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

Rachel Brown sockpuppet army blocked

Wikipedia is ridiculously tolerant, but we're not actually stupid. User:RachelBrown has been leading several Wikipedia admins (notably Dan100 and Zordrac [not an admin -Calton | Talk 15:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)]) a merry dance. Kelly Martin and Jayjg checkusered the bunch and found notable links and a lot of lies about locations and grossly inconsistent "explanations". I had a look just now and have blocked the lot. 1 week block on Rachel Brown for gross sockpuppetry, and indefinite on the Poetlister, Newport, Taxwoman and Londoneye accounts. If anyone can credibly dispute this sockblock, please leave me a message or email me and we should ask for an official AC clarification, because that would beat a wheel war. Merry Christmas - David Gerard 17:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I support this action. It's worth noting that all of those accounts were extremely active in a select number of recent AFD debates. This might be sufficient reason to re-AFD those issues, or perhaps more properly bring them through Deletion Review. Nandesuka 17:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for WP:DRV to me. I also suspect everyone there will agree with you on what needs to be done. -- SCZenz 17:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I should probably mention this on AFD talk too - David Gerard 17:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. See User:Zordrac/Poetlister#AFD discussions where 2 or more of the above users were involved and User:Zordrac/Poetlister#Additional articles that should be nominated for deletion as part of this dispute for articles affected in this dispute. All of these should be renominated, due to the User:Antidote sockpuppets and the suspicion of User:RachelBrown socks. Whilst they kind of cancel each other out, it does mean that all of those votes should be redone. I have taken the liberty of researching everything, since everyone seems to be too busy to check things out themselves. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's straighten a few things out. First, sock puppetry per se is ok: see Wikipedia:Blocking policy and m:CheckUser policy. It's only the (quoting CheckUser policy) abuse of sockpuppets use (and in particular voting twice under two different names) which is severely frowned upon. I question whether that's happened here: have a look at this, where the socks actually voted against each other. In other cases, it's a matter of debate if the votes influenced the final outcome of the AfDs directly.

Balanced against that is the contribution history of the various accounts. I guess they were created to contribute to specific areas of the 'pedia (although why I don't know). But the fact remains that until they were used for voting they have contributed a lot to Wikipedia. It does seem a shame to potentially end those contributions over this.

The thing I'm most disappointed about though is people with CheckUser access saying "I think they're socks, I'm banning them, and my word is enough". It's not. {{sockpuppet}} doesn't have a "evidence" parameter for nothing. Dan100 (Talk) 09:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dan, the accounts weren't voting against each other; quite the reverse. RachelBrown voted to keep List of Jewish jurists at 20:57 Nov 18 [1]; Poetlister voted to keep at 09:38 Nov 19. [2] RachelBrown then changed her mind at 17:53 Nov 19 and voted delete "due to the weird attitude of Mr. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters" [3]; Poetlister promptly changed her mind too and voted delete 17 minutes later at 18:10 Nov 19. [4] Londoneye then voted delete at 08:56 Nov 20. [5] Then RachelBrown changed her mind again and voted to keep at 22:52 Nov 21. [6] Perhaps she forgot to change the other votes back again, or didn't want to draw attention to them, or more likely realized they'd make no difference to the outcome. Given that the technical evidence shows they all edited from the same IP address(es), the above is a violation of WP:SOCK. Whether the end result was actually influenced is irrelevant. The person operating the accounts appears to have tried to influence it and that's all that matters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This "evidence" is faulty. If you click on the links it proves the opposite to what SlimVirgin suggests it proves. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that producing the checkuser evidence in sufficient detail for a third party is generally likely to be a violation of the privacy policy. That's why there are now three people who went over it; three looking and going "wtf" should hopefully be enough. I looked after Kelly emailed the AC list saying she and Jayjg had looked at it and thought "wtf, sockpuppet theatre" so I did too and went "wtf, sockpuppet theatre" - David Gerard 17:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

NO IT ISN'T A VIOLATION OF THE PRIVACY POLICY - not when requested by the user. Not only are you permitted to present it, you are obligated to. And I think it is safe to say that they are giving you permission to do so. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you considered that the users concerned might be friends who use the same IP address as a consequence of visiting one another's houses? People do that, you know. Did you consider the remedy of suggesting that they not use the same IP to vote in AfDs or that if one votes, the others cannot? They insist they are different people. Their track record would imply that they are, as Zordrac evidences. This looks a lot like vindictive action on the part of admins who couldn't get their way, Dave, in the absence of any actual evidence. You have ignored the other evidence that they are not sockpuppets -- no previous suspicious collusion, different editing interests etc. Can you not unblock them and give the admonition not to vote the same way on AfD -- admins to block indefinitely if they do? If they are socks, that will hurt in the way desired, and if they are not, you are not blocking useful contributors in error. Please consider it. There's a bad habit here of using blocking as a blunt weapon to punish those who get on the wrong side of admins. -- Grace Note.

...in the absence of any actual evidence Oh, there's plenty of actual evidence -- the CheckUser thing -- though there's no evidence for the rationale you're making up. And I do mean "making up", since you're not connected with these people/this person, are not not acting as their agent, nor are you passing on what they've told you -- it's all the product of your creativity. Occam's Razor ought to be sufficient. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I know I'd do better trying to teach a mule to tango, Calton, I will spend a sentence or two on explaining it to you. These are mainly users who have been editing Wikipedia for several months, with different interests, not colluding. Suddenly, they all vote together on one issue. Does Occam's Razor really suggest that they are all one user who has been using different usernames solely to create a false impression in one vote? Rhetorical, dude. I've never yet seen you admit you're in the wrong, and I don't expect you to start now. -- Grace Note.

Well, I should have known better than to expect rationality from trolling fishwife such as yourself, "Dr Zen": what's the proof that they are, in fact, several different users and not one (or two) compartmentalizing his/her/their edits? Are you trying to provide some examples for the Begging the question article? --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Newport said on her user page she was based in Newport, Wales. Given that the technical evidence shows she was posting from RachelBrown's London IP address, Grace Note seems to be saying she popped over to London from Newport, a distance of 200 kms, whenever she wanted to make an edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

People often say they are "from" somewhere when it's their hometown, even if they don't live there anymore. That said, I think the sockpuppetry is quite obvious. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 08:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm "from" Cornwall, but lo and behold, here I am with an Australian IP. Must be magic! And Morven, do you really think it makes sense that a person sets up several user names, pretending to be their own friend, just so they can collude on one particular vote, which was not even in the offing when they first set up the username? Why not assume good faith, accept their explanation and suggest that they don't collude on any more votes? Why the blunt instrument of blocking, always and for every "crime" here on Wikipedia? -- Grace Note.

just so they can collude on one particular vote Big assumption there, assuming one specific vote is a target, as opposed to, say, an insurance policy for whatever vote comes up -- or even one vote picked randomly for the purpose of screwing around. --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course! So for 7 months they waited "just in case", right? And, wait, on that actual vote they didn't actually collude at all. You forgot that bit. You'd think they'd have gone to a better effort given the 7 months of lying in wait, wouldn't you? There's someone here believing some ridiculous conspiracy theories, and its not me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its premature to call the locations a lie, since the CheckUser info has not been released. From what I can gather from what User:Kelly Martin has said, they only used the same IP address twice - I am going to suggest somewhere in the period from 17-27 November 2005. And from what she said, on one of those occasions 3 of them used it, the other occasion there were 2. So I am going to go with a theory here - Poetlister visited RachelBrown's house every couple of days, and on one occasion her cousin Londoneye did as well. Whilst I guess its theoretically possible that Taxwoman might have, from what I can gather they didn't really know each other. Of course, it might be more than that, but until they release the CheckUser info WHICH THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO DO per Wikipedia:Privacy policy, then I think that we should wait before making conclusions. All that we know at this stage is that they are different people and that there was no collusion. We don't know why these admins are insisting that CheckUser says that they are sock puppets. Until they present the evidence, we have to wait. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The so-called collusion

See User:Zordrac/Poetlister#The_so-called_collusion. This is their collusion. Per User:Zordrac/Poetlister#Creation of accounts, accounts were created on 15 April 2005, 12 July 2005, 10 August 2005, 28 September 2005 and 3 December 2005. The only time when edits were on the same articles was from 17-27 November 2005. So for this fanciful theory of sock puppetry to be true, it would mean that from 15 April-17 November, a period of 7 months, they all laid in wait waiting for this 1 occasion when they would collude. And what was the collusion? Oh, it was to vote to keep a few List of Jews articles - in which they all voted on different AFDs in a different manner on totally different days. Is that collusion anyway? Oh, but on top of that, User:Poetlister and User:RachelBrown both edited the talk page of List of Jewish jurists (only RachelBrown edited the actual page, apart from one very minor edit by Poetlister). And the so-called collusion was solely related to Poetlister criticising User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for his abusive editing process. Oh, and for the record, she was right. He was engaging in abusive editing practises. I detailed that here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister#Lulu_Bad_Editing_timeline. So we are trying to suggest that this "collusion" made any difference. THERE WAS NO COLLUSION! Not only that, but even if there was, IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE! Oh, wait, do you believe that their contributions were somehow hiding what had really happened? I mean, I looked through EVERY EDIT EVER MADE BY ANY OF THE 5 ACCOUNTS. Was there something I missed? Something that a quick CheckUser can tell me that Wikipedia's detailed logs missed? Oh, and so you know, Wikipedia's privacy policy Wikipedia:Privacy policy DOES PERMIT YOU TO RELEASE THE INFO if the users concerned ask for it. I think its safe to assume that they are asking. So release it already! Or else we will know that you are LYING, and that this is all a set up to protect an abusive user. Which is more logical? Yes, Occam's Razor applies. Occam's Razor tells us that this non-existent collusion didn't happen. Occam's Razor tells us that they could not be the same person. Perhaps they had a party one day mid-November and all got on to the computer together. Perhaps they visit each other? Maybe they use the same ISPs. Who knows. But they can't be the same person. It is fanciful nonsensical logic to suggest that. Nobody who has looked at the investigations could conclude that. Or, wait, do we just blindly trust admins? Wait on, according to User:Kelly Martin, I am violating WP:AGF if I dare to suggest that an admin ever made a mistake. Bad me. Yet, in the same breath, she is allowed to violate AGF by not asking the people for an explanation for the CheckUser responses, and not having an Arbitration or anything. Why is it that User:Antidote had for himself a Request for Comment, even after it was already proven that he had sock puppets that were manipulating the votes (in the exact same issue)? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote. Indeed, it seems that, thanks to the ban on User:Poetlister, Antidote is going to get off. Wow - no suspicions there! LOL. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its safe to assume that they are asking. No, it's not "safe to assume" anything of the sort, especially since you're not in charge of deciding that, either. They would have to, you know, actually ask, wouldn't they? Not just go by whatever you happen to think is reasonable in your own mind.

