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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Media coverage of Sarah Palin article

Don’t Like Palin’s Wikipedia Story? Change It about United States vice presidential pick Sarah Palin. This is going to drive MASSIVE traffic and we need more of your eyes than ever on this page. Please add it to your watchlist via this link and help us enforce BLP and ban any vandals. Vandalism sitting for even a minute is going to be seen by 300 people. Wikipedia is the 1st result on Google for her name. Anyone who is searching for information about this unknown is going to go to US. This is make or break.
Thanks everyone! --mboverload@ 02:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Way to go Ferrylodge! Kelly ^hi! 02:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job Ferrylodge - you did Wikipedia a service and came off sounding well yourself. --I am not Paranoid (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the link to watch (not unwatch) the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'M SORRY! My bad! =( --mboverload@ 03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note: I have a Google Alert set to wikipedia palin. I am getting updates constantly. People are talking about this page on a large number of sites, specifically about Wikipedia being "whitewashed". --mboverload@ 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I investigated shortly after this happened. My conclusion was, "no harm done", because any hagiographic editing was quickly erase by the intense volume of edits. I am impressed that the NYT reporter wrote a very accurate article. I don't think we need to worry. Sarah Palin is already getting more than 500 edits per day. Any additional traffic from this article is not going to increase the activity by any orders of magnitude.Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have one note... the site is a little slower to respond. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

300 people? Is that how many people read the NYT? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

9 1/2 peoble wash I.T.B. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI (I had to scan through the article's history to find him), the user is User:Young Trigg, not YoungTrigg. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Young Trigg talk page

Could some admins take a look at the talk page of Young Trigg (talk · contribs)? As mentioned above, this user was mentioned by the New York Times in regards to editing at the Sarah Palin article. I looked at that user's talk page, and frankly was horrified. There are bad-faith accusations being thrown around there, that, in my opinion, are edging into harassment and hounding. I looked at the edits the person made to Sarah Palin, and they seem good-faith enough to me. Some admin attention to that page would be greatly appreciated - I'm not sure where to start there. Kelly ^hi! 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, aren't user/user talk pages that are linked to high-profile websites normally semi, or even fully-protected when things like this happen. I remember this happened last June to do with the IP/Chris Benoit case. D.M.N. (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The user would probably be best creating a new account and starting again.--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd support full protection. The user has retired; the page is just a drama-sink now. (On the other hand... maybe it would keep the drama-queens occupied for a while?) --Chris (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we have a WP:sandbox, maybe we need a WP:flamepit and WP:DRAMASTAGE to keep some people harmlessly occupied.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has admitted to sockpuppetry and, far from retiring, vows to create new SPAs to continue doing so. Their COI / sock edits to one of our highest traffic articles (for the moment) has brought international attention - one could say disrepute - to Wikipedia. Looking into sockpuppetry is hardly "harassment", though that claim is often made by the puppeteers. It only makes sense to hear what they have to say before pursuing formal administrative remedies. The user should probably be subject to a checkuser, and if the abuse is serious enough or they refuse to stop, banned or indefinitely blocked. Anyone who has watched the election articles knows we have had significant sockpuppetry problems. This is a serious matter that affects the integrity of the project. If they intend a fresh start to edit, as one account, non-COI articles, that is fine. But creating more new accounts to spin 2008 presidential election articles should not be an option. Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And what evidence is there that the editor has a conflict of interest? Is there any proof that the editor is connected with either Sarah Palin or the McCain's campaign? Because without any proof, charges that the editor has a COI simply because he or she improved the Sarah Palin article prier to the announcement is an assumption of bad faith. As for the charges of sockpuppetry, you should first look at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. There are some legitimate reasons why someone may want to create an alternative account. And given the harassment that the editor as received since, it is clearly one of them. --Farix (Talk) 13:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Young Trigg has since acknowledged working on the McCain campaign, although they have said editing Wikipedia was not in any way a part of their work for the campaign.   user:j    (aka justen)   01:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Support protection/archive. The discussion on the talk page has left the user talk and has become merely a forum about the candidates. .:davumaya:. 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I will note that this user is not blocked, so protecting their talk page would only allow them to edit without any way for someone other than a admin to contact them. (That is if they ever come back to editing). Tiptoety ^talk 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Only a matter of time...

• news coverage just in... Guy (Help!) 13:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The news before it happens...--Tikiwont (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion by socks of proven sock master User:Nyannrunning (second - and 1/2 - posting)

I posted this many hours ago (01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC) first posting), and no action or response was taken on it. It was then removed by bot. I returned it (04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC) second posting) and two hours later (06:35, 1 September 2008), the bot removed it again . One of the socks of this person posted my real name and email address on a talk page, which was removed by oversight. This is a serious issue and really needs action taken on this persistent sock. Thank you.

Multiple blocks have been placed based on sock cases regarding this user, including Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd) which have included both editing diffs and statistical work, resulting in conclusion that IPs in the 76.93.8x range are IP socks. Specific to this report are approximately identical edits to Wonderland Avenue to include and return non-relevant material related to an ancient arrest of MacKenzie Phillips, here by sock master User:Nyannrunning, here by proven sock puppet User:Evanbayh, here by one IP proven used by sock master, here and here by sock puppet User:Seth4u2nvcs. Related IP in range 76.93.8x, specifically 76.93.87.176, has returned tonight to again add same material here and again here, this time with a comment accusing me of sock puppetry. Requesting longer block on 76.93.8x based on evading ban (as well as recent more serious issues addressed by oversight). Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such range as 76.93.8x. There is a range 76.93.80.x-76.93.87.x, or the next bigger one - 76.93.80.x-76.93.95.x; it's unclear from your post which you're requesting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be taken to Checkuser ( requests for checkuser ) to verify that they're connected and in the range, and then block the appropriate range(s). The available info right now isn't evident enough to me to justify a rangeblock on a case I don't already know and understand, though another admin may find it credible on independent review... A checkuser would disambiguate the situation. Just file a RFCU. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the IPs this person uses are dynamic. I have a compilation of evidence here, although it's sorted for me, and what I've already done towards it and wouldn't be meaningful as it exists. The sock has used IPs in an wider range of 76.93.74.x through 76.93.88.x. I'll post this for the bureaucrat who had dealt with the oversight problem. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The smallest range containing both any 76.93.7x.x and any 76.93.8x.x extends all the way from 76.93.64.x to 76.93.95.x; are you sure this is necessary? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This user logs in at locations that are dynamic and the sock problems are extensive, persistent and are malicious. Aagain, note that he or she cyber-stalked me from across the country and posted my name and email address on Wikipedia, registered usernames that reference where I live, and invited others to harass me - all based on what were originally content issues. It required oversight intervention to protect my privacy. So long as the user is able to log in, this continues. In Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd), Rlevse, who is now a bureaucrat, said "I'm convinced Seth4u2nvcs, 69., and 76. IPs are socks. I've blocked Seth indef and the IPs one month. Note, that Nyan/Seth/etc seem to be on a dynamic IP or move around southern California a lot, as all 4 listed IPs trace to that area." I'm a WP editor in good standing, I would hope that Wikipedia recognizes that my privacy and person should be protected. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the comment, I understand that this user seems to travel throughout south California - and blocking all of South California over a single vandal (even if anon only blocks) is too drastic a step over a single vandal. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So there is no block whatsoever, despite the fact that the sock most recently edited from 76.93.87.176 and I've given evidence that confirms this without a doubt? This is a confirmed persistent and malicious sock master at work who cyber-stalked me and posted my name and email address and registered usernames that reference me and, and I discovered last week, posted on IMDB talk pages for the same actors/actresses, bragging about it? I've kept a record of the IPs involved because she has no intention of stopping and hasn't considered editing pages where she's not been before. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Giano blocked for 24 hrs for incivility and personal attacks

In the event that this turns out to be highly controversial, I am going to be asleep for about 8 hrs, and if an administrator consensus develops here in that time period that that this was a mistake please feel free to boldly revert and just notify me on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(note that this was both under general principles and under the civility parole on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Civility: Giano and has been logged there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC) )

Support block. We traditionally give Giano a lot of rope, but his noisy vendetta against Stifle was becoming disruptive. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose block. I dislike any block such as this one which is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate criticism. The use of the word "troll" is excessive but anyone (Giano included) is free to call an "absurd block" when they see one. Under general principles this lock is a manifest overreaction. It may be justified under that civility parole, but I think it would have been wise to seek a consensus before enforcing such a controversial remedy. I see little good that can come of this block and find it rather ironic given that Giano was making a point about how administrators aren't seeing the wood for the trees - i.e. focus on uncivil comments without seeing and tackling the problematic behaviour that resulted it an editor being so angry/upset that they felt the need to express themselves in that manner. WJBscribe (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more the block troubles me. Are we also going to block everyone who has ever called Giano a troll? WJBscribe (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

way over the top - there is a difference between chronic incivility and heated criticism. Viridae^Talk 12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose block - Sometimes people just need to suck it up. Blocks are not punitive. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose this ridiculous block and chuckle at the above comment. The extra incentive for Stifle to suck it up is that his actions were indeed idiotic and it's almost hard to discuss that particular incident without noting the fact. If Stifle had taken 30 seconds to ponder the situation, he would easily have figured out the absurdity of his actions. He did not and so we get two AN and ANI threads, two bad blocks, one editor gone. And I can see how one might use strong words to criticize both Stifle and people who defended him against all common sense. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you take into account that G was railing at the incompetence of an administrator which was further compounded by administrative action only been taken (tho later revoked) against the user on the receiving end of said incompetence, this block begins to look very shaky indeed.--Bsnowball (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I posted on Giano's page, this is a woefully bad block and should be lifted straightaway. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This block seems very unnecessary to me and an overreaction to Giano's comment. If we can somehow get out of the minor incivility->block->irritation->greater incivility->block spiral, we might get somewhere. This block should be reversed, and I urge Georgewilliamherbert to unblock promptly. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose and then some: Stifle was trolling. After all, "trolling" comes from the early message board confusion of "trawling" and "troll": "trolling" is "attempting to get a reaction." What Stifle was doing was pushing someone to try to get him to strike back, and, worse than that, doing so to try to get him blocked. The cringing child who taps another's head so that he will respond and get in trouble with Teacher is a model of rectitude in comparison. We do not block people for having opinions and using the proper terms. There is no magic in a word. What's worse is that this block is an essential repetition of Stifle's own tactic. It is loathsome. That is my opinion, as an administrator, as a long time Wikipedian, as a contributor, and as someone who has been here long enough to see this childishness flourish. Geogre (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked per the torrent of comments condemning the block for various reasons. (GWH has stated he has gone to bed) Viridae^Talk 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is moot now, but does no one else have at least a bit of a problem with Gwh blocking and then going to bed "for 8 hours"? This doesn't seem like the best practice for an administrator who is contemplating pressing the block button. In his defense, he did say that simple notification of an unblock at his page would be fine, but wouldn't it have been better to simply not block in the first place, than to block and go to bed, forcing a rather pointless discussion? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, I don't see a problem there at all. GWH blocked when he knew that he wouldn't be around to review, so he explicitly went out of his way to avoid drama by inviting an overturn if somebody disagreed without reference back to him. Seems exemplary way to deal with the situation to me Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  Exemplary? I would probably disagree with that characterization, as an "exemplary" move would have been to not place a block that would certainly be controversial in the first place, but especially not right before heading off to bed. But as I said, it's probably neither here nor there, but rather a fairly decent reminder that using tools in a controversial manner right before going to bed might not be the best idea. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is exactly how I think Admins ought to behave. If they are "on the scene when a decision is required, they should take that decision, rather than say "nah, I'm knocking off in half an hour", and leave it to somebody else to happen on it later. The whole issue of the fact that we ask for consultation with the blocking admin before reversing is nicely dealt with by pre-emptively assenting to being overturned without consultation. Mayalld (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Viridae has already unblocked, which has saved me the trouble of reducing Giano's block to ~1 minute. Use of trolling may be a little over the top, but this was not substantially a personal attack, but a valid criticism of bad behaviour. Everyone disperse and go do something productive. I hear Peter Jones (missionary) desperately needs a Good Article Review, for instance. ;) WilyD 13:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• I hadn't seen the "going to bed" part, otherwise I would have done this myself. I fully agree with the unblock. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just one moment before we all go home: What about Georgewilliamherbert what happens to him - some severe condemnation? sanction? - anything at all? or does he get a cash prize for getting his name on my block log? Some may feel his actions were at best unwise others may have stronger language. I feel it is just one more example of perceived incivility being used as a weapon - to prevent criticism of admins. A phenomenum completely encouraged by the Arbcom. Giano (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IF you have some reason to believe he did this out of maliciousness, rather than a fairly straightforward misreading in the situation, maybe the stocks can be dusted off. Otherwise, no, there's nothing to do beyond say "Maybe read things more carefully before making blocks that will dredge up drama." WilyD 13:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that unreasonable a question, unfortunately, as this is not the first very questionable block that Georgewilliamherbert has made. On his own talk page is some of the commentary from his block of User:Mackan79, whom he accused of being a sock of User:Wordbomb, and then demanded that Mackan79 self-identify to the Foundation before being unblocked.[1] Perhaps an independent review of GWH's block log would be appropriate. Risker (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I know this has already been resolved, but I just saw it and my jaw hit the floor. Please, anyone who hasn't already, got read the link that geogrewilliamherbert cites as blockable incivility. The charge is ridiculous. I think geogrewilliamherbert should stay away from Ginao. --Duk 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Actually, this matter is far from resolved. The question that needs to be answered is: Are admins who bumble and fumble around the encyclopedia misusing their tools to be tolerated? - What is most important protecting the ordinary editors from administerial incompetence and intimidation or sweeping bad actions under the carpet purely to maintain the dignity and reputation of the Administerial office. You can only chose one answer, and at the moment it seems that anything an Admin does is excusable - even one as woefully out of touch as Georgewilliamherbert appears to be, of course there is the possibility that he is not at all out of touch, but of course that would make him a troll too, wouldn't it? Giano (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

An admin who is about to go to bed should not block and leave a note, but should refer the matter to someone not so sleepy or a noticeboard full of people to decide whether to block or not block. There are thousands of admins; "Block & Run" should never happen. Jd2718 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, my god, this is a horrible block. I've seen a lot of bad Giano blocks, but this takes a very big biscuit. Really this should lead to a month off the admin tools, or something like that. So much for Wikipedia:Expert retention and maintaining encyclopedicity. This is not a young ladies' finishing school, guys. "You are trolling" is harsh, yes, but acceptable commentary in a particularly contentious debate when several others said the same thing in a politer way. Moreschi (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. This block by George is almost as ridiculous as his blocks of Krimpet and of Mackan79, but not quite. As for the actual appropriateness of the T-word I can only recommend the mailing list thread "[WikiEN-l] Troll, troll, troll" from June 2007. — CharlotteWebb 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, great response, so what are his fellow admins and the Arbs going to do about it - anything at all? Or shall we just let it all slide untill the next bad lazy block by some Admin is reported here, and yet another content editor stalks off in disgust - does anyone care out there? I'm not sure anyone does. Giano (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Giano, you're just going to blow this out of proportion into a massive dramafest. Or is that your intention? If his activity concerns you so, be proactive and start an RfC instead of harping on us to do something. You're part of the community too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, that ignorant response is just what poor old Peter Damian got (that's what started this) and look what happened there - he buggered off, and I can't say I blame him. It is not up to me, and ordinary editor to start proceedings to protect myself, that is what Admins are supposedly for. However, one could be forgiven for not realising that these days. Criticise an admin here is always wrong or a "drama fest." Get real Admins - wise up and do what you are supposed to, if not resign. Giano (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm almost certain that arbcom would reject this case but there's not much more to be lost by trying. — CharlotteWebb 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am completely certain they will reject it - me being harrassed by ridiculous imcompetents was exactly what they planned. Giano (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays! I also get criticised for uncivil behavior. May I use you as a model for personal improvement? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

At best, maybe GWH should voluntarily lay off of these civility blocks for a while. Thats three recent bad ones, plus the one on this guy that was overturned, for four pretty bad ones lately. rootology (C)(T) 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

@Giano: would you point out where in WP:ADMIN it says we are supposed to be "protecting" you by filing RfC's on your behalf? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Would an admin mind updating this to show the consensus here of a bad block that was undone? rootology (C)(T) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WJB has done it, though I'm not sure there is a continued need for that page to be protected. — CharlotteWebb 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, I'll unprotect the page too - I hadn't realised it was protected. WJBscribe (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I invite an RFC or Arbcom case, if anyone cares to file one. However, I have reviewed the block, the edits by Giano that led up to it, and I remain of the opinion that Giano has once again strayed beyond the boundaries of reasonable civil communications in this thread.

WP:CIVIL exists and exists for a reason. That reason is that the whole community is lessened and corroded by people being rude to each other - It quietly drives people who wish to avoid conflict and abusive behavior away. We know that, we've seen that, and that's exactly and precisely why we have community norms not to do that and a policy that says prescriptively not to do that.

When he made the last post last night that prompted the block, I went over his contributions in the whole thread, several times, and concluded that he was both making a point and had a reasonable opinion, and was expressing that in a manner which was both beyond our civility policy and norms, and significantly beyond what others in the thread were saying in terms of hostility and incivility.

Giano is without a doubt, multiply and currently Arbcom and administrator sanctioned for being the most uncivil user we have within the core community. He also makes lots of positive contributions and helps out a lot around the project. Anyone without his long positive history would have been indef'ed many times over by now - we do this every day to newcomers who clearly are just out to bother people.

Several people who commented above assumed that I disagreed with Giano in the thread in question. I was not involved in the thread, and in the course of reading it to decide if something needed to be done I came to the conclusion that Giano is probably correct in principle, that there had been administrator abuse. I did not block him to stifle his opinion or participation - I agree that there's a valid question there. I blocked him because he, yet again, was more rude than anyone else and more rude than we normally allow, and he specifically is under arbcom sanction to not be excessively rude.

WP:CIVIL means what it says, and the sanctions and findings in the Arbcom IRC case and Geogre/Wm Connelly case and previous cases before that mean what they say, too. They were put there for good reasons. I am not going to sit idly by when he walks right past those warnings and policies. And neither should you.

Giano, you need to learn to stop abusing people by posting in an uncivil manner. As I said on your talk page, it's counterproductive and corrosive to the community. I agree with you on that thread, and yet you were just making it worse.

Many of the rest of you are enabling and encouraging his negative behavior. This is horrible for the project. Stop it and look at what you're doing. If you keep knee-jerk defending Giano when he strays, it will keep going on and on and on as it has done for three years already at least. He will survive short preventive blocks when he wanders across the line. His contributions and history deserve extraordinary and cautious response - but they absolutely do not justify encouragement and enabling of the abusive behavior.

I expect more out of Giano - I and the community have the right to expect that he learn over time and moderate his behavior over time. I also expect more out of the community - take corrosive incivility seriously. In general, but in particular with long term problem cases. Push back, politely when it's mild abuse, firmly but politely when it's worse. But push back. Take this seriously. Civility is important. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of ludicrous incivility, trolls are now making death threats against me on Wikia wikis over this. [2]. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel a block is so controversial that you need to announce it at WP:ANI, 'don't do it. Sysop tools are not to be used in controversial ways. Unless there are other incidents like this, I see no need for an RFC. The feedback on this thread makes the point clear. Instead of blocking for incivility, I recommend asking the user to strike, or removing any egregiously offensive content. We should try to help users who may be over zealous, not antagonize them with spiraling blocks. ArbCom evaluate whether their Civility Restrictions have succeeded or failed, and perhaps consider whether a different approach might work better. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true, Jehoch; it's always good to know who's being blocked and for what, and get some reinforcement on any block to avoid the possibility of wheel warring. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to BOLD and trying to enforce the policies in a fair and even manner? Any longstanding user or administrator block should probably be announced here, and generally are. Saying that we should not block people because it's going to be controversial is a straight path to administrator paralysis and abandonment of enforcing policy - at some point, everything can be controversial.

There was no risk of spiraling blocks. I knew perfectly well what caused the last Arbcom case over Giano, and made it pretty clear above with the first note that I wouldn't do that.

I am trying to help Giano on this. If I wasn't trying to modify his behavior in a positive manner, to reduce his incivility, I would just go straight to Arbcom and ask that they ban him. Giano has a pattern of escalating incivility in certain types of discussion when he's angry, and was already past the red line and escalating. The block was consistent with preventing him from escalating, briefly, and was accompanied by a fairly extensive request to him to reconsider the corrosive effects his incivility had on discussions.

Giano is specifically under active Arbcom sanction that incivility on his part is blockable, up to a day for five instances, up to a week for further instances. My block was not the first one issued and logged under that sanction. If you want to change the general policy on civility blocking, strike up a discussion (I disagree - we need to politely but firmly push back on incivility - but I will abide by any policy consensus). But the active Arbcom sanction in the IRC case stands here, and it's not that Giano hasn't been warned a lot about this before. The message has to get through, the behavior has to change. Arbcom specifically found that the behavior was more problematic than other users and applied a sanction that the behavior in his case was blockable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel paralyzed, even though I have avoided making controversial blocks (at least in 2008). You can see here Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that I hand out lots of pink slips, and virtually none of them end up on this board. Perhaps the problem isn't with Giano but with those who think that blocking a user helps them to behave more civilly (hint: it doesn't). Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Along those lines: let's accept for argument's sake that Giano was crossing some sort of threshold of incivility in his comments. The question then is how to improve the level of discourse and lessen the impact of his (and others') incivility. How many times do we need to repeat this particular experiment before we accept its results? Blocking Giano does not further the cause of a more civil Wikipedia. I can think of few concepts short of gravity and heliocentrism which are more amply supported by empirical evidence. If you view Giano's intemperance as a major impediment to this project, then brainstorm some novel approaches to handling it, but don't keep doing the same thing and expecting different results - there's a word for that. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would rather not go there - the precedent for "repeated short blocks didn't help, what next?" is "block indefinitely", which is not something I desire to happen to Giano, despite my misgivings about his repeated uncivil behavior. I accompanied my block with a polite and firm explanation on his talk page, which he has so far not apparently listened to in the spirit with which it was meant. It might help if others contributed there, too.

Even if you think I went too far and made a mistake, I sincerely hope that nobody actually feels that he was discussing the problem on AN in a polite and constructive manner. Again - I agree with his point in the AN thread, but I feel that he was discussing in a manner which was counterproductive due to its incivility.

If you want to see this not happen in the future... Ask him to edit in a more friendly manner? And ask him again if he starts up again? If he's not listening to uninvolved admins who sanction him (because we must be incompetent, or out to get him despite agreeing with him, or something), perhaps he'll listen to those who support him? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman made a similar comment on the RFAR, regarding incivility blocks and incivility block sanctions in Arbcom cases not working, or being counterproductive. I am concerned, on reflection, that Jehochman and MastCell may have a valid point here. This case is somewhat complicated (it's Giano, not some random incivility block). However, it is probably worth looking at more carefully - Does it work? Can it work? Is this a particular case where it doesn't work, but it might work elsewhere? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of at least one other ArbComm imposed civility parole that is both in force and not working. During the last related ArbComm case, I asked twice if anyone knew of any examples that were working. While one editor's name was suggested, a review of the relevant ArbComm cases proved that this editor never had a civility parole. So far as I know, no ArbComm imposed civility parole has worked. (I haven't seen the same problems with civility/personal attacks as part of topic area discretionary sanctions.) GRBerry 03:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've filed RFAR on GWH. Share and enjoy. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Gonna jump in here as a non-admin but participant in the thread in question. I don't think this was a bad block by any stretch. Using the logic of "only block for prevention of disruption" is great but it paralyzes us when it comes to dealing with persistent incivility. If we feel (for argument's sake) that Giano was being uncivil and we also feel that a short block won't prevent future incivility (because either the discussion is stale or Giano will just go back to being uncivil when the block expires) then the only block that will prevent future incivility is an indefinite block. Presumably GWH felt that was disproportionate to the "offense" and so he issued a shorter one. I don't feel (personally) that we need to assume that Giano was being uncivil. It seems obvious to me. It probably seemed obvious to GWH as well. I understand that it is not obvious to others. It is likely obvious to some that giano was behaving well within guidelines. My suspicion is that most reasonable observers would look at this situation and see someone making difficult points (Giano talking about how admins get away with murder) in an indecorous manner. the first impulse (given the goals of the project), would be to protect the expression of opinion and not sanction the messenger because of the manner in which the opinion was presented. I don't think that's the right way to look at things. GWH is correct. We are an online, text based community of volunteers. The community has decided that WP:CIVIL is a critical component to Wikipedia. A controversial opinion does not and should not protect the holder from the guidelines that hold together the community. We should demand that participants in debates treat each other with respect and where they show no interest in doing so actions should be taken to prevent them from disrupting debate. GWH saw this and took action. This doesn't mean that Stifle was right or that Giano was wrong. It just means that we should all be able to go about the debate without needlessly antagonizing others. what is wrong with that? Protonk (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  I agree, and this lynch mob out for the admins head is ridiculous. While troll might not get you a block the first time around, when you're on civility patrol you better not use it. Does everyone forget that Giano is on civility patrol? I've seen him behaving uncivil in this very thread where he tries to defend himself. Obviously he didn't get the message during his previous blocks and fails to continue to get the message. Why? Because there are certain users here enabling his behaviour. Several of them agreed its over the top, but then went on to say even if the comment was unnecessary and rude, he shouldn't be blocked. Yet he's on civility patrol which puts him on a shorter leash. If you can follow that logic you're a better man than I am. To address a comment on the RFAR about useful editors, any editor that violates policy and poisons the collabrative environment isn't "useful" regardless of what they add to articles. This mentality of "he made a few good edits so let him run all over the project and do whatever he feels like" is frankly pretty disgusting.--Crossmr (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  "A few good edits" is rather selling Giano's contributions short, and thus your characterization of the attitude here is rather off. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  Trying to dismiss the point on that is rather weak and ignores the issues. He was sanctioned for his behaviour and violated the sanction. Yet people step all over themselves to excuse it. There are no amount of good edits, or good work that justifies violating policy once, let alone over and over.--Crossmr (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  I didn't say I was dismissing your point. I said your characterization of the situation was off. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think Crossmr that your view could be interpreted as dangerously over simplified, a little naive and quite uninformed. The civility sanction on me was intended to be a form of censorship, expressly to stop me highlighting matters such as this. That is certainly how many Admins have chosen to interpretate it, and the Arbcom has done nothing to dispel this. Which is why I take no notice of it. Many people feel that Admin abuse should not be ignored, a view I share. It is accepted that Sifle trolled a good content editor - who has now quit as a direct result - that is indisputable. Pointing out indisputable facts is not being uncivil - it may be unpalatable, but it is not uncivil. If editors are to be blocked for pointing out unpleasant facts then we will have an encyclopedia fit only for La La Land not the real world.Giano (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have stated this in several places in several ways, but to reinterate - I had no opinion / was not informed on the underlying issue prior to reviewing your AN edits that led to the block, and in the process of that review formed the same underlying opinion that you were expressing. This was absolutely not an attempt to cover up anything or suppress dissent - I agree with people challenging authority, and I agree that the situation in question deserved criticism. This was entirely about the manner in which the criticism was expressed, and whether it broke A) community norms for behavior, and B) specific sanctions outstanding on you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all. What's dangerous is the community getting in to a habit of trying to make judgment calls about whether or not someone has done enough "good" to let the latest transgression slide. I also don't tolerate in admin abuse. But you were on a civility patrol and several agreed your comment was over the top. Being "right" doesn't make it okay, while some seem to think it does, they fail to take in to consideration what happens when you're wrong. This obviously isn't the first problem you've had or you wouldn't be on civility patrol and you wouldn't have ended up in Arbcom. You violated the sanction whether or not you think it was justified is fairly meaningless. There are no exeptions in the policies for "if you're right" or "the other guy was a jerk first, so its okay to let loose". That isn't how working in a community works.--Crossmr (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't bother to respond to Georgewilliamherbert's self-justifying comments. Crossmr, I do not do "good" I am not a monk and have no wish to be. I have merely written a few pages, as have many others. When you say "Being "right" doesn't make it okay" I'm afraid you are completely wrong - somone has to point these things out or they self-perpetuate. The world would be a very bad place if one was forbiden from pointing out what is "right." My views on the Arbcom and their machinations are well know, so do not need repeating here, but let's just say the "civility parole" was a political move, accepted by most as a political move, and as such is treated with the contempt it deserves. I don't beleive in censorship and I won't be censored from pointing out the obvious, no matter how unpallatable you and your friends may find it. Giano (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been here a lot longer than I have, so you should know that wikipedia can't "censor you". It isn't possible. Also, you are AGAIN deliberately conflating the issue of arbcom/admins/etc. with your behavior. This is what clouds the issue. It makes it hard for people who support your side (feel that admins get away with too much) to support your block. It makes it seem like GWH and other are operating for political motives. The issue of your incivility is distinct from these other issues. Beyond that, would it be possible for you to crusade politically without being uncivil? Have you ever thought that maybe treating people with something other than contempt would result in less attention? Protonk (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree 100% with Georgewilliamherbert when he said "WP:CIVIL exists and exists for a reason. That reason is that the whole community is lessened and corroded by people being rude to each other - It quietly drives people who wish to avoid conflict and abusive behavior away. We know that, we've seen that, and that's exactly and precisely why we have community norms not to do that and a policy that says prescriptively not to do that." When I first arrived here, I found that instead of some kindly guidance on how to create my first article, I was abused by Bugs and his like, and that comments like "Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays!" and harsher ones seem to be the norm on these messageboards. It certainly lessened my entheusiasm for being involved in this project - and in fact, if a kindly editor had not stepped in and helped me create my first article, that would have been it. I'm not saying there's no place for humour, but biting newcomers, as well as being incivil to people should not be the norm in what has become the largest online encyclopaedia, often the top hit on google for any subject. I know it's a bit off-topic but it needed to be said. If you want more people to contribute, you have to stop treating them like newcomers to mercilessly bait just because they don't know all the rules. Pug power (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember you. You're the one who was trying to push an article about a "talking dog" or some such. It was explained to you, by various editors, why it was not appropriate. As for the "case of the Mondays", the guy was blocked for being uncivil, and then proceeded to become more uncivil after being unblocked, ironically demonstrating that the block was a good one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why bother having WP:Civil and Civility proroles if, just because someone makes many good edits, they're not enforced? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 10:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article on user page

My understanding of the rules about user pages, specifically Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages, is that they're not designed as an indefinite space for deleted articles. User:Presumptive has a copy of an article on The murder of Joseph Didier which has been deleted three times in various forms and for various reasons [3] [4] [5]. The deletion was upheld at DRV [6]. At one point she even suggested that her user page would become a memorial as a result of its high google ranking [7]. It's been suggested twice [8] [9] that she create a sub page if she wants to continue to work on the article, though she went on wikibreak without doing anything about it. I took the initiative and removed it a day or so ago. Today Presumptive returned from her break, and restored the article with warnings attached that no one was allowed to scroll to the bottom of her page to view it. As I have no desire to edit war on another editor's user page, I'd appreciate an administrator looking into this, as there has been some troubling behavior from this user including tendentious editing on the September 11 article [10] and asking another user to give her access to an admin account [11]. AniMate 11:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that having been deleted and drv'd it is innappropriate, at the very least it should be moved to a sub-page, and deleted if no improvements are made to it over time, although it's probably better of being deleted outright. As for the "do not look down" warnings, seems to me the user is trying to be clever/funny, obviously any person anywhere ever who reads that will scroll down and look (hands up anyone who didn't)--Jac16888 (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am the adopter of User:Presumptive, I adopted her when she was in some trouble on AN/I. She is somewhat eccentric and I'm sure she waits till I'm asleep to do these things lol:) I was hoping to see some improvement in her editing but there are a range of problems with this account and user, the main one seems to be a common sense bypass :) but I suspect other problems. Sticky Parkin 11:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that we give Sticky a few hours to counsel this user about this issue, and if no movement by tomorrow, GSD G4 Mayalld (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Moved to User:Presumptive/Murder of Joseph Didier. Who nobbled {{prod}} to bitch if used outside mainspace? Several people advised me to use prod for contentious userspace content as a low-drama way of dealing with it. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I must be losing my touch - someone else speedied that as G4. When was the last time someone else was more deletionist than me? Honestly, I think PROD was the right solution as it would have left it around long enough for the user to copy it offsite. Perhaps we could fork the PROD process for userspace junk that we temporarily undelete for people to copy away? It really is quite useful - undelete, move, delete the redirect, tag as a userpage and remove mainspace cats, add prod tag and walk away, nothing more to do. A week later, bingo, it's gone again. Everyone happy. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're probably right, though she can just as easily ask an admin to give her a deleted copy via email or via a google cache as well. Thanks for taking the initiative though. AniMate 22:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• • August 2008 discussion at WT:PROD#Prodding user pages challenged the late 2006 consensus to expand prod and allow user pages to be prodded. Allowing {{prod}} to continue to be used on userpages got no strong support. GRBerry 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Could someone please restore the original article to my userspace? As I made clear in the DRV, I think this is pretty darn notable and easily sourced with over 40 sources spanning 20 years... I likely won't get to it for months, but I will get to it. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask me in a couple of months, and I will happily get you a copy of it. Whenever you're ready to work on it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff [12] IP 82.17.219.182

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff [13] IP 86.132.166.95

PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

and

diff [14] by IP 82.17.219.182

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here [15] and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 [16] are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Wikipedia and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Wikipedia user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Wikipedia, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

One fairuse image = 50+(+?) articles using said image?

Resolved

 – Excess FU tags removed, removed from all but the one article. Wizardman 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Edit warring and suchlike means that this is still going Stifle (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:TBN-Crest_Blockletters.jpg seems to be used by 50+ (I lost count at 50 before giving up, but i'm sure it's more) articles on Wikipedia, mostly used on broadcast stations operated by TBN. My understanding of the rules states that this type of useage for fairuse images is frowned upon. Is the useage in this many articles justified, or did I find a potential lawsuit trap by accident?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesus F. Christ, proceed directly to IFD and do not pass Go. — CharlotteWebb 01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, watch it - That's Jesus H. Christ, to you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's a corporate logo, being used on articles about broacast stations the corporation owns. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 02:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Logos can only be used for the company is represents; the stations that it owns may fall within that company, but they do not qualify to use that logo (the only logo they may use is their station logo/callsign). Also, IFD isn't appropriate as there is at least one true fair use image, but they does need to be a mighty purge. --MASEM 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have apprasied WP:TVS on this matter as this is their area of expertise. The problem with this is that TBN stations do not have individual logos; they all universally use the TBN shield as their station logo with their call letters and city of license in boring ol' Helevetica during station identifications. Nate • (chatter) 03:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

TBN HQ in NYC is about 1/2 mile from my apartment -- shouldd I run over there tomorrow and ask for official permission to use the logo? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 03:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite honestly, that's probably the simplest solution; the alternative is no images at all, as Nate indicates. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I think we are missing something. First off, the image in question is a piece of non-free content, more specifically a logo of a company. I would find it very far-fetched if a company would allow the use of their logo on Wikipedia, which means they would be giving up their rights and allow anyone to use the logo for basically any reason. They aren't going to go for it.

Secondly, we need to remember the policy that governs non-free content, WP:NFCC. Specifically, WP:NFCC#8 which states: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." We need to ask ourselves how the logo of a parent company placed on a bunch articles on all the companies stations significantly increases the readers understanding of the topic. The answer is of course, that it doesn't. Thus, all of the fair-use rationales except for the article Trinity Broadcasting Network fail our policies, and should be immediately removed. This isn't even a borderline case, this is very blatantly against the law. If someone could code a script that can quickly remove the photos, that would be great. Otherwise, the job will have to be done by hand. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly not "against the law". It's what the stations themselves use as their logo. Please revert your edits and avoid copyright paranoia. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Most of the pages you have removed the logo from are TBN owned and operated affiliates, the others carry the network 24/7. I see zero problem with this. But I do see Gonzo_fan2007 "jumping the gun" by removing the logo from pages before this discussion has ended. Firsfron is right, having the logos there isn't against the law (by any means) and you should revert your edits, please. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is against the Foundation's use of non-free images, which are stricter than fair use allows. Logos are fine for the company they represent, but even if the individual stations are fully owned by TBS, they are a separate entity; if their station logo includes the TBS logo, that's one thing, but if they have no logo at all, then there is no picture to show per WP:NFCC. This is a long-standing practice with logos. --MASEM 04:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

People this is a Foundation Issue. The use of the images specifically violates WP:NFCC#8. Someone please explain to me how the use of this image meets WP:NFCC#8 and I will gladly stop what I am doing. Also, I am admin of this site, and am obligated to enforce policy. I am not required to wait to enforce policy, nor do I need consensus to enforce policy. I am stopping now because there is opposition (ignorant opposition, but opposition at that). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Significance": It is the logo of an international television network. A network that owns stations throughout the United States and cable networks throughout the world. It's logo is one that would be difficult to explain in words. I think that is good enough.

I may be overstepping a line here, but saying opposition is "ignorant" isn't very polite. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I used "ignorant" as meaning "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact." Meant no offense by it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine to demonstrate significance for the logo's use on the TBS page and thus why this isn't a IFD issue but more image review. However, the use of the logo on any of the affiliates is where the significance argument breaks down, because the fact the station may lack a logo doesn't mean the reader's understanding is improved about the station itself by having the controlling company's logo there. It's the same reason we don't paste logos of vendors of products on the product pages (barring any depiction of the product itself). Logos are only significant on the single page of the company that the logo is for, nowhere else with very very very few exceptions (so few I cannot recall any, but needless to say you need a very good rationale to keep it there). --MASEM 04:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said a moment ago on Gonzo's talk page "TBN stations don't have individual logos like NBC, CBS, ABC, etc stations. They have just the one. So, that technically is that station's logo along with the logo of the network. It is rare for a TBN station to have a logo that isn't the official one." - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If TBN stations don't have individual logos, then they don't need identifying images because no such image exists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The logo of individual TBN affiliates is the national TBN logo. WHRE uses the TBN logo (owned by a Virginia based company) not with a "21" (it's channel number), but just the logo. That's it's station logo. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason individual station articles have logo images is not a "one logo per article" quota, but because each station has their own brand, and we're illustrating that brand. In the case of TBN, TBN has one single unified brand, so we deal with that in the one article on that brand. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Newbie admins, heh. The use of the same image on multiple articles is certainly not prohibited, and in fact it actually reduces the amount of non-free content (instead of having 50 different logos, you have one). Finally, there was a misstatement above (by Masem): it's not that the stations have no logo, it's that they use the TBN logo on-air. Finally, the "ignorant opposition" comment is a personal attack which really shouldn't be used by a fellow administrator. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Using ignorant in its precise sense is a personal attack, but calling another admin with legitimate concerns a newbie isn't? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AMIB, the number of good-faith users driven off the project by you has been huge. I say that as a person with respect for you as an editor, but your demands last year for "one FU image per article" last year upset many good editors, some of whom will not ever come back after trying to work with you on the logo situation on WP:TVS. I was hoping you had calmed down a bit since then and that you would be willing to look at the issue from a different perspective (or at least not make demands that aren't actually even in the policy, like the "one FU image per article" stuff you demanded). Calling another admin a "newbie" when he voices legitimate concerns isn't what I did. Calling a new admin a newbie when he says that the editing being done is "against the law" (his exact words) and actually goes and removes the logos in a mass semi-automated purge while calling the "opposition ignorant" is calling a spade a spade. Seven months isn't a long time, to my mind, and certainly calling "opposition" editors (even that term is inflammatory) "ignorant" only inflames the situation further. I didn't say much last year when you tried to enforce your "one FU image per article" interpretation of the policy, but now the number of FU images on TVS articles is dropping to zero, as some editors plainly intended from the beginning. English Wikipedia still supports non-free image use within the policy; there was a Fair Use Rationale provided for each instance used in an article (diff), the image was sourced, and actually reduced the number of Fair Use images from 50 down to just one. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how any alleged history of mine or a misrepresentation of a view I held (and discarded) months ago has anything to do with you making personal attacks while warning people for supposed personal attacks they've already apologized for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't allege what you said: you did say it. And calling someone a newbie isn't a personal attack. Calling someone ignorant is. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, not seeing the apology or retraction or explanation for personal attacks other than "Well, I was right to make them" or "They weren't personal attacks." My good-faith conduct months ago is not germane. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok Firs, first off, I apologized above for the misunderstanding, I use "ignorant" as "not understanding the facts." I meant nothing by it, so get over that. Secondly, been an admin for 7 months, not a newbie. Lastly, you still have not explained how this meets our WP:NFCC, specifically #8. Anyway, I am tired and off to bed. Have a good night guys. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm correct that the stations have no logo. If they use the TBS logo on air, it is using TBS's logo via their affliation with the parent company, not because the station owns the logo - again, they have no logo to speak of. (A logo is not a requirement of any company, and, extending to WP, is not a requirement for a company's infobox, but is allowable should one exist). --MASEM 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with Gonzo here, he's right, it's a blanket corporate logo that adds nothing to the individual page. If there's no individual logo, there shouldn't be an image. What is to be gained by having the logo of the parent company on every page? It would be like using the PepsiCo logo for Doritos. Dayewalker (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If the TBN affiliates used the Pepsi logo on the air as their individual station logo, I would argue for that. But individual TBN affiliates use the national TBN logo as their station's logo (whether they are owned by TBN or not). - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if Doritos actually uses the PepsiCo logo. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, man. Here we go: we tell them it's not that the stations don't have a logo, it's that they do have a logo: they use one every day, on-air, to identify their station as a TBN affiliate. It's the TBN logo, used on most (but not all) TBN stations. And yet, over and over they repeat the same thing: "well, then, they don't have a logo". Missing the point entirely. The situation is analogous to Wikimedia and Meta-Wiki: they use the same logo. Look at both of the pages. They're run by the same company, and use the same logo. There are other Wikimedia pages which have a different logo, but that doesn't mean that the pages which have the same logo as Wikimedia "have no logo": they clearly have a logo which is the same as that of the Wikimedia Foundation, and they display it prominently on the project pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to dispense with the superior attitude.

There's only one brand here in the case of TBN, so we deal with it on the article on that brand as a whole, instead of putting it in every article that uses that one unified brand. Your example is poor: Meta-wiki uses the Wikimedia logo because it is Wikimedia's coordination/policy/discussion wiki, a project intimately linked with Wikimedia as a whole, and thus lacking its own brand. It does not use its own logo which happens to also be Wikimedia's logo, it uses Wikimedia's logo.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

- Facepalm. Let me try this a different way, because it seems only Firsfron is getting it at the moment. WHRE, a TBN affiliate, uses the official TBN logo as the logo for their station. Most, if not all, TBN affiliates use the national TBN logo as their individual station's logo. It's both...local and national. There is no "unified brand". - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Every station uses the same branding" = "These stations do not have individual branding." That's what individual means. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, all the articles we're dealing with are almost meaningless sub-stubs anyway. Most of them should be merged into a single extended-list article. Why does a sub-stub need a logo image at all? No image can pass NFCC#8 (contributes to understanding the article) if there's no content in the article in need of understanding. Plus, of course, all of these articles lack fair use rationales, formally speaking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the articles each had a Fair Use Rationale here. The rationales were mass-purged tonight. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless if all of the stations are broadcasting the content, we can easily explain using words that these stations, under their call signs, are broadcasting TBN content. This would easily remove any reason why we need to use this one image in 50+ articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But we aren't talking about the content, we are talking about the images (the TBN logo). Fut.Perf., I wouldn't call all of the TBN affiliate articles "meaningless" or "sub-stubs". Some have large history sections, some have been affiliated with other networks before TBN, so they aren't all meaningless and certainly don't need to be all merged into one extended list. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Could be, for some (not any I've seen). But even so, even for logos, NFCC#8 goes together with NFCC#1. Replaceability, which includes replaceability with text. Each of these infobox usages can easily be replaced with the text "The station uses the logo of its parent company TBN as its own channel logo", or some such. Since we have have the logo in the parent article, that's perfectly sufficient. By the way, "we're talking about the image, not the content" makes no sense. When judging NFCC, you always first and foremost judge the article content, it's only the article content that makes an image legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

One could say that very same thing for any number of other affiliate stations like "the station uses the logo of it's parent company, FOX Television, as part of it's own channel logo"...and wipe out all the FOX logos.

