dictionary but for other aim. With conducts like Appletrees, no one want to edit with the following the beat of his own drum to make the wiki as a good dictionary, and with the conducts the dictionary will be a mixed with what isn't a dictionary. It is cleary destuructive to the wikipedia commnunity. Jazz81089 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying even though I'm writing broken Engrish. no one want to edit with the following the beat of his own drum to make the wiki as a good dictionary, and with the conducts the dictionary will be a mixed with what isn't a dictionary.????????? Just like your contribution history, you have nothing but edit warring anywhere with your 9 edit before you decided to return the article so deftly after your 8 month break. The sudden appearance of yours does not add up at all. I've been writing articles with reliable sources and produced many NPOV articles unlike your disruptive behaviors. I wrote over 400 articles with 7 DYKs. You have been here for 3 years, so that requires NPOV and writing ability with reliable sources. Tell me or show me what contribution has you done to English Wikiepdia? Your disruption does not give Wikipeida to develop furthure. Have you ever participated in my suggestion to resolve the issue? --Appletrees (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible disruptive sockpuppetry of Jazz81089 (talk · contribs)

Manhwa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Blade of the Phantom_Master (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The comment at the edit summary is from admin User:EdJohnston at WP:AN3, not from me. Due to the limited space, I paste the partial of his comment not altering anything at all. Several days ago, a Japanese OCN ISP anon user vandalized manhwa several times[94][95][96], which has been a tendentious target by Japanese anons/ or banned Azukimonaka (talk · contribs).[97][98][99][100][101] They(?) with the same ISP anon(s) altered the lead section on manhwa, and tried it to look like a copycat of Japanese manga, with no source.[102]Jan.23.2008 [103] That kind of disruption has been continued for over months or over a year by the same ISP user.[104][105] Due to the OCN anon, I checked out his/her contribution. He blanked the manhwa mention and nationality of Korean creators of Blade of the Phantom Master as well. As I restored it to the previous one from his blanking and recalled that a mention of Korean-manhwa comic in the lead section was completely removed by the same ISP user and Azukimoanak since the June of the last year. Whenever the info was restored by other editors, the same anon editor blanked the info over and over. Not surprisingly, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) started the the campaign.

Regardless of my several warnings or suggestions him/her to participate in an open discussion[106] or their talk page, the anon did not care about the common WP:DR methods. I have not claim to remove Japaense anime/manga category or only include manhwa, but presented a compromised version like a cartoon and an animation series created by Korean manhwa artists......specializing first as Japanese manga published by Japanese magazine..... I think the description both contains mention of their job as manwha artists and and its first publication as manga written in Japanese. In addition, the work was later published in South Korea, of course in Korean. However, the anon/Jazz insists removing all Korean nationality and manwha and it should be purely Japnese manga, because it was directed by a Japanese magazine and published in Japanese. However, the work style and original draft written in Korean have nothing to do with manga style unlike his claim. Their fame already has established in South Korea and first introduced their works to the US and Europe. And the anon(s) (or one person) have been blanked the info to look the work like only manga work by Japanese creators.

So I also filed WP:RFC to get more opinions from third persons[107], but he did not seem to participate in any of them. and then, Jazz81089 (talk · contribs) suddenly appeared to do the same thing as the anon's after his long break; 8 months! So I went to WP:AIV, and heard that I should file either WP:ANI or WP:SSP. The total edit number of the new contender counted only 9 in 3 years before his reappearance to Wikipedia. To me, he is too obviously using a sockpettry just like Azukimonaka did. Anyways, two admins semi-protected the three pages[108] due to the anon's disruption. The former's edits are all overlapped with Azukimonaka's and shares with the writing style too. So I filed a WP:RFCU on him[109], however, due to his edit number in total is insufficient to judge the case[110] (once checkuser said to me that at minimum editing 50 times is needed to judge whether editor in question is a sock or not). He or she also did the same thing to other relevant page, which pertains to one of the manhwa creators too. I went to a couple of admins who looked at the case[111], [112][113] and semi-protected or has edited the article in question too[114] for seeking a help. In the meanwhile, the duo/or seemingly one person violated 3RR twice in a row, so I filed this to WP:3RR [115], but my plea was ignored and the obvious sockpuppeting did not be counted.[116] The both was blocked by admin Selket (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring, [117] although another admin, EdJohnston expressed his concern on Jazz's blanking.[118] I felt very unfair in this situation because the blocking admin did not even a common block sign as a courtesy and I was treated the same regardless of my all effort to resolve the issue. However, I still gave him another opportunity him to express his thought on the dispute.[119] Besides, I left a note to both of the WikiProject Manga and animation project[120] and Korean project[121] (manhwa is managed under the Korean pop culture task force). If he is really not the anon, he has not participated in any of the WP:DR. And now, he absurdly reported it with no logic but seems to believe that the first report here is advantageous for him. I will add the relevant links soon. --Appletrees (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with your attempting to ascertain if Jazz81089 is the same as the IP addresses making changes, given that the changes are identical. The "duck" test makes a connection seem likely. But can you explain what you intended by your edit summary? The text you modified today did not "remove the Korean mention", as those edit summaries would seem to imply, here and here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove the Korean mention by myself, but restoring it from his blanking. --Appletrees (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Korean mention had not been removed. It was still in the text when you edited. Jazz's last edits before the block left the following: "is a Japanese manga series created by a Korean manga writer". Your revision changed it thusly: "is a cartoon and an animation series created by a Korean manhwa writer." In his last edit, the one you reverted today, Jazz did not remove the Korean mention, although he characterized the work as "Japanese manga" by a Korean manga writer, while you characterize it as "cartoon and animation" by a Korean manhwa writer. Jazz had not removed the Korean reference with his last edit, which makes your edit summary a bit misleading (even if you did not intend it so). Also worthy of note, Ed's opinion may well be relevant to reaching consensus on the removal of the mention of Korea, but it does not constitute permission to continue edit warring (please note that Ed also said that he thought the block against you for edit warring was correct). Reverting the article to your preferred version immediately on release from a block for edit warring on the article is not proper. I understand that the question here is whether the work should be characterized as manga (in preference to the publishing place) or manwha (in preference to the writer's culture). This is not so urgent a question that a reversion can be made without process. The thing to do here is neutrally seek additional opinions (you want to avoid canvassing) and reach consensus on the article's talk page, following which the version consensus prefers can be put in place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My saying is encompassing all the changes by him/them. They are not Korean manga artists as to the artist, but Korean manwha artists because their work of art is not related to Japanese manga or learned its style in or from Japan at all. Comic critics said their work is more like graphic novel and they said as such. Besides, he removed category of manhwa over and over. Besides, after the block, why would I posted to relevant Wikiprojects to get more opinion? However he posted here to accuse me of gameing Wiki rule in a very bad faith. He has not participated in any WP:DR initiated by me. Besides, he made a personal attack against me "wretched stupidity" --18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Korean mention remained. What you're talking about is a content dispute. You had no consensus for reverting the article again and should know after having been blocked for edit warring that continued reversion is not the means of handling content dispute. Your posting to Wikiprojects is appreciated and is an appropriate means of gaining consensus (although the language you used is not neutral). I hope it will bring in enough contributors to help the two of you resolve your differences. Meanwhile, let me be clear that blocks do not exist so that you can do your time and then go back to reverting. This can indeed be interpreted as gaming the system and might lead to a further block. His comment about "wretched stupidity" above has no bearing on this at all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With all extra due respect, they are no relation with Korean manga artists. Just like there is no Japanese manwha artist unless a Japanese learns the art in South Korea and keeps publishd his/her work in Korea. Besides, does his version have a result from any consensus or discussion with me or others? Not that I know of and your saying sounds like I should bear the too transparent sockpuppetry. If the anon is truely unrelated to Jazz, he should've already appeared with his legimate account. Who else appeared at the page with the same editing pattern? None but Jazz. I do not do gaming the system, but simply restored it to near original version. I don't have any capacity to hold his mockery such as that. Besides, how well would he know me from his previous 9 edits and this edit warring? --Appletrees (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant. Even if the other editor in a dispute content with you is, in your opinion, flatly wrong, you still must resolve dispute through consensus. You may not return to edit warring after a block. Restoring it to the original version is no defense. (Consensus can change.) The administrator who made that comment did not himself choose to revert Jazz's last edit; there's no justification for you to do so on his behalf on the basis of his comment. Meanwhile, as regards your concerns about sock puppetry, the article has been semi-protected; further IP edits to the page will not happen until that expires. You have recourse to the usual steps at WP:SOCK if you believe sock puppetry is an ongoing concern. You've already reached out to others to participate in your content dispute. Handle it through process, not through brute force. At this point, I don't personally believe further administrator intervention here is necessary. You'd both be well advised to go resolve your dispute at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your spending time and effort to resolve the case although the result is not what I expected. I will look into the policy of (Consensus can change.) to acknowledge it thoroughly. However, I did not report this case here, but Jazz81080 did. If furthur disruption or suspicious sockpuppetry would happen at the talk page of the relevant articles, that would be really necessary of administrative actions to one or both of us, but I hope not. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

←I understand that content disputes can be highly frustrating, particularly when you feel that the right answer is obvious. I've been in that situation myself. I hope that the two of you will be able to come to terms. If you don't get a response from the Wikiprojects and it only involves you two, then perhaps WP:3O would be another place to look. Remember to post your request neutrally. Good luck. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] User:Rollosmokes

Ongoing revert war regarding various US broadcast television articles. Currently involved in ongoing reversion here regarding WIS-TV and has been repeatedly removing information (contribs) on final digital TV channel assignments from dozens of articles, as well as making personal attacks and baseless WP:SOCK accusations. Has already been given WP:3RR warnings by user:onorem and user:dustihowe for 3RR violations on {{Infobox Broadcast}}, but appears to be largely ignoring them and taking the current full protection of that page as an endorsement of whatever version he was reposting. WP:RFPP itself was briefly protected sysop-only to stop his disruptions there [122] [123] [124] [125]. He seems to be trying to keep just under the 3RR threshold (technically, reverting to repeatedly remove info from a hundred pages once doesn't trigger 3RR as long as the reversions don't hit the same page thrice) and is trying to recruit others to his cause.

The content issues have been placed on RFC here but an attempt to raise the endless reversions as a question of wikiquette here was closed with the advice that the matter had gone beyond a simple question of wikiquette and was therefore more suited for one of the incident noticeboards. Might be worth keeping an eye on this one as issue is ongoing. --carlb (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I and others have had run-ins with Rollosmokes over content matters. However, in the case of WRAL-TV, for example, which is where I noticed your little battle with him, you might be on firmer ground if you supplied a source, rather than just changing it and opening the door to him changing it back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Carlb has attempted to get around a consensus on WP:TVS regarding changes to Template:Infobox Broadcast, which is currently under semi-protection due to changes made by him without any consensus, by creating Template:Infobox DTV and inserting it into articles without letting anybody know at all, period. These are the changes RS is currently making because Carlb is trying to insert his 'right version' by avoiding the semi-protect on Infobox Broadcast and avoiding the cool-down period altogether. He is also categorizing digital television stations into separate categories, also without letting anybody know and discouraged as over-categorizing.

Finally, consensus on our project has been to adjourn discussion of changing infoboxes for DTV purposes for now because the transition isn't anywhere near close to here yet, but Carlb has ignored our pleas to step aside.

Current discussion on TVS Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources for most of this would be FCC database lookup, {{TVQ}}. There's also a fair amount of info on W9WI.com, but FCC is the primary source to verify these. As for being "not anywhere near close to here", we have at most eight months to sort through 1800 full-power TV stations and determine where four or five hundred of them are moving. No small task, and not something to leave to the last minute on Feb 2009. As for {{Infobox DTV}}, this was discussed on the WikiProject page here as far back as June 1... long before user:rollosmokes started his infamous revert war on {{Infobox Broadcast}}. The idea behind a separate template is to allow "analogue" and "temporary" fields to simply be removed on February 17, 2009 without this affecting non-US stations or low-power broadcasters, both of which will still be free to transmit analogue TV. There have been various changes made to the infobox in response to discussions, such as having the "digital" field as the final channel assignment after this is over and hiding "post-transition" info from display until later in the DTV transition. The template was designed to appear similar to {{Infobox Broadcast}} by design - the final channel assignments are there, but they're revealed and the old info removed only after we are closer to analog shutdown. All of this was explained and re-explained. Keep removing all information as to where the channels are moving, and there will be plenty of just-plain-wrong information in the encyclopaedia come 2009. It's no small task to track down all the FCC data, and it won't be correct if all attempts to add it in time for digital switchover were unilaterally reverted by whomever WP:OWNS Wikiproject Television Stations. It's unfortunate, but them's the breaks. --carlb (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We never approved a separate template and it never entered into the discussion. I'm sorry, but creating a different template to round the consensus and a semi-protection is not the right way to go. We have all told you to stand down and you have ignored our pleas to do so. There is no need at all for a different template at all. Please, cease trying to find end-arounds when it is clear that we are fine with status quo as it is until we can come to an agreement later. Nate • (chatter) 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't maintaining any "status quo", he was repeatedly changing {{Infobox Broadcast}} repeatedly in such a way as to cause many, many channels to appear with listings like "Analog: 8 (VHF) Digital: 8 (VHF)". It was made quite clear as far back as June 2 that this is not a valid way to do this [126], yet he continued until he had WP:3RR warnings from two different people and had caused enough disruption as to cause not only the template but also WP:RFPP at one point to be full-protected. Not semi-protected, big difference. How is "Analog: 8 (VHF) Digital: 8 (VHF)" the result of any consensus and not merely disruption by one user with an axe to grind? --carlb (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What Rollo is doing is reverting everything back to what it was originally was, since your changes were not brought up at WP:TVS before they were made. If you would've asked us first before you went ahead and made the changes, none of this would've happened. We as a team decide what should and should not be used in the articles. You failed to consult us first and, apparently, you refuse to consult us. While he might've violated WP:3RR, he was doing it because you were making changes that were contrary to TVS's opinions. Personally, in the whole, Rollo did nothing wrong; it is you, carlb, who's at fault. -- azumanga (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Were that true, I wouldn't have had to spend most of yesterday trying to repair pages that were broken because of his tampering with templates. He's done more than violate WP:3RR... --carlb (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This incident should never have been filed. I've been watching this discussion at the project page, having been a longtime active member of the project, but have remained largely uninvolved. There was a clear consensus, on which I concur, and which carlb has tried to circumvent because he doesn't agree with it. Rollosmokes' activities have been in support of the project consensus. Carlb needs to abide by the consensus and stop trying to impose his will on the rest of the community and stop changing broadcast templates or creating new, unnecessary templates. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Rollosmokes

First of all, there is no incident to be discussed here.

Please pardon me if I sound redundant, but Azumanga1 and Nate have correctly stated what I was doing: simply reminding Carlb of the importance of consensus and discussion, and reverting changes he made that were not first discussed. There will be lots of changes to television station articles in the coming months, and those of us who edit these article should all be on the same page when the time comes to make the changes. Without consultation, Carlb decided to do things on his own, and utilized two unregistered IP addresses -- "66.46.167.154" (talk • contribs) and "72.140.46.227" (talk • contribs) -- to shield accountability away from him. But he got sloppy, and got defensive when he was confronted, then outed as a possible account abuser. Last time I checked, that's sockpuppetry. I blew his spot up and now he's taking it out on me, trying to bully me much like CoolKatt number 99999 did when I first came here.

Finally, there is also no "incident" when it comes to the WIS-TV article. Carlb has nothing to do with that, and he has no right to include this in his "argument" against me. Rollosmokes (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sick of this user

Resolved. Red4tribe to be hit with a stick for this pointless ANI thread, Trip Johnson blocked for being obnoxius. Now go edit the bloody encyclopedia and stop with the drama Nick (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm very sick of this User talk:Trip Johnson.He is very uncivil and I am only one among many editors who he has argued with. See talk:Battle of Harlem Heights for a sample.
Take a look at the lovely name he called me here(end of my paragraph). He has recieved many warnings in the past, but has a tendency to delete everything on his talk page every time he gets a warning. Just look at past versions. [127] Red4tribe (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a school playground, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, have you tried speaking to him? if so, admin action is required, if not, please go and do so. Chafford (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tried talking to him!!?? Absolutley! Look at past versions of his talk page! Look at the talk on the battle of harlem heights. Look at this talk:Battle of Barren Hill. He does not listen to me whatsoever. If you would like me to go back and dig up every name he has called me I will. Red4tribe (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And this talk:Battle of Princeton
talk:Battle of Trenton or even on my own talkpage. Red4tribe (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my bad! Chafford (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Red4tribe (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Trip Johnson for a period of 24 hours before every reading this thread. But now I must say that it appears you two are bordering on harassment or stalking yourselves and ultimately added flames to the already large fire. Sitting here and talking about how much you hate a user and all the shitty things he has done is in no way constructive and while I stand by my block, I can understand the frustration that Trip Johnson may have been going through. Since he is now blocked I ask you to stay off his talk page and stop trying to pick a fight. Tiptoety ^talk 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to pick a fight? I am just tired of him. I asked him to stop and he calls me an "asshole". I just want him to stop making disruptive edits. If he does that, he can go out and edit the world. That was my first post by me on his page in probably a few months anyways. Red4tribe (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"I'm very sick of this User talk:Trip Johnson." could have been better phrased "I am having communication issues with User:Trip Johnson who is continually calling me names and referring to me as a asshole." I guess the whole exchange above: "Tried talking to him!!?? Absolutley!" seems a bit un called for to me. Tiptoety ^talk 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] User:Xxhopingtearsxx-- a little too trusting

Resolved. Userpage deleted, Tiptoety ^talk 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, this user ... has a lot of personal info on his user page. I would not be comfortable with my nephew having that much personal information out on the internet. Should he be gently ensouraged to be a lot more discreet? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 17:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think we should say that here. I've edited your comment just in case anyone wants to oversight the preceding versions. Perhaps user should start over with a new account without disclosure to begin with. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the content per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, as simply removing the information would still leave it in the page history. I have left a note for the user explaining why the information was deleted and offered to provide them a copy of the deleted material via email for them to alter and place back in their userspace (without the personal info of course). Tiptoety ^talk 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sammy Davis Jr./Satanism

There has been an ongoing discussion over whether Sammy Davis, Jr. was a Satanist. He has been dead since 1990, but User:Mmyers1976 appears to intend to share with Davis' estate the fact that these "allegations" are on Wikipedia [128], with them establishing grounds to sue for libel. I'd like either of our positions clarified before this descends into further recriminations. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The guy points out that he's not a lawyer, which is your first clue that he's on legalistic quicksand. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note this Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. Since anyone can edit wikipedia, there is no guarantee the info is accurate, and wikipedia is not liable. Or so they say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere in the biography, the allegation definitely does not belong in the lede of the article. The allegation is sourced to a single book and there is little to suggest that it deserves such prominent treatment and credence. FCYTravis (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's where wikipedia's insistence on sourcing comes in handy. If the Davis estate comes knocking on wikipedia's door (which is unlikely), the wikipedia lawyers can point out the author of the reference and say, "Go talk to him." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:White_aasian vandalism

Resolved.