Yes, Occam's Razor applies. Dude, I don't think you actually understand the term. Hint: it doesn't mean "Whatever *I* think is reasonable". --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that you misunderstand things. When something is as plain as the hand in front of your face, that's what you believe. And this is extraordinarily obvious, especially considering the people involved. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. Go educate yourself. User:Marsden, User:FuelWagon for just 2 similar examples. Just because you're ignorant doesn't make you right. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Zordrac/Poetlister (new discussion to resolve issues not covered so far)

A lot of information on this issue can be found here, including some quite shocking examples of use of admin to silence other people involved in the same edit war by User:SlimVirgin, as well as some very dodgy vandalism by a mysterious anonymous IP (example) who may well be a sockpuppet of one of the users involved here..:
User :Zordrac/Poetlister

I have not seen ANY evidence that they are the same person, it's all been circumstancial guesswork and blocks made by friends of people involved in related edit wars anyway. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

IP evidence is not revealed publically so David would be able to see much more evidence than you. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I have evidence you don't - see m:Help:CheckUser - and I'm not only not going to tell you what it is, I'm not allowed to. Call it a manifestation of this being a project to write an encyclopedia, rather than e.g. an Internet democracy - David Gerard 20:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. Not only are you allowed to, according to Wikipedia:Privacy policy, you are *OBLIGATED TO* if the user concerned requests it. I think its safe to say that that has been done. So release it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its safe to say that that has been done. That's your opinion -- which doesn't trump actual facts. --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering they've sent 10 or more e-mails approving it, YES it is safe to assume it lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's clear a few things up

Under a nice big header so people will notice :-)

• Sock puppets are fine unless they're used to disrupt Wikipedia (eg multiple voting) (See Wikipedia:Blocking policy and m:CheckUser policy, which was agreed by the Board as being the governing policy for CheckUser access).

Now, let's look at this case. Yes, all the accounts are sock puppets. However they were blocked by Mindspillage with the only evidence being an edit summary of "used for edit warring/vote stacking/etc." The "evidence" parameter of {{sockpuppet}}, when left on each user page, was conspicuously blank.

SlimVirgin, above, finally points out to me how these accounts were, for sure, being disruptive and are therefore blockable. Yes it needed spelling out to me, but that's because these accounts had made some damn good edits, and I hold the goal of writing an encyclopedia above all else. This presentation of actual evidence is what should have been done at the very start of this whole saga. Dan100 (Talk) 23:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and regards the whole CheckUser evidence thing - some people made a right pig's ear of presenting the "evidence". That didn't help matters. However, it's entirely beside the true point (which I just outlined above), so I'm not going to say any more about it (unless poked).

I mean, Mindspillage and Kelly only wanted these accounts blocked because they felt that they had been used for disruption, not just because they were socks... right? ;-) Dan100 (Talk) 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What disruption? The links SlimVirgin provided prove the opposite to what she claims. If you want disruption, go and have a look here: Talk:List of Jewish jurists and see if you can tell who is being disruptive... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter McConaughey

Just blocked for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks after warning, after seeing this edit. Can anyone work out any possible way to bring Mr McConaughey back to the land of the living? - David Gerard 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, it's not really necessary to put it like that. We have to bee civil too, ya know. I have been trying to urge Peter to exercise civility. I don't know what else can be done. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think David was just making a play on words. But you can block him for incivility if you really want :-) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I obviously missed the "play" of it. Maybe I missed something. Oh well... --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I was attempting to euphemise "batshit crazy troll", but anyway. By the way, has Mr McConaughey made any good edits at all, anywhere? - David Gerard 11:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• How about "chiroptera-poop mentally challenged troglodyte"? Radiant_>|< 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I count about 10-20 good edits to articles other than conspiracy theory, 9/11, American terrorism, and related talk pages. I wasn't going in to look at all of those since the idea of POV there is too great to make any sense in a short check like that. Hmmm... an idea. BRB. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are they..? I'm sure there must be a few good edits in amongst the user's total edit count of 579, but I don't see any off hand. The proportions have some interest in themselves: only 119 of them are to article space, 123 to user talk alone. What stood out for me were PM's recent exchanges with two notably unflappable and polite editors, JRM and MONGO, on non-existent or nonsense issues, seemingly purely with the goal of somehow, by hook or by crook, needling those users into annoyance. (Unsuccessfully; well done, guys.) A lot of good-faith assumption has already been spent on this user, and has fallen on stony ground. I'm thinking RFAR rather than RFC, sooner rather than later, though perhaps not quite yet. Meanwhile, I advise only the coolest, most laid-back of us to try any interaction (me, I would be the very last). Mind that blood pressure. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, here are the ones that I found. Caveat: I wasn't going near any of the talk pages, the POV pages (like American terrorism or conspiracy theory), or the Wikipedia namespace. [7] [8] [9] [10] (Maybe)[11] (Maybe too)[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] So, all in all, maybe 25-30 possible "good" edits. However, for every one good edit, there are a couple of edits, maybe not so good. I'm just sayin' is all. Phew... good thing I don't do this for a living, but it might come in handy if an RfAr is ever filed. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In my interpretation Peter has been a very worthwhile contributor to wikipedia. Peter fundamentally grasps the concepts of true consensus and collaborative editing and I have a learned a lot from his WP:0RR guideline. I can give Carbonite the benefit of the doubt if he claims otherwise but I think it was reasonable for Peter to conclude Carbonite was trying to damage the acceptance of WP:0RR, first by moving it to Peter's userspace over a header dispute, then after that mistake was corrected and the guideline was moved back, Carbonite proposed a merge of it to a fundmanetally different and perhaps less effective guideline. However, Carbonite continues to maintain the two guidelines are similar which apparently is easy to do as he fails to even acknowledge the evidence to the contrary. I ask all of Peter's detractors to please assure me they are not attempting to stack the deck against him to ease future discrediting of WP:0RR or any other guideline or proposal he might have? Please give Peter the benefit of the doubt and avoid statements such as the above "batshit crazy troll" that are out of line for an admin and portray him and his contributions way too negatively. The list of "few beneficial edits" above is likewise way too negative. zen master T 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Way too negative? Take a look at his contribs and find any more productive edits and diffs. I was trying to do PM a favor by pointing out he wasn't just disruptive. Remember also, I was only going through his main namespace edits in areas specified above. And some of my diffs are being generous by calling them productive. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a tendency to disagree with Zen-master ;-) , but here I fully agree. I also appreciate Carbonite's openly stated attempt to group all <3RR on one page, but I can understand disagreement about it and coming from the 0RR page his actions may look a bit self serving and lacking openness. Apart of that, for an as yet unidentified reason some administrators seem not to understand Peter (see also the discussion with Voldemort on my talk page User_talk:Harald88#A & B's discussion and Wikipedia management)... perhaps Texans and Dutch speak the same language? (I'm Dutch). Also, most of his edits and proposals that I saw on Conspiracy Theory were definitely good, helping to move in the direction of similar but already featured articles. BTW what did David Gerhard mean with "batshit crazy troll"? I did not understand that, thanks! Harald88 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and see also Mongo's comment on Peter's Talk page User_talk:Peter_McConaughey#Howdy

What you have above is all about "portrayal", you aren't letting the evidence speak for itself. Creating a small list of "productive" edits by an editor already labeled negatively can have the effect of getting people to further unquestioningly accept your negative portrayal -- though I can give you the benefit of the doubt if you assure me that isn't your intention. Regardless, please let the evidence speak for itself and refrain from excessive or multi-layered portrayals. In my interpretation Peter's response to Carbonite's actions was completely reasonable (I give the benefit of the doubt to both parties, miscommunication and misunderstanding can happen). Please simply list any other edits of Peter's you interpret to violate any wikipedia policy, and how? zen master T 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Someone and someone else asked if he had made any good edits anywhere. I, trying not to condemn PM without looking at the edits, compiled a list of edits that show he has actually made some productive edits. Now I am beginning to think you do not assume good faith on my part. My list has absolutely nothing to do with Carbonite or their history together... notice I stayed away from the 0RR and highly POV pages. If you really want, when an RfC or an RfAr are filed (which is very possible, it seems) you will have a list of "bad" diffs. I was just creating a list of "good" diffs. If you can find any other diffs that might fit into a "good and productive" category, please feel free to list them yourself below. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You did/do seem to support the notion Peter has only made "some" or a "few" good edits? That is a negative portrayal and I believe it is completely inaccurate. Perhaps Bishonen and David Gerard are the ones that may have portrayed PM excessively negatively, perhaps inadvertently. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, I interpret the possibility of a hastily made portrayal being excessively negative, perhaps inadvertently, and perhaps even within the motivation of finding "some good" edits. Focusing on some "good edits" of an already negatively portrayed editor can have the effect of switching around the burden of proof, which would be wrong and seems to have almost happened in this case. The actual burden of proof is on PM's detractors to give evidence of any violations, right? zen master T 22:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Evidence of violations is plentiful on these pages. They're looking for evidence of good edits by Peter. Radiant_>|< 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've been following this page quite closely and seen no evidence of any "violations" by PM. Suggesting people look for a few "good edits" by Peter is a negative portrayal which I currently assume was an inadvertent mistake on your part? Please discontinue that either way. zen master T 23:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You apparently haven't been following it all that closely, considering you are unaware that the suggestion that people look for good edits by Peter is actually a serious request by David Gerard, rather than an inadvertent mistake by me. Radiant_>|< 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said above, requesting editors to look for "good" edits by an editor is needlessly prejudicial as it portrays them negatively, though, because I give you and/or David Gerard the benefit of the doubt that it was inadvertent I will simply ask you to refrain from doing that in the future. zen master T 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And I am not even sure why you are arguing with what I did. I was trying to help Peter here. There was a question of whether or not PM had made any good edits anywhere. I, looking for ways to not have him blocked outright, came up with a list of productive edits. That way, no one can say that he has never made a useful edit. I am trying to help Peter, and you are fighting me on it. Why? There are people looking to ban him indefinitely, and I am trying to persuade them to be nice and give him a shot. Did you even read my first comment in this section? I was trying to act in PM's defense. Yet you have already prejudged me as being anti-Peter. Please, continue to assume good faith on my part as I try to save Peter from being banned for good. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand you claim you want to "help" Peter and I can give you the benefit of the doubt. However, what I am telling you is your "help" or someone else's question that you responded to actually has had the effect of an excessive and very unfairly negative portrayal of Peter. The notion that Peter has only made a few good edits is completely inaccurate and taints a fair consideration. What further concerns me is now you seem to be hinting that Peter should be banned for good, that is also completely incorrect. Where did you get the notion Peter should be "blocked indefinitely" from, it seems you are definitely against him now? This page only contains a negative fluff portrayal of Peter, the only evidence presented here involves Peter's supposed "name calling". However, in my interpretation Peter's comparison of Carbonite to a troll made sense given the abusive and stifling actions Carbonite committed, though I give both parties the benefit of the doubt that tensions flare and mistakes happen. But it is starting to seem reasonable a small group of editors are systematically trying to portray Peter negatively because they really don't like his WP:0RR or other posts for some fundamental reason. zen master T 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please listen to me... First, I never said those were Peter's only good edits. I just wasn't going near the aforementioned areas. I was just showing that he was able to make productive edits. You fault me for trying to show Peter in a good light? Second, I never once said Peter deserved to be banned for good. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said there are "people looking to ban him indefinitely, and I am trying to persuade them to be nice and give him a shot." What is so wrong with me trying to be on PM's side here? You want to be the only one? Third, let me say it again, this has nothing to do with Carbonite. Do you get it? Did you read what the first thing I wrote here was? Did you read any of this? See ya, Zen. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Lord Voldemort, you seem to have accepted as a given that Peter should be "blocked indefinitely" and I think that is a completely inaccurate portrayal given the evidence presented. You say "there are people looking to ban him indefinitely" but where did anyone directly state that (innuendo doesn't count)? I am not "faulting" you for anything as I can give you the benefit of the doubt, I am merely only pointing out what you claim to be "help" has actually had the effect of an excessively negative and unfair portrayal. It is true that it was David Gerard not you that was the one who asked the leading question above: "By the way, has Mr McConaughey made any good edits at all, anywhere?" which should be obvious to see was meant prejudicially, perhaps inadvertently, as David's preceeding sentence contains the phrase "batshit crazy troll"... zen master T 19:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So apparently the answer is no, you haven't been reading what I've been writing? Let me say this one last time, as clear as possible... I was trying to help User:Peter McConaughey from being indefinitely banned, by showing that he has made useful edits, and is not just a "batshit crazy troll". There are people looking to ban him indefinitely (You asked for evidence, here's your diff), and I was trying to stop them by showing PM has been useful. And in fact, I wasn't even responding to David Gerard's question, I was responding to Bishonen's question and comment, "Where are they..? I'm sure there must be a few good edits in amongst the user's total edit count of 579, but I don't see any off hand." If you continue to assert that I am against Peter, which I never have been (show me the diffs for evidence of me being anything other than civil or helpful towards Peter), I will not discuss this matter with you further. Your continued lack of good faith on my part leads me to believe that you just want to argue, and don't care what has actually been written. Please, before you respond, make sure you read this entire comment. Thank you, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always given you the benefit of the doubt that you are not directly against Peter, but I separately can't ignore the overall excessively negative and unfair portrayal on this page. Your citation of David Gerard's suggestion of blocking Peter indefinitely is precisely my other point, where has David or anyone actually presented actual evidence and made a case against Peter (again innuendo doesn't count)? It seems you've been following all the various Peter sections on this page quite closely? The Carbonite "troll" comment is small potatoes and was reasonable given Carbonite's actions that were interpreted as being stifling and I've seen no evidence of Peter "wikistaling" him, if anything an opposite case could be made. The entire concept of "search for any good edits" by a negatively portrayed user further stacks the deck against them, perhaps you have inadvertantly fallen victim to that, though I can also give David Gerard the benefit of the doubt as cases and arguments made hastily can have, perhaps inadvertent, prejudicial results. zen master T 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen... buddy... if you have a problem with David Gerard, take it up with him. Quit debating with me. I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth (here, and now seemingly on Peter's page). Why do you keep bringing Carbonite up? I will not argue with someone if you won't even listen. I won't argue with someone who seemingly cannot see that I am trying to save PM, not ban him. This is silliness. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps what you claim is my "not listening" to you is instead us simply disagreeing over whether looking for "good" edits is actually "helpful" or not in this case? I maintain that seeking "good" edits has the perhaps inadvertent effect of unfairly reinforcing a negative portrayal and characterization. I bring Carbonite up because the supposed "personal attack" by Peter against him is the only actual "evidence" on this page, but as I explained above I think that was completely understandable given the situation. What else, if anything, makes you think the case against Peter is so strong that redeeming edits must be found to "save" him? I do take issue with David Gerard's apparently hastily made portrayal that also lacks evidence, but I can give him the benefit of the doubt and need not follow it up with him if he refrains from repeating the same, perhaps inadvertent, mistake. zen master T 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen carefully, I don't really give a crap about how Peter is being portrayed here. I don't give a crap the history between Carbonite and Peter. I don't give a crap if you can't or won't understand me. I DO give a crap about possible good users getting banned.

