Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:12, 10 June 2008

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354
355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364
Incidents (archives, search)
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476
477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329
330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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)[reply]

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

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

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose Lots of kids can behave "grown up" on Wikipedia, some can't. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose per various arguments above. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

oppose per durova and diffs provided by Metros. On 22 May, even, this editor was using edit summaries such as [1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [2] and [3] suggest someone will have to spend a lot of time running after him fixing up, and needlessly offensive edit summaries [4] and [5]. I'm not seeing the "constructive editing", sorry. Orderinchaos 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [6], [7], [8].) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
For the record, Flameviper has another sock, KONATA KONATA KONATA (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) 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)[reply]

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 · filter log · 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 · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)."

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Really had my hands full; should have done this sooner. Flameviper has written me and expressed an interest in the Simple English Wikipedia. Really he'd like to be here at en:wiki, but that's pretty close. If he follows through and does good work I'll restart this discussion myself when the time is right. I'd like to come back with some good arguments that he's shown he can adapt and contribute productively without the problems that brought things to this point. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory and BLP issues - eyes requested

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

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. [9]). 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 [10]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [11] which is being repeated by others who repeat it without personal verification. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [12], bibigon [13], Humus Sapiens [14], Jayg [15], [16],KazakhPol [17], Slim Virgin [18], Netscott [19], Viriditas [20] — 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [21]Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's worth also pointing out that we have a standing presumption against using such language as words to avoid, for precisely the reason that you suggest. See WP:WTA#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported. As that page says, such terms "serve the function of casting doubt upon an assertion." -- ChrisO (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I repeat: when there are sufficient reliable sources reporting your novel interpretation of the court decision as fact, we will certainly change the article. May I suggest you find anonther article to improve till that time? --Relata refero (disp.) 07:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been repeated time and time and time again, to the point where Julia's actions may be crossing the line into simple disruption. One cannot synthesize one's own opinions into what a source states. There's no wiggle room there. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

6SJ7's assumption of bad faith is tiresome but predictable. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Don't start another bot war please. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the operator of said bot. First, the WP:NFCC has community consensus, if you disagree take it there. Second, automated enforcement of WP:NFCC has community consensus. Third, my bot (and two others) have community consensus having passed a WP:BRFA with no objections. Sorry but this isn't how we operate, if you have a problem with the policy, the enforcement methods or the bot's approved method of action they're the appropriate venues for discussion. The bot is clearly not malfunctioning and calling for a block because you think the policy is flawed is baseless. BJ^Talk 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree, this bot is operating 100% correctly and enforcing policy properly. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fully-protect the main article and create an unprotected copy at Talk:Global warming/Draft article. Then transfer good edits from one to the other. This worked reasonably well at evolution, using Talk:Evolution/draft article to deal with the similar problem caused by User:Tile join. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

The above user has been removing problem tags from images that he/she has uploaded, [22] [23] [24] even using Twinkle in the process. I've twice warned the user, [25] [26] but I got a response on my talk page not to issue any more warnings[27] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 [28] -- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[29] [30] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

SlimVirgin still removing problem tags

This behavior is continuing.[31] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

For the record, the template spamming of my talk page by Kelly continues, this time to do with Israel-Palestine. [32] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

<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[33] and Nickhh[34] A formal notification of the case is not a "warning", as I have been told[35], but just a notification. However, my edits that log that SlimVirgin was notified are being reverted [36] [37] and I am being threatened with blocking [38] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

(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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, Kelly today asked for a BLP that I recently semi-protected to be unprotected. [39] He has also asked Tim Vickers who endorsed the semi-protection to explain why. [40] 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. [41] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

About General sanctions notifications

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, the circumstances here are that ChrisO is a heavily involved edtor on this page. He has edit warred on it (some recent examples - [42], [43], [44], [45],[46]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just to clarify, I have absolutely no intention of using admin tools in that dispute, since I'm clearly involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[restated and clarified below] Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the best solution. About the ambiguity in the term "warning/notification": Does it mean: "I just want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place", or does it mean: "I want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place, and you are currently running the risk of having it applied to you, the way you've been acting"? I personally find that the second type of message is a lot more helpful, because the first type leaves the addressee confused whether their behaviour has been coming across as disruptive or not, and whether or not they are expected to change it. It's also much more in line with how "warnings" are used elsewhere. We don't go round telling people: "Hey, you can't make more than three reverts in a day", unless they are actually revert-warring. But if these notifications are supposed to be of the "warning" type, the person who makes them should be competent to make them. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to be the same uninvolved admin that might also carry out the sanction, not even that they need to be an admin, but it should only be done by experienced editors who can truthfully claim they have an objective, neutral judgment of the situation and know very well in what circumstances these sanctions are likely to actually happen. So, not usually a direct opponent in a dispute, for instance. I've given WP:ARBMAC-related warnings myself in some cases where I was "involved" and knew I wouldn't be allowed to carry them out myself – but then, I know very well that even in such situations my opinions carry some weight in that field and that if I ask for sanctions, it's more likely than not they will happen, so I thought the warning was fair.