But writing a 15 to 20 word sentence about a logo, that one could just put on the page (and was already there to begin with) just seems kinda silly.

Also, I don't think an article's content should decide whether or not to add a logo. If so, I have about 200+ articles that don't need logos. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Then remove them. Yes, they don't need them. The routine nature of logo inclusion has apparently led many people to believe logos are somehow exempt from normal NFCC standards. They are not. Of course an article's content should decide whether it can support a non-free image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"As part of" is different from "consists the entirety of." The former means there's a different logo based on the network's, the latter means the logo is just the network's and can be covered in the network's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: I have seen no rule that says an article has to have "such and such" amount of information before it can "support" a logo. If there is one, I would recommend a change. There are hundreds of pages that have logos on them (or pictures) that have a small amount of information.

@A Man In Black: Do what now? Can you explain what you wrote there for people who haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article subject doesn't have its own logo that identifies the subject, the article doesn't need a logo to identify the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But if the logo listed is the station's logo (which happens to also be the networks logo) then, yes, it does need to be there. Remember, TBN affiliates use the national TBN logo as the logo for their individual stations. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not the station's logo, it's the network's logo. The station uses it to identify itself as part of the network. The stations have no individual logos. You said the last yourself. No individual logos for the station means no individual logos for the station articles. We don't add the Apple logo to every Apple product article even though the Apple logo is present on every Apple product, we don't add the Sony logo to every Sony product article even though the Sony logo is present on every Sony product, we don't add the TBN logo to every TBN station article even though the every TBN station uses the TBN logo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Need to be there"? Since when is it a law of nature that every company article must have a logo image? If it can be replaced – and I showed you how it can – it must be replaced. Find it silly or not. NFCC#1, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

@AMIB: No, I said the stations do not have numbers (channel numbers) on their logos. They use the TBN logo as their own individual station's logo (I think I have typed that about 20 times now)....that logo is the TBN National logo.

I wouldn't doubt that the Apple and Sony logos are probably on those pages somewhere, but that isn't what we are talking about. WHRE (a TBN affiliate) uses the national TBN logo as the logo for WHRE. There isn't a [TBN Logo] 21 (WHRE's channel number), they use the national logo as their logo.

@Fut.Perf.: Facepalm again. We aren't talking about a company article, we are talking about an affiliate article. Also, when did it become a "law of nature" that images weren't allowed? - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then remove the images from the affiliate articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How did you get that from what I said? - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of having people trying to turn this discussion about an image to some debate/education clusterfuck on what is a brand, a station, affiliate, whatever. So, I decided to cut the crap and said we should remove the images from all articles about the affiliates. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I gotta agree with ya on the "clusterfuck" point, cause this has certainly turned into one. I personally think, with what Fut.Perf. has said, that all logos on all stations (TBN, FOX, ABC, whatever) should go. If you are going to do it on one network, might as well do it on all of 'em. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer dealing with one image at a time. I am personally not a big fan of logos on articles of these stations, but just using one image for over 50 articles and the image is copyrighted, something has to give. I maybe can only see this image at, maybe, 2 places (the article on the station and the mass repeaters in Tampa). It's getting late here, but I still think the image should be removed from the articles on the affiliates. Until then, keep the FUR's there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no policy which states that an image can only be used once or twice. In fact, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #10c states that a Fair Use Rationale must be provided for "each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item," indicating that the opposite is true. Using the same image actually reduces the number of Fair Use images on Wikipedia: the articles link to the same image instead of 50 different images. And this image had a FU Rationale for each instance used in an article, until it was removed tonight. NFCC policy clearly indicates that Fair Use images are to be kept to a minimum; one image is certainly a minimum, despite its use in multiple articles, specifically allowed in the policy. NFCC #8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The logo is used to identify the station as a TBN affiliate or owned-and-operated station. "Significant" here is particularly bad wording (because it's led to some significant edit wars between AMIB and various WP:TVS editors over the past year due to differences in interpretation of the word "significant"): it's too easily gamed; anyone can claim "significant!" or "not significant!"). Readers understand the affiliation better with the logo, and it's a logo the stations themselves use: it's not as if the stations use no logo when broadcasting: they definitely use a logo: it's this one. This image complied to NFCC 1-10 until tonight; now with the FURationales removed, it will be far easier to claim that the use is non-compliant, and the removal can continue unabated. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it is going to be done whether there is consensus for it or not. I just hope we aren't setting a precedent for other images. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Convenience break

There's a proper place to discuss this which is Wikipedia:Non-free content review. There is obviously a difference of evaluation, and this needs to be resolved through consensus, not unilateral action. Ty 07:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wish I could say consensus was trying to be reached, but as it stands Gonzo_fan2007 and Fut.Perf. have pretty much taken upon themselves (Gonzo stopping when there was opposition to his deletions) to remove the logo from all pages except the main Trinity Broadcasting Network page and A Man In Black has removed the fair-use rationales that remain on the logo's page as "false rationales" (which I don't quite understand).

So, I don't think this will be moved to Wikipedia:Non-free content review, because most of the images have been deleted already, so there wouldn't be much to talk about. Consensus wasn't reached here (or even tried for), I doubt it would be reached (or even tried for) there either. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is quite typical with image deletionists - ignore consensus debates and act in a pre-emptory manner to delete images, creating a "fact on the ground" so that the debate becomes meaningless, and the community's prerogative to create consensus is usurped. This really has to stop, it's undermining the very basis of Wikipedia to have administrators act in this manner. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite.[17] Ty 08:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about the RFC on FuturePerfect, but yes, I agree. I'll also note that the editor who uploaded the image that we are currently discussing left Wikipedia in 2007 due to AMIB's overly-rigid "enforcement" of NFCC; this wasn't the only editor who left due to AMIB's personal interpretation of the policy (which was "only one FU image per article"). This interpretation is not part of the actual policy. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That sounds like a couple people I know. Plus, it sets a dangerous precedent...."well, so-and-so did it, then that means I can." Bad idea!

With Fut.Perf. saying above, essentially, that a page didn't need a logo and also saying that some pages needed a certain amount of information first before a logo could be added (he didn't back up what any of this with any links to rules stating such), I am waiting for the precedent he just set to be used to remove pretty much all logos from all TV and Radio Station pages. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gonzo_fan2007 and Fut.Perf for doing the legwork on this. The blatant misuse of fair use was shockingly evident, and it's good to see some "newbie" administrators take this on... seicer | talk | contribs 11:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are thanking them for completely bypassing this discussion, as Ed put it above "usurping" consensus (and not even bothering to get any period), essentially making the entire consensus process pointless, and creating dangerous precedent in the process? Not to mention breaking several rules to do so and completely ignoring the fact that, as Firs put it, "There's no policy which states that an image can only be used once or twice."

You are thanking them for that? Come on! - NeutralHomer • Talk 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed when you are dealing with blatant and gross violations of fair use and guidelines, in which the logo can only be used on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and on no other derivative. I don't see how coping with policy can be so difficult to understand. seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Coping with fair use policy is difficult for many, many Wikipedia editors; either they don't understand it, or they believe it can be ignored. Black Kite 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The handling of non-free media is one of the very few areas where consensus can be trumped, in this case by the Foundation's mandate on reducing non-free image use. Now, it is true there is absolutely no rule that says how many times an image can be used, only that it needs a FUR for each use it has. And while the TBS logo has/had a FUR for each use of the image, having a FUR does not automatically make the use valid; the image has to meet the other NFCC criteria on the page it is being used at; based on pass precedent and WP:LOGO, the logo, save for very strict exceptions, cannot be used on any other page besides the main corporate entity it represents. --MASEM 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither NFCC or WP:LOGO say anything about a logo only being used on the main corporate entity the logo represents. The logo itself is being broadcast by the individual stations into people's homes; it's the logo they use. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You can't say there is no rule on how many times an image can be used (as long as it has an F-UR) and then say that image has to pass some criteria and then it might not be valid. You can't have it both ways.

The "rule" that limits the number of times the image can be used is WP:NFCC#8 - the significance of the image. There is a practical limit to the number of times a non-free image can be used while still remaining significant. It's not a hard-set number because it will vary for each image, which is why there is effectively no rule on how many times a non-free image can be used, it just has to meet NFCC#8. For example, there's probably a good hundred+ uses of The Simpsons on articles outside the discussion of the show and related elements, maybe as the topic was mentioned on the show or the like. It is not appropriate to reuse a picture of the Simpsons each of those 100+ times because there is likely no significance that the reader will gain by including that picture; some may be appropriate (a characture of an actor, for instance) but not all of them. That's all that that means: there is no limit on the number of uses as long as each use meets NFCC#8. --MASEM 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What is it saying to plain ol' editors when the admin can "trump" consensus (no one even tried to get consensus) and make whatever changes he or she sees fit. - NeutralHomer • Talk 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with what has been said already, my specialty is logo FURs and I've probably handled nearly 6,000 of them, and I agree that in this case, the logo is definitely being overused. The main station should keep the logo and maybe if there is something like a corporate article or a large list it could be debated, but having it reused 50 times is far far too much. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So, we are just going to allow an AN/I discussion to be bypassed, consensus to be usurped, the entire process to be made pointless, dangerous precedent set, rules broken, others ignored (blantantly it appears) and those editors thanked for doing so.....and then call this whole thing "resolved"? - NeutralHomer • Talk 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

When you are dealing with issues of copyright and gross fair use violations, yes. In addition, I don't see "consensus" towards slapping the logo on 50 articles -- I just see two or three editors spieling of abuse and misrepresentations of policy and guidelines. seicer | talk | contribs 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, at this point, with you "spieling" accusations of editors being abusive and misrepresentating "policy and guidelines" (not even bothering to assume good faith there) and being that the damage is done and the discussion is "resolved", I am going to go back to the radio and TV station pages. - NeutralHomer • Talk 14:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of TBN's US TV stations are owned outright by TBN; they're not "affiliates".[18] TBN had problems with the FCC for owning too many stations, but those seem to have been resolved. They own at least 23 full-power stations outright. So the TBN logo can properly used for all the directly owned stations. There's a question as to whether the low-power stations which are just repeaters are notable, but that's a separate issue. --John Nagle (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does impair understanding of the topic for individual stations in this network to not have logos on their articles. While there may be no rule requiring a television station's article to have a logo in its infobox, it's certainly expected enough that any station that doesn't have one will cause the user to wonder why. How else is Wikipedia supposed to actually convey "this network's stations all use the same branding and logo without local variation"? Simply not having a logo on the station articles at all doesn't convey that — what it actually communicates, rightly or wrongly, is "Wikipedia is either too lazy or too biased against religious television stations to put in any effort to upload logos which show how the stations are branded", not "this station simply uses a non-localized version of the national network logo".

And there simply isn't any rule against using fair use logos in as many articles as appropriate — the rule about derivatives applies to templates, tangentially-relevant articles like 2006 United States broadcast TV realignment, and other such cases where the logo is clearly being used for a purely decorative purpose, not to cases where it's being used for the exact same purpose as any other television station's logo. It would violate WP:NFCC to use the logo on a network affiliates template, certainly. It would violate NFCC if the logo were being placed on Category:Trinity Broadcasting network affiliates. It would violate NFCC if the logo were being added as a secondary thumbnail to provide a visual identification of "the network this station is affiliated with" in addition to distinct station logos in the infobox. But as long as this logo is the only brand identity these stations use, and as such is their primary visual identification, using it for that purpose on as many articles as necessary most certainly does not violate NFCC — and not using it communicates something very different from the intention. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"the rule about derivates applies to .... cases where the logo is clearly being used for a purely decorative purpose, not to cases where it's being used for the exact same purpose as any other television station's logo..." - the exact same purpose? Ah, you mean purely decorative, then? Black Kite 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. Fundamental visual identification of the topic in the infobox ain't purely decorative. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so literal. "Decorative" = "image use I don't agree with" in deletionist lingo. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we not throw the word "deletionist" around like a slur, please? I think that FPS's and AMiB's interpretation of "decorative" is different from yours for reasons that owe more to their personal opinion than to the facts, but that is usually the primary cause for a difference of opinion. Please don't make broad assertions/aspersions about "deletionists". Thank you. Protonk (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, it seems to me to be an apt (and polite) descriptive term which fits very well with the behavior of people who prefer to delete images rather than take the extra step of exploring ways in which they can be kept, if at all possible. Obviously, not everyone who deletes on image is a deletionist, and not every deletionist abuses the system, but generally those whose actions end up in reports at AN and AN/I or RFCU are without a doubt deletionists who put considerable effort (which could be put into positively improving the encyclopedia) into getting rid of images through a variety of means, including those which, as in the example in this thread, undermine the consensual basis of Wikipedia.

It's like the old saw about different political systems, one in which everything that isn't banned is permitted, and the other in which everything that isn't permitted is banned. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Give the sarcasm a rest, please. Incidentally, you might want to look at my logs for image deletion. (Hint: it's not actually very many, and most of them are vandalism and clear speedies). "Decorative" is quite clear, by the way. It's an image which is there for aesthetic rather than informational reasons. If they're free images, there's not an issue with them. When they're fair-use, their use need to be assessed critically. Black Kite 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm? In my last post? There wasn't a drop of it, honestly. I meant, and believe, every word there. But if you're referring to my deletionists' definition of "decorative", yes that was sarcasm, but the irony is that the rhetoric of deletionists are a much better fit to my sarcastic definition than they are to the definition you give, which I quite agree with. I would say that a decorative image is one which has absolutely no connection to the article it's in, does not clarify, explain, supplement or otherwise provide information on the subject, and is included for aesthetic reasons alone; I think that quite closely matches yours.

In reality, I've had all sorts of images that fulfilled the requirements of both our definitions be called "decorative" by people seeking to delete them, and that leads me to observe that to those folks "decorative" is essentially a buzz word, something that can be thrown into an argument or an edit summary to provide a semblence of policy "cover" when you're trying to get rid of something you want to get rid of (for whatever reason). Thus, my sarcasm is based on actual experience and not pulled out of thin air. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that I don't want to completely denigrate aesthetic reasons for adding images -- they are useful in deciding whether one image is preferable to another, and breaking the text up with images also serves a functional purpose in making the page easier to read for the user, whose eye can more easily take in the "chunks". I myself will frequently look at an article I'm working on and say "This really needs an image right here," and I'll go looking for one -- but if I can't find one that is appropriate (i.e. fulfills the requirements above), ah well, too bad, there's no image going there, no matter how much the article may need it. So to have someone come along and claim that an image I've worked hard to find and provide a fair-use rationale for and properly place in the article is "decorative"... well, you may understand why I would be sensitized to the non-specific use of the word.

What's even worse is to have someone delete on image because in their opinion it doesn't fulfill the requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policy, when that policy is so full of requirements which are subjective that for a great many cases only editorial judgment can decide whether an image is valid or not. Deletionists make a point of acting as if determining the policy-validity of an image is a simple matching operation, equivalent to 2+2=4, or answering a series of yes/no questions, but it's clearly not. It require judgment and, frankly, I don't trust their judgment because they are clouded by what appears to be an ulterior motive, to remove as much fair-use content as possible, no matter how appropriate, and no matter how valid.

But, in any case, when two editors have differing judgments about things, it's supposed to be community consensus which decides what happens, and, instead, we're now having this NFCC-trump card played on us: "I say it doesn't fit the policy, so I'm deleting it and you can't question my actions because it's policy and it's non-negotiable." That's astonishingly opposed to the basic foundations of how this place is supposed to work. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, this is a copy of the patent nonsense on your user page? seicer | talk | contribs 02:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a question? Sounds more like a statement with an errant question mark.

I don't recall off-hand if I covered this specific topic in the thoughts about Wikipedia I put down on my user page, but I do aim for a certain consistency in my ideas, so it wouldn't surprise me. As for "patent nonsense" -- well, that's a judgment call, and you won't be surprised to hear that I disagree.

Any particular reason you thought it necessary to insult me? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 02:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to revert

There is obviously disagreement with the unilateral actions of AMiB and FPaS. I would suggest that per WP:BRD, all articles be reverted back to the status quo ante and further discussion happen on the appropriate pages. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to be a reasonable course of action, allowing a consensus to be formed before further action is taken. After all, there's no particular rush here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. We're not revert-warring over your misunderstood characterizations of policy and guidelines, and no consensus is needed to enforce copyright policies -- especially when it was this serious of a violation. Continued misuse of the tags led to the images speedy removal from 50 pages that went beyond the scope of NFCC. Since you openly asked editors to revert despite policy, and despite work that has been done to abide by policy, it has been protected for the interim. Don't keep pushing the issue by asking others to edit war. seicer | talk | contribs 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, since Dragon695 was inviting a consensual reversion in order to determine what to do about the images, it wouldn't have been "edit-warring". Obviously, though, having used admin tools to bypass a consensus decision, I understand completely that you're not anxious to open things up to community discussion again. So it ever is. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Seeing that some have argued that the useage of a non-free image is begin used for "insignificant" repeater stations, howabout we just combine the other non-24 "powerful" stations into one article or list like List of TBN repeater stations? I'm willing to suggest that many of the low-power stations doesn't meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability and any notable events can be listed in a broadcast history of sorts. That way, you have an image that isn't being "violated" over a wide derth of articles.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Note I just want to note that the image in question had been placed on over 110 pages (I believe the exact number before removal was 118). I see everyone saying 50ish, which isn't the case. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I stated that I lost count after 50. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. That makes the issue much more paramount that we don't allow this crap to continue. seicer | talk | contribs 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral actions? My actions consist of commenting on this thread. I'd appreciate it if nobody reverted those. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely. You removed the Fair Use Rationales last night. I'll also note that Seicer has protected his version of the image: the one with the missing Fair Use Rationales. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Huh. Doesn't seem to have lasted long, in any event. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because the image was still being used on 20+ pages and at the time consensus was trying to be reached. I readded the F-URs until that consensus was reached, it wasn't...because FPaS and Seicer pretty much bypassed consensus and removed them all. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note that seicer has protected the image page. I've declined to unprotect as the issue that led to the protection has not been resolved and I'm disinclined to see edit wars recommence at 30 paces. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See also

How many pages do we need on this? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#WP:AN/I#One fairuse image = 50+(+?) articles using said image?. seicer | talk | contribs 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That post on WP:TVS was made in between the third post (waaaay at the top) in this very discussion. - NeutralHomer • Talk 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can we try to consolidate the discussion here? It's otherwise becoming too disorganized to have effective communications. seicer | talk | contribs 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK hoax averted

Thanks to the diligence of Cbl62, a DYK nomination of Sioux Falls Uprising of 1923 revealed that the article is almost certainly a hoax. I have thanked Cbl62 and the article has been "prodded", but what should be done with the article author (Sherurcij (talk · contribs)) and/or nominator (Minnehaha Mouse (talk · contribs)? The nominator may perhaps be a sockpuppet - very few edits, all in one day, including the correctly done nom. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I confess I am guilty; as explained on the talk page I rely on the old "omg it was a social experiment!" defense, as I'd been asked how likely it was that false information could be propagated through Wiki. I congratulated both editors (I think User:NE2 deserves as much credit as Cbl) who spotted the hoax, and have put a SpeedyDelete template on the article itself. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for admitting this - what do you know about the nominator - is this your sockpuppet? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are both sharp cookies but there's one thing I don't understand. What was the goal of your "experiment"? — CharlotteWebb 01:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In the past 18 months, DYK has gone from 4-5 nominations a day, to 20-25 nominations a day, and has gone from being updated daily, to being updated every few hours with new articles. I've been a contributor to DYK since March 2006, and was involved in a discussion as previously mentioned, over whether the "flooding" of DYK meant reduced standards, and consequently reduced reliability. I'm not going to pretend it was the most mature thing I've ever done, but it wasn't exactly mindless vandalism and fact-changing either (the kind of vandalism that always gives me concern, when somebody slyly changes the year Xerxes died or something arcane, which can go unnoticed for months or even years). Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question - what is your relationship with the nominator? Is it a sockpuppet account? I am willing to assume good faith for now - my suggestion is that you make up for the time and effort your hoax has caused by checking suggested 25 hooks at DYK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're assuming good faith, I'm willing to go on that ;) As for your suggestion, I agree, that does sound like fair punishment -- I'll promise you 25 DYK checks this week :) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, no. Why would anyone trust you to do a "check" on anything, since you've already inserted a hoax article with false references into the encyclopedia? I hope they have better sense at DYK. I suppose we'll see. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find this to be ignorant. If you have time to be making jokes at everyones expense, Sherurcij, you have time to be making yourself of use to the project as well. HalfShadow 02:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• • That's your right, however if you view my contributions you'll see I actually put in seven hours of use to the project every weekday, which often involves meeting with, telephoning and writing to the subjects of articles, the Department of Defence, Canadian Members of Parliament and the families of alleged terrorists. I do "more than my share" of serious work to improve the project, but there are some questions that can't be answered without an experiment. "Has DYK checking fallen due to the extreme flooding over the last year?" is one of them. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're doing several kinds of original research, which isn't appropriate, and now—worse—it's original research by someone whose word can't be trusted. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sounds like"? You are assuming bad faith. All of what he has said is really quite easily to correlate with good editing process.

For one thing, he does write good original research (on Wikinews), and I know that he talks to lots of people help secure text and images to be released into the public domain or released under free content licenses. I'm not sure what else he might be talk these people about; I am guessing it is for good reasons. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm acknowledging that he's already demonstrated it. And original research-which you confirm that he's doing- doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. - Nunh-huh 09:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of cataloging, this was already deleted once in October 2007 under the title of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pumpkin riots of 1923 as a Colbert Report prank. I'm surprised it hasn't come up in this discussion. Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• My two cents: Sherucij's "experiment" has no legitimate value, and such actions risk undermining the credibility of the project. This was caught, but it was done very cleverly with multiple authentic looking off-line cites. It was also submitted at the last minute to avoid the usual five days of due diligence and reviews. This very easily could have slipped through. The apparent use of the sockpuppetry makes it more eggregious. If there are not serious ramifications for what amounts to an attack on the integrity of the Main Page, it will only encourage more pranksters or "experimenters." Cbl62 (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have to concur with Cb162. Disruptive editing usually carries a block, though such action would be punitive in this case, as I am certain that no one will approve a DYK hook from this editor ever again. I seem to recall, though, that an editor who was passing inaccurate items through to DYK was topic-banned from DYK; a similar sanction in this case might be appropriate, to prevent future disruption of this type. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with Cb162 on one point - Sherucij's prank has value. We are fortunate that this one was caught, but copyvios have appeared as DYK entries not too long ago, and it is entirely possible that hoaxes have as well. You are basically arguing for punitive action against Sherucij, but lacking any expectation that he will persist in this type of nonsense, does that serve a useful purpose? It was a very childish way to make a WP:POINT, but the point is valid none the less. Vandals are going to vandalize, regardless of what we do with any other editors. The important question here is to ask how we can prevent vandals from using DYK as an attack point. Resolute 03:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I leave it up to the admins here to decide what should be done. But the answer to your question about "how we can prevent vandals from using DYK as an attack point" is simple in my mind. When someone is caught red-handed perpetrating such an attack, you need to mete out meaningful punishment. Otherwise, you will be telling the world it's OK to engage in such an attack without suffering consequences.Cbl62 (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, established editors with 30,000 edits representing 5-8 hours a day of work on the project make up 0.00000001% of vandalism on Wikipedia. Perhaps it would have been wiser to "log out" before conducting my experiment so that I would just be another faceless crime - but as was said, this was done to test a theory, not to legitimately undermine the project. If it had made it to the main page, I would have immediately had an administrator remove it - and bring up the "breach" and the lack of fact-checking to discuss how we can help prevent the 99.99999999% of anonymous/troll vandalism that represents a legitimate threat to the project. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, it appears you did "log out" before making the nomination as the article was nominated by (Minnehaha Mouse (talk · contribs). Do you admit or deny that this is a sockpuppet??Cbl62 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Of course, vandals never suffer consequences, all that happens to them is that they're stopped from editing here, which they're not interested in doing anyway. It doesn't really punish a vandal to take away his can of spray paint; it just makes it more difficult for him to do damage. It looks like Cb162 is advocating for a punitive block, which we don't do. That said, I think Sherurcij has one hell of a lot of gall pulling a stunt like this and then telling us about all the good you've done here. No, it would not have been wiser to "log out". What would have been wiser would have been not to deliberately fuck up the project to satisfy your curiosity about how difficult it would be. When you stop to think about it, that's what most vandals are doing. If you want to continue to be trusted, you can start by saying two things you haven't said yet.

"I was wrong." and

"I'm sorry."

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will bell the cat. This conduct is unacceptable, and I have blocked Sherurcij for 24 hours.

There isn't any non-disruptive way this could have been done? You couldn't have made a user page and asked the DYK people if they'd pass it? You couldn't have raised this issue somewhere on talk instead? We prove points by arguing them, not experimentally. At the very least, you wasted the time of one of DYK's factcheckers, time that could have been better spent checking other, legitimate articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An article for DYK is typically looked at in intermediate states by a small number of editors. It's not a peer review. People do try to check the hook and its reference, but there is no promise that paragraphs of plausible-sounding text will get fact-checked. Editors have put slanted, POV pages through DYK before - and it's usually experienced editors who know how to do it. Here we have an editor with 16k mainspace edits. Somehow, I doubt he'll do it again, since he would certainly be banned for it. The block log should make sure we don't forget. Gimmetrow 04:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I waited a while to allow the guy to answer, and he hasn't so I'll call this one. Minnehaha Mouse (talk · contribs) is a  Confirmed sock of Sherurcij (talk · contribs) and yeah, I'm calling this abusive sockpuppetry, hence checkuser. At least now the community can make some sort of informed decision on the matter. My personal choice would be an indef for the silly sock and a large helping of trout for Sherurcij - Alison ^❤ 04:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(numerous EC and server tech diff) That block is clearly punitive and as such unacceptable. In fact, given the recent troubles with DYK, I find his unorthodox experiment, while outside the norms of Wikipedia to NOT be an act of 'vandalism', but perhaps the only way to truly test what we're doing here, and if we're doing it well. I can't 'commend' him for his choice, but not only do I understand it, i myself wondered about the same exact thing in light of the copyvios we saw making it there. He's shown that true 'pranks' and falsehoods still get screened out. To punitively block a good contributor who chose an inelegant solution is abusive. His results are far more reaffirming of the project than a knee-jerk revenge block, and I support an immediate unblock with an apology from AMiB, who clearly does NOT have consensus for it. ThuranX (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree. This is a punitive block and should be undone. Blocking Sherurcij doesn't solve the central issue here, neither does burying our heads in the sand. Resolute 04:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two central issues here. DYK has issues with defending the front page from bad content, and a longstanding user who should know better disrupting Wikipedia to make that point. Sherurcij knows better than to waste everyone's time by putting misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. The former can be solved in ways other than disrupting the project, the latter can only be solved by not putting up with disruptive conduct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In a word, a word I like in these situations: Bullshit. Sherurcij was not disruptive in any normal sense of it as used on WP. One, he was watchign the entire time, self-policing with the full intent to pull the article before it embarrassed us, and only to gather information about the first part, the problems with DYK, which regularly get noted, then dismissed as irrelevant to whatever novel problem brought the DYK issues up. The editor is blocked, an article edited, whatever. The underlying efficacy of DYK has not been examined, and yet again, the push here is to sweep aside the faults of DYK in favor of 'getting' Sherurcij. This constant 'I can block one guy, but I can't lead a big discussion and really fix a policy issue' attitude is a weakness of too many admins. AMiB shows here that he thinks one block of one guy will solve this larger issue. He better have a whole lot of big fingers to stick in all the dikes, because the leaks are many, and spilling fast. Sherurcij showed that big problems can be caught at DYK, so that's a positive. However, there are problems there, and now we can refine them. Unfortunately, When we block the proximate cause, we ignore the underlying faults. It's happening again, and AMiB stands on his block as if it's a solution rather than a distraction. ThuranX (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He wasted everyone's time proving things experimentally. I don't think blocking Sherurcij will solve DYK's problems, but it will contribute to solving the problem of people proving their points experimentally instead of with discussion. His conduct isn't solving any problems, either, and we have longstanding consensus that this is not the way we fix problems here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And now DYK noms will be checked relentlessly, there will be a higher burden of proof on offline references, articles will be checked mercilessly for POV, many good contributors will be turned down "because we can't take the chance" and all because one person hid a bomb in their shoe tried to prove a point. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 05:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm yummy, a Godwin play. Hyperbolic distract, fails. He did no such thing. A carefully monitored experiment, which only proved that DYK worked IF someone took the time to notice. I've yet to see AMiB say anything about an alternative way to actually test the efficacy of DYK. He can't. This IS the only way. it's about time someone did it, but regardless, it's till a punitive block done well after and without consensus in this thread to block. and AMiB, he wasted ONE person's time; You're wasting more throwing out punishment blocks without consensus. Why don't you spend that time figuring out a way to ensure the continued high success of DYK without anythign changing at all. I think it's called WISHING. go start. ThuranX (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I came up with two alternate methods after 30 seconds of thinking, and mentioned as much before. Here's a third: it has been claimed that POV or outright false articles have made it through before, so begin a discussion based on previous failures instead of contriving a new one. Discussion is how you effect change on Wikipedia, not experimentation.

As for the "Why doesn't anyone think of the childrenDYK?" argument, why don't you spend time figuring out how to ensure the continued high success of DYK instead of complaining on ANI about a block following unrepentant disruptive conduct? We both have the both answer: we see other issues that also need addressing. Let's address them with a minimum of rhetoric, on both sides, either here or elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true, though,. that DYK is open to gaming. It is very common to see five or six tenuous hooks offered to a series of new articles on barely-notable baseball players all created by the same user, for example. Many of the DYK hooks get an official "so what?" from me. I did get a few through with my alt account, including Gas Light and Coke Company, but many DYKs are strained to breaking point. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

His method was debatably undesirable, but his intentions were for the best of the project. I can understand the block, but it appears to me as a block for the sake of reprimanding the user. He is a reasonable fellow; discussion would have had the same effect, especially given that his experiment failed. I have requested an unblock. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is one question that bothers me most with all this (and I started this thread, above). Why was it necessary for a sockpuppet account to be created to test DYK fact checking? If there was a good reason, why didn't Sherurcij admit the sockpuppet right away instead of wasting more time and effort for a Checkuser to be run? Iasked this question at least twice and there was never any answer. I have assumed good faith that this was an experiment, but more negative interpretations are certainly possible. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Big picture, little picture is my AGF-based solution to that. ThuranX (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that there is little chance Sherurcij is going to go on a sock-filled DYK hoaxing spree anytime soon, and thus we aren't blocking him to prevent further disruption, we're blocking him as a slap on the wrist and a scolding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A sock does seem pretty strange; it would have attracted more attention. Maybe he wanted it to be a slightly suspicious set of circumstances, so that it was a DYK that people should have been inspecting more closely.

I can understand that his reluctance to answer you is annoying, but ... he pretty much did admit to the sockpuppet, if you read between the lines, by his reluctance to confirm or deny it, and the cute answer.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse 24-hour block for sockpuppetry, hoaxing, and extremely POINTy disruption. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• On the standard of DYKs, I noticed recently in passing a user page of archived DYKs that an Irish language word had been used in the incorrect context. Although in that case it wasn't the fact that was incorrect but the grammar. Apparently no one noticed so it was allowed to feature on the Main Page. :( --Candlewicke (Talk) 13:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block, short block, trout slap, very low tolerance for nonsense in the future. Chillum 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it was actually the DYK standards that caught this. If it were simply written and left alone, it certainly would have taken longer to spot. --NE2 17:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have to oppose the block as being a punitive rather than a preventative measure; Sherurcij has come clean regarding the inappropriate behavior and there is no reason to suspect that the sockpuppetry/disruptive editing will continue. Absent any evidence to the contrary, how can this block be called anything but punitive? Shereth 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think this won't happen again? The user came clean because the user was caught, this does not bolster any confidence in me. Chillum 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Because they don't have a history of this kind of thing. A one-off hoax from a long-standing and otherwise behaved editor does not shake my faith enough to suspect that they're about to start running rampant. Whatever happened to assuming good faith and taking people at their word that they won't foul up again? Shereth 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we know it was a one-off hoax? Assumption of good faith has been revoked. Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, perhaps I missed it, but where did Sherurcij "come clean" regarding his POINTy use of the Minnehaha Mouse sock? In all of the messages I read above, he specifically ignored answering the question (hence the checkuser involvement). Regardless, the very existence of this thread (and its length) is proof positive of the disruption caused by this hoax. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I largely support AMiB's action here (I'm not an admin, FWIW). The block was short, proportional to the disruption (socking, misrepresentation, etc) and not executed from an involved admin. In the absence of evidence pointing to constant future attempts to add Hoaxes to DYK, the only way to issue a "preventative" block to this user would be to see into the future and block both the user and his/her sock prior to the insertion of the hoax. Thus if we require a literal interpretation of the dictum that blocks must only be issue to prevent incipient disruption to the encyclopedia, we can't block this user temporarily. That interpretation leaves us in an untenable position. I think that AMiB operated on a much more plausible interpretation, that "block only for prevention of disruption" is a policy for a reason--this reason is meant to prevent admins from "blocking to serve as a warning to other users", "blocking to win an argument", blocking to "teach a lesson". There is a reason the admonition about blocking is in bold lettering all by itself. It is important. But it isn't a straightjacket. That wording doesn't leave us with the outcome of "well, someone disrupted the encyclopedia in a manner but isn't doing it right now, the only response is to warn them and hope they don't do it again". No. We deal with a continuum of conduct here, ranging from the obviously actionable to the obviously acceptable. Responding to that continuum with disproportionate measures is damaging to the project. Response that is proportional and tailored to the issue at hand is called for. That, in my opinion, is what AMiB did. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If so, I demand, yes DEMAND, that A Man in Black present here for public review the evidence he had that there was going to be further disruption. If none, then he needs to apologize, publicly, here, for his thoroughly punitive bully-button block. ThuranX (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But that's my point. If we insist on interpreting the "blocks are only for prevention of future disruption" literally then we can't issue blocks aside from indefinite blocks for levels of disruption that aren't constant. This isn't a "tripwire" standard. We can't base our blocking policy on the insistence that an administrator have actionable information that disruption will occur within the block period. There has to be a gray area. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you seem to be misunderstanding me. In no way should there be a bold line test for this sort of thing, nad I'm not saying that. I'm saying that because this is grey area, in this singular case with such divided opinion, AMiB needs evidence to support his block. otherwise, public apology. ThuranX (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You want more evidence to support the block -which has already expired I believe- than has already been presented? Are egregious violations of WP:SOCK and WP:HOAX with a big helping of WP:POINT not enough ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not evidence of bad things happening--evidence that they were going to continue, such that only a block could stop them, which is one philosophy for limiting how blocks are used. (Not taking sides here, just explaining.) --Masamage ♫ 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

exactly. ThuranX (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this appearing in the user's block record for future reference, but I think he should be unblocked in the meantime since it was punitive. I would also support a topic-ban from DYK for deliberately disrupting it when he knew better--and for dissembling about his sock puppet. --Masamage ♫ 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Throw me in as someone who feels this is an WP:IAR situation. I think we're better off for what he did here, and while it's not something to encourage, we can grow and learn because of it. I know it's "bad", but eh, blocks aren't to punish editors.. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Breaching experiments are never welcome, and the 24-hour block was an apt enough signal that further such japery (a textbook breach of WP:POINT) will not be welcomed. I would not support a DYK ban, as Sherurcij is one of the better DYK contributors, and has been very upfront about what he did. I would imagine any further submissions of his will be rigorously checked, and that ought to be enough. The 24 hour block has expired, and I think we can move on. Neıl ☄ 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse the block for the violation of WP:POINT and for disruptive sockpuppetry, even though it may have been carried out with good intentions. As others have pointed out, a similar experimental result could have been obtained in a non-disruptive manner.  Sandstein  16:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Young editors

Resolved

 – Now everybody knows. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Are children under the age of 13 not allowed to edit wiki? I was under the impression that they can't legally join any site whose servers are located in the USA. In any case, if that's true, this kid User:Xlr8_the_hedgehog is illegal. Viralhyena (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Xlr8 the hedgehog (talk · contribs) doesn't exist; also, you've misread the under-13s thing - they are allowed to edit here. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 07:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Xlr8 the Hedgehog (talk · contribs) does exist, but is 13 anyway. Algebraist 08:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are certain laws related to the collecting of personally-identifying information from people under the age of 13, but since Wikipedia doesn't collect such information, the laws don't apply. --Carnildo (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And they don't apply to non-profit organisations anyway. Hut 8.5 09:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. rule is COPPA. I suppose WP as a non-profit is not required to follow it, but might it not be a good idea to do so voluntarily? Gimmetrow 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Young editors can contribute just as normally as older editors. Also, that would violate "that anyone may edit" clause. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia already does follow COPPA voluntarily: People under the age of 13 are allowed to edit, but Wikipedia does not ask for any personally identifiable information from them (or anyone else, for that matter), and in fact when those under the age of 13 are discovered to have voluntarily posted personal information in user or talk space, it is removed and oversighted out of the edit history. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, last paragraph. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama is being repeateadedly added to the Red_Diaper_Baby page

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected

. SoWhy 10:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)}}

There's an ongoing attempt to list Barack Obama on the Red_diaper_baby page. Presumably a new form of googlebombing. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected and this should stop now. If it continues after the protection expires, consider requesting further protection at WP:RFPP. SoWhy 10:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[19]. Doesn't appear to be semi-protected. 24.76.161.28 (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just rollbacked another recently unblocked IP doing this and put a request in at WP:RFPP ϢereSpielChequers 06:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Userpages / Spam

I've been noticing recently that after I flag a spam article it appears on the authors userpage. Sometimes the usernames are clearly promotional and I've flagged them but I'm wonder what a "normal" editor should do if a userpage is basically a spam article? Do I csd it? Should I edit it and remove the spam? Are userpages treated differently? I didn't want to tread on toes too much! (Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but I figured there'd be some admin oversight in all of this!) --Blowdart | ^talk 10:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

After talking with the user, an MfD or CSD would likely be next. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See the relevant section at WP:UP for further information. SoWhy 10:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, just found that myself finally! Thank you both, I'm starting out slowly with one user to see what sort of response there is :) --Blowdart | ^talk 10:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

just to emphasize: G11 (SPAM) does apply to userspace (G stands for General). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So does G4, really. We often delete egregious end-runs around deletion policy under G4, there is a limit to how many kicks at the can any article gets. Good faith rewrite attempts are obviously OK, though. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:CSD#General, the general criteria apply to all namespaces, which by definition includes the User namespace. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Oops I thought you guys were saying they did not apply to the user namespace. Extracts foot from mouth.... – ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Returning POV attack vandal Nangparbat

Hello all, I need a second opinion here. A couple weeks ago I made a series of rangeblocks to stop a repeat sockpuppeteer, User:Nangparbat from returning via IP addresses to attack other editors and accuse the site of biased, POV articles. He's back again, which at first makes me think we just need a larger rangeblock and then a few admins playing whack-a-mole with any IPs that pop up afterward, but the problem is these IPs are from BT Broadband, one of the UK's larger service providers. The large list of IP's I've collected (see User:Hersfold/Vandal watch#Nangparbat) make it very clear that he's going all over the place, and so any rangeblocks applied would have huge collateral damage. Second thoughts on this? The vandal watch page I've linked lists all IP addresses used so far, which ones are active now, and blocks that have been previously enforced. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is some vandal who is really really dedicated in evading all blocks, maybe WP:ABUSE is the right answer? Just a thought... SoWhy 13:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblocks to UK Broadband providers (especially private subscribers) is fraught with problems. You get a new addy each time you log on, so a range that was used for vandalism one day is chock full of good faith contributors the next. I regret to say that abuse reports are not handled with the urgency one might desire (it is rumoured that the first complaint is always binned as standard practice). If wiki software cannot resolve it, go to the ISP and complain often and frequently and say you will refer it to the ombudsman if no joy. Best luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. I'm on a permanent IP address. If you plug the IP into http://samspade.org/ and it shows "ASSIGNED PA", it's likely to be permanent over a term of months and can usually be safely blocked for such periods. FYI, Virgin Media give out static IPs, Tiscali don't. --Rodhullandemu 16:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool tool. I am aware that some ISP's (Tiscali for example) provide stable ip's (at a cost, since it is aimed at the business community) but the lower cost subscriptions are generally whatever is available at the time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused now, as the check on Samspade shows that one of the recently used addresses is "ASSIGNED PA", and should be a stable IP, but this vandal has used at least nine IP addresses in the past few days alone. It seems like something's not adding up here.

For the record, I had thought of an abuse report, but I think that's more for after we've stopped the immediate problem, as the ISP is not going to pull someone's plug just on our say-so, and I have also had some rather slow experiences with those anyway. I'm looking to block first, and then consider contacting the ISP. The problem is, I'm not sure if we're better off rangeblocking or if we should just play whack-a-mole. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The ip may well be assigned, but not to that individual (place of work or other business that allows people internet access - or even a friend) necessarily. I think it is whack-a-mole at least for the time being. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

With BT broadband, the IPs are sometimes dynamic, sometimes stable, but if the IP is stable you can force it to change by rebooting your hub and not logging back on for a couple of hours. Range blocks are not going to help much, as BT broadband has a very wide range of IPs. Contacting BT Broadband's abuse department with a detailed list of IPs used and times they were used may work. Neıl ☄ 10:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<- I'll work on filing a report, then. Fortunately I've got a very long list of IP's to give them. Thanks for the advice. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:SterkeBak

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

<redacted - the text is in the page history> Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, okay. Tiptoety ^talk 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be deleted from this page as an unsourced attack on another user. Corvus cornix_talk 19:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted. The named account has one week old edit setting up his userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User is now threatening to sue me. He claims that it must have been someone else on the same IP after a session that wasn't closed (yeah, right [20]). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really see what you expect us to do about that here. Administrators don't have any real say-so in who does or doesn't have access to the database, so I think you're in the wrong place. As for the legal threat, that's on a different project and I don't speak Dutch. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What you want to do is up to you. I just thought you should know. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Banned "Gay Pornography Vandal" is back

Every three months or so we have to renew a range block on the banned Gay Pornography Vandal; they obsessively check to see when it has ended, and it apparently has just recently. Could someone please renew. These are the current pages where they are removing content or lodging violent death threats against Wikipedia editors and celebrities. After that is the previous block discussion and which range to block:

• Talk:Michael Lucas (director)
• User talk:Durova
• User talk:Alison
• Hardcore pornography
• Diving
• King Charles Spaniel
• Great South Bay
• PJ DeBoy
• Jason Bellini
• Andy Towle
• Fire Island Pines
• The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
• East Village, Manhattan
• Shortbus

---

Archived Discussion (see dates):

Notification: Rangeblock on 72.76.0.0/16

The IP range 72.76.0.0/16 has been soft-blocked (AO, account creation allowed) for a month due to ongoing activity related to harrassment of David Shankbone and vandalism to porn and adult themed articles. This rangeblock may need to be expanded if the stalker moves outside that IP range and will be extended in time if the harrasser returns. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

According to whois, the full range is 72.64.0.0/11, but I haven't yet seen this one operating outside of 72.76.x.x, so a /16 seems the obvious place to start. Had figured this might come to a rangeblock if the abuse continued. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there were some back channel discussions on the /11, but as nearly all the abuse happened from that /16 I'm starting there. If they step outside that range please let me know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki can only block /16s. Blocking 32 different /16s (2 million addresses) to stop one vandal would be a really bad idea. Thatcher 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have undone George's block, since it is not the correct IP range for this particular miscreant. The three that are (71.127.224.0/20, 72.68.0.0/17, and 72.76.0.0/17 for future reference) are all blocked now. east.718 at 10:15, July 12, 2008

End of Archived Discussion

---

• They are also spamming my site in edit summaries, which is verboten. --David Shankbone 17:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Shankbone, you spam your website in the Summary of every photo you have uploaded to Commons. Who do you think you're kidding??