You ask, "What else, if anything, makes you think the case against Peter is so strong that redeeming edits must be found to "save" him?" My answer: Someone said they were close to banning him! Honestly, at this point, I don't give a crap what the case against him is. Someone was close to banning him, so I thought I'd help him not get banned. If someone says, "Hey, I'm going to ban this editor unless someone can show he or she is useful", I am going to see if I can show them as useful. I provided quality diffs that show PM as something other than a troll (Again, I don't give a crap if this label was justified, that is not what I am arguing here. If you want to have that conversation, we can do that later, for now, please focus on this.)

I don't know if you are arguing just to argue, but this time I really am done with you. You fail to assume good faith, you put words in my mouth, you don't seem to want people to try and help, this case is seemingly hopeless. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So you unquestioningly accepted David Gerard at his word that the case against Peter was so strong that redeeming edits must be found to save him, and, you dutifully took it upon yourself to spend a significant amount of time searching for only that without considering the possibility there is no case, and, you have repeatedly made a point of insisting: 1) you have nothing to do with Carbonite, 2) or David Gerard, 3) and you are not duplicitously against Peter? Ok, I can still give you the benefit of the doubt. Going forward, if you really want to "save" Peter, as you claim, then be aware that focusing on "redeeming" edits to "save" him can, perhaps inadvertently, reinforce an unfairly negative portrayal, which is exactly what almost happened in this case in my interpretation. The case against Peter is actually slim to none, no where near having to search for redeeming edits to "save" him. zen master T 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So the apparent, perhaps inadvertent, effort to portray Peter as needing to be "saved" and the effort by other editors to "save" him has fizzled out as quickly as it started? zen master T 16:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I am just done with you. He's still being watched closely. Don't worry. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You claim above you are trying to "save" Peter, why would he need watching? zen master T 02:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... that is some delicious looking bait you got there. Look, I'm not convinvced either way, so better to be safe than sorry. Possible trolls get watched. Simple as that. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It would additionally be inaccurate to portray Peter as a "possible troll", please discontinue your efforts to "save" him, they are way beyond counter productive. Those who would errantly and duplicitously portray people as "disruptive" or "trolls" get watched likewise. zen master T 15:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion after a few repeated instances of nonsense from this user on the World Islamic Front discussion page. The nonsense is accompanied with a supposedly authoritative chart that he only later in the discussion admitted was of his own creation. I haven't looked at his other edits but my sense on this page is that he is, as another editor noted above, needling people to try to pick fights over non-issues. It reminded me of another user, who coincidentally stopped editing a couple weeks before Peter M started editing. It looks like at least two of Peter M's obsessions are the same as Zephram's were -- terrorism and the Declaration of Independence. When I voiced my suspicions, his response was telling -- very much in the style of Zephram's writing. I may just be paranoid, and I don't want to make accusations, but I wanted to at least voice my suspicions honestly here where someone could look up IP addresses if necessary.-csloat 22:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter's image actually clears up confusion in my interpretation. Please cite individual examples of Peter's supposed "nonsense"? zen master T 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I did - it's all over Talk:World Islamic Front and of course that article's edit history. This all started when he insisted on the existence of an "International Front for Jihad against Zionists and Crusaders" that is different from the "World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," or "World Islamic Front," i.e. al-Qaeda. Peter, or Zeph, argues that there is a larger group with the former title that is different from the group with the latter title (somehow the Arabic words for the two different fronts are exactly the same, but he assures us that they should be translated differently in context). He then created a chart - gif linked above - to justify this bizarre interpretation, making the further bizarre and nonsensical claim that there are Jews and Christians who are part of the "International Front...." He continues to play bizarre semantic games like this. Other recent irrelevant comments about my sex life and further comments in his edit summary seeming to call out Jews and Muslims in an inflammatory manner provide more evidence to me confirming my suspicion that he may be User:Zephram Stark.--csloat 00:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I briefly looked at the history of that article earlier and saw nothing but a vigorous content disagreement, not "nonsense". I believe you misinterpret Peter, I read this checkin comment as advocacy for harmony between muslims and jews. zen master T 00:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, it's a call for harmony, yes, but the question is who are the Muslims and Jews? I believe he refers to myself and Random Element, neither of whom identified ourselves in terms of religious affiliation in this discussion. I believe he refers to a previous discussion between myself and Mr. Stark and I believe the only reason to call attention to our religious affiliation is to be incendiary. I think it's interesting that you ignore most of my specific examples above and simply focus on this one -- his link to the graphic and his arguments on that page are literally nonsensical. They do not make sense. I've explained this above. Finally, his comments about my sex life, on an issue totally unrelated, is reminiscent of Mr. Stark. Ah well, I guess if there were no Zephram Stark, someone had to (re)invent him....--csloat 01:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Peter is referring to Muslims and Jews getting along generally? I interpreted his "sex life" comment to be hyperbole, as in "why do you keep insinuating Peter is someone else, you must care a great deal and/or miss who ever 'Zeph' is"? Peter's chart conveys the fact, that many people in the West are perhaps unaware of, that many Jews and Christians are actually against Zionism for various reasons, he estimates 35-40% of Jews for example. I do think Peter's chart is a tad misleading in that anyone not against Zionism isn't necessarily for it. zen master T 02:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your generous readings of his posts, but you misunderstand my comments. His "Jews and Muslims" comment clearly referred to the "edit war" he was directly commenting on in that edit summary; not some abstract sentiment about Middle East peace prospects. My point is not that I am offended by these comments; I'm not; my point is that they are distressingly similar to the kinds of comments made by a known sock puppeteer who stopped posting right before Peter McC started editing wikipedia, coincidentally the same articles, picking fights with the same people that Zephram was in fights with. I'm commenting on a very similar writing style. I think it is very appropriate for such a user to be watched carefully.

As for Peter's chart, "a tad misleading" is a ludicrous understatement. The chart was first presented as some kind of authoritative map of an organized "Front" that he claimed actually existed. He later admitted he made up the chart but he continued to defend the nonsensical claim that such a Front existed. The chart does not convey the fact that some Jews and Christians oppose zionism; it conveys the false claim that there is a significant number of Jews and Christians who have declared "jihad" against it. That claim is utter nonsense.--csloat 03:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter's point is simple really, many have proposed and perpetuated an "us" vs "them" mentality, and using that "logic", anyone that is against Zionism, to any degree, can be labeled a "jihadist", even 35-40% of Jews and Christians. Peter's chart exists to show the illogic of binary thinking. zen master T 05:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense... if you're drunk. Seriously, that has nothing to do with anything he said or anything he was arguing against. I'm sure he can explain this better himself, but your claim about us v. them, which I agree with, has nothing to do with the discussion on that page. Peter was claiming that there was an actual group identifying itself as the IFJAZC (he actually called it that at one point) that encompassed non-Zionist Jews and Christians -- a claim that is demonstrably false. You are doing mental gymnastics to defend his position as a "simple point" about either/or thinking. It's a sporting gesture on your part, but the facts do not support your interpretation. --csloat 11:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why did Peter include George Bush's statement that frames the world in "no neutral ground" and "good vs evil" terms if he wasn't trying to make a point about the problem known as tunnel vision or binary thinking? This binary thinking, that Bush perpetuated, had allowed the real powers that be to hide the existence of attrocities and war crimes from us the people, but not any longer. zen master T 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

WTF? Why are you trying to bait me? I agree with you about Bush, about binary thinking, and about war crimes, but that has nothing to do with this dispute! The problem is not that Peter is against binary thought but that he is making shit up. Which would not be so bad if he wasn't insisting it be on wikipedia! Do you really think wikipedia should start listing organizations that don't exist as legitimate organizations in order to score points against binary thinking?? Why are you doing back flips trying to defend this behavior?--csloat 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter is "making shit up" as you say to show the eventual result of binary thinking. I believe Peter created the image to show that the World Islamic Front and al-Qaeda are not the same thing. What specifically is he insisting must be in the wikipedia article that you believe is made up? I don't think Peter is saying an "organization" exists but it is a de facto coalition of anyone that is to even the slightest degree against "Zionists and Crusaders". It might be easier if you simply asked Peter for clarification. zen master T 06:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What part of "making shit up" was unclear to you? Can you point us to the part of Wikipedia verifiability policy where "making shit up" is approved of or tolerated?