In any case I'm opposed to having warnings themselves logged at the Arbcom pages as if they were already a kind of sanction. It's a "list of blocks and bans", not a "list of notifications, blocks and bans". However, if people want to log these, then of course the criterion for who should warn and when should be a lot stricter: only an independent admin and definitely only where actual disruption has already occurred. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this makes a lot of sense - its pretty much what I was pointing out earlier - and should be clearly set out as the customary approach in an essay somewhere, perhaps. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarification. Notifications are give to new editors who won't be aware of the relevant case. They are also give to old-time editors who may not be aware of the case. They are never given to old-time editors who are certainly aware of the case. Notification does not mean you have done anything wrong, and hence the logging of the notifications should be done using neutral wording. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Logging the notifications seems a bit like overkill, but I supposed it is needed to ensure people are aware. Is there a time limit though? It would seem a bit harsh if someone hadn't edited the topic area for a year or more, but had a year-old notification waved at them, followed by a block. About notifications in general, I think this is one area where a personal note can help more than a templated message. Overall, though, it seems like the system is slowly evolving into a more structured version of what already exists - a series of warnings and then a block. I suspect that it is the structure and formality, rather than anything new and exciting, that is helping these processes calm certain areas down. That and people seeing that they can get a fair deal - that is absolutely crucial. If people think they won't be treated fairly, they are more likely to react badly. Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I said was not quite what I wanted to say - so I'll restate and clarify what I meant here.
  - Moreschi has summarised what a notification is - making someone aware of the decision/'regime' with neutral wording. A warning is where the user is told something like "you are currently running the risk of having it applied to you because...." - obviously, sometimes both are combined.
  - Involved administrators should from now on not give any further warnings (of course, they strictly cannot give sanctions) - they should bring it to the attention of the appropriate administrators' noticeboard so an uninvolved admin takes any necessary formal action. This is a step that must be taken if you've been editing in that area so that the warnings are taken seriously in the way in which they were intended (when this was added as a provision in the remedy). The purpose of this process is to ensure impartiality and to avoid the chilling effect, among other adverse effects. Admins should be aware of their abilities, feelings, passions, agendas etc. to avoid making any ill-considered actions that (even potentially) do not comply with this purpose - where an admin gives a warning, particularly where they are involved, it is interpreted very differently from if it is given by any other uninvolved user. Gaming the system is not on. On the other hand, notifications by any user is ok - but they must be worded appropriately, particularly if you're an involved admin.
  - However, I'm suggesting the problems in this area have gone on long enough - an uninvolved administrator should investigate and give warnings to those editors who are have recently not complied with the principles of the decision, while notifying all other involved editors of the decision. This way, ALL editors editing in the area have absolutely no excuse for 'not being notified or warned by an uninvolved admin'. These should replace the logging of formal warnings or notifications by involved administrators and would clear up a lot of the issues. This applies to all warnings or notifications that were made during or after an administrator became involved in a dispute - see above where I have defined what an uninvolved admin is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

complaint about a ADMINISTRATOR -> User:R._Baley

Resolved

– User has decided to leave Wikipedia

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To Achromatic, I think people did look at his complaint, find it completely groundless, but thought it might be more productive to tell the user "Why don't you speak to the person you are annoyed at before making a federal case?", rather than to just say "Get lost, whiner." (which would have been very tempting) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Jaysweet's comment - I came to the exact same findings specified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [47]. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Zarbon unblock request

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support unblocking, indef seems a bit long for a user who violated 3RR (even with socks). Tiptoety ^talk 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Checkuser shows nothing but him on his self-admitted IP (User talk:72.229.48.178). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mangojuice, FYI, please see his latest comment at [53] 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)[reply]
  - Based on [54], I have unblocked him. Feel free to review or whatever. --B (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [55] [56] [57] [58]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [59], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is an incident, as you have taken it upon yourself to remove valid information from large numbers of articles, break templates in such a way that information does not display correctly, spam allegations of sockpuppetry with no evidence (one or both of the IP's you name aren't even on providers serving my area, yet you continue to claim that anyone who tries to revert the damage you've done is me?) and cause various WP:3RR problems in an attempt to make a WP:POINT and WP:OWN a series of pages. Because of this, any attempt to get the correct information as to where four or five hundred TV stations are moving as part of a huge digital transition is being deliberately and repeatedly derailed by you and, now that you've been called on this, one or two people that you've recruited to run damage control. There have been many complaints where you have taken it upon yourself to dictate what information should or should not be in a TV station article [60], in one case you went as far as to threaten a user with " Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Rollosmokes. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)" just because they complained to you about your disruptive actions[61]. I now see that you've been editing my userpage again to spam your nonsense there, seems a bit of a double-standard where criticism of you is revertible on sight but the personal attacks you direct at others is somehow sacrosanct and free to be reposted at will?[reply]

Stop breaking templates, stop removing information on DTV transition, stop spamming user pages with threats and false accusations. You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT and have gone too far. --carlb (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no "recruitment", we've cooperated with each other as members of the project. I don't talk to any of the project members off-Wiki and we usually only collaborate on WT:TVS. If you want to confirm that I welcome you to check my talk page history, and you'll see that Rollo or Azumanga have not left any messages for me at all, much less canvassed for my input, nor have I done the same within their talk pages. Don't throw around baseless accusations that cannot be proven. I have shown incredible patience with you and to be accused of being part of a canvassing effort is uncalled for. Nate • (chatter) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Davis Jr./Satanism

Resolved

– Questionable information removed by Baseball Bugs (thanks), and Mmyers1976 warned about making legal threats

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 [62], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I deleted that so-called reference from the satanism article, which the complaining user could have done also rather than making empty threats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Bugs. It boggles the mind why the user didn't just do that to begin with. Perhaps he/she got "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" confused with "the free encyclopedia that anyone can complain about".

I have warned the user on his/her talk page. Not only was this a legal threat, which is strictly prohibited, but it was a grossly unnecessary legal threat. Marking thread as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the user's denial of making threats while reiterating them [63], I pointed out that his non-action in regard to removing the potentially-"libelous" comment could be argued as contributing to any libel action. I bet he hadn't thought of that. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion there is getting snippy, so I'm done with it. The only real problem was the content of the two articles (at least the two that we know about), so that's the end of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the user continues to make threats while denying that they're threats. [64] I've about had it with this guy. Will an admin please step in here, and tell the both of us what's what? Thank y'all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started ignoring him about three comments earlier than you did ;) His user page is worth a look if you want to pursue this further, he basically says he hates Wikipedia and everything it stands for, and the only reason he doesn't engage in active sabotage is because he feels it would be unethical. Eeps!

Also, since this thread is marked resolved, if you want further admin attention, you should probably either start a new section or comment out the Resolved tag at the top. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.[reply]

So much for "assuming good faith", which I had been largely doing. OK, there's no point in any further discussion with this clown. I said before, that I was done. This time I mean it. Issue remains resolved. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It isn't. Removal of a tag is only further evidence it was read. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Greetings from wikipedia dumbass

Thanks to your stupidity, I now have all of your contact and personal information.

Seeing as you are a homosexual fag, instead of wishing for niggers to rape your female family members, I will be satisfied with you contracting aids.

You have about 24 hours before all your emails addresses become worthless from being flooded with nigerian spam emails. I'm giving you 24 hours because I want this email to reach you so you know that you brought this on yourself.