Fooling around with McDonald's and Burger King pages. I reported him on WP:AIV. Some pages will need to be fixed, possibly by an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He's repeatedly removing the warnings against vandalism. At this point, that's the only thing he can edit, so maybe it doesn't matter, although I thought that was against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. Removal of a tag is only further evidence it was read. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He can remove what ever he wants from his talk page, as long as it is not a {{unblock}} request while he is still blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware there's no general rule against removing stuff from one's talk page, beyond etiquette. However, when a user has been indefinitely blocked, the general rule also is that the only thing he should be doing is requesting an unblock. Doesn't much matter, as he's toast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we care way too much about that. Provided a user isn't making serious personal attacks, I see no need to prevent them ranting on their talk page if they're banned, or deleting stuff, or whatever. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Let him rant, revert any personal attacks, and otherwise leave him be and he'll go away soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Threat to flood e-mail with Nigerian spam

Resolved.

I'm not even sure there's anything anyone can do about this but I received the following e-mail today:

Full, uncensored, vulgar email -- view at own discretion

I've been pretty active with vandal fighting the past couple of days so I'm pretty sure it was one of those vandals. I'm thinking the prime suspect was User:M227, who made several unseemly wishes towards female members of my family the other day after I warned him for replacing a redirect link with a link to a YouTube video. Has anyone ever had such an experience before and is there anything I can do about it? I can provide headers to any user by request. Redfarmer (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reblocked the user with email disabled. Nakon 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it is resolved I just want to add this. It is always best to just ignore those messages. I have gotten them a lot before and still do. Just delete and ignore. Rgoodermote 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more, if you are going to choose to do anti-vandalism work you leave yourself wide open to stuff like that. I (like Rgoodermote) receive attack emails quite often and it is just best to apply WP:RBI. Tiptoety ^talk 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It's my first time encountering something like this. I'll keep it in mind next time. :) Redfarmer (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of deleting, you could save them in a special folder that you could label, "Candidates for Top Ten Stupidest E-mails of the Year". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sclua repeated personnal attacks and disruptive behavior

This user has repeatedly been breaking Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In the articles Crown of Aragon and Coat of arms of Catalonia he has been engaging edit warring:

Erasing references brought by other editors claiming them to be Aragonese nationalist lies" --> Not assuming good faith
Reverting edits by other users using xenophobic and racist comments calling me "Southamerican" --> Personal attack

He has also made comments such as:

"They are trying to block me, are trying that i leave to edit, i am suffering mobbing from both users with lots of threatens (...) It is Spanish fascism, worse than Chinese one (...)" here.
"I think a fascist Spanish hacker has blocked my access" here and here

May I notice to the admins that he was already warned for using this language: "Also suggesting that 'Spanish fascists' are responsible is disruptive" by User:Prodego. He then answered that he will try to moderate his vocabulary. Something he has not.

A number of users have already warned him because of his behaviour in his talk-page (me included), but he blanked the page.

For all these reasons, I'm reporting this user to the admins. Thanks --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally would hardly consider my passing comment a true warning. Prodego ^talk 21:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm also involved here. Sclua keeps removing sources that he doesn't like and misquoting the rest to fit his POV, like removing the only catalan author from a sourced list and then misquoting that same source that mentions a catalan author to claim that only aragonese authors backed a certain theory.

I warned him on his talk page, explained him why he shouldn't do that, and tried to merge into the article the few useful sources he brought, but he keeps edit-warring this sort of thing into the article.

Sclua has received several escalating warnings from me, but his behaviour is the same or worse, and keeps acusing others of bad faith for enforcing policies. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More MascotGuy

Back today as User:Technovision, blocked indef, all edits reverted. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Tiptoety ^talk 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr in Afd

Resolved.

User:BurpTheBaby has broken the 3rr (by many edits) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference. I think a notice from an admin would be more helpful than a notice from me. Thanks for your time! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Frank Anchor has broken this too, please be fair Step. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Frank Anchor did nothing to violate the rule. He was reverting what he honestly thought was vandalism to the AfD page. And the rule specifically lists reverting vandalism as being exempt from the rule. Ben1283 (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard is this a-way Q ^{T C} 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I already got my warning without the user putting it on that page. Can you just write him a note please. He's the elder user who should know the rule. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

>>>>my talk page is over here>>>> Gwen Gale (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The involved editors appear to have resolved this on their own. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP pushing POV

Special:Contributions/82.110.181.125 has made dozens of edits emphasizing Galicia over Spain every several days for the past month, and has twice been blocked for the same behavior after receiving warnings and requests for communication (none replied to) regarding the edits in the past year.

I suggest a block for this IP, given the many edits in short periods of time. And could someone auto roll back Galicia->Spain changes done recently? Toliar (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

I'd like some assistance. After reminding [129] User:Andyvphil that he's not to edit others' Talk page comments [130], he immediately altered my comments (to an uncivil quip) in his User_talk space [131] and continued his tenditious editing at Talk:Barack Obama [132]. I'd normally leave someone so clearly in the fast lane for a block to their own devices, but I don't appreciate his repeatedly editing others' remarks; Andy's been blocked repeatedly for his hostility toward other editors, and while others have tried to work with him, he doesn't seem to be learning from past interaction. Shem^(talk) 05:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Shem will take this opportunity to realize that warning and threatening every user he edit wars with is counterproductive, and will only make enemies, and will not help out his cause in the slightest. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's always been a collaborative work, so there aren't any "enemies" here, Evil Spartan. I stand by all of 'em, and was glad to step back in and remind some of y'all that Wikipedia's not a battleground. Shem^(talk) 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated incivility and bad faith of User:Mareklug

Mareklug (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been incivil toward me despite my requests to stop. He also refuses to WP:AGF and questions my motives without justification. See these diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I would appreciate administrator intervention. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANB

Click to reveal noticeboard

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

[edit] Pokrajac (talk · contribs)

This user is reverting English-language naming of tennis player biographies and names despite being informed about Wikipedia policy concerning those names. The relevant diffs showing his or her edits are here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. This user's rather incivil posts to my discussion page can be found here. Tennis expert (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, all Serbs, (also Croats, Bosniaks...) in this encyclopedia are listed whit original names whit Serbian (Croatian) latin letters š, đ, č, ć, and ž. There is no reason that tennis players be exeption. If somebody want double standards, I can't "fight" against strog inequitably power. --Pockey (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New instances of this user's disruptive editing: 14, 15, 16. Tennis expert (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing illiterately. --Pockey (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edit #17. Tennis expert (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC) And #18 --HJensen, talk 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that if all of the appropriate redirects are available, it will be a matter of indifference to most of our readers which spelling holds the actual article. - Jmabel | Talk 15:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But that's not established Wikipedia policy. What we're talking about here is a user who has been informed of the policy, has a personal disagreement with it, and is disruptively editing based on those personal feelings. Tennis expert (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not only my disagreement. Everyone who knows what is correct spelling of Serbian names can not accept this so called policy. Have you consulted Serbian and Croatian speaking users when you decided to make double standards about tennis players? Almost all people whit those leters in this encyclopedia are listed correctly and some so called proficients of Serbo-Croatian language can't tell over night what we must do whit tennis players. I will always be high-class user of this Wikipedia, and i will always correcting illiterately names. --Pockey (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I can see now that User:Tennis expert have produced big number of edit wars all over Wikipedia, because he think he is a lecturer of Serbian and Czech languages. Similar situation we have on article Radek Štěpánek, where he can't be tolerate for standardised Czech language. --Pockey (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Same thing whit article Daniela Hantuchová. This user speaks Slovak as well! :) --Pockey (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

More disruptive edits by User:Pokrajac: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Tennis expert (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to give my full support for User:Pokrajac and other users with brain on the right place and with the feeling of the common sense. This so-called "policy" is nothing else than a silent consensus reached by several like-minded users of WPP Tennis, their "consensus" goes against the common sense and the Wikipedia precedence and general consensus policies. Their fresh ruthless policies should be changed and reverted back, otherwise we will have double standards here. - Darwinek (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my brain apparently being misplaced lately, for having no conception of common sense, and for imposing "fresh ruthless policies." By the way, why did you say in response to the arguments that Redux made on your discussion page "I see your points" if those arguments were full of double standards and represent a mere "silent consensus reached by several like-minded users of WPP Tennis"? I have noted with interest your reversion of three renames of tennis articles after your dialogue with Redux: 1, 2, 3. Tennis expert (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All should be moved back to their proper names. Several stubborn users can't stop the whole community and the common sense of decent Wikipedianz. - Darwinek (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you're calling me "stubborn." What have I done to deserve being called names? That's very un-administrator of you. Tennis expert (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but if you don't see a problem with calling user "disruptive" for correcting article titles and report him for that at WP:AN/I, it is sad. This is no more, no less than a content dispute and should be dealt with as such. There would be 500 threads each day here if everyone would be dropping in with similar "issues" as you do. --Darwinek (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This was the exact procedure that Redux said should be followed: make reports to this noticeboard. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should talk to him and direct your name calling (e.g., stubborn, brain in the wrong place, no common sense, ruthless, disruptive, lacking decency, double standards imposing) in his direction. Besides, I thought you were supposed to avoid this kind of thing. Tennis expert (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My civility parole ended two months ago, my record is clear now, therefore I say to you, "No comment, this discussion is completely useless. I quit." - Darwinek (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Darwinek - although he should be aware Tennis expert is not the party at fault here, I've established after a conversation with him that he was not part of the original disputes nor was he aware of them. The articles should not be moved, just as we don't rename places because poor Anglos (of which I am proudly one, by the way) can't read foreign characters, and in general we don't name biographies, we shouldn't be creating a culture of exceptionalism where one WikiProject decides to violate norms elsewhere in the encyclopaedia for no apparent reason but that some other organisation thinks it necessary to drop diacritics. Orderinchaos 10:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So, it will be the usual "respect for native culture" argument that should guide naming on the English wikipedia? Not English spelling. What is the point here? Everytime consensus is reached about moving names to their English spelling, some days goes and then some natives round of their friends and start reverting. Are we just going to accept that? Just because East Europeans are more sensitive to this issue than, say, Scandinavian? (ps: what on earth does "i will always correcting illiterately names"?).--HJensen, talk 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been a long-standing consensus, or at least practice, to use original spelling for names in languages which use the Čatin alphabet and don't have English names (this has nothing to do with things like Vienna, or Spain, or John Paul II - all of those do have actual English names). For whatever reason, it's sports article editors which occasionally start these renaming-to-diacriticless-version campaigns. The last time I followed this, it was hockey, this time it's tennis. There are three coherent arguments for dropping diacritics for tennis players that I have managed to discern, but they are all misguided:

One claim is that diacritics make it hard for English speakers to find articles. This is a particularly bad argument, since we do have redirects.
Another is that tennis players are registered with WTA or ATP by their "Anglicised" (i.e. simplified) spelling. Accepting this as a valid argument leads to ridiculous conclusions - a young tennis player who hasn't turned professional, would have his names spelled with diacritics, and when he goes professional we should move the article. Obviously a bad idea.
The apparently strongest argument is that tennis players are most often referred to by the simplified spelling of their names in English language sources. While that may be true, it tells are more about the nature of those sources than about tennis players' names. Most sources for tennis players are newspapers, and newspapers tend to spell all non-English names without diacritics. OTOH, dictionaries and encyclopedias tend to use diacritics where appropriate. So in this case, "follow common usage" applied properly means "use diacritics".

The argument for using original spelling is really simple. There is nothing special about the names of sportspeople. There is no justification for using a different convention for tennis players, as opposed to writers or politicians or scientists. If we had a consensus to drop diacritics from all names, it would be entirely appropriate to do so for tennis players. But since UTF-8 titles were introduced by the developers because we wanted diacritics in titles, that sounds unlikely. Zocky | picture popups 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More disruptive behavior by Pokrajac here. This is on the Djokovic page hwere consensus for the English spelling has been reached after a long, long discussion. Now this user unilaterally acts against consensus. --HJensen, talk 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Zocky: (1) Why do you think the websites of both players' associations for professional tennis (the Women's Tennis Association and the Association of Tennis Professionals) omit diacritics? Neither are newspapers. Both are international organizations. What makes their usage unreliable but general purpose dictionaries and encyclopedias reliable for purposes of tennis biographies on English Wikipedia? (2) An amateur tennis player is unlikely to be sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. And even if he or she were, there's nothing wrong with changing the name of the article when it becomes appropriate to do so. Otherwise, Wikipedia would never include unmarried women lest they get married at some point in the future and agree to take their husband's name. (3) Why is the usage of the International Tennis Federation, the official international governing body of tennis, irrelevant? See, e.g., the biographies of "Novak Djokovic" and "Jelena Jankovic". (4) Why is the usage of the official website of the French Open (Roland Garros) irrelevant? For example, it uses "Djokovic," "Ivanovic," and "Jankovic". (5) Why is the usage of the official website of the Olympic Games irrelevant? See, e.g., names of "Nicolas Massu" and "Fernando Gonzalez". (6) Why is the usage of the International Tennis Hall of Fame irrelevant. See, e.g., the biography of "Martina Navratilova" (7) The reason that diacritics should not be used in tennis biographies on English Wikipedia is not because they are "special." Instead, diacritics are not used in the most reliable and official sources of English-language tennis information, from newspapers to websites to official tennis organizations, and THAT is why they should not be used on English Wikipedia.

What's really upsetting to me are edit summaries like "stop depressing Serbian language" by Pokrajac (Pockey) that demonize those of us who honestly and reasonably believe that diacritics should not be used in English-language Wikipedia tennis biographies when official tennis organizations do not use them. Tennis expert (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now reverted the user's edit on the Novak Djokovic article again, see here. And have, to make things crystal clear, made an entry on the Djokovic talk page explaining that for that particular article the user is acting against consensus. A consensus that involved numerous editors, and where proponents for using the Serbian spelling generally had better arguments than the kind of "using English spelling is sign of imperialism and disrespectful, etc." - arguments that the user in question here uses. Can this user just go on unnoticed with this behavior? Is this acceptable behavior on wikipedia? I would be happy to hear a clear answer from an admin on this. The admins here seem to be just (re-)starting a general diacritics discussion here, thereby avoiding an assessment of the actions of Pokrajac (talk · contribs) (which I thought was the whole purpose here). --HJensen, talk 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (Addition: One may also note that the user has engaged in canvassing, as evidenced here.)--HJensen, talk 06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Um noted, but (1)canvasing is a behavioral guideline not a policy and (2)this isn't exactly widespread solicitation with intent to 'disrupt' a well 'organized' conversation. More of noting a similar edit by another user and informing of a AN notice, not exactly a neutral message, but definitely not canvasing.--Samuel Pepys (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is definitely canvassing. The issue is whether it is disruptive. There I disgree with you again. The user explicitly states that s/he will use e-mail lists, so it is non-transparent, and also clearly partisan. So it fits into at least two categories defining "disruptive canvassing". --HJensen, talk 13:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hjensen, it's really simple - these are articles about those people, not articles about their registration with WTA or ATP. Their names don't change when they join. The whole thing is a non starter. I repeat, the fact that somebody is a tennis player has nothing to do with their name. If you can get Wikipedia to drop diacritics generally, you'll have a good argument to do so for tennis players. Until then, you're just wasting everybody's time. Zocky | picture popups 11:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so should I start a new ANI section on Pokrajac's behavior relating to the Djokovic article only? Like it or not, there is consensus in that article to use English spelling. Is that easier to cope with? (And my god; this is not about diacritics - it is about using the English spelling that can be verified by reliable sources. You are the one wasting everybody's time by digging up that argument as a scapegoat. So again: This is not about diacritics.) --HJensen, talk 13:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the argument is that these people have English names? That borders on ridiculous. We're talking about spelling, not names. Zocky | picture popups 14:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No. That would be ridiculous. Did I really say that? It is the spelling that changes. And when Djokovic became a renowned tennis player, an English spelling of his name developed. I don't know for what reason or how, but it did. He even uses it himself on his English version of his web page but uses the native spelling on the Serbian version of his web page. He seems to be a smart guy. --HJensen, talk 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the same happens to every other person and place that gets mentioned in English-language media. It's exactly the same for writers, plumbers and tennis players. The convention at Wikipedia has long been to use native spellings anyway. Zocky | picture popups 11:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully, but I don't understand your final sentence, "The convention at Wikipedia has long been to use native spellings anyway". You say "convention". Well, this English wikipedia convention says something opposite. It says: "If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence". Note that this convention is written for the English wikipedia (where we are right now). You just mention "Wikipedia" per se; which conventions are you precisely referring to in your statement?--HJensen, talk 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That is for Vienna vs Wien, not to install blatantly incorrect spellings on limited ranges of articles because a few Americans think it's too hard to link them. We have redirects for a reason, and your conduct across a whole range of talk pages has been far from exemplary. Orderinchaos 02:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to be incivil and slam Americans. Besides, HJensen is not American anyway. Tennis expert (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In essence my point was that one of the rationales which have always been given for such moves is that the names are too difficult for monolingual English speakers to handle. That was what I was addressing, albeit somewhat facetiously (many Americans can speak Spanish which uses accents). Orderinchaos 07:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A new rule on Wikipedia?