You're being disruptive again -- and it appears to be for no larger reason than that you can. Stop it. --Calton | Talk 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I admit to being a bit confused by csloat and Peter's discussions here but how is that a "disruption"...? zen master T 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL.... I did ask him for clarification, as you can see from the talk page on that article, and that is when he admitted he just made up the chart, and he continued to defend the existence of the organization until it was clear that he was full of shit about that too; then he invented a sock puppet -- a "terrorism expert" no less, but one who seems totally unfamiliar with standard literature in the field -- to try to push absurd arguments. I have no doubt any more that both these accounts belong to the same person who invented "Zephram Stark" for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia.--csloat 07:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I (obviously) don't know all the details of Peter's position, I just passed along my initial interpretations, I am sorry you have not found them to be helpful. zen master T 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Mandy Moore uber-vandals

65.241.54.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 206.170.106.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 66.77.127.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have vandalized the Mandy Moore page almost everyday. I have been one of the few users who updates the article, and for that the page has been blanked and i have been labled a perdophile. I believe all these users are the same person. I ask you all to atleast ban one of these users. They have clearly abused the site. Parys

One has been warned only once, and the other has not been warned at all. Please apply the templates {{test1}} through {{test4}}, one at a time, for each incident of vandalism, before requesting a block. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked them all. Multi-day vandals can safely be blocked without touching ninteenth base. Phil Sandifer 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That makes the {{test}} templates pretty pointless, if people will get blocked without their use. People need to understand that vandals should be warned first, and blocked only when absolutely necessary. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I block people all the time without using the test templates. Know why? Because I write my own warnings. I came across an IP's talkpage last night that had nothing but two identical warnings, side-by-side: one from early January, one from late December. And that's just ridiculous. Let's not swoon too much over those silly templates, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that when we see someone who vandalizes the same page every day for several days, it is a safe bet that they have figured out what they are doing. Phil Sandifer 02:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. When I come across a vandal who obviously knows what they're doing (and I try to set the bar for "obviously" high), the standard for "patiently warn" drops accordingly. Sometimes it drops as low as "oi, pull your head in or you get blocked". As, I hope, it should. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Phil. Parys is an editor in good faith whose time here has been made very unenjoyable by a repeat vandal. He was desperate for help and got it. I think that's a good outcome. James James 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for aiding me. I work so hard on the Mandy Moore article. I added a article for almost every single, and every album. And these "fans" come here and disrupt. With fans like those, who need enemies. Thank you all again Parys

So basically, we block without warning at all now, if they've done it more than once without ever being warned. Got it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan; if their vandalism is such a frequent problem (and this was all fairly slow blanking vandalism, that I could see, nothing egregious), then it should take next to no time to give them a few escalating warnings and then block. Obviously a number of these accounts were the same guy (close IP numbers make it clear) so warning each and every one of them wouldn't make sense, but promoting an attitude that says we block multi-day vandals without warning now is a very bad idea. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No-one has said that. I assume, because I respect you too much to think you might be making a stupid sarcastic comment in defiance of the facts, that you've just misread what I and (especially) Phil have written; if so, please re-read it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I understood what you said, fuddlemark, and agreed — especially with the notion that the test templates aren't the important thing; the warnings are. (Though I'll note that the test templates do a good job of giving non-hostile, calm-sounding warnings, something some people might have trouble composing on the spot.) I guess I agree with Phil that we don't need to get to "nineteenth base", either — fourth would seem sufficient. Phil seemed to be calling the runner out somewhere between home and second, though, which I didn't agree with in this case, and he seemed to be advocating that we should all do so: a bad idea. Apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted anything. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm in awe that we have four whole test templates that must be applied in sequence. We block when someone is obviously doing it deliberately, because we don't want to block over random experimental vandalism. When someone comes back EVERY DAY to vandalize an article, it's pretty obvious it's not a test. Phil Sandifer 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OMIGOD! AN EDITOR WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT COMMON SENSE IS! RUN! HIDE! Kelly Martin (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There's obviously a tension between efficiently dealing with vandals and having standard operating procedures designed to avoid biting newbies if a judgement call proves faulty. Different editors are going to fall along different parts of the spectrum between the two views. Do we need the sarcasm? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Phil Sandifer 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner - Please see WP:CIV. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly never apply all four test templates in sequence. For obvious vandalism I apply, say, 2 and 4. Writing your own is good too. I think some people get hung up on the procedure—this applying all four in sequence is nonsense—but at the same time it's vital that people do remember to issue some kind of warning before blocking people. I think we're all in agreement on that. -- SCZenz 06:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The test templates are good in that they're well-written, and perfect for slowly introducing the clue-stick to an anon newbie vandal, who may get bitten if the cluestick is too-enthusiastically wielded. There's nothing wrong with what they actually say; the problem is when you get nine or ten (or even more than one!) identically-worded warnings on the one talkpage, any vandal with half a brain will start to wonder about just how serious we are ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't need nine or ten. You should need four. Then block him. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to use the test templates. They're just an easy way to warn people. Blocking someone without warning them in any capacity is not okay. I don't particularly care how you do it, but I suggested the test templates because they are the easiest way. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just re-read the thread, and I owe you an apology (and one for User:Bunchofgrapes, too, who thought I was sniping at him) for my needless sarcasm above. I had thought you were expanding Phil's "don't give too many warnings" to "don't give any warnings", without any justification. However, the thread began with someone getting blocked without warning, so I can see why you were harping on that. I'm sorry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think you were sniping at me; I just happen to agree with Ryan. (Except for the unneccessary sarcasm). I'm very glad some of the miscommunication got cleared up. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

206.170.104.27 (talk · contribs) has been making strange accusations and legal threats on my talk page, as well as the Once Moore article (which he/she blanked) and its talk page. I've left him/her a warning, but I thought I'd leave a comment here as well as I'm not sure if this kind of behaviour could lead to punitive action or not. Extraordinary Machine 23:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:66.225.247.182

User:66.225.247.182 was blocked on December 19 for vandalism. On December 26 they continued and vandalized 3 more pages. Tnikkel 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not an administrator, I'm pretty sure such reports go at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism, that being where I've always reported my vandals.Tommstein 07:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I blocked him for a week, since he continued to vandalized Wikipedia, with pretty much no edits except for vandalism -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody home?

Fellows (and female fellows), the above section requires the attention of some administrator, pretty much any administrator: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet needs attention. I was going to ask some random administrator directly, but this seems better.Tommstein 07:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Fellow" is a nonsexed term and can refer to either male or female persons. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd prefer "fellowette". Radiant_>|< 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going to say "I prefer <something else that sounds kinda like that...>"  :-) That said, I'm a bit confused regarding what the specific attention request is here... Tom<font color="#008000">er^talk 05:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

There was apparently some page move fun going on just a little bit ago at Bill O'Reilly (commentator), and the talk page has become seperated from the article. Can an admin please put them back together? Redirects are currently in use which are at least keeping people from talking in the wrong place, but it shouldn't be left like this. —Locke Cole 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Handled by RedWolf24. :P —Locke Cole 13:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes

It's Tony against AfD in single combat again. It's that time of the year.

Recently someone pained himself and nominated a stack of entries on Snoop Dogg mixes for deletion. The articles were nothing more than track listings. In the ensuing discussion quickly consensus emerged that mixtapes and bootlegs are a dime to the dozen and generally too ephemeral to warrant a place in an encyclopedia, except when the material released there had a bearing on the artist's career. Bob Dylan comes to mind.

Now the material is back, cut-and-pasted into one single article. It doesn't fit the letter of CSD-G4 as "a substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy", because the old stuff hasn't been deleted yet - the listing will continue a few days more, but it certainly fits the spirit.

Someone made the point than an encyclopedia article on Snoop Dogg mixes might be a good idea, but this copy-and-paste-job of track listings isn't it.

As a result of the failure of the quality control process in Wikipedia a prolific and competent editor has left the project. [34] Pilatus 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

THe articles are subject to a mass listing for deletion. As an alternative to deletion of material on this significant body of work by a major rap artist, I am producing an article into which the material can be merged. This is normal editing behavior and I take except to Pilatus' patently false characterization of my activities as "It's Tony against AfD in single combat again." This is nothing more than a personal attack. I also take exception to your false statement that "the material is back". The material has never been deleted, so it cannot be "back". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The material has been rejected as unsuitable altogether for Wikipedia. Merging unsuitable material into one entry doesn't make it more suitable and is disrespectful to all participants in the deletion discussion. Your sustained disregard for AfD (and by inference, for the people who participate in the discussions there) has been noticed and criticized many times before. Pilatus 20:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone needs to calm down. I would like to reiterate that Tony is right that works by major artists like Snoop Dogg merit inclusion, regardless of AFD's opinion on the matter. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -- we do not stick blindly to rules or the logic of process here. I think we should all take a few deep breaths and talk this out. Getting personal isn't going to help. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Ryan, the albums discussed in both AfD's are mixtapes, where other DJs re-issue the Dogg's material. The original nomination makes that very clear. Pilatus 20:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate compilation of information. And Wikipedia works by consensus. If consensus says that something is not encyclopedic, then Tony should learn to respect the fact that he isn't always correct. There have been occasions where there was a good argument that AFD had overlooked, but as Pilatus states this isn't one of them, and Wikilawyering doesn't cut it. Pilatus's first remark isn't particularly friendly, but Tony's response is also incivil. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  I would agree if I viewed AFD as in any way representative of consensus, or a means of determining consensus. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • If you mean to say that AFD is caustic, factionalizing, and generally contributing to bad atmosphere, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I've been meaning to do something about that, maybe now is the time. Radiant_>|< 00:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are often cases where material that doesn't justify several articles can be meaningfully compiled into one. The present article doesn't strike me as terribly interesting -- it might be more worthwhile if it were used as an example to discuss the phenomenon of DJs putting out mixtapes. Nonetheless, I don't think that compiling a bunch of non-notable stubs (each eligible for deletion) into a single possibly-notable article is any kind of abuse. It's part of the ordinary operation of Wikipedia. Just because the individual stubs are deletable doesn't mean that consolidating them into an article is some kind of evil nasty disruption. Better to have all this material in one place than in a dozen. --FOo 00:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me. Good work, Tony. Phil Sandifer 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Fluterst

This user seems to be coming perilously close to violating the WP:NLT rule. While, if I read him right, he isn't actually threatening himself to sue Wikipedia or anybody associated with it, he does seem to harp quite a bit on the alleged class-action suit that's being worked on against it, and insisting that we all have to clean up our acts or we're likely to lose everything we own. This hence appears to be an attempt to use the legal system to bully away the opposition to the changes he wants to make. (His conversations are extremely hard to follow due to the propensity on both his part and those he's talking with to leave their respective comments on the recipient's talk page instead of all in the same place as part of a conversation thread, meaning that anywhere you look you only see one side of a conversation like eavesdropping on somebody talking on the phone. *Dan T.* 19:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This user has now written nasty comments directed at me on both his own talk page and mine, and deleted comments I left on his talk page. He also has made false, defamatory comments about me in his edit comment when he deleted my comment from his talk page: [35] There, he claims that I sent him threatening e-mail, when in fact I've never e-mailed him and don't even know his real name or e-mail address. *Dan T.* 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Flarn2005

Curps blocked this user indefinitely for repeated vandalism, but I feel most of his vandalism was not malicious enough and although his useful edits are sparse, I think the user is showing enough interest in the project to be given another chance. Blocking him indefinitely based on only Curps' judgement seems rather rash.

However, I do agree with giving him a longer than regular block to get his attention. Would anyone oppose if I shortened it to say a week and give him a final chance to behave? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked, it was excessive. -- Curps 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Weird vandalism spate over the last few days

Looking through the vandalism in progress page, I notice there has been some rather odd vandalism over the last few days:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=32868173

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=32867168

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=32870231

I notice User:Mike Rosoft said: however, they appear to be a part of a vandalism spree by multiple sockpuppets and may need to be blocked.