-Sincerely
Ayn Rand

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)[reply]

I've reblocked the user with email disabled. Nakon 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I personally would hardly consider my passing comment a true warning. Prodego ^talk 21:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Please, notice that MauritiusXXVII began with the personals attacks " absolutly ignorant (i don't know the meaning of Povish)", please see how he demanded me explanations when he still has not any explanation on the page talk nowadays though his huges changes on the article (only after the edition left the message without reasoning), see how he begans to say me "pushes a catalanist or (may I say anti-spanish) non-neutral POV" before i called him "anti-catalanist", please see how he begins to threaten me after just one day from his first edition "you will be reported" please see how he said "Catalan POV and this is not the catalan wiki" before i call him southamerican and when, in fact, i was bringing International Heraldry Academy sources not Catalan ones and he (they both in fact) only were bringing an Aragonese website source (Aragonese Encyclopedia when the Wikipedia is not what others Encyclopedia say so that source would have be removed as invalid source). And please, notice that i have no warnings but "mobbing" from the Aragonese Enric Naval specialist in request blocks against Catalan editors on the Spanish wikipedia like this when he demanded to an administrator to block the user Periku And the worse of all is that the current edition done by MauritiusXXVII [65] (they both in fact) the sources numbers 1,5,6 and 15 (where he needs to demote the count of Barcelona Ramon Berenguer IV to edit, an example of his ideology) are falsified. He (they both) has gone beyond the limits of the decency. I can prove that the authors do not state what they both are falsely pretending they say. --Sclua (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute, but a behaviour dispute, with this user removing heraldic sources that don't agree with his POV and claiming that we are misquoting the sources (when we are doing a direct quote of the source, I kid you not) continuous accussations of bias that started well before Maurice's involvement, and accusing me of being biased for removing a source that failed completely at WP:RSN where, ironically, he accusses me of trying to clear the sources I don't like.

(Notice that, after my complaint, user Periku was blocked 1 week for disruption, and his changes in dispute were reverted. Also, I didn't complain to an admin, but to an uninvolved bureaucrat) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More MascotGuy

Back today as User:Technovision, blocked indef, all edits reverted. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> Tiptoety ^talk 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frank Anchor has broken this too, please be fair Step. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

3RR noticeboard is this a-way Q ^{T C} 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

>>>>my talk page is over here>>>> Gwen Gale (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The involved editors appear to have resolved this on their own. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rollbacks done (as best I can tell), and IP blocked for six months - it appears to be static. Neıl 龱 12:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think there are still more rollbacks to do, but I'll look at them later. Toliar (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

I'd like some assistance. After reminding [66] User:Andyvphil that he's not to edit others' Talk page comments [67], he immediately altered my comments (to an uncivil quip) in his User_talk space [68] and continued his tenditious editing at Talk:Barack Obama [69]. 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)[reply]

Btw, none of my blocks were for "hostility toward other editors". Which is not to say that I take kindly to the abuse of process that Shem is engaging in here. Andyvphil (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andyvphil has now edited my comments on this page [70] and again on an article talk page [71]. Shem^(talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it"(WP:TPG) is lost on you? You don't own this page, or the Barack Obama talk page, and you're not allowed to use headers to make abusive assertions ("tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil"). Keep your "comments" in the text area, where your signature marks them as the opinions of dubious origin that they are. Andyvphil (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

By all means let's look at Shem's examples of my "edit[ing] others' Talk page comments [72]" and "continued... tenditious editing[73]". Both involve only the header on an article's (not a user's) talk page, where the guideline is: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."(WP:TPG) Shem's header was "This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus" and I first changed it to "Further comments by Option 1 supporters: 'This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus' and, after Shem reverted, to "Argumentative header redacted, per [guideline]: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.'" (edit comment "...I'll leave replacing it to someone else.") So the real question is whether Shem's right to protect the integrity of his remarks means that his argumentative headers can't be made neutral. And whether he should escape rebuke for filing completely bogus complaints like this. Andyvphil (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this editor is headed for a long-term block or ban, if he does not either improve or lose interest in the project. Replacing talk page headers with complaints and personal attacks (here's another[74], and in this very section he edits the headings to turn a report on his behavior around to a complaint about the poster[75][76]) is one of the least of the problems. The site of the most recent trouble, the Barak Obama article (where he has joined forces with three other accounts to pester his perceived enemies with taunts like "Obama campaign volunteers" and "Obama fanboys", and broke ranks of the consensus discussion to renew an edit war[77][78]), was recently taken unprotected with a stern warning to not edit war that soon lead to the article's full protection. The other place he has been most tendentious of late is a sockpuppet report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth (where he called User:Josi "bad, arrogant"[79], "arrogant abuse of admin power...for whom an admin bit is an opportunity to stoke their ego..."[80]and me an "imbecile" and a "liar"[81]. We can and should have a thick skin about all this, but it's lead to protectio of an important article and the more or less complete breakdown of consensus discussions.

I have had a couple of prolonged unpleasant run-ins with him myself and left quite a few warnings. Andyvphil has not responded well to repeated warnings, and shows no sign of self-reflection or moderating his behavior. However, now that he is a party to a sockpuppet request, and much of his incivility and tendentiousness is occurring there, I would say he's already under scrutiny so I'm not sure a separate forum is needed here for the moment. Wikidemo (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was admin, not merely "user" Jossi whose actions in blocking Fovean_Author with no plausible justification I called arrogant. My retitling of this section so that it does not assert my guilt is in accord with the guideline I've quoted above, and if you read "accusation" into the perfectly neutral descriptive title "Allegation by User:Shem of tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil", that is entirely in your own head. Not that I am unwilling to accuse when it is called for. You point to my calling your addition of my name to the list of sockpuppets operated by "suspected sockpuppeteer" Kossack4Truth an abuse of process,[82] and I stand by that 100%. Since your cohort in the hagiographic clique (you, Scjessey, Lulu, Shem...) called me a racist without rebuke[83] it's hard to credit the notion that calling the group Obama Campaign Volunteers would merit one. That's assuming I used the term. Where's the diff? I'm sure I never used "Obama Fanboys", though it's not an epithet in a league with "smells of racism" either.

