Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Skomorokh

Skomorokh (talk · contribs) These are false accusations here and here. I consider this editors activities to be disruptive, lacking in good faith, and borderline racially based. This editor's support of whitewashing the Stormfront (website) article is not acceptable. I ask that this editor be blocked or permanently banned from the project. We don't need his type around here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the other merits, he certainly appears to be well beyond 3rr [[1]] and certainly doesn't seem interested in the fact that his POV is being soundly rejected by the other participants on talk.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are difs from today when he undoes others work on the article. [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]Bali ultimate (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A pattern he apparently carried on from previus days as per [[6]] and [[7]] I don't think he can argue that he was unaware that there was, at best no-consensus on his edits and in fact an overwhelming majority opposed to them.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Among the diffs only [39] is a clear revert. In [40] Skomorokh moved a statement to a different place. In [41] (s)he removed a citation from the lead, because it is not necessary there. And in [42] (s)he simply merged 3 successive refs. I do not see evidence of a violation. Ruslik (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noting my agreement with Ruslik. 3RR appears to be intact. — neuro^(talk) 18:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh added a "maintainer" template for himself at the top of the talk page of Stormfront (website) [8]. He seems to be behaving aggressively to other editors (warnings to Orangemarlin [9] and Verbal [10] on their talk pages about using the category "Neo-Nazi website", wikilawyering on the talk page pf the article) and adding racially sensitive material, out of context, to the mainspace article, based on newspaper reports of postings on the forums of Stormfront. He has written that on google "my method is simply to search for the word "Stormfront" and take information from the sentences in which the word appears". In view of the problem of WP:OWN shown by the maintenance template and his failure to understand the controversial nature of this article (as well as a likely COI), he should probably receive a topic ban of some sort: he does appear to be disrupting the editing of the article and causing needless offense on talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I restored this section after it was prematurely archived. Enigma ^message 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I just want to comment that I have left the article after being brought there by the comments made to both Verbal and OrangeMarlin's talk pages. I also noticed that every comment being made was seemingly controlled by this user. I questioned the notation at the top of the page box which then got removed. I am sorry to say but I too feel the WP:OWN is a factor here. Skomorokh is still working the page and asking questions at the talk page but it appears to me that everyone else has decided to as I did, leave. If this editor would slow down a bit and give others the opportunity to add to the article I find this would be helpful. For every edit someone else did, Skomorokh was right behind them making edits to the new additon with comments. I am just commenting so that maybe this editor will slow down and allow others to edit too without s/he trailing behind them. As it is now, I think the article is theirs for now. I am not sure what should be done though. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

One has to admire those with a strong enough constitution to wade into that cesspool. I don't possess a strong enough gag reflex to do much more than quickly glance at it and then dash to the bathroom to toss up my lunch. WP:Ownership and POV PUSHING appear to be a valid avenues of inquiry, although I have seen many more blatant cases. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin

No smoke without fire, and I'm a bit concerned about Orangemarlin. People will remember the secret ArbCom trial a few months ago. Orangemarlin realised he acted like a twat and promised to not do so in the future. Why then, is he accusing an arguably good-faith editor (come on, Sko's intentions aside, he did get the article to GA, which given the subject matter, is an achievement in itself) of "whitewashing" and threatening to tag all of Sko's contribs with COI templates? Clearly he's lied to the community. An all too common occurence these days... Sceptre ^(talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Excellent commentary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This comment should either be refactored or removed, it's being unhelpful to the discussion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. Being a big fan of the mentioned body part, I don't find the term to be an insult to OrangeMarlin, but a compliment! Apparently, OrangeMarlin acted like a desirably warm, inviting, nurturing spring of life in the exchange! 72.11.124.226 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot-assisted incivility

Last month, STBotI (a bot belonging to ST47) posted a warning on my talk page regarding a non-free image that I'd uploaded without supplying a fair use rationale. The image in question was a Wikimedia project logo (which obviously didn't require a fair use rationale), so I rolled back the bot's edit and thought nothing more of it.

Earlier today (my time), an anonymous editor posted a message on my user page (and that of several other Wikipedians) informing me that my name had been listed on the page User:STBotI/BADUSER and that this was visible via search engines. Curious as to why I'd apparently been publicly labeled a "bad user," I read through STBotI's documentation to no avail.

So I headed over to ST47's talk page, where I found a couple of existing threads on the subject (including someone else's inquiry as to the page's nature). I joined the discussion, and then I noticed that DragonflySixtyseven had moved the page to User:STBotI/LEFT-NOTE-FOR-USER with the summary "as per OTRS". But because the bot's code still directed it to the old page title, the next data dump automatically restored all of the content to that location. DragonflySixtyseven rolled back the edit, and I perceived this as the beginning of a tug of war between human and script (until the latter could be updated with the new title). For this reason (and because the redirect's existence ensured that the page would remain indexed by search engines), I deleted the redirect and protected the page against re-creation. (I noted this on ST47's talk page, indicating that "if anyone feels that these actions were inappropriate for any reason, please feel free to undo them or request that they be undone.") At the time, I didn't realize that DragonflySixtyseven already had blocked the bot (so my steps made no difference).

A short time later, ST47 restored the single deleted data dump (labeling my deletion "vandalism") and merged it into the main history at the original name. He/she then updated the bot and moved the page to User:STBotI/WARNEDUSERS (edit summary: "Happy?"), leaving behind the redirect at User:STBotI/BADUSER (which he/she later explained must be temporarily retained for technical reasons).

In the discussion that followed, Gwen Gale complained about an addendum, referred to by ST47 as "a nice notice on top of the new page in case someone decides to take offense." This "nice notice" was worded as follows:

---

This page is updated regularly by the bot. It's purpose is really none of your business, but some people are exceedingly nosy and seem to have this innate desire to waste my time. One of them in particular even blocked the bot over this page. Divas.

This page contains a list of every user the bot has warned as part of it's live IMGBot2.pl task, along with the number of times they have been warned, since the last time the page was cleared. Probably a long time ago. When I first wrote the bot I used the terse name BADUSERS for this page, as it was the dump page for the BADUSERS sub, which reported users who had uploaded over 10 bad images to an IRC channel. Unfortunately, due to meddling by the aforementioned exceedingly nosy users, it was moved to this name, which sort of screws up anyone who is trying to actually review the bot's code, since it's got a nice logfile for NFCC10C issues called NFCC10C, a logfile for notag issues called notag, etc, and now the wikipage WARNEDUSERS for the BADUSERS sub. This page is absolutely not intended for human consumption, is in no way guaranteed to be accurate, and is really best ignored - it needs to be on wiki so it is shared between STBotI's various host servers.

---

ST47 partially reworded the message, but not in a manner that eliminated the incivility. When Gwen noted this and I expressed agreement, ST47 ignored our posts (while replying to someone else's unrelated post) and reverted to the earlier (more uncivil) text.

I don't know how to address this situation. Editing the message would be futile (because it would be reverted during the next data dump), and ST47 has withdrawn from the discussion and evidently restored the worse version out of spite. I honestly don't know why he/she has responded in this manner, and I find it quite disheartening. —David Levy 04:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that I've directed ST47, DragonflySixtyseven and Gwen Gale to this thread via their talk pages. —David Levy 04:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also this on the bot's user page:

Admins: Getting to block a bot is not a trophy you get. If you block this bot, you had better have a good reason.

Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know the editor hasn't been particularly responsive to queries about the page, but it seems like getting him to add {{noindex}} to the page would help? Then his bot could still keep its list and you and the other editors who've angered the bot won't have to worry about a page called 'Bad Users' (or whatever it ends up being called) turning up in web searches for their user names. -- Vary Talk 04:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would help. It was suggested to ST47, whose reply was rather unhelpful. —David Levy 04:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also a threat of violence on the bot's talk page (User_talk:STBotI) - "Oh, and if you say rational instead of rationale, I am going to hit you over the head with a large fish." Exxolon (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to interpret that as facetiousness. —David Levy 04:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Enigma ^message 05:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but there seems to a problem with WP:CIVIL here too. "small-minded fool", "some people are exceedingly nosy and seem to have this innate desire to waste my time.", "Divas.", "aforementioned exceedingly nosy users," are hardly the sort of phrases an admin should be throwing around. I'm also somewhat unhappy with this statement - "Do not revert the bot's edits to your userpages or templates, because the bot will just do it again." - does this mean the bot will revert removal of a warning template from a user's talk? Exxolon (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So, out of curiosity, are ST47 and Betacommand the same people? It sure seems like it... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Enigma ^message 05:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By that, ST47 means that the bot will drop the warning on the user talkpage again if the user just reverts the warning and doesn't fix the image. Which is of course correct. Black Kite 10:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I don't pretend to understand a thing about what the bot does or for that matter why, but it seems to me that the behavior displayed by the bot owner has been somewhere between stubbornly unhelpful and outrightly uncivil. WP:OWN applies to all pages on Wikipedia- even if (s)he owns the bot (s)he doesn't own the pages and this sort of snide remarkery shouldn't remain hosted on our servers. I say remove anything borderline from the bot pages, block the bot if necessary to prevent it overwriting until we can get this sorted out, and surely ST47 has something to say for him/herself? l'aquatique |✡| talk 07:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with L'Aquatique.  Sandstein  09:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, STBotI is an important bot that tags uploaded media with no copyright information for deletion, and also non-free images that have no valid fair-use rationale. It also informs the uploaders what is happening. Black Kite 10:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Do important bots follow different policies than unimportant bots? rspεεr (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By "important", I was pointing out that blocking the bot would be a bad idea when the problem isn't directly related to the bot's main tasks, which it appears to be performing mostly correctly. Black Kite 10:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking bots is no big deal. They can catch up later and they don't have feelings to hurt, and the temporary absence of one bot will not harm Wikipedia. Blocking a bot is just something you do when it's making undesirable edits. The problem is that ST47 seems to be taking these blocks of his bot personally, and getting angry instead of addressing the problems people bring up. rspεεr (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my point being that the bot's actual main task is not being affected at the moment. I think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup to be honest, but yes it would be useful for ST47 to address the issues raised. Black Kite 11:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On top of the incivility, ST47 should disabuse himself of the notion that he can intentionally edit-war using his bot by acting as if it's out of his hands. It is within ST47's power, and his responsibility, to change the bot's code if it is making undesirable edits. rspεεr (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The notice needs to include {{NOINDEX}} - OTRS tickets 2008122610019734 / 2008122710016502 / 2008122710016682 for reasons why. I suspect in the end that some people will never be happy with anything other than uncritical acceptance of any unfree image however tenuous the justification, but the tone of the message on the WARNEDUSERS page hardly helps. I would put money on the anon being the self-same user who created the three OTRS tickets listed above, all of which must be very important and serious complaints because they HAVE LOTS OF CAPITALS and inform us that the BADUSERS page is ILLEGAL. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You see, there were at least two or three points in there that I was actually interested in replying to. Unfortunately, it's just a jumble of text now. Good job.

1. The page was moved. The new page has a brief explanation as to what its purpose is. Far more explanation than a simple logfile should need, but heh. It was called baduser because it was the dump file for a subroutine meant to locate potential bad users. Aptly named "sub checkbaduser". Here is the current text:

   $badusertext="This page is updated regularly by the bot. There used to be an explanation here of why it was moved, but some overly sensitive users have requested that it be taken down.\n\nThis page contains a list of every user the bot has warned as part of it's live IMGBot2.pl task, along with the number of times they have been warned, since the last time the page was cleared. Probably a long time ago. When I first wrote the bot I used the terse name BADUSERS for this page, as it was the dump page for the BADUSERS sub, which reported users who had uploaded over 10 bad images to an IRC channel. Unfortunately, due to meddling by several users, it was moved to this name, which sort of screws up anyone who is trying to actually review the bot's code, since it's got a nice logfile for NFCC10C issues called NFCC10C, a logfile for notag issues called notag, etc, and now the wikipage WARNEDUSERS for the BADUSERS sub. This page is absolutely not intended for human consumption, is in no way guaranteed to be accurate, and is really best ignored - it needs to be on wiki so it is shared between STBotI's various host servers.\n\n";

2. I didn't 'revert' my change when I went from the older message to the newer one, I just hadn't let that change propagate. Now it has, and the bot has been restarted, and the notice will stay.
3. Guy: You must be behind on sleep if you think you can justify deleting this page on legal grounds, especially in its new state. I see no reason to add templates or notices or documentation or pretty colored boxes or flying ponies to what should be a simple log file.
4. If you try to move one of these pages and the bot ignores you, DO NOT block the bot. Let me know, and if you're clever enough to justify moving it, then I will shut down the bot, edit its config, force propagate the changes, and restart the bot.
5. The redirect needs to stay for now. Do not delete the redirect. The IRC portion of the bot running on some faraway server will not function without the redirect. Once everything has been updated, I will delete the redirect. If I have not done so in a week, you may remind me then. It shouldn't take any longer than that.
6. Vary: The page called Bad Users is no longer in use. It is now called Warned Users. This has the benefit of being factually correct, and therefore noindex is really unnecessary.
7. Ed Fitzgerald: What, is asking admins to think before they block such a horrible crime? What is so wrong with sanity?
8. Exxolon: Right. It's a threat because I'm actually going to find every user who misspells rationale and go to their house, break in, bring a tuna, and attack them. It's far more plausible that I didn't actually mean that.
9. Exxolon again: "Do not revert the bot's edits to your userpages or templates, because the bot will just do it again" means that if you revert the bot's removal of fair use images from your userpage, from a template, from a portal, from anywhere else, then the bot will just remove the image again on it's second pass.
10. Rspeer: At the time that I made the note saying that the bot would ignore any change to it's log file, noone had actually made a coherent case as to why. As a matter of fact, the same is true if we substitute 'now' and 'why there's still a problem now that it's at /WARNEDUSERS'. ST47 (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut that message short because I was looking for an iridium flare, unfortunately it's a bit too cloudy. I first became aware that someone was complaining when that user vandalized my talk page, the bot's userpage, and the bot's logfile, all in CAPS, while logged out. Obviously a user with an account who had to log out to vandalize. He was blocked for 24 hours, the damage was reverted. When I got there, I believe I reverted one more edit to the logfile from a while ago and then I semied it. I also left a message on the IP's talk page, which I really think was rather nice of myself after he came and acted like such an ass. Anyway, I think I then received an email, let me check. No, maybe not. I heard from someone that there was a rather incoherent OTRS request up from a user who was, their words, not mine, 'mentally unstable'. Around this time the first message on my talk page was left. The user didn't justify their request, didn't ask me to add the template, didn't give any reasons, just pretty much asked what would happen if he added it to the page. The answer to that is "The bot would ignore it, and on the next update it would be removed". Then lots of stuff happened. He msged me at 5PM yesterday, my time, and told me the page would be a problem. I was at a calculus study group, away from my computer, and could not respond. Despite the fact that the page had been up for over a year, Dragonfly6-7 couldn't wait 15 minutes and moved the page at 5:10. Sometime in this period the bot probably reuploaded the log, because it's nowhere near clever enough to see what DF67 did. Less than a half hour later, he blocked the bot. He could have protected the page: the bot is not an admin, and could not have edited through protection, and would have been able to continue to run. People have this innate desire to rack up trophies or something like that by blocking the bot rather than taking the more effective, more sane, less exciting approach. When I got back, I probably shouted at people a bit, had the bot unblocked, then I histmerged the page and moved it to /WARNEDUSERS. This is a perfectly fine title. It is truthful. It is a list of users who the bot warned. The message at the top is more truthful than incivil, for sure. 'Meddling' is entirely accurate: rather than wait for me to reconfigure the bot, people had to try to do it themselves, wound up failing, then blocked the bot. ST47 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally, Guy. The second half of your comment appears to be sarcasm, but you also seem to be using it to support the use of that template. Are you being sarcastic about that as well, or are you actually suggesting that since the user has used enough capital letters, we should add some random template? Also, if you do have some request to make of me, then you really need to support it with the actual tickets that explain your supposed "reasons why", rather than some arbitrary timestamps. Being that I don't have OTRS access, I can't evaluate an argument that is hidden behind a timestamp. ST47 (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"...This has the benefit of being factually correct, and therefore noindex is really unnecessary" - would it hurt to add noindex, though? There's no need for the log of a bot to be publically searchable - as you yourself state, "This page is absolutely not intended for human consumption..." _TalkIslander 12:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No need for it not to be. ST47 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, but in a way you're contradicting yourself there. You can't state one minute that the page isn't for the general populus, but then the next refuse a request to hide it from search engines. Apart from all else, it's a tad stubborn. Adding it would not be at all detrimental to you or your bot, yet you refuse. Why? _TalkIslander 12:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

@ST47: I'm afraid your comments to me above don't actually address what I said. I did not say the page should be deleted, I said we should add {{NOINDEX}}, I think we should do that with any page where bots make records of usernames - in this case the username is the user's real name, so the fact that one of the first page of Google hits is a page about BADUSERS is a bit of an issue for him, for all of his (IMO) rather hysterical over-reaction to it. I am sure he'd have got the result he was after much more quickly and with less drama if he had left the caps lock off and just asked nicely, since I don't believe that anyone is setting out to e actively evil. But the tone of the message on the WARNEDUSERS page is pretty inflammatory, and I don't think it would hurt to tone it down a bit - do you? Guy (Help!) 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's no longer called BADUSER, it's called WARNEDUSERS, therefore the title is factual (list of users who have been warned) therefore it's no reason to exempt it from the whole searchable openness of knowledge thing. The message has been changed once again. Still waiting on a good reason for noindexing. ST47 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to set things straight here, I appreciate the change to use the editable header text (I assume it uses it direct, but whether it does or whther you copy-paste it periodically probably isn't relevant at this point). You've been given what several users think is a good reason to use NOINDEX, which I see you currently do. Do we still need to have any further debate about that or not? Guy (Help!) 17:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

We seem to have consensus here that User:STBotI/WARNEDUSERS should not include the objectionable commentary directed at other users, and should include {{NOINDEX}}. I have made these changes and, according to ST47's suggestion above, protected the page to stop the bot from overwriting it. I ask all administrators to only lift that protection once the bot has been reconfigured so as not to undo these changes. Thank you.  Sandstein  13:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I also suggested that you first come up with a good reason why. I've made the changes to the bot to use noindex, and if you have a good reason to, I'll keep it that way. ST47 (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the commentary should be neutral, and perhaps transcluded from a protected page that can be tweaked without having to get specific users to make code changes. By neutral I mean something like: "this is a list of all users warned by the bot, being listed here does not imply that there is an issue with the user, this is purely for maintenance purposes." Or something. Some of those usernames are real names. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why, apart from the fact that you do not own that page and appear to be the only user here not to want it noindexed, are our policies regarding civility, personal attacks and, as Guy points out, the biography of living persons. I strongly recommend that you follow Guy's advice with respect to transcluding the commentary.  Sandstein  13:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy: It's just a header for a logfile. It seems neutral to me. Once I finish this post, I'll even get rid of everything except the explanation. And since there will be a nice, neutral, explanation, I don't think we'll need noindex, do you agree? ST47 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree. You still haven't explicitly stated why you refuse to add 'noindex' - it seems to me that you're the only one here against including it, so unfortunatly consensus is against you. I'll just add that I think the transclusion idea is a good one - as you're well aware, you don't own the page, so you shouldn't be the only one able to edit its contents (which, by having the bot overwrite it, you effectively are). _TalkIslander 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All I really want is a reason why we have to take the step of noindexing the page. Now that there's an explanation as to why the page exists and why it should not be used by anyone or anything like that, and that the title isn't inflammatory, anyone who finds it would see "oh look, a bot's log page, nothing interesting here" and move along. No reason to hide it from google. ST47 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, put it this way. If I were warned by your bot, I would be added to that list (quite legitimately). Now, it could be that I was warned for uploading a fair-use image for which I forgot to write a rational - as soon as I got your bot's warning, I'd write one (not the best example, as I never upload fair-use images without rationales, but humour me :P). I wouldn't then want a result for a google of 'Islander' to bring up a page entitled 'WarnedUsers'. Yes, it's not really inflammatory, and yes, it's miles better than 'Badusers', but still, it's a blot in my copybook. You won't find anyone that wants to be labeled a 'bad user', but equally I think you'll find very few that are quite happy being labeled a 'warned user'. Being a 'warned user' implies that you've been a bad user, and warrented a warning. In short, though the new title is much better than 'badusers', it's still not great, however factually accurate it is. _TalkIslander 14:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ST47/WUHead. Feel free to add a comment to the header explaining that. You can also use User:ST47/WUTitle. If you do, then please also move the existing page to the new address so as to preserve history. ST47 (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - much appreciated :). _TalkIslander 14:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sand: If we ignore the commentary, and assume that I make it nice and neutral. A list of users who have been warned is in no way uncivil, it's not a personal attack to say "STBotI warned you", and I don't even see where BLP comes into play. If we treat this as a mainspace article and apply that policy, then we really just need it be unbiased and sourced. If it would make you happy, I can add a link to each users' talk page history as a source? ST47 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated with a neutral explanation. ST47 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking care of the worries editors had about how things were worded. I don't think anyone was being nosy or untowards, although from your outlook, in the thick of things trying to run the bot, I understand how the page name seemed utterly straightforward and harmless to you, a scripting artifact and nothing more. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I really would like to keep it not noindexed, and I've put the header and title into a template at User:ST47/WUHead and User:ST47/WUTitle. If you have any suggestions, feel free to update them. ST47 (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How about calling the dump something like TEMPLATEDUSERS or NOTIFIEDUSERS instead? I see nothing wrong with keeping the page open to SE bots if the pagename along with any header text are wholly neutral. On the Internet, it's so easy for folks to take things wrong at a quick glance. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Either one of those is fine with me. Perhaps we can not make it ALLCAPS? User:STBotI/Notified users? ST47 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for some reason I thought ALLCAPS was how you wanted it, to denote botness or whatever. I always like smallcase better. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it important that a bot's logfile be indexed by search engines? DoubleBlue (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the page as it now is, but I think the NOINDEX should stay, as the page is of no use to the general public and would needlessly clutter up search engine results.  Sandstein  14:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's not indexed I see no meaningful worries with the name and header as they are. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason for including NOINDEX is simple: some of those are real names, and some others look like blameless users who made trivial errors in NFC rationales. There is no reason why it would ever need to be indexed, so adding NOINDEX makes good sense - it removes an identified problem without apparently creating any further problems of its own. Anyway, all sorted now, thanks. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. No matter what the page's title is, an incorrect inference can be drawn by someone who sees such a list (containing names added due to issues ranging from blatant image vandalism to "a bug in the bot's code," the latter of which resulted in my name's inclusion). The new explanatory message certainly helps to counter such misinterpretations, but I see no reason why a page of this nature should be publicly indexed.

Thanks for calming down and addressing the problem, ST47. —David Levy 16:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that all the operators of these copyright tagging bots always seem so grumpy? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case nobody gave him any time at the start to actually do changes. Something about an anon shouting at him, telling him to put noindex without explaining why. Then other users (including myself from my blackberry) try to put noindex on the page, and one even tried to move it. Of course it is a bot, so none of that worked as the bot was just putting the same text in the same spot every time.... overwriting whatever was there originally. I do think the whole thing could have gone better then this... but *shrug* —— nixeagle 14:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Offensive language and personal attacks by User:AP1929

User:AP1929 is a pro-Ustaše user that has been roaming on Ustaše-related articles ("AP 1929" is an abbreviation of "Ante Pavelić 1929", "1929" being the year the fascist "Ustaše" Croatian ultra-nationalist movement was founded). His IP is 99.250.48.35, which can easily be confirmed. While his constant fascist comments can be tolerated, his description of an established User like Thewanderer as a "communist piece of shit" [11] should not go unrewarded in my opinion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User was topicbanned for six months from these articles by FutPerf. Perhaps it's time to do it again? // roux   08:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

His contribs show him to be essentially a SPA- blocking him would have the same effect as topic banning him, but with the added bonus that it's actually enforceable without a whole bunch of dramaz. l'aquatique |✡| talk 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, topicbanning would hardly be an appropriate response to calling a User a "piece of shit" on his own talkpage. Such action is not really related to any particular topic. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't made an edit since this thread was posted. If he comes back and is anything but a sweet flower in the spring rain, I'll give him a little vacation, how does that sound? l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that means anything, he edits from time to time only. I doubt he thinks he's been noticed at all, in fact, I think he's under the impression he may do whatever he likes on non-article pages of Wikipedia (he's led me to believe that in any case). I'm not pretending to be 100% objective, but in my view he's been asking for a holiday for quite a while now when we add his persistent section-blanking to the equation. [12] [13] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't feel comfortable blocking a user who hasn't edited since his last warning (being notified of this thread). Maybe another admin here doesn't share my qualms? l'aquatique |✡| talk 19:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think L'Aquatique's approach is the best one here: there's no harm leaving a final warning on this user's page, then giving him a "holiday" if he returns with an unchanged agenda. Because (1) we gave him a chance to change -- which ought to appease anyone who may be tempted to revert a permanent block/ban, & (2) if he doesn't return ... then the whole issue is moot. -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Very well, all the best in 2009 :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, et. al. at WT:DYK

Could some uninvolved admins please step in at WT:DYK? The constant sniping and hostile atmosphere between Ottava and other editors at DYK has driven contributors away and is a detriment to Wikipedia. Is Ottava still under mentorship? If so, could the mentors please advise him/her on disengaging? BuddingJournalist 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Diffs, please? Protonk (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Until any are given, here is a stack to look through. No opinion on subject matter. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] — neuro^(talk) 18:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to keep up with the DYK issue, but my understanding is that Ottava Rima ended the mentorship a few weeks ago: [29] [30] [31] [32] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats about right, except for the mentorship actually ending here, 5 days before. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Two hours and not one notification that I am put at ANI? And this is some how supposed to quell my claims that people at DYK are not following community standards anymore? >.<!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  I apologize for not informing you. I was merely trying to flag down administrators to calm the waters at WT:DYK, not start a discussion here. BuddingJournalist 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  Here is a good diff to look at. I tell Politizer to get involved with other aspects of the community: Village Pump, GA/FA, MoS, etc, in order to get a greater sense of people's opinions and issues, because DYK has been making some proposals that seem to run counter to how people outside of the rarely viewed WP:DYK talk page feel about various issues. What is the response? "You can go fuck yourself, Ottava Rima". I have a lot of DYKs. I have half of the DYK 5+ hook awards. I know about making complicated DYK, and I defended DYK for a long time at ANI. Now I am being dragged through the mud because I defended Blockquotes as counting as prose, as even MoS and WP:SIZE states it is. Then I am criticized because I stated that translations and simply taking what another wiki says and copying and pasted it into wikipedia is not new. What is this world coming to? I stated before that Village Pump or RfC should be used to get wider consensus on an issue and certain members called for me to be banned from DYK because of it. Is this really fair? Is this right? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, looking at this from afar, all of the parties need to disengage here. I've avoided DYK while this furore is going on... Sceptre ^(talk) 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. This is needless drama- everyone needs to put on the big girl panties and walk away. l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert over protection.

Why are admins editing over protection. What I see here is a protection, then a reversion. Should pages be protected in the condition they are found? page history. The protection policy does not call for full protection at user request, but only semi after vandalism. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You can't protect and revert in the same edit. Please note it is the same editor who protected that reverted. --Smashville^talk 19:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And it was at user request. NonvocalScream, may I respectfully suggest that you drop this matter? It's over, done with. // roux   19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It was still very much against what we do. We don't protect a user's preferred version of disputed content. As for your suggestion -

A single title was removed from your watchlist:

   * User:Bstone (Talk)

I'm not watching that page anymore. Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well umm... the ANI you started had a consensus to leave it alone. The MFD you started and withdrew had a clear consensus to leave it alone. So it's not about protecting the user's preferred version, it's protecting the consensus version. Cheers. // roux   20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your right. I guess I am having a hard time with a message on a userpage that brings a user and the project into disrepute. As if the userpage belongs personally to the user. I guess I had better get over it before I start exhausting the communities patience. I, personally don't have alot of patience for troll like behaviour, but as above, the page no longer appears on my watchlist, and is also protected against my editing. I've already asked for opinions here, and subjected it to MFD. There is not anything else I can do. It saddens me a bit that the page can continue to exist in its form. It is a bad faith page, and one that would sully the project and an editor. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Leave it be, mate. This falls into the same category as uncertified RfCs. People can vent, but we are not compelled to host the venting especially if they choose to leave. Bstone's complaint was discussed and consensus was that he had outed himself; I knew his RWI already due to past comments and commentary, he was not exactly working hard to retain anonymity so it's hard to condemn Avi for what looks very much like a simple slip. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with Jehochman

Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been actively advocating for a community ban/block/etc. of me for more than a month. I'm fine with this, but when he takes unilateral actions to stop my attempt to deal with problematic situations:

[33]

what am I supposed to do? This was an inappropriate close of the COI report. Similar to User:Pcarbonn whose report was closed by the same user leading indirectly to us having to escalate the condition all the way to arbitration, Jehochman is cutting off process and not letting people comment. His claim that people's "vocations" don't make for conflict-of-interests is false on the face of it. I am accusing this particular user of editing articles which have a direct financial connection to a business that he runs.

Imagine if we had a person who was selling snake oil editing the article. By Jehochman's arugment, we could say that he wouldn't have a conflict-of-interest editing that article because it was his "vocation". We could make the similar argument for nearly anybody.

As such, I submit that this early admin-close was inappropriate for two reasons:

1. It was done by an admin with a stated vendetta against my involvement at Wikipedia.
2. It was done inappropriately. The claim that you get out-of-conflict-of-interest-free simply because it is your "vocation" is false on the face of it pursuant to various rulings including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience which dealt with Eric Lerner's vocational conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion which dealt with Pcarbonn's vocational conflict of interest.

I would ask that an administrator remove the "close" remarks and simply allow discussion to occur. I think the premature closing of this discussion was rude and opposed to our desire to get consensus. Jehochman is not the be-all and end-all of conflict-of-interest discussions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably be best to leave out the vendetta bit and other accusations so the question of how best to handle the COI report can be focused on without all the other drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• SA, the complaint was closed because the editor in question is quite open about his bias and therefore it does not need to be brought to the COI noticeboard. Whether there should be a user RfC or a motion to ArbCom under the terms of the homeopathy arbitration is another matter. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Jim Butler never ever stops his advocacy, and while the direct benefits may be low, they might not be; we can't guess how often he sends people unsure about Acupuncture to the Wikipedia article as a 'good introduction to the subject', knowing that his highly biased edits populate the article. I've seen discussions of his NPOV-violating edits to scientific articles before, but note that once again, this has become about SA, not the people who constantly sell bullshit as 'essences of roses' on Wikipedia. If WP:COI isn't appropriate, then we need a WP:ADVOCACY reporting system to deal with this sort of behavior. Until then, COI makes more sense than any other location. ThuranX (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Note: It's become apparent that ThuranX had me confused with User:Tom Butler.) --Jim Butler (t) 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, we actually have had people selling snake oil editing the article on snake oil - it's a fringey mess ATM. As for COI, not sure here. I occasionally contribute to general articles involving chemistry (my academic background). I would think twice before editing articles involving my specific area of research - not sure if I could be unbiased when I've reviewed papers by the "other guy" I think are horseshit. That's a grey area. I would never edit any article involving my employer, as that would be a clear COI. So I think this is closer to the grey area than a direct violation of COI, and is probably best described as advocacy.

The closest comparison to Mr. Butler's behavior is probably, I hate to say, Dana Ullman[[34]]. I would suggest that Mr. Butler step back from active editing of acupuncture articles and restrict himself to talk pages in light of this. Arbcom has not looked kindly on dedicated advocacy.

As for Jehochman, I urge him not to bring any administrative action against SA at least until the conclusion of the impending arbitration. There's some pretty harsh rhetoric from both sides in the RfAr that makes me question if Jehochman can be impartial here. In any case, it's like dumping gasoline on the fire. Skinwalker (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree re Jehochman. He, like all admins familiar with SA's misconduct, need to bear down harder on SA, not cut him slack because of false equivalencies. That's the right thing to do with chronic problem editors. SA is the bad actor here, not the admins he complains about. There's plenty of evidence to back that up; start with SA's block log, not to mention this. --Jim Butler (t) 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys complaining about my edits actually read them? I write for all sides of the argument (e.g. adding a whole "criticisms" section, or updating evidence showing less effect for osteoarthritis, or adding a source re cultural bias in studies). If I put in a "pro" position I source and weight it carefully, engage on talk pages, compromise, etc. IOW, I wear my WP editor hat first. I've been accused of this stuff before, and the evidence never backs it up; e.g. this ANI thread on another disruptive editor, Mccready (whom ScienceApologist closely resembles in his disruption). Thuranx and Skinwalker, this is the first time I've heard of you; if you have issues with my editing, why haven't you discussed it with my via usual channels (talk pages)?