All have been hit with the {{WoW}} template and are suspected Willy on Wheels socked. Can someone look into this? I'm suspecting another line of open proxy vandals.... but I could be wrong. --Sunfazer 20:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:OceanSplash

I've been asked [36] to block OceanSplash (talk · contribs) for posting that "Muslims are masters of tricks ... Once you ... become a Muslim and see how they lie with clear conscience you won't be surprised of anything." [37] He's been warned many times about making these kinds of anti-Muslim comments and has been blocked three times already for them. I'm minded to block him for 72 hours for this one, but because the comment partly involved me, I'd appreciate some feedback first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not the first personal attack OceanSplash has made, nor his first racist comment directed in an anti-Islam fashion, including my personal 'favourite' earlier this month Muslims lie. This is what Islam teaches them to do, and another imaginary deity of the self proclaimed prophet of Islam replacing Mohammad Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked OceanSplash for 24 hours a while ago. It started on Talk:Ali Sina leading me to post Talk:Ali_Sina#Stop. I also notified him on his userpage User_talk:OceanSplash#Block. He complained to Jimbo about me which didn't seem to go anywhere User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gross_and_flagrant_abuses_of_power. I almost blocked him again for the comment, however, I decided since it was on a userpage and not on article talk pages it wasn't as big of a deal. I think he could be blocked but when it's on article talk pages it's much worse in my opinion. gren グレン 21:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Compared with her/his former self-deleted user talk page, I see OceanSplash reducing her/his anti-religious personal attacks. I suggest to keep an eye on the next edits. If nothing changes, a longer block would be appropriate. Cheers -- Szvest 22:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Blocked for one week, these kinds of comments are unacceptable and after reviewing this user's contribs and talk page I think it's safe to say that he has a history of this type of behavior and that a one week block is warranted. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it, Jtk, and to everyone else for the input. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I on the other hand disagree altogether with this witch-hunting. OceanSplash has stated his candid opinion, which he should be able to freely present in the free market of ideas which are discussed in the in the talk page without at once being accused of racism or personal attacks.

Furthermore, that particular view is shared by many others throughout the world. Now if we cannot take a bit of adverse opinion to our way of seing the world I wonder then what we are doing participating in an user based online encyclopedia whose mission is to spread knowledge throughout the world.

Like Noam Chomsky tells us quote:

Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech. --CltFn 05:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You think Muslim editors should have to put up with comments from OS like "Muslims have evolved to have no conscience"? And if we try to stop him, it means we're like Goebbels? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Being in favour of free speech for those I dislike does not give me any moral obligation to hand them a megaphone when I see them on the street. Wikipedia is not their private vehicle for these things. Shimgray | talk | 11:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In the free market of ideas editors can take the opinions and ideas of other editors and discuss them and challenge them if they wish. That some editors cannot deal with the opinions of other editors is no reason that these other editor's opinion should be suppressed by wikipedia admins. Stifling free speech is not going to result in a good encyclopedia.

As far as Goebbel goes make up your own mind, Noam Chomsky is the source of that quote.--CltFn 07:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agreed with NAMBLA's right to keep up their website despite the fact that pragmatically it was likely harmful. Should they be given a free vehicle to support their endeavors? If any Muslim editor tried to convert me I'd warm him and if he persisted he'd end up on WP:AN/I. This project has a goal and when you alienate editors it isn't conducive towards that goal. Send some of OceanSplash's edits to an EB editor. See what he or she thinks. Show some of OceanSplash's edits to a manager of a company. Would he or she accept that behavior among employees? Yes we have more leeway for discussion but OceanSplash used more "dawa" than any Muslim I've seen here. gren グレン 13:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like the line of thinking of pre-21st century censorship which used some weird morality to prevent free speech. Isn't it time to let go of the hypocrisy of the insane past milleniums in regards to preventing the free expression of opinions because some dinosaur group somewhere would find that offensive. FREEDOM of SPEECH means 100 % free speech, no restrictions , no controls , no parameters of acceptability , 100% undiluted free speech. --CltFn 17:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Jonah Ayers

• Jonah_Ayers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jonah Ayers
• Wikipedia:Account suspensions/Sojambi Pinela (AKA Jonah Ayers)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive40#Biff Rose-related sock puppets

This long time problem user has recently been making attacks by posting private information of other editors, in addition to his usual mayhem of sock puppetry and edit-warring at Biff Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Though the information has been removed, admins SlimVirgin and Dan100 can confirm the attacks). This editor needs to be banned in all of his manifestations. I suppose that will require an ArbCom decision. I'll ask an ArbCom member to do a sockpuppet confirmation. -Willmcw 00:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems very self involved for willmcw to be able to brand all those identities as mine without any real proof. I deny that any of those are my sockpuppets, and will say that I believe somehow willmcw is somehow related to User:Sojombi Pinola who is directly related to the article of note here, on Biff Rose.

i think it is a shame that when an editor has a disagreement with another editor that he can besmirch the other person, this is an administrator of wiki who is basically behving like a fascist using implication to fashion a noose around my neck. I demand retraction. he says I've done so many things, I have not!!! This most recent one is the worst. about the phone number. never!!!Jonah Ayers 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User HSPMV has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:HSPMV has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 01:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, 5 years from now, Wikipedia will be nothing but bots at this rate...karmafist 02:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Antidote 3RR block violation

This user has knowingly evaded a block imposed for violation of the 3RR. He continued several edit wars, including the one that led to the block itself. See a related RfC, which indicates a history of disruptive behavior and lack of appreciation for due process. Although he is relatively new to Wikipedia, he should be no stranger to Wikiquette by now. Jbetak 02:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I was accidentely blocked for 48 hours instead of 24 hours. I emailed the admin about this because I could not find two instances of a 3RR violation. If there were two instances, than they went unreported and hence I could not have known. This left me to assume I was blocked twice for the same incident. Plus I had trouble logging in to the username and was surprised to learn I could edit under the IP, which at first I took as meaning the block was taken off. This can be confirmed by the edits under the IP; harmless misinterpretation Thanks. Antidote 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden

User:Marsden has been blocked, because Wikipedia does not need trolls with nothing better to do than accuse Jimbo of stacking the arbcom with Zionist Randroids. Phil Sandifer 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I can read nowhere in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy where you are allowed to block someone indefinitely on your own (even if you have a few administrators backing you up). I must ask you to either properly start a request for arbitration or undo the indefinite block. Otherwise I'm going to have to take up this issue. -- Dissident (Talk) 22:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm repeating my assertion that the indefinite blocking of Marsden (which goes way beyond a simple enforced cooling down period) was a violation of Wikipedia's blocking policy and should be undone. If anyone is convinced the punishment was appropriate, I'm sure there will be no problem of going through the official channels, in this case by starting an arbitration request, if not a lesser remedy. -- Dissident (Talk) 14:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia's banning policy, which states that the decision to ban a user may come from the Wikipedia community. Since none of the 700+ admins have unblocked Marsden, there is de facto community support for this ban. Carbonite | Talk 14:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Everyking wanted to unblock Marsden, but felt that he might be de-adminned if he did. 222.99.239.170 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You're argumentation makes no sense for several reasons (and I personally find it highly disturbing from a due process point of view). First of all, administrators are not equal to the Wikipedia community and are not to be considered to be more authorative when it comes to consensus forming. Apart from that, consensus is almost by definition not "de facto" and depends on a large participation at a reasonably visible place, which I don't think ever took place in this case. I doubt much more than, say, 5 procent of the administrators were even aware of this issue before just now and there is obviously a massive natural bias in favor of banning from those who were aware. All I see here is a bunch of administrators acting in collusion, and I'm exactly putting up this notice at the bottom in order to raise awareness among much more administrators. If the unblocking simply depends on a single administrator disagreeing, wouldn't you agree that that would be too much of an intimidating prospective for such an administrator? And aren't the policies not exactly meant to prevent such things from happening? -- Dissident (Talk) 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration will come out no different. Harassing users by threatening their employment is not acceptable. Perhaps that should be put into the banning policy. Fred Bauder 14:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As Fred surely knows very well, Marsden never threatened anyone's employment, and in fact assured SlimVirgin that he had no intention of ratting out Jayjg for editing Wikipedia from work; Marsden just wanted a simple statement from Jayjg either confirming or denying that his participation in Wikipedia fulfilled part or all of his employment obligations. 222.99.239.170 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you making assertions (which can be disputed) and then automatically become judge, jury and executioner of them? You can't simultaneously be confident of your side and then fear a subsequent official inquiry? I'm reasoning in circles here. All I'm asking is that you follow official procedures and give Marsden his day in court. -- Dissident (Talk) 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dissident - this sort of thing needs to be done properly. I'm not aware of blocking policy that permits banning people indefinitely for being "trolls". If Marsden has made (legal?) threats, that's a reason for blocking or banning - but that wasn't the reason given by Snowspinner, and a diff to show the relevant edit would be nice. The only thing I can find is this, which does not seem sufficient justification. Snowspinner also apparently failed to notify Marsden of the ban, never mind explain it. Rd232 ^talk 15:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If Marsden was banned an harrasment grounds, and thats considered clearly unacceptable by the wiki community, why don't you just unban-reban with the proper reason this time? That shuould handle most of the objections.--Tznkai 15:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just asking for evidence of behaviour justifying a ban, and noting that normally such justification should be placed on the user's talk page. There's mention here of "Threatening people's place of work", but I'd just like to see the evidence for it. Rd232 ^talk 18:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Threatening people's place of work gets an immediate ban unless and until we can be sure the person operating the account can damn well behave like a decent person and not a thug. (This, by the way, is one of the reasons CheckUser data is guarded with such paranoia — there are enough dicks on Wikipedia that there is real danger of such harassment.) This is unlikely to be negotiable, and in the case of an unblock a reblock is almost certain.

BTW, for anyone who cares: Dissident does not appear to be Marsden, so their concerns are independent - David Gerard 17:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, David Gerard, I am Marsden. And this is the second time you have slandered me. Have you no shame, David Gerard, no shame whatsoever? You are a disgrace to Wikipedia, David Gerard, and you are in a position for which your character, or lack thereof, makes you unsuitable. I still remember your unjustified block of Dervish Tsaddik, and your disgraceful refusal to consider that you had made a mistake. 222.99.239.170 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave, he didn't threaten anyone's place of work. He asked whether Jay was being paid to edit Wikipedia. You must know that that rumour -- which Jay has denied and I take to be entirely false -- has been circulated. Marsden didn't to my knowledge threaten to tell Jay's bosses that he spends time working here. Nor was that what Snowspinner banned him for. It looks to me as though a group of admins has arranged to have a dissident editor banned and now they're making up whatever bullshit reason they can come up with to justify it. -- Grace Note.

I consider your identity checking unwarranted and thus a personal attack against me. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how its personal, or an attack, and you were just cleared of any suspicion seperate from yorur conduct.--Tznkai 17:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't a personal attack but it was, in my opinion, unwarranted. No one accused Dissident of being Marsden. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It was my first thought - David Gerard 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So much for the checks we were assured you'd have on your use of it. -- Grace Note.

If this is true and instead of a crude human analysis by glancing at edits, an outright IP test has been done here without due case, then shame on you, David Gerard, for violating my privacy in this blatant disregard of assume good faith! -- Dissident (Talk) 00:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why do you expect information that you put out for public consumption — a connection on the internet — to be private? Nandesuka 00:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Then explain to me why IP checks are usually reserved for persistent vandals. Must I be a persistent vandal for bringing this up? Am I disruptive for pursuing this matter here? Do you people want me to shut up about it lest I be penalized? These things say a lot about the kind of atmosphere in which the editing take place. If I know I can arbitrarily become a victim of sysop abuse in case I (accidentally) end up at the bad side of a bunch (which is what I believe might well have happened to Marsden here), then at the long term it's going to affect the quality of Wikipedia. With a reasonably well-defined dispute resolution process, I would at least see these things coming in advance and have a slightly better chance at a fairer and a more transparent treatment. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you have a poor grasp of what does or doesn't constitute a personal attack. WP:NPA - David Gerard 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I consider it, if not a personal attack, at least an indirect attempt at a poisoning the well attack on the basis that instead of addressing my arguments you think me as a person is somehow relevant here. If you think my behavior is out-of-line, then you should speak out about that instead of immediately searching for evidence that no one but the subject himself could possibly say what I've said here. Back on-topic, if Marsden has made unambiguous threats which are not based on contrived interpretations of his statements, I would like to see them, and, again, that might as well then be on an arbitration page. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, assume good faith is also highly regarded here. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to those who have had the finger pointed at them. -- Grace Note.