I won't bother refuting the rest of your off-topic rant. Shem has reported an "incident". He alleges that I have engaged in "tendentious editing" by first contextualizing and then redacting his argumentative header on the Barack Obama talkpage. Did I or did I not -- that's the question in this section, and I am confident that the answer cannot possibly be the one he wants. If you want to raise a different complaint against me, start another section. Andyvphil (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemo correctly, below, appears to consider that the "racist" issue is moot here. However, that incident reveals more about how Andyvphil responds to disputes. He links above to the place where he was allegedly "called" a "racist." The diff does not support that. Nor was "smells of racism" (not the actual language) a personal attack, and that Andyvphil thinks it was is diagnostic. Scjessey's edit summary was this: "Undid revision 211967788 by Andyvphil (talk) - rv disruptive edits that are starting to look suspiciously like racism." While this may not be the soul of cooperative civility, because it could indeed be taken in an inflammatory way, it merely noted Scjessey's impression of the edits, their appearance to him, and a concern. That was not a personal attack, for a totally non-racist editor could make an edit that "looks like" racism to another editor. Had Scjessey called Andyvphil a "racist," it would have been an entirely different matter, or if he had made some broad statement clearly implying that, such as "All his edits appear to be racist," a personal attack would have been visible.--Abd (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor seems to claim his ongoing incivility and name calling are okay because he was provoked by supposed "cohorts" who called him a racist a month ago. I can't quite follow that, and I wasn't involved during his last visit to this page. But he has clearly been confrontational and upset many editors over a long period and has no interest in stopping. Indeed, he continues after making the above statements to edit war on the Obama talk page over the very edit that was first complained about in this report (though he is now defacing rather than merely altering the heading).[84] That is particularly disruptive given the consternation, disagreement, name calling, and allegations of sock puppetry surrounding the repeated polling, with the polls becoming a springboard for edits that got the Obama main page fully protected. Yet another warning would not seem to help; he dismisses this as "administrative arrogance" and "abuse of process". Whether or not the disruption would justify a block at this very moment, in the long term something ought to be done to mollify things.Wikidemo (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I've dismissed as abuse of process was Shem's bogus assertion that I had edited his "comments" (again, its only his headers I've insisted follow WP:TPG) and your bogus assertion that I could possibly be a sockpuppet of Kossak4Truth. Another bogus "warning" that I shouldn't interfere with Shem's misuse of headers will indeed be dismissed by me. What part of "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it"(WP:TPG) is lost on you? Andyvphil (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't take the invitation to snipe back. He is edit warring on the Obama talk page, citing a misinterpretation of WP:TPG, to deface one option in a heated poll to Argumentative header redacted, per [guideline]: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."[85] There's a bona fide concern of sockpuppetry or at least meatpuppetry, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. He's recently called me a liar and an imbecile. That's all in the last day or so. He and Shem are revert warring again in the past half hour over the title to this section.[86][87]. This is not looking good. - Wikidemo (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in principle that changing a section header is not the same as refactoring someone else's talk page comments, and I think that some of the header modification edits made by Andyvphil were probably okay, this is unacceptable. Behavior like that could rapidly lead to a block. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.[reply]

(ec)Andyvphil is also repeatedly editing section headers placed on his Talk page, turning warnings to him into taunts of other editors. See [88], changing "Do not edit others' talk page comments." into "Shem's sham outrage," undone at [89] by Shem. [90] changed "Edit warring." into "Hypocritical hagiographers threaten," removed by Wikidemo with [91] with summary: "remove personal attack heading and replace with original" (Next edit from Wikidemo also replaced another header Andyvphil had removed, and added text warning about NPA.) Andyphil then, today, replaced the "sham outrage" attack header,[92], claiming "wider latitude on my Talk page." Most recently, as this is written, Shem reverted that last change, and notified Andyphil of this AN/I report.[93].

See also the SSP report, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. Sock puppetry has not been proven, though there is reasonable suspicion remaining. However, for our immediate purposes, the behavior of Andyvphil in this report should be reviewed. He is generally attacking administrators and others who warn or restrain him. He consistently fails to assume good faith, instead imputing hypocrisy, bias, "plethora of bad, arrogant, admins," "abusing process for the purposes of harassment," "arrogant abuse of admin power," "Arrogant and unaccountable admins," "admins equally incurious as to the facts but eager to boost their fagile egos by pissing on any non-admin "peon" handy."