You've got to show better evidence of COI or POV-pushing than merely asserting it exists because I happen to be an acupuncturist. Absent such evidence, all you're doing is violating WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." BTW, I also have a very mainstream M.A. in chemistry from Harvard; be assured that I experience no inner conflict at all from also being an acupuncturist. I just try to be as objective as I can, and skeptical type editors who actually collaborate with me, as a rule, tend to say favorable things about my editing (see my talk page, e.g. here and here). I welcome scrutiny of my edits, but let's see some diffs: otherwise, this all sounds like meritless piling-on to me: pure WP:GAME by ScienceApologist, who has made his mission clear: "I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned.". What more proof of bad faith do you need? He's engaging this jihad with me and with Jehochman as well. --Jim Butler (t) 00:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And of course, if I edited pseudonymously, this would never come up; but since I edit in good faith with my real identity, and am open about my background, I get slimed. No good deed goes unpunished. What a dysfunctional system. --Jim Butler (t) 01:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know about your Harvard MA. You've prattled on about it in multiple posts. Skinwalker (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind casual observers that I have one foot squarely planted in the mainstream. Look, talk is cheap. I've never interacted with you before, yet you claim to be familiar with my edits. Why do you think that the majority of skeptic type editors who do interact with me think my edits are fine? Answer that. And if you're going to criticize my editing, provide the evidence. Let's see it. Go over to the articles I edit, find my edits and line them up with discussion at the time, and come on over to my talk page and show me how biased I am. --Jim Butler (t) 02:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Q.E.D.. Skinwalker (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought you'd have to offer. --Jim Butler (t) 02:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Butler has now come to my talk page challenging me to prove my point or drop the matter. This sort of childish behavior does nothing good for my opinion of him, and he further lowered my opinion by playing strawman games and changing the goalposts when I replied. This is the sort of 'civil POV pushing' and system gaming endemic to the pseudoscience editors that SA and others work against. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the exchange, which editors can judge for themselves. ThuranX, when challenged, declined to produce a single diff to back up his accusation. And then, ironically, repeated his proven-baseless accusation. Conduct unbecoming any editor, let alone those purportedly concerned with upholding stuff like science and evidence. News flash: I'm not the bad guy here. I don't think ThuranX is either, just a little overenthusiastic. The problem is SA's outrageous gaming and attacks. --Jim Butler (t) 03:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)No, I called you a crybaby. The fact that I've noticed your behavior over the past months is enough. 'Prove it' challenges, especially when addressing a pattern of behavior are pointless. Had I replied with two or three examples, he's had dissembled, saying that it was out of context, misinterpreted, or an odd mistake, but not admitted. Had I gone for four to six examples, he'd repeat the context challenge, complained about me not paying attention to the behavior of others in those examples, and had I gone for more, he'd have alleged I was secretly stalking him. This entire arc of behavior, as I predicted, was predicated on eliminating opposition, not about actually addressing the matters at hand. We've seen this sort of bullshit game before, and I for one am sick of being expected to jump through the hoops established by the standard handbook of POV Push tactics. The elimination of editors who participate in this shit would make Wikipedia far stronger than their persistent behaviors. Further, Butlerss above attacks and insults of me and my conduct in NOT going to his page to engage in a pattern of intimidation tactics, and instead, keeping it here where it's appropriate, need a warning, if not a block. ThuranX (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. actually you don't know that. You're the one making assertions about his behaviour, therefore it is incumbent upon you to provide diffs which prove that behaviour. Trust the rest of us to be smart enough to see if he's shifting the goalposts. Can you provide diffs of the behaviour or not? If you can, then please do. If it's true that he has been behaving in this way, then sanctions are appropriate. // roux   04:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion. I've seen enough pseudo-science editors play this game to see it when it's being played, sorry you can't. I'm not going to indulge him, or you, on this little distraction. essentially the game ends with a 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' double bind, where either the proof provided is all "wrong", or the proof you provided proves you're out to get the editor in question. It's not worth engaging in, and opting not to play so outrages the pseudoscience types that they react with this' if you're not going to play, you never had anything to show' reaction. It boils down to an infantile defensiveness, in which any attempt to oppose them is met with these games, and as I said before, I'm not playing. ThuranX (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No.. I believe it's generally accepted around here that making accusations without a shred of evidence to back them up tends to indicate a lack of evidence for the accusations. Either way, I don't have a dog in the pseudoscience fight; I'm just seeing you hurl a lot of invective at someone with not a single thing to back it up, as well as a whole bunch of predictions that you also can't back up. Either he did what you're saying or he didn't. If he did, show us where. // roux   07:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, issue resolved: ThuranX apparently had me confused with User:Tom Butler. (duplicate note from above since thread is so long.) --Jim Butler (t) 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I do have Jim and Tom conflated, and that's been resolved. ThuranX (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Was the COI report closed for a correct reason?

I opened a discussion at WT:COIN: COI report when not promoting oneself? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for recusal

I would like to request, in the future, that User:Jehochman recuse himself from closing threads that I initiate as there is a fairly obvious history of bad blood between that user and myself. The person feelings that will get wrapped up whenever he takes direct administrative actions with regard to me are unavoidable at this point.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's rich. You've already stated your intention to attack editors with whom you're in conflict. So, your pattern is:

• disrupt the hell out of WP
• get sanctioned by an admin
• complain that the sanctioning admin is "in conflict" with you, and demand recusal.

That's cute, if a tad transparent and WP:SOUP-y, but it won't fly. What you should be doing, if you really feel that you're the lone defender of certain science articles, is (a) stop being so grandiose, (b) disengage. What you should not do is state the intention to rampage, and then do so. In good faith, I would recommend that you disengage; however, I must admit that part of me despairs of your ever behaving well on WP, and doesn't mind letting you keep rampaging, because then the community will be forced to act. Sorry, but you've crossed the line long ago into the realm where it's appropriate to call a spade a spade. You have become a seriously disruptive influence on WP, and need to choose between disengaging or forcing others to impose that on you. --Jim Butler (t) 03:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As some fellow editors may have noticed at RFAR, I've become ScienceApologist's mentor. He made this request at my suggestion. He and Jehochman do have a history, and it's reasonable to at least request recusal. If anyone has an objection that pertains to ScienceApologist's interactions with Jehochman, here would be the place to raise it. Please keep the discussion topical: one's general opinion of any editor (positive or negative) is unrelated to the merits of a recusal request. Durova^Charge! 05:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova, for highlighting the pertinent issue, and sorry for going off track. I'm interested to know about Jehochman's and SA's past interactions; it will help me understand the RFAR better, as well as the recusal request. Could you explain this background a little? Thanks, and I sincerely wish you and SA the best outcomes with the mentoring relationship. I'm glad he undertook it, and afterward I was frankly surprised to see his gratuitous COI attacks on me[35][36]. I don't think they're a very good start for a guy ostensibly seeking wiki-rehab. (That's assuming they were meritless. Now, maybe my edits are overly biased, but it would be nice if someone who knows me and has worked with me could explain specifically how.) regards, Jim Butler (t) 05:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim, am just getting up to speed on things myself. Basically it's been a tough month for Jehochman and perhaps his intuition isn't quite at its best right now. Also before I ever corresponded with SA I wasn't keen on J's handling of the Pcarbonn threads. There are 1500 other sysops and if SA starts a thread that lacks merit, someone else will close it with less controversy. This is a tough area for all concerned; one step at a time perhaps we can bring things more in line with site norms. Durova^Charge! 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. I still don't understand the logic re recusal. SA has been extremely disruptive: virtually no one disputes that. If Jehochman is familiar with SA's conduct, and has sought to improve it, why would recusal be a good choice? It's better to have admins involved who are familiar with the history. Is there evidence of misconduct by Jehochman with respect to SA? That's the question. If not, and SA just feels annoyed that Jehochman has been trying to rein in his excesses, then the recusal request sounds like WP:GAME to me. regards, Jim Butler (t) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is going nowhere fast. I suggest that the parties request mediation, or initiate an RfC, or similar. I do not think Jim Butler is evil, but a cursory glance at his contributions does give some weight to the idea that he is writing for advocacy rather than in a truly dispassionate way. This cannot really be resolved by an admin noticeboard discussion, and I don't think that the COI noticeboard is the right place either as I think the dispute is more nuanced than that. So, a dispute exists, impacts neutrality of content so needs to be resolved, involves some people who have personal issues witheach other so probably needs third-party involvement, and is not a simple matter of self-promotion. Let's pick a venue which supports lengthy discussion of details of content and move forward from there, shall we? Guy (Help!) 14:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy - Per WP:DR, probably Talk:Acupuncture would be a good place to start, where there are already editors familiar with each other's work. As a matter of fact, over the last few months there have been more skeptic-type editors than acupuncturists there (3:1) ratio, and we've been satisfied with each others' work (see my talk page, e.g. here and here). There isn't some longstanding conflict hinging on my pigheaded refusal to see the light, or something. Collaboration is the rule there, not heavy-duty conflict (the tendentious and rightly-banned User:Mccready notwithstanding). With all due respect, I don't think we need to go further up the WP:DR ladder merely on the basis of a quick glance at my edits. You're trustworthy and level-headed, Guy, but are not familiar with my contributions, or how the acupuncture article has evolved over the last couple years. regards, Jim Butler (t) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't an ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science just started which can address at least some of these problems? Isn't that a good place to start? Mathsci (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an arbitration going on right now. Why are we here? The mentor would do well to guide this matter through dispute resolution rather than encouraging disruptive excursions. I've never blocked or unblocked SA. I've only acted as a fellow editor. I happen to like them, in general, but am very disappointed that they keep pushing the envelope. Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Butler isn't a named party in the arbitration case. So perhaps mediation would be a good idea? Please slow down a step or two, Jehochman. I didn't encourage these threads or even know about them until last night, at which point the range of potentially useful suggestions was rather narrow. Would you be willing to consent to his recusal request? Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Um, maybe the best way to deal with any perceived issues of bias on my part would be to start at the beginning of WP:DR, and just talk to me? That is, on relevant talk pages? There is a narrative developing here that I'm a POV pusher, solely because SA wrongly asserted a COI, and two other editors chimed in and then couldn't produce a single diff. (One later turned out to be a case of mistaken identity.) IOW, the idea that I'm POV-pushing happens to be incorrect and unsupportable. (BTW, I didn't read Jehochman suggesting that I get caught up in this RFAR.) --Jim Butler (t) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Move, renames, lost history

I don't know where to post this, but the moves and redirects for the Nazi philosophers article are getting out of control. I don't think there's any ill intent, but this contribution history [37] contains many of the titles and moves. The history is in one place List of Nazi philosophers and the article, with new history, is now in another Nazi Philosophers (at least last I checked) which should probably be Nazi philosophers. Thanks to anyone who wants to help sort this mess out or point me in the right direction. There's also an issue of what the article should be titled and what it should include if anyone wants to weigh in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Savabubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been renaming these articles. He also managed to get his User talk redirected to an article talk, confusingly enough. I undid this redirection and invited him to comment here. His activities suggest he may not be familiar with how article moves are usually done, or the need to get consensus. He has also started a second user talk page at User talk:Savabubbles which does not correspond to any existing user name. Once we figure out how to get a proper move discussion started, there could be a need for cut-and-paste move repair. Savabubble has been around since December 2007. He appears well-intentioned but has not been catching on to WP policy very quickly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bambifan101 related protection requests

There is a bunch of requests for protection regarding targets of banned user Bambifan101 (talk · contribs) at WP:RFPP. I personally would decline all of them for not much activity but I am unfamiliar with the user so I'd like some more input. Regards SoWhy 21:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bambifan101, aka "The Disney Vandal", uses dynamic ip's to attack favourite articles - the ip accounts are quickly stomped upon, but usually not before they are abandoned. If the major targets can be sprotected without too much (preferably no) collateral damage then it would remove a lot of potential damage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would grant the requests. The Disney Vandal is persistent, and does a lot of damage with edits that aren't obviously vandalism, making it difficult to get his accounts dealt with quickly through AIV and other more normally useful techniques.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked his /17 range (it's fairly high traffic) for 72 hours. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bambifan101 nearly exclusively uses named accounts. Soft-blocking is of no help.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is if the accounts are new. Black Kite 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Meh, forget that - I was having a "softblock"/"semi-protect" senior moment... Black Kite 15:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Softblocking is anon. only, account creation blocked. This block will prevent him from harassing users anonymously and hopefully stymie his rampant account creation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, "limited help". An editor that has been this dedicated for this long with this many accounts probably has a nice collection of socks pre-knitted. If soft-blocking only permitted confirmed editors, I'd be a lot more optimistic.—Kww(talk) 02:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I had been reading this as being instead of protection. As an addition to protection, I have no strong objection.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Against; last week another user requested a semi of all of the vandal's user talk pages for the simple reason he wanted to deny him ANY pages to edit and thus bore him (No, seriously, that's what he said). This is no different; the only difference is the namespace and the requesting editor. It's pointless to prot every single article a vandal tends to target because it encourages the vandal to target *new* articles, broadening his scope and making ID'ing more difficult. Besides, there's serious WP:DENY issues here as well (though I'm probably the LAST person who should be speaking of that...). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 12:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this issue. Despite my attempts to get away from this crap, I ended up doing some reverts of his latest round of vandalism. To my shock, however, established editor User:Colonel Warden is now actively supporting this known vandal's edits and is doing edits for him,[38] including undoing merges that have been in place for months,[39][40] and reverting attempts to restore them,[41], restoring Bambifan101's IP sock edits,[42][43] even adding a WP:COPYRIGHT violating link to one reverted article,[44] etc. He is even using false edit summaries in these edits. I mean, I know he's a big time inclusionist, but this seems very excessive to me, and it seems to be more about attempting to undo something I did rather than a genuine concern for the articles, from his own remarks about why he undid the merge.[45] I asked LessHeard vanU about the issue, as it seemed very inappropriate to me that CW is now basically helping the vandal which seems to go against WP:BAN.[46]. Unfortunately, CW's responses were less than encouraging.[47]

• Comment My interest in this matter arises from User:SoWhy's post at the head of this section which caught my eye yesterday. I looked into the topics in question and found them in need of some content-editing attention. One of them, for example, is a Number 1 hit single in the UK which has sold over a million copies, making it a platinum disk. Furthermore there was some seasonal relevance in that it was nearly a Christmas No.1 which is a perennial topic at this time of year. I have been fleshing this out but Collectionian seems so incensed by this that she has now proposed that the article be deleted altogether - an absurd proposition. Anyway, this is just an ordinary content dispute and the only special feature is that we have this Bambifan chap buzzing around in the background. I have no particular interest in them - it is the topics which concern me. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary alone is sufficiently deceptive that it renders Colonel Warden's motivations suspect.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hardly. I was adding to the article, working from the previous full version. Collectonian had interposed a redirect and so, of course, this was overwritten in adding additional material to the article. The point here was that another source was being added, so making the redirect moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Evasion in response to having your deceptive edit summaries pointed out doesn't help. The major impact of your edit was to undo a redirect. You and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles both try this nonsense of pretending that redirects don't exist and your edit summaries don't need to take them into account. It's disruptive when he does it, and it's disruptive when you do it. I think that behaviour alone is worthy of a block until you agree to stop doing it.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I gather that you are an enthusiast for such redirections and so are not impartial in this matter. Please indicate a relevant guideline/policy regarding edit summaries and I will be happy to consider it. Currently I tend to be brief and indicate with words such as "etc" or "&c" if there is more than can be easily summarised. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Undoing redirect" is beyond your ability to type?—Kww(talk) 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have consulted the relevant guideline which says, "Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).". This is what I did - I summarised the changes which seemed important to me - the addition of sourced material - and appended ", etc." so that editors with other priorities could consult a diff if they wanted to know more. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't seriously expect people to believe that you find the redirects unimportant. If they were unimportant to you, you wouldn't spend so much of your editing energy searching them out and undoing them. As usual, your response to criticism is to attempt to be evasive and glib. I don't think that you fool anyone.—Kww(talk) 18:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. I mean...what is the point of lying in an edit summary like that. It isn't like people with half a brain are going to say "Hmm, he says he's making minor changes but the file size changes from 234 bytes to 5600, I guess I won't check up on that". What do you gain? Protonk (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The suggestion that this was deliberate deception is ridiculous because it is obvious that adding content will override a redirect. Collectonian watches over articles quite closely and, as in this case, you can expect immediate counter-action when making an edit with which she disagrees. I have had content disputes with her before and am quite familiar with the pattern. Rather than engaging with the substantive issue, one has to deal with a torrent of wikilawyering like this irrelevant matter of the edit summary. The bottom line here is that I have reinstated and improved an article which should never have been redirected in the first place and the community is endorsing my action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh!. A better example of deception can be seen at this AFD in the claim of consensus for that redirection, when on inspection, it turns out to have been a unilateral action. The AFD nomination itself is an obvious abuse of process. Maybe this pattern of zealous behaviour is relevant to the Bambifan matter. Why is the Disney Vandal so fixated upon Collectonian? Is this a case of a young editor who was bitten hard and is now retaliating in a correspondingly immature way? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's nice. Now you continue lying. The AfD is not an abuse of process. You undid a very valid merge for no other reason than because you saw that I was the one who did it. Even the AfD is only saying keep (it was already kept), rather than delete. Sucks, but the merge was still valid. The article was tagged for merge TWO MONTHS without a single voice of complaint, so the merge was performed. How you can actually believe that one paragraph stub is somehow better in its own article than merged into the Teletubbies article is beyond me, but considering you are running around helping a vandal who has been active for over a year, nothing you do surprises me anymore. As for your final implication, to be blunt, F you. If anyone is acting like a fanatic, its you with you continued decline from at least a semi-respectable editor to pulling the same sort of crap I'd expect from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Nevermind that you totally ignored WP:BRD as the merge had been in place long enough that you should not have continued reverting its doing, but instead should have started a new split discussion. and As for the vandal, he was active long before I got involved (and would be the first to tell you) and he continued being active long after. I just amused him more because I caught him faster than anyone else bothered too, so he likely felt he had a challenge for the first time. He also vandalizes at least 5 other known Wikis, but of course, here he now has a new best friend (you) who will help him re-ruin many articles. Good going! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

<-- It is my experience that Collectonian knows what she is doing here. As far as I'm concerned, when she makes protection requests or sock reports, I take them seriously. Tan | 39 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and to note, I primarily did protection requests on those sub-articles which have been merged for quite awhile and which he seemed to be amusing himself by un-doing the merge, then redoing, then undoing. Protection seemed the best route. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• To be fair, whilst Kww is quite right about the "sneaky" undoing of redirects by certain users, this one is undoubtedly independently notable. The edit summary should've noted it, though. Black Kite 18:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is notable, does it really need its own article when all there is to say about it is what is there? That same information was already merged to the main article over a month ago, with no issues at all. Sometimes, even notable stuff can and should be combined into a more notable piece. And shouldn't a discussion have occurred before just arbitrarily undoing it under false edit summaries? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My previous experience with Collectorian is that she appears to have serious WP:OWN issues regarding articles that she has unilaterally removed from Wikipedia (frequently via blanking rather than formal process), and though she may lays down a paper trail in talk pages she actually pays very little attention to consensus. She may talk the talk, and have a firm grasp of wikipedia politics, but she cares more about preserving her own edits than whether or not the articles or wikipedia itself. Admitedly my experience with Collectorian is restricted to deletion disputes, she may do great work elsewhere. Artw (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a personal issue with me, take it elsewhere, but this really has nothing to do with this issue. I have no personal stake in the article, and only did the merge as it was in my watchlist from dealing with this vandal. I do damn good work and I won't have you sitting here disparaging my editing character when you admit you barely even know anything about me, which is pretty obvious when you say I don't care about articles or Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• It seems I'm a little late to this party, my invite must have been lost in the mail. I'm the one who tried to get pages blocked in order to obstruct and bore the Bambifan socks. I still don't quite understand the resistance to this idea. This banned user's latest blocked sock was using their talk page to "suggest" changes they might like to see. That is ban evasion and a clear abuse of multiple accounts. I let User:AGK convince me to drop it while he tried to reason with the sock, and when he saw how this banned user was talking one thing and doing another, he suddenly [48] quit the project. So, now that we've lost a valued admin (at least partially) over this, you'll have to forgive me for feeling that we need to do everything within our power to stop this person. This conversation has wandered slightly off that topic, but it is my main interest here is to stress that I think with a concerted, prolonged effort they could be stopped, but only if admins don't take a defeatist attitude, saying it's not possible to stop this user, they'll never go away, etc. This user is not like other vandals, who move on to new territory when their "favorite" articles get blocked. They are obsessed with a small circle of articles on children's TV and films. If we can take those away from them, they won't have any "fun". And I don't see why any talk page of a known named sock of this user shouldn't be indef protected to prevent them from evading their ban and causing more disruption, like this whole episode. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding AGK, I assure you that it is  Unrelated, as he has told me personally. (He's not posting himself because that'd defeat the purpose of his retirement.)

"I've been pondering the retirement for a good while. I've banned enough users in my time to not become totally disillusioned with the project because one banned user fails to reform" is basically my thoughts. - AGK, as told to Penwhale, posted with his consent

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• My question is why we haven't dealt with this at the ISP level. Can't someone from the office call whatever the ISP is and notify them of the continued abuse? They should be able to track down who the user is and throttle their WP access at the source. // roux   20:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I filed an abuse report months ago, no one did anything with it. I also emailed the ISP abuse line and got no response at all. One of many reasons I got tired of dealing with the mess, seeming impossible to really do anything about him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The abuse reports seem worse than useless. Isn't there someone at WMF who can handle these things at an 'official' level? One would think a letter on WMF letterhead from Godwin would be enough, no? // roux   20:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection's a definite here--the only question is how long? I'd personally go indef, given the level of disruption. Blueboy96 20:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Collectonian, can you post a list of currently unprotected, Bambi-sock-target articles to my talk page, and I'll indefinitely semi-protect them? Tan | 39 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

List posted. In the last AN/I thread I participated in about this, I also posted a basic summary of his editing style and indicators its probably him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi does nothing. I've seen it happen on Simple. One of his original targets was The Fox and the Hound, which Majorly protected. Once Cassandra semi-protected WALL-E and Charlotte's Web 2, Bambifan jumped around to Teletubbies (those had to be protected as well). It's been so long ago that I can't remember all the targets that he's hit. Synergy unprotected those articles about a month ago, and I haven't been back to check to see any history of disruption. Indef semi will only block valid anonymous user edits and really doesn't stop him. He also puzzlingly became productive with his Touchpath account (riddled with typos, but he was creating articles where none existed) and was only blocked by Majorly when Collectionian informed them that he was, in fact, the Disney vandal. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page for a comprehensive list of pages I semi-protected indefinitely. I agree that this is not a complete fix, Hbdragon. However, I disagree that it will do "nothing". It at least creates another hoop for him to jump through, at minimal blood and treasure for us. Tan | 39 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As a regular editor of two of the pages just semi-protected I was surprised to learn they were targets of "persistent vandalism". They aren't... not by Bambifan... or anyone else. Both articles received trivial and harmless edits many weeks ago from one of the suspect IPs. It wasn't a problem then, and is certainly isn't now. They do get a fair number of IP edits of dubious value by overly enthusiastic children. Now, I find children as annoying as any other childless thirtysomething male does (my interest in these two articles is their connection to Edwardian literature), but I put up with them. And I think it sends a very negative message about Wikipedia when those kids are blocked from editing all of their favorite movie pages like this, just in case those articles might become future targets of vandalism. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In the list, I included all of his regular targets, as well as recent ones. While I see your concern, I think it is important to protect them now, as he has shown in the past that when his old favorites are blocked, he moves on to the newer films, including these two (which is why he hit them last time). This isn't blocking kids, this is blocking one. The rest are free to make accounts or make edit requests to the talk page, same as any other new editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interim naming of December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes

We're having a problem where a fresh set of eyes might help. There is some discussion of what to call the article about the recent events in the Gaza strip. The article began as "Operation Cast Lead" named for the Israeli code name for the operation and some editors felt that this was a violation of WP:NPOV. That discussion (with the requisite renaming wars) began here and then continued here.

At issue is what to name the article in the interim, while we attempt to build consensus about a long term name. Specifically, that User:Cerejota might have overstepped by changing the name of the article to the current name while discussion was still ongoing. It seems to me that there is growing consensus that the article should be changed back for now if not forever, but that could be my own bias on the subject,

The general sense that I'm getting is that people are frustrated and unsure as to how to proceed both on the short and long term. So I'm asking for an admin to take a look and give us some feedback.

Lot 49a^talk 23:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with Operation Cast Lead? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We've had a few arguments raised: that an incident that involves killing civlians shouldn't be named after a poem, that by using the IDF name for it, we're endorsing their view, that no one in the media is using Operation Cast Lead to describe the events etc. There are screens and screens of arguments [[on the talk page in two main places if you want to read more. Lot 49a^talk 23:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lot49a, we do not discuss content here at ANI, we discuss behavior needing admin intervention. It is sufficient to mention that you are misrepresenting the views you do not share. Interested editors can see the arguments, for and against, in the talk page. I am responding to your behavioral claims separately, as it seems you do not have the full information available. It is also obvious from your post you do have a side to pick, which is unfortunate, as I haven't seen you argue in the talk page as one should. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to all of this and wondering if instead of AN/I I should have gone to RFC? It honestly doesn't REALLY matter what we call the article in the interim while we wait to decide about the long term name. Both names redirect to the same page.Lot 49a^talk 00:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Article started as Operation Cast Lead, but when I arrived the title was 2008 Gaza Strip bombings here is diff. That is when the discussion that Lot references started. A discussion started to develop, and in the middle of it, User:Wikifan12345 User:RyanGerbil10 reverted to Operation Cast Lead believing, incorrectly, with it being consensus. Then I reverted, and then did minor refactorings for language. Someone suggested that rather than "bombing", "airstrikes" was more correct, and I agreed it was so and changed it. If I overstepped, so did User:Wikifan12345 and User:RyanGerbil10. I believe none of us did, but I believe RyanGerbill is mistaken in thinking he operated with consensus. He didn't.

Yes, I was WP:BOLD and WP:IAR to ensure that an incorrect title didn't remain: Operation Cast Lead makes a great redirect, and should be mentioned in the lead, but both the immense majority of the reliable sources and a need for editorial neutrality make it invalid as an article name choice. Consensus cannot operate against policy on a per article basis: systemic changes on policy are to be by systemic consensus. I stand by the judgment call made, as it makes us a better encyclopedia.

As to a generalized sense of frustration, I disagree. I think we are all discussing this, and we disagree and agree but this is normal. There has been two users I have had issues in particular, User:Wikifan12345 (I can provide diffs upon request) that I have asked to calm down as he was on the verge of personal attacks (this is the same user who moved against consensus himself and who I reverted, and who has in fact launched threats to "get higher authority" over disagreements, personalizing the debate) - and User: Cowmadness who made inflammatory, soapboxy claims in a discussion I WP:SNOWBALL closed as irrelevant, and then posted some stuff about "talking to Jimbo" in my talk page. Otherwise, I have seen no other expression of frustration, just disagreement.

As a reminder this article falls into the Discretionary Sacntions ruling of the ArbCom for all Israeli-Palestinian articles. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"we do not discuss content here at ANI", you say just three minutes before posting a comment that... hm... discusses content on ANI. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I had to explain my behavior, from my perspective. My intent was not to raise a content debate, but address my behavior. I am sure you are capable of understanding the difference. (no thanks! because you find them sarcastic) --Cerejota (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The original title was Operation Cast Lead. There were about 6 members discussion the title, resulting in a lengthy 10 paragraph debate. But Cerejota completely ignored the discussion, and unilaterally changed the title to Dec 2008 Gaza Strip Airstrikes. He said the original title wasn't neutral, but even if that were the case (which it clearly isn't), he had no right to change the title without discussing it in the talk page. The title could have been Israel is Evil and he still would have been obligated to look at the rationale. In any case, Gaza Airstrike doesn't even reflect the article, as it now contains heavy infantry and ground-based finding. It's been more than 20 hours and nothing has changed. This is just ridiculous. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, wrong forum. In reponse to Cerejota's bevahior, it was completely unprofessional. Changing the title of an article before a consensus has been reached is a gross violation of wikipedia policy. In addition, the strong claim of lack of neutrality carried no weight, no merit, not even evidence, other than opinion/perspective that doesn't belong in such a controversial article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, whenever I called him out on his behavior, he told me to "Chill out". Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan, you are factually incorrect, and if you are going to assert things to uninvolved people, at least have the common decency of providing evidence:

1. The article started as Operation Cast Lead. The starting, as with most articles, was done without discussion, to my knowledge. Hence the article name was chosen by the initial editor. Yet, we can all agree he doesn't own the article, nor its name.
2. It was moved within 4 and a half hours of creation by user User:Jandrews23jandrews23 to 2008 Gaza City Bombings arguing it was clearer. This remained the name of the article for a few minutes and then User:Ceedjeemoved to 2008 Gaza Strip Bombings (because it wasn't just Gaza City) only to be changed by User:Joowwww to 2008 Gaza Strip bombings as per MoS capitalization.
3. This remained the name for almost four hours, until the debate that Wikifan talks about.
4. It was changed by User:RyanGerbil10
5. I reverted his change, first to the last version by User:Joowwww, then to a slight refactoring, and then upon a suggestion from another user, to the present name, that has remained due to a move-block in order to prevent a move war.

This tells us a couple of things, one that the "original" named had changed by a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing. The other is that at least three users had endorsed variations of the article name that were more similar to the present version, but neither their opinions were solicited, nor enough time was given for them to give an opinion. Since they operated uncontroversially, at the very least the discussion should have lasted as long as their version did, but in reality, it should have been longer. Wikifan's allegations are weak and without evidence: he has claimed in multiple occasions that I reverted the original name. I didn't. I reverted the name as it stood before the discussion happened.

So having fixed the chronology, an exploration of the discussion referenced by Wikifan also reveals he is misrepresenting facts by simple assertion:

DON'T SUPPORT THE CHANGE

I don't. The current "2008 Gaza Strip Bombing" seems fine. LOTRrules (talk • contribs • email) 23:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

QUESTION BY ANON USER

Other IDF operations' articles are called by the name of the operation. Why should this article be different? 77.127.144.240 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

RANDOM COMMENT?

If we change this one we'll have to change all but that's ok. It seems actually unfair to have an article about a military act with that many civilian casualties named after a poem. My problem with the gaza strip bombing is that there were many bombings in 2008 against gaza, see 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. So we should find a better name or leave this one but not return to the operations name as it is only called that way by the IDF and the rest of the world calls it gaza bombings or something... --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ANOTHER SUGGESTION

What about "Late 2008 Gaza Strip bombings"? I think it avoids both ambiguity and the not-widely-known operation names. Darwish07 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WEAK SUPPORT BECAUSE RELIABLE SOURCES DO NOT NAME IT, OPEN DISCUSSION

Well "Operation Cast Lead" would be actually better than 2008 Gaza bombings, but it isn't known for that name, internationally I mean.It's fine with me if u return it to that name but wait until 3 more Users or the majority of the biggest contributors agree.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

NO OPERATION NAME (IE THE POSITION THAT MH HAS)

I believe the Military History project has been over this countless times, so I'd suggest checking their discussions before adjusting other articles. Joshdboz

LETS WAIT FOR THE EVENTS TO UNFOLD (ie keep current name for now)

We should wait and see what unfolds between the two sides. Its current name, 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, fails to indicate that Palestinian rockets had previously fallen, and continue to fall, on Israel - the cause of the Israeli response. Chesdovi

FOR Operation Cast Lead

"I endorse the name change. Seriously guys, "Gaza Strip Bombing"? LOL. Wikifan12345 (notice how from the start, his attitude is not about having a discussion, but impossing his views by denigrating those who disagree with him) Happy138 Kormin RyanGerbil10 tariqabjotu topynate (this user has since changed his position, showing that consensus can change: WP:MILMOS#CODENAME states that "operational codenames generally make poor titles." The exception given is if the operation is amongst the 'most well-known' of operations, e.g. Barbarossa. Based on this, I retract my prior opinion in favour of Operation Cast Lead, and urge a name that follows WP:MILMOS.topynate (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, six users "for", one of which changed upon learning about our guidelines changed. However, seven users where either ambiguous or seemed willing to discuss the matter further rather than change right away. We don't vote nor do we have deadlines: this is hardly the wide discussion and strong consensus that Wikifan claims. In fact, it is a weak discussion among editors, and ignored arguments against and operated on a self-contained block, with RyanGerbil10 being the operator. It was not long enough, it didn't have enough participants (notably those who had agreed with the previous title).