Alright, fine, I would have liked to know, in the spirit of due proccess having everything open, to be assured that you were not A known troublemaker's sock, and/or meatpuppet. ITs not personal, its not an attack, its doing your homework--Tznkai 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

And I am of the (probably naive) opinion that since I don't believe I have done anything that should have triggered such an off-topic meta-issue, it shouldn't have been brought up. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Its the first question that old jaded wikians ask when someone has been banned and someone is trying to do something about it, right or wrong.--Tznkai 21:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dissident, you wrote that you want Marsden to have his day in court. But that's exactly what he wants, and it's why he wrote to you (I assume he did write to you, along with all the others he has tried to stir up). He wants an arbcom case that he can turn into a circus and use as a platform to repeat all his personal attacks. He was here to cause trouble, not write an encyclopedia, and he wants to come back to cause trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What Slim writes is true, if you understand "cause trouble" to mean, "prevent SlimVirgin and some of her prefered co-editors from presenting their POVs as the NPOV." Anyway, as Thomas More is reputed to have said, "Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" originally posted by 222.99.239.170 (talk · contribs) on WP:AN/I at 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, out of curiosity, why does it matter what he wants?--Tznkai 20:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If what he wants is to make trouble, it matters a great deal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So don't let him. I don't see how putting it through Arbitration will allow him to make it a circus. Just sayin.--Tznkai 20:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You're the second to make a wrong assumption here (since I'm not an administrator here I would be an odd choice for him anyway). I'm doing this because I worry about due process and that one day I might find myself in a similar Kafkaesque situation. Lots of other people, including highly destructive editors were handled adequately by the ArbCom, so I fail to see how in this case it would "obviously" be inadequate. The way I see it, the administrators are supposed to be the police and the ArbCom the court. What you are calling a circus, might perhaps been judged differently as a valid argument and frankly, whether it could be or not is not for you to decide. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

He hasn't only contacted admins. He's been in touch with anyone he thinks might start up a bit of trouble on his behalf. As for the situation being "Kafkaesque," Joseph K didn't know what he had done wrong. Marsden does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I learned that trick when Jayjg recruited you to revert me on Occupied territories when he'd hit 3RR. And I know I've done nothing wrong, Slim, save piss off some people in positions of authority for which they are unfit. 222.99.239.170 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you and/or other administrators just stopped at giving him a few cooling-off periods on your own that would have been ok. But the moment it was decided to ban him indefinitely (especially since what the ArbCom hands out is usually in the order of a few months at most) the line was crossed and instead an arbitration case should have been started. The fact that you also protected his talk page twice after he was banned doesn't make any sense and makes it seem that discussion of his case by third parties is being stifled. Seriously, can you blame outsiders for finding the whole sneakiness about this entire affair troubling? -- Dissident (Talk) 21:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, wishing to have a process is "stirring up trouble" but just blocking whoever you don't like indefinitely is helping out. Well, it certainly gets the message across to those who disagree with Jay that they must treat him with more care than he has to treat them. I have no doubt Marsden has transgressed and could have done with a month off to think about whether he really wants to contribute to WP, but you're very right, Dissident, this has been handled very shoddily by the party of admins who opposed Marsden and their friends. I'm not Marsden, by the way. Save yourself the work with CheckUser, Dave, if you're checking anyone who thinks that Marsden has been poorly treated. -- Grace Note.

Honestly (and again, I AM Marsden), I am not interested in being unblocked. Wikipedia is a lost cause. Take a look at what three of the other idiots on ArbCom consider to be acceptable behavior (at least, when it's from one of their favorites) if you want another example (warning: it's painful even to read such utterly dishonest nonsense). What's needed is a bulldozer, not just a sledgehammer. And, obviously, if I ever really want to edit something here, I can. 222.99.239.170 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you'll make a marvellous open proxy canary. Do please continue - David Gerard 15:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm likely to be in London sometime next spring, David. Perhaps we should discuss the venomous lies you've been spreading about me in person, with no proxies whatever. Marsden

I have changed the block to one month, backdated to when Snowspinner made the block (16 December). I do not think an indefinite block was appropriate, and I'm not sure some of the previous blocks were entirely necessary either (perhaps I'm missing key contributions of Marsden's). If Marsden chooses to come back to the Wikipedia community, I hope he tries harder to play by its written and unwritten rules. Rd232 ^talk 10:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden has been at this for many months; one month will hardly be a hiccup. I see no evidence whatsoever he's here to write an encyclopedia. He does, however, spend a lot of time emailing admins and now non-admins, looking for the ones he can play like a xylophone - David Gerard 15:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, I think an indefinite block requires somewhat more process. At the least the blocking admin should marshal some convincing evidence in a relevant and accessible place. This has not been done AFAIK, and I've asked several times and looked through Marsden's recent contributions myself. In any case, two admins have now restored the indefinite block without further discussion. block log I find this somewhat disturbing, especially as I was under the impression that indefinite bans were frowned upon, and that blocks should be imposed in a rising pattern except where there is extreme justification (evidence of which has not been forthcoming). Marsden's longest block prior to this indefinite one was 1 week - I would have thought 1 month or 3 months would be appropriate as the next step, if further action is indeed justified. Rd232 ^talk 22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden made over 500 contributions in 2 months before being blocked for the first time (24 hours) on 10 November (and after several more blocks, indef blocked on 16 December); that doesn't sound like "has been at this for many months" to me (maybe everybody was being very patient with him before November, but anyway...). Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. People were extremely patient with him. He is one of the most vicious editors I've encountered. He has made only 300 or so edits to the main namespace and most of those were probably reverts. His main contribution has been to insult people on talk pages, and stir up trouble behind the scenes by e-mailing trolls and asking them to intervene on this behalf or revert for him. If he has emailed you to ask you to help him, it is not a compliment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If Marsden did email me it must have got buried under a mountain of spam... :-O Rd232 ^talk 19:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous. If you think Marsden should be permanently banned and his previous actions on Wikipedia more than justify this, then I'm sure it won't be any difficulty at all for you to put together some evidence for the Arbitration Committee to consider. I'm willing to accept on faith that he's made personal attacks, but I'm not willing to accept on faith that he has done anything worthy of a lifelong ban from Wikipedia. That's something I want to see proof for. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Then with respect, look through his contribs, Talrias, and educate yourself, rather than expecting other admins to do it for you. The user has a long history of making serious personal attacks against several editors, admins, and members of the arbcom, including Fred Bauder and Jimbo, to the point where several good editors have stayed away from certain articles because of him; at least two have considered leaving if he continues to hang around; and I believe one did leave, or at least drastically cut back on editing. It can't be tolerated any longer, particularly as he makes almost no contribution to the encyclopedia. This is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a children's toxic playground. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

With due respect, currently M is banned for one month. Surely that is enough time to draw up the evidence of M's errant behaviour to convince any outsiders on the correctness of the indef block. Surely it is not hard to collate this evidence? (not Marsden ->) 210.177.242.221 02:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

With due respect, it's not worth anyone's time to do so; we've got an encyclopedia to write here. Wikipedia is not therapy, and it's not an experiment in democracy either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In light of the fact that (a) Marsden has said he's not interested in being unblocked (b) thinks WP is a lost cause (c) has made personal attacks against probably at least half of ArbCom (giving him cause to demand that arbitrators recuse themselves, and for other known trolls to jump on his bandwagon with the same demand...) (d) is clearly a troll (as an open-minded review of his edits to ArbCom candidates' Q&A pages demonstrates...e.g., this) and (e) has used this page as a platform to further his pattern of personally attacking other members of the community, specifically admins (who have the ability to try to put a stop to his disruptions), I see no reason to think that (a) his block should be removed or even reduced to 1 month from the original indefinite block or that (b) if it is, anything will change in his perspective, and consequently, in his editing or harassment style. In most cases, I would say that taking a case to ArbCom would be preferable to handing out an indefinite block, but I'm compelled to agree that the silence of most of the community on this issue isn't ignorance on their part, but rather quiet agreement with it (and since they're interested in editing an encyclopedia more than they are in seeing disruptive and destructive editors stick around), are happy to see that he's at least blocked for a month, and will unlikely be around long once that block expires, since there's little evidence that he's interested in changing his ways, or ever will be. The only thing taking Marsden to ArbCom will accomplish is to unnecessarily drag this out, something even Marsden has indicated he has no interest in. ArbCom, frankly, has more pressing issues to deal with—trying to resolve disputes, not providing counseling services for editors who clearly hold them, the rest of the community and indeed the entire dispute resolution process, in utter disdain. Tomer^talk 05:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

One might similarly ask, "Why hold a trial for a murderer? It won't bring the victim back to life." In spite of SlimVirgin's and David Gerard's paranoid assumptions that I must be emailing people to support me, in fact I only entered an email address on my WP account in order to question one SlimVirgin on her block of me (as to whether that counts as "e-mailing trolls and asking them to intervene on his behalf," I will not comment). I subsequently used that email address (which for some reason my regular computer does not like to open, and I do not use any other email account to communicate with anyone I've encountered on Wikipedia) to email a couple people who I thought would be interested in my RFAr against SlimVirgin; Poetlister is the only one I am sure I emailed. I have also gotten perhaps six emails from other Wikipedians through that account, although I only look at it once a week at most. A less paranoid (as long as we're throwing around references to providing therapy, I hope no one will object to me using that term) explanation for people's interest in my extra-judicial banning might be gained by assuming good faith, and considering that maybe some Wikipedians (just as they say) are concerned about due process of law, and about whether Wikipedia has a fair and effective dispute resolution process. I have already decided for myself the answer to that question ("NO!"), but I don't think that any honest person of goodwill should want to discourage anyone from considering such a matter in an enterprise in which he participates: a conscientious person should not aspire to be employee of the month in the Zyklon B factory, for example.

I assert that Wikipedia has become a very dysfunctional project in many respects. I could argue this as well, except that certain people are intent on making sure that my version of the history of my participation in Wikipedia never sees the light of day -- SlimVirgin has made a pastime of controlling my talk and user pages, for example, including deleting a list I had prepared of editors whom she seems to have driven away from Wikipedia. (In recruiting supporters via email and in driving people away from Wikipedia, both of which I am accused of, I am pretty certain that my attackers -- I think I use that term fairly at this point -- are more at fault by far than I am.)

It has become a common refrain among my attackers -- again, I think I use that term fairly -- that "we are here to write an encyclopedia!" And the implication in this is that their actions -- including obstructing me -- are consistent with this end. I don't think this is the case, particularly with their reliance on extra-judicial means: as Dissident noted above, "can you blame outsiders for finding the whole sneakiness about this entire affair troubling?" Even I, having decided that Wikipedia is a lost cause, sometimes wonder if Wikipedia's dysfunction is worse even than I imagine: it strains credulity for me to imagine anything that would lead to the level of secrecy and opacicity that is insisted upon with regard to me.

(BTW, how many of you feel comfortable knowing that David Gerard is "safeguarding" the "sensitive" information collected through CheckUser?)