Those are some of the facts, a review of this editors history will find much, much more. As to the implications, Andyvphil is correct that he has greater latitude on his Talk page, but that does not extend to using his Talk page for personal attacks. Further, a section header added by a user with the user's edit of the page is part of the user's edit, and changing it can alter the meaning. Changing it into a personal attack is even worse. His provocative, taunting ABF comments are disruptive and confuse efforts to find editorial consensus. Readers may be aware that I've often complained about administrative abuse. It happens. But it is not necessary, dealing with it, to impute bad faith, hypocrisy, spite, and all the rest, and, in fact, administrators are accountable. I commented in the RfAr proceedings of User:Physchim62 and User:Tango, who made blocks apparently as a result of alleged personal attacks directed at them, violating conflict of interest rules, and not for the clear protection of the project, which might have justified the blocks under IAR, and those admins both lost their bits. Other administrative errors happen, often through inattention, but are remediable. Attacking the administrators' personal motives, absent clear proof, isn't legitimate. I'm amazed that this editor isn't blocked yet. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk:Barack Obama page has been a toxic combustion chamber of editors behaving badly, getting other editors offended who then behave badly and so on. To get involved in discussions there is almost guaranteed to make yourself the target of an attack. There is plenty of bad behavior on both sides -- and I do mean sides. Only part of the problem will be solved with blocks or topic bans. What's needed are more adults with patience taking a little time to get involved in discussions about an article that gets tens of thousands of page views on a typical day and on June 4 got a quarter of a million page hits. It's inevitable that controversial subjects get debated heatedly on certain talk pages. What's odd about this talk page is the low heat/light ratio and the worse drama/constructive discussion ratio. I know that's not an advertisement for recruiting cool heads to the page, but it would be good for Wikipedia if you'd come. It's not only a great exercise in trying to keep cool, but you might learn somethng about one of the most important topics of the year. Slap permanent bans on every editor whose signature appears in this section, and you'll have the same problems on the page within two months. Wider participation is the only way out. Noroton (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moi? Slog around in the mudfight? Ask me personally, on my Talk page, and I'll consider it. Just like I'd consider helping my neighbor who asks me to help clean out the remains of a racoon that died in his basement. I don't need "exercise in keeping cool," I need cool. It's over ninety out today. I prefer, usually, to seriously work on articles where I'm expert on the topic, at least in some way. I actually use what I know to judge what is notable and what is not. Horrifying, I know, but I don't remove stuff because it isn't sourced if I think it is true and balanced. (If I put such in, and I often do, I can't complain if it is removed because of lack of RS, though I'd consider it more polite, if it seems like it might be verifiable, to tag it.) Anyway, thanks. As to the issue of Andyvphil, I've seen his attitude be a problem across more than one article, it's not just Obama. And it goes way beyond the too-common incivility between disagreeing editors. It's divisive, us vs. them, wikiwarfare. And it doesn't belong here. Given how much he's been warned, and how many times blocked, I'd say it's time to pull the plug. Will this stop edit warring? Probably not. But it will lessen it, at least a little. (Some might be surprised to know that I think we should block far more quickly, but with less ongoing effect. When the police see a fight going on, it is *not* their job to decide who was right. They say, "Stop!" and anyone who does not stop gets stopped, immediately. Has nothing to do with who started it, who was the evil-doer and who was protecting all that is Good. Stop. Now. Then, when the smoke clears, the police decide whom to more permanently arrest, if any, and who can walk free. Let me put it this way: there should be an "everyone involved, stop" block reason that doesn't create any prejudice with regard to future, more serious blocks. It would not involve any judgment of blame. And I'm pretty sure that I'd be blocked in this way, at least occasionally!) --But maybe evenly distributed warnings would serve for this. And article protection does stop edit warring.--Abd (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toi! (Et vous!) Sometimes the raccoon dies in the volunteer firehouse. And the trick with working on an article like Barack Obama is that almost everybody has some knowledge, most everybody needs more knowledge, anybody would benefit (even off Wikipedia) by getting more knowledge, and it's good for the soul to find out you're wrong every now and then. Aux armes! Aux armes, citoyens! (for the French-defficient, see my edit summary)Noroton (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Barack Obama is a featured article and one of our most often-viewed and high-profile pages. The editing behavior there is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and has been recognized as such by the mass media ([94]). No one person is wholly responsible, but any attempt to deal with it has to start somewhere.

Andyvphil (talk · contribs): Four escalating blocks for edit-warring; has wikilawyered each of them by arguing the letter of 3RR and accusing the admins of not knowing how to count or recognize a revert (see here, here, here, etc). Citing the talk page guidelines to justify changing another editor's overly "argumentative" heading ([95]) is odd coming from someone who himself routinely alters others' headings into attacks: [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], etc. This editor is gaming WP:TPG as part of an ongoing pattern of inappropriate editing. His level of civility is poor even by the standards of the Obama talk page; he's dismissed every attempt to reason with him or moderate his approach (e.g. here and here); and the denial of his last 3 unblock requests led him to conclude not that his behavior violated this site's standards, but that admins as a group are a capricious, ignorant "mullah class" conspiring against honest editors like himself ([101]). I haven't seen any potential for improvement here. This editor is playing a major role in the devolution of one of our highest-profile articles into a battleground (even drawing the attention of the popular press). I'm going to go ahead and block him for 1 month for disruptive editing on top of 4 previous blocks for edit-warring, and if he resumes the same approach after the block's expiry, I would support an indefinite block.
Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs): Editors with "Truth" in their username seem to run into problems with NPOV and tendentiousness fairly often. This is an evident tendentious single-purpose agenda account contributing heavily to the poor quality of editing and behavior at Barack Obama. S/he has racked up 2 blocks in the past few weeks for edit-warring on the Obama article. Third edit blued out his talk page with a pre-emptive defense against charges of sockpuppetry ([102]). I would recommend a topic ban to see if there is anything more here than someone dedicated to abusing Wikipedia as a venue to advocate for a specific, narrow agenda. I won't impose this without further uninvolved feedback, though.
A number of other editors at Barack Obama have contributed to the poor atmosphere there. This is not an exhaustive list, but an identification of a starting point for improving this situation. Experienced or constructive outside editors without an axe to grind are essential, but I don't think we'll attract many of them until the current debacle is addressed. I would welcome uninvolved feedback on the above, as well as any additional review of these or other participants in the article.