Hardly a consensus, we can all agree.

So when User:RyanGerbil10 moved against the consensus of almost four hours (or almost half of the article life), I reverted to defend the neutral consensus. Wikifan (and to a lesser extent others) seem not to understand that consensus is not a vote. Consensus is what is most stable. Discussion is a way we can move consensus, but not the only way. It is clear the "original" name Operation Cast Lead was not consensus, and the alternatives developed by the natural process of editing. It was the WP:IAR action of User:RyanGerbil10 that lead to my actions: if the consensus of 4 hours was not going to be respected with having a wide reaching discussion because it was opposed, then there is no reason to respect the opinion of six guys who discussed this for one hour and a half. Wikifan's histrionics are just that, pure theater and do not stand to the facts.

Furthermore, Wikifan engaged in unproductive behavior, in spite of I calmly explaining my actions. I could understand why he might be non-plused, so I didn't escalate at the time. But his expression of exasperation are nothing compared to having to endure his trollish shenanigans.

Here is the specific thread and actions right at the beginning:

Cerejota

(at this point, I restore the previous name, with minor refactoring)

Wikifan12345

Cerejota

Wikifan12345

He threatens me with a "higher authority", beginning what would be a series of sarcastic remarks, and borderline incivility. If curious for more,

Cerejota

I respond that he should bring those higher authorities instead of threatening to, because threats are a million.

After a suggestion from another user pointing out how "bombings" was not really what went on, I changed it to the current name.

As you can see by the evidence, User:Wikifan12345 allegations and recollections of the events are mostly incorrect, except in a single fact: I did indeed move the page over any discussion, via WP:SNOWBALL due to lack of neutrality. While I didn't express it at the time, WP:SNOWBALL is also a form of WP:IAR. Having a one-sided, non-neutral title significantly keep us from advancing the quality of the project, clearly the intent and spirit of WP:IAR. It is a common-sense thing. Others my ponder my actions, but I didn't do them neither without discussion, nor without justification. There is no sinister plan, there is no ill will. There is the need to move forward.

Furthermore, consensus can change. Wikifan keeps on beating this poor dead horse instead of moving ahead with productive discussion as the events unfold, forcing me, a productive editor, to stop editing an encyclopedia in order to contribute to the WP:DRAMA, something I hate to do, even when warranted. If you look at the talk page, while there is still some soreness, editors who support Operation Cast Lead have agreed to put a kind of a moratorium in place, and have continued productive discussions aimed at developing article quality. Wikifan, unfortunately, has assumed the role of a troll, sometimes responding to serious, well thought replies and counter-arguments with unproductive sarcasm. I am sure all of you can at least empathize with this.

(Note: I am a great believer and admirer of sarcasm, but Wikifan's use of it is both amateurish and POINTY - it took me a while to realize, me WP:AGF and all that - in fact, only common decency has held me back from calling him WhinyBitch12345 and fetch him a wambulance.)

When I have called him to chill, it is precisely because he needed to, and in every occassion I did so in context and pointing to WP:CHILL. I could have gone stronger on him, and gone all WP:WHINE on him, but didn't. I showed mercy and restraint, and should be commended, not attacked for it.

I am willing to let the matter drop, as this has not been really an important focus for me (see the talk page of the article), but Wikifan should agree to refrain from personal attacks and commentary, and should be careful to not misrepresent the reality of the events, as he just did. We need to be honest with each other, if we are to advance encyclopedic quality. Misrepresenting events doesn't help with that.

My apologies for the length, but if assertions and accusations are going to be raised against me, I will defend myself. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, am I actually expected to respond to this? You are the one being accused, NOT me. Surely with someone with more time will respond, as I wasn't the only one who noticed your blatant abuses. There a number of a users, check the archive and current discussion. This is a habit of yours, someone accuses you of something, and you respond with a well-crafted (almost pre-planned) defensive campaign, riddled with fallacies and subtle lies. Lol. I'm not even going to troll with you man, someone here who has the nerve to argue with you will. Your claim of NEUTRALITY is false, period. Operation Cast Lead was the title of operation as reported by the IDF, period. You made this more of a problem then it should have been and now you've put yourself in this hole. Obviously your concerned about your risk of losing admin which explains everything. Remember, I was plenty cordial and civil, but dealing with people like you makes me wonder if wikipedia is truly capable of hosting extremely controversial articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

On Talk:List_of_Naruto_antagonists#Quit_saying_Pain_looks_cool I removed where an artists says he drew a character to make him look cool. Sounds like another artist on a soapbox to me.

I am tired of Snapper2 offensive behavior to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me. Saying "You are in the minority here, as nobody shares your opinion (which apparently you shouldn't be giving anyway)" to discourage me from editing anything is harassment.

Plus Sephiroth_BCR threat of blocking me for removing an artist's advocacy of one of his characters that belongs in a blog is overkill. Since when is self-promotion protected here? --MahaPanta (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed piped link to make it clear which page was being discussed CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And this requires administrator intervention how? JuJube (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

While a touch rude, it certainly isn't harassment. I'm assuming you're the IP editor on that Talk page? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 08:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't log in at first, since it seemed like a minor case of an over zealous fan. Telling someone you shouldn't be editing, especially on a discussion page, use to deserve at least an administrator's warning, because no one is suppose to "discourage them from editing entirely" as thaken from the WP:Harass page.

If Sephiroth_BCR was threating with hitting me with the old ban hammer on editing just because I removed the words "designed to be cool", a member telling someone to never edit entirely including disscusion and talk pages, seems more serious.--MahaPanta (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As a defense, consider the following explanation of my comment:

• "You are in the minority here, as nobody shares your opinion" - This is certainly true. You and you alone are in opposition to (currently) six different editors. Add that to the fact that precedent in regards to "opinions" is clearly against you and you're just arguing for argument's sake.
• "your opinion (which apparently you shouldn't be giving anyway)" - Your argument is that "opinions" do not belong on Wikipedia. That in itself is an opinion. Following your own logic you should not be giving your opinion about opinions on Wikipedia, hence my statement.

As for Sephiroth, you were edit warring in defiance of established consensus, both of which are blockable offenses. ~SnapperTo 05:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please familiarize youself with WP:NOT#DEM.
• A discussion page is not an article page.
• No, even Sasuke9031 commented that I am following WP:BRD.

--MahaPanta (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DEM is not a license to argue fruitlessly and pointlessly for no reason. And no, you're not following WP:BRD as you reverted twice (1, 2) even after you were aware there was a clear consensus to keep the information. It doesn't matter what you think in this situation, as you don't have an inkling of support for your action on the talk page and are merely attempting to exhaust the patience of those involved in the discussion. Had you reverted again, it would be under my discretion to block you for edit warring. In any case, there's no reason for this to stay open. There's no need for administrator action, and you're not going to get the change you want here, as ANI isn't for content issues. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Don't put words into my mouth, I never said it was. Just because 6 people agree, some of wich could be sock puppets, doesn't prove anything. It's still their interpretation of wiki policy. That's why we have talk pages. I reverted once after I was told "we may as well go ahead and delete what has been said for both of them".
• This is a collaboration of volunteers, it matters what everyone thinks in this situation. You have no right to censor anyone durring a discussion.
• Again, don't say that I said something I never said. I never mentioned making the change here. I posted here because Snapper2 was trying to discourage me from posting. --MahaPanta (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not been following this issue, nor have I got a single clue what is going on, but I would like to point out that accusing people of being sockpuppets is an extremely serious offense and should not be done so lightly. Please, if you wish to accuse people of being sockpuppets, substantiate the request. I highly doubt there are sockpuppets working against you in this case; you seem to be fighting six separate editors from what I can tell. DARTH PANDA^duel 21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppets, really? Six well-established editors? WP:AGF in your vocabulary? How pathetic. It's one thing to count numbers when there's six people agreeing against five, and another thing when you're the only person attempting to push a point forward. Move on. Discussion over. You're not going to get your change. At that point, you're discussing only to exhaust the patience of those in the discussion. If you try to revert the inclusion of the content again, then I block you for edit warring. Coming here and whining about Snapper's comments (and characterizing them as "harrassment"? Really?) isn't going to get you anything either. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is making automated edits

This discussion is getting longer by the minute: I see no harm in collapsing it for the sake of improving the readability of the rest of ANI. TalkIslander 15:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Shorten area restricted, active sections require easy access. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Moved more old/quiet discussions into collapsed area. TalkIslander 20:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you recall, Betacommand has promised not to undertake a pattern of edits across more than 25 pages, to manually and carefully review each edit he makes, and to be civil. See the community-imposed restrictions that he agreed to in August. When a couple other users and I brought up on his talk page his recent run of 80 or so image removals, the response followed the typical pattern, which I paraphrase here (the link goes to his last edit in the discussion): The restrictions don't matter because I'm following policy. Reminding me of these restrictions is harassment. You can't stop me because I'm following policy. I'm not making automated edits. You can't prove that I'm making automated edits. You're trolling. I dare you to take this to ArbCom. Discussion closed. Despite Beta constantly returning to "they're not automated" and "I'm not breaking policy", these are not the point. The decision was worded so that we would no longer have to take Betacommand at his word that he wasn't using an automated tool, because in the past he has claimed not to be using automated tools when he actually was. This is why the decision just refers to "a pattern of edits". Can I get one of those mythical uninvolved admins to weigh in? rspεεr (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) yet more harassment for enforcing policy. Please note that I never dare you to take this to ArbCom βcommand 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) You said "either block me for enforcing policy, so I can take you to arbcom and make a fool of you..." I guess technically you dared me to block you, but that's semantics. rspεεr (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC) So what's an admin gonna do? Another little 24 hour slap on the wrist? By now, Betacommand should be community banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. *sigh* - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 04:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC) yet more trolling and personal attacks. sigh βcommand 04:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Aren't these supposed to be escalating blocks? or was that tossed out as too harsh?--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC) One would think so. The silliest part of the agreement is the principle that blocks should be placed by an "uninvolved admin", taken to mean an admin who for some reason has managed to not weigh in on this whole saga before but decides to show up out of nowhere to place the block. These admins tend to be unaware of Betacommand's history and even his previous blocks. So for automated editing, he's been blocked for 72, 24, and 24 hours in that order. For incivility, he's been blocked for 1 week, 31 hours, and 48 hours. For edit warring about NFCC (which he's still doing), he's been blocked for 72, 48, and 31 hours in that order. I hope that the uninvolved admin this time is someone who has paid some attention to this issue, and will look at his block log and figure out which direction "escalating" is supposed to go in. rspεεr (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There have been far too many rounds of this. Betacommand makes controversial edits at high speed, reacts with hostility to any communication about them, and re-interprets or simply ignores restrictions previously agreed to. I endorse blocking until there is a fundamental change to this pattern. Jonathunder (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) But the edits in this situation are 110% within policy. have a problem with that change the policy. these image removals cannot be disputed. βcommand 05:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Your incivility and snottyness can be disputed however and are certainly against policy. Always has been. But hey, you're Betacommand, so carry on... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 05:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Last I checked you are not bound just by normal policies but also the editing restrictions you agreed to. The mob calling for your head last time around was only sated because you agreed to those restrictions. Failing to abide by them and thinking you're above them isn't going to help your case.--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Allstar, could you please tone down your language. We need to be a little bit more neutral than what you have put forth so far. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Here's the rub: the edits that it looks like Beta's being accused of being automated are completely within WP:NFCC policy - the images that he is removing from pages are lacking fair-use rationales for those pages. This is a non-negotiable aspect (per Foundation resolution), so unlike what he would previously have been blocked for, these image removals have to be done to comply with the Foundation. Should we be punishing him for keeping the Foundation's resolution in line without a doubt? --MASEM 05:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The edits aren't being done within policy because he's violating a restriction set on him for the same reason (overzealous NFCC application). Beta is, in effect, being an image vigilante. NFCC doesn't award people special restriction-violation badges. There are plenty of people willing to do this instead of him. Every editor, even the ArbCom, even Blofeld, is expendable, unfortunately. Sceptre (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Expendable? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) It's 5:30am. I'm tired. Forgot about the word "replaceable". Sceptre (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) (ec) Doesn't really matter if they're within policy. Among other things, your restrictions include: Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin. There is no notation there about 'unless they're within policy.' It is a brightline limit: you may not make more than 25 repetitive edits without gaining consensus for those specific edits at WP:VPR. No exceptions are listed. Betacommand, by my reading of the situation, narrowly evaded a ban or a total prohibition on repetitive/automated edits by agreeing to certain restrictions. He can't then state that the restrictions don't exist. They do, he agreed to them, he needs to abide by them until he has regained the trust of the community. // roux   05:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Per your same rules I cannot make more than 25 anti-vandalism reverts without going to the VP for consensus. that is ludicrous. I will enforce policy. the edits themselves are not in question you can either stop harassing me or Ill file an arbcom to end this bullshit. Im getting sick of the constant harassment. βcommand 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No-one would complain were you reverting vandalism. The point is, this is the same behaviour you were sanctioned for: overzealous application of the NFCC. Sceptre (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC) This is not overzealous, read the NFCC, what Im doing is non-debatable all images must have a rationale. dont like that change the policy dont harass me for enforcing it. βcommand 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Beta, stop saying "harass" like that. It equates the shit Amorrow pulled to "waah, the big boy stole my toys!". Sceptre (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Amorrow? That was a bit much, don't you think? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oh, heavens no. I know exactly what kind of shit he pulled. And I really hate it when people accuse others of "harassment" and "stalking" when all that's happened is that the person accused just pointed out something the accuser doesn't like. Sceptre (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) (ecx100000)Yes. Betacommand is not the sole defender of all that is good and right with images on wikipedia. If there are problems other editors will address it. Or he can slow down and address it within his editing restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The restriction is very clear: Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. This would be any pattern, such as edits which follow policy and need to be done, which indeed fall under this restriction. Hence, the edits are blockable. Although I can't bring myself to block an editor for following image policy in such a straightforward and clean way (images without fair use rationales should be deleted), I would ask Betacommand to abide by the restriction, take this thread as a warning and not do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) To be honest, 10c compliance is bot work. And Beta knows it; it was one of his bot's tasks. I think there's an pinch of helping, a pinch of disruption, and a whole jar of stubbornness here. And believe me; I should know. Sceptre (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC) there are no bots cleaning up images that are partially within 10c. bots only flag them if they completely fail. βcommand 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) May I offer a... Nice Cup of Tea... ? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC) For the record, I have never been a fan of Betacommand's rudeness or refusal to abide by simple rules of civility, and have been a vocal proponent that such violations cannot be placated by his supposed "value" to the project; and that he should not be given a free pass on such incivility. No one could accuse me of being in his camp. That being said, lay the fuck off of him. Good gawd people. There is nothing that he is currently doing which is disruptive to the project; its like people are following him around just waiting for him cross some magic line "Oh look, between 1:07 and 1:09 he made 12 edits, so he must be stopped NOW!" He's doing nothing at all disruptive; he's not trying to circumvent or alter policy, and his exact actions, if done by any person NOT named Betacommand, wouldn't even be noticed. He doesn't seem to have toned down his rudeness any, but really, when you poke the bear with a stick, he's gonna take a swat at you. Seriously, this is nothing by teh DRAHMAZ for teh DRAHMAZ sake. Let's leave him alone, and lets try NOT following his every move and waiting for him to cross some arbitrary line so we can start a thread titled "ZOMG BANXOR HIM NOW !!1one!!1!"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Except in this case he's apparently been recently blocked for this very kind of behaviour and the images in question have to do with an open RfC.--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) A warning? Have any of those proven fruitful in the past?--Crossmr (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Meh...have blocks? I'm uninvolved, I can't bring myself to hit the block button and subject myself to becoming an "involved party" in this. --Smashvilletalk 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Short blocks..no...--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I don't know if any block will prevent any disruption to the project. Please consider that before anyone use the button. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The pith is, I don't see any disruption in the edits. Perhaps I do see an editor nudging up against an editing restriction in a harmless way to see what would happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The disruption is caused by his continual disrespect of the other members of this project. Yes, his edits are within policy, but they were made in a way that the community said he shouldn't make them. His inability to do that is the same as thumbing his nose at the community.--Crossmr (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I don't feel disrespected, as a member of this community. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) As a member of this community I do feel disrespected. So there you go.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Out of curiosity, have any of Beta's edits since his December 10th block been automated? I mean seriously, given the amount and time frame...he could've easily used tabs and then saved the pages once he was done. Did he admit to this somewhere?--Toffile (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Betacommand never fully admits to making automated edits, but this is the closest he has come recently. Apparently he doesn't consider it automated if it's written in JavaScript. However, I would not even take that much at face value. In this edit the edit summary ends with "using", as if it were going to be followed by the name of the external program he was using, but he was trying to suppress it. rspεεr (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC) That is interesting. I'm not quite sure if it really breaks it though. The automated restriction was originally suggested so that he wouldn't be running a bot, or close to a bot and to be forced to manually review the edits. Doing a search and replace is as easy to do as opening up a text editor and using the built-in functionality. Even if it was a JS replace, it still doesn't appear that it was automated as the particular time window is still well within human ability. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm mincing words, I just don't quite think that it really breaks the spirit of what was being proposed.--Toffile (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I actually have that built into my wikipedia user interface if anyone ever bothered to look. βcommand 06:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Sure, he could have been using his monobook.js and then manually reviewing everything it did, like the restriction says. Or he could not have been. The fact that we have no way to tell is why the restriction had a bright line instead, which is "any pattern of edits across 25 or more pages". rspεεr (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) So your section title is at the very least misleading.--Toffile (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Not to say that he wasn't technically violating sanctions (he was as they don't have an expiry time period for the 25), but that the title declares something that you've admitted that there isn't clear evidence for.--Toffile (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) What do you want, a covert screen capture from Betacommand's computer? We could never have any concrete evidence one way or another about whether he's manually reviewing his edits, but the fact that he's using JavaScript (and possibly more) to make the same edit across 80 or so pages passes the duck test to me. rspεεr (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Have you actually every tested my monobook.js? no so please stop ABF and putting your foot in your mouth. βcommand 07:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) It doesn't matter. monobook.js isn't the special safe thing that you're allowed to use to edit like a bot. There's a bright line: a pattern of edits across 25 pages, and we don't have to speculate any more about how exactly you made the edits. rspεεr (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I much prefer a Occam's Razor myself. My problem is that you've admitted to not having evidence for an accusation that carries a bit more weight. Beta was basically told never to bots again which is why the restrictions are there. He would be violating both the letter and the spirit of the restrictions. However there is a fairly good chance that he's not running a bot, and isn't breaking the spirit. The former would really deserve a harsher punishment than the latter in my view. Also to be honest, there is a distinction between actually performing automated edits and running into the limit...the restrictions in play don't say it's a criteria for what makes automated edits, only something to prevent them. Now if you think I'm mincing words, fine. I just don't feel like the topic title gives an accurate picture of what actually occurred. Anyway, I can't continue to argue, I need to retire to sleep.--Toffile (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Actually he was told not to make edits which appear bot-like. Which is why he's limited to X edits per minute and he was asked to propose the edits. It doesn't matter whether or not he uses a bot or he uses a script or anything else. The appearance of the edits is what counts, not how he really did them.--Crossmr (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC) As a note, I talked to Beta on IRC the other week, and from what we discussed I established that he believed that he was exempt from his restrictions simply because apparently policies transcend user-level restrictions, which I believe not to be the case. I believe if someone who has the correct authority clarifies this to him, this may be rectified. — neuro(talk) 07:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Proposal The restrictions are not effective to serve a purpose of preventing disruption. I propose the community imposed restriction here be removed. So long as the automated edits are within policy, Betacommand can be trusted to make them. I also propose a strong caution to Betacommand regarding an effort towards civility. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose - I agree with rspeer here: "ideally everyone's edits are within policy". I'm not sure a Giano-like removal works here. Sceptre (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the "Giano like removal", is there a link? NonvocalScream (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The Motion: re SlimVirgin restriction. You know what happened: Giano went on civility parole. People poked him. Big drama with every block. ArbCom restricted it so that only the committee can block him, in very specific and limited cases. Sceptre (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) oppose Betacommand's continued inability to respect the other users of the project through his disregard for civility and his agreed upon editing restrictions don't remotely show that he's regained the trust of the community. This thread and his talk page show further evidence of that.--Crossmr (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I don't think the restrictions are preventing incivility. I don't think they are effective in that way. I do believe that his automated edits will be within policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No, which is only further evidence that he should be sent on a long vacation. We don't reward people for disrespecting the community. They're effective in preventing disruption if he follows him. If he doesn't follow them he should be blocked through an escalating system (Which should if worked out put his next block at about a year) until he either follows them or he's indef blocked or banned. Frankly he should be banned on civility basis alone as absolutely no amount of "strong cautions" have done anything to temper his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose - his reward for refusing to abide by restrictions he agreed to is... no restrictions? I think not. The community showed it does not trust him, as he does not gain consensus before making sweeping edits. Until he regains that trust, the restrictions should stand or be made tighter, or he should be forcibly invited to take a long vacation. At which point he would have to regain the community's trust anyway. // roux   06:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Are you serious? As a reward for ignoring the restriction that he agreed to after he was caught (among many other things) running bots on his own account, you're offering to: Remove the restriction entirely Assert that Betacommand can be trusted to make automated edits Grant a special dispensation to Betacommand to run bots on his own account, which no one else is allowed to do (except for occasional admins where we look the other way) Step down Betacommand's civility probation to a "strong caution" Endorse Betacommand's use of "I was within policy" as a catch-all defense Might as well propose him for adminship while you're at it. rspεεr (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose: They were applied due to disruptive behavior and were agreed on by community census, they shouldn't be removed just because he has decided to break the restrictions. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 06:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose - This is akin to saying 'Grawp is persistent, so let's lift the community ban since it doesn't work'. — neuro(talk) 07:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose, the restrictions would work if administrators actually enforced them (or could, in the case of "uninvolved" administrators). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose He had his chance and just keeps thumbing his nose at everyone else. rootology (C)(T) 14:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Notes Folks, I just don't see where this restriction is going short of Arbitration. It seems to me the restriction itself, is the source of the disruption. I'm only proposing we remove the disruption, the restriction that is. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No..the source of the disruption is betacommand. I don't see the restrictions running around being uncivil to people or making rapid edits..that is like blaming the law because you got caught speeding. "Officer it wasn't me, the sign just said a number that was lower than my speed, I can't help it!"--Crossmr (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC) It seems to me that we are trying to block beta because we "feel disrespected". Don't forget, we have a project here. Sometimes we ought to just make progress. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Which has been on-going for years. This isn't a single case of poor treatment of the community. I'm quite aware of the fact that we have a project here. Don't forget that we have a community here and the project runs on that community. Editors who continually disrespect it are not a positive force. Regardless of what they may do.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Please see my userpage essays: specifically, it doesn't matter what a contributor does, that contributor should never be given slack or a "free pass" simply because they do something "valuable" or "correct". Betacommand was placed on these restrictions in lieu of an outright community ban for incivility, using a sockpuppet to evade 3RR, and so forth. The restrictions are not flexible or open to interpretation, further, they may not be circumvented in the name of "policy". —Locke Cole • t • c 10:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC) A different proposal I propose to remove the "uninvolved admin" clause from Betacommand's restrictions. Betacommand can be blocked by any admin for incivility or for making a pattern of bot-like edits, subject only to the usual conventions (WP:BLOCK) about admins placing blocks. Admins can be trusted to use their blocking power correctly and responsibly. In the current state of things, Betacommand can blatantly thumb his nose at the restrictions (as he just did in the talk-page thread I linked to) and our hands are tied by the fact that anyone who has paid any attention could be considered "involved". rspεεr (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Why so you can continue to harass and troll me? Im getting sick of the stalking so either stop or I will file arbcom. Im making a solid stand here, if there is any question about whether or not my edits have consensus I will take it to VP. as it stands my edit have consensus so that requirement of the VP is not valid. βcommand 06:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I am questioning whether your edits have consensus. If you observe the discussion above, it's not so clear. I already asked you, back when I was just addressing you on your talk page, to take it to the VP (and in response you blew up at me and closed the discussion). However, I must point out that the restrictions you agreed to did not depend on anyone questioning you first. rspεεr (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Like I have said, read WP:NFCC the policy that requires rationales for every usage. images without rationales should be deleted and those with at least one rationale should be removed from those pages lacking a rationale. βcommand 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Betacommand, your edits don't have consensus and the editing restriction clearly covers edits which are wholly within policy. You breached the editing restriction. As I hinted above, you might want to take this whole thread as a warning not to do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC) read the policy it states otherwise. βcommand 06:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Your editing restrictions supersede policy.--Crossmr (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No they dont. policy is policy. βcommand 06:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Supersede wasn't the right word, think of it like a venn diagram, maybe this will make things clearer for you [49] your edits are bound both by policy and the editing restrictions placed on you that you said you agreed to.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Support: Any admin should be able to carry out their standard practices when dealing with a user (in this case Betacommand) after the community consensus has been reached and the restrictions finalized. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 06:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose I'm sorry. I would rather see a neutral third party confirmation. Beta's been a very contentious editor, and if the Giano situation has taught me anything, it's that getting a third party involved would be much better, as opposed to having things continually blow up and unintentionally cause more disruption.--Toffile (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There are like 6 accounts on wikipedia that haven't been involved with betacommand and 4 of them are blocked sock puppets. Should we add a category to various admins userpages that say "Never been involved with betacommand" so that we could try and find one if need be? And would that also mean that once an admin blocks betacommand once, that is it. he now becomes "involved" and can't block him again?--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There are over 1,600 admins on Wikipedia. Plenty of them haven't been in long cases of monitoring Betacommand's behavior.--Toffile (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC) How many of those are actually active though, or even regular? Betacommand's issues often draw in large crowds over a period of several days which means most active users (and administrators who should be watching this page) have either contributed to the discussions or read them and therefore been influenced by them. checking a few random ones in the first column alone I'm noticing several who have made only a few dozen edits all year. Finding someone completely uninformed is often pointless because 1) it takes them forever to get the context given the length of this 2)if they don't put that time in, they treat it as a standard X issue and give him a tiny short block.--Crossmr (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There's a major difference between reading something and being involved with him. One can read or discuss something without being drawn into a dispute. I'm not suggesting that the administrators be completely uninformed, just that they don't constantly monitor Betacommand and wait for something to block him on. Those sort of unilateral blocks almost never end well for all the parties involved.--Toffile (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There is also a major difference between there being 1600 admins and 1600 pages belonging to admins.. you can see numerous admins who have multiple entries there through archives and other subpages. Actual admin numbers are likely much smaller.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Uh, I based my numbers off of Special:Statistics...which counts accounts with the sysop flag. Not user pages. Even if they aren't all active, it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of admins who don't have intricate histories with Betacommand.--Toffile (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The problem lies with what the restriction says. It doesn't say "intricate history" it simply says "involved" which could be any admin who ever offered a comment on betacommand if one wanted to interpret it that way, and you can imagine some people would.--Crossmr (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC) That sort of lawyering really has never worked in the past from what I've seen. I understand the concern, however I really think that past actions with involved admins and blocking have never worked out for the best.--Toffile (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose I won't deny that bias exists, and that we are infact human. Some will succumb, the uninvolved stipulation was designed as a safeguard. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Blocking policy already has a stipulation about not blocking someone you're currently involved in a dispute with. Does that mean if we have a dispute, you couldn't block me for the rest of our careers on wikipedia ever?--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Support I'd buy that. Admins are voted upon, checked up on, etc. Given the widespread nature of this its extremely unreasonable to disallow most of the admin population from dealing with him. I would only recommend that only admins who have not been involved in a content dispute with him in the last few days (which I think is covered in blocking policy) be disallowed from dealing with him.--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Comment - I'm in the middle of a conversation with Betacommand right now, which I think may be very helpful to everyone. I would like to ask, politely, that everyone hold off for a little bit, back away from the not-dead-but-certainly-mortally-wounded-horse for a little while. Have a cup of tea, maybe. Please? // roux   06:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Second round of tea... Support Betacommand can't be trusted to use automated editing tools in a nonabusive way. That's why he has sanctions on him. It's as simple as that. Jtrainor (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Support, clearly there aren't enough "uninvolved" administrators, and it would be useful to have administrators who are familiar with him making the decisions. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC) More discussion Just wondering, ignoring Betacommand's editing restrictions who here thinks that the edits were outside of policy? --Chris 09:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC) What does it matter? He's under restrictions regardless whether his edits abide by some policy of his choice. If I was an admin, I'd give him a week off to think it over. Grace Note (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Per Grace Note, it doesn't matter whether or not his edits were correct, appropriate or not in dispute. The simple fact is that the community placed him under various restrictions for his behavior. Those restrictions are not flexible or open to circumvention. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Nope, the edits didn't break any policies. That was never the point. rspεεr (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Betacommand indef blocked Since the discussion between User:Roux and BC appears to be happening off WP, I have enacted an indef block on BC's account in the meantime. I cannot believe that we are having this discussion again; there is rarely an issue on whether the image compliance deletion notifications are outside of policy, but the manner in which they are conducted and especially the responses made to any query. Now, if BC wants to bring this (and me) to ArbCom to resolve then by all means unblock the account so he may commence proceedings - otherwise please do not vary the sanction until the community comes to some sort of decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I'm sad to say that I now support this. We tried hard to give him chance after chance, yet he's now gone ahead and broken his final set of restrictions. I believe that for right or wrong, Betacommand is a serious time sink to the project and now constitues an overall net negative hence my support for this block. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Arbitration. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There need be no abatement of any subsequent discussion here while the Arbs consider whether to take the case, and I have suggested as much in my statement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC) It can continue here, yes. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I believe it's come to this, yes, especially given the ongoing civility issues and apparent unwillingness to acknowledge his community imposed restrictions. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I echo Ryan's sadness and also endorse this block. I don't really see any use in arbitration -- until Betacommand comes to his senses, there is nothing much that needs to be done right now. Kusma (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse per BC's statement that he has no intention of abiding by editing restrictions [50]. BC has never understood that while yes, his edits are within policy, there has never been a consensus for bot-like removals of images that don't conform to this aspect of policy. If these images actually do belong in the articles, then it is better to spend time solving the pro forma problems with the image description page (writing appropriate rationales) than it is to blindly remove the images from articles. But either way, human judgment is needed. --B (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I even provided a venn diagram above...--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I endorse this. His utter failure to acknowledge his civility issues shows someone who just isn't willing to change.--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Yes Wow....having looked this stuff up I have to agree. Every time someone gives him the slightest bit of critism he accuses them of harrasment. "No harrasment" and "no personal attacks" does not mean "no critism allowed" – in fact I'm sure wikipedia would be rather crappy without critism. He also seems to have a rather big ego and viciously harrases those who disagree with him by accusing them of harrasment. Wikipedia's worst enemies are those whose vanity has been wounded and they waste far more of the community's time than vandals. I say we show him the door.--Patton123 14:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Given Betacommand's unwillingness in this thread to acknowledge having strayed from the editing restrictions, I likely would have blocked him by now myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse. It's not ideal to have to indef-block someone who admittedly can do a lot of good towards the project. However, the sheer amount of negativity caused by Betacommand and his behaviour is huge, and now definitely outweighs the benefit he brings to the project. Betacommand is unfortunately a net negative to this project. TalkIslander 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The ongoing lack of civility (saying other editors are trolling and so on) also won't do at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse per Islander MikeHobday (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) (outdent) If one editor calls you a jackass, screw em. If two ediotrs call you a jackass, screw em both. If three editors call you a jackass, they can all go to hell. If FIVE of more editors call you this, then its time to be fitted for a saddle. Sorry BC, time to saddle up. --Tom 15:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No comment on the block, but this comment is precisely correct - if you have five independent complaints about your behavior, it's time to look at your behavior. In fact, three is probably enough to start wondering. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I totally agree with the assessment; one or two people complaining is (more often than not) just someone whining, whereas three or more complaints is indicative of an actual problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse this block. The community has been pushed beyond its tolerance by Beta's truculence. Nandesuka (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No endorsement of this block. I will make my rationale below. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Objection - Per precedents. I am someone who doesn't believe in going after people for every little thing they do, a violation of something or not. I personally agree that there has been disruption in this project, but as I always suggest, we should do some mentoring, and probably a long probation period. Blocking never solves anything, it just brings back more problems (e.g. block evasion). Therefore, I object to this indefinite block.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 17:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse block to prevent Betacommand from engaging in further massive bot-assisted disruption and gross incivility. I strongly disagree with the assertion that "Blocking never solves anything, it just brings back more problems (e.g. block evasion)", since we have many effective tools at our disposal to prevent Betacommand from evading this block, including automated reversion, range blocks, and filing an abuse report with his ISP. John254 18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Fully endorse the block This has gone on far too long. Since the last community restrictions were put in place, Betacommand has been blocked four times and has never accepted any of them as legitimate. His answer is always of the form "this is bullshit but I'll ride it out" and it is clear that he refuses to abide by the restrictions concerning runs of automated edits. Yes, the runs in question were for the most part in line with policy but I should point out (as I tried to point out to BC to no avail) that a run to remove sports teams logos from tens of pages is unwise when it's done in the middle of a contentious RfC on that very subject. Beta's answer is that since fair-use rationales are not given for each instance of the use of the logo, removal is within policy. This is correct but these automated runs are nevertheless bound to escalate conflicts on the RfC. Betacommand's "shoot first, ask questions later" strategy is detrimental to the project and the editing restrictions were put in place precisely to avoid these problems. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse indefinite block. Betacommand's conduct in the discussion leading up to this is a textbook illustration of the "I am right, everyone else is the problem, fuck off" approach that is a characteristic of long time problematic users, but profoundly disruptive to our collaborative work – even if pursued (as here) with good intent. Since there's no indication that he's ready to change his attitude, or even adhere to his community-imposed restriction, a block until such time as he is ready is approppriate.  Sandstein  18:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Not to be rude by butting in, but if there's near-if-not-totally unanimous support for Betacommand's indef block; can we consider Betacommand banned? --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No. Indefinite block means it could end tomorrow, or it could end next year. I for one have hopes that Betacommand can contribute productively. // roux   19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse indefinite block. I think he has tested the limits of the community's patience too long.--Berig (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse block, BC has been given chance after chance after chance, and still continues to engage in the sort of poor behaviour that caused the problems in the first place. The real tragedy is that if he'd just asked to make these automated edits, we probably would have given him permission to do so. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC). Endorse I do not think that a block was inevitable here. If Betacommand had simply responded to the concerns raised on his talk page in a reasonable manner, we probably wouldn't even be here. But because he responded with incivility and a declaration that he wasn't going to follow the restrictions, he escalated the situation to the point where a block was necessary. If Betacommand were to acknolwedge that his actions violated the sanctions and further acknowledged that he is, in fact, bound by the sanctions, I would support a reduction of the block to 1 month, continuing with the course of increasing sanctions for violation of the restrictions. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse After over a year of this I think the community's patience has been well and truly exhausted, as amply documented by others above. I am of the "indefinite doesn't mean infinite" school of thought, if BC was able to demonstrate he had moved on from the behaviour which got him here at some later point I wouldn't be averse to his unblocking. But to be honest I wouldn't really protest much if it remained in place, he's probably had more chances than anyone else on this project to reform. Orderinchaos 01:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC) strong objection to off-wiki/IRC this time Discussion is stale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I reject any approach to discuss this off-wiki. That worked for shit last time based on this very series of threads; it has to be done on-wiki. If any parties aren't happy with that, that is a shame. rootology (C)(T) 14:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I don't suppose that we can stop BC from commenting there, but any points made/raised there and not mentioned here should form no part of any decision (IMHO). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Of course; he can comment anywhere, but no admin given the huge history here should be unblocking without express consensus on-wiki, and the same with figuring out any editing restrictions. Wasn't there strong consensus last time that his restrictions were compulsory rather than voluntary, anyway? rootology (C)(T) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, they were. He was part of the group that worked out the wording of the existing restrictions, so he cannot claim they were enforced without notification (it should be noted that while he had input he had no veto). While I acted upon reading the threads above, I note that I made this commitment regarding the placement of a final set of restrictions. I regret that BC has found himself unable to comply with them, and is reverting to wiki-lawyering over what is policy rather than the conditions he was forced to accept. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Ah, yes, I was lurking AN/I during the restriction contract negotiation period. Wikilawyering indeed. It was all about the letter of the law, not the spirit. It was quite nauseating to witness. Being technically correct yet managing to piss everyone off in the meantime is the antithesis of wiki-collaboration. I do hope there are other internet projects that would be a good fit for Betacommand and could use his talents, but as it stands, he and Wikipedia are an absolute mismatch. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Yep, editors can talk about what they please, where they please, but anything brought up off-wiki should have no sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I strongly agree that any and all off-wiki discussions are irrelevant to what happens here. The problems here exist on-wiki, so they need to be fixed on-wiki. Nandesuka (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Comment - hi all. The conversation I was having with Betacommand was along the lines of trying to help him help himself and help him find a way to productively resolve this situation without getting blocked. It was not an attempt to create consensus offwiki in any way. // roux   17:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Discussion Location Discussion is stale (and a bit off topic). LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Out of interests of space and navigation shouldn't all this dissucsion about Betacommand be moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand and contuined there? Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 13:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Heck no. Since when do we have noticeboards for users? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand was created solely because the thread about him got too long back then. It's not the "Everything about Betacommand goes here"-noticeboard. --Conti|✉ 13:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No, this needs more eyeballs, not less, and that's exactly what we'd lose if this got shuffled off to an obscure subpage that only the involved might have on their watchlist. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC) It may be that it might be copied there for archiving purposes, to keep the subject in one easily referable location, once discussion has ceased on this instance. However, thanks for the link - it may become useful if this does get picked up by ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The best solution would be for Betacommand to hand over his bot code to someone else, and help in a technical way only. Betacommand is bot-savvy and could be very helpful to the bot-development community, but it is entirely obvious that there is a large weight of opinion behind the idea that he should not run the bots himself. It is unfortunate that a lot of this is the result of inevitable kickback about necessary work; it is obvious to me that anybody and especially any bot who polices non-free content policy is perceived as some kind of Antichrist by a certain sector of the Wikipedia community and hounded relentlessly as a result. I think this is almost at the level of being a feature of the community, not a bug, so only people capable of handling that kind of crap with equanimity should be doing it. And that, sadly, does not include Betacommand. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I didn't think anyone would try to pull off this kind of argumentation at this time. The issue is not that people are perceiving the supposedly angelic Betacommand as Antichrist because he polices fair use. His bots are extremely buggy and poorly programmed, and he has huge conduct issues: note all the "fuck you"s and other swearing on his talk page in response to civil and correct criticism. Betacommand is not being "hounded". Anyone who ran bots as poorly as him would receive the same amount of criticism. But in Betacommand's and some of his supporters' eyes, any negative feedback on his bots, or even well-meant suggestions, is equivalent to incivility, trolling, vandalism and harassment. Note that Betacommand has also been criticised for poor bot work in regards to such mundane tasks as adding articles to categories, changing the formats of dates and so on. Are these also such types of über-controversial tasks where anyone doing them is perceived as Antichrist? Don't think so. The issue is with Betacommand, not with everyone else. Is he back? (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC) You missed the point, which was: operation of NFC bots requires the patience of a saint, which Beta clearly does not have. Therefore let him do the technical thing (which he seems to do well) and leave the user interaction to someone who does have the patience of a saint. Needless to say that's me out of the frame. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Does he do it well, though? I honestly don't know, which is why I'm asking, but there are certainly people in this discussion who have been saying that his bots are poorly programed and full of bugs. I can't really comment - I have near-zero knowledge of bots, hence why I ask. TalkIslander 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I have already suggested to BC that I would be happy to run the NFCC#10c compliance bot under my own (or a separate) account. IIRC there isn't an alternative to what that bot does at the moment - STBotI polices complete 10c failure (i.e. no rationale at all) but I don't believe there's anything else picking up other 10c problems. Black Kite 15:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Proposal the third After looking at this thread, the restrictions given, the case opened at arbcom, and so forth, I propose the following solution: Beta (remaining blocked until this point is resolved) provides a case per the community restrictions on WP:VPR that involves the removal of images from pages that lack non-free rationale using his seemingly-automated manner (some editor will help post for him due to the block). We follow the community sanctions - that is, should there be opposition to the task, there is discussion and so forth. (Yes, this is what should have been done before Beta started what he was doing). Presuming the task is approved at VPR, Beta is unblocked and allowed to continue though I would state that his edits for a day should be monitored and logged briefly by an admin (involved or not) just to make sure that the seemingly-automated edits in mainspace are appropriate per his proposal and do not go beyond that point. (Spot checking is likely appropriate here). This should be done for at least one month. If Beta is using his own programmed tools to do this, this fact should be made exceedingly clear in the edit summaries (even if it is just "removing non-free image without rational, using my automated script"). That is, Beta needs to be upfront that he is using automated tools, even of his own making, for this process to help keep this remedy open. (We're not asking for code, however). A brief summary of this tool should be part of his VPR proposal. Should it be found that Beta is doing other seemingly-automated tasks per community restrictions among these NFC image removals and has not discussed it at VPR even if it is completely within policy, he should be indef blocked until that issue can be resolved. (eg if he starts removing images that do have rationales but may not be complete, that is a different proposal than removing images that lack a rationale completely and thus he should be blocked) The only reason I think this is appropriate is that this is the first time that Beta's found some task that can be actually a long-term one that he can be much more effective using semi-automated tools, and that is very difficult to see as being a contentious issue, as non-free compliance is necessary by the Foundation. As best I can tell, there has yet to be any attempt to use VPR to propose a task prior to undertaking it, so this presents a first good opportunity to do so. --MASEM 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC) oppose While the long term problems with beta and his bots are indeed long term they are by no means his only problem. The incivility, and pointy behaviour about (his outright refusal to acknowledge that he violated the sanctions and that they mean anything) shows someone who has no interest in working in the best interest of the community. The community decides its best interest, not betacommand. There is absolutely no reason the community should be bending over for someone like that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose per Crossmr. Beta has had a second chance, third chance, fourth chance, fifth chance etc. etc. etc. At some point, the community must put their foot down and stop. Though certainly well meant, your proposal is just yet another chance - give it a month or two, and we'll be right back here having exactly the same discussion. Enough is enough. TalkIslander 15:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose There are already restrictions in place that have consensus and that beta himself agreed to here. rootology (C)(T) 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Comment Should a consensus that the block be lifted or varied not arise, nor ArbCom decide to take the case, then perhaps this can form part of a subsequent decision. First, I think we should allow another 24-36 hours to allow in this holiday period for a full provision of opinion. After weighing the community desires, then we can see if amendments or other proposals need considering. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose, Beta has in the past ignored restrictions placed on him like this, I see no reason to believe that he'd pay attention to these ones. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC). Beta motions at RFAR I've asked the committee to codify the community restrictions that Beta himself agreed to follow as a full motion of the Arbitration Committee. To codify those restrictions (which again, Beta himself agreed to) as binding with the weight of the Committee as a motion. That would end any nonsense, and any trouble then if it happened would be from Beta not following the restrictions in the future. rootology (C)(T) 15:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Unblock proposal The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Resolved  – very little support for an unblock at this time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I propose that we unblock Beta based on the following rationale: Blocks are not punitive, and this block, even with some apparent agreement from some editors, smacks of punishing Beta for some random transgression. That transgression was not, of itself, disruptive. If it could be shown that Beta was intentionally violating existing policy, like he has in the past, then I would be standing in line to endorse this block. I just don't see any of that here. There is no evidence anywhere that these edits, if they had been committed by anyone not named "Betacommand", that they would even get noticed. That is plain evidence that this block is simply punitive retribution for Beta's prior transgressions. He has done nothing wrong here. We're not a police force, we're not here to enforce laws. We are here to write an encyclopedia. That an editor is indef blocked for making edits that no one can say are bad edits is rediculous. Yes, I understand that Betacommand has, in the past, used automated tools abusively. The message has been sent. Betacommand is being watched. Have his latest edits actually harmed the encyckopedia? No. All they have done is upset people because he somehow is violating some arbitrary terms of some sanctions. Yeah, he violated them. But as they edits themseleves seem innocuous, I see no reason for any indefinate block here. If Beta ever does turn rogue, and start doing some actual disruptive editing, I will be first in line to endorse his indefinite block. I just don't see any actual disruption here. Please, lets unblock him, and take this up again when he starts to actually make bad edits... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Support per Jayron's rationale, and mine in the section above. I do believe that we add a small punishment to it. I don't like continuous blocking of people for every little violation.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC) "every little violation". Lawl. Tan | 39 17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC) He is violating the restrictions that were put in place with his agreement so that he was not community banned the last time. What if he does agree a mentor, or a new wording, to the satisfaction of the community? He has said, above, that community restrictions do not supercede policy, and therefore he does not have to comply with restrictions... So what does any sanction short of blocking then mean? Nothing, because BC will say anything to be allowed to edit - and will then edit to his interpretation. Good edits, generally, but in spite of the concerns of the community nevertheless. No editor has the right to edit to the contempt of the majority of the remaining community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) So the previous restrictions that Beta himself agreed to and are placed on him by the community can be ignored by Beta... why? rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) (Edit confict X3) What's the point of editing restrictions if we don't enforce them? This block is not punitive. It's aim is not to punish Betacommand, but rather to enforce a restriction that was placed in order to prevent disruption. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The automated edits are not the only problem, or even the chief problem. Betacommand should remain blocked until, at the very least, there is a firm committment from him to discuss his edits and maintain all interactions in a civil way. Perhaps after some days vacation he will be ready to do that. I hope. But he should not just be unblocked now without committment to change, or we'll be right back here yet again, as we have too many times already. Jonathunder (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I concur with Jonathunder - there has been no commitment to even discuss, let alone address, Beta's actions. This is indeed preventative; Beta has failed to follow restrictions which he agreed to; he is not even re-committing to that; where is our assurance? There is none. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblocking to prevent Betacommand from engaging in further massive bot-assisted disruption and gross incivility. John254 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC) "Further massive bot-assisted disruption"?? Could you point out the "massive bot-assisted disruption" that has occurred in this latest incident? Hyperbolic missing-the-point bollocks like this really doesn't help the issue. Black Kite 18:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Perhaps Betacommand's most significant incident of bot-assisted disruption was his removal of the edit links from thousands of stub templates, which required an extensive and tedious effort to reverse. See, for example, [51] [52] [53]. The most recent incident may have been more minor, but presents issues of the same nature. John254 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Well, not at all actually. The (year-old) diffs you present were problematic; the latest edits were not problematic at all, save for the fact that their automatic nature violated Beta's restrictions. Black Kite 20:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose, per my block endorsement above, absent any very convincing change of attitude by Betacommand.  Sandstein  18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose Unblock at this time. Betacommand has had an incredible number of last chances, last last chances, absolutely final last chances, and "oh yes indeedy, this really is your final chance (honest) this time". Repeatedly, a large number of editors spend a great deal of time and effort trying to formulate a framework that Betacommand can work within, so as not to cause disruption. Repeatedly, we find Betacommand adopting an attitude that the restrictions mean something other than what everybody else thinks they mean. It is abundantly clear that Betacommand is disruptive when he is running bots, or automated processes. It is also clear that every attempt to formulate a restriction that would prevent him running bots and automated edits has floundered, because he simply hunts for an interpretation of the restriction that allows him a loophole. In this current case, we find that he argues that the restriction requiring him to get explicit consensus in favour of any repeated series of edits doesn't apply because such actions are supported by policy (and consensus is therefore implicit). It is, in my view, not what was intended, or envisaged by those who drafted or endorsed the restrictions. Until we have an absolutely bulletproof set of restrictions, I cannot endorse and unblock. Mayalld (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock Regarding the claim that "There is no evidence anywhere that these edits, if they had been committed by anyone not named "Betacommand", that they would even get noticed." I disagree entirely. The latest run came in the middle of a contentious RfC and were counterproductive. Had anyone else made these edits, I would have asked them to stop and wait until the RfC dust settles because they will necessarily be perceived as hostile. Betacommand's persistent inability to defuse situations is the core of the problem. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock, mostly per my comments here and here. Beta has had far, far too many chances. At some point we have to say "no", and stop bending over further, whether the action that makes us stop is a Wikipedia-destroying action, or something smaller. Betacommand has already been given the very strong message that "it doesn't matter how many times you 'break the rules', or are unacceptably rude to people, you will always be unblocked" - we need to change this message. Like I've said before, Betacommand is now (and in my opinion has been for a while) a net negative to this project - the problems he causes us vastly outweigh any potential benefit he can bring us. TalkIslander 19:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock. There's a limit to how many chances a disruptive editor can get.--Berig (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock - Beta has had enough chances to change his ways, but he has not, and from what I can tell he would not do so in future. This worries me, and as such I feel that this block is indeed preventative, not punitive, and also is warranted. — neuro(talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock at this time - Beta can and has done a lot of great work on Wikipedia, but there is community consensus that some of what he's done and was still doing is not ok. He's been warned, talked with, blocked repeatedly then unblocked, and keeps coming back to doing stuff that there's consensus is not helpful / disruptive. Unblock should happen under one of two circumstances - One, community consensus on what he's been doing changes, and we decide that it's ok again, or Two, Beta agrees to change his ways and stop doing the stuff he keeps getting in trouble over. I see no sign of 1 - consensus here seems to be firm (not unanimous, but very strong). I see no sign of 2, so far. So I regretfully believe he needs to stay blocked for now. It's always terribly unfortunate when this happens with someone who's done so much good for Wikipedia, but none of us are above the rules. Beta needs to understand that and abide by them better. BOLD is one thing - he's gone beyond that into disruption, and until he understands that and backs off he's doing more harm than good overall. I hope that he decides to change his behavior... I want him back. But not right now, without some sign of real change. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose - nobody not named BetaCommand would be given free reign to violate editing restrictions. He has been instructed not to make unapproved bot-like edits. He has ignored this restriction and says that he has no intention of following it. A block is the community's only recourse to enforce a rule that someone just doesn't feel like obeying. --B (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose yet again. This is just another in a series of moves by him to disrespect the community. He has been given a thousand chances and its done. His repeated failure to even acknowledge the restrictions he agreed to shows an utter lack of respect for the other members of this community. This community does not need members who don't respect it, regardless of what "good" someone thinks they might do.--Crossmr (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock. BC can find something else to do with his time. At best he's a marginal contributor with few social skills; at worst, he's a time sink & an example to countless newbies that the way to getting noticed here is to annoy lots of other Wikipedians. And didn't he hand over his copyright bot responsibilities to someone else months ago? For the record, I don't use a bot, & find it a challenge to make 25 non-trivial edits in a day, so I have to wonder about his protests that he's not using a bot. -- llywrch (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The community restrictions were put in place as part of a previous breach of community trust. Betacommand decided to abide to them, then subsequently decided that he would ignore the restrictions, because he is following policy. There's plenty of other users who have offered to perform Betacommand's tasks, so he's not filling a unique niche. The main issue is that he is he has decided that his interpretation of policy supersedes a community restriction. We've let him have carte blanche in the past, and we know where it ended. Unblocking him will probably result in more drama and another probable ANI thread 3 months down the road. His attitude regarding this entire event has been uncooperative, and as a result, I think the block is a net positive to the encyclopedia. Fraud talk to me 22:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I have resolved this part of the thread, as there does not appear to be much support for unblocking Beta at this time. Thank you all for your input. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Betacommand's statement

Betacommand has made a statement on this talkpage. He can obviously see the discussion here, so any comments should - I feel - be made here and any responses copied over from his talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy of my response to Betacommand: No offence intended to Roux, but he's had a fair few problems in the past here as well ([54]). At one point he was verging on the brink of exhausting the communities patience altogether so he seems far from an ideal choice to keep watch over things. Should you be unblocked, you would really need an experienced and trusted administrator to keep watch over things. I'll have a think of some people who might do the job well - I like the idea of have 2/3 users taking on that role so they can be as much help as possible and so that there's always someone around for the members of the community to go to should they have concerns. If you were to be unblocked, that would be last chance for sure - I think you might have passed that point anyway as far as the community is concerned, but there's still a possibility that something can be worked out. I'll work on getting some names together for people that can be put to the community as formal mentors. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Given this statement, which strikes me as both reasonable and temperate, I would support changing Betacommand's block from indef to a fixed time frame of 1-4 weeks. Especially if quality mentors can be found, I still think that he will be a net positive to the project after some time to reflect on the level of frustration he has caused in the community and why. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a shortened block term like Eluchil404 suggests, provided the mentors are set up like Ryan wants to do. But Beta, please, if you're reading this... not again? :( rootology (C)(T) 00:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with shortened block term once suitable mentors have been found. Agree with Ryan that this is really his last chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Community" rejected mentors last time. Gimmetrow 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That was last time. Consensus can change (and so far seems to be). Is there a reason mentorship would be bad (has it even been tried before)? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite. The strange rules and lack of mentors was obviously going to lead to the current situation. It was seemingly designed to fail. Gimmetrow 01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: shortened block term should be at least a week given the ongoing issues. That should be enough time for things to cool down and for off-wiki discussion with his mentors to prepare him for returning to editing. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Though reluctantly, I also agree with the shortened block term, providing a) that suitable mentors have been found, and b) we actually actually agree as a community, preferably including Betacommand, that this is well and truely a final chance, i.e. any further incident that escalates this far is met with an immediate indefinite block or even ban, no questions asked. I'd like that point to be added to Beta's restrictions, really. _TalkIslander 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, after thinking about it overnight, I oppose this unblock. Like I've said a couple of times above - he's had final chances, final final chances, absolutely final chances etc. No more. Enough. If he's unblocked, we'll just be in exactly the same position in 2-3 months time. No thanks. _TalkIslander 07:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm comfortable shortening the block to 1 month with an acknowledgment of wrongdoing and a promise to adhere to a strict reading of the restrictions going forward. I'm not really concerned about mentors - I mean, I don't see what they're going to tell Betacommand that he doesn't already know. I do want peoeple keeping an eye on him, though. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - though Ryan, I'm not terribly pleased with your characterisation of me. Especially since Betacommand's statement is directly due to a long conversation I had with him. Anyway, I would support a reduction in the block to 1 week. Mentors I think would be good... Durova, FutPerf or JzG/Guy (for general cutting-through-bullshit talents), Newyorkbrad, bibliomanic15. In addition to the reduction, I would also suggest:

1. Adding the words "Blatant vandalism is not covered by this restriction" to the restrictions. I know, I know, he's unlikely to be blocked for reverting a massvandal spree. But I think blatant vandalism is an exception to the restrictions, and it's reasonable for a clear exception to be noted.

   A mass-vandal spree can be undone by someone else. This is just handing him a semantic loophole. He already considers any little violation of any sub-part of the NFCC to be "blatant vandalism". rspεεr (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

   Hmm, fair enough. Striking. // roux   02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

2. The community should revisit the restrictions three months after the end of this block. If Betacommand has stayed within his limits, I would advocated that they be loosened or removed entirely at that time. // roux   01:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

At the very least his restrictions should last as long as his disruption. I believe his incivility goes back at least 2 years. 3 months of good behaviour is a drop in the bucket.--Crossmr (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

oppose any shortened block. Sorry but an 11th hour apology (which we oddly don't have an article on) doesn't cut it for me this time. When multiple users beat their head against the wall trying to explain to you that your edits are bound by policy AND your editing restrictions, that you agreed to, and you basically act like they're trolls and the editing restrictions don't exist, suddenly being sorry when the chain is finally yanked after all this time isn't sincere to me. As was repeatedly said above, we've had last chances, final chances, last last last last last x10000 chances, and it has done nothing. There is absolutely zero evidence that another chance would make any difference. What has changed since last time? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He still violated his restrictions because he thought he was right, he attacked those who called him on it and he stubbornly ignored the community until indefinitely blocked and there was support for it this time. Now he's sorry?--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most of the conversation I had with BC was prior to the block. I believe that he really did think he was acting within policy and within his restrictions. Was he wrong? Yes. Did he break his restrictions? Yes. Should he have been blocked for that violation? Absolutely. But I do think, based on that conversation with him, that he is genuinely apologetic for the mistakes he has made, and is genuinely going to knuckle down and stay within the narrowest application of the rules possible. We maintain the idea here that all people can be made into productive contributors. I think BC is no exception to that idea. Yes, his behaviour needs a lot of work--and I am among the first to say that good contributions do not excuse rude behaviour. But one final chance, with the very clear understanding within the community and especially on BC's part that this is it', gives him a chance to continue being productive for the project. // roux   02:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But we've been through this so many times before. I've lost count of the number of absolute last chances he's been given. Orderinchaos 02:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How could he possibly think that? He edited more than 25 pages and didn't put it up first. There is no reasonable way anyone could think they were editing within those restrictions. I see nothing here from any statement he's made to give me any indication that his behaviour will change. A lot of people focus on his mass edits, but lets not forget the years of civility issues and this is just another example. His being productive to the project is not a net benefit, so us giving him another super duper ultimate final chance is not a positive move here. If I thought this was the last discussion we'd ever have to have about betacommand, I'd support a reduced block. But I don't even have to ask Kreskin on this one.--Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though he was under the impression that existing consensus was enough. This has been abundantly clarified to him. I dunno.. I know he's screwed up a bunch of times. I also think--and yes, I have been over the history, which took hours--there is an element of sincerity in what he has said both to me privately and to the community publicly that has not been there before. And yes, believe me, if he is given this chance and screws it up I will be the first calling for a permanent, it's over, immediate ban. // roux   02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that doesn't fill me with confidence nor is it a compelling argument. So what if you'll change your position next time? If next time someone else says the same thing do we let him back in again? Do we just keep going until there isn't a single body left willing to stand for him?--Crossmr (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys understand you are being set up for another fall? BC has repeatedly demonstrated over months, maybe even years, that he does not have the temperment and self-discipline necessary to make this work. I think you're making a mistake - but good luck I guess(?). Wiggy! (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit: Noting oppose for formality given this seems to have become a vote) Sadly, agree with you (and Crossmr above) - he's made promises and undertakings and broken them before. No user is bigger than the community, ultimately. Orderinchaos 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, keep it indef and make it a official community ban. He has one more chance at least half a dozen times and failed to behave every single time. He can't even abide by restrictions he agreed to (which are not onerous). Viridae^Talk 02:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How much more time and energy are we going to waste on BetaCommand??? For the last two years, his actions have been a regular topic in this forum. He does something that annoys one or more people to the point he gets blocked, another group step up to defend his actions, make promises for him, he gets unblocked & he repeats his objectionable behavior. And why do they keep supporting him? Has he done anything to improve Wikipedia that no one else has or can do? His contributions seem to be nothing more than a rapid succession of ill-considered edits which as often as not need to be fixed or reversed.

He doesn't have supporters -- he has enablers.

As for mentoring, why didn't he agree to this long before this? Why not when he lost his Admin bit? Or the first time he was blocked for running his bot? Or the second? Or the fifth? It's commendable that someone wants to step up & mentor him -- but wouldn't that effort be better spent on something else? I'm not making the assumption that volunteer energy is fungible -- an hour spent on BetaCommand is an hour taken from writing a FA -- but if a tenth of the time spent arguing over banning BC were spent supporting other Wikipedians who are doing the heavy lifting around here, maybe we wouldn't be losing these folks. Like AGK, who recently left. Or might leave -- like Guy, SandyGeorgia, or maybe dab (I keep wondering when he'll toss in the towel). And then there's the message sent with all of this bickering to keep BC from being banned: there are a lot of Wikipedians who are quietly disgruntled, but remaining civil & respectful, who see how that is not getting them any attention -- but being a jerk gets BetaCommand all sorts of second & third & tenth chances.

He's been a black hole that has sucked up too much time & effort from everyone here. I bet more words have been written about him than all of the Pokemon characters, tiny settlements in the U.S. no one has heard of, or internet memes -- combined. It's time to end this, write-protect his Talk page & move on to something completely different. -- llywrch (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

People have offered to be mentors before, and Beta has accepted them in the past. Why did "The Community" refuse these mentorship arrangements before this? Gimmetrow 03:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of these offers. There was nothing keeping him from accepting their advice, & changing his behavior. He's been blocked & unblocked twenty-four times in the last 25 months. Nine of the first ten times, the block was reversed almost immediately; since then, only once was the block for as long as a week. He could have acknowledged at any one of those times that how he handled other people wasn't working & gotten help. Now he sees that he has no more chances & he's willing to make any promise to keep from getting banned. He should have thought about that before now -- like anyone who wants to be part of the Wikipedia community does, all of the time. -- llywrch (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Viridae and Llywrch. Enough is enough. Jtrainor (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Roux and Ryan. Beta does useful work here. He's a bit incivil and forgets to run his edits through consensus sometimes. If we keep him held back with quick blocks at the hint of any problem, we should be able to end this problem. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  What evidence is there that any quick/short blocks etc would fix the problem further? He's been uncivil for years and blocked countless times. His useful work doesn't outweigh his problems.--Crossmr (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support per all of my reasons outlined in the (now-closed) subthread above. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Person has known views. Views polarise community. Community gets its act together and tells him to stop polarising the community. Person apologises andagrees to restriction. Person violates restriction. Person apologises to save face. Sound familiar? Sceptre ^(talk) 04:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not at all similar. Your oblique reference to the Kurt Weber case seems misplaced, as Kurt was outright hostile to Wikipedia in so many ways, and showed little concern for Wikipedia's mission. Betacommand is rude, ascerbic, and in many ways overzealous to the point of major disruption, but I would have never questioned that he had the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Kurt Weber could never have been said to have had that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The community decides what is best for it. Not betacommand. The community decided and he didn't follow that. As soon as he didn't follow that he was disrespecting the community and going against its interests.--Crossmr (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • And now the community is being given further chance to discuss the issue. The "community" does not mean "Whatever prior result that was arrived at that I agree with". Prior decisions are not written in stone, and no prior decision is required to be maintained in perpetuity. The community may change its mind, and the community can do so even if you repeatedly respond to every single person supporting some form of unblocking with the exact same rationale. The more often you repeatedly make these same edits, Crossmr, the more it looks like you mean the "community" to be yourself. Everyone following this thread knows where you stand. It is clear. Responding to every editor with a differing viewpoint on this issue is bordering on harassment. Please just let the discussion hammer itself out, and let other editors have their opinions on this matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Consensus isn't a vote and discussion isn't people simply leaving their opinions and walking away. Anyone is free to offer a counter point to anything I say just as I'm free to offer a counter point to anything they say. As for leaving a reply to everyone who supports an unblock I've only replied to the same number of top level posts in this particular discussion as you have, 1.--Crossmr (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Trust me when I say that (as someone who was fairly annoyed with Beta last time, and I now say unblock) that if it happens again, if he somehow isn't blocked, I'll bet you $10 of edits that he doesn't make it past the AC without a vacation. Just let the conversation breath. rootology (C)(T) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. BC has been blocked five times in the past two months. It's obvious that blocks, or the threat thereof do not have any effect on this user. I'm not opposed to some form of return for BC, but threatening more of the same probably isn't going to have much of an effect. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
• Oppose. Followed the issue and discussion last time and again now. Fair to say that this particular community member's patience is exhausted. Good faith absenting itself, the discrepancy between the comments throughout Beta's talk page and the apology/unblock request is also striking. All the other comments are littered with grammatical and spelling mistakes, run-on sentences, etc., while the apology is pretty much perfectly formed. It's almost as if it was someone else's words. It seems odd to me. Mlaffs (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Over the past two years, Beta has shown time and time again that either 1a) he doesn't give a toss what people who are not Beta think, period, and 1b) he has no qualms about disregarding restrictions imposed by said people who are not Beta, then Wiki-lawyering later on when necessary - or 2) he has a communicative disorder. Either case is possible, but neither case is compatible with a collaborative project. You do not hire somebody without arms to teach sign language. You do not have somebody allergic to cats working at the animal shelter. You do not have an Amish person fix your engine. And you do not have somebody incapable of level-headed discussion and/or reading comprehension working on a collaborative written project. In response to the continuing line of BetaDefense - that he writes bots that do things and the things they do are well-intentioned and "think of the copyright" - there is no shortage of coders in the world, and I'm sure there are several open-source sorts who would be willing to write copyright bots for free if the foundation found it was necessary and approached them. And I would go so far as to speculate that their bots would function better than Beta's, and that the end-user "why was my thing erased" support they provide... well, it'd be hard to top this, but we can always hope... Badger Drink (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This should have ended with the "leave well enough alone" plea from jayron above... Protonk (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enough is enough. He has had so many many chances to reform and he constantly mocks the community by reverting to old bad behaviour. IMO, it's a waste of future time and effort to give him yet another chance.--Berig (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Betacommand's statement is thoughtful and asks for something more nuanced than a simple thumbs up/thumbs down response. He doesn't expect to get unblocked immediately and expresses regret. That's not an easy sort of post to make and few attempt it at a juncture like this one. On principle, we ought to welcome such statements--better late in the day than not at all. It does persuade me to keep an open mind; perhaps sometime down the road we can revisit this. Two things Betacommand could do between now and then to improve the picture are: (1) respect the block and avoid socking, and (2) build up a good contribution history at another wiki. Durova^Charge! 06:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - in his statement, I see two things: a lot of make-nice talk and a solemn pledge...to STOP violating the minimum standards he agreed to in order to avoid a likely community ban several months ago. I cannot help but feel the same fundamental disconnect here that I've seen all along. He's not a bad guy, but he just insists on sticking the fork into the toaster, fighting tooth and nail through battalions of editors to do so. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment/question - has anyone considered the idea that Newyorkbrad posted on BC's talk page? Reproduced:

  (Posting here as an individual, not as an arbitrator, and without prejudice to anything should this or a related matter come before me in the latter capacity. Just thinking out loud here.) Suppose that for a period of time, Betacommand were permitted to use whatever methods he wanted, but rather than take actions (remove images, change templates, propose username blocks, whatever) he would instead list the items he thinks are problematic on an output page. Then another user could independently review the lists and decide which items should result in immediate action, which in tagging or warnings, which are not problematic, etc. We would retain Betacommand's skill at using tools to identify potential violations, but take him out of the role of ultimate decision-maker or notifier in areas where he's been controversial. Would this work? Newyorkbrad (talk) Yesterday, 7:57 pm (UTC-5)</blockquote:

Thoughts? // roux   07:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

An excellent idea Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have considered NYB's statement, and I think it's similar to what's already in place. BC would still have to get the green light to act (currently, I think he's supposed to run it through the VP), but he'd be allowed to use automated tools if he chose. Is the issue with BC just that he uses unauthorized bots or goes over an edit limit - whatever you want to call it, or that he's performing tasks for which there is no consensus? (I'm not familiar with all of the details.) If it's the former, NYB's proposal could work. If it's the latter, the proposal is too similar to the current restrictions that aren't being followed. WODUP 07:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Close... under NYB's suggestion, Betacommand would take no actions. He would gather data, spit out a list, other people would decide what to do with it (which, I guess, could include asking him to do it, but that wouldn't be required). // roux   07:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got it now, thanks. Now that I understand a little better, it's something we could try if BC agrees and we get people to review his lists. I do worry that if BC is producing a lot of proposed changes within a relatively short time, we'd have a backlog of proposed edits, and I imagine it would be difficult for him to allow what he knows to be legitimate problems to linger for longer than they had to solely because no one has signed off on them. WODUP 08:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is pretty much what was proposed last time: Beta would be able to use scripts, but a mentor would review any proposed tasks and provide a quick turnaround with a yay or nay before Beta could proceed. "The Community" rejected this, and came up with a set of rules with a long involved delay. Under these rules it could be days to a week before the proposed edits could actually be made. That seems like it would be a recipe for anxiety for many editors. Imagine how long many editors could function under restrictions not to fix any typos they noticed until they had posting a proposal and waited a week for a consensus to form that the typo could be fixed? And we're talking something more than typos here: many people are passionate about free content. Gimmetrow 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This would be even more complex than the current remedies, for no obvious gain. Everyone loses. rspεεr (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Newyorkbrad's proposal: I hate to say it, but why should we bend over backwards and spend loads of time babysitting Betacommand when there are several other editors that could, and have proposed, to do these tasks without needing such an arrangement? This proposal is something we could have accepted say, 5 Betacommand scandals ago. Personally, I don't think Betacommand has any credibility now when he promises to stick by any restrictions. He has done the same thing as always: refusing to admit any guilt and attacking people criticising him, suddenly apologizing when it's clear people have had enough, then going back to his old ways. Is he back? (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have suggested Betacommand be banned for an indefinite period in the past, but people were not too keen on the idea. I believe him to be a net negative to our project, and think he'd be better off doing something else for a few months, and perhaps come back for fresh start-over when he's had some time to think how he's been acting. Majorly talk 08:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose His block should remain indefinite. How many times have we been through this? And if you're really buying his statement, I've got snow in Mississippi for sale. He will just run tasks that are 24, instead of 25 and laugh the whole time while doing it. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 10:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Betacommand was blocked indefinitely for violation of the last/existing restriction, which was the maximum allowance the community was then prepared to allow him. If he is to be unblocked, then it cannot be for any more less restrictive measures - in fact, it could easily be for exactly the same set of restrictions. I would have no compulsion in again blocking under the same criteria, should BC be unblocked, and it is apparent that BC understands that such blocks will be made. It may be that this instance will suffice in convincing BC that he does require the communities good will to allow him to edit, and he will adjust his interactions accordingly. I also understand that there are many editors who will despair at BC being given yet another chance, and wonder if all this effort is worth the result. If I were to be given the decision, I would keep BC indefinitely blocked at en-WP for the time being and revisit the situation in 3 or 4 months time and see how he is interacting on the other wikis; if there has been no socking or other disruption here, and he is having no problems at the other wikis then we can unblock BC under the same restrictions that existed when I blocked. With all respect to Ryan, Brad, Roux, and others, I really don't see the point in us trying to find a way to accommodate Betacommand - it is for BC to decide if he can adapt to the communities requirements. However, as the blocking admin I am not !voting either way (and will therefore request that my opinion is not recorded), and will accept whatever consensus is arrived at. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, this action against Betacommand seems hostile and unhelpful, preventing him from pursuing an important Wikipedia policy for which ample consensus exists. If there's some restriction in place preventing him from doing this, perhaps that restriction should be reviewed. If somebody can explain to me what harm Betacommand's recent edits have done, I might begin to understand why this very drastic action was undertaken and why it seems to have so much support in the face of its apparently disproportionate effect. --TS 12:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you were to read the entire discussion, and previous discussions to be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand, where you would discover that a majority of editors recognise that Betacommand's intentions are good and that the policy he tries to service is valid - but it is the manner in which he works that is disruptive, and those restrictions that were placed were an effort to allow him to do the good work without the consequences of not coding/testing or reviewing the results of his scripts or work. I would also point you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Community-imposed restrictions, where the restrictions are clearly spelled out, which was worded with input from BC himself. The entire above discussion relates to the communities belief that BC violated those terms. Once you are familiar with the events of the last 18 months or so, in regard to the community and Betacommand trying to find a way to usefully coexist, I for one would be grateful for any comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read your blocking notice. I'm familiar with the events of the past 18 months with respect to Betacommand. I've asked for an explanation of how the actions of Betacommand (and not your disproportionate response to those actions) were disruptive. --TS 12:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that consciously breaking restrictions imposed on him is indeed disruptive, and that LessHeard vanU has made the right decision. I'd also like to ask you to read the discussion above where there is an overwhelming support by the community for permablocking BC.--Berig (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that that is LessHeardVanU's argument. I also agree that there is a disconcerting degree of unanimity. The trouble is that it doesn't make any sense. Betacommand removed some internal links to items that do not belong on Wikipedia. They do not belong to us and nobody had made any justification for their use on Wikipedia. If there is community support for blocking Betacommand for doing these things, then community support on this occasion needs to be reconsidered carefully. Because on this occasion Betacommand is doing the right thing and those who are trying to hamper him are, on the face of it, doing the wrong thing. None of the discussion above seems to address this obvious problem. --TS 13:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to explain in what possible way violating restrictions is "doing the right thing"? I am afraid I do not understand you at all.--Berig (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that your failure to recognise the disruption inherent in Betacommand not being able to comply with restrictions, which he had agreed to so as not to be indef blocked previously, is endemnic of your failure to recognise certain non or counter-productive input at the encyclopedia, which I consider these comments of yours to be another example. It is nothing to do with the validity of the proposed edits, but how they are made and the failure to accept responsibility for any problems arising. If you do not understand how Betacommand's manner is disruptive, even after reading all of the material, then it is beyond my capacity to enlighten you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You might like to address the question. I certainly accept that generally the community can decide what it accepts and what it does not accept, and that it may impose restrictions on certain editors. But here we have an editor whose current actions are not, on the face of it, in any way disruptive, and in fact are a net good for Wikipedia. If this has arisen as a result of community restrictions, on the face of it the restrictions are at fault, not the editor. I don't think this problem has been addressed. I don't think this problem can be dismissed as a personal failing of an uninvolved party who fails to see the logic of blocking an editor for engaging in productive editing. -TS 13:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is very simple; Betacommand violated restrictions that were put in place so that he might continue to make good edits without causing the disruption that he had previously done. The manner in which he violated the restriction was an example of the disruption the restrictions were imposed to address. A different example would be if BC were issuing vandal warnings with the edit summary, "Fuck off, troll"; the warnings are good and appropriate, but not the edit summaries for which he had been previously warned not to do. If his response is either to ignore the concerns, or to respond with "Fuck off, troll enabler" then he would be quickly and rightly blocked - the good of warning vandals notwithstanding. This, although in far less contentious ways, is what happened here - a restriction on how many fair use warnings without someone checking over that the code was working as it was supposed, because of previous instances when it hadn't, was being disregarded because BC believed that acting toward policy was more important than adhering to the conditions that meant that there were checks to make sure that everything would work without causing disruption. He wasn't prepared to allow anyone to make sure he wasn't making the mistakes he had in the past. This was why he was blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Betacommand has apologized and acknowledged the editing restriction, but following this there still seems to be a consensus for a long block. I've never seen mentorship help a blocked editor (although it must have happened now and then). I do see hints in the above comments that there might be a consensus to review the block (and hear what Betacommand has to say about it) in two or three months. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing a !headcount, I don't know about that. it seems fairly split to be honest. If the block stands any future review needs to be done publicly and over time.--Crossmr (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't seem to be reading the comments in the same way and what I meant by "long block" might not have been clear. To put it another way, I don't see any consensus for an unblock at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is a longtime abuser, an interpreter of policy that suits his own agenda, a committed user of abusive language, unreasonable tactics, and lightening speed edits with no discussion. Warned and ignores warnings over and over again...what is the point...of bringing him back? Modernist (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• I oppose an unblock under these terms, as they are too similar to those Betacommand has already shown to be unwilling to adhere to. It's clear that the community does not trust him to make any serial edits whatsoever. Accordingly, I would suppose an unblock only subject to a community restriction prohibiting him from making any serial edits (say, 10 or more similar edits within 24 hours), with the understanding that a violation of this restriction would result in a ban. This would also allow the implementation of Newyorkbrad's proposal above, which I think is sensible.  Sandstein  13:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm yet to be convinced that the disruption lies in the actions of a single editor. Betacommand's good and reasonable recent edits certainly do not merit long blocking, let alone an indefinite block. His uncommunicative nature tends to exacerbate minor problems, however, and I think he has attracted the attention of some people who really want to cause harm to Wikipedia as well as some who disagree with the copyright policies and, unable to overturn them, set out to sabotage them instead. I think it's inevitable that he will be driven away by this community decision-making process, and it's obvious that the arbitration committee has not felt able to tackle the twin problems of seriously defective community processes and external sabotage. We may lose Betacommand over this, but I hope that we may also learn from it. The cost of open editing and decision-making is that we must often live with decisions primarily driven by actors who do not wish Wikipedia well nor have its best interests at heart. These aren't necessarily fatal problems as long as we can recognise our failures and take care not to repeat them. This has been one such failure. --TS 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, I do think it's helpful to keep in mind that some of this is likely stirred up by the many, sundry and often sweeping takes of editors on how image copyright policy should be handled on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to letting BC back at some point, and I think that we can all agree that he's done some good in the past. However, the constant drama, incivility, and inability to follow simple community-agreed sanctions is causing more harm than good at the moment. I hope that BC can learn from this and come back at some point in the future, but I think right now a block is the only way to stop the flow of drama. And frankly, asserting that those of us who want to resolve this situation by actually enforcing community standards "do not wish Wikipedia well" is needlessly emotive and frankly unhelpful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Well the arbitration committee are currently unanimously voting to decline this case, preferring those so-called "seriously defective community processes". the wub "?!" 17:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose early unblock until consensus established. The apology[55] comes less than ten hours after particularly vitriolic abuse[56] and does not signify to me any change of heart. There's no rush to make a decision. MikeHobday (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Beta has rubbed me the wrong way every now and then but when it comes down to it, he does a lot of the dirty work nobody else wants to do. With that often comes the lynch mob looking for his head. It is personally sad to me to see this great editor reduced to a little child forced to ask/beg for permission before doing anything of any scale, isent that against the spirit of the wiki? This is a massive scale project, sometimes things need to be done. While some of his actions may be against the spirit of the wiki too every now and then his intentions are the best. I have no doubt in my mind that beta does not sit down at the computer and think, "what can I destroy on the english wikipedia today? The sad thing is based on the way he gets treated you could never tell that. Overall, I find this terribly sad and another loss for this project. If we keep this up, there are going to be 5 or 6 drama inducing editors with this place to themselves because nobody wants to deal with there BS. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock in the proposed form Beta's mea culpa is too little too late and is inconsistent with his systematic refusal to recognize the previous blocks as legitimate. He writes "As for my restrictions, I honestly felt that I was within the rules and was being harassed by people" despite the fact that Ryan had told him just a few days ago that he was out of line [57]. NFCC work is indeed thankless, it's a difficult job and it needs to be done, but it needs to be done right. Betacommand's inability to defuse situations and unwillingness to listen to others' concerns make him a liability in such a delicate area. The community shouldn't have to waste time and energy chaperoning him. The editing restrictions were crystal clear. Now I'm not saying that I'd oppose any proposal for an unblock but I certainly oppose any framework that imposes extra work on editors whose time would be better spent elsewhere. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this unblock, or any unblock of this user at any time in the future. The level of disruption is just way too high and has gone on for way too long. He's not the only person who does image copyright work, but he's the only one who causes anywhere near this level of trouble. A net time sink and drain on Wikipedia. Every time he gets blocked he apologizes and promises not to do it again, and then he does it and we have the same discussion all over again. Enough is enough! *** Crotalus *** 16:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose and unblock at this time. He's been blocked and unblocked many times, with no change. Who's to say that's going to immediately change? Give the user/block some time. A change has happend before with other users, lets see if Beta comes around. I have good faith in his edits that I've seen, but the incivility and breaking of the editing restrictions (that Beta agreed to) is what leads me to not support and unblock. Lets give it a rest for now and revisit it later in '09. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm opposed to an unblock. The only reason he dodged a permanent block last time was agreeing to these conditions, and a lot of effort was made in stating them clearly and unambiguously. To then flout them and threaten anyone attempting to enforce them is unacceptable. The work he does is important, but he is not the only one, and it does not put give him a free pass, or indeed an infinity of free passes. the wub "?!" 17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Under what terms would we accept Betacommand back

It seems clear that, even after his apology, the community is not of a mind to let Betacommand back yet. There is an element of a lack of confidence in Betacommand here, but there is also an element of a lack of confidence in the watertightness of the current editing restrictions. As such, a necessary element of any return must be to get the restrictions right.

I'd like to suggest the following as a starting point (additions in bold)

Mayalld (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• [Three editors appointed by the community] are appointed as mentors to support Betacommand in editing constructively.

• Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus (such consensus to be confirmed by one of his mentors) supporting his actioning the request before he may begin. For the avoidance of doubt, explicit consensus for Betacommand to perform a task at this time is required. Any consensus for Betacommand to perform a task under the terms of this bullet shall expire 7 days after the task was first proposed.

• Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

• Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

• Should Betacommand breach any of the above conditions, he may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. Where such a block is applied, Betacommand shall not be unblocked without community consensus.

• Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. For the purpose of this enforcement, prior warnings to or blocks of Betacommand do not automatically make an administrator involved.

• Blocks should be logged here.

Comments on the proposal by Mayalld

• What if point 5 were changed to:
  • Should Betacommand breach any of the above conditions, he may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for up to a week. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. Betacommand may not be unblocked except through a clear community consensus or the consensus of his mentors.
• In any case, I'd support yours. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is a last chance move, why would we set up for the 5th and 6th times he's blocked for violating his restrictions?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Query: is it deliberate that the terms of blocking/unblocking are different for "rapid/non consensual editting" and for breach of civility? MikeHobday (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I don't understand your point 2. I don't get what the sentence "For the avoidance of doubt, explicit consensus for Betacommand to perform a task at this time is required" adds on top of everything else, nor do I understand what it means to change "the request" to "his actioning the request". I don't even think "actioning" should be a word. What were you trying to say? rspεεr (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, why are we trying to create these convoluted restrictions. The more detailed we make this, the more problems we get. Why not just a three-fold restriction in simple terms:

1. Betacommand is prohibited from making automated edits using any tool such as, but not limited to scripts, bots, add-ons, or any other editing tool beyond a standard commercially availible web browser and a keyboard. Any repetitive and quickly repeated edits across a broad spectrum of articles, which any admin could construe to be made by an automated tool, shall result in the same block as if they were done that way.
2. Betacommand is banned from working in the field of image use complaince, broadly construed, and is not to concern himself with tagging images, warning users, removing images from articles, or in any way involving himself with any enforcement of the WP:IUP, WP:NFCC and related policies in any way.
3. Betacommand is on strict civility parole, and is not to demean, put down, call names, or otherwise act in a manner which creates a hostile environment for any editors, and may be blocked for the first instance of doing so.

These restrictions completely remove Betacommand from the types of editing which get him into trouble (bots and image use compliance) and make clear that the community will not stand for further disruption. I also propose that all blocks from this point forward are indefinate, and shall only be lifted at the pleasure of the community. No more progressive blocks, no more warnings, no more slaps on the wrist. Lets make this a real last chance. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If Beta is unblocked (note that I oppose unblocking right now), then I quite like this set of restrictions. Simple, to the point, and as you say, removes him from the areas in which he has caused trouble. _TalkIslander 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I feel this proposal is the equivalent of throwing even more good money after bad. If a volunteer can't be successfully mentored by any Wikipedian in good standing selected more-or-less at random, then the problem lies in that person. Consider the point of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy -- we aren't contributing our time & energy to baby-sit problem users, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Still, if the necessary three mentors -- with the needed qualifications -- can be found who don't mind spending their time on this cause, for good or bad, I will acquiese to BC's return -- with the stipulation that he knows he is on thin ice. If he steps out of line, he's history -- no warnings, no more threads about him anywhere on Wikipedia, no protests that "he's just enforcing policy". Just ban him, write-protect his talk page, & block him from IRC. -- llywrch (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• If an unblock is eventually granted, the version 2.0 of the restrictions should be even simpler than version 1.0. People who believe that mentorship can solve the problem should consider that the latest violation of the restrictions came after a two-week old short block for these very same reasons (my 24h block explained to BC here, see this version of his talk page for the whole exchange), and thorough, detailed warnings from myself, Ryan, Rspeer, Is he back and Islander [58] just a few days ago. Betacommand agreed to the editing restrictions in early September and was basically inactive until November. Yet he has since managed to get blocked 5 times while performing only about 800 edits. I would also note that these 800 edits include the ones he made to explain how each of these blocks was complete bullshit and that among the 400 edits to the article space, at least a quarter are mass-edits that go against the restrictions Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the call for any new restrictions to be simpler, rather than more complicated, and I would normally agree with those who say "we just need to say "no automated editing". The problem is that we know from much experience that such simple terms are open to argument, and that Betacommand inevitably interprets them to mean that he can do what he wants. The key things that I believe that we need are;

1. It is vital that we make it abundantly clear that Betacommand cannot rely on some pre-existing consensus that what he wants to do is in line with policy. The consensus must exist here and now both that the action should be taken, and that Betacommand should take it.
2. The history of Betacommand seeing consensus that others do not demands that in any case other than clear unanimity that Betacommand can proceed, consensus should be judged by somebody else. For this reason, the proposal delegates this to the mentors.
3. Given that we are already past the last chance, we need to amend the restriction to explicitly say that should a breach occur, he is right back where he is now, having to get community agreement to unblocking (I have to say that if we arrive back here again, I will not be proposing any new and imaginative solutions, I would, at that stage, be calling for a community ban. Mayalld (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I feel the current restrictions are fine, and were worked out to allow the maximum editing by BC under his preferred methods with the appropriate level of review before commitment to large numbers of edits - and I think the sanction enforcement criteria was also spot on. It doesn't need much if any change; and BC now knows it has teeth, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I think until there is consensus for an unblock discussing new restrictions is a waste of time and effort. The problem is not the restrictions. It is betacommands behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to make a proposal that will work better than previous ones

1) Betacommand is indefinitely banned.

Presto, no more incivility problems, no more bot problems, no more automated edit fracases. There's clearly no consensus to unblock him this time and he's on what, now? His fourth or fifth last chance? Enough already. Jtrainor (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This has all gone way, way too far into "Off with his head!" territory. There's a certain... glee isn't quite the right word, but it'll do, being shown by more than a few people who should know better. It's one thing to indefblock a user; it's another to dance on the grave. // roux   20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose ban Betacommand does not intend to disrupt, and intentional disruption is the only basis for a ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  does not intend to disrupt... I need clarification on that. Is he accidentally uncivil?--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Incivility is a form of disruption though, so unless you're saying he's accidentally being incivil, he's already met the basis for a ban. Having said that I don't support a ban at this time. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• +1... not sure..but somehow that wasn't there when I pressed save. however unless there is a guaranteed 100% civil betacommand on the table, I wouldn't remotely support an unblock or not a ban--Crossmr (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Not yet - I'm seeing a level of contriteness and willingness to work with others, that has generally been absent in the past. Presuming the work he's doing is valuable in some way, there may be hope. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Whilst I am increasingly leaning towards a conclusion that Betacommand has been given a quite phenomenal number of chances, and that any other editor would have been community banned months ago, I remain troubled by a feeling that his "sins" are not of the nature of deliberately trying to damage the project, but that he appears to lack the capacity to appreciate that even if he doesn't intend harm, he does harm. There cannot be indefinite extra chances, but we should do all we can to try and make this work. I think that we are already pretty damn close to having done so, but my proposal outlines a few extra things that we might do. I don't know if they will work, but if they could work, we should do them. If others judge that they won't work, I can see no alternative to a community ban. If we try them and they don't work, then a ban is where we go next. Mayalld (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet another

1) Betacommand will continue to be indefinitely blocked and will wait out the community's block until it expires or the community decides to lift the block, as all other editors on Wikipedia must do. No one is above the law and it's time that comes to light on Wikipedia. Given the many, many, many, many, many, many past times we've been through a Betacommand chapter, this is the only solution - to show the community actually means business this time. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 21:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• This might not be a bad idea. Given the apparent lack of consensus for either an unblock or a full community ban. It may be prudent to leave the indefinite block in place and revisit the issue in a few weeks if Betacommand is still interested and people are still willing to consider the issue. Alternately Betacommand could appeal to ArbComb, but I would suggest that such an appeal would be more useful in the future (I.e. a month or more from now) rather than immediately. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I just warned User:Savolya about inserting copyrighted text into Wikipedia, and noticed he/she had been warned previously in September and blocked. Going through the user's most recent contributions, there are still ongoing copyright problems. For example:

• Three Godfathers (1936 film) from TCM, even with the same spelling errors (e.g. "puruse")
• White Feather (1955 film) from TCM
• Bella Darvi from NationMaster (and cited as coming from NationMaster, so it wasn't mirrored from Wikipedia)
• Virginia Mayo from the actor's website
• Virginia Leith from this website
• Bundle of Joy (1956 film) from TCM
• Susan Slept Here from TCM

I was going to wait for Savolya's reply, but the more I looked at his/her contribs, the more concerned I became because the list above is simply from the last two days. If this has been going on since September, there's going to be quite a lot of mess to clean up... Regards, Somno (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, I meant to post this to WP:AN. Serves me right for having so many tabs open. Should I move it there or leave it here? Somno (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Leaving topic here, so please comment here. Thanks, Somno (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:Benjiboi

Complain about Admin Toddst1

Hello administrators, I just want to report an event :

• 19 April : Administrator Toddst1 propose to merge two articles : Everest: A Climb for Peace and Everest Peace Project.
• 5 December : then he propose the deletetion of Everest Peace Project.
• 6 December : I reply : "Anything against this article? Obsession maybe!" :-)
• 7 December : he propose related articles I've worked on (Erik Mongrain/Prophase music)
• I've decide to not react because he's an administrator and obviously looking for troubles.
• 18 december : {{uw-npa3}} is added on my talk page, saying that I'll might be blocked.

I think this is abusive. Thanks a lot and have a nice day! --Antaya (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually you also accused him of repeatedly submitting Everest Peace Project for deletion, which didn't happen. Now you've come here and rather than decide not to react, you've accused him of looking for troubles, but I don't see the evidence for that. And of course, anyone who continues to attack other editors is likely to be blocked, do you have a problem with that?

• Meanwhile I'd like to ask others here about Erik Mongrain/medias - this seems a bit unusual, is it ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well maybe I didn't express myself correctlty in English, but I don't think I've attack anyone, no need to block me!!! --Antaya (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I have notified Toddst1 of this discussion, and nominated the "medias" page page for deletion. I have no opinion on the original complaint. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • {{uw-npa3}} might be a bit over the top (3 and above assume bad faith), but yes, the OP is not entirely blameless. — neuro^(talk) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought namespace subpages had been disabled on English Wikipedia - see WP:Subpages - or has that recently changed? – ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • They are discouraged by policy, but technically there is no way to prevent their creation. MBisanz ^talk 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a sub-page. It's simply a page in the main namespace that has a forward slash in its title. Uncle G (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Well Todd was completely off about Mongrain; he's highly notable - and as one would expect, others better informed were able to correct him at the Afd. (Should have at least googled, Todd.) However, this all reads a little like you're in a disagreement and want Todd censured - please show if and where he ever abused his admin tools. Otherwise, its just two editors disagreeing, and does not belong here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Roobit thread from WP:AIV

Resolved

 – IP blocked Black Kite 15:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• 82.131.73.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On User talk:Martintg;. this is a sock of the banned vandal and sock puppeteer User:roobit. He is right now harassing his former 'opponents' on their talk pages. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Sockpuppet investigations. (or WP:ANI, if SSP is still backlogged) LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  For God's sake, I didn't need any wiki-bureaucratic discussions on the page you linked here! I wanted this IP (probably an Estonian internet café?), used by Roobit aka Poeticourt1 to be blocked for a few hours, so that the person concerned would be hindered from further disruption in articles and on my and my colleagues' talk pages! Is it too much to ask, eh? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC) In addition, he theoretically even broke WP:3RR 3 rv rule this time - on other person's talk page. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, I can see your problem - you are too stupid to be able to read the notice on this page! If it is a sockpuppet problem take it to the sockpuppet page, and if it is 3RR violations take it to the 3RR page, and if it is more complex take it to WP:ANI. This page is for obvious vandalism and spamming (it says so, just above these reports). Not really our problem if you are too lazy or thick to place it on the right page... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're reply (unlike mine ;-)) contains violation of WP:NPA. Tell me where should I report you? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, having re-read Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism, I could easily conclude that the IP's acts fall under two 'Vandalism types': 'sneaky vandalism' in article space and 'Userspace vandalism' on various user talk pages. And according to Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism, “Obvious and malicious sockpuppets may be reported to AIV”, so that if anyone has problems with reading, it's probably not me. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above thread was at WP:AIV, but AIV does not seem like the best forum for it and as it was suggested already by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), I have moved the thread here. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"you are too stupid to be able to read the notice on this page", whilst perhaps not being the most appropriate response, doesn't sound uncivil to myself. In Miacek's position I would have merely taken it as a slap on the wrist, but I guess that is just an interpretation. — neuro^(talk) 14:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that comment was clear violation of NPA and I shouldn't have done it (Trouts or time off as considered appropriate) so I apologise for that. As for the basis of the complaint, I couldn't see a direct link between the two accounts except for an obvious bias - but one which may be shared by several inclined editors, so folk more familiar with socking or this particular case should review it. As for 3RR, this usually needs more than one editor and I was not prepared to wade through the history to find if one party was more guilty than another (plus, it is AIV!!!) Lastly, I was I admit ticked off with the response; in that period I had more edits to the AIV board than the bot, and I was less than amused with Miacek's first comments - still, as I said, my bad. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I never said it wasn't an NPA violation. It is. — neuro^(talk) 14:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Good grief. I blocked the IP for a while, as I agree with the analysis that it is a returning blocked user harassing people. Miacek, LHvU is right, next time please take it to WP:SSP which is there for that exact purpose. Happy New Year, everyone. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point this thread can be marked as resolved - thoughts? Cirt (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and done. Black Kite 15:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So the problem with lack of civility on the part of LHVU is not to be addressed? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not taking a side but asking...It looks like he apologized above and realized his mistake?? What more do you suggest or are you looking for? --Tom 01:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:BalLightning

Resolved

 – unless the user starts promoting at a much faster pace.--Crossmr (talk)

BalLightning (talk · contribs)

Just checking this users contribs as I ran in to him again, he's made a total of 5 edits in over 2 years, 1 was vandalism, and 4 have been for promotion. The 4 promotion ones are all in the last month. His talk page shows a deleted contribution that from the looks of it was probably more promotion. It seems that he's not here to do anything besides promote (as slowly and infrequently as it is, but there isn't a good contrib in the bunch).--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I see no contributions at all. Anyone care to clarify? — neuro^(talk) 14:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/BalLightning does seem to list 5 contributions to my non-administrator eyes. I don't think any admin action is required here, the 4-level warning system should suffice as it's possible the editor does not understand the implications of their actions and it's no harm to assume good faith on the part of inexperienced editors. The Spore article has enough eyes on it to prevent any damage. Skomorokh 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems my ec was Crossmr fixing the username. I agree that no admin intervention appears to be required immediately - uw is probably the best course of action. — neuro^(talk) 16:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary abuse / suspect editing motives

Would it be possible for an administrator to have a quick look at the edits of User:Poncho32323 (a relatively small number). This apparent single-purpose agenda account holder has made a number of edits to articles related to a band called Stratovarius. All the edits have had gibberish edit summaries, despite pleas to stop, making it difficult for RC patrol monitoring. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for 3 hours to permit them to read the welcome message on their talkpage, and to respond to concerns expressed there. Next time, WP:AIV is best suited for a quick response (as long as you don't get the grumpy reviewer that sometimes answers there). LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I the grumpy reviewer? ;-) Tan | 39 16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't go to WP:AIV because I didn't consider it to be vandalism, or the matter to be particularly urgent. It was more "annoying" rather than "harmful" to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the curmudgeon who was the subject of this matter. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'm familiar. At any rate, you could have easily been referring to me - I do get grumpy :-) Tan | 39 17:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware that "being grumpy" is an impediment to being an administrator. It may even be a requirement. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, actually; I never promote any RfA candidate that doesn't have the correct level of grumpiness. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Kinda like you're not a true admin until you are told you are abusing your power...which in turn gives you an appropriate level of grumpiness. --Smashville^talk 17:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense; the prerequisites of adminship are (1) had your talkpage blanked by an IP, (2) been accused of at least three words ending in "ism" and (3) had at least one argument with Baseball Bugs. There's a checklist – iridescent 17:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's like you just went through my talk page archives. Tan | 39 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think another one is, "Likes to argue with brick walls". --Smashville^talk 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop this requirement creep at once. Policy is clear on this matter. Skomorokh 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I get on pretty well with Baseball Bugs - and Duncan Hill, for that matter... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So do I, but it sure doesn't stop him arguing with me. I guess if you haven't had an argument with BB, one with Smith Jones would be an acceptable substitute. – iridescent 21:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Arguing" with Smith Jones would be akin to arguing with Gabby Johnson. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never been in an argument with Bugs (well...not a real one that I can recall), but I've read enough of Smith...someone should've given him spell check for Christmas. Bugs is at least well-liked enough to have his own stalker. --Smashville^talk 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's when you know you've arrived. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. I've never had an argument with either (although I've read BB's comments here), nor have I had a stalker (not looking to fill the position, either). Maybe it's that I read stuff like this for fun, & folks consider me strange even by Wikipedia standards. But I can get grumpy. -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, Complaint re OUTING and HARASSMENT

I was exasperated to find that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters appears to be continuing the outing crusade of Bali ultimate at [[59]]. Lulu does this despite the exonerating results of the checkuser done against me. I made reasonable edits to the ACORN article and, unlike previous occasions, explained in detail why I was doing so, yet Lulu reverted them apparently just because I made them. As I recall I made several edits one of which was a mass revert of material (deleted previously by Bali) that happened to include maybe one Capital Research Center item and Lulu seized on this to again make allegations about my identity. Other edits to the article included an article from NPR which is considered on WP to be a reliable source. The fact that he is continuing the outing talk begun by Bali and continues to make allegations as to my identity contrary to WP:OUTING itself constitutes harassment against me. [[60]] Also, Lulu tolerates no inclusion of negative legitimate information about ACORN on the ACORN article. I request that action be taken against him for his flagrant disregard of WP rules. As an admin, he definitely ought to know better. Syntacticus (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just here to say i note that my name is repeated again and again up above apparently in some complaint about lulu. My connection appears to have to do with one comment i made a week or so ago (now enshrined in Acorn lore as the "outing crusade"), and other edits i've done about this, that or the other thing. It's all very confusing. If there's an actual reason for my involvement in this, someone let me know (aside to syntacticus: I'm pretty sure that lulu is not an admin.)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I read Lulu was an admin. I may be mistaken. The reason you are mentioned here is because you made an attempted outing which I subsequently learned is a very serious blockable infraction of WP rules. You desisted after being warned but Lulu appears to have picked up the ball from you and is doing the same (or very close to the same) all because I happen not to agree with his reverts of my edits to ACORN. Syntacticus (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I urge the parties involved to take a chill pill. This looks like an edit war / content dispute, and a minor one at that.[61] The sock/coi concerns are that Syntacticus added several sourcing links to contentious claims made by a think tank that he/she may be affiliated with, and is editing articles in a way that supports their position. Those concerns are not unfounded and are not answered by the checkuser's inconclusive result. There was an improper attempted outing, which was already handled here with a warning, but that is a separate matter - voicing sock/coi concerns is not outing. However, absent any blatant trouble, even if they are true Syntacticus is free to make good faith, anonymous edits here, and seems to be sincerely interested in participating in Wikipedia. When faced with a simple content question, and a murky question behind that of the legitimacy of editor accounts, perhaps it's better to stock to the content question. Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Lulu's edits, and they are troubling. Perhaps a: Lulu stop that, and a Syntacticus, please ask for community input about the sources that you want to use. I am extremely sympathetic to your point of view, but the sources that you want to use do not, as of yet, have community support. Request another mediation, ask more established users whom you trust or let CRC go.( on my way to notify lulu, as Im not sure he is aware)Die4Dixie (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I found what appears to be your insinuation that Lulu is a pedophile or a homosexual here [[62]] troubling. Lots of us are troubled by what lots of people do.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

D4D: Seriously, how can NPR not have community support? Why should I have to ask anybody's permission to cite NPR? My continuing concern with the ACORN article is that it very briefly and almost in passing recites just a few of ACORN's problems. It's as if ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis wrote the thing.(Perhaps the matter of ACORN's many legal and other problems would be dealt with in a separate article linked to in the main article?) As for the CRC item, it was just one in a mass blanking by Bali ultimate. This is not solely about CRC. This is about whether the ACORN article reflects make believe or whether it reflects reality. WP is supposed to be about reality, not about PR puff-piece BS. Syntacticus (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it some more, so if I jumped the gun , I apologize. NPR should be a reliable source ( although I seldom like what I hear them say :-). This sounds like a conflict dispute, so I'll check out the talk page. If it is CRC related, then I stand by my previous statementDie4Dixie (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon: I will take a rain check on the chill pill, but thanks for the suggestion. I want to get to the bottom of this. Syntacticus (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Syntacticus has made a career on Wikipedia of adding references to the Capital Research Center, and more especially to reports by Matthew Vadum. That behavior inevitably and justifiably leads to the suspicion that he is connected to one or the other of them. Regardless of his motivation, it is inappropriate behavior. I've repeatedly asked him to stop spamming links to CRC in articles. Wikipedia is not a publishing arm of the CRC. Whether or not Syntacticus is connected to the CRC or Vadum, he shouldn't be promoting them so excessively. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think some of this could be resolved if all the users there would agree to mediation like was attempted earlier. He seems to think it is a case of WP:DONTLIKEIT rather than a problem with the source. I for one would agree again. I don't think the source is a good one for Wikipedia, but there are several sources I see used here that are as bad or worse. A difinitive statement from the mediation crew would resolve this. Or even a group of trusted neutral admins. could be formed to evaluate sources and make determinations for reliability in questions like this.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

104Serena

New account 104Serena (talk · contribs) has plunged straight into editing a number of articles on contentious issues (such as police action, feminism, porn, depression) and made edits which, while having innocuous edit summaries, remove cleanup templates around neutrality, OR, unreferenced claims, etc. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see two edits which removed templates; one was a revert to a previous version, and the other, well, who knows, maybe it was malicious and maybe it was an accident. Is there a reason you came here first instead of first asking them why they did it, and telling them not to do it again?

I do not see any problems. Have you cautioned the user yet? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

New editor? I doubt it. dougweller (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOCK does not disallow unnamed alternative accounts, so this is not actionable as such straight out just because it appears to be a sock. Actions done by the account, however, may well be blockable, although I certainly don't think it has reached there yet. — neuro^(talk) 19:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

another grumpy admin Request for Assistance

• Clarification: I am NOT editing the article, nor have I been involved in any of the discussions, except to give my $.02 when an editor asked for input as to the notability of a certain poll. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On Christmas eve, I slapped the hands of a few people involved in an incipient edit war on Talk:Sarah Palin, involving a long post with no clear explanation of how it might be utilized to improve the article. It read like an essay or blog post; it had excerpts from two offsite articles which also read like essays or blog posts, and the first one was even labeled an essay and the second described as "another" - although I have since been informed that one was a book review, and I have been much maligned and chastised for daring to refer to them as essays. I confess I didn't read the linked sites very carefully; my interest was in stopping the edit war and getting the editors back to discussing the article, preferably civilly. I re-removed the long post[63] and posted a rather snippy warning[64] and templated (yes, I templated) Writegeist[65] and warned Factchecker atyourservice[66] With one exception, this (getting back to discussing the article) has mostly happened. The exception is Writegeist. You will possibly recall that very evening he brought his unhappiness with my actions here, as "User:KillerChihuahuah. Unacceptable behavior by this admin at Sarah Palin talk."[67] Not much happened with that, naturally, as I'd been a bit brusque but not unreasonable, as that article is on what seems to be semi-permanent snipefest, and if it isn't on probation it should be. A campaign of ABF has ensued, in which every little error I make is blown into a malicious lie. He has since posted about desysopping admins on his user page[68] and inquired elsewhere about me (from Bedford, of all misbegotten trolls to ask)[69] and has inquired of Kelly information regarding the "IDCab". Kelly stated s/he prefers to put that in the past, yet helpfully pointed Writegeist to Wikipedia Review. Please also feel free to read my attempts at some kind of discourse here [70] on User talk:Writegeist, as well as this (since removed) section from others to Writegeist, primarily regarding his ANI posting[71] - in which, interestingly, Writegeist states that "Having followed countless ANIs it's pretty clear to me that pandering is in fact exactly the technique for getting admins "on side" and encourage them to break ranks with findings against their co-admins". Hrm. Back on topic: I post this heads up as I fully expect harassment and nonsense from this source, up to and including a renewal of that tired old meme about the IDCab. If anyone has any clue-stick which they think might actually make an impression, I beg you to use it before this becomes Yet Another Lame running war on OMG the Evil Admin (me.) I notify you in advance that I have no patience for another of these bizarre little wars from Wronged Editors. I'd like to avoid Rfc if at all possible. ty in advance, KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• He continues his campaign to malign my actions and accuse me[72] stating I had "singled out" the user to whom he is posting, when in fact I struck, rolled up, or removed three editor's comments[73] in an attempt to improve civility. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

comment - KillerChihuahua has been trying fairly to play referee in the hornets nest that is the Palin article and talk page with little thanks or support from others. I support this admin for trying to do a thankless job that others have shied away from and will try to abid by his/her oversight and recommendations. Thank you, --Tom 18:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I appreciate that, especially as yours was one of the affected comments. I think several editors there have become somewhat heated, and as I've said, its calmed down a great deal - with the one exception. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to also offer thanks for rational behavior in a somewhat strange environment over there (even with the weird comments from WG et al <g>) I consider the BLP flagging issue as something for which the time has arrived. Collect (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I got burned at Sarah Palin, and am supportive of KillerChihuahua and any sysop attempting to keep the peace at that place - but I think KC could refactor his comments regarding Bedford (who was also an effective admin, other issues notwithstanding). As for Writegeist... I suggest ignoring with extreme prejudice, such things very rarely produce much in the way of content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I could indeed refactor my comment regarding Bedford. How would you characterize this: "I have her listed on my excrement list, but I don't recall off the top of my head what her transgression against me was" if not as trolling? I welcome suggestions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, many thanks for your support as regards T:SP and SP; while I would certainly love to "ignore with extreme prejudice" my experience has shown that when editors seek to involve others in their campaigns, ignoring becomes impossible. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's response didn't exactly do him any favours, to be honest. Black Kite 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• The user seems intent on a suicide mission: [74] was enough for me to block them until they can satisfy people that they are not going to behave like that any more. Anyone is free to unblock if they think the user has returned to rationality, but that is just not on. Anyone who feels motivated to co-sign the barnstar I just put on user talk:KillerChihuahua should also feel free to do so, policing that ocean of toxicity is a tough job and I'm glad someone's doing it. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Drat! You missed his best posts! <g> Collect (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG OPPOSE BLOCK YOU'RE CENSORING PEOPLE WHO LIKE SARAH PALIN, ELEVEN. Uh, rather, endorse block. Incidentally, someone might want to look into meatpuppeteering beteen Bedford, Writegeist, and Die4Dixie. They seem to be banding together a lot, and the Confederate/Palin4President/anti-Obama trifecta of userboxes (the third, presumably, either because he's black or they buy into the bullshit about him being an Arab terrorist, rather than genuine concern, but I digress) is a bit worrying... Sceptre ^(talk) 04:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed beneath contempt. Please provide some evidence of your pathetic claims, other than my encouraging you to quit wikistalking user Bedford. there really needs to be a childrens Wikipedia.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

???This isn't it??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ach, I am a sucker for a little drama. I'll clue you in, Sherlock Holmes. I'm ecstatic about the block. His use of the user boxes was to poke fun of the users who used them. I figured that out when I first saw his user page. As far as Obama and black goes, I love me some Clarence Thomas, and maybe take a little gander at the rest of my boxes, might help you solve the mystery, since you still seem to like to play The Famous Five (series).Die4Dixie (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of puppetry, without concrete evidence, are crossing the line. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look at their contributions last night, and I don't see any evidence of meatpuppetry. While all three of them have similar political viewpoints, Writegeist seems to be more vitriolic than the other two (as evidenced by this old version of his user page). Other than some like-minded discussion at User talk:Bedford, in which all three of them are reinforcing their beliefs that Barack Obama is evil, the South was wronged in the American Civil War, and Wikipedia admins are also unspeakably evil, I don't see any evidence of collusion. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The main page picture is not protected

The commons version is transcluded... please change ASAP! --84.125.135.8 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I protected the Commons version temporarily. Can someone do a local copy please? rootology (C)(T) 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)File:Thylacinus.jpg is now also locally protected.  Sandstein  19:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[75] is also currently unprotected, and transcluded into the main page. John254 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein got that one. Why are all these commons ones sneaking on there? I thought we always did local copies. rootology (C)(T) 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not greatly mistaken, protecting an image locally, without uploading it locally, will not prevent vandalism of the commons version from appearing directly on the main page, in which case the problem with File:Domestic goat kid in capeweed.jpg hasn't actually been remedied. John254 19:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally find it less time-consuming to just protect both the Commons file and the corresponding Wikipedia page for a day or so. That's what I have now done.  Sandstein  19:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If an image is protected at Commons, there's no need to also protect the corresponding Wikipedia page; non-sysops cannot upload a new local file under the same name as one at Commons. (And when the image is on our main page, the cascading protection will prevent creation/vandalism of a local description page.)

In other words, if a main page image is transcluded from Commons, protecting it at Commons is sufficient. —David Levy 22:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Protecting an image file housed on Commons, though, because it's on en.wp's Main Page isn't appropriate, though--we just did that since no one uploaded a local temp copy here that was locked down. rootology (C)(T) 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's entirely within Commons policy to temporarily protect an image for exactly that reason; we even have a template for the purpose. —David Levy 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? That seems... backwards, since this is one site out of many. And that's not the template on File:PreityZinta.jpg. When did we go away from doing a local copy? rootology (C)(T) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Neither protection method has superseded the other. The two have long been used interchangeably, depending on whether the protecting English Wikipedia sysop happens to also be a Commoms sysop (which is more likely to occur with TFA, OTD and TFP images than it is with ITN and DYK images, as the former usually are known much further in advance).

2. Commons protection arguably is preferable, as local protection can insulate the English Wikipedia from important developments at Commons (such as improvements to the image and copyright concerns). If an image is protected at Commons, such an issue must be addressed by a sysop there, who should notice that the image is on the English Wikipedia's main page and respond accordingly.

3. The template to which I linked is used at Commons. File:PreityZinta.jpg has been locally uploaded, so it's tagged with an English Wikipedia template. —David Levy 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, that bot would be turned back on or some new one drawn on to automatically upload these locally and protect them, so that there is never a long period of time where any Main Page content is unprotected, is my point. Doing it by hand still relies on someone paying attention at the right time to do it, which isn't that efficient, and protecting it on Commons still prevents people from improving the images in any event. :) rootology (C)(T) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an automated process would be good, but I've cited reasons why it's debatable whether local or Commons protection is preferable. (Commons protection only delays improvements for a short time, but local prevention can prevent all sorts of important developments—including legal issues—from reaching the English Wikipedia while the image is transcluded on our main page.) —David Levy 00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A perfect example just arose. File:Farthing-1948-front.jpg's protection at Commons led to someone's realization that there might be a copyright problem. Had we protected it locally, we probably wouldn't have learned of the issue (and would have displayed the potentially problematic image on tomorrow's main page). —David Levy 16:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since they're locked down coming and going now, it's sealed off till someone replaces the transcluded commons versions with locally protected ones. rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. [76] is still transcluded onto the main page, and unprotected at commons. John254 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't check them all, but I protected that one now on commons and left a note on the main talk page.[77] Do we always do these right from commons...? rootology (C)(T) 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we usually bring them in from commons, if that's what you mean. If something is going to be on the main page someone always seems to think of transferring to commons beforehand. — neuro^(talk) 19:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really? I always thought for our main page we used a local temp copy that was protected here. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought we did too. Did we once do that, but now have changed, or are both Rootology and I senile? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you have misunderstood. Usually people are attentive enough to transfer PD images to commons before they go to the main page, I didn't say that they should be at transcluded from commons when on the main page - they shouldn't. We should have a local copy. Hope that clears it up. :) — neuro^(talk) 20:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, see File:PreityZinta.jpg with it's transferred from Commons temp-protection template. Some of the upcoming images on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2008 are not locked down however, so this will just come up again. Did someone change this process and forget to send out a memo? rootology (C)(T) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They are only uploaded a few hours before it goes live, AFAIK. — neuro^(talk) 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected images displayed on the main page, again

[78], [79], and [80] are currently displayed on the main page directly from the Wikimedia Commons, without being protected there. While any local content displayed on the main page is automatically protected, cascading protection does not extend across projects. Could these images be uploaded locally by an administrator, or protected on the commons? Thanks. John254 00:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

All protected, and the previous batch unprotected by me. We need a more efficient way to do this. rootology (C)(T) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I initially believed that I could remedy this problem by uploading, say, tomorrow's picture of the day locally, so that once it was transcluded into the main page, it would be protected. While non-admins are apparently not permitted to upload images at the same filenames as existing images on the commons, I was able to improvise a solution by uploading a local version at a modified filename, then changing the image in the picture of the day template before is to be protected. Specifically, I uploaded File:ChampagnePool-Wai-O-Tapu rotated MC.jpg at File:ChampagnePool-Wai-O-Tapu rotated MC LOCAL COPY.jpg, then edited Template:POTD/2008-12-31 to use the local image. John254 00:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that the main page templates are set up so as to prevent most cases in which images could be locally vandalized immediately before being displayed on the main page. For instance, the picture of the day template transcluded into the main page tomorrow is not Template:POTD/2008-12-31, but rather Template:POTD protected/2008-12-31, which is currently protected via transclusion into Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. John254 00:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, I CANNOT do anything to protect [81] and [82], which are both already transcluded into Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, but displayed directly from the commons, and not currently protected there; an administrative remedy is requested. John254 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've protected both at Commons. —David Levy 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. However, it appears that you may have missed [83] -- please see [84]. John254 01:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. I have no idea why the protection didn't go through. —David Levy 06:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not by any means an uncommon occurrence. About 30 days ago, I uploaded images with {{c-uploaded}} nearly every day for quite some time, as this is the only way a user who is an admin here and not an admin on Commons can protect images from vandalism. I eventually gave up because it is extremely tedious and time-consuming. It is far, far easier from the Commons end, because all they have to do is [edit=sysop; move=sysop] it. To do it from this end, you have to download the image from Commons, upload the image to en.wp, fully protect it, copy all the licensing and sourcing information from the commons page onto the en.wp page, add the c-uploaded template, and then the next day, you have to delete it off en.wp, and restore any legitimate local revisions, such as featured picture designation, categories, or whatever. Tedious, and extremely annoying, because there are so many people who are incredibly active on this project who are also admins there, who could do it, but no.... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If only we had things that automated this stuff with no user interaction! ;) rootology (C)(T) 02:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Beta just pointed out Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Main page protection robot which is the bot for our troubles. rootology (C)(T) 03:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that previously we did not have this problem because of the use of commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page and Zzyzx11's efforts for over a year to keep in running. (ITN, not being planned in advance, had to rely on local uploads the most.) While I haven't been following matters, it appears that it was superceded recently by User:MPUploadBot up till it was blocked a month back, leaving us in our current mess and the current proposal for a replacement bot. I think the lesson is that there's no job a bot can do that Zzyzx11 can't do better. - BanyanTree 09:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys

It appears that Biophys (talk · contribs), unsatisfied with the direction that this AFD appears to be taking, is now going around to random talk pages of "Criticism of" articles and misrepresenting the discussion as "a discussion to remove all "Criticism" articles: Everyone is welcome to participate.". Appears to be blanket canvassing by way of misrepresenting a single AFD discussion as "removal of all criticism articles". Wasn't sure how to handle it, so I'm bringing it to ANI. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it was another user who suggested deletion of all "Criticism" articles: [85], and perhaps he is absolutely right. If this article will be deleted, one can reasonably argue that all other "Criticism" articles must be deleted -simply based on the precendent. Therefore, I informed other users who might be interested in this discussion.Biophys (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And a lot of them are, like "in popular culture" articles, spun out by people who don't like the fact that the sections keep getting justly pruned down to manageable proportions. Almost every "criticism of" article I've ever seen has been a POV-fork to at least some extent, and nuking a bunch of them probably would improve the encyclopaedia quite a bit. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all, though. The O'Reilly article, for example, was simply spun off from the main article because the section was getting too large in the main article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, that was precisely my argument why all such articles have every right to exist. But there is nothing wrong to mark all such articles for deletion, if someone thinks otherwise.Biophys (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos provides no edit differences, so thus far his accusations are baseless.travb (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[86], [87]. // roux   22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My message was neutral and non-partisan. Hence this is not canvassing.Biophys (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your message was wildly inaccurate and WP:POINTy, and yes it was canvassing. You were attempting to get people to support keeping the Putin article by falsely implying that all Criticism Of articles would be deleted if that one was. // roux   23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing false in my message. It was not me who indeed suggested to remove all such articles [88]. I did not suggest to keep or delete anything specific in the posted messages, but only to participate in discussion, as obvious from the diffs.Biophys (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And he is now being WP:DISRUPTive. On Criticism of McDonald's there was consensus on the talk page to merge into McDonald's. Following WP:MERGE, I did a selective merge, only merging that information that was referenced (unsourced information can be removed at any stage). He has undone my compliant merge claiming I have partaken in a unilateral deletion, and when undone, he is now claiming to take it to AfD. Is there any other word for this but WP:DISRUPT? --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Instead of merging, the content of this article has been effectively deleted by User:Russavia, apparently to prove his point. Nominating this article for deletion however would be fine.Biophys (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements may be removed by any editor at any time. // roux   23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But deleted text was sourced.Biophys (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:BURDEN, the burden is now upon yourself to provide sources for all of the unsourced WP:OR which you have re-instated, which is why it was not included in the merge. Additionally, 5 editors have expressed their opinion on the talk page over a period of some months, with no objections (meaning the article is not watched by many, or they don't care), and I have simply gone by that consensus on the talk page, and done the merge. Can you see how you have now been WP:DISRUPTIVE? --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Russavia:"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it" I find it incredibly ironic and Orwellian that an editor who deletes well referenced material by misquoting established guidlines is accusing the very editor who is attempting to stop such misconduct of being disruptive.

I must admit, User:Russavia, your command of acronym soup is impressive, but as I clearly showed in this AfD, the central guidelines you quote to justify your AfD contradict your reason for the AfD in the first place. As User:Digwuren wrote in the AfD: "...since the nomination is erroneous, there is not even a potentially valid basis for deletion offered -- so a speedy keep would not be out of order."

I believe with a little investigation, User:Russavia's claims that he "did a selective merge, only merging that information that was referenced", will also be found to be lacking.

User:Roux, is an active AfD delete editor (AfDs created: 54 Articles created: 11) along with Blaxthos, who posted this ANI (AfDs created: 72 Articles created: 7). User:Roux, we can go through WP:Canvas line by line if necessary. There is a lot of arbcom rulings on WP:Canvas, and admin actions which will completely nullify this baseless argument of Canvasing. If Cool Hand Luke, a newly elected Arbitor can solicit a number of editors on and offline to vote in his arbitor election, two neutral edits on a similar page is not a WP:Canvas violation.

WP:POINT is "don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point". Accusing User:Biophys of disrupting wikipedia to make a point based on one entry on a talk page is patently absurd, especially considering User:Russavia much more disruptive actions I mention here. It is not only false, it is a Personal attack. travb (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Roux, is an active AfD delete editor (AfDs created: 54 Articles created: 11)'

And that has anything to do with anything because? Some articles should be deleted. Some shouldn't. I have made absolutely zero opinion on whether this particular article should be deleted; I was commenting on the canvassing by Biophys. Kindly don't try to... I don't know what exactly you were trying to do, but it's obvious that you were trying to discredit me because I happen to have nominated some articles for deletion. Don't do it again. // roux   01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

given the general context, and the other articles selected, it does indeed seem like WP:POINT. Given the way the Putin AfD is proceeding, I do not think the article will be deleted, nor will the one of Bush or O'Reilly articles. As for McDonald's, the claimed consensus to merge is based on an old poll with half the supports being anons/SPAs, and no real discussion, so it would seem reasonable to reopen the issue. If anything, like many attempts at canvassing, this will prove counterproductive, so I think no action is necessary. DGG (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My selective merge of only sourced material will be found lacking? Care to back up that statement with a little evidence there Inclusionist? Here's the diff, the only thing that was referenced is the environmental section. The rest is for all intents and purposes WP:OR, as there is not a reference in sight for the rest of it. So do your little investigation and you get back to me. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies Russavia, I was absolutely wrong. travb (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Accepted, although it is better if WP:AGF was present beforehand. Now coming back to Criticism of McDonald's, both User:Biophys and User:Martintg have taken it upon themselves to undo that merge. The WP:BURDEN is now on them to completely source that entire article, and I am going to somewhat expect them to do so. As to Vladimir Putin, User:Inclusionist and User:Martintg have reverted a heap of edits of mine to the article, not selective reversion, but wholesale reversion. Within my edits were a change to the date format in the infobox to match the rest of the article, the replacement of a dead link to CNN to a live one to RIAN, removal of unreliable sources (anticompromat.ru), general formatting fixes, wikilinking to various articles, removal of a WP:TRIVIA section, placement of content tags (such as "who", "fact", etc), removal of criticism unrelated to the section in which it is located, adding of information to various sections (such as his meeting with Nashi), re-placement of some information (the brand section), criticism which belongs in Medvedev's article, not Putins, removal of POV terms (such as "teflon image"), removal of a list of names to do with his dacha, removal of the size of the dacha (in the article as 7,000m2, and is unreferenced -- as I stated in the edit summary, that is not a dacha, that's a palace), and removal of unsourced information on the media, and which was left had nothing to do with criticism. As there has been absolutely ZERO assumption of good faith on both the part of User:Inclusionist and User:Martintg, I am now placing the WP:BURDEN on them of sourcing all re-introduced information into the article which is not referenced. I made it clear, that I am working on improvements to the article at the moment (off-wiki), and re-inclusion of things such as media is already being worked on, but these two editors chose to ignore WP:AGF and now that WP:BURDEN is on them, and I expect them all to source the information as per one of the key policies on WP, or they are more than welcome to start assuming good faith, undo their undoing of merges, and wholesale revisions, and instead of working against me, work with me, and get articles up to par. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion here be archived. Clearly this discussion had gone off-topic, which was originally about alleged canvassing (my two cents is that the original messages were neutral though probably placed in the wrong spot, perhaps in the respective wiki-projects may have been better), and the discussion has moved to a confusing content dispute which the best place for it is on the respective article talk pages. Martintg (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't confusing about it Martin. I have laid out the details, as I was advised to place it here by an admin for other admins to look at, and I would rather have some resolution to this here. The question above remains, and I really would appreciate an answer as to intentions of the 3 editors I have addressed, yourself included. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've read through the above twice and it's about as crisp as mashed potatoes. Exactly what are you asking regarding editor Marintg's "intentions"? I have found him to be an upstanding editor who backs his editorial contentions with reputable sources. PetersV       TALK 05:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism_of_McDonald's - all but the Environmental section is unreferenced - it is the environmental section which was merged into the main article. 2 editors have undone it, and hence re-inserted unreferenced material into the article. It is their WP:BURDEN to source it now.

On Vladimir Putin,

However, critics of Putin are seldom seen on major national TV channels like Channel One and RTR. Channel One (at that time ORT) used to belong to Boris Berezovsky, one of Putin's main political opponents, and was considered independent from Kremlin, but in 2001 Berezovsky was forced to sell his shares of ORT to another oligarch, Roman Abramovich. Since then, Channel One has been considered to be controlled by the Kremlin. The same occurred with NTV in June 2000: the owner of NTV, Vladimir Gusinsky, was forced to give up his shares in exchange for his freedom and the ability to leave the country. NTV was then captured by Gazprom on 14 April 2001. The NTV channel's news team immediately defected to TV6 and the channel was sued after that by LUKoil. On 21 January 2002, the channel was taken off the air due to a liquidation process ordered by 14 judges of the supreme arbitration court. Four months later the TV6 channel team appeared again on the news television channel TVS, which was launched instead of TV6.

Is completely unsourced.

As is:

Since 1992, Putin has owned a dacha of about seven thousand square meters in Solovyovka, Priozersky District in Leningrad Oblast, which is located on the eastern shore of the Komsomolskoye Lake on the Karelian Isthmus near Saint Petersburg.

And other info re-inserted. Because they have lacked WP:AGF, knowing that I said I am working on the article, the WP:BURDEN is now on them to source all of that, including the 7,000 square metres, unsourced information. As one can see from the article history, there was a series of 24 edits done by myself, with all sorts of fixes and removal of unsourced info, and the entire lot has been wholesale reverted.

If they don't want these edits to be called as WP:DISRUPTIVE, they need to source all of this information they have re-inserted. Or they can start assuming good faith with their own edits, and work with me instead of against me.

Can it be said any clearer? --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys has all but confirmed that he has no intention of sourcing anything that he re-instated, nor has he addressed anything raised here, so one can only assume that this was a deliberate non-AGF WP:DISRUPTIVE act on his part. It is also evident that User:Inclusionist has not WP:AGFed and has also acted WP:DISRUPTIVELY and quite WP:TENDENTIOUSLY, in his mass revert of 24 edits on a single article (including many improvements), WP:GAMEing by selective inclusion of edits which I removed here (note, he has attempted to make myself out as a POV vandal, by even including deletions of information which has been dealt with as WP:FRINGE by myself and other editors on the article)...and his insinuations that I have not acted in WP:AGF and making out that my edits are improper...this is a hit-and-run attack by himself. And by Martintg's comments simply stating this should be closed, he too has no intention of addressing the issues which I have raised. Yet, it can be shown clearly that I have at every stage answered questions and been up-front with my edits (and I challenge anyone to show any different). Is this not just another form of WP:HARRASS, which was clearly pointed out to editors only the other day, I will no longer tolerate]. I would like some response to this from an uninvolved admin thanks. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, citing every single Wikipedia policy over and over again in caps doesn't add veracity to your allegations. You need to step back and take a deep breath rather than continue with this wikidramu. Of all the policies you cite, I recommend a review of WP:NPA. Martintg (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, OK, I read your rant here. But this is simply not an appropriate forum. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lindale13 again

This is more or less a pro forma notice, since it involved a lot of pages... Please see User:Lindale13 in the ANI archive 500. This user, as discussed there, was mirroring the user pages of others into their user space, via copy. I don't think any major harm was intended, but it's a GFDL violation, and worse, it was making some categories wonky (any category that a given page was in also had the mirror page in it too). I suggested to the user (at User_talk:Lindale13) that they should reply. They did so, but to the ANI archive, rather than their own user page or mine. Based on what they have said, (about not needing the pages, and about "deleting them" (actually what they did was blank the page that linked to them, making the pages unreachable, but not deleted) and the issues originally raised, I've deleted the entire swath of pages, as can be seen in my deletion log: [89]. I shall notify the user of this discussion. As always I welcome review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... I do hope that he is able to follow course work requirement and project assignments criteria a little better than he does WP:Practice and Principles. Yeah, fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Error in Fundraiser Headline

Resolved

I'm sure a lot of admins have suppressed the fundraiser banner, so they don't see it on each page, but there's a rather embarrassing misspelling in one of the messages and I haven't been able to find the page from which to correct it:

Merci et bravo pour votre impartialité ! — Benoit from Luxembuorg, donated 30 EUR (Thank you and bravo for your neutrality!)

"Luxembuorg" is spelled wrong, I haven't been able to find any location which is so spelled. It should be "Luxembourg." Pretty sure this is an admin task, but I have no idea where the notice is generated from. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The class is "siteNoticeBig notice-wrapper", if that helps anyone locate it. — neuro^(talk) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's probably on Meta-wiki. Majorly talk 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The banner is created by the Foundation staff... Shoot an e-mail to foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org? Avruch ^T 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the quote translations are editable by meta admins, has been taken care of by Marybelle. Avruch ^T 00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of rollback

Resolved

 – Anything going on from this is going on at the talk page. — neuro^(talk) 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is most aggravating. Editors who have been using the tool for a long while should be very well aware when rollbacking should be utilized, but coming from a sysop no less, I expected better. Thoughts on what to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How about trying a little harder to not be so irritating? older ≠ wiser 01:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That gives you absolutely no reason to imply I am vandalizing. Your bad faith revert on that redirect should be undone immediately. You don't deserve the rollback feature as far as I'm concerned. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You were making repeated blatantly nonproductive edits under the mistaken aegis of WP:BRD. older ≠ wiser 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Bkonrad that comment was out of line, I suggest you retract it. As for rollback abuse, rollback should never ever be used to revert a good faith edit. However I should also point out that both of you are close to breaking the 3rr--Jac16888 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede the comment may have been out of line for this forum. However, this editor, despite knowing full well that his edit is blatantly nonproductive, and even apparently agreeing at least to some extent with me[90], he has WP:POINTedly once again reverted here and here. I'll stand by my characterization as irritating. older ≠ wiser 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering to justify yourself. Your use of rollback, in an edit war, was out of line, if you refuse to accept that then perhaps your permission should be revoked--Jac16888 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What wikilawyering? The edits were blatantly nonproductive and he failed to follow up on discussions that he initiated before reverting while incorrectly invoking WP:BRD. older ≠ wiser 02:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if your assessment is 100% accurate, in no way does that justify your use of the rollback function, which never should be invoked in a content dispute, regardless of who's right or wrong. You've been a sysop since May 2004, so I would hope that you're aware of this. —David Levy 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit that my use of rollback may have been motivated by a fit of pique. I should have manually reverted the edits and once again attempted to explain to irritatingly deaf ears why the edits were unproductive. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In such a situation, it also can be helpful to consider allowing someone else to revert. The edits appear to be relatively minor (rendering reversion non-urgent), but if you're correct in your belief that they were "blatantly nonproductive," an ample number of users should agree. (I realize, of course, that it's easier to prescribe that type of patience than it is to summon it in the heat of the moment.) —David Levy 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page for a week. Please settle this dispute on the talk page, either way (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for looking into this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin help needed at WP:EAR

Over at WP:EAR, there's a situation which needs additional admin input. Please see: this thread, titled "Editing assistance in continuation war". Any admins with special skills in rooting out sockpuppets would be most appreciated. This one has my spidey-sense tingling. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Davidx5

Resolved

 – Article redeleted. No further action required if not recreated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Davidx5 (talk · contribs) has already been blocked twice in less than two weeks for repeated disruptive editing. He doesn't like the article at Hispanic, so he keeps putting in contentious edits, which keep getting reverted. He then created Hispanic (updated), which contained his personal point of view, and that got speedy deleted. So he's just re-created it, I've listed it for speedy deletion as db-repost. Somebody needs to take Davidx5 in hand and explain that he can't have his own articles, and if he continues, he should be long-term blocked. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Questionable block of RMHED (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Seems sorted out, dramaz now. rootology (C)(T) 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

collapsed for readability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'm moving this discussion here to get it off RMHED's user talk page now that he or she has been unblocked: I'm looking at it. Hang on. I think the technical question is whether the first prod removal counts as a reversion.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Having kept on reverting and thereby violating the 3RR was clearly inapprorpriate and warrants a block for 48 hours given the fact that you have been blocked once for edit warring already. The right course of action would have been to wait for an administrator to decide on that request for speedy deletion. — Aitias // discussion 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I would assert that RMHED's removal of the CSD tag was legit and justified (non-admin decline CSD). Further, that re-adding the CSD tag by the IP was inappropriate, and at least disruptive (perhaps vandalism). We don't keep nominating articles for speedy once they're declined. I'd support unblocking, especially if RHMED said war is ended. Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Can someone point me in the direction of something that says you can't put the speedy tag back?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC) A couple of things: I don't see 4 reversions of content, though I don't think WP:EW is as reliant on 3RR as it used to be. Second, if Aitias made this block under the impression that RMHED can't (As a non-admin) remove CSD tags, he should probably reverse it (unless the block was made mostly about edit warring rather than the disposition of the template). I won't reverse the block myself, but I'm leaning toward it being shortened (and come on, the 3rr block was a year ago... not like ascending block lengths applies). Protonk (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Mmm, I thought I was reviewing it. But if you want to, that's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion Toddst1 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC) *If you disagree: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. ... *Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below. That doesn't say "you can't re-add the tag", it just says you shouldn't. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) Additionally, Toddst1, “non-admin decline CSD” is not the proper way. Non-admin closures are right for AfD. However, admins do decide on requests for speedy deletion. If one disagrees, he goes to DRV. — Aitias // discussion 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Absolutely false. Non admins (even ip editors) are free to decline speedies. Protonk (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC) You can feel free to review it...not sure where that comment came from. Consider this a friend of the court brief if you like. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Comment: Wouldn't the IP that reported this be just as guilty of WP:3RR in this case? I suspect that at least a warning should be given there as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I wasn't wild about his "That's it, I'm getting an admin" (I paraphrase). Look, I'm inclined to think that the first removal of the tag was not a reversion, since that is the accepted way of contesting a speedy. And the "edit war" did not actually involve content, but rather procedure. Thoughts? Amicus curiae?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC) As a non-admin observer, I'll just add my opinion. This appears to technically be a violation of WP:3RR by both parties involved; but as it's only a dispute over procedure, was relatively minor, and was quickly resolved ... I think a reminder/warning to both parties to use dispute resolution in the future should be sufficient. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC) also, it was 4 reverts, not a prod removal and 3 csd reverts. the IP said prod in the edit summary but meant CSD, so the technical violation exists. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I've been told not to renom for speedy deletion, as the removal of the tag by anyone other than the article creator indicates it doesn't meet the speedy criteria ie. there is an indication of notability as determined by a good faith editor. My understanding was that the very act of removing the speedy tag is one of disputing the claim, and that allowing it to be restored allows that dispute to go unregistered, and is improper. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC) That's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking that removal of a speedy tag is not a revert. Doesn't quite answer the edit war question though.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC) My suggestion is reduce the block length (warring is warring) and warn the IP. Protonk (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I strongly disagree. Policy says non-admins can delcine CSD. I recommend unblocking. Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Agree with Toddst. This is an awful block; ten seconds looking at the article shows it's clearly not a {{db-bio}} candidate. A blatantly inappropriate tagging like this is disruption, and removing the tag in these circumstances isn't covered by the spirit of 3RR, whether or not it's covered by the letter. Aitias, please reconsider this one. – iridescent 00:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC) @iridescent: Well, the policy does just not cover obvious vandalism. Do you really consider this tagging obvious vandalism? — Aitias // discussion 00:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Removing the speedy tag, as I understand it, means that there is reasonable doubt about the speedy nom and "where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead". So restoring the speedy tag is inappropriate. Asking RHMED to seek outside help if someone reverts his removal of a speedy or prod tag twice (once and then again after being informed by RHMED why we don't re-add speedy tags) seems to me to be enough. And this assumes the act of readding a removed tag isn't inappropriate enough to simply be a kind of vandalism (perhaps not malicious though) and to warrant reversion without considertion to edit warring (is it an edit?). ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Hi, I am a non-Admin - just came across the issue through Huggle noting the page change (and I have since edited the article involved, adding some sources). From the outside it looks as if the 3rr tail is wagging the encyclopaedic dog here. I wonder if it may be better if necessary to IAR rather than try to make a round peg fit a square hole? Springnuts (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC) OK, you win on the wiki equivalent of statutory interpretation, but it still was a lousy way of settling a dispute. Better to put a note on the talk page or something. Or put a hangon tag (yes, I know it would have been misapplied), and go seek administrative help. Find a better way next time. And the rollback loss stands, I can't and wouldn't do anything about it as it would be wheel warring, and I think the loss is justified. Go back to square one on that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (Maybe a bit outdated, but here is my response, which for some reason wasn't published earlier - Please assume good faith in my actions and do not suggest I was trying to vandalise anything!!) Hi, I wasn't aware that this would end up being such an issue. I am sorry if I am not using the right terms, but after reading policies for over 3 hours now, I am still confused about this: Template:Bio-warn asks that a db-person template is not removed, but instead that the hangon tag is used. I think somewhere else I read that the tag can be removed by anyone (not just admins), but then what's the point of having a hangon tag? In any case, if this is such a issue, then please do remove the ban from RMHED. I did not intent to cause a war, but I would appreciate more constructive discussion (like this), something which RMHED does not do: he never cited any reasons for his actions, he merely kept undoing what I was doing, while I tried to point him to related policies and articles. Based on my understanding of the policies, I fully agree with what Aitias said, but please accept my apologies if I was wrong, and be assured that in no case my efforts were an attempt to vandalism (Toddst1). I will now take the case to WP:AFD. Thanks, Anthony 62.103.147.54 (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Basically, anyone except the creator can remove a speedy-delete tag (not only admins, as someone says above); the {{hangon}} tag is for the creator of the article. – iridescent 00:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC) This is an awful, awful block. The blocking admin seems to not understand CSD policy because he has mentioned more than once that an admin should have removed the tag. Disruptive tagging is tantamount to vandalism. Obvious vandalism is an exception to 3RR. --Smashvilletalk 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC) If you consider obvious good faith edits to be vandalism, Smashville,... — Aitias // discussion 00:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC) What part of them was obviously in good faith? Edit warring with a tag is clearly disruptive. It's not like it's not disruptive at 3 and suddenly disruptive at 4. --Smashvilletalk 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (to Anthony)Thank you. But consider yourself warned, too. Going back and forth, even if technically within the letter of the rules, is a bad way of handling thing. You should have tried to talk it out, or seek help once you realized there was a good faith dispute as well. I've unblocked RMHED, but he loses his rollback privileges unless he persuades the other admin to give them back or reapplies for them after a decent interval. This doesn't reflect well on anyone. I've got two users who should know better, an admin whose probably hopping mad at me for undoing something I'm not saying he was out of bounds to do, even though we disagree, and I don't feel 100 percent about this. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC) On what basis is the power of rollback still revoked? Is someone saying it's a policy that inappropriate speedy templating shouldn't be reverted? Is it an "edit" in the "edit war" sense? Isn't it enough to ask RHMED to do a better job on patience and explaining (something I think we're all guilty of at times...)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC) What I am saying is that I can only go against another admin where policy allows. Policy allows a blocking action to be reviewed on request by an uninvolved admin. For me to otherwise use my admin powers to reverse an administrative action of another admin, that I know the admin disagrees with, is what is called "wheel warring". The rollback was not part of the block, it is entirely separate and within the admin's discretion. And RMHED shouldn't have used rollback anyway. RHMED must either ask the admin to reconsider or else reapply for it in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (to Wehwalt) Thanks, I agree with you and accept the warning, but my problem as a user is that after reading the policies for about 4 hours now, I'm still not sure who is right or not. Again, my issue was that I used the talk page to make my point and tried to refer him to policies, whereas RMHED's only reasoning was that the article asserts notability (with no external references) and that's it. I should have known better, but maybe it would help if policies were clearer and some users a bit friendlier if they see someone not following policies correctly. I understand and accept it's difficult to moderate everything, but my common sense says that someone's plain CV is not fit to be an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) requires independent reliable sources and surely one person's website can't be that! That's what I tried to communicate and I think it would have been better if people would be a bit more open/communicative and it would have saved all of us the trouble. As far as I am concerned this is over, I accept the warning but can't accept that my actions were anywhere close to vandalism. Thanks to everyone for the help/suggestions, sorry for the confusion and Happy New Year. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.147.54 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Just a last comment by me The reverts were a blatant violation of the three-revert rule. I don't understand why people keep claiming this would not have been covered by the policy. The policy does not cover obvious vandalism, that's right. However, this edits were exactly the opposite: Evident good faith edits (cf. Anthony's statement above). Therefore this block was completely justified, as I honestly think. Why the double standards? Sorry, I can't understand. However, be that as it may. — Aitias // discussion 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Agreed. If it were a {{prod}} template, there would be basis in repeated removal, as once a {{prod}} is removed (except in obvious mistake), it should not be re-added. CSD, on the other hand, is just like any other tag except that only the page's creator is restricted from removing it, yet it could be re-added. Thus, repeated removal and/or re-insertion when it's not obvious vandalism is still edit warring, and in this case the two other users, Moeron and 62.103.147.54, appear to be acting in good faith despite also being part of the edit war by re-inserting the tags themselves. --slakr\ talk / 02:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Question: If an admin declined the same CSD template 4 times would they too be blocked for a 3RR violation? Or is it only edit warring when you're a non-admin? RMHED (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC) It's pretty clear here that Aitias and Moeron did not understand policy on CSD. (!) Worse, it appears to have been a factor in your being blocked. He or she hasn't admitted it but a pretty decent number of admins have hammered that point home. Several of us have said you shouldn't have been blocked. I recommend you have a beer and call it a day. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC) As it's almost 2.30am here a beer probably isn't a good idea. The loss of rollback is a nuisance as I used it occasionally for vandalism reverts but mostly it was a quick way to see if there had been any changes to pages I'd recently edited via my contributions page. Without the rollback option being visible I have to click on the history of an article to see if there's been any new edits. RMHED (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Indeed...sometimes it's okay for an admin to simply admit they made a mistake...doesn't appear it will happen here. --Smashvilletalk 02:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I'm just very glad that at least one other admin was impartial enough to see that my block was justified. — Aitias // discussion 02:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Wait...the fact that we disagree makes us not impartial? --Smashvilletalk 02:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) Smashville, you are that good in twisting somebody's words, I can't even believe it. — Aitias // discussion 02:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I'm confused...all I did was state what the implied statement you made was. It's irrelevant. The mere fact is that I disagree with your block. I don't see what I have to do with anything. --Smashvilletalk 02:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Agreed. No partiality that I can find on the part of smashville, me irie, etc., other than disagreeing with a bad block. Implying partiality is pretty obnoxious. You know, when you're in a hole, stop digging, Aitias. Toddst1 (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Toddst1, may I kindly ask you to stop putting words into my mouth? I said nowhere that iridescent would be not impartial. Additionally, I'm not in a hole at all and I'm not digging. Unless you consider saying one's honest opinion as digging. — Aitias // discussion 03:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC) No intent to put words in your mouth. I read what you wrote. Please clarify: If the other admins were not "impartial enough to see that my block was justified", we were ... ___? How am I and Smashville different than irie? Toddst1 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC) RMHED Question Aitias could you answer my question above please. If it's classed as edit warring then it applies equally to all users. So would you honestly have blocked an admin and revoked their rollback if they had performed the same edits? RMHED (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Although I'm obviously not Aitias, I would have definitely done so with an admin. Thankfully, I never get a chance to do that, as admins tend to avoid edit wars like the plague, hence the reason why it's rare to ever see them get blocked for doing so. We would simply simply post to WP:AN, WP:ANI, or ask for a third option to gain consensus. Alternatively, I'd even consider dropping the article to articles for deletion on behalf of the other user even if I thought it should be kept, since that's probably the best venue for deletion discussions. That, or stick a prod on the article also on behalf of the user then let someone else remove it if they want to. If it's obvious it should be kept, either routes would solidify a "keep." For myself, except in cases of clear vandalism (i.e., where a revert is so obvious it actually doesn't require an edit summary, hence the joy of rollback), I stick to the one revert rule and User:Slakr/Let someone else deal with it. When it comes to users, though, when it comes to my decisions, there is a double standard that's actually contrary to the one you're positing. For example, while I would consider blocking an admin for edit warring (they're supposed to know better), when it comes to non-admin users, I can't say that I would have necessarily made a block due to the possible confusion of any given user between the nuances of the removing/re-addition guidelines for {{prod}} versus {{db}} versus afd templates unless it was clear they know them to begin with or had been repeatedly blocked in the past. That said, I also try to assume disproportionate amounts of good faith, but at the same time I also have disproportionate bias against all forms of edit warring. I should also admonish all parties involved for implying bad intentions in either their actions or responses to actions. It doesn't help, in the slightest, to refocus discussion on the person's intentions instead of the action without providing proof of that negative intention. --slakr\ talk / 03:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) @RMHED: An admin would never decline a speedy without giving any reasons (4 times!). What would have been wrong with talking to the —obviously well-intentioned— user and explaining him why the page does not meet our criteria for speedy deletion? What at all would have been wrong with that? Instead, you simply reverted, reverted, reverted. As you see from Anthony's statements above, this reverting without providing any reasons was a big problem for him. Overall, it was biting. I am entirely sure there would never have been an edit war if you had explained Anthony what he had done wrong. And yes, my decision to block would not have been different if you'd been an admin. I simply can't understand why people enjoy biting newcomers that much. And I can't at all understand this double standards applied here. This was, as I explained above, a blatant violation of the 3RR. As slakr explained, it was an edit-war. The block was warranted. — Aitias // discussion 03:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC) What is this doing on AN/I? RMHED was blocked. Block was soundly reversed. IP editor created an account. All is well. I don't think Aitias needs to be raked over the coals here. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:HOUND by IP user

An IP user logging in from 84.139.*.* (the IP address seems to vary with every edit) has been wiki-hounding me for the last couple of weeks - especially the last few days. Since he or she does not have an account or a fixed IP address, the easiest way to confirm this claim may be to look at the articles I have edited recently and track his contributions. Besides having an apparent dislike for my work, he seems to have a faint but consistent German nationalist slant.

(I brought the matter here a couple of days ago; he replied by making claims on my edits that were prima facie false - at times these claims were contradicted by the diffs he had given. This seems frivolous, to say the least.) Feketekave (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. Interestingly, Geolocate shows that this user is logging in from Rostock in Pomerania (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). Can somebody run a check against two recent users in Talk:Drang nach Osten? User:Skäpperöd and User:HerkusMonte may have compatible views, declare themselves to be from the same region and have been contributing to the page where the wikihounding started. No offense intended; I hope my relations with those two users (should they be distinct from each other and from the misbehaving IP user) will continue to be cordial. Feketekave (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The List Companies

Resolved

 – Seeing this is a redlink, this is resolved. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please speedy delete The List Companies? I've now got three "new" editors, including the article's original creator, who has a conflict of interest name that's similar to that of the company, removing not only my db-spam tag from the article, but also CorenBot's copyright notice. Salting may be necessary, too. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Need a Rangeblock

• 76.30.97.194 (talk · contribs)
• 76.30.207.143 (talk · contribs)
• 76.30.96.91 (talk · contribs)

Could I get an administrator who knows ranges to work a rangeblock that'll hit all three of these Comcast IPs? They're sock- or meatpuppets of 98.197.8.210 (talk · contribs) and have been harassing users involved in blocking the socks and WP:CHECK as of late. Thanks in advance. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• 76.30.96.0/23 for the close pair, 76.30.0.0/16 (No go) for the whole. What makes you think that comcast isn't just assigning dynamic IPs across a large range? Do you think the smaller range will block a few potential socks from being created? Protonk (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to agree with Protonk on this. We had a situation abotu a month ago where someone had a Bell Canada IP, and had dynamically assigned addresses over a /8 range. It was kinda like this. Given the size of the range, and the way many large ISPs assign dynamic IP numbers, it would be as ineffective in stopping such a person with a range-block as it would be just handing out individual whack-a-mole blocks. The targeted ranges only have a random chance of stopping him, temporarily, while they will also block otherwise good users at the exact same rate, thus making any rangeblocks in this situation pointless. WP:RBI and semi-protect for short durations (a day or so) as needed seems to be the only way to stop this. Yes it sucks, but given the way that Comcast likely handles assigning its IP addresses, its the only feasible way of doing this. Get your whack-a-mole hammers ready... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre (talk · contribs)

This is unacceptable. Someone do something about it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[91] is also interesting. I find him amusing, like a return to Noddy or Mr. Men books.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

thumb|right|upright|WikiNoose Guess you'll be needing this. Toodles. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like twat is the new word for the day [92].Die4Dixie (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that word went out with buttonshoes, 23-skidoo, and Negro. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently The Republican Party didn't get the memo. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cunt" would get me blocked :D Sceptre ^(talk) 06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

/EC/ Nah , 'prolly not, I think you're golden. You are a welcome and amusing diversion from tense edit and content disputes. I don't think that there is an admin willing to block you, and If I'm wrong, I'm certain one will unblock you posthaste. Carry on.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then try "Berk", as John Cleese did on Olbermann, talking about O'Reilly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but then again Cleese's from the (Very) Silly Party. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually "twat" will get you blocked, too. Applying crude, demeaning terms to your co-editors is inappropriate, and in this case seems to be part of an escalating pattern of incivility. - Nunh-huh 07:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Was going to say that he'd find himself blocked. In any case, Sceptre knows better. WODUP 07:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This editor is untouchable. I have seen blocks for considerably lees. There is nothing to see here folks, I bet he'd be unblocked faster that it takes Gnasher to gnaw a bone.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to visit his website, "The Sceptic Tank". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Describing another user as acting like a twat is clearly unacceptable and I doubt that any ordinary editor would get away with it. We have developed a culture where certain editors do get away with offensive behaviour simply because the drama caused by blocking them considerably outweighs the benefit gained by blocking them. Generally said civility blocks don't work and it would be quickly overturned if he were blocked. It is extremely disappointing that a genuine complaint about something that is clearly genuinely upsetting to another user is not being taken seriously by participants in this thread. If Sceptre had any decency he would redact his immature comments now that he can see that OrangeMarlin is offended but of course he won't because being sensitive to the impact of his behaviour on other users simply isn't in his make-up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that Sceptre has now been blocked for this therefore striking through last comment because he can't actually change what he said now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Twat" is an incredibly mild swear word in the UK at least. I've never heard it being used in a seriously derogatory manner, merely mild name-calling between friends. It's about as harmful as "idiot". Majorly talk 08:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Remarks posted on the Internet in the UK, however, do not seem to stay in the UK. - Nunh-huh 08:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're assuming Sceptre is aware of every different culture's dialect and word usage? It's not his fault someone was offended. You're only looking at the result here, not the intent. Majorly talk 08:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

He was informed it was offensive, and continued calling his co-editors "twats". There's no ignorance involved. Calling your coeditor a "twat" is not civil; it's not appropriate, and it will get you blocked. - Nunh-huh 08:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see you blocked him. Majorly talk 08:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you also saw that the block was reviewed and maintained. - Nunh-huh 08:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that someone as offended as OrangeMarlin was would be "ROFLMAOing" at the original comment. Majorly talk 08:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd, I thought another UK attribute was the ability to detect satire. So, do you really want to advocate for a "right" to call your Wikipedia co-editors "twats"? - Nunh-huh 08:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't satire. And no, I never said it was right to be name-calling, but it's not something to block someone for 3 days over. Majorly talk 08:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we're agreed about the wrongness of the offense, then, at least. I'd hate to see a "request for comments" on whether it's OK to say "you're a twat" to a supposed colleague. I take insults that demean not only those they are directed at, but also an entire class of persons not directly involved very seriously. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a hostile environment, especially to entire classes of persons. - Nunh-huh 08:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it was wrong (as is any kind of name-calling) but the length is my issue. I think three days is beyond preventative and is becoming punitive. Majorly talk 08:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I reviewed the {{unblock}} request, I'll comment here: I declined to reverse the block due to the namecalling and the attitude that Sceptre showed in the early stages of this thread (see the "cunt" comment and the noose above). I looked at the length of time, and left it unchanged as this is not the first incivility block on Sceptre. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My handy dandy Oxford English Dictionary informs me that it is a slang vulgar term for the external female genitalia, just like it is in the US. His comment about using it instead of "cunt" shows that that was his exact intent, to call users "cunts", and get away with it. I don't expect you would call your grandmother a 'twat'. My mother is from Scotland, I attended school there for some years, and I would never call my gran a "twat". Why not? Because it is a vulgar churlish word that demeans women and relegates them to the role of sexual objects, that's why. Die4Dixie (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, dixie, would you say it's worse to call someone a "twat" or to imply someone you're in a content dispute with is a pedophile or a homosexual like you did here? [[93]]Bali ultimate (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I think we've determined well enough that "twat" is an offensive word. Let's not keep discussing it for the sake of discussing it. Majorly talk 09:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, while I'm not exactly Spectre's number one wikibuddy, I can't help but find this exceedingly absurd. Are we really blind to the difference between somebody saying "you're a dumb twat" and "you're acting like a twat"? The British "twat" is analogous to the American "dick" - a term that, while slightly off-color, is hardly so grossly insensitive as to cause severe emotional distress to any but the most already-traumatized of human beings by its mere presence alone. If an "entire class" of editors can be, uh, "demeaned" with a simple four-letter word, then perhaps this esteemed "entire class" should work on being a bit less hyper-sensitive - or, alternatively, perhaps we could consider other words that might cause similar offense as fair game for action. A 72-hour block - even given Spectre's prior history - for a single off-color remark is rather excessive. Is there a multitude of prior Spectre/OM interaction, of which I'm unaware, that might elevate this beyond the point of extremely petty kindergarden bullshit? Badger Drink (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a single off-color remark, but rather several remarks which were problematic for being insulting to co-editors rather than merely off-color. And, for what it's worth, not all of them were similes rather than metaphors. As for 72 hours, it is, if anything, a bit short given the durations of the prior blocks. Blocks are supposed to escalate, not get shorter. - Nunh-huh 09:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the entire sequence of events "Spectre says something about OrangeMarlin having acted 'like a twat' in the past" -> "outraged editors pounce on Spectre" -> "Spectre gets a little outraged and defensive himself and drops a c-bomb on AN/I"? Generally, blocks should escalate, but there exists a balancing act between "law of diminishing returns" (see: Betacommand, above) and establishing a "one and you're done" zero-tolerance no-win situation. This particular case - as I currently understand it - is a bit too close to a "no-win situation" for my personal comfort. Badger Drink (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your original point was interesting; however, the continued and deescalation shrillness (edited by user )of your message detracts from it and makes me ask quid bono. Your advocacy is passionate on the issue. You also conveniently forget the bad faith assumptions that he made about some Obama meat puppet thingamajig that's linked to above. Die4Dixie (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's "shrillness"? That's "escalating"? I guess you have me on "continued", but your statement seems so disconnected from the flow of reality as I know it as to almost seem like a Mad-Lib. I'll assume good faith. If you poke around, you can see that I have defended Mr. Marlin on numerous occasions, and was against un-blocking Spectre during his original three-month block for sockpuppetry and actual incivility. I don't believe users are typically blocked for making bad faith assumptions regarding meat puppet thingamajigs, but if you have examples of precedence, I would be glad to look them over. In any case, the block summary says, in full, "Incivility: escalating pattern of incivility, as demonstrated in thread at AN/I. A working environment in which crude sexual terms are tolerated is not conducive to production of an encyclopedia", which leads me to believe that he was not, in fact, blocked for bad faith assumptions regarding meat puppet thingamajigs. Badger Drink (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[94]Die4Dixie (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaaawwwwwwww, you unarchived it, ok Badgerdrink, if anything productive comes out of this in the next 20.5 hours, OM and I will help you write a Featured Article....XD Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice Majorly's comment, specifically, "So you're assuming Sceptre is aware of every different culture's dialect and word usage? It's not his fault someone was offended." I must concur with this, the first time I said the big C on IRC I got shot down for saying a word that it apparently extremely offensive in the US, and is sort of up there at the top as far as profanity goes. In the UK it is thrown around very liberally, even in a reasonably polite and mature conversation. I had not done research on how the word was taken in the US beforehand, and nor should I have, because why would you look for a cultural difference that you didn't know existed? — neuro^(talk) 10:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If this had been a one-off brain explosion on Sceptre's part, I'd probably have felt comfortable unblocking him with a stern warning not to do it again. However, it seems that the term was used multiple times. It's one thing to drop a word when you're genuinely unaware that people will find it offensive due to cultural differences, it's entirely another to re-use it for dramatic effect when you know that it they will. This takes it beyond "boys will be boys" and up to the level of a serious civility violation or intent to intimidate or offend, in my mind. As always, I suggest applying The Grandma Test before pressing "Save Page". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

• Lankiveil is right - "twat" has varying amounts of offensiveness depending on how it's used, and also where in the UK you're from. It's not just a synonym for "idiot". Black Kite 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not as if Sceptre doesn't have a long history of attacking Orangemarlin, or me for that matter, both here and at Wikipediareview. His comment is simply another instance of his long-running personal ax grinding against OM. It's Sceptre's choice of "twat" to describe OM that needs to be dealt with here. It's use is simply unacceptable, and the fact that he's from the UK is no excuse; Sceptre, as a former admin, has been on Wikipedia dealing with US sensibilities for years. Sceptre simply knows better and yet still deliberately chose to employ the term here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Highly offensive. Good block. Sceptre has been here at least 3 years, but just this past spring he started accumulating blocks. What's the story there? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Burnout is my usual diagnosis. Thing is, sometimes you can call someone a twat in fun and it's fine, other times it's not OK. In this case Sceptre seems to be harbouring a grudge against OM. That's a really good reason to keep well clear and leave it to other people, especially if (as with Sceptre) the spotlight is on you already. It's really not a great idea to go using invective when trying to recruit admin help against people with whom you clearly have a long-running dispute. You might as well just post {{blockme}}. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely at his block log, he was indef-blocked several times, only to have it rescinded; then long-blocked several times, only to have it rescinded. All of that since last spring. You may be right about the burnout. Maybe a moderate block that doesn't get rescinded would be what the doctor ordered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Sceptre is (or at least was) fundamentally decent, I think he needed and needs a break, I think he was unblocked / came back too soon, before the pressure had wound down. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Given its Anglo-Saxon meaning, the only time I ever utter that word (which isn't too often, maybe thrice a year at most?) is when talking to friends who were brought up speaking English, I'd guess wontedly to make them smile about some dumb thing someone has done. The way Sceptre used it could easily be taken as a personal attack by many editors. As to why he slips like this, I can only say that maybe in a year or two or three, he won't. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I never heard the word "twat" until I tried using the word "saltwater" on some message board a decade or so ago and it got rejected because of the word it contained. Someone had to explain it to me, with my big, wide, wondering eyes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the old Scunthorpe Problem :-) the wub "?!" 17:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I still remember first hearing it in the dining hall at boarding school when I was 14, uttered spot-on with its etymology (as I look back). That was a fit school :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You are all acting like saltwaters :) --Tom 15:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was used to using the word in its lesser sense ("you're being a silly twat") until I managed to completely offend most of the members of my girlfriend's family when using it in front of them to describe someone who was drunk and being a bit of an idiot at a family wedding - which was when I realised that it is far closer to the c-word in certain parts of the UK, let alone in the US. (Luckily, I managed not to use it at our wedding)... Black Kite 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Still, you may have been luckier than Robert Browning, who seems to have thrown it into a poem, thinking it meant a nun's hat. Hmph. I'm starting to wonder if Sceptre even knew what he was saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

When we were younger and more innocent a friend of mine believed that "twat" was just a variation of "twit". So when our art teacher called another student a twit, he promptly followed up with "Yeah, you're a right twat". Needless to say he soon learned the error of his ways. the wub "?!" 17:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There aren't "degrees of insults" we should be using to rank such words. Its silly. If he called someone a "fool" or an "idiot" or a "poopyhead" it should be seen as the same level of WP:NPA violation as "twat". The issue is not the specific choice of name he chose to call someone, its the very act of calling someone such a name in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a discussion. Yes, and I know he qualified the statement with the meaningless phrase "acting like a..." but still, the issue is the behavior, not the specific word choice. See WP:MAJORDICK for more on why it really SHOULDN'T matter which words are chosen when we apply our NPA policies... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "Who let you out of the cabbage patch?" is funny and kid-friendly (so far as it goes), but still a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was once blocked for several days for calling people "idiots". If that T-word is supposed to equate to "idiots", then it's certainly blockable for several days also - especially given the editor's blocking history, along with his complete lack of understanding as to what constitutes a personal attack (see below) and thus his complete lack of any regret at having said any of that stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing (not LOL funny, more ironic) is that I didn't care about the word one way or another. I may use fuck rather liberally, mainly because it's fairly mainstream these days, functions as a verb, adjective, adverb, and noun so readily that it's hard not to use. But demeaning words against women show a total lack of class. That being said and not being a woman, Sceptre's word choice was immature rather than anything else. It was his unnecessary attack that bothered me, considering he has been blocked before. This was an interesting conversation however. Oh, and when I wrote LMAO in my edit summary was that I couldn't believe Sceptre would actually write something. I was being ironic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't too fussed about the words, but the noose I didn't think too much of...anyway. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Sceptre

Moved by MBisanz ^talk

Can someone post this on AN?: Regarding OrangeMarlin, that was hardly an insult. In that context, I was using it analogous to the word "dick". You don't need to get into hidden long-past grudges; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I left OM alone after he agreed to the parole, and only brought the matter up on ANI precisely because it's the behaviour he exhibited pre-parole that he admitted wasn't the best of attitudes. Maybe "twat" wasn't the best of words, but I'm using it in the context of "bleedin' idiot" instead of "fucking asshole". So as it stands, a 72 hour block for one non-insult and one relatively tame insult where I've arguably been provoked, even given past history, and with no-one just to point it out and say "dude, what the hell?", is way way overexcessive. As I wasn't planning on doing any major editing tonight—a book I've ordered hasn't come yet (why should it? It's Christmas)—I'll be fine with a 24-hour, or even a 31-hour block. But really... 72 hours is reaching into the bounds of punishment rather than prevention. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Don't want to buy into that, but there's also still the outstanding problem of OM's User_talk:Orangemarlin#Warning vicious ranting against User:Skomorokh. Granted this was initially because of apparent problems/miscommunication on Sk's part but OM's continued abuse of him (after everyone else had worked it out) was way over top. Misarxist 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not on parole. This is about Sceptre. I'm done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that Sceptre made baseless allegations about me on the workshop page of WP:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, repeated on the talk page. He was asked by the clerk Daniel to either justify these with diffs or withdraw his attacks. He replied, "Ugh, fuck this for a game of soldiers." [95] Daniel refactored his comments and archived that part of the talk page. Sceptre's behaviour seems to have been purely disruptive; his comments (on scientology, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein) made it quite clear that he had no interest in contributing to the ArbCom case. As a fellow Briton, I can confirm that "twat" is an insult used by British adolescents; if used to an adult, it would usually result in being sent to bed early without hot milk or, in extreme cases, a clip round the ear :) Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Further to that, as another fellow Briton, in my neck of the woods 'twat' wouldn't even earn you a clip around the ear. It's on a par with 'idiot', really. Certainly 'c*nt' is much, much worse, and 'dick' somewhere inbetween. _TalkIslander 21:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I find it somewhat bothersome that Sceptre doesn't realize that the issue is that "twat" and "bleeding idiot" and "fucking asshole" are all equally bad personal attacks. Its not the word choice, its the act of using namecalling as a part of discourse. Its just not right. If you wanted to say "Dude, What the hell?" then say just that. But don't try to back-justify namecalling, especially given the past history. If there had been no massive explosion a few months ago, and if there was no history of this, there may not be the severity of this block. But for 72 hours, Sceptre is not calling anyone names. For that reason alone, the block seems purely preventative. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I agree entirely with Jayron32 and endorse the current block.  Sandstein  19:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Wasn't Sceptre on his last chance here after his last block-and-sock party three months ago? He's fortunate to only get three days instead of eternity. Some people only get one last chance. --B (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I personally find it ironic that people have an issue with "twat" but we throw around WP:DICK in all kinds of variations (stop being a dick, don't be a dick, etc.) as if it's Wikipedia's middle name but it seems to be ok because it's wikilinked. I'm definitely not defending Sceptre either as I've never had a single word with him. I just think it's ironic. What would you have done if he had wikilinked it as WP:TWAT? It redirects afterall to WP:DICK. Yeah, I just think 3 days is too long for the crime considering this irony. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 21:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Anyone who throws around WP:DICK like that is a fucking douchebag, no exceptions. --Cyde Weys 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I never, ever refer to that other word, I think it's untowards, doomed to forever skirt on the bounds of personal attack and kinda dumb. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How should this spam be dealt with?