Marsden

Marsden, there are two problems I see here. First off, the comparison you start out with is a false analogy, meant to appeal to emotion. Second, your reaction here, as well as elsewhere (which is what led to the block to begin with), has been confrontational and incivil, often taking the form of disruption if not outright personal attacks. That Dissident is arguing against the length of the block is very different from arguing that any block was unwarranted. Tomer^talk 19:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, as a first comment to you, let me say that it is really annoying to have people like you (and FeloniousMonk, and Snowspinner) show up out of nowhere to make blocks or snide comments about me, actions that indicate they have pretty well-developed opinions of me in spite of the fact that I don't know them from Adam. As a matter for your life, Tomer, and not just for your participation in Wikipedia, let me suggest that it is very rarely the case that one side of a dispute is all you need to hear in order to make a fair decision about it. I have no idea, Tomer, why you ever took an interest in anything I have done on Wikipedia. The first I ever heard of you was at FM's talk page, where you made the absurd comment to Huldra that "I have to assume you're unfamiliar with Marsden's activities." Actually, Tomer, Huldra has been aware (usually disapprovingly, by the way) of my disputes with Jayjg and SlimVirgin almost from the time they began; it is really you, Tomer, who is far more likely to be unfamiliar with my activities. My reaction to your "me too-ism" in attacking me from out of nowhere is that you are probably a coward: had you any courage in your convictions, you would have wanted to hear at least part of my side of the story before insulting me -- not out of respect for me, by the way, but out of respect for yourself. Now, you can roll yourself into a defensive ball, hurt that the mean man on the internet disputed your grandmother's assessment about what a wonderful young man you are, but seriously: you come across as a flake when you snipe from afar. Your comment to me just now was the first thing I've ever seen from you that garners any respect from me.

As to your immediate comment, I think you miss the point: what any Wikipedian should be concerned about is not, "Are the contributions of one particular editor out of thousands going to be missed?" but rather, "Is the manner by which one particular editor was driven out of Wikipedia something that should be repeated?" As Wittgenstein wrote, "And when I put the ruler up against the table, am I always measuring the table; am I not sometimes checking the ruler?" (And, if the ruler resists your checking of it, should you trust whatever measurements it produces?)

Marsden

You don't pay attention very well if the first place you saw me was on FM's talk page...[38] Tomer^talk 02:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's quite understandable that I wouldn't have recalled such a comment. The rest of my remarks stand. Marsden

The rest of your remarks, unfortunately, were primarily thinly veiled, if not overt, personal attacks. Can you not find a more constructive mode of interaction, and indeed a better way to spend your editing time, on WP? Tomer^talk 19:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I now already have two administrators agreeing with me that the indefinite block was excessive without an ArbCom decision and who tried to undo it, only to have others reinstate it. If this isn't controversial enough to trigger an Arbitration case, then nothing is. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would find this much less frustrating if it had been done when the block was made instead of over a week later. It is not as though the block wasn't on AN originally. An arbcom case would be a circus with a foregone conclusion - at least one arbitrator has privately thanked me for saving them the circus with the block. Wikipedia does not really care about process so much as product. If anyone sincerely believes that Marsden is not going to get himself banned from the site through one means or another, they should consider lifting the block. If their only concern is that process must be followed properly, they should not. Phil Sandifer 16:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any discussion on WP:AN/I of an indefinite block of Marsden (prior to the issue being opened a week afterwards); there's this a week before which didn't mention such drastic measures. Blocks (especially long ones, never mind permanent ones) are to be avoided without due process, of which I see no sign. The admin who originally made the indefinite block didn't even notify Marsden, something we do routinely in the case of temporary blocks for vandalism. There is an irreducible minimum of due process required to ensure that power is not exercised arbitrarily; this is as true of Wikipedia as of any other community. If Marsden is leaving anyway then perhaps we can leave it at that in this case, but we should at least draw some lessons from how this case was handled. Rd232 ^talk 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Rd, look at the start of this thread: December 15 (started on WP:AN). No one responded until December 22. Maybe it took Marsden a few days to e-mail you all and find a couple of people willing to act for him. Otherwise, it's hard to explain why you're complaining now but didn't complain at the time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoops - there's the notice I've been looking for. The notice doesn't, however, say that the block was indefinite - a rather unfortunate omission, don't you agree? Anyway, Marsden has never emailed me; my interest in the matter was triggered by Dissent's comment at the top of the thread. Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the block back to "indefinite". Some people seem to have trouble understanding here that "indefinite" is not the same as "infinite". Quit messing with the block period until something definite is agreed upon here. Wheelwars are pointless. Tomer^talk 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Something definite? How about a year (the maximum the ArbCom has imposed AFAIK) or 1 or 3 months or 6 months (the next steps up from the previous longest block of Marsden of 1 week). Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Great. Contrary to implications (and unwarranted personal attacks) by some parties, I don't care. My primary interest in this affair is to prevent a wheelwar. If you want to propose one of those as an alternative, go for it. My point is, don't say "I disagree with you, therefore I'm going to change your block." Discuss. Resolve. Implement. Don't jump the gun. Doing so only causes more unnecessary friction. I'm quite confident that this whole situation can be resolved without taking it to arbcom (which would be, as I said earlier, futile, since Marsden has set himself up as a vitriolic opponent to at least half of the ArbCom membership), or probably without requiring intervention by Jimbo (who is most likely to support the ArbCom membership rather than Marsden...especially if he digs deeply enough into Marsden's activities). So. Back to what I was saying. Instead of arguing about whether or not the block should be Snowspinner's version or your version, open discussion here in support of a proposal. Like I said, "indefinite" is not "infinite", it's "to be determined". So, let's start determining already. Tomer^talk 13:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I implemented a 1-month block, which another admin also did after this was reverted to indefinite. I've said why I thought something of that order was more appropriate. (I'm not actually convinced based on my own impressions that he deserves even that, but it is abundantly clear that those who've dealt more with him disagree, and I defer to their judgement.) In the (messy) circumstances I still think 1 month is sufficient - if he misbehaves on his return (if he returns) further action can be taken; the longest prior block was a week. More than 3 months without formal process or attempt to marshal evidence justifying such a length of ban, or one or several egregious contributions people can point to (eg threats) seems inappropriate. Rd232 ^talk 15:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Rd, what you did was undo Snowspinner's indefinite block, unjustified or otherwise, and then implemented a 1-month block, a week after Snowspinner's original block, without anything remotely approaching adequate discussion of your action, nor even a cogent challenge of his original block, unjustified or otherwise, and certainly w/o obtaining input from others in support of or challenging your oppostion to Snowspinner's block. I don't want to get into a pissing match about the whole thing, but what you did was to change another admin's implementation w/o discussion. This kind of activity is what spawns wheelwars. Tomer^talk 16:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

To be precise, I implemented a month block, which technically superceded the existing indefinite block. I did so after enough discussion to confirm my initial reaction that an indefinite block without process is prima facie injustified except in clearcut cases (eg threats). Some of this discussion was on AN, some by user talk pages. Rd232 ^talk 00:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You're mistaken about at least one thing, Tomer: I wouldn't want anyone on ArbCom to recuse himself in an arbitration over my banning. Having no expectation of anything even vaguely resembling a fair hearing, why would I object to anyone participating in it? Again, what any Wikipedian ought to be interested in is, does the dispute resolution process work? With the thorough lack of transparency and accountability of Wikipedia's "dispute resolution" process at so many levels, on what basis can anyone be confident that a Stalinist clique doesn't in fact run the whole damn thing, injecting its biases into articles with impunity? If you can control information, you can control the world. And, also again, I doubt very much that you have dug very deeply into my activities; probably just enough that you can make an argument for what you want to believe anyway, as long as you ignore half of what you find. Marsden

This discussion reminds me of something...what is it again?

smart admins will by now have noted that it is much less bother to block trolls for one month only right away; you'll avoid the sort of discussion just experienced (time wasted: hours), and if they resume trolling after a month, you'll just block them for another month (time wasted: one minute). Can we conserve this wisdom at WP:1MONTH or somewhere? dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A hearty yes please! to that. Rd232 ^talk 00:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not opposed to a 1 month block for Marsden's crap, at present. Further disruption should bring a 2 month block, IMHO. If he can't desist, then a 3 month, then 6 month, then 1 year, and then, an infinite block (as opposed to simply "indefinite" which is, according to my understanding a "to be determined" block). Tomer^talk 16:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That course of action sounds eminently sensible. (But AFAIK indefinite blocks are effectively permanent in practice, and was intended as such in this case.) Rd232 ^talk 00:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:CyberSkull/Template:Superherobox

Playing around with a live template/infobox (Template:Superherobox) and breaking it in the process. I've used up my three reverts begging him to test in userspace already. - SoM 03:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:CltFn and images

Looking at his upload log you will see many creations. You will also see that very few have sources. When I asked him to give sources he would say things "promo photo, fair use" without giving a source. He has also removed many no source tags on his images put up by other users. He has done this on many images I have added no source to and I have warned him. When I noticed it happened again I fianlly looked at his recent changes with images and deleted the ones he had recently removed things from. This is endemic and I see no sign of respect for copyright. On the Walid Shoebat images he told me it was from a TV network and he took the screenshot but he got it from copies he found online. He does have to cite where he got it since it wasn't a direct take form a TV. But, that's the least of the problems as I can see. I have warned him again and I wanted to run by the idea of a 24 block and progressively stepping it up if he continues to do this. He has been warned at least three times by me. Most most recent warning is User talk:CltFn#Images. Is this appropriate? gren グレン 04:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say so -- did you happen to see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.2Adrew? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:*drew

Since it seems that the investigation is going well, I'm going to unblock *drew. There should not have been a block/unblock war, but of course Jtkeifer's heart is in the right place here. There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square.--Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

23:24, 27 December 2005 Jimbo Wales blocked "User:*drew" with an expiry time of indefinite (blatant copyvios)

Both copyvios mentioned on User talk:*drew are almost a year old; none of his recent edits appear to be bad. Was this block appropriate? User:Vaoverland did similar copyvios a while ago (for instance this one, removed here by the owner of the site it was copied from), and is now an admin. When Jimbo was on IRC, I asked him if he could find any more recent copyvios, and he said that he would keep *drew blocked pending explanation. He doesn't seem to have been warned about what a copyvio is, and why it's bad to copy plot descriptions from IMDB. I'd explain it, but I'm bad at stuff like that, and if he's going to remain blocked it would be pointless. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If he demonstrates an understanding of copyright law and says he won't do it anymore, I'll unblock him. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Um...how's he going to demonstrate anything while he's blocked? Tomer^talk 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing his block (and several other editors have reviewed and can back me up on this) there is good reason to believe that this user made some honest mistakes but since then has tried to rectify those mistakes including even dealing with copyvios and so I have unblocked the user. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... no, let's not overrule Jimbo's blocks, actually. Phil Sandifer 06:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Backing Jtkiefer up here - I've gone through a couple of months of *Drew's contribs and I have not found any recent copyvios. He has uploaded many dvd covers and the like, with proper tagging. He has reverted other people's copyvios. I am convinced that he knows not to do it. FreplySpang (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's seem like irrationality wins again, and people wonder why all the good editors burn out and leave the project. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the reasonable course of action here is to ask Jimbo to review the block. Tomer^talk 07:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been done, and he's working on the review. Phil Sandifer 07:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo is one of the sources from which user bans may come. At [39], Jimbo banned *drew. Admins simply do not have the jurisdiction to overturn this. Phil Sandifer 06:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit. Admins have the jurisdiction to use common sense. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And common sense says "When Jimbo says "banned pending further investigation" and sets the criterion for further investigation as his own satisfaction, you wait instead of wheel warring with Jimbo. Phil Sandifer 06:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Gotta agree with you there. Reverting a block placed by Jimbo doesn't seem very likely to be a good move. --FOo 06:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to revert a block, but I don't think asking Jimbo to review one of his blocks is such a ridiculous idea. Anyone up for asking him to do so? Tomer^talk 07:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good spot to apply WP:IAR. It seems like he's learned from his mistakes, keep an eye on him for sure but it looks like the offending edits were from some time ago and Jimbo doesn't lack common sense. He'll chime in if he wants to. Rx StrangeLove 06:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo is aware of the age of the edits, and still specifically chose to leave the block in place while he investigated. Phil Sandifer 06:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes he did, but that's all he knew. After investigation we know that he probably didn't continue the violations. Jimbo admittedly didn't know if he was still doing copyvios, we know that he isn't. It's not unreasonable to use our judgement. Rx StrangeLove 06:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure Jimbo trusts our judgment to moderate blocks as appropriate. We collectively have far more time than he. If the community of administrators and other editors wishes to monitor this situation, then I think it's quite reasonable to remove the block. We're not defying Jimbo's authority; rather, we're using our good judgment to carry out actions which previously might have seemed ill-advised. Plagiarism needs to be dealt with strictly, but I don't believe this specific ban will be productive. We can be reasonable and still produce a great encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Jimbo also trusts us not to veto him. Phil Sandifer 06:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can think of several users who have continued to disrespct copyrights (both on images and text) and have been warned for months, should these people finally be blocked?--nixie 07:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Give me a list and examples and I'll do it myself if no one else will. --Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You probably should, since I remember Jimbo blocked a user in September over copyvio photos. Jimbo blocked this same user from de. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 07:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He is is the block I was mentioning: "19:53, 22 September 2005 Jimbo Wales blocked "User:MutterErde" with an expiry time of indefinite (banned already in de; persistent copyvios after repeated warnings)" [40] Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if Jimbo says he's banned, then that's that. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for the troubles I've caused to Wikipedia and fellow Wikipedians. I'll keep in mind of the copyright rule and work together to solve the issue. *drew 08:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyking parole violation