The bottom line is that this is one of our highest-profile articles, and its current atrocious state as a WP:BATTLEfield of tendentious edit-warring is a high-profile disgrace to Wikipedia. Feedback welcome. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- 1/ Is a month enough? 2/ A topic ban...well, is that going to be effective? A short block might be a better step. 3/I want to review this whole article further (as an outside opinion) - I'll check back within 12 hours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re: a month, I'm open to feedback on that. Re: a topic ban, for most single-purpose agenda accounts a topic ban ends up being functionally identical to a block - they came here to push a specific agenda, and if they can't, then they leave. On the other hand, if Kossack4Truth has other interests and something of value to contribute to the encyclopedia, then the topic ban may facilitate that. I think it's a less blunt instrument. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's very troubling behaviour. I'm absolutely certain that (at minimum) a topic ban is needed for Kossack4Truth. Will continue looking through everything, including other involved editors conduct (amidst the edit conflicts) in a few hours or so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You pretty much nailed it, MastCell. 1 month for Andyvphil is exactly what I'd recommend, given the history and behavior, which isn't marginal, balanced with gradual escalation of blocks. --Abd (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I'm an involved editor and I've been in agreement with Andyvphil and Kossack4Truth in terms of some of the broadest issues, but I can't criticize a single thing MastCell says. Noroton (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Support Mastcell's summary of the problems over at the obama page as a good first step --It jibes with what I've observed over on the talk page on the few occasions I'm able to look over there. One of the main problems with SPA pushing a point of view is that each edit by itself is plausibly defensible, if not scrutinized too closely (a big thanks to Mastcell for doing the legwork on putting his summary together). Support the 1 month block for Andyvphil and the 1 month topic ban for Kossack4Truth. The remedy is appropriate for each. R. Baley (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell has, as is often the case, summarized this mess rather nicely. I'd say that the block and topic ban seem to be quite appropriate in the pursuit of slowing down the mayhem on this very, very busy page. If other adherents of the combatants pick up the sword and start to charge, though, an attempt at article probation might be a good idea - it probably won't slow down anytime before the elections. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Noroton
Slap permanent bans on every editor whose signature appears in this section, and you'll have the same problems on the page within two months.
However, MastCell's suggestion seems likely to have the effect of removing the immediate problem, giving the parties time to consider the consequences of their actions, and discouraging future POV warriors from participating too disruptively on the subject; I support the proposal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the merits of the block, but Andyvphil (talk · contribs) has requested unblock for the purpose of contributiong to this discussion, and I have advised him to post any pertinent comments or unblock requests on his talk page. Sandstein 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have any real objection to unblocking him specifically to post here, but given past history I think it might be most productive to adopt Sandstein's suggestion, which is fairly standard practice, for Andyvphil to post his comments on his user talk page and have another editor copy them here as needed. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call by MastCell, a more long term block seems necessary at this point and a month seems appropriate. I've seen Andyvphil at the related A More Perfect Union (speech) article, and while he has made some constructive edits there the overall approach to editing and the tendency to comment pointedly on the supposed motivations of other editors troubled me from the outset (the behavior there does not at all approach the problematic level at the Obama article however). Andyvphil can no doubt be a constructive contributor but needs to recognize that his behavior up to now has been problematic. I also fully agree that the main Obama article is a big problem for Wikipedia and we need more admins (and editors) who can keep a cool head over there helping out. I've intentionally avoided it but will probably try to lend a hand at some point. The situation over there could easily lead to worse press for us than that which has already been published.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support MastCell's analysis of the problem and his block and ban recommendations. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note to admin dealing with this: as this was a request for admin intervention, I referred it here and dismissed it from-WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editors, please help me defend my freedom of peach! I seem to have incurred the vendetta of Tennis expert. All this, because I dared to question and oppose his employing advanced quasi-artificial life wikiswarm techniques to effect a mass move by means of replicated individual move discussions, all with identical boilerplate rationale -- why is this being individualized, if The Song Remains the Same -- if not to avoid scrutiny of experts who happen not to be editing in tennis? To effect policy decisions in the background radiation noise, as it were? -- in oodles and oodles of biographies of living persons who happen to play tennis really well, a proposed move from articles with correctly spelled titles (real living people's names -- their human dignity is protected especially acutely per Jimbo's directives!) to proposed corrupted versions, made so by omission of correct glyphs. Tennis expert now apparently wishes to silence me in retribution or as part of this Wikipedia improvement, and given his exhausting (well, me, anyway), clinically singleminded pursuit of the distributed divide and conquer-engineered proposed move (instead of properly introducing the thorny idea of corrupting persons' names for arcane purposes -- to a general forum, where this vexing onslaught on human dignity of biographed living persons can be discussed by many and many an expert, and if found (gack!) necessary, applied in a principled, guidelined fashion to all subjects of biographies, not just people who play tennis really well, who surely are not unique as diacriticly afflicted?), I fear for my ability to further contribute to Wikipedia. My potential silencer highly dedicated! Furthermore, his edits despise and do not detect humor (far be it for me to make an ad hominen conjecture -- I am talking strictly about his edits, which have this quality.) Wikipedia and physicians everywhere say, first, do no harm, but harm is being massively distributedly proposed. Methinks, I am the next item on the harm's menu... --Mareklug ^talk 08:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything particularly incivil here; I don't think this warrants administrator intervention. Both parties should take care to debate the issue at hand, and stay away from personal comments about motives. Trebor (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Trebor's comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bomb threat" on user's talk page

Just wanted to alert you to some particularly malicious material on the talk page of currently-banned user 217.100.179.194. Chances are, of course, slim to none that there's any credibility to it, but I figured it was my civic duty to give a heads-up. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how the user is in Amsterdam, I wouldn't worry about it; but I did protect the page for a while. El_C 12:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about as likely as pushing the doorbell and running away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed the college behind the IP address, with a link to the bomb threat. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by User:FreedomByDesign

Disruption by FreedomByDesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At the article est and The Forum in popular culture, a WP:GA-rated article:

20 April 2008 - FreedomByDesign (talk · contribs) removes large chunks of highly sourced subsections from this article - [103],[104], [105], [106].

At that time, I had added a note to the article's talk page to initiate discussion with the user [107]. There was never any response. Now, over a month later, the user comes along and removes the material again, and again with no discussion - [108].

This user's actions are disruptive and are putting the WP:GA status of this article at risk with his disruption. I would appreciate it if an administrator could look into this and take appropriate action. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have tried to engage the user on their talk page with something other than a templatized warning first. The user appears to be acting in good faith, I think, so engaging in a dialogue is paramount. I understand your frustration that they did not respond on the Talk page, but maybe they just didn't see it.

Let's see what FreedomByDesign does next. I hold out hope that this can be resolved through dialogue alone. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.[reply]

Like I said, it has been over a month since I added a note hoping to have discussion on the article's talk page at that time [109]. Hopefully the user will cease the disruption and engage in discussion, however if not more action may be required. Cirt (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the editor may not have seen that, especially if he/she doesn't user their Watchlist. It's okay, you didn't do anything wrong, I'm just pointing out that you could have been a little more aggressive in catching the user's attention. No worries though! :D --Jaysweet (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cazique (talk · contribs)

I believe this person to be trolling for trouble. I have already had an incident with him over an edit war regarding a redirect. Please see their edits on Talk:Thylacoleonidae and talk:Marsupial Lion. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) See also their comments on the talk pages of the various folks involved:[reply]

- UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Uther's behaviour. He is an admin and should be revoked of his admin privileges. I fail to fathom how he even became an admin due to his behaviour. He has violated many policies repeatedly. Cazique (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG's block log and Cazique's block log. I unblocked both from an edit-warring block and must admit that I have found Uther's actions questionable since then (which is why the block was extended). Alex Muller 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do check Cazique's behavior since, Alex. He's a troll. Notice his disruptive edits on the article talk pages, and on the listed talk pages above. I admit to getting sucked in by Cazique at the start of this, but I have been of good behavior since the block went up. (And if I recall, my edit you made the second block for was made *after* the original block would have gone away. I just didn't want to bother fighting it.) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable, he still thinks he is right and that you are wrong Alex. Seriously, come on. He also said he will be reporting me for the 3RR but now I think he has realised that I have not as of yet broke it. But he and his mate Rlendog have though through tag team ownership have broken it and as such should be reviewed. I know why Rlendog did not reply to my comment left on his talkpage and I only hope you guys will put two and two together and also realise why. I am going to revert back to the page without the hatnotes which strengthen the keeping of the current revision, which is incorrect. Uther or his mate will immediately revert my edit and report me based on 3RR, unless of course he sees this message and then strategises another way of getting his revenge. Please stop this childish behaviour. Cazique (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Cazique has chosen to mention me here. He has falsely accused me of puppetry on the Talk:Thylacoleonidae discussion. Apparently, he feels that the fact that I agree with (my supposed "mate") UtherSRG and others who disagree with him on that discussion makes me a puppet. He has also refused to engage in meaningful debate in order to achieve consensus in that discussion, prefering to state that even when people who address his concerns aren't, refusing to clarify those concerns in order to help drive consensus, and then just resorting to reverting the edits that everyone else agreed to (and that even he agreed are an improvement, albeit not the improvement he wants). He may find it hard to believe, but I disagree with Uther that he is a troll and I actually believe that he sincerely wants to improve Wikipedia. But he needs to recognize that the edits he believes to be improvements are not necessarily so, and when they are not he needs to avoid edit warring and name calling, but rather work towards consensus.Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I reported UtherSRG to WP:3RR last week I have keep an eye on the pages in mention, and his and Cazique's actions. Over the past 6 days both users have acted questionably in my opinion. But, in regards to Cazique he has once again engaged in an edit war, which is unacceptable (for which he has been blocked for). Consensus has been reached on the pages in question, and he must realise that although he may not agree with the reached consensus, that does not give him the right to engage in a revert war. Also, he must stop making unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry. I see no evidence for this from their list of contributions. At this stage I would recommend mediation, and a closer watch on both users edits. Mark t young (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since his registration on May 22, 2008, he has quickly become a one purpose account, has gotten blocked for edit warring, and has gotten into another edit war less than a week after his first block. Many users have been nice and have had discussions with him, but he refuses to acknowledge anybody's points and is a bully when he disagrees and argues. Anyone that reads through all of Talk:Thylacoleonidae will see that 1. Cazique's civility is questionable 2. consensus has been reached through discussion and Cazique is the only user who disagrees and 3. Cazique refuses to accept the consensus and brazenly claims that "I am reverting any changes which have been made under the false pretense of 'concensous'," which is basically saying straight out he intends to continue to edit war and he has. In the past couple hours he has reverted Thylacoleonidae 4 times and Marsupial Lion 4 times despite being blocked for violating the 3RR only 6 days earlier. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging BLP policy

Is this correct? [110] I find it difficult to believe we allow biographies to remain unsourced for 2+ years. I've proposed a redirect on the respective talk page in the interim. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP clearly says, Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.. Corvus cornix_talk 16:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I see no way that we could be accused of libel from those additions. Libel is (from Wiktionary)

A written (notably as handbill) or pictorial statement]] which unjustly seeks to damage someone's reputation.
The act or crime of displaying such a statement publicly.

Since we are not damaging this person's reputation, I don't think that BLP applies here. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the edit history is plagued with copyright violations. The text was lifted wholesale from the artist's own website. I'll let another administrator figure out how to deal with that. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any text is a copyright violation, remove it and link to the original website in your edit summary. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I'm not accusing anyone of "libel" or any sort of legalese claim. I am simply stating that we're presenting unsourced information (which we've now discovered was lifted wholesale from a primary source) and have been for two years. I find it problematic of the editing system here that people will restore WP:BLP offending text with a hair trigger. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright aside, while it needed better sourcing, it's inaccurate to say that it wasn't sourced, since it came straight from the subject's personal web-site. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? It wasn't sourced until it was discovered it was a copyvio. Today! coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the website from which the information was taken was sitting right there at the bottom of the page. You didn't even take 20 seconds to check it before blanking. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing BLP with Wikipedia:Verifiability. The spirit of BLP is that we must "do no harm" to a person's reputation. I agree that this needs to be cited but I don't think mass deletion of content is the answer. If it is a copyright problem, see WP:CP and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Sasquatch t|c 17:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That analysis seems, on the whole, consistent with the community's understanding of BLP. It is well settled that there does not exist a consensus that uncontroversial unsourced material need be removed from more aggressively from biographies of living persons than from other articles, toward which one may see, e.g., the community's reaction, preserved at, inter al., User talk:CyberAnth/Final and any number of AN and AN/I threads one may find here, to CyberAnth's January 2007 non-nuanced removal of unsourced but uncontroversial material from various BLPs (for instance, "...[in] 1982, Hank Aaron was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame" from Hank Aaron).

(This is not a comment on the underlying case specifically; I mean only to note that, with respect to uncontroversial unsourced material, BLP requires nothing more than does V [what the latter requires is, of course, a matter of dispute—WP:V, unlike WP:NPOV, is not a Foundation principle, and so it is entirely to the community to determine who it is on whom the burden for inclusion of material, especially if unsourced, should rest and, for instance, whether "verifiability" should be understood as "able to be verified by the reader from sources provided in the article" or as "(in theory) able to verified somewhere, by someone, if he/she should like"—but we need not reach that issue here]). Joe 21:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis vandal

Resolved

– Indefblocked by NawlinWiki. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please block this recrudescence—Ymbeb (talk · contribs)? Deor (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Taken care of by NawlinWiki. Deor (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New User:Grawp vandalism