This page: punjabinri.com/ is continually being added by various editors to articles. It's clearly spam but there is no point in dealing with the editors as they are often one-off IPs. Another page, punjab.punjabinri.com/ is also added which I think is basically there to lead to the financial services page.

I'm not clear how to get this blacklisted (if that's the solution), and whether this should be done only locally or over all Foundation Wikis. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Talk to the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist folks. They R smrt. They can figure out how to add that to their regexes and what-not. :) They can also probably answer the foundation vs. en-wiki question. Protonk (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at that page first, and it seems that is only for the en version, but I'll have a go, I can only learn! dougweller (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

KOAVF: Community Sanction, editing banned pages

Despite the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Koavf/Community_sanction of October (which stated, among other clauses "Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construe. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions) yesterday 29 Dec 08 KOAVF returned to start editing, and immediately started out with stealth edits to Western Sahara pages. The edits themselves are merely minor, if irritating, semi-POV edits to stable language, but right out of the gate from his return to editing, it appears, he violates a clear ban (based on this discussion for exactly the same behaviour: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=243110389#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals ; scroll up for discussion of ban etc).

KOAVF Edit History: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Koavf

Immediate (upon return) W. Sahara Edits: SADR: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic&diff=260640377&oldid=246168664 (Comparison is merely w my last revert from some vandalism, highlighting he removed stable language, not a new addition, never mind he's specifically banned from editing W Sahara; I would note the deceptive "edit description" note marking it as spelling, when in fact it was POV on content).

Sagui El Hamra: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saguia_el-Hamra&diff=260639740&oldid=257753630 (Editing again, rather more defensible insofar as he restored information, however as he is banned and already changing stable but to him controversial text, I would suggest he could have editing a talk page and asked a neutral party to take the same action, without violating his ban.)

I have not included some minor edits related to Western Sahara on non-W. Sahara pages, insofar as they would cloud the issue.

The key reason for this complaint is (i) of course it is a clear violation of the ban, but (ii) much more importantly edits such as to the SADR page (mislabelled as spelling, overturning stable consensus language to his preferred version, after months of quiet) are precisely what used to set off nasty edit wars between himself and the Moroccan partisans. As noted in the ban/block discussion of September / October above (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=243110389#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals) KAOVF has long edit warred over W. Sahara were it is more than evident that in the end only his POV is "consensus" to him, as Admin FaysalIF laid out in the original conversation, which has invariably touched off endless edit wars even with the most reasonable of editors. (collounsbury (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

Ban has clearly been violated, I am not sure if I should suggest a final warning or a block though. — neuro^(talk) 11:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Per neuro. Given this is the first time he's edited since 27 September, I'm not sure either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Eyh, given that the edits are not that disruptive, and given that there has been some time elapsed since that case, I'm going to issue a final warning here. If he continues to edit these pages, any editor has my support for another lengthy block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Good call. Any repeat is an unambiguous block, so pay out the rope and let him decide what to do with it. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may, first whether Kaovf gets his 20th or 21st block seems almost inevitable, but with respect to the triviality of the edits, I agree except for example on the SADR editing, as it was this kind of stealth editing (mislabelled, overturning phrasing that had been arrived at - to no single parties' pleasure, obstinacy as noted in FAysal's original discussion of a site ban) that has set off multiple rounds of edit wars with respect to Western Sahara & Morocco. The highly party political editing, and the habit of going silent for periods and then coming back and stealthily overturning consensus phrasing was well attested to before. I do not believe for a minute he was not aware of the ban, given how it arrived. I found it remarkably telling that the very moment he returned to editing, he snuck in the POV (minor to be sure, without a 'history' I would have ignored it) edit, under a mislabelled (as "spelling") minor edit. It is extremely difficult, taken a long history of such, to see this as merely a mistake in good faith, and it is exactly the sort of habits that set off edit wars with other editors. (collounsbury (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

This shows how Justin (Koavf) is so keen to blatantly close his ears to all calls. He clearly knows the reason why he decided himself to be off for all those few weeks. I'd consider this as 'him testing the waters' and suggest we leave it there for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface and WP:NOT#PLOT

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface started. No real other incident to speak of. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Pixelface (talk · contribs)

is removing WP:NOT#PLOT *again*

I've reverted it twice and would like out; some more people, please.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted it to the wrong version (the version before the edit war) and suggest that you both take it to the talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm done here; it poped-up on my watchlist. He also hit Wikipedia:Plot. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is like the fourth time that Pixel's done this now, the last time only being about two weeks ago (see my report here about that). The issue has been talked to death on WT:NOT, with the consensus generally in favor of keeping PLOT, so discussion isn't an issue. While the last time, it was suggested to take to a user RFC, I don't see exactly how this would result in something beneficial - Pixelface simply edit wars over policy pages, and that's flat out not acceptable. --MASEM 12:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• The editor who first created this disputed section has since disavowed it. I support Pixelface's actions in continuing to challenge this source of trouble. Note that interminable discussions of fictional guidelines rumble on elsewhere and the matter seems generally far from settled. It is a peculiar way to run things - that anyone can make up policy as they please - but our overall policies - WP:NOTLAW, WP:BURO and WP:IAR - indicate that all policies are contingent and secondary to our mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Protected the policy for a month, policy changes are discussed, not edit warred over. Next time there will be blocking. MBisanz ^talk 12:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In the last AN/I discussion, the idea of a user-conduct RFC was floated. Rather than see this come back to AN/I once or twice a month, I'd like to see that user conduct RFC happen, because I think that's really the crux of the issue. A user conduct RFC may make it clear to Pixelface exactly how close to the edge he is. My suggestion is to get that underway. Nandesuka (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Working on that now. --MASEM 12:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I support a user conduct RFC here. The user is obviously misinterpreting IAR - it is meant to avoid situations where applying the rules would lead to a nonsensical result, not to allow users to make potentially controversial changes to policy without consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

I support a user conduct RfC as well. Pixelface has gotten away with this behavior for months, now it's time to stop hoping he reforms on his own, and take more severe measures to (hopefully) put an end to the recurring drama. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Great idea; reserve your seats now. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sooner or later we're going to have to help Pixelface learn to accept good-faith disagreement and consensus, he displays a consistent pattern of refusal to accept consensus when it's against him. This is at least the third such dispute in which I've seen him involved as a major party. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to reach out to Pixelface, albeit unsuccessfully. It's not the fact that he disagrees with certain policies and guidelines, or even that a few people support his views. It's that after he tries to make a change, and there's no consensus for it, he comes back a few weeks later and says WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and tries to push through the exact same change again. I've heard that consensus can change and sometimes you can push through an old proposal with a new audience, but Pixelface has pushed that loophole to the bounds of ridiculousness. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The RFC/U for Pixelface is now active: here. Hopefully we won't have to both ANI regarding this user for a while. --MASEM 17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Gp75motorsports is requesting unblock

Resolved

 – Unblocked, with restrictions. Black Kite 16:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting unblock from an indefinite block I placed on him in June. I won't be around for a long time today, so please see the talk page, his contributions, and reach a consensus here about an unblock. Thanks, either way (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

He's banned or blocked? His userpage says both. Majorly talk 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, that looks like the kind of editor where a second chance is likely to yield good results. The tone is apologetic, he makes no attempt to hide or deny past misdeeds, and has given examples of the contexts in which he has learned the error of his former ways. I am inclined to accede to the unblock request. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A rare example of contrition on the part of a blocked user. It would be worth a try, to unblock him. He knows he'll be watched, and could always be re-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Support unblock, Gp75 seems to be willing to contribute constructively. Hermione1980 14:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My inclination would be to give him a chance, with the caveat that the projectspace topic ban that was previously imposed be re-instated (it can always be removed later if he shows himself to have reformed). Black Kite 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on what Guy found, whats the harm or the worst that can happen? --Tom 14:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on last time, being a massive time-sink for a lot of admins and editors. Hence my suggestion that he concentrates on article-space for a while to see how it goes. Black Kite 14:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to support unblock, but the contents of his user page over at Simple worry me a bit. The actual editing looks to be solid and drama-free enough, but the fact the page is still there gives me pause. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

I'll support a conditional unblock. 90 day projectspace restriction. I won't translate activity on other projects to this one, I would not want that done to me. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Could we maybe get a checkuser run before deciding to unblock or not. This editor did have issues in the past and it would be a pity if we went through the whole unblock process and then realized he was still socking. MBisanz ^talk 14:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

While I respect my fellow editor, Mbisanz, I do not support any preemptive checkuser without evidence of socking. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I generally was going off Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gp75motorsports which as a positive confirmation, but okey. MBisanz ^talk 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had not seen that. Then a check would not be preemptive. There was already an issue, I'll support a check in that case. I'm not a checkuser however. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support a check too; I thought it was standard when any banned user with a history of sockpuppetry requests a second chance. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked Deskana to look into the possibility of a check, in order to prevent disruption. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while, but IIRC, Gp75 was indeffed for his social-networking behavior and his disruption outside of the project space. He was under a restriction to editing ONLY the article space, and not user name spaces or wikipedia name spaces, if memory serves me right, and as such if he is returned, I think that those restrictions should remain in place for a limited time (say a month or two) while he proves himself probationarily. Given the socking problems that led to the June block, we should seek out a checkuser to give us the "all clear" on this one; that is standard procedure (I can think of 3-4 cases where we did exactly this and then unblocked them in the past few months) before issuing the unblock. However, if the restrictions stay in place, and the checkuser comes back clean, I would support an unblock... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Support with this caveat of him only being able to work in Article and Talk spaces. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser result  Completed: I can confirm that, for at least the past month, Gp75 does not appear to have used other accounts and has made a single logged out edit (and uncontroversial typo fix). — Coren ^(talk) 15:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• In that case, I propose an unblock with a restriction to editing in (a) article-space, and (b) usertalk and talk space only where it relates to article editing. If there are no major objections I will go ahead and do this shortly. Black Kite 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Go for it. A grand and noble AGF experiment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Sounds fine to me. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okey dokey. MBisanz ^talk 16:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• OK, done. Black Kite 16:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to those who came to the consensus. I had no problem with this action, so long as others are willing to stand by this restriction and enforce it. In the past, Daniel and I were the only ones really willing to make the blocks based on the topic ban and would often get attacked and questioned by others because of those actions. Every time we'd point back to the original ban discussion, people would object to the original ban. So, can we all agree to stick to this this time? Thanks, either way (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have suggested to Gp75 that we give the restriction a month to see how it goes. That's not necessarily saying it will be lifted at that point; that would be down to the community to decide. I think he is quite aware that any more silliness will result in a community ban. Black Kite 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Need history check for Matt Lee

Are either Matt Lee or the historical, pre-redirect versions of Matt Lee (musician) substantial copies of deleted versions of either article? If so, please speedy-delete them and look into the possibility of sockpuppetry with the current version. If not, especially if it's about another person altogether, please say so. Thanks. See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 28. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The article, as it stands now, seems to be marginally compliant with WP:N requirements at a first glance. A recent speedy-G4 request was denied as the article with a recommendation for a new AFD. It looks like the same person as in the deleted articles, HOWEVER, the article appears to currently be substantially expanded from the September 17th version deleted via AFD (I checked), which would indicate that, if deleted again, it should be handled under a new AFD. Any sockpuppetry issues should be handled seperately. If you could perhaps list some diffs to compare between different accounts, that would help us see if there are sock issues... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, it needs to go, it is the same vanity autobiography, the WP:SPA and IP that are the sole substantive editors are clearly the subject, who was also the creator and pretty much sole editor of the various previous deleted versions. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. My main concern was that it was mere re-creation of deleted material. Since it's not, I'll treat is as new. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See Joeyboyee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Matt Lee(musician) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 76.94.31.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), these are all one and the same individual beyond any reasonable doubt. It's a G11 job, blatant self-promotion, or G4, since it's blatantly gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Both Matt Lee and Matt Lee (musician) have been deleted and doused with sodium cloride. I was probably going to AFD anyways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Best I can reconstruct, following the brief discussion at WT:CSD#Redirect question about the same article, it was userfied after the last AfD and expanded by User:Spartaz, who is neither banned nor an SPA. It seems to be beyond both G4 and G5, and AFAIR it had a number of references so I don't think it's a G11 that can't at least be stubbified. Can someone please review this article? I've tnulled removed the {{resolved}} for now.
  Thanks, Amalthea 17:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I see now that Spartaz didn't work on it, but the editors listed above did (at User:Spartaz/Musician – was it moved per copy&paste?)
    Nonetheless, none of the editors listed above is banned, it's not a recreation, it's not blatantly promotional if the userfied article is any indication, and he certainly has an assertion of significance. Enough, in my opinion, to earn the article at least an AfD. --Amalthea 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• And my bad: should have been G4 and IAR a bit, not G5. Nobody is banned, it's just a point and click issue with somewhat diminuitive dropdown text. Either way, it's a long-term campaign of vanispamcruftisement by the subject. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, OK, I could have guessed that.
    Nonetheless, that's a little too much IAR for my taste. If someone works on a userfied article for three months and tries to address the problems from the last Afd then I'd give him the courtesy of an AfD, even if it's worked on only by the topic himself. After reading it, I see that the article certainly still has deficits, in particular since the sources don't support all the facts in the article. The topic *might* pass WP:MUSIC however since he allegedly worked with The Divine Horsemen and X (American band) – probably not though since he wasn't a member, so it'll only be redirected.
    Amalthea 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Shostakovich, DmitriÄ­ Dmitrievich redirect not allowed

Resolved

 – Amalthea 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Shostakovich, DmitriÄ­ Dmitrievich is official form of name found in library catalogs but I received a "not allowed" when I tried to create a rediredct page #REDIRECT Dmitri Shostakovich This causes link from library catalog to fail. Should be able to create redirects from library catalogs using official form of name to provide users with access to the Wikipedia author article.

compare results of http://plus.mnpals.net/vufind/Author/Home?author=Shostakovich,%20Dmitri%C3%84%C2%AD%20Dmitrievich,%201906-1975.&library=TRC were it doesn't connect to Wikipedia article

with one for Tomas Friedman

http://plus.mnpals.net/vufind/Author/Home?author=Friedman,%20Thomas%20L.&library=TRC

Where it does —Preceding unsigned comment added by 9friedrich9 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that's how it works? There's also no redirect at Friedman, Thomas L. here.
In any case, I don't think Wikipedia should create misspelled redirects so that third party websites can interface with it more easily – that should be taken care of at their end. Also, assuming that it's not a live mirror, you won't see any change on the site unless they get a new database dump. --Amalthea 17:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Google, that's a pretty common spelling. Even if DmitriÄ­ is a mis-spelling, it's still a plausible search term. Since I didn't see the reply above, i went ahead and created the redirect as requested. No harm done, I hope. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a misspelling, it looks like an HTML/web browser character encoding problem to me, albeit a prevalent one. And I think the OP was also referring to the Eastern European convention of "last name, first name" listings. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, it's an encoding issue. What they tried to write is Shostakovich, Dmitriĭ Dmitrievich. Anyhow, since the OP's link now works and displays the Wikipedia lead, I'll mark this as resolved, and add the site to meta:Live mirrors. :-\ --Amalthea 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fishy Indian Lawyer article

Indian Lawyer is showing the template {{grammar}} 20 times! But the edit page shows only a single occurence. Some kind of vandalism?? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Seems to have been nuked as spam. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah was deleted! In fact it was me who nomed it for deletion as it contained little context to ascertain notability. But I still can't fathom what happened! Why was it displaying {{grammar}} twenty times! Was the template vandalised? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what it was, but the template seems OK, it's not been edited for a while. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront (website)

Hello, this is not strictly an administrative matter, but I have requested input at WP:NPOVN to little avail. Would uninvolved, impeccably neutral editors mind watchlisting this article and ensuring compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV; it's is starting to become a handful and I want to avoid any edit-warring or further mudslinging. Any help appreciated, thanks, Skomorokh 18:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your ownership issues surrounding this article have become very clear, and your discomfort with calling neo-nazis "neo-nazis" was made very clear, as well, on that talk page. I think more editorial overwatch, by admins and others, would be a very good thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Witness my fierce desire to own the article by solicitating input at the most widely-watched page on Wikipedia, and my aversion to the using the term "Neo-Nazi" in the article by my active support for it :) Seriously folks, enough eyes should make all non-neutrality shallow, please take a look. Muchas gracias, Skomorokh 18:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, if no-one wants to get their hands dirty (forgivable considering the circumstances), a temporary full protection might be in order to force involved editors to discuss the issues and reach consensus on the talkpage. Skomorokh 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation: nobody else is interested in hosting an advertisement for Stormfront. --B (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article were an advertisment, then surely the fine editors of ANI would be keen to get in and beat it into neutral shape? Skomorokh 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen Gale for protecting the article. I am now in the unenviable position of being latest commenter in 17 of the 18 talkpage threads, so hope others will examine the sources and the text of the article closely and join the discussion. Skomorokh 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about having protected the article and did so only to stop the back and forth editing for now. I've commented further on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A trawl through the history is... illuminating. I think we could justly say that Skomorokh has erred on the side of sympathy to the subject, a subject which is, by general agreement in the real world, nauseating and toxic. Some kind of restriction may be necessary. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I have no strong opinions on the subject of the article, but very strong ones about the standard for verifying claims. If you can point out to me where I have taken content from sources and then distorted it to be more sympathetic to the subject, I'll try my best to re-examine it and reflect the sentiment of the sources. It's a little dispiriting to spend days adding content about how Stormfront entices children to download games in which they can kill Jews and blacks, distorts its message behind coded phrases and subtly invoke neo-fascist iconography, quotes historical figures out of context to support its arguments and sympathises with mass murderers...to be accused of treating them sympathetically by editors who always seem to flee the scene when you ask them to specify where exactly I have departed from the reliable sources. Thanks for looking at the history though, and if you have any more to offer you're welcome at the article talk page. Skomorokh 20:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On a philosophical level, perhaps the difference between you and I Guy is that I think there is a very important difference between neutral point of view and mainstream point of view. You, me and the dog it the street might agree that Hitler was a genocidal dictator, but the Wikipedia entry on him says he was an Austrian-born politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. I don't understand why "just the facts, please" is not an appropriate way to handle controversial topics. Skomorokh 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On a research level, maybe you should get out more? Descriptors in the lede section of Adolf Hitler: "dictator" "fascist dictatorship" "totalitarian" "anti-semitic" "atrocities" and "systematic genocide." These are the neutral and appropriate terms for that subject. Or do you disagree?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the opening sentences :) Skomorokh 21:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Having looked thoroughly through the edit history and talk page, I don't think protection is the way to handle this and have set the page back to sp for edits, fp for mv. I've asked Skomorokh to think about not making edits to the article unless they are already supported by consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

There seems to be an edit war, that has lasted several days now and counting, going on between Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) at the above article. Would someone who doesn't mind dealing with these things look to see if protection and or some user warnings are warranted? Kelly ^hi! 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Endemic" is the proper word. "Several days" understates how this article has been handled for several months now. Collect (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my good lord. Is this still going on? I propose a topic ban on both editors. // roux   19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, I just looked at the history. Yeesh. Enough. How about this:

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned from the article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 for a mininum of three months. They may use the talk page to discuss proposed changes. This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Wikipedia policies. SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The debate is like the hot-stove league, debating how someone's favorite team could have won the pennant if only thus-and-so hadn't happened. Content disputes, like they can somehow change the election results if they just get the article "right". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I'd expand that to each other's talkpages, Joe the Plumber, William Timmons, and List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, based on editing intersections for the past couple of months. Send them back to their separate corners. // roux   20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If only McCovey had just hit that ball 3 feet higher! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, We can simply make and related pages part of any topic ban to cover that, I think, but I agree that we need to keep them from interacting with each other. (and Bugs, or a more recent version, why the )!@*@+$*@_$ did Grady leave Pedro in so long! :D) SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Unbelievable. Endorse community topic ban with respect to pages related to the 2008 U.S. presidential election for at least 3 months. This may give them something more productive to do. Will notify the two.  Sandstein  20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse the expanded community topic ban. Suggest that 'related' include any person related to the 2008 campaign, to the extent of any congressional figure NOT representing the two editors' directly, Foreign personalities commenting on the matter, State races in which either candidate was endorsed by either presidential race, any article on any interaction between any candidates, and so on... Can we just ban one to articles on insects and the other to articles on french cars, ensuring ZERO communication? ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hell yes. This has gone on way too long. McCain campaign and related articles, broadly construed, and if we have to bang heads together to make it stick then let's just do that. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• YES! It's way over due. See my comments here and here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanded version based on comments:

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned for a minimum of three months from:

• any articles related to the 2008 US Presidential election, broadly construed for a mininum of three months
• Each other's talkpages, with the sole exception of notifications of AFDs, MFDs, CSD notices, RFAR notices, and notification of discussions involving the other at AN, ANI, WQA, etc.
• They may use the talk pages of articles to discuss proposed changes.
• This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Wikipedia policies.

Seem about right? // roux   20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the summary. That's about right.  Sandstein  20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is Bob Hope coming to mind just now? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A topic ban as worded above by Roux seems logical and fair. To be definite, I suggest that the topic ban expire on 30 March 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• uninvolved support - three months to do something else is a good starting point. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from Amwestover. Whoa! I do not think this is a fair characterization of the dispute at all. I have made numerous attempts to reach compromise on the World opinion section of this article, and I have plenty of diffs to prove this effort. This is part of the editing process, and I don't think I should be punished for it even if it has taken what some would consider a long time. In the past few weeks, every time I'd address one of csloat's concerns, however, he'd raise a new one -- this is part of the reason that this has gone on for the length of time it has. So eventually on the suggestion of another editor after I'd lost all patience with csloat, I went with the simplest version of the section possible hoping that this would finally end it all. That was wishful thinking cuz it didn't. So now the dispute is over material that was removed which I think is non-notable and is being given undue weight. Instead of giving evidence of notability and relevance, he has refused to do so. Instead, he has decided to claim that his version of the edit is the "consensus" version (he has quite a history of this...), and that past consensus is immutable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Assemblies of Yahweh

There have been some incidents in the history creation of the article, but that's not really important. What is strange to me is that out of all this, only two users came out "clean" and most were banned for sockpuppetry. Again, not my business. But these two users, one of which has given a barn star for "protecting against vandalism" to the other seem bent on having the article without sources and it would be no surprise to me if they would ask it to be deleted in the near future, and if not them, mostly anyone could, because it was chopped off of most of its sources and content.

I have tried addressing this matter on the talk page, only to take a snappy reaction from one of the two involved, where I was (in my oppinion) attacked by expressions similar to "what's your problem?" or "you're newer than us" (see here).

I don't really care about that, but the fact is the article, as taken by the path of the two, is going to be deleted, it lacks sources and most of the content and the sources are removed by them. I would like someone neutral to oversee that article and see from the history pages what can be salvaged and if that "anti-vandalism" frenzie was with any positive consequence for the article. --Kybalion from Wind (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Stanley_Meyers and user:cyclePat

user:cyclePat has been, in my opinion, a continually disruptive editor on this article. Could some uninvolved parties please have a look?
I personally think that a short topic ban would be useful in encouraging him to edit more constructively.
Behaviours that I have found disruptive (Parts of this list is from another editor commenting on his behaviour, the diff's are mine and probably incomplete):
Refactoring other users comments on talk page, including comments on his conduct
[[96]]
Persisting in dredging up long-settled issues.
[[97]]

Not recognizing WP:RS, WP:V [[98]]

Not WP:AGF of others' edits
[[99]] [[100]]

WP:WIKILAWYER'ing and Tendentious editing.
[[101]] [[102]] [[103]] [[104]]

Not abiding by WP:CONSENSUS or WP:FRINGE .
[[105]]

Thanks for your attention.
Please also consider my edits for scrutiny as well, however I am far from the only editor to be in conflict with CyclePat.
Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I'm a somewhat-involved party). I don't normally like to "team up" against other editors, but in this case I feel have to second the opinion that User:CyclePat is being disruptive on this article. He has had more than the occasional tendency to argue way past the point of consensus or common sense (usually by needless Wikilawyering) and edit against clear consensus. I could provide specific diffs, but I believe that a perusal of the talk page (and its recent archives) should be indicative.

Unfortunately, CyclePat seems to have a history of this sort of behaviour, which in the past has led to long blocks. However, if there's a way of breaking the cycle, persuading him to stop expending all his energy on pointless lost causes, and to respect consensus, then I think progress will be made. I hope that doesn't sound too patronising! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified sockpuppet

I can't find the previous discussion, but the trolling here and here ring a bell. Anyone know who Themeatpopsicle (talk · contribs) is a sock of? — Satori Son 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Themeatpopsicle seems to be looking for an indef block. I have notified him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins

I am currently in an edit war/conflict with Bwilkins. This all started with a question I had for User:Bwilkins about a comment he had made to WT:NCSP. Instead of answering my question, he assumed bad faith and simply removed the comment. I reverted that decision and added another comment telling him to just answer my question and to stop removing my comments. He went right back and reverted my comments, assisting that I am not good enough to have my comments on that page. Instead, he tried to deflect it back at me by trying to put it on my talk page. He went right back to reverting my contributions as vandalism no matter how many times I tried to reason with him about the situation. I am currently talking to him on my talk page, but that is besides the matter. He thinks that I am a vandal no matter how I try to reason with him, which is being impeded by the fact that he doesn't even want to talk to my on his talk page. I took it to 3RR, but they said to take it here, so here I am. Here is the links to his reverts:

• 1st revert: [106]
• 2nd revert: [107]
• 3rd revert: [108]
• 4th revert: [109]

I am basically looking for people to show him what he is doing is wrong, and if needed a block may be necessary. He needs to be shown that he is in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, which I have failed to communicate with him, partly thanks to his removal of my comments. Thanks in advance. Tavix (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Addition: I gave him a kind heads up about his actions and he told me off. He really needs to learn to be polite. proof Tavix (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm signing off to have dinner with my family. I asked the above user to stay off my usertalk, and to keep the discussion on his own talkpage. He then continued to revert my removals, while the discussion took place on his. He decided to file a 3RR report about my own talkpage. More later. ♪BMWΔ 21:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• There was no reason to revert my comments. I was simply trying to have a civil discussion with you about a comment you made to WT:NCSP, and you reverted my comments as vandalism. The conversation was taken to my talk page as requested, but that doesn't give you permission to explicitly remove my comments. Tavix (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Tavix's edits as vandalism seems inappropriate to me. — Aitias // discussion 21:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The second or third time he re-added them, it had become disruptive. The first couple of times, I did it politely. I have a right to ask someone to keep the discussion somewhere else. After a half dozen times of asking, it became tiring. I even advised him to file a WQA if he felt I was being uncivil. Let's look at the whole thing, shall we please? ♪BMWΔ 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 3)Tavix, you are aware you are not exempt from breaking 3RR on his talkpage, correct? Also, Tavix conveniently left out the fact that he seems to have initiated the conflict here by referring to BMW's comments as "evil". This was the so-called "evil" comment. Bwilkins also told him here to stay off his talk page - probably not in the nicest manner, but the discourse really isn't civil from both sides, considering Tavix responded to the request to stay off of his talk page by edit warring on his talk page...Please note that Tavix didn't include all of the diffs from the page, just the reverts where BMW started referring to them as vandalism (after BMW had asked him to stop posting to his page)...while anyone can post to anyone's talk page...when you are in an active angry dispute with someone on another forum and they specifically tell you not to post on the page...going to the talk page and starting an edit war is rather pointy. --Smashville^talk 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just to let you know, that was a separate event that happened when I was particularly ticked off. After I calmed down, I realized my action was a little over the top and I apologized on his talk page, knowing that it was the right thing to do. Coincidentally, that was my only edit he never reverted. I fulfilled the request to stay off the talk page, and the conversation continued on my own talk page, the only thing that happened past that point was reversions. I am also aware that I am not exempt of the 3RR rules, but I never broke it so I don't really see your point in the matter... Tavix (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a nonevent. This might not have been extraordinarily polite of Bwilkins, but as far as I'm concerned, established editors have the right to control the content of their talk page. Tan | 39 22:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. Don't know these fellows (I think i commented on something about Tavix here recently, though) but.... Tavix is edit warring to prevent someone else from deleting comments on their own talk page and ignoring their requests to stop posting there? Just leave it alone and move on.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, it has been established time and again that anyone can remove content from their userpage. When you also take into account what Tavix's question is (it's essentially..."Why did you use the word 'many'?"), this borders on WP:LAME. Plus, BW has a right to be curmudgeonly: he's Canadian. --Smashville^talk 22:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• If he would have just answered the question and be civil about everything, this would be a non-event. The entire question comes from WT:NCSP, BMW knows the context... Tavix (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And what policy says he has to meet your demands? What is civil about being told to stay off his talk page and then going to his talk page? He clearly doesn't feel the need to answer your question and your hounding him only increases the drama. --Smashville^talk 22:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• He was clearly uncivil by removing my comments as vandalism. All I wanted to do was to have him answer my question. Instead, he escalated it into an edit war. I respected his decision to take the question to my talk page, but he didn't have to be rude and remove my comments as vandalism as well when it was clearly in good faith. Tavix (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

admin help needed to stop PDFbot

Would an admin please help and hit the big red stop button at User:PDFbot. I have noticed it is running through many pages on my watchlist and changing them, and have posted at bot owner's talk page to stop and discuss first. Cost of restarting bot later = 0. Cost of fixing lots of bad edits = considerable, perhaps. Thanks, doncram (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the specific problem with the bot? Hiberniantears (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is running through articles on NRHP sites and messing up the NRHP text and photos references, in my view. It replaces a standard reference that has 2 PDF links, one for a text document and one for an accompanying photo sets, by 2 differently formatted PDF links. I think it is malfunctioning in doing this. I have posted at User talk:Dispenser. doncram (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot blocked. Request reactivation here or on my talk page. Tan | 39 22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo vs. Serbia

A pair of editors, User:Illyriandescendant and User:Tadija have been battling over whether places in Kosovo are part of Serbia or not. I don't know if we have a policy on naming such places, but we need to put an end to this battle. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

An image on the main page is unprotected, again

File:Koni crop.jpg is currently on the main page, not uploaded locally, and not protected at the Wikimedia Commons; administrators there were unwilling to protect it: [110]. Administrative assistance is requested in uploading it locally. Thanks. John254 22:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)