• 72.68.29.38 just vandalised King Charles Spaniel as part of this. I thought I'd report it here for consistency - please can someone block it. ϢereSpielChequers 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tracked two attacks to Verizon. I suggest that either David or a Wiki official send the death threat diffs to abuse at verizon.net and ask them to take action. ϢereSpielChequers 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Those death threats freak me out. Poor David... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Status: Complete - the IP range was re-blocked this morning. --David Shankbone 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody called Mike Godwin?

This has gone beyond online harassment into a real world threat. David, what will you do when you see someone aiming a camcorder or other camera in your direction?? -- you'll think they're aiming a gun at you. Or you'll think that somebody's hiding in the trees or behind every bush, waiting to attack you. That's no way to live, in fear like that. The authorities should be contacted. And Lucas should have guards posted at his house, where you are, and others should be with you at all times. I fear you are not safe, nor is Lucas or anybody that's with you.

--72.76.81.27 (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Foundation has rarely, if ever, acted directly to help one of its contributors in situations like these. If you are concerned, you should contact local law enforcement directly. They will able to subpoena the ISP to divulge the name and address of the subscriber who had that IP address at the time the edit was made. Since the editor is contributing as an anonymous IP, you don't even need checkuser assistance. Thatcher 11:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • When people like David aim a camcorder or other camera at you, they want to take a free photo of you. Also, there is a policy called "no legal threats". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.2 (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The FBI were contacted in the past about it, but (I assume) as is the case in the UK, unless someone turns up on your doorstep they won't do much about it unfortunately:( I suppose if they were re-contacted to say more of it had happened, they might do something about it this time. Sticky Parkin 12:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He's back

See here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

East718's range block didn't take for some reason (maybe it doesn't like years as expire dates?). I redid it. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What to do with a Role IP account

User:86.136.157.238 is the current IP used by a person signing their posts as the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of All England at York, a schismatic body from the United Grand Lodge of England (and thus a role account). He has posted before with other IPs, also signing as such. I figured he was not going to be an issue, but he has fact-tagged items in Grand Lodge not because they are wrong (they're Google-verifiable) but because they don't fit with his group's claims of antiquity - accepted documentation from UGLE and others says Freemasonry originated in 1717, and IIRC the other group's claim is much earlier (9- or 10-something) from King Athelstan at York. This goes against accepted history, and the vehemency of the position indicates a possible edit war, though I have asked for discussion first (which I don't expect to get). Unfortunately, there's no info on what to do about role accounts on ROLE, so I do need some process assistance here. MSJapan (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Role accounts are blocked on sight unless they have approval from the Foundation, however we expect IP addresses to have multiple people behind them. If his edits are being particularly problematic (sorry, don't have time to check now), then we may block for that, however we don't block IP's because they're shared. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The point MSJapan is making is not that the IP is shared; in general, all IPs are shared. The point is that all the users of the IP are editing with the same intention, possibly from multiple workstaions, with the intention of achieving the aim of their collective organisatoin. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that this is not a role account/IP. Roles are used by multiple users under a single guise. This is a disruptive user that has different IPs, but signs his posts. Block if disruptive, but this isn't Role. Keegan^talk 05:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tons Of Page Moves without any Consensus

User:Kyo2590 moved the following articles without consensus, or even any talk on the talk page:

Project Runway (season 1) to Project Runway Season 1 Project Runway (season 2) to Project Runway Season 2 Project Runway (season 3) to Project Runway Season 3 Project Runway (season 4) to Project Runway Season 4 Project Runway (season 5) to Project Runway Season 5

What is the process that should be done in this situation. Should they just be moved back (an admin would need to move them back), should we get consensus to move them back, or what else?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, and it didn't require admin access. Rollback failed, as (except for season 3), there was no previous version to rollback to, but a manual moved worked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have suggested to approach this editor personally and ask him why he did what he did before asking for admin intervention. He also should have been notified of this thread which I just did. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He should have been notified, but the actions are clearly not right. However, it's understandable, as the articles read Project Runway Season n (where n is the number 1–5). It's up to the content editors to fix the articles so it doesn't look like the right thing to do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ack, I meant to let him/her know, I forgot. Pretty bad when I am usually the one reminding others in other threads. And I assumed it needed an admin to do the move because the pages were redirects, I didn't know you could just move it back. Sorry about that. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

IIRC it doesn't take an admin to move a page over redirect if there's been only one revision. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD?--mboverload@ 05:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Otterathome using Twinkle rollback capability to edit war

I came across an edit made by Otterathome (talk · contribs) where he/she had removed a fact tag without discussion, using Twinkle rollback to remove it (on Uncyclopedia). I put a message on Otterathome's Talk page that removing a fact tag without providing a cite shouldn't be done, and he reverted me without discussion (except for "Go away"), using the rollback facility of Twinkle. This is an inappropriate use of rollback, and I request that Otterathome's Twinkle use be removed. Corvus cornix_talk 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Otterathome has now modified my comments on his/her Talk page and replied with "Mind your own business". I've notified him/her of this discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Does look to be needlessly inappropriate and curt. If there is any indication this behavior is pervasive then I would support the above recommendation. Shereth 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse Corvus cornix as he didn't know what he was doing and decided to blow everything out of proportion. He is unable to read the full article and see it is already fully sourced, thus the revert.--Otterathome (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All you had to do is to add in a parallel reference tag, or be more civil in your discourse, but after seeing this and this, I am suggesting either sanctions in the future if this behavior continues, or an apology. seicer | talk | contribs 20:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have admin rollbacked the edit, just to see how they like having their actions tagged as vandalism - POINTY I know, but sometimes it gets the right result a little quicker. I am not wedded to the edit, so it can be undone (politely, with summary explaining the situation) with no further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I get a little annoyed when people who have never edited the article before introduce errors, I fix them then another person comes along and re-introduces it again, then I fix it again the an admin comes by and re-introduces the error, again. I think you can see where I'm coming from.--Otterathome (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this an "error" when you failed to politely explain to Corvus the situation? That would have gone a long way to solving this issue without going to ANI, branding you an incivil contributor... seicer | talk | contribs 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is what an edit summary is for, it explains the reason for the action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This probably could have been avoided with better communication. "This is cited elsewhere" would be far more helpful than just telling someone to "go away" from the very beginning. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On a completely seperate note still regarding this user, I don't really like the coloured sidebar, as I am unable to click any of the links while on her userpage. D.M.N. (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

agreed this kind of thing is completely unnecessary.--Crossmr (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason that image was labelled by its creator as 'Prime example of the most annoying thing ever'. Algebraist 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But within an hour the creator said 'Actually, this is the most annoying thing in the universe.' It's a close call. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I !vote for the sidebar -- definitely as annoying a hell. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries threedux

Real Life Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Threedux, at least. I know we've been here before but searching isn't helpful for the perma link. There are assorted discussion still linked on the article talk

I posted to COI Noticeboard earlier but that's less-trafficked and the situation on the talk page is heating up again. It's one of the same parties involved the last time, who has been trying to discuss and a new IP, who may or may not be the same IP from last time. The IP has admitted to being a former church member but there are various allegations being thrown around although outside input is welcome. I was asked to mediate neutrality but I really don't have the time, especially since we're nearing night here. Can someone keep an eye on this and hopefully try to find some middle ground that doesn't involve another three month full protection. Thanks! TravellingCari 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved.

I just blocked HappyHappyBunny (talk · contribs) as a vandal-only account, for reasons easily noted in the editor's contributions and the commentary on the now-blanked userpage. No warnings, because the declaration that this editor was going to provide us a "better class of vandal" seemed like an easy indef. Looks like the editor is now asking for an unblock, so if someone has the time to review, that'd be great. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed *cough* ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:RedSpruce

This user has developed a worrying allergy to WP:CIVIL. This does not appear to be the first time he has had problems with collegial editing, as can be seen by his block log. After I deleted a fair-use image in an article (not a controversial deletion, it was a photo of a living person), he started off with this "Asshole", and the whole of this conversation ("Vandal", "Coward") and finishing up with this one today "Intellectually constipated". Since it would probably be looked upon dimly if I took any action myself, and there's no point in me continuing a dialogue with him as he seems to regard me with the same respect as something he's just stepped in, could an uninvolved admin have a word please? Ta. Black Kite 06:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning re civility, and already I'm thinking a block would have been more appropriate. Kevin (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that this same person had the cheek of just a day earlier "endorsing" multiple sections on a user conduct RFC criticizing me for, of all things, incivility. Somebody might want to do something that those endorsements be struck out. (If not, it just goes to confirm the reasons why I'll be refusing to take that RfC at all seriously.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Geez, FPS, you've already posted an ultimatum on your RfCU that

I hereby state that I will consider this whole RfC null and void, and will permanently refuse to take anything said on it by anybody into any consideration, as long as Jerry's signature is found anywhere on the main page.

How many excuses do you need to not engage with the good faith editors who are trying to discuss your conduct with you? Step up, be a mensch and talk things over with us, why don't you? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Being dragged in a kangaroo court is bad enough. Having a kangaroo court manned with delusional and/or abusive kangaroos is not to be borne. If they won't retract voluntarily, it's a matter for the community to resolve. Be a mensch, go and strike out those signatures, and we can talk, the rest of us. If the community wants to talk with me, the community needs to create an environment where that can reasonably be done. If the community can't get these abusive elements off my back, the community can go f... itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone has been bold and removed some signatures from the RfCU, so it looks as if the door is open for you to respond substantively to the concerns being expressed there. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Striking out another editor's endorsements in any WP discussion space is a thoroughly bizarre and unjustifiable act, and I've undone it for my own sig.s. Furt Perf is saying he'll only participate in the RFC if certain participants are gagged, and someone is "boldly" stepping up with a handful of gags? Weird. RedSpruce (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I will, bit later today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, FPS did indeed stop by at his RfCU, to post:

My position hasn't changed. Jerry and Redspruce and all the rest have the right to say whatever they want. But I have the right to not respond. I responded as long as there was some semblance of rational good-willed discussion; now I am perfectly within my rights to ignore any process that looks as if it grants the opinions of such people validity.

So, as I thought could possibly happen, despite his demands that signatures be stricken from the RfCU as a condition of his participation, he continues to refuse to engage with good faith editors who are concerned about his conduct. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the "asshole" diff with consternation. This is about the image on Ann Beattie. The point that RedSpruce is making is that the image is fair use as the owners of the image are not going to dispute its fair use status. It is a fair point, and I sympathise with it, but is an avant-garde attitude about "fair use". We need community agreement on this if we are going to accept this type of image (which is unlikely to happen). RedSpruce is being incivil, but has decided that this is isnt worth it with the "Intellectually constipated admin". I think this will de-escalate from here, and that will be best for all. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No.. that isn't good enough this time. This is an ongoing and long term problem with this user. Any opposition to what he believes is the status quo in an article is met with ownership and civility issues. As evidenced by the long-term battle on Film Noir. There have been several complaints by several editors. So just hoping it'll blow over won't work. Short blocks in the past haven't gotten his attention, perhaps something longer will get the message through to him and prevent a further recurrence of this behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

People who engage in the active destruction of valid and valued content on Wikipedia are going to have to expect a little anger to come their way from time to time. Whether they're childish graffiti-vandals or admin.s who carry out their destruction by enforcing obscure and pointless rules, destruction is destruction, and it annoys people. Furthermore, this is not Teletubbies-land or "Barney & his Friends". The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create an idyllic utopian land of butterflies and bunnies where never a harsh word is spoken. Its purpose is to create a better encyclopedia. Sometimes that requires people to be adults who can stand up on their hind legs and defend their actions against criticism from time to time.

My own criticism has involved some uncivil language at times. This is due to the fact that, overall, WP has become a frustrating experience for me lately. I haven't had the time to engage in the kind of substantive work that makes WP enjoyable and satisfying or me for a while, so my involvement has been limited to sitting on the sidelines and watching WP at its worst. This is an unfortunate situation, but I expect it to improve soon. In the meantime, none of the insults mentioned here, with the exception of "asshole" are of any notable harshness in an adult world. And as noted, I used that word only as my parting dismissal of Black Kite, telling him he could "have it his way". It was he who chose to pursue the issue beyond that point, rather infuriatingly hiding behind a "rules is rules" attitude while refusing to engage in meaningful discussion.

My behavior was not ideal, and I apologize for not being an ideal person. RedSpruce (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that I have never in my life come anywhere near making a comment showing such complete contempt for the entire Wikipedia community as "the community can go f... itself." RedSpruce (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop making excuses for your poor behaviour. It doesn't matter how "harsh" your insults are, the very fact you're insulting people at all is enough (and you're still doing it - "active destruction of valid content" above). I, like many admins, have been called all names under the sun on Wikipedia so I couldn't really care less, but I will say this now - if you call any admin following Wikipedia policy on image work a "vandal" or similar again I will block you for a long time. Since other editors with similar viewpoints to you are able to make their arguments without any sort of tendentiousness (see the FPAS RfC), this is the time for you to cut it out completely. Your block log does not make pretty reading, I suggest you refrain from causing it to lengthen. Black Kite 14:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite, for neatly demonstrating the kind of arrogant, close-minded, bullying attitude that encourages and invites insult-laden responses. I think the defense can rest now (despite the drivel below). RedSpruce (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Unwise. Blocked for a week. Black Kite 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

While RedSpruce may have exercised restraint in refraining from making blanket statements about the entire Wikipedia community, he has no such compunction about individual editors or admins. This is a problem that has cycled through ANI before. This ANI filed in February included some of RedSpruce's classic incivility, such as "Since your contributions to discussion inevitably consist of uninformed wingnut drivel, I object" and "Speaking of senseless waste, was there some point to those 200 words?", additional sources and diffs all available there. This ANI filed in March documented examples of incivility including "rv, you are being an idiot", and topped off by the WP:NPA violation "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you", which was reverted by an edit stating "rm personal abuse, albeit deserved", which removes the comments but confirms the abuse. RedSpruce's latest attacks on FPAS and Black Kite for enforcing Wikipedia policy are not an isolated and exceptional incident of an editor driven to an aberrant fit of rage. This is all part of a pattern of gross incivility on the part of RedSpruce. It's well past time that something was done to address the problem. Alansohn (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be at the point in every AN/I thread where people with grudges start dropping by; more to the point, RedSpruce has already been blocked for a week by Black Kite for incivility. I think we can close this. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Block Review

As someone directly involved in a conflict (possibly others) with User:RedSpruce, I do not think User:Black Kite should have been the one to block. In any event, I do not see there being consensus to do so (consensus being greater then 2-3 others). Also, while the sentence before the block was certainly a harsh critique, I do not think he should have been blocked for saying it. I am applying the Giano standard here. What he says about Black Kite and some other members of the image cabal may or may not be true, but I think it is his right to express concern about possible WP:TE behavior in the image enforcement area. Lastly, as we know from WMC-Georgre, taunting with say it one more time is not appropriate dispute resolution. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

On his user page, he concedes that he needs to take a break, so on that basis it would be best to leave it in place. He might come back with a new attitude. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps you are right. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 12.160.202.152

The IP address 12.160.202.152 has over the past few weeks repeatedly added promotional material, often copied (verbatim or very nearly so) from other webpages such as this one. I realize there are complications regarding blocking IPs and I strongly suspect that if it were blocked another IP would take over (such as 24.62.152.77, which has posted in many of the same articles), but this IP is consistently disruptive and given how focused its edits are it appears to only be used by one person or organization (some sort of travel agency associated with the Azores perhaps), so I don't think blocking it would harm any innocent editors. Rohein (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• 12.160.202.152 blocked, since multiple prior warnings have been given (last was L4). 2nd IP warned. I agree that both IPs seem to be involved with SATA International, given some of the linkspam and editing, particularly the removal of criticism from the SATA article here (although the IP is right, it was unsourced). Thanks for catching this - if it becomes problematic and more IP addresses appear, you might consider requesting semi-protection for the affected pages at WP:RFPP. EyeSerene^talk 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

SP

Resolved

 – obvious sock blocked

Would an admin please check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ebfilms&diff=prev&oldid=235979925 please ? An old freind appears to have returned. --triwbe (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He's been indef blocked already by another admin. Neıl ☄ 10:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing evasion of block by Wikitestor

Wikitestor was blocked for 12 hours for violating WP:3RR and was warned at that time not to use anonymous IP accounts to evade the block. Just five hours after the block was instituted and four hours after the don't-evade-the-block warning was issued, he began editing using 81.184.70.220. As a result, his block was extended to one week. However, he has continued to use anonymous IP accounts to edit during the block period. See 81.184.38.52, 67.161.4.108, 62.57.197.139, 81.184.38.42, and 62.57.197.82. Given his editing history and style, all these IP accounts undoubtedly are his sockpuppets. See also his userpage, where he admits to using IP accounts that begin with 62.57 and 81.184. Tennis expert (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole adding socket puppet warnings to Adam233's user page

An old issue has reared its head again[21](Past issue was raised on AN but I feel that this now needs to be on AN/I).

Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again added Sock puppet warnings to the user page of[22] Adam233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without facts to support such claim or taking the issue to WP:SSP (Which Gene was told to do). Bidgee (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Gene Poole of this thread. I've also protected the page for a day. I'm at a loss why Gene thinks something that was pretty unanimously criticized 2-3 weeks ago is now OK. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, present it. If you don't, stop edit warring to put the tag on his page. When page protection expires, if the tag is added without justification again, I will block for edit warring, whether or not 3RR is exceeded. --barneca (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

admin Wo st 01 messsing around with Yevloyev

Can anybody stop admin Wo st 01 messsing around with Yevloyev ?

85.2.249.9 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wo st 01 (talk · contribs) is not an admin on the English Wikipedia, and has rarely edited here. He is an administrator on the German Wikipedia (see de:Benutzer:Wo_st_01) - if you have an issue with him, you should probably discuss it with him there. I see from your IP that you are based in Switzerland, so communication should not be an issue. Neıl ☄ 10:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Diffs on en.wiki please — Rlevse • Talk • 10:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that Switzerland has three major languages, and many people there don't speak all of them very well. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is true, but given the user the IP mentions is German, it's a safe bet the IP speaks German. Neıl ☄ 11:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Concern about User:1oddbins1

User:1oddbins1 appears to be making large numbers of edits marked as "repairing disambigs", but many of them are actually disabling wikilinks: [23] and [24]. See also Special:Contributions/1oddbins1. I've dropped them a note on the user talk page expressing concern, but the user hasn't responded yet, even tho they have made a large number of edits in the meanwhile. This concerns me, because at the moment, the user is over 2300 edits of this nature, and I'm not sure if there's a way to fix these things, other than manually auditing those edits. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just him, I have noticed other editors using something called "wikicleaner", which claims to fix dablinks but in fact simply disables the link. DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess the script is broken or misconfigured or something. I'm really not in the mood to look at over 2000 edits and revert them. . And unfortunately, an earlier edit spree appears to have been correct [25], so not everything is wrong. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think some admin should review this and if he/she continues using wikicleaner, although it's apparently broken and despite being told so at the user talk page, he/she has to be blocked for the time being because it does constitute vandalism even if not intended. But I think we should hope he stops himself and some bot can do the cleanup afterwards (it just has to revert all changes by this user for a given time period after all). Also, I have left the user another note to stop and informed him about this discussion here, as people should be notified when their actions are discussed at WP:AN/I. Regards. SoWhy 11:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, no response from the user or an admin, so I am going to go over to AIV and see what they can make of it. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call, I was about to do so myself, although it is not the correct place for it (because it's probably good faith tool usage) but something needs to be done. It enforces my belief that we need much more admins tho... SoWhy 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

the user was also modifying pages that should not be changed see my userspace page for an example. Canis Lupus 12:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, he uses a script that does that stuff automatically. I doubt he looked at the pages he edited... SoWhy 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User has already been blocked for one hour (12:21). Let's see where this goes. seicer | talk | contribs 12:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've blocked for an hour for now, hopefully he/she will respond. Maybe he/she didn't get the new message bar due to use of that tool, but he/she is responsible to check the edits, especially when made at a higher speed. --Oxymoron⁸³ 12:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and rollback all of those edits, even in cases where the script worked, it often disambiguated things to the wrong target[26]. Mr.Z-man 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought admins had a "rollback all edits for this user"? Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you use the &bot=1 parameter instead of spamming the recent changes? That's what it is for. --Oxymoron⁸³ 13:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I didn't think of that :P (I've only had a reason to use it twice ever, this being the second time). Looking at the description for the script, it appears he was running it in automatic mode, I'll leave a note explaining that he needs bot approval to do something like this. Mr.Z-man 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

While not responding to the inquiry, he has been repairing some links. seicer | talk | contribs 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed him pop back into my watchlist a little while ago, but these appear to be manually edited. Well, either that, or a more generic edit summary and much slower speed. Do wish he was a bit more communicative, tho. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And Then There Were None

Hello, I'm not sure if it's right to come here with this issue, since it's not something that requires use of admin tools, but I've noticed something that I'd like more eyes on.

Agatha Christie wrote a novel called Ten Little Niggers. Some time later the title was changed to Ten Little Indians. Later still, it was reissued as And Then There Were None. The Wikipedia article for that book uses the most recent title.

I have some Christie-related articles on my watchlist, and I noticed a few minutes ago that the Agatha Christie Template had been edited to change the title of the book from And Then There Were None to Ten Little Niggers.[27] Furthermore, I noticed that the contents of And Then There Were None had been copied and pasted into Ten Little Niggers, and that And Then There Were None was made into a redirect to Ten Little Niggers instead of the other way round. Also, the article was not moved - it was a copy and paste. So far, it has not been undone.

The IPs in question (obviously the same person) are Special:Contributions/79.166.16.117 and Special:Contributions/79.166.35.194. The second one is the one which changed the redirects, through copying and pasting, rather than through moving the article. I think this is too big to be done without some kind of discussion, but would prefer an administrator to take care of it. Thank you. Stratford490 (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin but have rolled back the IP edits. Clearly a troll of some kind, maybe some admins will have recollections of similar incidents? DuncanHill (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is just a newbie who thought it should use the first edition title? Let's assume good faith first. I have left the latter IP a warning at it's talk page [28]. I will keep the page watchlisted and see if it happens again. SoWhy 11:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

All fixed now. Yes, we should assume good faith for now; but this is such an obvious trolling target that we should consider semi-protection if this is repeated. -- The Anome (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and threat of violence (?) at Floppy disk

An IP editor re-reverted a reversion by User:Mahjongg with the edit summary Mahjongg was fatally wounded in an accident. I know some editors were recently blocked due to edit-warring regarding MOSNUM and binary prefixes, so (newbie admin alert) I'm not sure what's the best course of action - should a checkuser find out whether this nastiness is associated with a named editor? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I recall some similar incident reported to a Admins noticeboard a few days back - but when checking this ip I saw that the above diff linked to the first of three attacks with inappropriate edit summaries, so I have blocked the account for 31 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More nastiness at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Thunderbird2. I have blocked another IP, User:217.237.148.72 for similar actions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also User:217.237.150.116 editing File Allocation Table. sigh SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please help me?

I received a message that states "Editing from 64.12.0.0/16 has been disabled by Pilotguy for the following reason(s): you appear to be editing from a bypassed AOL proxy range." Apparently this block is indefinite.

The problem is, my AOL IP address is 209.247.22.166, which isn't even remotely like 64.12.0.0/16, so I don't understand what's going on. I contacted Pilotguy but he didn't respond.

If someone understand what's going on, could he/she please explain it to me? I don't know how I could even get a message intended for 64.12.0.0/16 if my IP address is 209.247.22.166, or how a block placed on 64.12.0.0/16 could affect me.

Based on another message left on Pilotguy's talk page, it appears I'm not the only one who is having this problem.

I had to use Internet Explorer to be able to send you this message. Please respond here, because I think that's the best way I'll see it. Thank you very much! 172.163.4.124 (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• This situation is rather complicated. The bottom line for you is that if you create an account using Internet Explorer, you will be able to log in from AOL and use it. The block only affects anonymous editing (although the block log does not reflect this due to a change in the blocking software).

The full answer is that 209.247.22.166 is your home cable IP address, not your AOL address. In the past, AOL was used extensively for vandalism because editors' IPs changed rapidly and AOL concealed your home address. AOL implemented XFF forwarding; they pass on your home address. The MediaWiki software trusts AOL and records your edits as coming from home rather than AOL; thus, any blocks for bad behavior affect the individual, not all of AOL. So the AOL range is blocked, preventing editors from making anonymous untraceable vandal edits, but the block is ignored as long as MediaWiki trusts the XFF information because it records the edit as coming from your home (or work or whatever) instead of AOL.

However, it appears that MediaWiki no longer trusts XFF information from AOL for that range, so all edits there are recorded as coming from the AOL range rather than the home addresses of the users. (The XFF information is saved and available to checkusers, but it is not trusted.) As a result, the original block of the AOL range takes effect.

Since this is an anonymous only block, you can fix the problem by registering an account. Or you can contribute anonymously using Internet Explorer, which accesses a different IP address than AOL's browser. And we can note this problem at the techincal forum to try and get it fixed. Thatcher 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon being disruptive after refusing to recognize consensus

(NOTE: I cite diffs below, but it's easier to follow the talk page discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)#Addition of info citing reliable sources about Weatherman called a terrorist group -- just note the timestamps to see whether or not consensus was declared precipetously, as Wikidemon asserts.)

At Weatherman (organization), I added a section [29], which was removed by Wikidemon [30]. Discussion began on the talk page, in which Wikidemon participated (start of discussion: [31]) After several days of discussion, in which four editors and no one else participated, Wikidemon unilaterally said "discussion is over" and appeared to stop participating. [32] (Justmeherenow even asked Wikidemon on the talk page to explain his refusal to discuss more. [33]) I asked the other two discussion participants whether they agreed with a new proposed language. [34] and [35]. They said they did, [36] and [37]. At that point, with discussion having ceased, I implemented the consensus (incorporating some changes as a result of the discussion, including changes that Wikidemon had proposed). [38]

Now Wikidemon returns and reverts the consensus-approved language [39]. He states on the talk page that he still has objections and mentions them generally, but doesn't specify what they are. [40] I revert back to the consensus-approved language [41] and he reverts again [42]. I tell him on the talk page that he is being disruptive [43], seems to be trying a delaying tactic as the election approaches (he believes this information which is independent of the Obama campaign is embarassing to Obama -- it is independent of the Obama campaign and is very relevant to the Weatherman page; it is irrelevant for the purposes of the Weatherman page that it is embarassing to Obama. As a matter of fact, every source cited was written before Obama became a candidate, and the sources go back to when Obama was 8 years old. This is not an Obama-related matter, except in Wikidemon's mind.)

Wikidemon's three final edits on the talk page as of now [44] in which he states:

• (he closes the discussion with a box): ''Closing this part of discussion without prejudice to discussing civilly in the future - discussion has grown too hostile to reasonably reach consensus
• it is unfair to ask me to participate in your disruptive discussion. Do not revert this contentious material again. I will close this discussion for now. There is no consensus. If you want to propose the material again in a civil, proper way please do so,

Wikidemo is the one who wants to stop the consensus from being implemented. His language is far more disruptive than anything I've said (which has been in response to his outrageous behavior here).

We have a behavioral problem here. Wikidemon refuses to accept consensus. After having removed the language from the page and edit warred to do it, he now (yet again) announces that he is refusing to continue discussion.

I would like admins to tell Wikidemo:

1. That consensus has been reached
2. That consensus can change, but it must be respected until it does change
3. That removing language from an article before consensus has been reached is disruptive
4. That he must stop his disruptive actions now
5. That if he wants to change consensus, the place to do it is on the talk page.

I have told Wikidemo that I'm willing to listen to his specific objections, if he ever gives them. I resent having to hunt up all these diffs and make this report here. Wikidemon is wasting my time and everybody else's time. There are other, approved ways of trying to overturn a consensus you don't like. -- Noroton (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)