I know Grawp has a thing for Geography FAs - on at least three talk pages there is the same odd vandalism, a picture of Kalomira and the obscene things Grawp wishes to do to her. See Talk:Larrys Creek, Talk:White Deer Hole Creek, and Talk:Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek), but not Talk:Joseph Priestley House Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS There is no edit in the talk page history to show how this was done. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever fixed it - it is gone now. Probably want to figure out how to block this in the future though Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Fralmpa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Corvus cornix_talk 18:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I reverted the edits by Fralmpa. Sneaky inclusion into templates, but now gone. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For curious minds (ec): it is done not by editing the page directly, but the templates: {{River}}, {{WPBrazil‎}}, etc that transclude onto those pages. Reminds me of some of the refdesk vandalism. He uses the 'position' and 'overflow' CSS elements to squeeze the stuff in, and in this case it was wrapped in <noinclude> tags to obfuscate it. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:29, June 9, 2008 (UTC)

Question: Has anyone gone over to WP:RFCU/IP and left this name there so that the CUs can root out sleepers and block IPs? Remember that, as of late, Grawp has been favoring OPs. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:42, June 9, 2008 (UTC)

Not Grawp. Thatcher 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think so. Not his MO. Corvus cornix_talk 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Ditto on that, Thatcher - Alison ^❤ 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. I'm finding that broken/vandalized transclusions are a bane. Which reminds me, WP:BEANS. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Range

142.35.18.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
142.35.38.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
142.35.38.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
142.35.39.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Just as a heads up in case one of the admins feels like shooting off a email to a tech contact or two :) Q ^{T C} 18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This range belongs to British Columbia Systems Corporation and several IPs have had previous blocks. Since they're probably farmed out to schools & the like, I'll look into a reasonable rangeblock. --Rodhull andemu 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The limited volume of vandalism has me leaning towards letting a rangeblock slide, unless it's absolutely necessary. Anthøny 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, just checked it out, it's way too large for now. Previous IPs have been recently blocked for up to a year, so I'll keep an eye on it. --Rodhull andemu 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might drop a note to the sysadmins over there - they seem pretty cool about getting the word to their on-site people. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've emailed all the info to their abuse@ --Rodhull andemu 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'ed Sitting Bull until this can be taken care of. seicer | talk | contribs 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this belong at Wikipedia:Abuse reports? Toddst1 (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.196.66.248 comments on Prestonwood Baptist Church

Resolved

– blocked for 3rr

I would like for someone to please review the recent comments/edits/vandalism by user 70.196.66.248 that were made on the Prestonwood Baptist Church page. This user not only violated the 3RR rule but has created a new section that has nothing to do with the subject that makes personal and untrue attacks about several other editors including myself. I think you will all find these comments distasteful and the user also threatens to make similar edits to the related page for this church's pastor which is currently locked b/c of edit warring. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks.Johnb316 (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section you referred to, Johnb316. Actually, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to remove that content, even if it was more than three reverts in a day, because 3RR does not apply to concerns about biographies of living persons, and I am pretty sure that an unsourced rant about covering up an affair qualifies! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.196.66.248 blocked 48 hours, page semi-protected page for 1 month. Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how all this works but how we would go about seeing if user 70.196.66.248 is a sock puppet for other editors on the same page that are constantly making similar remarks and edits?Johnb316 (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't go on a fishing expedition, but if you have evidence that supports your suspicions of specific user(s), you would file a WP:SSP report and add {{ipsock}} and {{sockpuppeteer}} to the user talk pages. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for yet another comment but I'd also like to request that the Jack Graham (Pastor) page continue to be locked for a few more weeks as it is quite obvious that the edit warring has not stopped on either one of these pages. It has already been locked for close to 2 weeks now I would guess.Johnb316 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended to 3 weeks. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksJohnb316 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

zOMG

Here is a case of socks¹⁰. Look at the edit history of Wake Technical Community College, North Carolina State University, and Cary, North Carolina for examples of his "work."

I found these two edits interesting considering I'm not a "Yankee" and I don't live in Cary. He did get the faggot part right. I'm proud to be a fan of the male anatomy.

That falls under preventing further disruption. List it in the IP check section since this is not sockpuppetry by a regular user, but a request to find an IP and stop the vandal. Thatcher 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I file a checkuser to find this person's other usernames that he has created and have yet to vandalize, is it considered fishing? Also, is there a way to block his IP if it's not a public computer? APK ^{yada yada} 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I added a blacklist entry a while back. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

warning removal

i was warned for a discussion topic i created at Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) however i was warned because i was told i was making it up and making disruptive edits. This is regarding alleged incest on a video created by the subject of the article. I pointed the editor to the video on youtube, however he claims it is a fake video. Another user has pointed out that it was not a fake video, however it may be in actuality a hoax...a shock video. I would like the warning removed as it is unjustified and a mistake.Myheartinchile (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to remove the warning from your talk page, if you like, you can justify in the edit summary as to the reason for the removal. xenocidic (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:09, 10 June 2008 edit Myheartinchile (talk \| contribs) 2,472 edits →‎warning removal: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:12, 10 June 2008 edit undo Xeno (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators 103,385 edits →‎warning removal: re Next edit →
Line 1,097:		Line 1,097:

	i was warned for a discussion topic i created at [[Chris Crocker (internet celebrity)]] however i was warned because i was told i was making it up and making disruptive edits. This is regarding alleged incest on a video created by the subject of the article. I pointed the editor to the video on youtube, however he claims it is a fake video. Another user has pointed out that it was not a fake video, however it may be in actuality a hoax...a shock video. I would like the warning removed as it is unjustified and a mistake.[[User:Myheartinchile\|Myheartinchile]] ([[User talk:Myheartinchile\|talk]]) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)		i was warned for a discussion topic i created at [[Chris Crocker (internet celebrity)]] however i was warned because i was told i was making it up and making disruptive edits. This is regarding alleged incest on a video created by the subject of the article. I pointed the editor to the video on youtube, however he claims it is a fake video. Another user has pointed out that it was not a fake video, however it may be in actuality a hoax...a shock video. I would like the warning removed as it is unjustified and a mistake.[[User:Myheartinchile\|Myheartinchile]] ([[User talk:Myheartinchile\|talk]]) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
			:You are free to remove the warning from your talk page, if you like, you can justify in the edit summary as to the reason for the removal. [[User:Xenocidic\|xenocidic]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic\|talk]]) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards