Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
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

Phil Sandifer deleting pages in my user space without permission

Earlier today Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted a page in my userspace without my permission. I have tried to discuss this with him in IRC but he refuses to restore it. No drama existed before he took this seemingly random action. Now he refuses to restore it and here I am on AN/I asking for it to be restored. For those who say this was an attack page, I simply have to point you to the RFC/U where the formal copy of this is housed. How can it be part of Wikipedia process in one area and an attack page in another? Bstone (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the RFC this was a draft of has been filed, there is no reason to keep a page that consists of accusations about other users in one's userspace. Furthermore, WP:USER clearly says that "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." I initially took the moderate ground of courtesy blanking, in deference to our longstanding tradition of leniency in userspace. When this was rudely rebuffed, complete with warning templates, I went with the perfectly reasonable nuking of an attack page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look, and I cannot see you requesting that Bstone delete the content - citing reasons, etc. such as the one you have given above. Please direct me to it, if I missed it. I had a look at your contributions, and I note that there has been several other "courtesy blankings" - all without any comment to the users (who may not be aware of the matter since they are in the talkpages archives) - performed by you. It isn't something you seem to do frequently, which may explain why you neglected to communicate with the pages account users before acting unilaterally. I see Avruch below makes much the same point.

I am very concerned, however, that you should use your sysop bit to enforce your application of policy. While not talking to the account user before removing content may be neglectful, immediately using the admin buttons to "win" a disputed action goes far beyond carelessness. I think you really ought to consider these actions, and ask if they were performed to the spirit as well as to the letter of WP:ADMIN. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure what your problem is bstone, you’ve had that page lying there for 2 months. Phil blanked the page today, because it’s not fair to leave a collection of disparaging claims about a user in your userspace. You decided to revert and Phil deleted it. Userpages are used to help the encyclopedia – fair enough, you can use it to collect evidence before filing RfC’s, but you are not going to be filing this in the near future and there’s no need to have it in your userspace. You can keep a copy offline if you really need it for reference purposes, but we don’t keep pages of “evidence” against users in our userspace. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm obviously missing some discussion here because I don't know how you know that bstone is not going to use the content. I'm even more confused as how bstone is going to keep a copy offline, since it appears that it was deleted before anyone said it was going to happen thus allowing it to be copied... for some reason to do with it not being used, apparently. Whilst I am noting all of these admin things that I am having trouble understanding, I would point out that WP:DTTR is an essay and not a policy - so reacting to having a template placed upon your userpage by misusing the admin mop does seem to be a little curious from a person who is insisting that their actions are only that which is required by the rules. It has to be said that the initial action was not likely to cause an outbreak of peace and harmony, anyway (unless it was discussed and agreed beforehand - but, as I said, I can't find record of this discussion) so, all in all, I feel bstone has a very legitimate complaint with needs to be considered with a great deal more good faith (one of the the pillar policies, and not an essay) than is apparent here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll state the obvious if it's not obvious. 1) There is no need to prove that a given editor will never use material. Only that they are not actively using and have not been for a fair period. 5 months is such a period. 2) BStone can obtain an offline copy by the trivial expense of asking for one to be emailed to him, if an admin is happy to oblige. I think you probably know this latter fact. Your chain of events (template causing deletion as opposed, e.g., to the unblanking that occured momentarily beforehand causing deletion) appears to be the common assumption of bad faith that precedes a plea-via-bluelink for an assumption of good faith. If BStone might have wished for a brief prior discussion, which he might, he and you may be consoled by the fact that the discussion in this section is decisively clear that deletion was reasonable, absent any further facts BStone has not yet, but might, supply. Splash - tk 23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Explicit permission for deletion isn't actually required in all cases, if the deletion rationale is sound. On the other hand, its pretty standard for the deleting admin to ask first and explain second (rather than delete first, and not explain second until AN/I - if thats really how it happened in this case). Pages of that sort get deleted fairly regularly, particularly if they have served their purpose. Avruch ^T 22:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Permission? This is a wiki. Your warning was quite ridiculous. Friday (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If it were still possible (may not be now that its a gadget, I don't know) you could easily have Twinkle disabled for those warning templates. Avruch ^T 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with LessHeard vanU regarding the seemingly inappropriate use of the buttons in this dispute, it strikes me as being rather hypocritical that Bstone would leave issue multiple templated warnings to Phil Sandifer ... when the big red warning box at the top of Bstone`s talk page says "if your message is rude, templated, and/or begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia!", it will be reverted upon me seeing it" (emphasis mine). --Kralizec! (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

BStone, as others including Phil Sandifer have rightly said, you really can't be keeping dirty-laundry lists in userspace indefinitely. Even undeleted upon-a-time-an-article material gets deleted from userspace if held there too long. However, I'm here to observe more widely. You've had several threads on these noticeboards over the past periods of time and few to none of them have had the outcome one presumes you would prefer. This fact may contain some hints about where the community at large sits vis-a-vis where you sit on such questions. A prolonged situation such as that is only going to lead to spiralling discomfiture for you (mainly) so I hope the 'unexpected' feedback you've been provided with is helping.

Finally, I see that oftentimes your first response to such situations is a templated warning. You do not have the power to back up threats of blocks, and threats of blocks in such situations are more than a little preposterous so you might give that habit up. Also, in my general experience, communication with reasonable people is generally more effective when a message tailored to the specifics of a situation is used. The choice instead in these cases to use somewhat mis-aimed templates, whether threatening blocks or not, is reflecting increasingly poorly on the editorial style it implies. Splash - tk 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a common misconception amongst newcomers that pages in userspace belong to the person who registered the username. Experienced editors such as bstone are not expected to commit that solecism. --Jenny 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also to know the difference between an essay and a policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I hadn't noticed that bstone also went on a templating raid on Phil's page. That was annoying and unnecessary. Saying that "Don't template the regulars" is an essay is beside the point. The operative policy in that case is civility. --Jenny 03:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I may have hoped that Phil ask me or at least leave a message on my talk page informing me that it will be deleting this page in my user space. He did neither and instead simply went ahead and deleted the page of an established, veteran editor of this project. I have seen a lot of admin abuse and this just another example of it. Adminship is a big deal and people like Phil should not have the tools. Please immediately restore this page. Bstone (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse removal of the page. While it is common knowledge that administrators should notify the user of any page deletions, there are exceptions. Mainly that of a dirty laundry list, or for other rationales that should not need explanation. This is a pretty clear cut case of a page that was used only as a receptacle of belittling comments against a user, a page constructed with only that intent and nothing more. Two months without an edit? This should have been wiped at its creation. seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have not read the page. If you would have then you would very clearly see that it was not an attack page of any sort, but rather a draft of an RFC/U I was filing on a user. Again, no drama existed before Phil's unilateral action to delete this userpage of mine. Had he simply contacted me and asked then it could have been civilly discussed. Instead, he simply poked through and deleted what he did not want to see, without discussion, and using his admin tools for finality. Bstone (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should perhaps reread Splash's comment at 22:48. While I can surely expect that you would be upset over how the sequence of events went down with the communication mishaps, this is not an abuse of power. It's the continual maintenence and cleaning of the encyclopedia. That includes userspace pages. Friday said, "Permission? This is a wiki." and that is correct. Could this have been more diplomatic? Yes. But really, Phil was doing mopwork that goes unnoticed by most users, sorting through pages and deleting irrelevant ones. Shake hands and make up, you didn't really need the page anymore anyway. Your beef is about process and policy, and it was aptly applied with deteriotive results. Keegan^talk 06:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that page ought to have been blanked or deleted, especially if the RFC has already been filed. We only permit these pages in the first place in order for users to prepare for dispute resolution. I'd be glad to provided a copy of the content to Bstone upon request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. User space is not for laundry lists of grudges. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • lol - *coffs* - Alison ^❤ 08:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any laundry lists of grudges in that list. Care to elaborate? Guy (Help!) 09:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• User:JzG/JVM definitely is a laundry list of grudges. User:JzG/temp, and User:JzG/JG aren't laundry lists of grudges, but they are a half-filled RFCs that haven't been edited in months/years about users who aren't active and have not been for a long time. They could probably go (but I'll leave you to decide that yourself, Guy). Maybe User:JzG/sandbox and User:JzG/Gastroturfing also. Neıl ☄ 11:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Or ask Phil Sandifer to go through them, unless that does not have that element of surprise he appears so keen on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Neil, I have nuked them or moved them to better venues (e.g. the Gastroturfing page, which was a log of an abusive whitelistign request for a spammed domain). The Gastrich page was a work up for the arbitration that got him banned, I subsequently nominated Jeff for adminship (as the deletionist's inclusionist) so I guess that was fixed, and the Merkey situation deteriorated beyond fixing. None of them needed to be there any more, although it's easy to forget old pages in user space. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed. Special:PrefixIndex can be helpful, though. Thanks for deleting those. Neıl ☄ 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I would point out, though, that of the three users directly concerned two are banned and continued to abuse the project long afterwards, and one left following an arbitration notable for large numbers of people failing to assume good faith. I suspect Jeff is still around with a different name, I certainly hope so. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Jeff "came out of hiding" a three months ago to comment on something. I suspect you may share my opinion: I disagreed with him quite a bit but I miss having him around. — Satori Son 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Once it's filed, there's no need to keep it in a separate visible place, as it could be interpreted as taunting.. The best thing is to store it on your own PC. In fact, that's where you should have stored it while developing it. Then there's no problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want the subpage? What purpose does it serve? Admittedly, not having a reason to keep is not a reason for deletion, but in this case the subpage could be seen as defamatory so there is a reason for deletion and so far you have not provided a reason for keeping it. While evidence (diffs and the like) is provided, the RFC/U has been filed so there is no need for this subpage which contains only negative info about this one user. If the deletion was not carried out properly but the end result is correct then why reverse it? I do not encourage admins to delete other user's subpages without leaving them a note, but I would also have deleted that page had I come across it. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• What on earth is the actual point of User:Bstone? Very few of his edits are productive (see here - only 870 articlespace contributions out of a total of 3518, and a lot of his editing is limited to a few articles (i.e. 114 to Caribbean Medical University including the talkpage). As far as I can see, practically his entire edit history appears to consist of commenting randomly on AN and ANI (364 edits), demanding that various admins be desysopped for the most spurious of reasons (I count at least four of these), and edit-warring and causing drama and disruption over trivia like WP:TOV (194 edits inc. talkpage). Just namespace-ban him from project space and give us all a break. 86.161.51.134 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment from uninvolved user: Is this IP above without an account, or is this a user forgetting to log into their account and thus editing from their IP? D.M.N. (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Only 870 mainspace, out of 3518 total? I suggest the point of Bstone is 870/3517 more than the point of you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The moral of this tale: "courtesy blankings" in user space should always be preceded by a polite request to the user. No matter how well justified the deletion might be, without the "courtesy" bit, you just end up looking like a blanker. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IP-hopping "cultural references" edit warrior

An IP hopping anon has been edit warring on a number of Simpsons episodes articles over his addition of trivia on the episodes, some of which contain his personal analysis of segments of the show (this one is a good example, which he has reverted to 17 times in the last four days on The Haw-Hawed Couple against four other editors). As far as I can tell, there was some brief exchange of civil comments before he decided everyone who disagreed with him was a vandal and a troll, which you can see for youself in the edits summaries in the links below. Normally I wouldn't bother bringing this here, but he has now promised to act in bad faith, and retaliate by undoing unrelated edits of those reverting him. You can see he certainly made good on that promise at Special:Contributions/71.100.2.45. The other IPs he's used recently are 71.100.6.175 (talk · contribs), 71.100.161.81 (talk · contribs) and 71.100.0.127 (talk · contribs). If you want a list of articles affected, it's very simply everything he's ever edited. I really don't know what to ask for at this point, which is why I'm not bringing this to this board specifically. But I did check his IP range and he only accounts for ~90% of the edits therefrom, so I guess that's not enough for a rangeblock? [1] Someguy1221 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IP is currently on a revert streak from 71.100.161.81 Special:Contributions/71.100.161.81. He is getting tiresome. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be clearly vindictive editing, I've rolled back some of the current IP's edits until he starts discussing it civilly, and gets the concept of WP:OR. It still probably could use an admin's attention. Dayewalker (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is blockable behaviour. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

These are the treats he left me [2], [3]. I filed a report at ANI on the 9th but was told it was my fault for using warning templates as new users might find them rude. L0b0t (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that your post on 3RRV was rejected for some retarded breach of beaucratic protocol. Mine has gone un-answered for about eight hours now. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In his 71.100.161.81 incarnation, he's overtopped 3RR at Please Homer, Don't Hammer 'Em‎ and probably at other articles, though I haven't checked in detail. Deor (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone would fucking read my post a few hours above this one, there are several well-formatted 3RRV reports already filed with all the information you could possibly desire. Hope this helps! --Badger Drink (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And Sceptre's AIV report has been removed, since the matter's "already at ANI." Deor (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Now at 71.100.170.201. Deor (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Back now at 71.100.170.201, still no discussion, just reverting. Dayewalker (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the diff you linked to on AIV, because it's getting to be fucking ridiculous. The admins need to stop sperging out over incorrect diffs and start actually doing what needs to be done. See my report on the matter above. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This vandal would appear to be writing the textbook case for why the undo button should be limited to registered editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

lots of talking going on, but no blocking! Let's get to it folks! ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I got the last one; let me if any were overlooked/recurrence. El_C 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Strike that. Got another one. Now I think I got em all. El_C 09:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to post to both threads last night. Since the IP-hopping vandal in question has 65,000 addresses available in his or her range, I only bothered to block the ones that had been used in the previous couple of hours. As I noted in the above thread (#I.P. user going on revert war), I suspect that a liberal use of WP:PROT with some WP:RBI on the side will work wonders here. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He is now at Special:Contributions/71.100.0.15 and his talk page[4] is an interesting read, he flat out says he is here for vandalism and every article protected is a victory for him. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would block the entire /16 range AO for a few hours, to cool this guy off; it's better than protecting 20 different pages. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protecting a few articles causes a lot less collateral damage than blocking 65,000 addresses. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently your definition of a few (20) is a bit different from mine. And no, it's an anonymous only block, and for a range that doesn't appear to be in as much use as a lot of other ranges. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what Evil Spartan said. You are familiar with "account creation enabled", right, Kral? --Badger Drink (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this ... every post you and others have made regarding this issue to AIV, ANI, and AN3RR has been either declined or ignored completely by virtually every admin but me. Yet when I do not handle the issue exactly the way you want, I get berated, belittled, insulted, and accused of being counter-productive. And you really wonder why other admins are not tripping over themselves to lend a helping hand? --Kralizec! (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Give Kralizec a break, guys. Range blocking is a last resort. I've blocked a 5 more IPs, and 2 or 3 more have been picked up by other admins. As long as there are admins who are aware of the situation, and online, this won't be much of a problem, just a game of whack a mole. If it becomes necessary, a few pages can be protected, but there's no reason to block 65,000 IPs to stop this guy. He'll get bored eventually. Parsecboy (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just now noticing this thread -- I put down a three-hour, anon-only, account-creation-enabled range block on 71.100.0.0/20, since that was the range used to harass L0b0t on his talk page. I only noticed this since I was watching recent changes and spotted some harassment going on. If you don't like the range block you can change it, but I find that short range blocks often work in cases like this since trolls get bored easily. Looking at the last 5000 anonymous edits in recent changes, which cover three hours exactly, there are NO edits from 71.100 besides ones from this person, so the probability of collateral damage is quite small. Antandrus (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And he's back again (71.100.4.92 (talk · contribs)). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

At least he's not leaving edit summaries. How is an IP able to edit when the article is protected? L0b0t (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the article protection which Kral enacted in lieu of a range-block expired on the 16th. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He's now at Special:Contributions/71.100.8.20, Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I'm posting notice here that I'm rolling back on sight, as per WP:RBI. If anyone has any problems with that, please let me know. Dayewalker (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Now at Special:Contributions/71.100.9.239. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember, a range-block might inconvienence a hypothetical good editor who was too stubborn to make an account. Certainly it's much better to fob off the work to regular editors such as you or I. --Badger Drink (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Now at Special:Contributions/71.100.13.229. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, I'm implementing Kralizec's suggestion of semiprot. Have applied semi across a number of pages, will look for any I've missed. Keep reporting any further disruption -- the more eyes and ears, the better. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Luna. L0b0t (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just semiprotected your talk page, as you probably noticed. I didn't want to lay down even a short range block since there are currently two other active editors within the /16, and he just switches to open proxies then anyway. RBI works pretty well in these cases. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, he's now at Special:Contributions/71.100.13.229. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Now at Special:Contributions/71.100.11.23. L0b0t (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Was also using an open proxy at 89.248.172.222 (talk · contribs) (already blocked). Appears to be following L0b0t's contribs? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, he's accused me of some kind of racist cyber-stalking. He has said that when he had an account, I could tell he was black from his username and that I used to follow him around oppressing him because he is a minority (which is kind of funny considering my dusky hue). Stuff and nonsense. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam via edit summaries

Time for action (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making trivial edits, all with the edit summary AVRIL LAVIGNE ROKZ MY SOCKZ! - Go to www.antimatter.on.nimp.org to shit bricks! - SHE IS IS SO FREAKING HOT!. Hundreds of times.
Kww (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the "Avril troll." Block immediately, and if a CU sees this it might be worth checking for other socks from the same IP. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Second sock in 1/2 an hour, first being Reconfirmer. Avril troll seems active, so keep a look out. D.M.N. (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That page tries to infect your machine with a trojan, so don't be tempted to click... --Allemandtando (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Urgent!!!

To add to this, something has to be done to prevent something like this from happening again!!!

Look at this. They were vandalizing with Twinkle! Someone should IMMEDIATELY make that function unavailable to non-administrators. That is an insanely dangerous function. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that only admins should be permitted to use Twinkle? If so then that is like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut - way out of proportion. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent, possibly making it avaible maybe to people with over 5,000 edits maybe? I've brought this up at the Village Pump to see what other people would think about vandalism on Twinkle, and to see what could be done to stop it. D.M.N. (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they are suggesting that the unlink function should be removed from Twinkle...not that Twinkle should be removed from the masses. --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct, I was saying that the unlink function should not be available to non-admins. I personally do not see how a non-admin would ever have to use it - the only use I can think for it would be after deleting a page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, how did the 6-edits-per-minute limitation not kick in? I thought Twinkle was still bound by that...? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(J.delanoy) Why on earth should Twinkle be Admin only? There is no way I could be come a Admin here which would mean that it makes it harder for myself to revert, tag ect. Don't let a few vandals make us pay for something we (non-admins) didn't do. Bidgee (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Pink!Teen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Same deal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree about the unlink. Perhaps only make that function available to rollbackers?

I gotta go to a company picnic now, but somebody should hop on IRC and find a CU, to see if a short rangeblock is feasible. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was feasible, it would already have been used. Multiple CUs have been working this case for days. GRBerry 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we have some links to the CU stuff, please? Thanks. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The remove backlinks function should be removed from non-admins immediately, and I think some kind of native "mass rollback" should be considered for admins to easily fix similar situations in the future. –xeno (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, this is ridiculous. Can an admin blank User:AzaToth/twinkleunlink.js to stop this nonsense until we can find someone to make it so that only admins can use the feature? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Did it re-occur? This is  Done by the way. –xeno (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So whats Unlink backlinks? I'm not game to touch/use it. Bidgee (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unlink backlinks takes the result for Special:Whatlinkshere/whateverPageYou'reOn and lets you mass-remove the links. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No (I was called away from my computer, and came back just as you guys were cleaning up after Pink!Teen), but considering there have been 2 or 3 occurrences within an hour, and considering how few times the unlink function would be legitimately used, I think it would be appropriate to make a preemptive move. There is no reason not to believe that there are more sleeper accounts waiting... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, according to the vandal, he runs the Twinkle script remotely. Guess we'll need another fix. –xeno (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Darn you for getting here with this before me :-) I saw it too!!!  Frank  |  talk  16:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, how is that possible? Guessing they grabbed the source and are using some kind of browser add in to run their modified script? No way to block that? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know others know more details than I do, but since it is javascript-based, it runs in the local browser; it doesn't care where the source of the .js file is.  Frank  |  talk  16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's possible to use something like Greasemonkey to run a copied source of the script. Nothing you can do about it but block the user :( Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)There back OrgasGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bidgee (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pink!Teen

Pink!Teen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please block this user immediately. He/she is using disruptive edit summaries apparently to solicit hits to a website, and hitting a large number of articles. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See above. Blocked. I've made this a level 3 header as it's directly related. D.M.N. (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries and Twinkle.

This seems not-right to me: contribs of OrgasGirl. Page after page of "Removing backlinks to Computer because "AVRIL LAVIGNE ROKZ MY SOCKZ! - Go to www.antimatter.on.nimp.org to shit bricks! - I run the TW script remotely!!"; using TW" Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked while I was composing message. :) Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Four socks in an hour and a half. D.M.N. (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way that someone who knows about MediaWiki could implement part of the Abuse Filter extension temporarily as an emergency measure? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• IP hardblocked. Thatcher 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

An attempt to restrict Twinkle won't work.

It is very easy to use old versions of a script for the purposes of using it maliciously. Trying to restrict TW to rollbackers-only will not help at all. Maxim's JS test account (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've disabled twinkleunlink.js from working in the mainspace, so people won't be tempted to unleash it and remove all the links form the TFA, for instance... Maxim's JS test account (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle is a javascript app. All anyone has to do is copy it to their userspace and remove any changes you make. For this strategy to work, we would have to block new users from editing any javascript files. --Selket ^Talk 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, excuse me?

...for interjecting my lame ass again (I don't seem to be following the technical side of stuff recently). An important issue was raised and lost: how in the world did he make like several hundred edits within one minute? Wasn't there supposed to be some edit throttle in place? Even for autoconfirmed? Миша13 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, there probably isn't an edit throttle... Maxim_(talk) 21:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there was a 6 rollback-per-minute throttle (except on admins), it ended up adversely affecting Huggle users legitimately rollbacking that fast, so Gurch convinced the devs to raise it to some crazily high number. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, anyone else notice the similarities?

Is anyone else getting the vibe that our Avril Lavigne Troll is Grawp or one of his wethers? Both try to link the same malware site in their edit summaries, both make seemingly-legit edits either during or just before their vandalism rampage, and both attack en masse. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 21:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that come up in Checkuser? D.M.N. (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily; Grawp has used open proxies in the past. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also possible that this "Avril troll" is copying Grawp. What difference does it make? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's quite possible, anyway. Grawp has numerous socks, and it's fair to say that his *on.nimp.org trick, albeit not original, is his modus operandi, and it's a safe bet the Av troll is Grawp himself. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Avril troll is one of grawps copycats. –xeno (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• .on.nimp.org is a standard shock site. I wouldn't consider two trolls the same person if they both linked to goatse, so I don't see why two trolls both linking to nimp.org have to be the same person. --Carnildo (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nor would I, except he's the only other vandal known to link to it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on things I've seen on ED, I'd guess no, they're different people. Either way, it doesn't matter: they're both losers. RBI them until they come up with a new trick, then block the new trick and move on with more RBI. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot

I have added a heuristic to ClueBot that should catch this if it should happen again. If ClueBot is not catching it, or if another serial vandal comes along that ClueBot doesn't catch, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 05:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean we can get unlink back, then? Steve ^{T • C} 09:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Someone requested a link to the checkuser but I didn't notice anyone post one. In case anyone is still looking, it's here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Avril Vandal Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jordanson

I tagged an article he created for Speedy Deletion, as I didn't think the person was notable enough for an article. Georgi Karakanov. He reapetedly removed the tag and continued editing without placing hangon template. I warned him twice, and he refuses to stop.--Islaammaged126 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to excuse his incorrect removal of the template, but the article is about a footballer playing for a team at the highest level in the nation, which is an assertion of notability. It's not a CSD candidate. Horologium (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I didn't know that. Please excuse me wasting your time :(.

WP:ATHLETE contains the relevant guidance. – ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cbsite, BetaCommand and NFCC. Block review/block request.

I'm afraid it won't surprise many but Cbsite (talk · contribs) and Betacommand (talk · contribs) have started to edit war about NFCC tagging of various images. I have just blocked Cbsite for edit-warring. I won't block Betacommand because I've just interacted with him on his talk page and consider myself as an "involved admin". Nevertheless, it is clear to me that Betacommand is still resorting to edit summaries that he was told many, many times not to use [5] and that he is improperly tagging images for speedy deletion ([6] [7] [8] among many others) when he knows full well that failing NFCC#8 is not a rationale for on-the-spot speedy deletion. (See point 7 of Wikipedia:CSD#Images_and_media for a reminder). It is also clear that he's engaging in edit-warring about the tagging ([9] [10] again, many other examples) even after Goochelaar (talk · contribs) and I tried to discuss the issue with him in what I think is a completely reasonable manner (User_talk:Betacommand#About_Image:Gurps4e.jpg). I also find it particularly unwise for Betacommand to continue tagging the NFCC#8 images aggressively while the whole debate about the wording and interpretation of the policy continues. In any case, I submit my short block of Cbsite for review as well as a request for the block of Betacommand (especially in light of the "Sam Korn solution"). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the block was unnecessary. After I warned him to stop, he did. He was allowed to remove those speedy tags, and he should not have been reverted for that. But, removing the image listings on IFD was inappropriate, but, as I said, he had already stopped doing that. As for Beta, the only reverts he made were re-adding the IFD discussions listings removed by Cbsite. Betacommands other edits were tagging images for speedy deletion, and I think he is allowed to do that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are mistaken on both counts. If you look at the time stamps, your request for Cbsite to stop is at 21:10 [11] but you still have diffs like [12] as well as edit warring (that I mistakenly thought was related) on Chris Barnes (actor)‎. As for Betacommand, he is allowed to tag images with the appropriate templates such as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} of course. But he certainly shouldn't invent his own speedy-deletion processes (see diffs above) and he certainly was edit-warring about these images and using inappropriate "revert trolling" edit summaries to boot. Note also the problematic escalation: when people removed the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} thinking (often in good faith) that the problem was resolved, Betacommand did not simply re-insert the template as you seem to think. He replied by using the {{db}} template with the comment "fails NFCC#8" which, as I noted earlier, is in clear contradiction with the accepted deletion process for images whose fair-use status is disputed. Betacommand, of all people, knows exactly what the correct image deletion process is. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, of all people, does exactly what he wants to do, and doesn't care what anybody else thinks about it... as he has made clear in other recent entries on this page. He gets blocked for a day or two now and then. Big deal. It just gives him a chance to rest up and plan more stunts like this. Get used to it, people. He's untouchable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

per WP:CSD#I7 clearly states that images that fail WP:NFCC will be deleted. deleting on the grounds that an image fails a NFCC criteria is clearly within policy. β^_command 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on Beta, don't act as if you don't know what I'm talking about. You know full well that images whose fair-use is disputed are not tagged with {{db}}, they are tagged with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} and sit there for 48 hours after the uploader has been notified. That delay is there precisely to leave time for debate. Can you tell me with a straight face that you simply "forgot"? Well, maybe you can but to anyone else it is clear that you let your frustration take over when your original {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} were removed by (and I think that has some importance) several different users. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like to add more evidence of Betacommand's very recent and very dubious handling of the tagging process (again, I am not disputing the tagging itself, just the way it's being handled). Look at the history of Image:Alex-TonjaWalker-1990.jpg [13]. Beta tags the image, uploader removes tag with edit summary "(Illustrating a character is acceptable use)", Beta reverts, without explanation, uploader says "Image is in use" and reverts again, Beta then identifies the revert as vandalism and leaves a vandalism warning at User talk:TAnthony. That vandalism warning is the sole attempt Beta makes at communicating with the uploader. This is precisely the kind of aggressive behaviour that Beta has been asked time and again to change. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

removing deletion templates without addressing the issue is vandalism. how the hell is "Image is in use" a valid reason for removing a deletion notice about significance, it was not tagged as orphaned. β^_command 00:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that this is your answer. Why in the world would you be so bity? You made no attempt whatsoever to contact this user! Oh and as you may perhaps remember, countless previous ANI threads have concluded with a distinct request for you to stop using automated "vandalism reverts" in cases which are not unmistakable vandalism and in particular in cases of reverts of image tagging. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And what incentive does he have to change his ways? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

While failure of the NFCC is a speedy deletion criteria, it does not, has never done, and will never apply to NFCC#8. The rule is very subjective and there's a whole range of opinions (very very few select cases, e.g. Iwo Jima, to liberal usage) on its interpretation within the admin community alone. I've also closed the IFDs because the nominations were empty (there is no explanation why it fails NFCC#8, nor is it self-evident enough to warrant non-explanation). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Betacommand for one week. He has just come off a 48-hour block for disruptive editing over NFC images, and is subject to an arbitration remedy (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Remedies). Failing a this fair use criteria is not grounds for speedy deletion; Betacommand knows this. Neıl ☄ 00:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they are speedyable (WP:CSD#I7), but for obvious reasons I've just enumerated, it doesn't apply to criterion 8. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right. My oversight - I didn't explain myself very well there (changed "a" to "this"). Block added to Arbitration enforcement log. Neıl ☄ 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Kudos Neil. You're gonna take some flack for this but it is the correct decision and Betacommand's unrepentant response above just strengthens the case for a long block. Also, I sort of expect that the "but this is a punitive block" argument will appear here in a couple of minutes. It is not a punitive block: it is there to prevent the recurring ANI threads which are the direct result of Betacommand's behaviour. Note that I said "behaviour", not "tagging". I don't mind the tagging. I mind the attitude, the unresponsiveness, the incivility, the contempt for process in areas as sensitive as NFCC. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened the block to 72 hours, as I have just realised that the CSD NFC Criterion 8 exemption was only just added. However, the edit-warring over NFC images is still apparent, which is what Betacommand was told to stop doing last time. Neıl ☄ 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone cares at this point but with or without this exception, images failing criterion 8 should not be speedy-deleted on the spot which is precisely what Betacommand started requesting once his tagging was challenged. See for example the very telling history of Image:Gurps4e.jpg. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am now being accused of harassment by Betacommand (see User talk:Betacommand. I really would appreciate a few people letting me know whether I am doing so, as it's a disconcerting thought. Harassment is a word that gets thrown around a lot, but I've never been accused of it before ([14], [15], [16]). Is applying an Arbitration enforcement harassment? There are few admins willing to take any action over Betacommand; is he simply making sure the pool is reduced by one in future? Or am I actually harassing him? Neıl ☄ 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors, when blocked, are expected to fill out an unblock request the conventional way. Being as how Betacommnad is a self-styled stickler for rules and policies, maybe all discussion should cease until he actually fills out an unblock request. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

He did; MZMcbride removed it (or deactivated it, or tlx'd it, whatever the word is) ([17]). Neıl ☄ 01:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. Every day, this place makes less and less sense. :\ When I hear others casually mention wikipedia, I wonder if they have any clue about the constant soap operas that go on here? Much of it, ironically, in good faith - that everyone thinks he's "got it right". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pascal. These constant edit wars over images are getting really old. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's too crazy: I ask for protection for a page that's being bulldozed, and the admin doesn't see "enough" edit warring to justify protection. I revert based on consensus - that there is no clear policy on images in lists and that NFCC need to be much more clear - and I get blocked. Someone starts a section with my user name on it, and I can't join the discussion for three hours because of the block. And still there's talk of not only not banning Betacommand, but unblocking him as well. Cbsite (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand by the original short block to stop the bleeding but I did forget to unblock you despite what I wrote on your talk page. Wholly unintended, so all apologies. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we all agree, at least, that Neil previously having blocked Betacommand does not make him "involved" and somehow ineligible to block him in the future? My take on all of this is that Neil has acted appropriately, communicated clearly, and has in absolutely no way engaged in any harassment. Do others agree? Nandesuka (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. - brenneman 03:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Should be entirely obvious. I don't believe any admin aware of the Sam Korn agreement would have acted otherwise. I don't have any history of conflict with Betacommand and although I did run into problems today, I think it's fair to say that 12 hours ago I was uninvolved. I wouldn't have hesitated to similarly block Betacommand had I simply been a passive witness to the events of the past 48 hours or so. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes to this point. I frankly don't want to get further involved in this before a vacation, so I previously declined my opportunity to decline the unblock template. But an admin enforcing arbitration or community sanctions is not thereby involved. GRBerry 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Fuck copyright.svg

No paranoia, please. ;-) Dragon695 (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have defended Betacommand more than once in the past, but I guess I'm not going to this time. I had hoped that all the controversy would have encouraged Beta to apply his admirable energy, talent, and passion to another, less controversial area (maybe something like Commons moves, or other types of badly-needed image cleanup). Alas, it was not to be. I would, in fact, encourage anyone else working WP:NFCC enforcement to simply stop doing it - call it a strike, if you like. The Foundation is not serious about enforcing its licensing resolution, and neither is the English Wikipedia community serious about enforcing WP:NFCC's "minimal use" provisions. The community provides little to no support for people doing copyright work. I think it will take some kind of lawsuit or legal action to happen before the Foundation does anything. The King is dead; long live the King. Kelly ^hi! 03:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I do agree that the messy NFCC battles are ultimately the Foundation's responsibility: they chose to issue some vague, watered-down, legalistic junk like wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which solved nothing because they avoided the shitstorm that severe, precisely defined restriitions would have created. And I very much sympathize with the people doing the thankless image work: it would already be thankless if the policy was clear cut (say: "no non-free images period") and it's even more exhausting when there is so much room for interpretation. Yet many are able to do this work without getting into edit wars, templating anyone in their way with vandalism warnings, being unnecessarily rude, contemptuous, unwilling to recognize what is and what isn't considered as a standard interpretation of current policies and so on. As a matter of fact, I don't see you getting into trouble (oh wait :-) ... nah, that doesn't count because you were truly unfairly targeted). Sorry for repeating myself but the problem is not that Betacommand is enforcing unpopular policy. It's that he can't do it without crossing just about every line that we've asked him time and again not to cross. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Without commenting on the need for blocking BC (I think it's rather pointless), I tend to think that there have been enough block interactions between BC and Neil that he should refrain from performing any blocks himself and request another admin perform any needed actions involving that user. Three blocks by the same user in less than two weeks should justify this, I'd think. Regardless of any prior involvement, it simply looks rather awkward to me. We've got over 1500 admins, surely someone else can do it? Kylu (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, we need a definition of "involved" to avoid the potential for wheel wars. I don't consider Neil "involved". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you all. Kylu's advice is sensible, and Betacommand clearly feels like I have harassed him, even if nobody else does. With this in mind, I will refrain from any administrative action regarding Betacommand in future - should anything come up, let's hope it doesn't - and will instead post to AN or ANI for another admin to review. Neıl ☄ 08:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
      • My view is different. I think after a certain number of blocks by the same admin of the same user over the same issue, and failure for any resolution or consensus at AN or ANI, it is a classic case of a need for arbitration. Then, after the arbitration case is finished, rejected, or whatever, then it should be clearer whether that same admin can continue to enforce with respect to that user. About NFCC#8, I would again urge everyone to read through WP:NFCC-8 - some good points were made there about how to move this forward, but we need someone to find the time to write (for instance) the extended guideline and tutorial for best practice in this area. Carcharoth (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I suspect that at the moment, an RFARB might result in Beta being given a temporary immunity from blocks if the case is accepted. I would, perhaps, suggest a somewhat less drastic step in the dispute resolution procedure be taken. Perhaps the involved parties would agree to formal mediation? Kylu (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked users aren't usually subject to the taunts and abuse that Betacommand has seen recently on his talk page. But it does serve to illustrate the saying: "The love you take is equal to the love you make." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's a particular user that I've seen make rather drastic suggestions regarding Betacommand in threads here and on ANI. I might suggest that perhaps you're the incorrect person to sound a call for civility to blocked users. It would, in fact, be more civil were you to refrain from discussions regarding him, considering many of your past statements. Diffs can be provided upon request, but I sincerely doubt that others will fail to see what I refer to. Kylu (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, some of my typical comments are right above, lined out. I don't care at all for the incredibly arrogant way that guy operates, but my primary objection is when he does something offensive and gets blocked, and then one of his pals unblocks him due to his alleged "value to the project", which is supposed to be irrelevant to enforcement of the rules. This time, the block stuck, so I lined out the comments. I can just delete them outright, if you'd prefer that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • To put it another way, I agree with what this editor said: [18] And the point being, as I stated on his page, if someone has a complaint they should make it here. The user has a long history of irritating everyone (I and many others have never had a good encounter with that guy), and grievances should be aired on this incident page. Putting complaints on his talk page serves no useful purpose, as it only engenders sympathy (even from the likes of me) and only lengthens his enemies list for when his block ends. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, one more thing. Another pattern I've seen here is that anyone who criticizes that guy is subjected to threats and attempts at intimidation by his pals - ranging from the significant, such as continued pressure to reverse concerned admins from blocking him; to the trivial, such as your patronizing comment. You are free to ignore my opinions, but you are not free to tell me I cannot express them. I am never "uncivil". But I am outspoken and I intend to continue to be, when I see what I perceive to be wrongdoing or injustice. And that includes both the arrogant behavior of a user, and excessive "kicking him when he's down" by other users. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Bugs: That's actually part of it. You're making an assumption of bad faith on his part and his "admin friends". Edits like that and these two tend to tell me that this is an emotional response to an issue. Beta, from what I understand (I don't talk to him much, even though I see him on IRC often) sees his work as trying to minimize the potentially legal consequences of fair use claims on Wikipedia. He's got a point: I've spoken to a lawyer friend (they're not all bad!) who said that our use of fair use in "Lists" is shaky. We have worse uses, and the WMF's a potentially vulnerable target. His work is useful to both the project and the foundation, but the problem occurs when someone disagrees with his enforcement of our policies: He's of a mind that while we're in a legally tenuous situation, there's no time to discuss the facts. He'd prefer to have Wikipedia compliant and on firm ground as soon as possible, but in a community atmosphere that doesn't work. Honestly, while I understand the complaints of those who disagree with his methods (I disagree with his approach to dealing with other users, sadly) I think the best thing we as fellow editors can do is to try to assist him by smoothing over the conflicts and doing a better job at clarifying the appropriate policies and calming down the inevitable complaints that occur when he does this job. I'd encourage you to, instead of attacking him for "not caring about what other people think", to see it as a weakness that one of your fellow editors has and to try to assist him in overcoming it. It doesn't hurt to have him here, it's the conflicts themselves and Beta that need our assistance: I might suggest meatball:DefendEachOther as a useful read. Kylu (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RFCU

Based on several other concerns I have opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Betacommand. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, why has the RFCU been deleted? There is nothing in either the WP:RFCU instructions nor in the procedures sub-page which says that cases are deleted for privacy. It says that editors are welcome to take their concerns to Rebecca if they feel their privacy has been violated. If other editors have their cases in the light of day, so should he. If he is engaging in abusive socking again, the community deserves to know as it is a patent violation of the Sam Korn solution. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am uncertain why the page was deleted - but the first deletion was valid under WP:CSD#G7 because it was deleted by the only contributor of substantial content. Stifle then undeleted, added a single line himeself and redeleted. Arguably still fits G7 because nobody who added content didn't delete it. Continued cycling will just fuel drama, so should be discouraged. GRBerry 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

After I created the RFCU, Betacommand posted an explanation to his userpage citing personal data that he couldn't disclose, he then approached me in an IRC channel and asked me to delete the RFCU, since I don't have access to privacy data, and I know his IP block exempt right was granted previously with an email to an arb, I figured it was better safe than sorry to delete it, since anyone who needs the info in it (checkusers, clerks, etc) can still view it. I still believe Betacommand committed sockpuppetry of some sort yesterday, but with the removal of his IP block exempt flag last night, the RFCU can not proceed, since the no {{fishing}} rules are back in force (People with IPBE tacitly agree that their accounts may be checkusered to monitor for abuse) and my other evidence probably is not strong enough on its own to warrant a checkuser. MBisanz ^talk 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey I must object to this. I for one would certainly like to contribute to an RFC on this user. If there is private data, can't this be moved into a subpage of the RFC and deleted from there? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

TES; WP:RFC/U != WP:RFCU. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to BBC, ITV programme and related biography articles

An anonymous editor (various IPs starting 76.* and 75.*, for example: 76.216.20.17 (talk · contribs), 76.216.21.205 (talk · contribs), 76.238.138.35 (talk · contribs), 75.36.202.202 (talk · contribs), 75.36.201.24 (talk · contribs)) has been making multiple changes over the last couple of weeks to a number of broadcasting related articles, for example: BBC News at Ten, BBC Nine O'Clock News, ITV Lunchtime News, ITV Evening News, Trevor McDonald, Alastair Stewart, and others. These appear to be lots of minor changes or addition of un-sourced and poorly written comments. These edits never have edit summaries and as their IP keeps changing it is difficult to discuss anything with them; no response has been made to requests on article talk pages. Each IP makes about a dozen edits (usually confined to one evening) before it changes. Can anything can be done to prevent these edits from happening?

I've been reverting ones that appear to be definitely vandalism, as have several other editors, but the anon editor seems insistent on making changes. If these edits are confirmed as vandalism, it would seem to be appropriate to semi-protect some of the articles in question. Thanks. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not really a heavy vandalism load. I would also note edits from the 78.* range making suspicious changes to dates. We don't block large IP ranges except in extreme emergencies, and we normally don't s-protect articles unless they are being vandalized many times a day. Maybe another admin will be willing to s-protect the articles, but I don't see the need yet. -- Donald Albury 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand your argument, but I guess that the anon IP wins then, because I haven't got the time to spend half an hour every day reverting the edits from a changing IP who is unavailable and unwilling to enter into any constructive discussion about their edits. Whereas he or she appears to have plenty of spare time to make these edits every day. Perhaps someone with the "mop & bucket" could sort this out? I've lost track of what the last "good" text for these articles was anyway. This is not the first instance of an anon IP appearing to "win" a dispute simply because they refuse to discuss edits and cannot be blocked. In my mind, it forms a good argument for preventing anon IPs from editing (although I know that's a big discussion which has been done to death elsewhere). Regards. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As you known, the community feels that the value of allowing people to edit without having to log in outweighs the vandalism performed by anon IPs. If vandals are IP hopping, we can't do much to block them, as blocking large ranges of IPs causes unacceptable disruption to good-faith IP contributors. It is also consensus that we don't protect articles unless the vandalism load has become heavy (generally, that means at least several times a day on a regular basis), or there are important concerns about attacks on living persons. I recognize the problem you cite; I have a number of seldom visited pages on my watchlist, and I often seem to be the only one to notice vandalism on them, but giving anon IP vandals their opening is the price we pay for having an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit (which is the premise under which Wikipedia was founded). -- Donald Albury 12:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Logitech95's personal attacks and POV pushing

Resolved

 – User Blocked for 3RR. Beam 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Logitech95 (talk · contribs)
• 128.120.161.137 (talk · contribs) his sock ip confirmed by checkuser.[19]

“ Seems like you're getting your ass kicked with your attempts at hiding Korea's darker past. Please behave, don't go on mass-deletion rampages on things you don't want others to know. If you have any problems, call mommy - she left her number by the phone.--128.120.161.137 ”

This is what I heard from him today.[20] I don't think I have to put up with such insults as the mention of my mother. Logitech95 habitually resorts to personal attacks when his edit was challenged by editors who consider his edits biased and violating NPOV. Instead of willing to discuss disputes with opponents, the user just pushes his own view to others. Such examples can be shown on Korea under Japanese rule, Sea of Japan, Jiandao‎, Gando Special Force], Talk:Korean war crimes.

The editor edit wars with editors, and even used sockpuppetry to avoid 3RR violation, so that he was blocked for his 5RR. The user poured personal attacks and even falsely accused me of wiki-stalking him why don't you quit stalking my edits on wikipedia and join the beef riots in Korea. However, his wiki-stalking of me was warned by an administrator.[21] Because the editor followed my step and blindly reverted articles and got warnings[[22]], some of which he never edited and seem to be far from his interests.[23][24] [25][26]

Logitech95 does not seem to learn a lesson by his past and keeps such the disruptive attitude. He also inserted false information to South Korea, so I pointed out, his way of communication is like this.can you read maps? i question your cognitive abilitiesyou use the English language on my page constitutes both cultural and intellectual vandalism

• This user also inserted original research to Mike Honda[27] and falsified death toll at Japanese war crimes without reason.[28]

Even he inserted bogus inline citations to justify his own POV. The user also has serious ownership issue[29] This comment sounds to me racist attack[30]. So please take a look at this. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I notified the user. Caspian blue, for future reference, you should notify the person you're complaining about. Beam 00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, however, he used to follow me and said he would be out of Wikpedia for dinner, so I assume he would find here as quick as he logs in again.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question has been blocked by Fuf.Perf. for his 3RR violation. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious...

I'm not sure if this is the place to bring it up, but...

I seem to have picked up yet another spoof troll account. There is a new account User:Adolphin79, which was recently created (2008-07-08T12:49:09). After looking into the logs and contributions, I believe this is a sockpuppet of User:PPduo. The new account was created after I had reverted some of PPduo's vandalism at Pete Knight High School, and had given PPduo 2 warnings... The new account's only edits so far have been to the same Pete Knight High School, and 2 other articles that I had edited around the same time... Without having access to checkuser, I have no way of confirming that this new account is PPduo. But, I have a 'gut instinct' that it is, and I believe the new account was created to mock my username... Is there anyway someone with checkuser abilities could check on this for me, and possibly block the sock account for me, before he/she/it causes harm? If possible, I would then like to usurp the account as I have with my other spoof troll (I know this part of it would be an issue to take up with WP:CHU/U)... I'm asking here instead of posting a report at WP:SSP because without the checkuser I don't have any hard evidence, and I don't care if PPduo is blocked or not, I just want the spoof account taken care of... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some diffs for use as visual aids, my revert of PPduo's vandalism, Adolphin79's creation, PPduo's contribs, Adolphin79's contribs, Piano rock, Ed Begley, Jr.... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, you don't need RFCU evidence to file an SSP. –xeno (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So should I just transclude this and file a report at SSP, cross my fingers that one day the sock gets blocked, and then after that file a report at CHU/U as I did for my first troll? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I'm inclined to let this slide; you've presented enough evidence to convince me it's fairly likely they're the same person, but they're not doing anything that appears to be urgently and inherently abusive at this time. If they start up vandalizing, or continue to follow you from article to article, that may be actionable. As far as usurping imitators, I have to admit I don't see the point. I'd file this in the "do something if it gets worse" category, personally. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can categories be speedy-deleted as reposted deleted content?

Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography was recently deleted as a result of this CfD. However, Conc782 (talk · contribs) has now created the essentially identical Category:Non-LGBT people in lesbian pornography and begun populating it with articles previously in the deleted category. Should this category be speedied as recreated deleted content? Kelly ^hi! 03:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD#G4 is a general CSD so it can be used on a category. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this category should not be deleted because it is different in that people like Nina Hartley who identify as LGBT are excluded from it.--Conc782 (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a POV-fork'minded end run around the deletion; little doubt a 'LGBT people in lesbian pornography' category will show up soon. Delete as POINT-y, and remind the editor there's a great big internet out there, he can find all the lesbian porno he wants out there, and leave WP behind. ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking this one to CfD to better gauge consensus. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Suicide notice

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

• Archiving this to stop weirdos like Jaysweet from waxing philosophical on AN/I. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel at all qualified to deal with this, so I bring it here for wider attention. A user has posted a suicide announcement (for July 22nd) on his userpage. I have no idea if this is serious or not, but it doesn't look like simple testing or joking. Fram (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is anything to do. People that post that kind of thing are usually crying out for love and attention, and frankly, Wikipedia can't provide it for him anyway. Wikipedia is not therapy. In all serious, tell him to find a girlfriend. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't do that. Suicide notes must be taken seriously, because a human life very well could be on the line. You can't just ignore it and assume they're just calling out for attention; even if that is the case, it's not worth risking a human life. By the way, the notice on the user talk page states that the person is already dead. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 08:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to take it seriously. He seemed a regular if somewhat misguided editor (he got blocked a few times), then he just stopped editing and focused on making his page myspacey and shrine-like. He's just an 18-year old kid who recently finished high-school. I've no reason to doubt what he says here. If anyone wants to followup, I have his ISP details here and can maybe do something to help. He's where he says he is, BTW, and his account is not compromised - Alison ^❤ 08:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a little confusing: the notice on the talk page says he is already dead, yet his most recent edit to the page was NOT to add that note, which would seem to imply that he is not dead. (Dead men don't edit?) I'm not exactly sure what we could do, but if there's anything I can, be sure to let me know, Allison, I hate to see stuff like this. L'Aquatique[review] 08:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that he plans on following through next week. Although, even if this is a cry for attention/help, we should try to contact the authorities in Bucharest, if we can find someone willing to call the Romanian Police.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Any cry for help is not be taken lightly especially a death threat to self. Notifying the appropriate people places this matter into the hands of people who can actually intervene. — Ѕandahl 16:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to make light of what could be a serious situation, but I'm leaning towards a well prepared Wikipedian, or a joke, since he has constantly changed the date several times during his Wiki-career...

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

- Adolphus79 (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(after ecs)I would be inclined not to overreact in this case. He's been adding "death" text for about a year now. On July 1 it said that he committed suicide on July 4 and for a long time his userpage said "still alive, as well as dead". Back in August and September last year it said he died in August (1 August and September 07 (5 Sept), changing as we went into each month. Sarah 09:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ufff! Just some joker so, I guess. Only it's not funny - Alison ^❤ 09:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I saw going back through the edit history of his page, I'm going to assume it's like when I call my grandmother. Every time I talk to her, she makes some kind of a comment about 'her not being around much longer'... I figure after a year of threats/warnings, we (the community) can stop taking it seriously. - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't looked at the history. Not the best of jokes... Fram (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So, maybe we should eliminate his medium for conveying this constant message?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that, removing his outlet could be the thing that flips that trigger, I'd say just make a note somewhere that this user is not necessarily serious about the death date... - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd say just let him be, and move on. He's not doing any harm, I guess, and once the community is aware of the situation and knows how to react - Alison ^❤ 09:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free webhost, and neither of these were proper on the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Continually posting things which look like suicide notices seems pretty harmful to me. WP:NOT Emospace and all that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone cleverer than me with templates should really play with those sort of templates to make them not appear if transcluded outside of article space. Neıl ☄ 09:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

On 2007-03-23, a man named Kevin Whitrick, committed cyber suicide using his own webcam from his home live on the internet in front of viewers in a chat room website[49] supporting webcam use. Sorry, I just had to add that. I think stuff like this is pretty serious. If he wants to take his life it's his prerogative but I don't think it ought to be allowed to be posted here. It can surely be counted as counter productive? Just my views anyway. Regards, --Cameron* 09:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Read above - he's been continually updating the date for the past year. It's just emokid stuff. Neıl ☄ 09:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As much as I agree with Neil, I've gone and noted the user of this (excessively long) discussion. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is just Emo kiddie stuff, we should not allow him to abuse wikipedia in this way. I deleted his userpage.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's going a bit far Theresa. Ryulong had already removed this notice and the editor in question has not even received a warning for his behavior. You should undelete his page. --The High Commander (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As I said, let's go easy on the guy. Remove the questionable content, sure, but leave the rest - Alison ^❤ 10:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In cases like this, we usually go by Wikipedia:Threats of violence, seen as it seems to be a threat of self harm. And we follow the directions that essay gives us. Not that easy now Theresa Knott has deleted the page. I agree with High Commander. Undelete the page and act according to the essay. Anything like this should be taken seriously, even though it may well turn out to be a hoax. Better be safe than sorry. Lradrama 10:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be noted he never threatened suicide, but said he had died, or was going to. For all we know he could have terminal cancer and be expecting to die and simply predicting the date. Unlikely, but look at it from different angles. --The High Commander (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes he did. "He committed suicide in midsummer of 2008 due to an unrequited love." Fram (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are completely correct my apologies. --The High Commander (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll undelete, but I still think deletion send a stronger message about accepatable userpage use than editing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If a simple warning or word of advice gets him to stop, then you have achieved the desired outcome without really peeving him off by deleting his page. --The High Commander (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting his page will only serve to make the writer more frustrated probably. And, yes, I didn't know the suicide was in past tense terms, because, well, the page went... Lradrama 10:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the whole userpage doesn't need to be deleted, though I think the death information should be removed, but I disagree with saying we have to or should follow TOV. The community rejected TOV as a policy, and I prefer seeing people use basic common sense myself. Sarah 11:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well TOV certainly wasn't rejected a few recent cases I've found myself discussing. I once held your view, in that people should use common sense, but other people weren't having any of it. Lradrama 11:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV did not gain consensus to become policy, although it appears to be a well thought out essay. I didn't take part in the discussions, but I suggest a good reason for it not being policy is because it is unwise to legislate the superseding of common sense. While common sense may be in short supply, it should remain the standard tool in dealing with situations such as this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:TOV mostly failed to become policy due to unenforceability, and to become a guideline due to reasons similar to those you mention. I think most people are still using it per WP:COMMONSENSE. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW, C'MON PEOPLE!!! I'm so young...stop this terrible disscution, please (that was only a joke) !!!Simion Eugen-Andrei, Bucharest, Romania (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but threats of suicide are not a joke. Please don't do that, and bear in mind that we have people on here who's families have been affected by suicide - Alison ^❤ 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank God. Well, Wikipedia is NOT a place for jokes anyway...Btw we just wanted to see a fellow Wikipedian to be safe and fine...Btw Please.. No more jokes like these :) -- Tinu Cherian - 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Threats like these must be taken seriously. You may have thought it is funny, but do remember... in many jurisdictions, if a person claims intent of suicide, it becomes the legal responsibility of observers to take reasonable action prevent it, which can include notifying medical or police authorities. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In what jurisdictions does "it becomes the legal responsibility of observers to take reasonable action prevent it". I've never heard of that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A few specific areas have laws directly regarding this, but most often it appears to be classified within statutes that require bystanders to provide aid in emergencies (see Duty to rescue.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, but let's just be clear here. As far as anyone is concerned on Wikipedia, there is no legal reason compelling anyone to respond. We need to be careful in implying editors have to do something for legal reasons. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. Local jurisdictions frequently hold people responsible for actions that occur over the internet. It is highly unlikely in a case like this, but clearly possible, that someone could have been legally faulted, either civilly or criminally, for failing to act had it been a serious issue with the obvious consequences instead of a poorly humored hoax. Honestly it is up to a person to know the law as it applies to them specifically, but it would be wrong and misleading to simply discount the possibility.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty stupid. If someone wants to kill themselves, that's there endgame. Unless it's a murder/suicide threat, or a Jap-style chemical suicide that affects the whole neighborhood it should honestly be none of our business. What a crappy jurisdiction would that be to make you interfere with someone's personal choice and personal right to kill themselves. Now if you want to assist people in killing themselves, that's different. Beam 17:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh please - it would never happen - if we are going to get in that level of parnoid thought we might as well close the project down. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the possibility of legal liability is virtually nil. However, we have a clear ethical responsibility to report credible threats. And we also have a responsibility to the project and to the community to quash unfunny "jokes". (I'm not saying that nobody can ever have humor in regards to suicide and depression; I mean, if we stopped being able to see the humor in things, even in the most horrible things, then the crushing emptiness and brutality of human life would surely overwhelm us all... But announcing your own death by suicide at a future data is not funny.) ---Jaysweet (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

the crushing emptiness and brutality of human life? Take it easy, Jay! It's not that bad, is it? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To quote the acclaimed tiger/philosopher Hobbes, "[T]he life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Or, as a high school English teacher of mine once said, "It is likely that, quantitatively, most of you will have much more pain than joy in your lives. Hopefully the reverse will be true qualitatively." (I have to paraphrase slightly, as I can't recall exactly what she said) <shrug> It's the nature of a machine that has been designed by randomly tweaking a number of copies, exposing them to extremely harsh conditions, and then seeing which designs are more likely to die before they can reproduce. Death and suffering is an inherent part of how we became the beautiful machines that we are, and we are still very much rooted in an existence of death and suffering. Through transcendent and uniquely human means of expression like art, humor, love, and quality beer, we can for brief moments rise above find personal meaning -- but we shouldn't be surprised when most of our lives is spent slogging it out as one nondescript member in a sea of angry monkeys. (I think I'm being optimistic, here, actually...) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Such an uplifting talk! Jay sweet indeed. ;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

TO ALL can we close this. I don't think we need to go down this road any further. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Done. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Edit war on Santhosh George Kulangara and Saint Thomas Christians

Just wanted to bring the attention to edit wars seen on Santhosh George Kulangara . See see this -- Tinu Cherian - 11:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Two edits since June 20? Certainly not any edit war now. What were you looking for us to do? -- Donald Albury 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The last edit was today. Not a daily edit war. Looks like two established editors have moved to IP address reverting each others' edits. Another case in Saint Thomas Christians . See this -- Tinu Cherian - 11:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in either article that merits admin intervention. For content disputes, you should first try to discuss the issues on the article talk pages. If that doesn't work, try soliciting input from other editors by posting to the projects listed on the talk page. In the case of Santhosh George Kulangara, if you feel that the policy on biographies of living persons is being violated, you can list the article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Issues that cannot be resolved on the talk pages should be taken to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Donald Albury 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract is stalking again

Once again, Abtract (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is stalking and harassing Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) and myself. See the RfC/U for the full history (which expired with no action).

For the highlights, Abtract began his stalking campaign in mid-late May. In an AN/I on June 2nd he was warned to leave us alone, he ignored it. On June 2nd, another AN/I resulted in a 48 hour block. He came back and continued his stalking and harassment, stalking which he full admits to doing[50]. June 5th, another AN/I, he was blocked for a week. After that block, he took a two week wikibreak. He returned on the 12th[51], self closed his RFC/U on the 13th (though it had already been archived anyway)[52], and began his stalking again, reverting various random edits we've done to "disagree" with u.[53][54][55][56] as well as continuing his insults of other editors[57]. He's also continued to retain an attack piece against Sesshomaru in his userspace since May.[58]

He obviously is learning nothing from the blocks and intends to continue this inappropriate and disturbing behavior anytime he returns, thumbing his nose at the administrators who have blocked him, and the numerous editors who have attempted to talk to him (to which he always replies as if he is listening, then does what he wants anyway). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked

Please review. I would comment that I am imposing the block until such time as Abtract promises to moderate his interactions with (the edits of) certain accounts, and anyone who thinks sufficient clue has been applied may lift the block without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...would it also be possible, at this point, to delete the attack page? It was made May 4th giving the appearance it was prep for an RfC/U, but Abtract never touched it again and has just left it there for more than two months. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a discussion on a similar subject, I would be against unilaterally removing the content; Abtract needs warning from another (uninvolved) editor that it should be removed, giving the various WP policies. If they do not remove it after an appropriate period it can then be deleted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The now-archived request for comment may be of interest - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. There are enough unaddressed points on both sides of the dispute to cause concern. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a long block, but I'm certainly not comfortable with an indefinite block. Blocks escalate in duration, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc. We don't keep them blocked and make it a mandatory requirement for them to apologize or to accept responsibility or to make assurances. That's only needed for an unblock request. We still give them the opportunity to fix their conduct by themselves, without the wurble. I therefore think the appropriate definite period needs to be given prior to any formal unblock request being made by him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the block log? My experience of this editor is that they will say all the right things, agree to all the conditions, patiently wait out the blocks, and then continue doing whatever they please. However, if you think the block is inappropriate then by all means vary it - it is up for review after all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think he's on his way to a community ban if he keeps it up, though given he's had 4 short blocks, doing an indefinite block already isn't going to necessarily help. I think giving him 1 long block of a month as a last chance might be better prior to going to indefinite stage. But as my suggestion is a month, when it's reset isn't urgent I suppose. I want to see some more views on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this would have been better if it had been an uninvolved admin doing the blocking. As Ncmvocalist has pointed out, normal procedure is a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community runs out of patience. If it wasn't this way, half the IP editors would be indef banned by now. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the previous 5 blocks including the last one for a week was a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community ran out of patience. Also, we try not to block IP editors indef at all. Chillum 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwilling to learn from past experience; unable to take advice; deliberately wasting the time and disrupting the work of good editors; more than adequately warned... no argument with indefblock here. EyeSerene^talk 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that "indefinite" does not mean "permanent". Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably nobody here is reading the RFC, which was as critical of Collectionion and Sessh as it was of Abtract, and clearly shows that it was Abtract who had done most to resolve these issues amicably. Likewise the diffs Collectionion presents above, which seem to be good edits by Abtract. Note in passing that redirecting a page on the day of its creation with an {{underconstruction}} tag placed on it by its creator is rather gauche,and the revision history of Dragon Ball Z shows that Sessh and Collectionion seem to be "stalking" and "harassing" each other... When can an editor not review contribs and make edits they deem good ones? When can Sessh do that? When can Collectionion do that? When can Abtract do that?

Agree that Abtract could simply make this go away by not interacting with these users, but he has repeatedly offered to do so if they do the same. Please read the RFC and see Collectonion's and Sessh's rejections of the mediations offered there by various users. The pig-headedness is decidedly not all on one side here. I am disappointed that an editor can simply forum-shop until they get the result they want. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to immediately remove the block on Abtract, for the reasons noted by 86.44.20.40. Abtract expressed agreement to several solutions proposed that would also apply similar strictures to Sesshomaru and Collectonian (who have also stalked and edit warred along with Abtract), but with no buy in. The histories of the articles linked in the complaint show that this is not a case of one editor harassing innocent victims. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make such an accusation, then please provide clear, valid evidence for the claim that I have stalked Abtract or anyone else. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit histories of the pages whose diffs you linked here and in the RFC will show the edit warring. I apologize for saying that you stalked Abtract. I have only seen Sesshomaru trailing his edits, and formed my statement too hastily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is relative when he deliberately stalked my edits and reverted just to disagree with me (and the stalking is a fact, admitted to by Abstract himself). It directly violates the warnings given him in his last block. There is a difference and, note he also violated his own "I'll only revert them once" resulting in what should have been a very standard, commonplace unnotable album redirect into an AfD. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is rationalizable, but not relative. I can rationalize it when I do it, you can rationalize it when you do it, Abtract when he does it, and Sesshomaru when he does it. Because all four of us have done it. That's why I made the proposals I made in the RFC, and I think it's unfortunate that you and Sesshomaru wouldn't agree to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for me, you and Col to adhere to that. It should only apply for Abtract, who seemingly enjoys edit warring. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons for all of us to adhere to that. Seeking to address the multi-sided problem with a single-sided solution was not as good as addressing it with a multi-sided solution. From your perspective, Abtract seems to enjoy edit warring, since he does it when clearly you are in the right. From his perspective, I hazard that you seem to enjoy edit warring, since you do it when clearly he is in the right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

J I suggest you compare mine and Abtract's talk page histories and notice who has the most warnings. That's all I'm saying. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes J, if you are going to make such allegations I would like to see evidence. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible IP vios?

I've looking at a couple of articles and I'm a bit hazy on the legalities of them - List of Nursing Homes and Group Medical Practice. Isn't the verbatim copying of lists that are the IP of another organisation considered to be copyright violations? --Allemandtando (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No idea about the legalities, but what is the point of these lists anyway? Doesn't seem too encylopedic. I note that list of nursing homes has already been deleted. The group medical practice was prodded, and the prod removed, with discussion, but I can't see any encyclopedic merit for such a list. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The content of a list is not copyrighted in the U.S. per Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Only the presentation can be copyrighted. --Selket ^Talk 17:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Right and reading that article - if you just straight left the presentation and the criteria used by the original author for selection and order, you've breached copyright - which is what this article seems to do. _{I am not a lawyer, I just play one on TV} --Allemandtando (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have not examined the source, I cannot say whether or not it is copyvio. If the actual list is merely a sort of table of contents to the analysis that is usually the bulk of such reports, then the list itself is probably not copyvio--it can be seen as informative about the copyrighted report. I note that these articles were originally suggested for deletion as an advertisement for the company. But I do not see why this discussion is taking place here--the copyright question should be asked at the appropriate place, and the undeleted article can be discussed at AfD. Not every problem in Wikipedia needs to be discussed at AN/I. DGG (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll point out here that while the first citation in the article is merely worthless - taking us to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ , the home page of an online dictionary - the second takes us to http://www.skainfo.com/ , a site requiring registration and in violation of WP:EL as far as I know. --CliffC (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes it unsuitable as an EL, but not as a reference. DGG (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Request review of my actions

Please see this AFD debate for a summary of the situation. Basically an article on a (IMHO) notable (at least marginally) situation in the UK has exploded onto the project. The article in question is currently at AFD, and has had inappropriate edits from both sides of the situation, highly POV edits from one of the real life participants, and repeated re-addition of speedy deletion templates by the other. I was already debating with myself whether to protect the page until the end of the AFD in order to stop the POV edits, and the repeated CSD template addition today tipped the scales. So I have fully protected the page for 5 days to allow the AFD debate to play out one way or another. This is not a normal use of protection, so I would like to toss my actions up for review. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems appropriate, given the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of precedent for doing what you did, TA. I've even seen the AFD itself protected (semi) for IP abuse/sock-/meat-puppeting. No problems here. Keeper ǀ 76 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no protected template on the page yet. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you have done the right thing here. By fully protecting the article you pretty much ensure that it cannot be improved during the deletion debate. If people are making POV edits then blocking would have been my first resort rather than protection. Theresa Knott | The otter sank

• (ec) The disadvantage of preventing improvement to the page seems to be outweighed by the disruption prevented by protection. As an alternative I might have considered warning and if necessary blocking the editors causing the disruption instead, but this would prevent them contribution to the AfD discussion. EyeSerene^talk 16:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • They will probably have to both be blocked anyway as they are feuding on the talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sigh, looks like semi-protection isn't an option as some of the problem is coming from auto-confirmed editors. GRBerry 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, and the anon seems to be editing from a stable IP, so a short block is feasible. Only one of them has been warned though. EyeSerene^talk 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Oink (water buffalo) needs undeletion. --NE2 16:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I see at least one person disagrees with my protection. If anyone feels I should be reversed, please go ahead. I will not reinstate it nor will I be particularly upset. I brought this here for review, and part of doing so means I have to be prepared for opinions to be against me. As for blocking, I was hesitant to do so, from an instinct that such might inflame the situation rather than calm it. I felt that freezing the focus of the dispute in time long enough for it's existance to be peoperly debated would be a less inflamitory action.

On a related subject, on my talk page the article's creator is severely questioning my decline of G7 speedy of the article. He says he wants to report me for this, but, since I have this related issue already here, let me report myself. Is my judgement in declining the G7 speedy deletion of this page correct, as detailed on the bottom of my talk page? - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a previous, similar, conversation with the author on my talk page. Fribbler (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not inclined to unprotect just yet. Let's wait and see if things calm down on the talk pages etc first. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. I'm not criticising your solution, btw, TexasAndroid... just noting that other avenues exist ;) There's perhaps no best answer though - it could be that, with passions running so high, blocks would just have led to socking. Re the G7 speedy decline, I agree; once another editor has added meaningful content, author requests no longer apply. EyeSerene^talk 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Particularly in Diggly's case, we have, not a project editor but a human being impacted by the article. Block him, and his logical next step might have very well been to start socking. So my thought process was, why drive someone to socking when I could (I hoped) freeze the flashpoint out of the equasion long enough for the AFD to complete? I'm pretty sure that, baring any more twists in this saga, the AFD will result in delete and WP's part in the saga will be over. So that's the logic that I was using. I fully realize that there were other courses of action, but between not wanting to drive Diggly to socking, and feeling somewhat simpathetic to Webbo2005's situation, I did not feel that blocking either was the best course of action at the time. Others may, of course, disagree. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of having WP:CSD is to provide clear safeguards that limit when and why an article can be speedily deleted. An article should only be speedied if we can expect no reasonable objection to its deletion. If editors are arguing at AfD about whether CSD applies, and if that AfD contains both Keep and Delete contributions, I think it's safe to say that the article is not suitable for speedy deletion.Disclaimer: I've been wrong before. Please tell me if you disagree. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with your contributions, but if you say you have been wrong before then that is good enough for me... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unindent. I strongly suggest unprotecting. Part of the point of an AFD process is to allow constructive improvement to an article by editors in order to avoid deletion or removing inappropiate content and seeing if what's left warrants an article. Protecting an article during AFD disrupts part of the reason for the AFD process. It can also lead to accusations of bias against the protecting admin (usually a WP:The Wrong Version argument but still can look bad for the admin/project). Unprotect and if any editors abuse editing priviliges in relation to the article/talk/AFD then sanction THEM. There seems to be a ongoing problem on Wikipedia where bona fide editors get locked out of editing due to the disruptive actions on others. The correct response to a rise in bandit activity is to slaughter the bandits, not restrict law-abiding citizens! Exxolon (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection requested. Exxolon (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that it becomes far too easy for IP users to reset their modem (or disconnect) and resume again with a new IP address. When the signal-to-noise ratio becomes too low (few or no useful edits, lots of vandalism), protection becomes appropriate. Horologium (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what Semi-Protection is for. Full protection is not appropiate. Exxolon (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with that, and agree with dropping the blockhammer on registered editors who edit-war. Horologium (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Longterm nonconstructive editor...

Resolved

 – Cantikadam warned to start contributing and/or stop disrupting. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Cantikadam has around 150 edits on WP. Only two of them are to anything other than a userpage or talk page. He started a problem quite literally years ago (2006) on Masonic conspiracy theories that never resulted in an edit, but did result in this diff on my talk page. He went away for 18 months, and then came back in June 2008, with this being the result of some of his activity, again with no actual edit made to the article. He went away again, and today he posted this on my talk page, and this added as a reply to a thread from 2006 on his talk, and this on RiffiKojian's talk. All cantikadam has done is start arguments that go nowhere, and he has contributed nothing of substance to WP in over two years, as contribs clearly indicate. His behavior is immature and disruptive, and I would request that he be blocked as a nuisance editor. MSJapan (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question about this thread. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec-gdmnit) Cross posting this from the pump, eh? Firstly make sure to always notify the person you are complaining about on his talk page. Secondly there is no rule against only making posts on talk pages and what not. Thirdly, blocks are not punitive. I suggest that an uninvolved 'pedian drops a note on his talk page explaining the purpose of the 'pedia and suggesting him things to contribute.

On a personal note, most of my contribs are not in the mainspace but are discussing policy and dispute resolution on talk pages. Want to block me too? Beam 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually we have blocked people for doing nothing besides writing into user space, etc. WP:NOTFORUM. But is Cantikadam adding anything to the article discussions? If so, I'd lean towards not blocking. MSJapan, the diffs you gave seem to be all comments that could have been ignored just as easily. They seem a bit odd but not paritcularly uncivil. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, there exists a difference between your non-mainspace edits and Cantikadam's edits, other than Cantikadam's edits being quite bizzarre. Your edits attempt to build consensus and clear up muddy waters whereas Cantikadam's edits seem to lack any kind of a clear purpose. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Replies to years-old threads and making unconstructive comments to editors simply don't strike me as proper use of WP. As far as Cantikadam's edits go, he has not added anything of substance, and has produced nothing in th way of sources to support any of his comments at any point during a discussion; he's simply making noise on topics he doesn't agree with for whatever reason. MSJapan (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly we have much more important things than this to worry about? Bstone (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cantikadam seems to have a clear and open antipathy to Masonic stuff, and those who are (really or in his mind) a part of that culture. He's antagonizing and accusing editors, and doing so in a manner which comes off as bizarre because his grasp of English is poor at best. Unless he's willing to start working constructively 'toot sweet', a block ought to be imposed per NOTFORUM. ThuranX (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I left him a warning of sorts. Hopefully he will get the message and pursue something more constructive here. Otherwise, there's a good chance that he'll need to pursue something more constructive at some other site. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, really.

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely.

Having placed a warning on this user's page, I was treated to the following (perfectly civil, yet compellingly trollish) reply on my own userpage: [59] I think failure to show this individual the door would send the wrong message, don't you think?Gladys J Cortez 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• The user clearly says that they will clearly continue disruptive editing. I think a block may be in order here. D.M.N. (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Spobmur (talk · contribs) has really done nothing but vandalism, mainspace testing and unneccessay moves of pages or making suggestions that these moves be made. These non-constructive edits have been done at a very low rate so that warnings left on his talk page never really went past level 1 or 2. He's contributing nothing of value rather he's having some fun at Wikipedia's expense which is fairly harmeless but annoying nevertheless. I feel that an indef block is appropriate in this case since this account is created for the sole purpose of disruption. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Block hammer deployed. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Evasion of Block by Yasis

Yasis (talk · contribs) (already suspected of sockpuppetry), was blocked for 24 hours yesterday for edit warring[60], along with one of his IP socks [61]. 8 hours later 218.186.64.146 (talk · contribs) showed up from the same range of IPs as the other socks, making the same edits, including [62], which had been the basis for the block in the first place. This editor has been around since 2004, so they know exactly what they are doing. NJGW (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours for block evasion. Kevin (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked Yasis for block evasion per WP:DUCK. Tiptoety ^talk 23:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yasis is now using IP 218.186.64.147 (talk · contribs) to continue the exact same edits, and has even acknowledged the block on his talk page.[63]

Blocked this one. I'm thinking of rangeblocking 218.186.64.0/22 for the duration of the block. Any thoughts? Kevin (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Yasis has used 218.186.12, .64, .65, .66, .67, and .68 in the past month. These resolve to an ISP in Singapore which holds 218.186.0-255 NJGW (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidaway civility sanction: actionrequired

Tony Sidaway (RegenerateThis (talk · contribs)) is under a civility sanction, as see here. I believe this constitutes a gross personal attack on Alecmconroy and he shoudl be blco0ked. I asked him to refactor, pointingout the sanction but his response was "If you really believe it's a blockable offence to say that we should ban the Wikipedia Review trolls, block me. --Jenny 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)" [64]. Since I am hardly uninvolved gven that that is a case I am a party to, can someone else please take a look. Viridae^Talk 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He's merely expressing his opinion, and in my opinion it's Tony who is frequently being personally attacked (not by you V, just in general.) I'm a contributor to WR and have never had much to do with Tony so I've got no reason to back him up, except that I think people are being nasty to him, and some of the comments have been a form of discrimination. Sticky Parkin 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Block for review