Dear readers. I have been blocked by User:Neil without any justification, nor providing the means of appeal, following a request filed by user User:Biruitorul. When I asked the blocking admin to justify, no further explanation was given. A second admin, User:CIreland wrote on my talk page in a very aggressive manner "out of the question", but still did not give any explication, nor provided any diff. The third administrator User:AGK did provide a diff[133], although without any further explanation either. Now when you click on the diff and read the reason the third admin gave for blocking me (edits such as this are in violation of the basic levels of civility expected from Wikipedia editors) - it appears as some sort of misunderstanding, incoherence, irrelevance, to say the least. When I tried to edit my talk page yesterday, I could not do it, although the little message that appears as I log in says - I can edit my talk page (which was indeed the case until yesterday). So, I guess somebody also deprived me of the right to edit my talk page. As of this morning, time after which I was supposed to be unblocked, I was still blocked and unable to edit even my talk page. Please, take some time to look into this matter deeper if you can. Thank you very much in advance.--Moldopodo^talk 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For those interested, there's more info at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Moldopodo. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockIP&ip=Moldopodo

repeatedly adding unblock requests is disruptive and abuse of the "unblock" template results in your talk page being protected (this is stated on the template itself). Additionaly three admins have reviewed and declined your request for un-block. That in itself shows that the block was already appropriately looked at. Valid block and appropriate protection used. --Hu12 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that editing your talk page is not a right. Please see WP:WINW. Soxred 93 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. I imagine being administrator is not a right either? Therefore it implies administrator having the privelege of taking and enforcing at the same time the decision, has in return certain obligations - the one of responsibility and giving proper account of her/his acts.--Moldopodo^talk 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block - As a third party admin, I endorse the block. Moldopodo was uncivil and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Wikipedia user. There is no way those diffs provided in the unblock templates could be interpreted in any other fashion. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I did not block Moldopodo. Moldopodo was blocked by User:Moreschi ([134]). I did refuse one of Moldopodo's unblock requests, as he had clearly violated the terms of the Arbitration enforcement he is under. I did also protect Moldopodo's talk page, with an expiry date of 10:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC) - this was the exact time his block was due to, and did, expire. I protected his talk page as he was spamming unblock requests (something he also did the last time he was blocked, and for which his talk page was also protected back then). He knows exactly why he was blocked, and knows exactly why his talk page was protected. Neıl 龱 14:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't know if anyone noticed this bit of canvassing by Moldopodo on the French Wikipedia, calling for editors to come and participate in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 28#Template:Romanian_historical_regions. Neıl 龱 14:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ths is concerning--Hu12 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned. His polling message appears to me to be neutral, and arguably the renaming of a wikipedia is of cross-language interest. I think we conflate two issues by bringing his polling into this discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Warn before blocking. I looked on his talk page and I could not find the appropriate warnings at any level. Why was he blocked before warned? Bstone (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Warnings are not required. Al Tally ^talk 14:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  
  See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Moldopodo and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Editors warned. Neıl 龱 14:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Plus, Molodopo doesn't have his facts right. Neil never blocked him, Moreschi did. Neil merely declined an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

- Endorse block. I would have blocked a repeat-offender like this User for a month or more. No sympathy here. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Endorse block. User clearly is no stranger to blocks, I'd suggest waiting it out and take time to reflect upon your actions. 48 hours isn't that long (and some of it has already expired). Rudget (Help?) 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Consider extending per Hu12 diffs. Rudget (Help?) 15:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  - Mass multiple project WP:CANVASSing is inexcusably disruptive, and I would support such a sanction.--Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    - WP:CANVASS says Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. The message left by Moldopodo appears to me to be neutral in outlook -i.e. not on nthe face of it seeking to influence the outcome, so much as make as many people as possible aware of the discussion. Seems to me to be well within the bounds of WP:CANVASS. Let's not get carried away here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      - Mass multi-project disruptive campaigning (15 projects +) is clearly not withing the "certain conditions" intended by the guideline, nor does it justify excessive canvassing.--Hu12 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Hu12 it is quite bewildering for me to see how you baldly read what is simply not written in Wikipedia regulations regarding canvassing. It is even more striking that you fail to see the truly disruptie canvassing in the message sent by User:Biruitorul on ro.wiki and translated, analysed with diffs below.--Moldopodo^talk 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. It's not as if vast numbers of ro.wiki participants strongly embrace Moldovenism, and my two-line message led them to vote differently somehow. They do have minds of their own, you know. And I didn't canvass on 15 unrelated projects, either. So really, this line of argumentation can be dropped. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Moldopodo's unwise effort to canvass the French Wikipedians has not gone unremarked by them. Maintenant, il semble que nous soyons désormais tout juste assez bons pour recevoir son spam ahurissant (portant notamment sur le troll de renommage de la Wikipédia en langue roumaine), mais en langue anglaise. (I didn't know that 'spam' was a French word too). EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Now, it seems that we are good enough to get his staggering spam (including the trollish renaming of the Romanian language Wikipedia), but [only] in English". Neıl 龱 16:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, google translate verifies this--Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - I was canvassed via email by Moldopodo to 1/ unblock him, 2/ summarily delete {{Romanian historical regions}}, 3/ votestack the discussion on renaming ro.wikipedia.org to mo-ro.wikipedia.org, and 4/ spread the word to other wikis about the template and meta discussion, but only to people who would agree with him. I have no particular interest in any of these, or the fate of this user. east.718 at 16:43, June 4, 2008

This is a gross lie, I can copy the message I sent you, I have never asked you to delete a template or whatsoever. You have received basicly the same message as the note cited below in English.

Copy of your message to East718: Wikipedia e-mail

`[edit] My unjustified block`

Dear administrator. Although using Wikipedia already for about ten months, I could not figure how to write an e-mail to an administrator (where to find the list), so I went on the main page and started checking the last edits, where I saw you. That is how you became my last recourse. I have been blocked without any justification, nor providing the means of appeal, following a request filed by an ethno-racist Romanian user, who keeps alterating the contents of Wikipedia to put through Greater Romania propaganda. When I asked the blocking admin to justify, no further explanation was given. A second admin wrote on my talk page in a very aggressive manner "out of the question", but still did not give any explication, nor provided any diff. The third administrator did provide a diff, although without any further explanation either. Now when you click on the diff and read the reason the third admin gave for blocking me - it appears as some sort of misunderstanding, incoherence, irrelevance, to say the least. When I tried to edit my talk page yesterday, I could not do it, although the little message that appears as I log in says - I can edit my talk page (which was indeed the case until yesterday). So, I guess somebody also deprived me of the right to edit my talk page. As of now, the time by which I should have been unblocked anyway, I am still blocked and unable to edit even my talk page. Please, take some time to look into this matter deeper if you can. Thank you very much in advance.

`[edit] Also, please have a look`

If you could spread this to interested users participating on English Wikipedia:

Discussion of Deletion of Template:Romanian historical regions[135]
Discussion of renaming ro.wikipedia.org into mo-ro.wikipedia.org[136]

Thank you in advance if you can repost the message where it belongs for interested users speaking English

Sincerely,

Moldopodo

First of all "canvassing" was never discussed on the administrators' board in the request filed against me. An attentive user, moreover administrator, would clearly see the scope of the request, as well as the scope of this discussion, by simply reading one more time (if he has ever read it before) the logged request and following discussion was never mentioned. Now, if you do mention canvassing, let's talk about it. The one who started the canvassing was User:Biruitorul (in fact I did not even know this was posible before User:Xasha posted a note about this on the discussion related to the deletion of the template "Romnanian historical regions"). Here is the message User:Biruitorul posted on the ro.wikipedia.org[137] Stimaţi colegi, e serioasă treaba! Un moldovenist a propus schimbarea numelui ro.wp in mo-ro.wp. Vă rog să vă exprimaţi părerile acolo cât mai e timp, şi dacă tot o faceţi, să vă uitaţi şi la această propunere de-a lui. Vă mulţumesc frumos. Biruitorul 1 iunie 2008 17:06 (EEST)
Translation in English Esteemed colleagues, a serious matter! A Moldovenist proposed changing the name of ro.wp into mo-ro.wp. I request you to express your opinions there as long as remains time, and if you do it, look also at this proposal of his. I thank you very much. 1 iunie 2008 17:06 (EEST)

Here is my message, which with minor changes (relating to language of Wikipedia project) was posted on different Wikpedias, only after I read the note of canvassing by User:Biruitorul. Please have a look If you could spread this to interested users participating on English Wikipedia:

Discussion of Deletion of Template:Romanian historical regions[138]
Discussion of renaming ro.wikipedia.org into mo-ro.wikipedia.org[139]

Thank you in advance if you can repost the message where it belongs for interested users speaking English

Now, let's make it clear what is canvassing, or allowed cnavassing and what is not here. As per Wikipedia definition: Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. When you compare the contents of Biruitorul's and mine messages you see a huge difference. First Biruitorul refers to a user (myself), second - in the following terms: and proposal of his, third he clearly gives an indication how to vote by labelling me "Moldovenist", four - he urges users to do it quickly... Whereas all I do in my message is informing people of the discussion, period.--

If you're trying to tarnish my name, you're not going to get much mileage using my message to ro.wiki. First, I posted to the Romanian Wikipedia because the discussion involved Romania, not to over a dozen other projects including totally uninvolved ones like France and Italy. Second, the bulk of my message referred to your meta proposal, and merely included a link to the other discussion as an aside. Third, if you're upset I called you a Moldovenist, I'm more than willing to apologise; otherwise, you can drop the subject. And of course I asked users to look quickly at the meta proposal - it's a big deal, and it's important our side brings out its arguments early in the discussion. And finally, I see your e-mail referred to me as "an ethno-racist Romanian user, who keeps alterating the contents of Wikipedia to put through Greater Romania propaganda". Unsubstantiated personal attack noted. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul, as per Wikipedia definition, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive - this is the exact description of the message you posted on ro.wikipedia.org. As for your name, I do not know how can one tarnish it more than you have done already. Like I said earlier, when I refer to your edits as ethno-racists it is because they are ethno-racist, and not because in fact the are "red rose" edits. You cannot continuously negate the existence of a nation, of a state of a language. If there had been a possibility to post my message in one place, where the discussions would have neen automatically notified to all Wikipedias, I would have done it. Unfortunately such program does not exist on Wikipedia. (Here is what one could think of in order to improve the neutrality and general quality of important structural Wikipedia discussions, as well as those touching different linguistic projects)--Moldopodo^talk 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, your case about my ro.wiki post is built on a rather thin reed. And I'm sorry, but WP:NPA does not give you license to attack me because you disagree with my beliefs. Yes: the "Moldovan language", the "Moldovan ethnicity" and the "Moldovan state" are all figments of the Stalinist imagination, created in order to deprive Romania of her rightful territory - and yes, Romanian is the language spoken all the way to the Dniester, Romanians are the only Romance people who inhabit the land between the Prut and the Dneister, and Romania ought to control that land, not the illegitimate entity that does so at present. If my stance annoys you, you have every right to express reasoned disagreement, or ignore what I say. You do not, per WP:NPA and WP:CIV, have the right to respond with personal attacks to my statements. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My case against you on ro.wiki is that you had recourse to disruptive convassing by writing a message to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion which compromised the consensus building process. Now, please read one more time my message and tell me how is it influencing anybody to vote for or against in the indicated discussions. As for your last comment on "illegitimacy" of Moldavian existence and "rightfulness" of Romanian, the one who will describe me how this is NOT ethno-racist, may consider that I take back all what I have written above and below.--Moldopodo^talk 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First, just to make clear - the Moldovan state - Moldova - is what I consider illegitimate. Having gotten that out of the way: again, avoid personal attacks. Be civil. Avoid inflammatory terms that denigrate other users' character. I happen to hold a belief, common in Romania and not that uncommon in Moldova. You may not like that belief, but using terms like "ethno-racist" to describe it remains unacceptable, regardless. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exact diff

I am sorry, but some of you failed to look into the matter again. None of those who "endorsed block" provided any argumentation, except saying, "the other one did just right" or "he is used ot it". I find such justification a rather primitive reasoning, not bringing any human input in the discussion. Otherwise we can appoint robots doing the same review. I repeat, there was no appropriate warning from a third party (User:Biruitorul's messge cannot be considered as a neutral objective warning for obvious reasons, as he was the one who filed the highly subjective POV request, absed on his sole explanation and interpretation). Secondly, the user/admin/whoever it was who blocked me in the first hand did not write something like "you are blocked for this and that, here are the diffs, here are the ways to appeal", which I find rather strange for an objective administrator, having such important privileges.

The sole diff[140] provided by the third admin User:AGK after two previous requests remained unanswered (or answered in a rude and aggressive manner - User:CIreland out of the question - which is unacceptable from a neutral adminsitrator) really does not make this block justified in any sense, please have a look at it and try to explain me how this diff merits a block.--Moldopodo^talk 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As a point of order - your block has expired, yes? What action would you like to see happen here? How should this be resolved? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So basically, even though multiple people have agreed with the block, you still arguing against it, pretty much on procedural terms only - lack of a formal warning and no diffs provided? Mr.Z-man 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, one administrator UltraExactZZ has given me a strong impression of really reading the diff and sticking to the subject, trying to present me a constructive argument, for which I thank her so much. Automatic endorsement, without any personal input is rather charactesitic for not so much thinking robots, than for multipe people.--Moldopodo^talk 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing on both: procedural and merits (substantial). In fact it cannot even be called an argument, as in an argument there is at least a properly formulated accusation (opponent's opinion) with relevant evidence, justifyig the decision. Here none of these are present. That's wy I titled this section "New rule on Wikipeda?". If my responsibility was unjustly engaged, I want the responsibility of those who contributed to this to be engaged as well. That's the main purpose of the whole thing. If an administrator has a privilege to block someone - then first of all it's a responsibility for the adminisrator, since it's not a divine right where administrator has no account to give to anybody. The answer of administrators, which can be resumed to "it is because it is and because I decided so and don't you dare to ask me for more explanation" is not an answer which ensures that a person is engaging her/his responsibility by taking a decision with important consequences--Moldopodo^talk 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, in reviewing the block, the unblock requests and reviews, and the arbitration enforcement items, it looks like the block was justified based on incivility as seen here, specifically beginning an edit summary with "Adriatikus, your edits are rather wicked,...", which very specifically ascribes a bad faith motive to a named editor. Even if an editor is acting in bad faith (a point on which I do not speculate), responding in kind is just as unacceptable. Is a block of 48 hours too harsh for such an offense? Were it not involved in an arbitration case (of which you were aware), I might be inclined to say yes - but the fact of the matter is that you were warned that conduct related to that arbitration case was being scrutinized, and made an edit that appeared incivil anyway. It looks like a block that is consistent with policy. As the block has expired, I would strongly recommend that you drop the matter and let it go; take it as a lesson learned (Be WP:CIVIL at all times), and move on with your life. I know you're quite upset, that much is obvious; unfortunately, I do not believe that you will find any satisfaction from continuing this thread. There does not appear to be consensus that the block was unjustified, and that is the only administrator action within the purview of this board. Not the answer you're looking for, I'm afraid, but that's my honest analysis. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Frankly speaking I already have an experience[141] with the review of the unjust block and know that most administrators don't bother reviewing the damn request, but just sign off "endorsed" partly because of fear to stand off, partly simply for suppoting their mates to keep their own privileges when the hard moment will strike. Now, as far as I understood, calling user's edit a wicked one, is the basis for the block. Let me explain that the aforementoned user had intentionally repeatedly deleted large portions of very important neutral official text (taking Moldavian mixed linguistic situation) and inserted some other text. To explain the changes made, this user simply put in the comment "adding new references". Now, here we have definition of "wicked"[142]

morally bad in principle or practice
sinful: having committed unrighteous acts; "a sinful person"
severe: intensely or extremely bad or unpleasant in degree or quality; "severe pain"; "a *severe case of flu"; "a terrible cough"; "under wicked fire from the enemy's guns"; "a wicked cough"
impish: naughtily or annoyingly playful; "teasing and worrying with impish laughter"; "a wicked prank"
disgusting: highly offensive; arousing aversion or disgust; "a disgusting smell"; "distasteful language"; "a loathsome disease"; "the idea of eating meat is repellent to me"; "revolting food"; "a wicked stench"

It is clear to me that the repeated edits by the aforementioned user were morally bad in principle or practice. What is then exactly wrong with this definition?--Moldopodo^talk 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Put that way, nothing; it's entirely possible that the other user's edits did indeed match that definition, and I have no doubt in your sincere belief that that is the case. However, the key issue is that the only conduct that goes into determining the nature and duration of a block is the user's own conduct - in this case, your own. That conduct, ascribing wicked motives to another editor's conduct, was incivil, and it would be judged incivil even if the other editor was indeed being wicked. On that basis, and given the prior warning of activity regarding Arbitration Enforcement, you were blocked. The other editor's conduct may be reviewed, or it may not; they may be blocked, or they may not, but that does not factor into the review of your conduct in the matter. Had you said "You seem to be removing sources rather than adding them", there may have been no problem. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your contribution to the discussion, as you clearly take your time explaining what you have to say, even if I do no necessarily agree with you, at least there is an intention of constructive argument from your side. I have just browsed definitions of civility/civil and could not find one which would support your point of view that calling a wicked action wicked is uncivil. Sure, You seem to be removing sources rather than adding them is an appropriate formulation when one really seems to be removing, but it did not seem to me, it happened at least three times in a row[143], [144], and [145]. There is no reason I would say that he/she seemed to be removing something. It did happen on purpose, obviously totally delibrately.--Moldopodo^talk 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xasha is Moldopodo

Ask checkuser to verify please. 61.145.163.228 (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On what basis? They won't proceed unless evidence of some form is provided. If provided, we'll ask them. Orderinchaos 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Upload

I found this protected page very difficult and frustrating to use.

And there are complaints on its talk page that have not been addressed.

I would like to work on and improve the page. Would someone unprotect it please?

The Transhumanist 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you outline your proposed changes in the talk page first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you suggest that? The Transhumanist 03:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would trust Transhumanist to make changes, he's a coding/layout wiki-genius, longterm editor in good standing. I would support a reduction in protection to semi for a period of time for improvements to be made (your ideas would help this gather consensus though TTH, I agree). What do you want to change? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. There are some complaints posted on the talk page pointing out the problems, and nobody is doing anything about them. It is a simple matter of wiki-cleanup and copy-editing to make the page easier to understand. As the page is protected, nobody except admins can fix these problems.

If you'd unprotect the page, the community would fix the page. It would be a simple matter to monitor it while the improvements are taking place. The page probably shouldn't be protected in the first place - it isn't any more high-traffic than the Community Portal or Help - interactive wiki-editing has refined these high-traffic pages to a high-degree of quality. Even policy pages are unprotected to allow anybody to make grammatical improvements, etc.

If it can't be unprotected, even temporarily, then admin attention is needed on the page. The problems pointed out on the talk page should be fixed by someone.

The Transhumanist 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing to address the complaints/make the changes yourself TTH, using the talkpage to garner consensus when necessary or otherwise contentious? (I read them too, they are legitimate complaints, but I rarely work with images). I will reduce it to semi protection barring any significant objection/rationale given here in the next few hours. Posting this on that talk page as well. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't I always? :) I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. The Transhumanist 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We should make changes by forming consensus then using {{editprotected}}, semi-protecting it would make it a target to shock vandals who often use sleeper accounts. Transhumanist can make a draft in the userspace then check for objections on the talk page. _{1 != 2} 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shock vandals can be reverted and blocked, and if they aren't vandalizing this page, they'll be vandalizing some other page. Besides, it would be better that they attack a page in the Wikipedia namespace than an article in the encyclopedia. And once this page is unprotected, editors and admins will be adding it to their watchlists. Which makes vandalism a pretty weak argument for keeping the page protected. I've added some traffic statistics below comparing this page with other higher traffic pages from the sidebar which allow editing. If semi-protection works for those pages, it could certainly work for this page. The Transhumanist 03:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 1==2 here. I think it may need to be changed but proper discussion and reaching a consensus on what to change would be a good idea. I would like to note that image copyright is even confusing to experienced editors so I think there are going to be some limitation on how much we can change the page to make it less confusing. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't mention why you think this is the best approach. Why should this page require preapproval of changes, when higher traffic pages benefit direct wiki-editing by not being protected? Why shouldn't we allow normal wiki-processes to work on this page? The Transhumanist 03:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Reducing one of the most visible pages on the project to semi-protection and then announcing it at a noticeboard is just asking for trouble. Common sense dictates a more conservative approach, like proposing a draft version of the page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Retracting my opposition, the arguments below make sense. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator)Hi. Why should the page be unprotected? It can be collaborated by user discussion then fixed by an admin if nessecary. Wikipedia:Upload is a frequently used page, and we wouldn't want it targeted, because it houses sensitive Wikipedia copyright policies and laws. Leaving it open for any extended time could make it a target to vandals like Grawp. It's sort of like a high-risk template, I think. If the page is confusing, we can view source and edit it on maybe a subpage, then put it for discussion. Or, is that too much of a hassle, or am I not understanding the question correctly? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the page should be allowed to take advantage of the strengths of this wiki. This approach works for countless other pages, including pages with a lot higher traffic than this page. Page protection is a bottleneck and a damper to creativity and editing participation.

The most relevant question is "Why should it remain protected?"

The Transhumanist 02:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The page being protected does nothing to prevent you from copy and pasting all of the content into a subpage in your userspace and editing it there. That would allow you to more easily illustrate what you want changed to the community at large. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But that isn't a reason for the page to be protected in the first place. I believe that other high-traffic pages have benefited from being semi-protected, and that this page will benefit as well. Editors should be allowed to interactively edit this page, because then the page will evolve in the wiki-way in the same way other pages do. This page has stagnated under protection. The Transhumanist 03:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TT, this page has been my gripe with WP since day one for Non-free images. I've tried bribing Devs onwiki and in RL to recode part of this page per User:MBisanz/ImageSystemProposal#Proposal_2:_Reformatting_Upload_Page and they've all thrown up their hands at this page which apparently resembles the Augean stables to a coder. If you could fix it, I'd be very very happy. MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Evula, page protection kills spontaneity and collaboration. Plain and simple. Why do you think this page has been a problem for so long? I've avoided working on it for this very reason. But I'm offering to work on it. But if you're going to force the bureaucratic draft proposal approach, well, I'd much rather go work on pages that don't require that procedure. The feedback loop is much better on live pages, and each edit represents an immediate improvement to the project rather than a potential improvement that must be ratified first. If you are willing to take the page live, then I'll be happy to improve its grammar and formatting. I don't mind my edits being reverted. Because only crappy edits tend to be reverted, and I agree only the good edits should remain. ;) The Transhumanist 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a bureaucracy, I was trying to define what I wanted someone smarter than me to change. I think the reason its been protected so so long is if you look at WT:Upload's history, you'll see at least 2 to 3 bad edits a day from misguided, registered editors. Would we really want a page a technical, and highly used as Upload breaking. Plus it would become a regular GRAWP-type vandal target, of build up an autoconfirmed account, break the page, be blocked, etc. MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't replying to you - I was replying to Evula. You can tell because my reply was indented under her post and not under your post (like this one). Sorry about any confusion. The Transhumanist 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A few hours of unprotection should be enough time to fix the problems reported on the talk page. I'll be on hand to ameliorate any problems that occur during that time. The Transhumanist 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notched it down to semi for a couple hours. MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reprotected per strong opposition. MBisanz ^talk 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys haven't addressed the points I raised about the Community Portal and the Help page. Those are semi-protected, and they are very high traffic pages. Why can't that approach be applied here? Don't you trust Wikipedia's editors to improve the page? We did an amazing job on the help system. Don't you agree? The upload system has been notoriously incomprehensible for as long as I've been around on Wikipedia (years). Probably because it is protected and isn't being improved very fast by those who can edit it (admins). The current approach isn't working very well. Maybe it's time to let some editors on there to do what they do best: interactive wiki editing. If it doesn't work out, well, that's what we have the revert and protect buttons for. ;) The Transhumanist 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I thought it was silly to full protect that page from the very beginning and still do. From http://stats.grok.se/ Wikipedia:Upload gets about 10 thousand hits a day. By contrast the 1000th most visited page gets 13 times that much traffic. There are literally tens of thousands of pages more frequently visited that Wikipedia:Upload, and nearly all of those are unprotected. The thing that full protection is accomplishing most is making it much slower to make useful changes, and I support permanently reducing this to semi-protection. Dragons flight (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's part of the interface, and frankly, doesn't need to be changed very often anyway. High visibility templates are fully protected; I see no reason why high visibility (non-article) pages should not be as well. The upload form used to be on MediaWiki: page. Simply because it has been moved to a different namespace does not mean that it needs a reduction in protection. {{editprotected}} will do. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

High visibility templates are generally used on at least several thousand pages and very plausibly can be rendered millions of times per day. This is orders of magnitude less visible. That something was protected in the past because there was no other choice is not an argument for why it needs to be protected now. There are lots of things we could choose to protect, but this being a wiki we want to invite people to improve things. This is something that needs improvment and there is no evidence (aside from speculation) that reducing this to semiprotection would cause some form of disaster. Dragons flight (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's true; a test couldn't really hurt. If it turns out badly, we can simply reinstate full protection. Though, I took a look at the protection logs of some of the other pages that are linked from the sidebar. 'Tis not a good sign. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is in its current (confusing) state suggests that it has needed to be edited, it just hasn't been editable. The main reason templates are protected is that they affect large numbers of content pages, with the secondary reason that those pages may not be immediately reverted if the template is. Neither is the case here. Moreover, it is a page that only editors need to use, so it will not affect random readers, but will get attention from editors very quickly if there is a problem. GreenReaper (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

←OK, I've been thinking about doing this for a while but haven't really felt the motivation. I agree that the upload interface needs to be more open because freedom and openness is the driving force behind this project. However, I do not think that the protection level of Wikipedia:Upload should be lowered, since it is a very high-visibility page.

Instead, I have moved some of the instruction pages to the Wikipedia namespace and semi-protected them with full move-protection. Edit links to these pages will not be visible, which should also help guard against abuse. I have not moved all the pages, just some so that we can try this solution out before completely deploying it.

The new pages are:

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your position on keeping this page protected in light of the Community Portal, which is an even higher visibility page, is not protected. I don't understand why you think this page should be protected even though that one isn't. Can you explain that to me please? The Transhumanist 09:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We wrote Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls so that pages like this wouldn't be tinkered with live anymore. Please, create a draft in a subpage-sandbox; don't confuse the live users with a different experimental version every few minutes/hours over the course of several days. Again. It wasn't a pleasant experience the last few times. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Pages like this are tinkered with and tweaked frequently, without undue problems. For example, one of the pages listed on the guideline, the Help page, often gets tinkered with and tweaked (and occasionally by me). Even Quiddity tinkers with that page whenever he wants - he did an experimental change to its layout elements as recently as last February (and somebody reverted him). Also, not too long after the guideline was written Quiddity joined me in overhauling about half the pages on the list in the guideline and we directly edited those pages, completely transforming them without drafting or getting approval on the changes first. Since that guideline was written, I've overhauled, adjusted, tweaked, and improved many high-profile pages without proposing drafts for them and without pissing anyone off.

So what's going on here? Please let me explain. The thing that Quiddity appears to be worried about is a repeat of the Community Portal fiasco that occurred in early 2006. That involved a relatively new user inexperienced in wiki-layout (me) who was grinding through his learning curve right on the high-traffic Community Portal itself, without even using Page Preview. :) The Community Portal is many screens long, and so moving sections all around from screen to screen day after day really annoyed some people. :) But page transformations that once took me days or weeks now take me minutes or hours. And I'm intimately familiar with Wikipedia's graphical style (which we didn't even have back then, and which I helped develop and refine), and so there's no need to build unique layouts from scratch or to test 100 different color combinations to see what looks good.

By comparison this page and situation is totally different than the Community Portal overhaul. First of all it is a single screen of information - so there's little or no chance of someone getting lost. Second, we're not talking about an overhaul here - just fixing a few problems reported on the talk page. Third, there's hardly any graphical layout involved here - this proposal concerns the comprehensibility of the content, not the coloring of the page. So the guideline Quiddity mentioned doesn't even apply (though I would ignore it even if it did - the important thing is not to disrupt users as they go about their business).

The main thing that the page needs is to be editable by the community so they can refine it over time - in the same way that the Help page and Community Portal have been refined and improved over the past couple of years. The Transhumanist 08:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made fixes to address the concerns in sections 2 and 6 of the talk page; any other specific concerns you have? GDonato (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, several. But I find it very awkward to edit this way, and very time consuming. When I edit I think of better ways to word things as I'm typing them. What if I think of a way to improve a sentence each time I have you post a new version of it? Would you change it every time for me? I often notice slight ways to improve grammar when I'm looking at the preview of a page, but by having to pass suggestions through you, there is no preview. You're turning a simple editing process into a publishing process, which is much slower and much less efficient (extra steps). The Transhumanist 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upload page: section break

←Responding to an earlier comment, I was uncomfortable dropping the protection level of Wikipedia:Upload because an astonishing number of users like to post articles they created to Wikipedia talk:Upload, [146] for example. But come to think of it, those were all new users, and so semi-protection should keep them off the upload page. Full protection is proably overkill. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading through the discussion, it feels very non-Wikipedia-style and very unusual to keep this page protected, especially if the reason is to force users to get pre-approval for their edits. The whole story gets even stranger when considering that the page in question is visible only to Wikipedia editors and is a relatively low frequented page under heavy supervision. Whoever opposes the unprotection (to semi-protection) of that page (at least temporarily) better come up with a very good reason. Cacycle (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the page is imperfect. First, in the summary section, there's a link at the {{tag}} section. But if you try click on it, you will be brought to a page that requires you yet another click to another page before you can see the complete list of tags. The dropdown list is woefully incomplete, especially in non-free tags. But I realized that the dropdown list would otherwise be too long so I suggest to have a step-by-step process.

For example, I am about to upload an image under British {{Non-free Crown copyright}}. The first step of the new process will ask "Is your media... a) free license b) public domain c) United States government d) non-free content e) not sure". So I would click option d, which brings me to another page for finer selection of more appropriate tags. Then it will ask "What category is your media? a) cover art b) logos c) UK government d) ..." And now I will click option c and brings me to the last page where all the tags in that category will be displayed and you can pick the one you want. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck getting people to use your new version properly. The average person will look at it, throw up their hands in confusion, click the first option ("free is good, right?"), and go from there. --Carnildo (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you want 30 seconds more before upload or a correct license after upload? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a comparison of the Upload page's traffic with the traffic of some unprotected high visibility pages

Wikipedia:Upload - Traffic

All but one of these are from the sidebar menu:

Portal:Contents - Traffic
- Portal:Contents/Portals - Traffic
Portal:Featured content - Traffic
Portal:Current events - Traffic
Wikipedia:About - Traffic
Wikipedia:Community Portal - Traffic
Help:Contents - Traffic

Considering that the above statistics show that the Wikipedia community is responsible enough to handle high traffic pages...

...why should Wikipedia:Upload remain protected?

The Transhumanist 02:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I simply never paid attention, or maybe I simply don't upload images locally anymore, but I was actually surprised to see this no longer as a MediaWiki page (at least I think it was). A page that is essentially a part of the user interface, one that guides users through the image upload process, should not be free for editing by anyone simply because they're autoconfirmed. Changes to this type of page should be discussed. If you want to edit freely, copy the source into a subpage of your userspace, edit until your heart is content, then post an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page. This should not be unprotected. - auburnpilot talk 03:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Other high-traffic pages on the sidebar have benefitted from being semi-protected. Why shouldn't autoconfirmed editors be allowed to edit this page? The Transhumanist 04:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

" A page that is essentially a part of the user interface, one that guides users through the image upload process, should not be free for editing by anyone simply because they're autoconfirmed. Changes to this type of page should be discussed." Why can't you use the Wikipedia talk:Upload/Sandbox? - auburnpilot talk 04:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Help:Contents is part of the user interface (as is "Help" on just about every program ever written), and it (and its subpages) guides users through just about every process, and it is free for editing by autoconfirmed editors. If that approach works for Help, why wouldn't it work for Wikipedia:Upload? The Transhumanist 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Page should remain protected, in my view. Unprotecting it means that anyone can change one of our very sensitive pages any time at will. Given the fact that we have had pretty nasty edit wars at several of our major policy pages, sometimes resulting in the need to protect pages in the wrong version, the desire of one particular Wikipedian to edit this page without even making the effort of seeking consensus beforehand is quite silly. We cannot afford to have that page in anything other than a usable form; it may not be ideal right now, but it still works. Transhumanist, if you are able to improve the quality of information on that page, excellent and more power to you. But you have not justified why your unwillingness to discuss and demonstrate proposed changes in advance should override the protection on this page. The process of seeking consensus is also part of the five pillars. Risker (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's say for argument's sake that I'm not going to make any changes to the page at all. The page would benefit from wikiediting. It is not benefitting from it now, because it has been taken out of the loop. Administrators aren't doing an adequate job of developing this page. But the users of the page probably would. We should find out. The Transhumanist 04:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The page gets used 10,000 times a day. That's 10,000 opportunities for users to help fix the page if it were unprotected. Improving a page in any other way besides clicking on "edit this page" is inconvenient, inefficient, and not as familiar to our users. The Transhumanist 05:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope I've misunderstood your most recent comment, and that you haven't actually just admitted that you never really needed to edit the page. Because if that's the case, it would explain why you still haven't detailed what changes you want to make, why you haven't used the sandbox another editor set up, and why you haven't copied the page's source into your userspace. Again, I sincerely hope I'm just tired, and am misunderstanding, but if not, we have a greater problem than Wikipedia:Upload being protected. - auburnpilot talk 05:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you do that? Rhetoric, I mean. It's like you want to purposely confuse the issue. How can you take "for argument's sake", and then twist it around as some form of confession? The discussion shifted early on to whether or not the page should be protected in the first place, and why. This is what I'm trying to discuss with you now. If the current state of Wikipedia:Upload is frustrating to and turns users away from uploading images, then it is a pretty big problem. I know it has discouraged me from uploading them. I can only assume it has affected other users in a similar way. It's true that we could proceed with bureaucratic proposal processes. But why do it that way? Wiki-editing is much more efficient. I'm trying to discuss with you the merits and potential pitfalls of unprotecting the Wikipedia:Upload page, to understand why it is or is not a good idea to take advantage of the same processes that have been benefiting Help:Contents, Wikipedia:Community portal, Portal:Contents, Portal:Contents/Portals, and many other high-traffic pages. Why shouldn't this page be semi-protected like those are? Why shouldn't this page take advantage of wiki-collaboration and wiki-evolution? The Transhumanist 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And I see you still haven't suggested any changes for the page. Why is that? As I've stated, and restated, a page that serves as a user interface for editors to upload images should not be freely open for editing. This is no different than suggesting we open Special:Upload for editing. If you're really so concerned about this page, use the Wikipedia talk:Upload/Sandbox to suggest a change. - auburnpilot talk 17:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should a page that serves as a user interface for editors to upload images not be freely open for editing? I know that you believe it shouldn't, but I'd like to understand why you believe that... What do you think will happen? What problems could it cause on this page that wouldn't be an issue on other pages? The Transhumanist 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator)Hi. I understand that this page actually does not get that much traffic, but the other pages that do are unprotected either because they are articles that require editing, or noticeboards, thus it would be foolish to protect them. Any vandalism to those pages can be reverted, and semi-protected. Now, I hope all the Wikipedia:Upload pages have at least been fully move-protected. As we have seen, vandals like Grawp are still evading semi-protection by using sleepers which those editously-impared people at EB are creating for him. Now, if we do unprotect the Wikipedia:Upload for a few hours (still enacting semi-protection, because those that can't upload shouldn't edit the page either), I'd be fine with that so we can re-design it a little, and if vandalism is made we shall revert, block, and if it gets bad enough, we may have to protect. I suggest a bit more discussion on this, and I see why you may want to edit it for a while. Now, I personally am not watching Wikipedia:Upload, so please watch this interface while it is unprotected. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 12:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No real reason has been given to reduce the protection level. This almost seems like an exercise in idealism. I don't think there is any obstacle to improving the page while protected, lets just leave it as it is and any changes can be proposed in a sandbox and implemented with {{editprotected}}(like we do with pretty much every interface page). I have seen no indication that such a method had failed requiring a reduction in protection.

The page has suffered from stagnation. Is that a real enough reason for you? Editors avoid improving this page, because it has to be done through proposal processes which they either find frustrating, cumbersome, or that they don't even know about. Administrators aren't required to follow the proposal process on this page, but even they haven't fixed the page, probably because admins are spread too thin. Personally, I can't stand proposal processes, which is why I usually stick to editing pages that are unprotected. That's why I requested Wikipedia:Upload be unprotected. But if you don't want editors to work together on the fly to improve this page over time, then you won't get on-the-fly editors like me, who like to pop onto a page when they notice something they can fix or improve. I can assure you there are a lot of us. That's why wikis are so popular. And it's the driving force that has built Wikipedia to over 2,000,000 pages, many of them of very high quality. Protection should be used sparingly, to intervene when there's a problem. Permanent protection is overkill on this page. Semi-protecting the page on a trial basis probably wouldn't hurt. I'll watchlist it to check for vandalism. I'll even use a Lupin feed in one of my windows to keep an eye on it. I'm sure others will be willing to do so as well. The Transhumanist 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The page describes our criteria for image uploads and is used to make sure users follow our own policy, and our legal constraints when uploading. Any changes will need discussion first anyways. _{1 != 2} 12:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but that applies to policy and guideline pages as well. And those are unprotected, which allows editors to get on there and fix the grammar, the order of presentation, etc. to make those pages easier to comprehend. That's exactly what this page needs. The Transhumanist 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TT said earlier: "What if I think of a way to improve a sentence each time I have you post a new version of it?" That is why development in a sandbox is a good idea.

I was pointing out that that is what page preview is for. You've taken it out of context. The Transhumanist 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, this is an incredibly specialized area of Wikipedia, and unless you have suddenly developed an expert grasp of all aspects related to image policy, I strongly object to your tinkering with it live. You tend to learn-as-you-go, and this isn't an appropriate page to make those kind of mistakes on. (Apologies if I'm wrong: Do you have an expert understanding of Wikipedia's image policies?)

The page itself doesn't contain any image policy minutiae that requires an expert. It's just a menu taking people to where they need to go, and that doesn't require policy or procedural experts. Though I am an expert on Wikipedia navigation, menus, and lists, and all three would apply here. The Transhumanist 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, I don't understand why you keep bringing up the last few overhauls, because we did all of those in sandboxes (partially because you kept tinkering with the live version and pissing people off): Help:Contents/Draft, Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft2a, (plus the redesigns for the mainpage and sidebar were obviously in sandboxes, and Wikipedia:Category schemes was a bare outline when you started the overhauling of that). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't an overhaul, and certainly not a graphics design overhaul. The Help page hasn't been protected since its overhaul 2 years ago, and has been modified a little at a time since then, including by you. That's the approach I'm supporting for this page. We should let the page evolve over time from its current state. Since 2006, that's the main approach that has been taken on most of the overhauled pages you've mentioned. One change at a time. That approach would work fine for this page. The Transhumanist 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) At this point, it seems to me, as an uninvolved bystander, that you're doing your cause more harm than good. Assuming, than is, that your cause is to actually get Wikipedia:Upload unprotected rather than just to drag this discussion out for as long as possible. Here's a free hint (for what little it's worth): alienating everyone who actually bothers to discuss the subject with you, rather than just ignoring this pages-long thread, is not a good way to get your suggestions implemented. However well reasoned they might be. Frankly, while I personally find your original suggestion reasonable enough, the longer and more petulantly you argue about this here, the less it makes you seem like the kind of responsible editor I'd feel comfortable letting edit any high-profile page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not uninvolved or a bystander anymore! ;) Ignoring the reasons that are posted doesn't improve understanding of them. And if I understand their reasons, I might actually agree with them or be able to alleviate their fears. At this point it appears that Quiddity thinks I want to overhaul the page. I don't. What I'd really like is to be able to watch the page improve over time. That inspires me (and others) spontaneously at unpredictable moments to join in and make changes here and there. I've been watching the unprotected Help page improve over the past couple of years, and I've liked what I've seen. It's been refined quite a bit since its overhaul. It inspired me to add my own little touch to it - the horizontal menu at the top. And I've added a similar menu to the top of the unprotected Community Portal. Note that those were not proposed anywhere - I just dreamed them up and added them. If those pages were protected, I wouldn't have bothered - because I generally do not work on protected pages, or through proposal processes. They're too much of a hassle, and much much slower than normal wiki-editing. For example, in order to get a single word added to the Main Page took days. To get a few words added to the sidebar took over a year. In those cases it was necessary to slog it out, because those are central integrated components. But this page is peripheral enough, like the Help pages and Community Portal, to be less worried about. Any vandalism or misguided edits to it would be easy to handle. I believe many editors avoid improving protected pages, which chokes such pages off from Wikipedia's main resource. Well, that's where I'm coming from. Cheers. The Transhumanist 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did believe that you were about to overhaul the page, based on your statement that "the whole thing sucks", and based on past experience! I don't imagine you will now, at least not without a sandbox draft. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is quite clearly not going to be unprotected, so there really is no need to further this discussion. If you want to change the page, use the talk page and the provided sandbox. - auburnpilot talk 00:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Help page 2 years ago → Help page today. The same approach would benefit this page. Cheers. The Transhumanist 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Short break / reality check

Insisting to keep the page protected in order to force a user in (very!) good standing to get your pre-approval for his changes is AGAINST all Wikipedia conventions and is NOT a valid reason to keep a page protected! We will not invent special rules for this page and/or for certain users. Use user or discussion pages if you have real, non-hypothetical problems with actual edits.

Please note that nobody (!) disputes that major changes should be discussed in advance. The original request was for implementing long overdue and already announced and/or discussed improvements.
I urge anybody to return to a respectful tone, to assume good faith, and to start a real and rational discussion.

So far nobody has come up with a plausible reason to not semi-protect the page (at least temporarily). Again: this editor-only page is under heavy supervision, and any vandalism could be handled in the usual Wikipedia way (including full protection for heavy vandalism), similar to a lot of comparable pages. Cacycle (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was bold and reduced the page to semiprotection. Here are a few more reasons for doing so:

The page uses rather complicated code, which should scare away good-faith newcomers that should not be editing the page.
Relatively little damage can be done to the upload forms because new forms cannot be created without administrator assistance, nor can the license selector options for forms be changed without administrator assistance.
If the page becomes a vandal target then we can just reprotect it.

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

RtD, I strongly disagree with the unprotection. You have a whole thread above you that has stated that it does not want this page unprotected. There is a difference between boldness and going against consensus. Please reconsider your action. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, if we have any sort of problem with the page being semiprotected instead of fully protected, go ahead and increase the protection again. I'm not here to pick a fight. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I support all three of RememberTheDot's reasons; seems logical to me. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason a page like this is fully protected is not so much to stop vandalism or the such, it is because this page is a core page to anyone uploading a photo. This page must work. The worst thing that could ever happen is a new user trys to upload a photo and this page doesn't work. Now I am sure The Transhumanist can do a great job, but as everyone knows, as one progresses through a major change on a page, there is always an error of some sort. Now on a regular page this is fine. But on a page like this, we cannot benefit from someone making a small error, and then someone else navigates to this page right after and has difficulties with the page. We all know how frustrating it can be when things don't work. Confusion drives people away from contributing. That is why we create a sandbox for these changes, so that the new version can be tested on different browsers, links can be tested before going live, and consensus can be formed for changes on such a visible page. That is why this page should be fully protected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Leaving editprotected-requests on talkpages (and creating changes in sandboxes) is preferable in cases like this, because:

it guarantees feedback
it avoids the danger of confusing the users with temporary mistakes (watchlists aren't instant)
it leaves a more visible record of why an edit is beneficial - for others to learn from - whether the correction was to grammar or code. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

More eyes see a live page than a draft, and so feedback is more critical (changes have to please more people). Reverts and their edit summaries are excellent feedback, and alert editors when discussion is needed about their edits on the talk page. Most of the time, talk page discussion isn't needed, because editors feed off of each others' creativity and will correct and refine each others' work without any more discussion than in the edit summaries. If an edit is rejected, good editors try something else. There's no need to waste time with preapproval. Good edits survive, crappy edits get reverted. It's natural selection! Besides, Wikipedia:Upload is a page intended for editors. Editors are more intelligent than you give us credit for. It feels like you're babysitting us, and that's, well, insulting. We can take care of a page that serves us, and most of us are smart enough to figure out when something isn't working quite right.

That being said, mistakes or vandalism that send users to the wrong upload form is a slight concern, though increasing the size of the titles of the upload forms would solve this problem. Such reroutes could conceivably result in incomplete information being posted about an image, causing it to be speedy deleted. Or possibly even the wrong license being posted for an upload. Or a link could be changed to take users to a totally unrelated page, confusing or frustrating the heck out of newcomers, but that can happen on any page.

Until the titles are enlarged on the upload forms, a compromise concerning Wikipedia:Upload would be to open the page up temporarily upon the request of experienced editors in good standing. It would be a judgment call on the part of the accommodating admin, and the editor doing the editing should be on the lookout for vandalism while editing, and request the page be reprotected when he or she is done.

But enlarging the titles shouldn't take an admin longer than a couple minutes per form, unless it has to go through a proposal process first. :)

By the way, initial cleanup on the page is completed. Please feel free to revert or modify the changes as you see fit.

See ya later. I gotta get some sleep.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 12:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Transhumanist for your efforts. I have seen a need for a long time for many improvements to the many upload pages on Wikipedia and the Commons. Getting changes made via the talk pages is like pulling teeth sometimes. Many people just give up. If nothing else your discussion here may have gotten a few more admins to pay attention to the talk page requests for changes. I hope more admins watchlist the many talk pages listed in the tables at the top of these pages:

Wikipedia talk:Upload

commons:Commons talk:Upload

I created those tables as a result of similar frustrations I had.

I also created Wikipedia talk:Upload/Sandbox - This sandbox idea may be better than other sandboxes since it is directly connected to the main talk page.

I don't see any problem though with also opening up the Wikipedia upload pages themselves to semi-protection now and then at the request of experienced editors.

commons:Commons:Upload has been at semi-protection without problems for a long time. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you need help with any other problems, let me know.

By the way, I've been working on graphics a lot these days, and have been uploading quite a bit because of it. This will continue for the near future. So I'll be stopping by to check the page often. The Transhumanist 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus vandal

There has been a spate of anonymous vandalism to Cyprus-related articles e.g. Cyprus and Limassol, typified by attacks on Greek cypriots and "...GREEKS ARE THE REMNNANT OF CRUSADES..." in the edit summary. I've blocked a lot of users and about 3 IPs. Is this guy known, and does he have a name? Do we know anything else about him? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it, but isn't a six-month block for User:78.168.47.169 a bit excessive? It's more likely that he's going to keep swapping IP addresses all day anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicosia has been seeing the same vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I requested semi-protection on Cyprus several days ago and was denied. Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus sprotected now. The 6-months block against the dynamic IP is technically nonsense, of course, unless you see it as a purely symbolic expression of a six-months ban against the person behind it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It also seems way out of line with blocking policy. Given that IP addresses can change in as short as a a few hours, there is a very serious possibility of collateral damage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of public domain image category: PD SerbiaGov

I feel we need to clean up Category:PD SerbiaGov (and possibly other similar categories of other countries too). This Public domain image category is meant for things that fit a regulation in Serbian copyright law which exempts from copyright "Laws, decrees and other regulations" as well as other "Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions". Looking at the hundreds of photographs currently in the category, I can see how that would work for official emblems, military symbols et cetera. But the category is also filled with dozens or hundreds of simple photographs from government-run websites, mostly photographs of the Serbian military, including historical ones of unknown original authorship.

I can't see how these are "official materials", and I also note that the source websites do claim copyright [147]. Note that the Serbian law is a lot more restrictive in this respect than US law, where the criterion is that an image only needs to have been created by a federal employee in the course of their duties.

I thought I'd bring it here before I'd start acting unilaterally, since we are talking about a lot of images here. Opinions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, it appears this license has been much abused. Definitely support a thorough housecleaning, though, as opposed to deleting the images outright, it should be verified that they are unusable under fair use criteria first. Kelly ^hi! 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, changing the licence may fix the problem provided the images are non-replaceable. Orderinchaos 13:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; this is now being further discussed at WP:PUI. About fair use and replaceability, many of these are being used in galleries and such, and as far as the photographs of military equipment are concerned, we do get a lot of similar images that are freely licensed by private photographers (or at least claimed to be such), so non-replaceability would be difficult to argue in such cases, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS check requested

Could an OTRS volunteer please check this ticket just to verify that all Animal Liberation Front images are in the public domain? I was going to transwiki some of those images to Commons, but just needed to confirm the license first. Kelly ^hi! 16:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The following images are in public domain per the ticket.

Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the ticket alludes that all ALF are in the public domain however explicitley states the email applied to the images listed. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for checking...I ran across some other images that use the {{PD-because}} license with the statement "all ALF images are in the public domain", so I've been trying to find the OTRS ticket or copyleft notice. I thought maybe it was that one. I will work with the uploader (SlimVirgin) to try to straighten out the copyright. Kelly ^hi! 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The ticket does state in a generalization that all images are in the public domain but I interpreted it as a generalization, esepcially because the ticket early on states that the following images are in the public domain and only later briefy mentions that all images taken by ALF activists are in the PD. I am sure it could go either way. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think something like that could only apply to images where ALF is the publisher of the images - i.e. hosted on ALF's website or issued in their press materials, correct? But based on what you say above, I think it's a valid PD claim with the proviso I just mentioned. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the ALF e-mail sent to permissions states that all ALF images are in the public domain, not just the ones listed above. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I would advise extreme caution in your handling of this content. Do you even know what you are getting yourself into? ALF content is User:SlimVirgin's territory, so proceed with caution. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was all about the other ALF and was thinking "yay! free images!" Sadly, no cute aliens here. Orderinchaos 06:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Orton

I have read just about everything I can find to help me go to the right place and I don't think you have any place for what I won't to know. Some one in my family by the name of James Orton. Professor James Orton in 1869 he was appointed professor of natural history in vassor college, I would like to know if there are any pictures of him that I could get a copy of, I'm trying to make up a small little book for all my kids and my sister about our family and I have only one very very poor picture of him..hope you can help and sorry if I am writing to some place I'm not supose to... gary orton <email redacted>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.111.4 (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're better off asking this question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk; this page is about alerting administrators to issues that require their action. I hope they can give you some information at the Reference Desk. -- Natalya 13:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Special:Contributions/SexySeaClownfish

Resolved. Resolved per block. -- RyRy5 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look SexySeaClownfish (talk · contribs)'s contributions, you should see that this user has made only 19 edits to the mainspace out of this user's 500 edits. Is that really necessary? Most of the time and most likely, this user will not edit the mainspace and will keep on editing talk pages, user space, etc. This user also makes signatures for many users. Is this user overdoing it? I personally think this user thinks this is a myspace. Well, it isn't. I would like opinions on this. Thanks, RyRy5 (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This apparently is a renamed account of Wikieditor222 (talk · contribs) who also has a section a few up, for the very same reason. - auburnpilot talk 03:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you rediscovered the square wheel --Samuel Pepys (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This user had a user name rename located here.-- RyRy5 (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and notified User:SexySeaClownfish of this thread, and would be interested to hear what he has to say. Tiptoety ^talk 04:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the user has 36 edits to the mainspace out of 571 edits total. Honestly, I'd go through every item in his userspace and delete it all (I'm really tempted to).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I say go for it, I do not seem them being constructive to building a encyclopedia, but instead a myspace. We do not need another User:Nothing444. Tiptoety ^talk 05:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't comment otherwise but the user inadvertently broke the RfA listing, resulting in the entire WP:BN and several other pages it transcludes on being right-justified for much of the morning. Orderinchaos 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that - it was another user using "Sexy Sea" something or other in his sig. Orderinchaos 05:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Ryulong has began deleting all of his userpace per WP:NOT#MYSPACE: [148] Tiptoety ^talk 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And all done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

*whistles* Holy crap. Isn't myspace free? Maybe we should consider an indef block/ban until he decides to actually improve the encyclopedia instead of his social life. I would certainly support such a measure. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Now lets not go too crazy here. Wait for SexySeaClownfish to at least read this thread, maybe just the deletion of his userpace will be enough to make him change. Tiptoety ^talk 05:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but I seem to remember two or three similar threads before his username change. If he didn't listen then, I doubt he will now. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody think we should protect his user page? I have a feeling that he will just recreate it with something new. I would really like this user to edit in the mainspace more before any further editing in userspace. Opinions? --RyRy5 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrible idea: if all their mainspace contributions are as helpful as this, this and this, then please keep away from my precious articles. If Sexy is incapable of contributing constructively anywhere, just block them. east.718 at 06:11, June 7, 2008

Although I agree with East that his edits can only be very little as constructive, I think we should let this user see this thread and tell him to contribute to the mainspace constructively. If very much nothing changes, and that we have another User:Nothing444-like user, then a block would be appropriate.--RyRy5 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we merge this section with the above section about this user? iMatthew _T.C. 12:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The tagging Bob Burns, the drummer for Lynryd Skynyrd as speedy shows remarkabe bad judgement on this user's part. Perhaps he could go into some sort of mentorship program, and I hope it doesn't turn out like Nothing 444. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 12:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He came back this morning to announce he is retired. iMatthew _T.C. 15:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The last time he "retired", he came back the very next day or two. -- RyRy5 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. You know, I've been having similar problems with users like User:The SRS (getting better), User:SimonKSK, and User:Altenhofen. iMatthew _T.C. 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it strange that 3 of them like wrestling? Anyway, we'll probably hear from this user soon, unless this retirement is actually true. If this user has truly retired, then I don't think we have a problem, for now. -- RyRy5 (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppeting?

Resolved. Checkuser verified this user as a sockpuppet and has been blocked. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I believe this user might be a sockpuppet of User:I'm On Base. I'm not completely sure, but the IP "67.189.185.73" was editing Sexy's userpage before, and his contributions show that he edited I'm On Base's pages often. I'm On Base was blocked as a sockpuppeteer, and SexySeaClownfish shows very similar actions that I'm On Base did, such as being to userspace addicted. iMatthew _T.C. 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, both users were constantly changing their signatures, and the Wikieditor account was created one day after I'm On Base's talk page was fully protected for abuse of the Unblock template. iMatthew _T.C. 19:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. *Sigh*, how many sock circles are worming around professional wrestling articles? The Verdict load, Hornetman, JB196, and a few others. *Sigh*. D.M.N. (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Any other opinions? iMatthew _T.C. 20:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU? D.M.N. (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

About the signatures, this user constantly asks, wait, no, makes a signature for many users and then asks all of them. This user did that to me once. I declined the user's request politely. I really think this user thinks this is a myspace. And i also believe this user is a sockpuppet of I'm on Base. --RyRy5 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a sock, as there's no need for a checkuser when the case is so obvious. Spellcast (talk · contribs) has also blocked the IP for 6 months with account creation disabled; that was going to be my next step. - auburnpilot talk 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was filling out the form at checkuser, when I opened another window, and saw he was blocked. Also, were both IP's blocked? There were two IP's involved. Look at Clownfish's userpage history. iMatthew _T.C. 21:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can admin please delete this page. I created it the wrong way, and it can be deleted. iMatthew _T.C. 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Voldemore keeps recreating copyrighted, previously deleted content

Resolved.

As contributor has returned to editing but not addressed this further, the subpage has been deleted by WP:CSD#G12. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This user keeps copy and pasting copyright violating text from www.scifi.com. The article Project Quicksilver has been deleted 4 times, so Voldemore has now recreated it as a userpage at User:Voldemore/Project Quicksilver and linked directly to that userpage from the The Invisible Man (2000 TV series) in a blatant attempt to run-around the deletions. (The text was copied from http://www.scifi.com/invisibleman/classified/index.html, when that url was working). I assume copyright still applies to userspace pages? 92.0.72.79 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prior deletion reasons don't mention copyright problems; it's true that a bot once marked the article as a potential copyvio, but absent evidence to the contrary, it currently looks to me like the off-wiki copy may have been the violation -- care to elaborate on that? That said, linking to userspace in that fashion doesn't sound acceptable. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the note Voldemore left at the now deleted talk page, "The information presented in the article is actually taken from the official site of the Invisible Man television show." The archived versions of the sci fi channel seem to confirm that, noting that this is identical to text in the article. It seems like copyright violation may be a real concern here, even if the article was deleted for other reasons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just an additional note that I have blanked the user subpage pending resolution of this. I believe it should be a speediable copyvio, but review of the material through the history may be useful to this discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I put a link to the information to be helpful. It's so informative I know that a lot of fans of the television show would appreciat it. I was just trying to do something nice! But since this anonymous contributor is having such a hissy fit over it, I won't put a link to my userspace in that manner every again. -- Voldemore (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of redirecting to userspace from mainspace, even if the official page has been removed from the internet, copyrighted material cannot be reproduced on Wikipedia without the express permission of the author or copyright holder. As this material comes from the official website, it will almost certainly need to be deleted unless there is some proof of that permission. It isn't likely that the official site borrowed the material from Wikipedia. Fans might indeed find it very interesting, but there are serious legal concerns here. I'd suggest that you read over Wikipedia:Copyrights and consider tagging the subpage {{db-u1}} to request its removal from Wikipedia. Otherwise, as this conversation wraps, it will almost certainly be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G12. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The link works fine for me. (although it is slower than crap) Here is a screenshot. Now you can do your duty ;) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood what is going on here? Sorry, now I'm confused. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not holding off on deletion because I doubt it is a valid G12. :) The immediate danger of displaying a copyvio is taken care of by the blanking. I didn't want to delete the subpage in the middle of a discussion about it, as it's a lot easier for other contributors to this discussion to understand the issue if it's still tucked away in history. My note above is simply a courtesy in letting the contributor know that he does have the option to have it deleted by request rather than as a "G12". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember, in lieu of copyright vios, you can always link to the old pages from the Wayback machine to provide users that resource. --MASEM 14:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This text at the top of the page...

"These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors."

seems a bit misleading to me. Editors should be encouraged to report abusive behaviour that violates our WP:NPA policy and admins have wide latitude to warn or block offenders making this text inaccurate. Exxolon (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree - but I think the main reason it's posted there is exactly what it says - I'm an admin but there's not a great deal I can do in many of the things that come here, they should really go to Dispute resolution of some form or be hammered out in the presence of a third party with some knowledge of the subject. I've tried to sort out situations here only to find out my knowledge of an intensely complex and divisive situation is very poor and I may be acting on one offence only to find the target is the victim of a much greater one, or something like that. This isn't a complaints board as such, and a lot of the things that come here remain unanswered by anyone of any authority as noone quite knows what they're supposed to do with the incomplete information provided. Orderinchaos 15:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that issues about personal attacks should be handled at the incidents noticeboard rather than here, but the line between here and there is a little blurry. J Milburn (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open proxies

I was wondering where i report open proxies to because I have a list here which may help but not sure which ones are blocked on wikipedia. Any ideas where to report them? Chemistrygeek (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep: Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undelete

Will an admin restore User talk:StewieGriffin!/Auto Archive/Archive 2. A stupid bot's deleted it! StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a deleted redirect, with essentially no content, certainly nothing that you needed to archive. Suggest you read Help:Archiving a talk page and start over. Archive pages should not be redirected. Risker (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a redirect. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was what the bot deleted, but I looked further and discovered that the redirect was created by one of the move vandals, and I've now dug up your Archive #2. Please note that the page name you provided is not the name of the archive page, though, and User talk:StewieGriffin!/Auto Archive/Archive 2 and the redirect are both empty. I've adjusted the links on your talk page to take you to the correct location of your Archive 2, which is named User talk:StewieGriffin!/Archive 2. Risker (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commons photos of buildings and statues

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but I can't think of anywhere else. If anyone has uploaded photos of buildings or statues in the USA to Commons, you should head over and download it to your computer as it will be deleted eventually. According to them, buildings and statues in the USA are copyrighted works of art and therefore photographs of them are considered derivative works [149]. I found this out when a picture of the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame (and a statue outside of it) that I uploaded there was nommed for deletion. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, a photograph of the statue outside the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame would be subject to the copyright of the artist, but a photograph of the building would not: "U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a)". - auburnpilot talk 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point us to a relevant discussion. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's quite right; freedom of panorama in the United States extends to buildings but not to other permanent installations, toward which one may see, e.g., Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. The section of Commons:FOP to which NoC links properly observes that the "[t]aking pictures of buildings is...reproduction, which must theoretically be authorized by the architect", but only if "the right to reproduction is not in the national copyright law"; §120 roughly provides such a right of reproduction. When an image includes both a building (copyrighted but not subject to restrictions on the right of photographic reproduction) and a statue (to which, in the United States, FOP does not extend), the situation is more complicated (as would be the use of non-free photographs of buildings; there are certain circumstances under which photographs of three-dimensional objects, such as buildings, might be understood as not requiring Bridgeman v. Corel's originality, but we need not now undertake an inquiry as to what those may be), but we might safely say, I think, that Commons does not delete photographs of buildings that conform to Commons:FOP. Joe 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I read up on this a fair bit because of a photo I have on commons, Image:Seattle Art Museum 01.jpg. That's the Hammering Man, a copyrighted statue, and it was pointed out it may be a copyvio photograph. But the opinions seemed to be that as it includes other artistic elements, it's fine--it's a photo of the area, of which the statue just happens to be in. If I'd taken and framed the photo to be principally of the statue, then it would be a copyvio, is my understanding. Environmental factors seem to factor in too. That statue is 60 to 80 feet tall, and it's physically impossible to photograph that building or practically that entire street corner without catching it, and in fact you can see the statue for a tremendous distance, depending on how you approach. rootology (T) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, if the Commons copyright policies are Foundation level, wouldn't the same ones apply to Wikipedia, or would the fair use angle let you get around it for photos of statues? rootology (T) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re the aside, the latter. Commons accepts only freely licensed media files, whilst other projects may, consistent with their respective EDPs, choose to allow the uploading and use of various restricted-use/non-free media. Joe 05:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nasty discussion

Another user will help out here, has been asked for help Malinaccier (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

[150] There's a nasty discussion with two people refusing to accept that guessing the date of a TV episode is original research (not an issue for admins, I know) but there's also a lot of incivility, bickering over assuming good faith, snippiness ("spell things correctly if you're going to"), rude edit-summaries and so on. It could do with an admin asking everyone (including me!), on the talkpage, to calm down. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this, see what I can do. I don't think it needs administrative intervention, it more likely needs informal mediation of some sort. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to provide a solution for presenting the arguments in a more succinct format; it seems it was well received. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to forward the discussion. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requested moves

There's a large backlog at this page, if someone wouldn't mind clearing it out.--Serviam (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unfortunately, the problem is behavior and not merely content

Resolved. administrator attention not required

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I don't think the above issue (Nasty Discussion) has truly been resolved. First, please note that this is far from the first case where TreasuryTag has been accused of bad behavior. It's not even the first case of such an accusation being brought to administrative attention this week.[151]

I think this situation needs more than just a "let's cool down, guys" response. These diffs speak for themselves; signs of an attitude of ownership, dismissive and rude behavior, an apparent belief that he is the ultimate arbiter of how policy should be applied, etc. [152][153][154] [155][156] He's even gone so far as to edit war(several reverts in a 24 hour period[157][158][159]), even after a warning about edit warring[160], the result of which was a 7 day lockdown on the article[161].

Meanwhile, his appeal here, and the resulting administrative response, is a tacit approval of his actions: he plays unfairly yet calls "foul" on others, his own offenses obscured by accusations. My question: is it appropriate for a user to act this way and have it go unnoticed? Shouldn't some action be taken, in light of all this, to prevent history repeating itself?

Mael-Num (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He does not need anyhting. Stop trying to get editors into trouble and take part in the discussion on the talk page.--Phoenix -wiki 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Phoenix, replying to Mael-Num) The discussion had become heated, and you haven't been precisely a cool head either. If neither of you has any truly Bad Stuff to show, I suggest you both cool off and let it be. I made an informal recommendation there, which you seemed to have agreed with; also, Steve Crossin has offered to help and personally mediate the whole thing. I think that should be enough. Oh, and please also note that TreasuryTag didn't make any formal complaint against you above, I don't think you should take it personal. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely you can't be serious...those 8 links aren't "truly" bad stuff? When does it get "truly" bad...does he need to come to my house and smash my computer over my head?

And no one's making anything personal. His edit warring was with other people, I pointed out other people have a conflict with him. Maybe you should reevaluate your take on this?

Mael-Num (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're asserting in my talk page that I haven't looked into it -- yes, I have. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Then allow others to do so, please. This is an issue I am not taking lightly. Your comments indicate that you believe this is a content issue, but none of my complaints have to do with content. Please reread what I wrote, and take a look at some of the "bad stuff" I've linked to. Mael-Num (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, my comments indicate no such thing -- I was talking precisely about attitude, cool heads and Bad Stuff. As such, I would like an explanation for your reopening this matter. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay resolved. This is not an administrative matter, it's a content dispute I've said I'll handle. Look at the talk page of the article. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Steve, this isn't a content dispute. You're confusing the issue. Read my complaint, above.

I also made the point that since the balance of opinion is 2editors/4editors+2admins, it would appear that a workakble consensus has been formed. The 4editors+2admins seem to agree on the deletion of the info in question, and any further discussion between the parties (unless someone new comes along) will be frictive and un-necessary. This seems to be the route involving the least further communication, thus the least drama. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute, and moreover, I haven't even posted an argument there yet. Thanks for making my case for me. Mael-Num (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mael-Num, you disagree with TreasuryTag's editing and about his views on the content dispute—this is clearly not a case that needs Administrator attention. I would prefer that you comment on the talk page of the article in question, and if you have a problem with TreasuryTag to take it up on his talk page. Please take this into consideration, Malinaccier (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do disagree on what content to add, but that is an entirely separate issue. None of my complaints, above, have to do with content, save the example of edit-warring back and forth yesterday. Even then, the complaint isn't the content itself, but the behavior surrounding it. Mael-Num (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes commonly have tenacious editing in them, incivility, edit warring, I've seen it many times in content disputes. I still fail to see how this requires more than a mediator, where administrative intervention (other than page protection), is required here. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I appreciate your help in resolving the content problem. However, this editor has a history of tenacious editing, to borrow your words [162]. There also seems to be a trend of his going to AN/I or AN to complain about others during such disputes[163], which is wasteful of admin resources, and I think is a bad habit to allow, as it can surely intimidate other users into non-participation in Doctor Who related articles. Please also note that TreasuryTag's complaint that I cited was apparently in response to this[164], when another editor called for admin assistance in yet another conflict with TreasuryTag. TT's apparent modus operandi is to "take things personal", to borrow again from a fellow editor.Mael-Num (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mael, are you openly stating, on the record, that (including striking out another user's conribution) you have behaved in an exemplary manner, not being remotely tenacious, disruptive, incivil, picky, assuming bad faith, and that you have acted soley in a manner constructive to useful discussion? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you attempting to shift the blame to me? Are you saying that I have no basis for complaint? Perhaps you should first answer your own question, now that you are here. Mael-Num (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This may have become a behviour problem

In watching this conversation unfold it needs to be pointed out that Mael-Num has made the following entries. With this entry [165] Mael-Num attempted to delete an entry by Treasury Tag. Later with this entry [166] He added the strike through line to the same entry. No reason for either of these actions was given in the edit summaries. Even if they were altering other editors discussions should not occur. Later still M-N made this edit [167] altering the content of their own entry. This behaviour shows a lack of understanding about what is entailed in being a member of the wikipedia community. To take such actions in an ongoing content dispute makes it very hard to AGF in the continuing conversations. Perhaps warnings should be given but, as I am a part of the dispute, it is not my place to post them. Perhaps others will feel differently but I feel that this should be brought to someone's attention. MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can retract whatever I'd like in my own writing. I can't edit my own stuff? Mael-Num (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators- To you

I have a simple request, with a simple reasoning. Can this discussion be closed. I am handling the content dispute, I see some disruptive editing, uncivil behaviour, yes. But most content disputes have these to some degree. I, personally can ask for adminsitrator intervention if it's really necessary, but at this time, I feel that administrator intervention is not required here. If you feel otherwise, feel free, but I'd appreciate it if this thread be closed. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking and any other administrative measures serve a preventative, not a punitive purpose. If the matter is being resolved and there is nothing to prevent, then there is no need for action. I've seen Steve's work elsewhere and am happy to leave this one to his judgement. Orderinchaos 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Need more eyes on an AfD

There is a non-notable band, Profound Intent, who are very insistent in getting their material onto Wikipedia, and have caused numerous issues where they constantly recreate deleted material over months.

Here's some of the (now deleted) articles that have been created by them, and deleted that are either directly related to them, or would coatrack them (for example, their albums, their members, their record company, etcetera)

Profound Intent (Deleted 6 times, currently salted)

South Capitol Recordings (Deleted 3 times)

Work It (Profound Intent song) (Deleted One Time)

Profound Intent (band) (Deleted 3 times, salted)

Street Profanity (band) (Deleted once,salted) (Band members from Profound Intent)

LaPret (Deleted TEN times) (Band member of Profound Intent)

Let's Get Krunk (Deleted three times) (Song by Profound Intent)

Still Profound (EP) (Deleted once)

This is not a comprehensive list of all their attempts to get Wikipedia, this is only what I have deleted or found on a quick search. Now, the latest one to pop up is at AfD

I'm tempted to G4 the whole thing, but there is a number of possible Single Purpose Accounts disrupting the AFD on this article and making accusations of one and all. Could someone who is neutral in this whole thing look at the editors and determine if there is SPA's involved? (I wouldn't complain either way if the AfD is allowed to run all five days, or just simply G4'd as yet another spamfest. SirFozzie (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Scythed as blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and salted LaPret; after 10 creates/deletes, it's fairly obvious that he doesn't belong here. Some of the others may be candidates for salting as well. Horologium (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Resolved.

Backlog seems to be building up a bit if anyone wants to take a look. Guest9999 (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guest9999 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review of blocks

I just blocked Blackbeltstinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Blackbeltsmelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) indefinitely for edits like this and for being sockpuppets of each other. However because they both did this I would like a review. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely you don't think this is a COI? John Reaves 00:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. If they'd had chances, they blew WP:AGF forever with that last diff. --Rodhull andemu 00:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no worries. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves, I thought it common sense but I got an email from an admin before when I had blocked another editor who was doing the same thing across several talk/user pages. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that admin might need a good trout slap then. If you see an attack vandal, block them. Mr.Z-man 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You have to go with your instincts for the benefit of the encyclopedia first (remember the readers? How many people do?), apply policy (remembering WP:IAR is there for a reason) and pick up the pieces later, if necessary. I may be a Category:Rouge admin in spirit, but it works for me. --Rodhull andemu 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That an admin felt the need to email instead of posting their comments on a public board speaks volumes. Might you be interested in adopting my caveat? It could reduce the amount of off-wiki comment to you, if that is a problem.LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe your caveat is acceptable within our privacy policy, and recall somebody being forced to remove such a caveat once before. - auburnpilot talk 14:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been previously discussed, and while some disliked it it was permitted (a couple of people have even adopted it) and it has been in place for six months now. Some people who have mailed me have requested clarification, but none have not ultimately emailed me. No email has yet been divulged. If you wish to discuss this further I am happy to do so, but I think it should be a separate thread. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about me. I just won't email you or anybody else who doesn't respect the privacy of private communication. There are plenty of other admins and editors. - auburnpilot talk 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To avoid conflicting with Wikipedia policy, I wonder if LessHeard could change his caveat. Instead of saying 'I won't hold your message confidential', he could say, 'I won't take action on any complaint that is submitted to me only by email.' You could coax the emailer to rephrase his problem and post it in some form on the wiki. (If they are unwilling to do that, ask them to write to Arbcom). When I see admins doing unexpected things, I sometimes wonder if they've received an email about something that I don't know about. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what privacy policy you think LHvU's notice conflicts with. Risker (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure if it is written in policy somewhere (too many policy pages these days), but it was a principle of the Durova Arbcom case that private correspondence should not be posted without permission from the author. - auburnpilot talk 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It was precisely that matter which lead me to create the caveat, permission to disseminate is implicit when contacting me via email; that is what the wording means. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, what's next: "By commenting on this talk page, you agree that I may attack you in any way I see fit"? It may not violate the letter of any policy, but anyone can see how such a caveat isn't right. Implicit agreement to waive privacy is unjustifiable; it must be explicit from the author of the email. - auburnpilot talk 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have posted on EdJohnston's talkpage suggesting opening a dialogue on this matter, with a view to consolidating practice into a guideline. Your participation is likely to be useful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's well established that an admin should have email enabled in order that users may communicate him if blocked, etc. The purpose of this is totally defeated if they must sign away their rights when they do this. LHVU further says "this may exclude me from certain aspects of the administrative remit" -- but blocking is one thing he does not abstain from. (that's a compliment, BTW). DGG (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I recently saw an arbcom case that made it clear that if someone insults you then you should not block them, then again I think that is a load of shit. Good block! _{1 != 2} 18:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Disclaimer: The preceding comment was pure smartassery and should not be taken seriously.

Risker is correct that the policy is not settled. Instead of "To avoid conflicting with Wikipedia policy..." I would say "To avoid criticism by editors who are concerned about the privacy of email correspondence..." EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP 24.77.204.120

I am concerned about the attitude of 24.77.204.120. This user is badmouthing me about article Gliese 581 c. This user is threatening me with the WP:3RR (witch does not mention anything about IP user edits). I am simply requesting that you talk with this user or watch him for his actions, because I wish to now stay away from this situation because I was not aware of my actions and now wish to avoid any more conflict from it. — Nuclear Vacuum 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Without comment on anything else, IP edits are the same as logged in users, we don't discriminate against anonymous users. John Reaves 01:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting further administrative opinion

Yesterday, I protected the Barack Obama article due to edit warring. Looking at the talk page, it is quite clear that efforts have gone on by various parties to judge consensus on this issue, but such consensus is certainly not clear in regards as to what material should be included/excluded, from what I can see. Today, one of the parties approached me and informed me that there was consensus here, but this is not apparent in my eyes. I do not really feel comfortable with bringing conclusion to this issue without the input of others, due to size and scale of the issue. I therefore would be very grateful for further opinions on this matter and what steps of action should be taken. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that it is this diff that is the source of most of the dispute: [168]. As one notes, it concerns a living person, but is not referenced to reliable exterior sources, so, by policy, it should likely not be included until reliable sources can be found. That is the line of action policy dictates, from what I can see. Therefore, I personally am tending towards the unprotection of the article, with the addition of a warning concerning BLP and relating consequences on the talk page. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like, based on further developments, that you've determined after all this is not a good time to unprotect. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had originally thought that the problem regarded BLP solely, and that policy could keep the edit warriors inline and stop an edit war that didn't need to happen. But it seems I was not entirely correct in that assumption, and that the war is actually much bigger than the simple BLP violation here. I have pointed them in the way of WP:DISPUTE. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now the article is semi-protected. It should remain semi-protected for sometime. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Umm.....

Resolved. Message left explaining that I am not really an ageless immortal, regardless of what my userpage says :P J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Neoonyxalchemist just made this post on my talk page. I replied and then started looking at the other posts on his talk page. Then I looked at his userpage. I came straight here. Although his idea is a little strange, that is not what worries me. Look at what he says about me. How should I deal with this? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Over-eager yungin. Say thank you and give him a welcome template :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a note trying to explain that I am a mortal human :) Sorry, stuff like that just freaks me out. *shudder* I thought I was being scrutinized. I obviously am. What I was not aware of was that I was being worshiped.... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It must have been your original sig--the blinding orange mesmerized him and made him your acolyte forever. Good thing you changed it, or there'd be armies of J.delanoy-worshipping zombie-warriors overrunning the wiki and cutting everyone down as vandals. (wink) Gladys J Cortez 16:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse copyvio: when WP articles get deleted due to a website stealing wiki content.

I just want to post a note reminding everyone that, when checking for copyvio, please make sure that the website itself is not a uncredited/unacknowledged wikipedia mirror.

The example I'll cite here is this: http://www.banglavasha.com/ . This site blatantly copies Wikipedia content and images without acknowledging the source articles/WP. However, sometimes people are mistaking it to be the source, and the corresponding wikipedia articles to be copies!!

Just today, the article Kabi_Nazrul_Government_College was deleted as a suspected copyvio of this. (King_of_Hearts has since restored it following a note from me). However, I have looked into many other articles from the site, and they are in most cases verbatim copies of WP articles (with just a sentence added at the top).

An example is Dhaka Central Jail, (corresponding page at the site: [169]). I quickly spotted the copy made by the site, as the photo of Dhaka central Jail from commons was taken by me, and I also wrote most of the article. Another example is Khan Mohammad Mridha Mosque (corresponding page [170]). This site has plagiarized the entire article and all the photos (which I had taken for Wikipedia on December 22, 2006 during a photo shoot with other Wikipedians in Bangladesh)..

So, before any other WP article is suspected to be a copyvio of this pirate site, please take a closer look. Please do check which one is the copy .... in this case, it is the *site* which is doing copyvio, not Wikipedia ...

Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have flagged a lot of copyvios over the years. I have run into this same problem a few times, but it is generally straightforward to tell from the organic nature of the article edit history which is the copy (in most cases, Wikipedia is the one in violation, generally via straight cut&paste). Quatloo (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. WP:MIRROR has a list of such mirrors. King of Hearts has added this one there now, but in general, when checking/tagging copyvios, such problems might occur. So, we'd have to be careful about this. --Ragib (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User Coren doesn't seem to give a shit whether his copyvio bot highlights a mirror or not, and neither does anyone else. Is he even in control of his bot? I doubt it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be incredibly difficult to check for that. Even regular administrators, such as myself, have made mistakes. seicer | talk | contribs 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a way to code it so that it does, I'm sure he'd love to hear it. shoy 16:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Coren's bot only searches new pages and compares the text to a Google search, so the only way the bot would pick up on a mirror is if someone wrote the article, a mirror updated (or its a live mirror, which is technically forbidden), and Google updated their search results, all in the space of about a minute. The bot also allows for whitelisting of sites. You're more than welcome to ask Coren about it though instead of just complaining. Mr.Z-man 16:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, Mick, I think everyone here knows how you feel about...well, everything, since I don't believe I've ever seen you make ANY attempt to moderate your opinions or the words with which you express them. The above comment adds no useful content--no insight on the situation, no viable question, just snarky rhetoric and a personal attack on a bot operator--and thus serves no purpose in this discussion. I suggest you refactor, and perhaps in the future you might, BEFORE you start typing, ask yourself "Of what utility to the discussion is this comment? Does it advance the conversation, or is it just a means for me to vent my opinions?" (I've kept this thought to myself for a long time, but your last remark was so devoid of useful purpose as to make my continued silence impossible.)Gladys J Cortez 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually use "The WayBackMachine" at Archive.org to check for the first appearance of content which is suspected to be copyvio. Of course, not everything is there - but if the external page in question has a copy on archive.org which is older than our page.. it's a useful clue.. --Versa geek 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AWB/CP

I know it hasn't been long, but could an admin please check AWB/CP. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Make that a technically inclined admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC) (sound of rapidly retreating footsteps)

Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly threatening statement?

Resolved.

This article is nominated for speedy deletion, but apparently somebody took it kind of personally. TN‑X-Man 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please let me know if this is the correct forum for addressing these concerns. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a fine place - possible /Incidents if we're being picky, but no problem. In this case, I'd suggest there's nothing that can be done. It's a threat, but they aren't going to do anything about it, and neither can we really... Alex Muller 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. The article has been deleted and the user blocked, so the issue is probably done and done. Thanks for the info. TN‑X-Man 20:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't laugh, but I did. Orderinchaos 07:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sheepnacidadegrande (talk - contributions)

What should be done with this user? I believe he acts in good faith; he is extremely active but the quality of his edits are questionable at most. A ton of original research; and an incredible amount of images without source (mainly album covers that would otherwise be under fair-use), but nonetheless, quite disruptive for editors like me that are into music and forced to be on constant "clean-up mode". So what should be done? Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the first thing is to notify the editor about this post (which I've done). Exxolon (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I doubt that will any useful. If he didn't bother doing anything about his 50+ warnings, then...anyway, I got to know him through his edits on Eminem-related articles. He pretty much goes with no reliable citations, constantly creates bootlegs and also adds spam-like links reading Buy on Amazon.com. And does it all ignoring everyone and at an extremely fast pace. I nominated 2 of the bootlegs he created for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lullaby_Versions_of_Eminem and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raw_and_Uncutt. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for more eyes on and a speedy close to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd)

Declaration of involvement to start with, but this SSP has become an unseemly squabble that Luigi 28 has edited 79 times so far [171]. The reason I'm asking for others to look in is due to the accusations of lying [172], later retracted [173], posting of personal info about one of the belligerents [174][175] and the general urgent need to nail this issue with a CU report. Read through it in all its glory at your leisure. It now runs to seven different threads on my talk page, plus various others at User talk:DIREKTOR and User talk:Luigi 28 This SSP is full of hostile belligerent aggressive posts. Can this be sorted ASAP, with a CU or whatever? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I edited 79 times the SSP, because I speak a terrible English, I'm brand new here in Wikipedia and I don't know the tags, the markups and so on....
The User:DIREKTOR wrote that I can use his name: use it all you want[176]: no violation of Wiki rules.
User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 run six different threads on my talk page[177]--Luigi 28 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem with using my "name" (as I said, its not really my full name in Croatian and should be useless), but the meaningless squabble should be concluded at the soonest possible opportunity. As has been previously reported [178], the User does not discuss the actual evidence of his sockpuppeteering, but instead continues on with variations on the theme: "I'm not PIO, you two are fools, you're crazy, you're a couple of kids" etc... The entire report is indeed now completely cluttered with text relatively irrelevant to the actual sockpuppeteering issue. I admit I may have contributed myself in a minor way but, as I'm sure everyone knows, provocations in bad grammar are lethal for one's self control. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

More than 20 times, User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 said that I'm that banned User:PIO, without any kind of evidence, or reverted my edits. I put here only some examples[179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200]
They harrassed me from my very first edit, only because they think I'm that User:PIO. User:DIREKTOR reverted many, many times my edits (see above), without any kind of explanation. He violated this restriction: [201] and I ask that justice be done against him.--Luigi 28 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog

There's a backlog of images ready to be deleted at Category:All images on Wikimedia Commons ready for deletion. Spencer^T♦^C 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If MetsBot is 100% accurate, couldn't we just go for a batch deletion using WP:TW? Alex Muller 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I picked one at random, Image:Fishriver_nambia.jpg. The duplicate at commons is under a different name commons:image:Visrivier (Fish river) Nambia.jpg. So deleting the one here will screw the article Fish River (Namibia). --Step hen 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

MetsBot isn't completely accurate, no - I've seen it make several mistakes on the reverse, highlighting an image to say doesn't meet all deletion criteria when it actually does. Even with a so-called "perfect" bot, human eyes still need to act as a double-check to avoid issues. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of images left, but thanks to whoever was cleaning it out. Spencer^T♦^C 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need admin to delete page

Resolved.

There is a discussion about the deltion of BME Pain Olympics Final Round located here. It has been up for a week, and it has three people asking for it's deletion. I think it is time to delete the page, so if an admin could come by and close it, that'd be great. --Plasma Twa 2 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using fullprot to protect long-distance (but non-crystal ball) future work redirects

Commonly for video games, when any news of a sequel comes out, someone rushes to create a page for it, regardless of how reliable the source is. In some cases, it's from the developers directly, so a page for it makes sense, but ofttimes its a reliable source speaking of rumors or a word or two from a developer interview. In the latter case, it makes sense that the sequel should be discussed, but a full page for it is overkill, particularly for more popular games which then attract rumors. Redirections make sense (eg, see GTA V) to point back to a series or game article where a better discussion of the little news about the sequel can be made easily, though these redirects are often the target of newer editors that want to add their "super secret" information which is usually not reliable.

So the question is: is it reasonable to create such redirects for long-distance future works and get full prot on them, then when more news is there, requesting dropping the protection in order to expand the article? --MASEM 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Preemptive protection does not assume good faith and degrades the principle that anyone should be able to edit. If and only if there is evidence of disruption through any particular redirect can protection be justified for that redirect. If there is good reasoning to suggest that a page could only be made in bad faith, however, an exception would be acceptable. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. --MASEM 04:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Backlog

Since we're tasking tonight, and CSD appears quiet, would some admins be available to assist in closing out some old Category for Discussion discussions? We have some approaching 1 month old. The list can be found at WP:CFD. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global Admins

I would like to bring attention to this meta proposal to create a new user right that would be admins on every project, though their use would be restricted on large wikis, such as this, by policy (but not on a technical level). Prodego ^talk 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From memory, I think there is a difference to the Anti-Vandal fighter and what would constituite a global admin, if I'm not mistaken. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 06:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no access level difference, they have all admin rights. In fact, they are changing the name to "global sysop" as opposed to AVF. Prodego ^talk 06:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Global rights usage. Daniel (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proxy checkers needed. Jumbo backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies

Someone reported a huge number of possible open proxies to check at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Could some people with proxy-checking skills help? I can only check web proxies. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AE

Click to reveal noticeboard

General help	General issues • Site directory • Image & media copyright • Userpage help • New user help • Community assistance
Report abuse	Vandalism • Spam • Edit warring • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sock puppets • Copyright violations • Long term abuse • ISP reporting
Request assistance	Editor assistance • Page protection • Checkuser • Oversight • Arbitration • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Wikiquette alerts
Noticeboards	Administrators' • Incidents • ArbCom enforcement • Conflict of interest • Biographies • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources

This page in a nutshell: This page is for users to list breaches of an Arbitration Committee ruling. It is not part of dispute resolution.

Shortcut: WP:AE

This is a message board for requesting and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) decisions. Administrators are needed to help enforce ArbCom decisions. Any user is welcome to request help here if a user is in violation of an ArbCom decision. Please make your comments concise and Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page.

Skip to Current requests • Resolved

[edit] Are you sure this is the page you are looking for?

This page only involves violations of final ArbCom decisions. It is not for re-opening the dispute, or arguing about any ongoing dispute, but purely to compare a user's actions to any ruling that may apply to them, and enforcing a suitable remedy if there is a breach.

Other remedies you may be looking for:

Three-revert rule violations are best reported on the 3RR noticeboard (WP:AN/3RR). Even if an editor has an arbitration ruling about reverts, you will likely get a quicker response there.
Reporting of incidents that do not involve a completed Arbitration case (e.g. blocked users evading blocks, breach of a proposed ruling, etc) is done on the Administrator's incidents noticeboard (WP:AN/I).
Specific assistance from an administrator can be obtained via Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whomever]].
Block appeals (unblocking) can are addressed by following the suggestions at appealing a block.
To request arbitration of a matter, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

If a user has breached an arbcom ruling, but others provoked them, or have breached rulings as well:

This is enforcement, not dispute resolution. The case has already been ruled on. The question here is whether they engaged in conduct that breached that ruling.
If others breached a ruling too, then they should be likewise listed here for enforcement.
If others acted problematically, but did not breach a ruling, then seek normal dispute resolution, administrative action or an extension of the original ruling (see below).

If a case remedy has proven inadequate, unhelpful, or a user's conduct received complaints at arbcom but was not sufficiently addressed, then it is possible to open a request for an extension of the case ruling. Examples:

A user was topic-banned from George Bush but has now begun similar conduct on another political figure's article. Extension to cover "political biographies" not just one politician.
Evidence of some misconduct was presented for a user, but they had ceased some time ago and no ruling was given (or it was not sufficient for a ruling to be needed at that time). The behavior is being a problem. Extension sought to obtain some form of probation or restriction ruling.
Enforcement requirements were limited to 24 hour blocks, but due to ongoing problems administrators feel blocks of a longer period need to be possible.

For further information on arbitration, see Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

[edit] Enforcement

Enforcement requests against users should be based on the principles and decisions in their arbitration case.

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content. ArbCom decisions are generally about behavior, not content. Very few editors have content dispute prohibitions. Requests for Comments is still the best place to hash out content disputes.

Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be paraphrased and, if reinserted, will be deleted.

If an arbitration case has not been finalized, it is not enforceable. In that case, bad behavior should be reported on WP:AN/I and you should consider adding the behavior to the /Evidence page of the arbitration case.

Administrators:

ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether that prohibition was breached. If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.
The enforcement mechanisms listed in each individual case should be construed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.
Remember that more than one side in a dispute may have arbcom conduct rulings applicable to them.
Once an issue is resolved, close it and move it to the top of the Resolved issues section, from whence a bot should archive it in 3 days.

[edit] Using this page

Add new requests at the top of the page. Please provide the following information:

Be prepared with:

At the top of your request, add a link to the final decision in their arbitration case; a list with summary disposition is at WP:AER; use the format: Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/casename. You can add |casename if you like.
Diffs showing the violating behavior
A brief summary of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case.
Sign and date your report with Wikipedia's special signature format (~~~~). The archival bot uses the time stamp to determine when to archive reports.
(recommended) A diff showing that the user has previously been cautioned at their talkpage about the sanctions

Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30

[edit] Edit this section for new requests

[edit] Various SPAs and Muhammad al-Durrah

[edit] Resolved

[edit] Appeal of warning re: WP:ARBAA2 made by user:Seraphimblade

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Pocox4's request declined, request not justified

— Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish to appeal the warning posted to my talk page and to the arbitration enforcement log by user:Seraphimblade for edit warring at Sheylanli. I was not edit warring, I only made one revert. All my edits including the revert was made in good faith. I feel that I am unfairly being tarred by the same brush as a revert warrior who was reverting not just my edits but admin user:Golbez's edits in Nagorno-Karabakh and trying to insert the harshest of POVs. Seraphimblade's reasoning for believing that I was edit warring is here where he erroneously believes that four edits of mine were actually reverts. Only one of those four links is an actual revert and it was a good faith revert because I was reverted before without any explanation. To summarize:

[207] is not a revert. It's adding new material and accuracy

[208] is a revert because I was reverted without any discussion in talk.

[209] is not a revert. I was removing a propaganda site and I was never aware that it had ever been removed before. This is a new edit.

[210] I am adding tags that have never been added before. Not a revert.

They were all good faith edits and they were all discussed in talk. Just because someone reverted my edits shouldn't mean that I should be tarred by the same brush. I was not edit warring and my only intention was to come to a consensus on that article. If the same standards that have been applied to me were applied to all edits in wikipedia than every single edit that was not a clear addition of information only would be considered a revert. Please give this your consideration. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't really need to appeal warnings. They're just meant to inform possibly unaware editors that they could face sanctions; there is no hierarchy of "warning --> sanctions". Although it is true that editors should generally be warned before facing sanctions, this is only because it is unfair to sanction someone for behavior which they did not know was sanctionable. A general warning is very common, and does not imply wrongdoing or upcoming sanctions; the warning you recieved is similar, but points to specific behavior which could lead to sanctions. Whether or not you feel that behavior violated the restrictions isn't really important, since the warning is merely meant to inform you of it — if your behavior wasn't in violation, then you will not be sanctioned. Warnings aren't retracted, because they merely serve an informational purpose — the fact that you have been informed is irrevocable, so even someone saying "your edits were AOK" will really change anything with any real significance. --Haemo (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My talk page says it's a warning however the arbitration enforcement log says "Pocopocopocopoco (talk · contribs) notified of discretionary sanctions due to edit warring in the affected areas. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)" which seems like it's more than a warning. I believe that entry should be removed from the arbitration enforcement log. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree you weren't revert warring, however, while sanctions can be appealed, you can't appeal notifications. PhilKnight (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's just a warning, then fine but I shouldn't be placed on a list called "List of users placed under supervision". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you do constructive edits and don't edit warring with others, I think you shouldn't have any problem with all these warnings. For example, for me it doesn't matter whether or not my name is in the list so called "List of users placed under supervision." This is because I have gotten enough experience not to go into any propaganda as you had me do more than three reverts in order to report and get me blocked. While I and an admin Golbez, see Golbez's comment, was working on the article Nagorno-Karabakh to make the "proposed" fact clear, (see from this to this which was accepted to stay there by my 'opponent', administrator Golbez) you reported to the notice board to get me blocked with the fact that I had done more than three reverts. But at the same time you were edit warring on the article Sheylanli with me and you thought no-one would notice that but fortunately or unfortunately someone did and so you are appealing here. I hope you took your lesson and never do such things in the future. Cheers, Gülməmməd ^Talk 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore it. It makes no mention of any sanctions, so it has no power; it's just a log that you were warned. I agree the title is a bit misleading, but this isn't a bureaucracy, so it doesn't hold any power over you. Just chill — nothing will happen unless you make it happen. --Haemo (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it that it's not a big deal but I still take issue with the fact that I was tarred with the same brush as another user who was a revert warrior against multiple editors and articles. I did not revert war with him and yet got the same warning. If I get a warning about sanctions, he should get sanctions as he was already warned here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco: You shouldn't have forgotten your promise here when you was unblocked due to edit warring on disputed article in December 29, 2007. You have once involved in edit warring but kept doing edit war with me. In 1 hour 36 minutes, from 23:17, May 31, 2008 to 00:53, June 1, 2008, see, you reverted me 8 times! Isn't this edit warring? Gülməmməd ^Talk 01:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] User: RPJ may have returned as USER: Mtracy9

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User blocked for one year ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Arbitration Decision: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

Diffs

[211] Bad Faith and false three revert warning tag. I made only one reversion

[212] - referring to an edit by Gamaliel as bogus.

[213]- sample of edit warring.

[214]- warning that if he didn't desist, I would come to Arbitration Enforcement for assistance.

[215]- Admin using a VOA script that shows a stong likelihood that Mtracy9 and RPJ are one and the same.

There is strong evidence that RPJ has returned to Wikipedia under the username of Mtracy9. To wit, Mtracy began appearing just as RPJ's ban ended. He edits on the same articles as RPJ, editted. He also appears to have the same characteristics of RPJ. He writes from the same POV as RPJ, and uses the same "all significant viewpoints" and "let the reader decide" arguments. More concerning is the tendentious editing he continues to engage in. As the diffs above show, he has placed a false three revert warning on my talk page, referred to another editor edit as "bogus", and has edit warred profusely to attempt to put his conspiracy innuendo into Kennedy assassination related articles.

From the Arbcom decision, RPJ was placed on indefinite probation. "He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner. Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ."

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

One year block - Per report and evidence. User mirrors RPJ's editing behavior, and is subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] User:Makedonij, disruptive editing

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User Topic-banned] for 4 months by Moreschi

Another case for WP:ARBMAC. Makedonij (talk · contribs) has long been among the more disruptive Balkan editors (see block log and history of warnings). Almost all his activities have been related to Macedonian nationalist POV-pushing. They are also tarnished by poor behavious, incivility, very poor English and failure to grasp copyright rules. Now, by creating an article on an alleged Macedonian Genocide, he's overdone it, in my view. Blatantly tendentious; text mechanically copied from the Armenian genocide page with "Macedonian" substituted for "Armenian", leading to factual claims that are complete fabrications (e.g. "death marches"), citing fake "sources" that are neither reliable nor even support the claims made in the article. This is pure disruptive editing bordering on vandalism. Balkan editors have been sanctioned for less, much less in fact. I request a longish topic ban or block. In my view there is no hope that this user can become a constructive contributor in the near to medium future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WHY? Becouse one article, with two sentenses and i only start to editing an article?? No matter, "block me", i'm considered as an nationalist by someone (Fut.Perf.. Also take a good watch on him, how neutral he is,and his friend Laveol, the one who revert every single macedonian article, and how he is answering questions, he is also useing double standarts in every thing. Regards.--Makedonij (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Fut.Perf sory.--Makedonij (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied to Makedonij on his user talk page after he asked for some help. I replied before realizing there was an open ArbCom enforcement discission occurring. I provide the link to that reply here, as it might offer insight into M.'s state of mind. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Topic-banned for 4 months. If he evades this with new accounts, it'll be finis. Makedonij, you have been warned. I don't mess about. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take a brake, becouse i'm disapointed. By —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makedonij (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC) --Makedonij (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] User:Moldopodo, again

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

one week by Jossi

I come to this forum with great reluctance, but come I must, for I have no other recourse. Here's the background: on 1 June, I filed a similar report on this user, and he was blocked under the Digwuren ruling. However, he has persisted in making the same personal attacks that led to the block, and I sincerely wish for these to cease. At the same time, the last thing I want is to use up the community's patience with frivolous reports - but this is hardly a frivolous matter. I began by filing a Wikiquette Alert, which was closed because the dispute is more advanced than that. I then sought the advice of Rlevse, carefully noting my reluctance to pursue the matter here, but he advised me that AE or RfC were indeed the only avenues I had. That's why I've returned here so soon. Allow me to paste my WQA report below:

This user, recently taken before Arbitration Enforcement (see here) and consequently blocked for incivility, persists in making the same charges that brought about that block. It's this paragraph I'm referring to: "Racist comments... open ethno-racist remarks are made by User:Biruitorul". This is false, offensive, inflammatory and an attempt at character assassination. I will not stand to be called an "ethno-racist" by this user, and I have made it clear that every instance of this will be dealt with by a report to an official forum. This is just the latest. I'm not seeking for Moldopodo to be blocked or what have you - I merely want an apology and an assurance that such language will not be addressed to me in the future by him.

Update: Moldopodo has again attacked me as an "ethno-racist": "Like I said earlier, when I refer to your edits as ethno-racists it is because they are ethno-racist, and not because in fact the are 'red rose' edits". I would hope this uncompromising insistence on attacking me would cease.

And again, and again.

Like I've said, I'm not out to "get" Moldopodo - I merely want it impressed upon him, somehow, that this sort of language is unacceptable here. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Update - more baseless attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User blocked for one week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Categories: Wikipedia noticeboards | Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Hidden categories: Non-talk pages that are automatically signed | Move protected

User:Persian Poet Gal/AdminToolbox/Noticeboards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] WP:RFPP

Contents

[edit] Current requests for protection

[edit] Pennsylvania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] User talk:ACM2 (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Giovani dos Santos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Spider-Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Trial of Clay Shaw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Peanut butter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Ted Bundy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Chris Parks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Pau Gasol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Current requests for unprotection

[edit] Julian Baggini (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

[edit] United Kingdom Independence Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Fulfilled/denied requests

[edit] Tottenham Hotspur F.C. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Gina Carano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] User:Imperial Star Destroyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Teresa Sue Bratton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Macedonian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Shay Tubaly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] H. Kramer and Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] User talk:SexySeaClownfish (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] User talk:12.171.163.20 (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Giraffe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Webby Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Crowz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] User talk:64.110.232.223 (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Matilda Mecini (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] WP:AN/3RR

[edit] Violations

[edit] User:Andyvphil reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Stale. )

[edit] User:Truthmaker1 reported by User:Damiens.rf (Result: Declined, request review)

[edit] User:Jazz81089 reported by User:Appletrees (Result: No vio? Request extra review; Review: both blocked 24 hours)

[edit] User:69.243.88.114 reported by Q T C (Result: 24 hour block )

[edit] On Wafa Sultan reported by User:M1ss1ontomars2k4 (Result: Page protected)

[edit] User:Anyeverybody reported by User:Crum375 (Result: Article protected)

[edit] User:Yahel Guhan reported by User:Bless_sins (Result: No action )

[edit] User:62.178.118.77 and other IP-numbers reported by User:WaldiR (Result: No vio)

[edit] User:Dvaaeg reported by User:Aramgar (Result: 24 hour block; suspected sockpuppet)

[edit] User:Chenyangw reported by User:Cumulus Clouds (Result: 24 hours)

[edit] User:NuclearVacuum reported by User:24.77.204.120 (Result:24 for both)

[edit] User:Olahus reported by User:Xasha (Result: Reverted, protected)

[edit] User:TragedyStriker reported by User:Kww (Result: 24 hour block )

[edit] User:Strongbrow reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: user warned)

[edit] Example

[edit] See also

[edit] WP:UFAA

[edit] Bot-reported

[edit] User-reported

[edit] WP:ANI

[edit] I am the banned user Flameviper.

[edit] If unbanned

[edit] Proposal for unbanning

[edit] Conspiracy theory and BLP issues - eyes requested

[edit] CAMERA known to be pushing this case

[edit] make it stop, please

[edit] William Melmoth

[edit] Ivo Andrić

[edit] Sockpuppeteer here

[edit] User:Raul654 and indefinite full protection of 10 global warming related pages

[edit] Semi-protection for now

[edit] 3RR concern

[edit] Range block

[edit] User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

[edit] SlimVirgin still removing problem tags

[edit] International Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence

[edit] Sockpuppet

[edit] complaint about a ADMINISTRATOR -> User:R._Baley

[edit] User:mathewignash

[edit] User: Cush - Unapologetic hate speech

[edit] CONCACAF Champions League 2008-09

[edit] User:Grawp

[edit] User:Korax1214 moving pages related to Black communities around the world

[edit] Pennsylvania `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] User talk:ACM2 `(`edit`|`user page`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Giovani dos Santos `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Spider-Man `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Trial of Clay Shaw `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Peanut butter `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Ted Bundy `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Chris Parks `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Pau Gasol `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Julian Baggini `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] United Kingdom Independence Party `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Tottenham Hotspur F.C. `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Gina Carano `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] User:Imperial Star Destroyer `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Teresa Sue Bratton `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Macedonian `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Shay Tubaly `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] H. Kramer and Company `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] User talk:SexySeaClownfish `(`edit`|`user page`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] User talk:12.171.163.20 `(`edit`|`user page`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Giraffe `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Webby Awards `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Crowz `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] User talk:64.110.232.223 `(`edit`|`user page`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] Matilda Mecini `(`edit`|`talk`|`history`|`links`|`watch`|`logs`)`

[edit] User:69.243.88.114 reported by Q ^{T C} (Result: 24 hour block )

`[edit] My unjustified block`

`[edit] Also, please have a look`