I've blocked Tony Sidaway for 23 hours for the comment "If anybody admits to involvement with the troll site, treat him like the piece of shit that he is. No excuses. --Jenny 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)" a clear violation of his editing restrictions. - brenneman 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It lasted all of 2 minuutes. Phil sandifer needs to respond here as to why he thinks you aren't an appropriate person. Viridae^Talk 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron has been heavily involved with the arb case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's already been lifted. Anyway, he has no editing restrictions against him so there was no need for this block, espeically without warning. It's not incivil as he's not aiming the comment at any particular person - I think it's more of his thoughts on peoople who participate in attack sites rather than a personal attack. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was under a civility sanction, per Viridae's link? Anyway, it was probably technically an acceptable block, but can't we just ignore Tony rather than goading him? He holds an unreasonable set of views, but I don't think it's helpful to press him on those views until he explodes - better to ignore them and have faith that he's not convincing anybody, I think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an acceptable block. And yes that is with the sanction considered. It's blocks like this over "uncivil" comments like that, that lead to the driving away of editors from this site. Beam 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who was called a "piece of shit" by his comments, I feel that they were uncivil. I'm quite happy to turn the other cheek, given the source, but I think it's pretty hard to argue that that's a civil descriptor. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan please review the link Viridae provided at the top. He is under a restriction that he voluntarily (sort of) aggreed to in order not to have a formal one from the recent irc arbcom case. I would also like to appolgize if any of my comments to tony pushed him towards making the ill advised statements. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not an acceptable civility sanction for requesting blocks - it's a self imposed sanction, it has no weight within WP:BLOCK. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Ryan that self imposed sanction is the only reason he didn't get one imposed by arbcom. Viridae^Talk 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He didn't make any uncivil comments! Beam

ummm, he said that everyone involved with the troll site wikipedia review should be blocked like the piece of shit they are. sounds a lot like uncivil comments about editors in good standing to me. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the comment from "jenny" he is referring to the trolls from that troll site. I happen to agree that trolls are pieces of shit. Beam 01:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I have no strong opinions about the block. Tony has been around long enough that he knows very well what he's doing with incivility like that, and I'm perfectly willing to let him be a big boy and face the consequences. I'd just like to see a block of a long-time contributor and former admin go through totally above the board. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been edit conflicted 5 freaking times now and am getting pissed. There was no need to block even with a sanction in place. It's a sign of personal issues with the boy if you think that's uncivil Vir. Unblock him now, do not reblock him for those comments. Beam 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC) My first edit conflict, I was trying to ask Viri if maybe she linked the wrong thing. Then I was going to seriously ask for him to be unblocked by Aaron. Then I tried to tell Viri that Phil wouldn't have to explain anything considering it wasn't uncivil in the slightest. And now I post, without edit conflict I hope, to agree with Sarcastic. Beam 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious from Tony's comments on the case's evidence page and discussion page that he has named at least one editor who he is applying those words to (me). Nevertheless, I don't support the block. I think it is best to ignore him. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to state one more time: There was not ONE uncivil comment by Tony linked to in this section.' Not one uncivil comment whatsoever. Beam 00:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling people a piece of shit does nto come under your classifcation of uncivil????????? Viridae^Talk 00:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read the comment? He said anyone that admits using a troll site is a piece of shit. That's his opinion. That isn't uncivil. Beam 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, and can you add another question mark?????????????????????? Beam 00:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the block, as the unblock reason has mostly been "someone else should do it". Well, as clerk of the case, I am appalled by that type of comment, as it makes the case a battleground. I have also notified FloNight of this thread. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. (Moved comment lest anyone think I'm in any way agreeing with Aaron's nonsense below.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, I'm sorry that you feel calling someone "a piece of shit" is civil debate. Tony was reminded of the pseudo-voluntary civility sanctions against him. He choose to continue to behave inaapropiately. I've not been involved in the quasi-debate on the talk pages for some time, and my history with Tony is just that: History.

I'm unclear on Phil's reasoning that A) I'm too involved to block him, but B) He's just fine to unblock, without discussing it or taking part in the debate here.

This was a clear attack by Sidaway, and an even more transparent mis-use of adminstrator privledges by Snowspinner. Thank you for re-instating Jayvdb.

brenneman 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your history of bitter involvement with Tony is history, but the fact that I've had pleasant interactions with him makes my lifting of your block a "transparent mis-use of administrator privileges"? You're a funny guy, Aaron. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually disgusting when admins abuse "civility" policy to remove people they don't like, read below for more of my feelings on this abuse. Beam 00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to flip any more kittens over this, but stating that people who admit to using a troll site are pieces of shit isn't uncivil, and the commonplace blocking of comments that are not uncivil, but may offend someone who apparently gets offended when it rains out ruins this project. Maybe I'm reading this comment wrong, I admit i'm not perfect (yet) but I know for a fact that "civility" is used way too often by admins to remove people they personally do not like from Wikipedia. I also know that nothing is more devastating than having an admin block you incorrectly, especially when it's obvious that admin doesn't like you. It actually sucks. Beam 00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You stated before that calling someone a piece of shit is not uncivil because it is their opinion. I therefore think you are a f*%king wanker (not really) - just because it is an opinion does not make it either un-uncivil, or not a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIV Viridae^Talk 00:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? Beam 01:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's ban Alison, Majorly, Giggy, Viridae, Sarcasticidealist, LaraLove, et al. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron: you should not have been the one to issue the block. I was shocked to see that you did. Yet, anyone who posts to a website Tony deems trollish in nature will automatically take offense to: first, being called a troll and second, a piece of shit. This is in fact a civility issue Beam. Synergy 01:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really buddy. Beam 01:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you spent more time reading things like WP:CIV you would admit when your wrong. Synergy 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

More poor assumptions based on poor faith on your part. This is the 3rd time you've acted without good faith towards me. I have tried to look past your prior actions of arrogance against me and even reached out to try to let you know that I had moved past your prior faithless mannerisms. Again, I urge you to try to be friendly. I do not have a personal problem with you and do not know why you do towards me. No matter, I will still treat you with respect and good will regardless of you doing the same. Although it would be nice for a change. Beam 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't spot this thread bit and commented above, before I'd heard the 'piece of sh*t' comment. Yes, that's definitely out of line. Sticky Parkin 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm suprised that we've taken "uninvolved" to this level. Tony has been steadily turning up the heat on the Arbitration pages for several days. he's been asked in no uncertain terms over an extended period of time to moderate his style of debate. He was warned by another admin immediatly prior to his offending post. Let us be utterly transparent here: Because Tony and I have argued in the past, literally years ago the meat of it, I'm not allowed to block him? Ever? Is that the consensus? - brenneman 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, yes. Beam 01:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that, no. I would say that, for this specific block, in this specific context, and for that specific statement, you shouldn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Then let us unpack that, and have the discussion that we should have had before Tony was unblocked:

• Your claim above is that I was "heavily involved" in this case. I made one edit in the last 500 to the workshop. That was a fortnight ago. If there is any support for this position beyond Phil, I'm open to hearing it.
• You claim I should not have blocked "for that specific statement." Please explain how this statement is not a violation of Tony's editing sanctions.

brenneman 01:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your metric for involvement. And I think the statement is marginal. Incivility is a tricky "I know it when I see it" business. Yes, the comment was harshly worded. Then again, it was WR - a site that engaged in a game of "let's see if we can get Phil in trouble with the police" for no reason other than to cause me harm. And that isn't even a uniquely bad day for them. Given that, I find the comment troubling, but I'm also more hesitant about the degree to which it is actually damaging than you. As I said before the block was reinstated, I am not opposed to blocking for the comment. It is, to me, in a grey area. My objection is to you being the one to step into that grey area. This is a particularly big deal for blocking - had I seen the comment before I saw your block, I wouldn't have blocked for it. I'm sure many other admins also wouldn't have. But it only takes one admin who would to overrule all of the decisions not to. Given that, the standards for making the block need to be higher. In my opinion, you didn't meet those standards in this specific instance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree that a comment has to be directed at an individual to be considered incivil. It doesn't matter if it's directed at a group, it's still incivil. So yes, I think this comment was indeed incivil. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if WR isn't a troll site, he is saying that the TROLLS from that site (troll site or not) are pieces of shit. Trolls ARE pieces of shit. Beam 01:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. - Mark 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony's wording seemed to imply an issue with anyone admitting to contributing there. Which is alot of editors and admins. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, subsequent discussion on his talk page suggests that he did not intend it that way. It may have been an infelicity in phrasing. But I think that, assuming good faith, one ought probably declare the comment OK if one is granting the premise that it's OK to call trolls pieces of shit. I am not sure that the community would back granting that premise, but given the treatment of some of the community (myself included) by said trolls, I have to say, I have a hard time being that upset about it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Prolly get ECed but what the heck. Here's my theory on who can block and who can unblock...

• Brenny, you're too involved to make a block of Tony. You and he have sparred for years. You're fine to UNblock though.
• Phil, you're too involved to make an unblock of Tony. You and he have been buddies for years. You're fine to BLOCK though.

(see the principle? block your friends, that's not showing favouritism... unblock your enemies, that's not showing favouritism)... As for the comment itself: Beam, you are being completely disingenious when you say it was civil. Clearly Tony was attacking SOMEONE with it. Unless you're going to claim that he does not view anyone at all that posts at WR as a troll. Which beggars belief. The block is sound. Even if it weren't for Tony's sanction, it would be, because he's being disruptive. Jayvdb, thank you for stepping up to the plate and taking the block over. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• And I am also endorsing the block, given that there are numerous editors and administrators that post at WR. Calling the collective "pieces of shit" is uncalled for, and rather uncivil. The sanction is sound and the user was being disruptive. I'm going to close this, given that we are repeating the same comments over and over, and the consensus towards keeping the block (let's not wheel war over that). Nothing more to be said or done. seicer | talk | contribs 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• I dispute the notion that Tony and I have been "buddies," or that this is a meaningful term. I have not had hostile interactions with him. I have at times had pleasant interactions with him. We don't hang out socially, talk outside of issues we both find ourselves dealing with on Wikipedia, or anything like that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with this block. This is a long-term contributor who's made substantive contributions to WP, and who was blocked by someone who'd been in conflict with him for a long time; that someone else took over the block doesn't make it any better. Also, we're not in kindergarten where the kiddies aren't allowed to say bad words. There are far worse things going on, including in this thread, than people saying "shit." SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG DISAGREE WITH BLOCK - As SlimVirgin says, this isn't a children's chat forum. Beam 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved archiving

Moved to bottom by seicer without comment; subsection added by me. El_C 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

More dramaz. seicer | talk | contribs 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)}}

{{discussion top}}

It's problematic that's the thread has been archived by someone endorsing the block, also their closing note seems to (a.) reflect their view or (b.) facilitate it [i.e. (a.) "consensus is towards keeping the block in place," (b.) "nothing more can really be said or done in this thread"]. It would be better to, either let the discussion proceed to some sort of conclusion, or let it to be closed by someone who did not use bold "endorse" for the block (that should have been obvious to Seicer, that archiving threads should not be seen as a device to win debates). El_C 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Think the block should be lifted. Tony made the mistake of interfering with the echo chamber in the ArbCom case, but he was definitely not the only one responsible for that environment. As noted in Tony's blocklog, apparently lots of people told him to "stfu". I assume there are warnings for the editors who kept doing that. I also disagree that there is any kind of consensus support for the block in this thread, if anything it appears that there might be a consensus to lift it. As such the thread archiving was definitely premature and could be viewed as self serving --esp. as it was archived by someone endorsing the block. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • endorse the block. I don't usually get involved with this sort of thing, but I shave gotten somewhat exasperated by the continuing tolerance given to people who conduct Wikipedia discussions as a series of insults. The longer established they are, the more they should know to refrain. We have standards for politeness, and they apply to all. There can be a genuine dispute over the compatibility of editing at a particular website and editing here, but the one thing most certain to prevent a discussion and solution is the repeating and consistent use of gross impoliteness. It's time the civilized people here took a stand. How can we expect Wikipedia to be taken seriously if we discuss things without some consideration for politeness? DGG (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:JimBobUSA

This user has been warned before about deleting a credible/reliable reference (a long article from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel". I think a stern warning from someone other than me may help. Thanks. Grant | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it if you could get me the diffs of the previous warnings, and the diff for removing the ref from the Japanese War Crimes article. Beam 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)