[41]

Thanks to whichever admin gives me 24 hours peace this time. Phil Sandifer 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. Looks like you two one-upped each other into a pissing match. That kind of thing doesn't leave either participant smelling of roses. --FOo 05:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, when he reliably wikistalks me onto any talk page in the Wikipedia namespace I post to, it's unsurprising that pissing matches will occur. The point of the ruling is that he wasn't supposed to start shit like this, and he's been consistantly trying to duck out of the ruling since it was made. Phil Sandifer 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe reread Sam Spade's comments there. I think he's got a few good points. --FOo 06:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 12 hours...I'll be back shortly with an explanation... Tomer^talk 06:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's my explanation to Everyking including my rationale for the block as well as the reason for its duration, and the contingency upon which the block is for only 12 hours instead of 24. [42] Tomer^talk 06:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate (or hope I do) the difficulties Everyking has caused you over time, but I'd like to respectfully suggest that you take a back seat to any discussions of him. Don't comment on his behaviour (except here, I guess, if he violates his parole), and don't try to push other admins (or, God forbid, the ArbCom) into making decisions regarding enforcement of his good conduct. Everyking is extraordinarily easy to bait — you know this, and indeed have exploited this fact in the past. I would like to see him agree to TenOfAllTrade's proposal (that he keep silent about you), but that will not work if you are involved, especially if your "involvement" consists of predictions as to the success or plausibility of various measures. It's equivalent to ordering someone to shut up, then asking them a direct question. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

All of my discussions with Everyking since the ruling have been initiated by him. I've tried on a couple occasions to completely ignore him - he begins pestering me to know why I haven't answered his questions/addressed his concerns. He does not want to be ignored by me. Phil Sandifer 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Phil, I have a suggestion for you. Just once, when you see Everyking post something somewhere, don't reply to him. Let's just try this as an experiment for a while, ok? Thanks. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[43] [44] is what happens. Phil Sandifer 15:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, ok, thanks. That tells me what I need to know. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh...from what I'm seeing at Special:Contributions/Everyking, either my blocking of Everyking didn't stick despite what it says here. Ideas? Recommendations? Tomer^talk 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it did to me - remember that blocking doesn't stop admin privaliges such as rollback WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 03:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...thanks. My dumb. Thanks to everyone on IRC who pointed out the obvious to me :-) Tomer^talk 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In light of the modification of the ArbCom decision regarding Everyking, I have decided against implementing the 2nd half of the block I promised him, which was set to start in about half an hour... details Tomer^talk 05:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian

I range blocked every IP he could possibly use, which is 212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255. We have no one else using any of those IPs. This is just for 48 hours. If it goes ok with no complaints, I'll make it longer. I know. It's drastic. But he just won't give up. We're up to 15-20 IPs he posted from. Just no other way. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the list of IPs G has used and it's not even inclusive. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I note this probably means blocking all of Gibraltar. Now the pages in question are semi-protected is this needed? Morwen - Talk 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If it does it is a little counterproductive. We do need the Gibraltar POV in articles.. Secretlondon 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A locked out Gibraltar user comments:

I have politely explained twice to Woohookitty that the addresses he has blocked are part of a dynamic IP pool allocated to users of Gibtelecom, the largest of two ISP's in Gibraltar. This has been posted to the discussion part of his homepage, he deleted it without comment. He has locked out 2000 Gibraltar users unjustly.

He does not want to listen, and when he says "We have no one else using any of those IPs." he is simply not telling the truth, I normally use part of that IP block and I am certainly NOT the user he objects to.

Woohookitty seems to have a campaign against Gibraltarians as a whole and is unworthy of the privilige of being an administrator - I request that this block is removed quickly and that his status is reviewed.

I have been updating the pages on Gibraltar for some time (see record) - nobody has complained about my actions, and I have tried to deal with the Spanish user who wants to rewrite things his way politely. Woohookitty ignores this.--Gibnews 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what solution do you propose to sort out the Gibraltarian problem? Have you also politely requested Gibraltarian to stop his disruptive behaviour (the real source of this problem)?

And BTW, I don't want to rewrite things my way, just introducing the Spanish POV, something that your compatriot Gibraltarian doesn't seem to even allow. Besides, your concept of being polite with "the Spanish user" is certainly rather strange: downright lies, lunatic [45], feel free to post as much false Spanish propaganda about Gibraltar as you like or I just rather hoped that there was an emerging intelligent generation in Spain who could treat Gibraltarians with respect and as friendly neigbours instead of wishing to engage in cultural genocide [46]. And last but not least, Woohookitty hasn't tried the IP range address (as the last resort) because "he has been upset by Gibraltarian calling him a fascist" (as you state in User talk:Gibnews#December_2005) or because "he have a campaign against Gibraltarians as a whole" but because Gibraltarian has proven that he's not able to work in a place like wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence) --Ecemaml 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm alarmed that no Gibraltarian is now alowed to edit the Gibraltar page- unless he lives outside Gibraltar! While I agree user Gibraltarian has been rash, he's trying to make sure that the Spanish POV isn't dominant on a foreign page. Bearing in mind the hostile attitude some Spaniards have of Gibraltarians, no bad thing. Blocking all Gibraltarians is an over-reaction. I suggest it is lifted immediately, and a fairer way found. As a newcomer to WIKI, far for me to suggest what that is, but I'm sure you have more options than barring an entire country from editing their own pages. Rockeagle 20:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No my friend, I'm afraid you're not totally right. Gibraltarian hasn't been rash, but definitely rude (you can see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence) if you want more info. And no, he isn't preventing the Spanish POV from "being dominant". He's simply attempting to remove it. And in wikipedia there is no "own" or "foreign" articles. There are just articles that, as wikipedia clearly states, everybody may edit. And this is not a forum like those of www.xsorbit3.com, where simply shouting louder or using the most crude insult makes someone "win". There are quite precise rules and guidelines (WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:CITE and WP:V) that Gibraltarian routinely violates on the grounds of the "hostile attitude some Spaniards have of Gibraltarians", which, according to you, it's "no bad thing". That's the real problem. --Ecemaml 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please Rant less, Quote more accurately, and remain on topic--Gibnews 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

being polite. --Ecemaml 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm no longer doing anything involving these articles. You guys can revert Gibraltarian's comments yourself. Have fun you all! I did nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing. Not a single admin reverted what I did. Not a one. I don't even speak Spanish. I've never been outside of Wisconsin much less been in Gibraltar. I have no Spanish or Gibraltarian in my blood whatsoever. I've never read either of the articles this is about. But yeah. I have a grudge against people from Gibraltar. yeah. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a hard work to be an administrator. Sure. --Ecemaml 09:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

yes its hard work, and with it must come responsibility. Blocking 95% of Gibraltar users from access is simply unjust. Bad behaviour by one does not justify it by another; Less is more, so all other comments as irrelevent.--Gibnews 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, fortunately Gibnews is here to tell us what is relevant and what is not. --Ecemaml 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo's editing then protecting

Carnildo (talk · contribs) edited WP:FUC [47][48] then protected it to try and win the edit war he was in [49], claiming "consensus". I'll head over to WP:RFPP now with this to get someone not involved with the debate to remove the protection. karmafist 09:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't OK to use protection to engage in an edit war. Carnildo should have asked for another person to review it. But you initiated the edit war by deleting a section of a Wikipedia guideline without even so much as an edit summary, and persisting in deleting that section even while the issue was being discussed on the talk page. That's also unacceptable behavior. See unclean hands. --FOo 10:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What would you have had him do? Unprotect it himself, furthering the offense? He was bold and removed a passage; as the talk page has demonstrated, this passage is highly disputed. He did the right thing by taking it up here and at WP:RFPP rather than further escalating the situation by unprotecting it himself. What's the problem here? —Locke Cole 10:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How about, not engage in an edit war? That's the underlying violation of good practice & respect for others here. --FOo 10:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It takes two to revert; and I think karmafist did the right thing in this case rather than escalating it further. Moreover, if you look at the history for WP:FUC, you'll see a few people have removed the disputed passage, not just karmafist. As it's disputed, the correct course of action should be to reach consensus (or show that there ever was consensus) for the passage before re-inserting it. —Locke Cole 11:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you that posting here was less bad than escalating to wheel-war. I also agree (as noted above) that an edit-warring admin is not permitted to protect a page they're edit-warring on. However, "less bad" is not "good".

My points remain: First, edit-warring isn't OK, no matter how many people do it. It is bad behavior for each person involved; "jointly and severally" as the lawyers would say. That includes you. Second, it is not OK to delete a Wikipedia guideline without discussion. Even before anyone was reverting, Karmafist's initial act of deleting without comment or discussion a guideline he didn't like, was itself a bad thing to do.

(By the way, WP:BOLD is about updating articles. It does not extend to deleting guidelines without discussion. Didn't this get hashed out when someone decided to "boldly" destroy VfD?) --FOo 22:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to show me the policy/guideline you seem to be quoting Foo, WP:EW has to do with articles, not project space, and I never mentioned WP:BOLD. Given the state of policy/guideline refinement nowadays on Wikipedia,if you can tell me the policy/guideline you're talking about, i'll just change a few parts around, click the edit buttons, and find some people who agree with me to claim a "consensus". Reform is absolutely needed, but until then, i'll do what I have to do with a smile. karmafist 10:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My problem with it is, I've asked twice on the talk page for a link to the discussion around this passage (and where consensus was formed to add it), and have both times not received a response. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The actual discussion has taken place in many locations, particularly on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use and User talk:Jimbo Wales. One discussion I was able to find was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use/Archive1#Fair use outside of article space --Carnildo 08:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Those are a good start; as it seems we're reaching a consensus on a partial rewrite of the passage on Wikipedia talk:Fair use, this is good to know. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 09:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there was no consensus to remove a long-standng part of the policy, I reverted to the status quo, then protected to stop further edit warring. --Carnildo 07:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be a question as to whether there was even a consensus to have that in the guideline to begin with. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus by default, if nothing else. It's been in there in one form or another ever since UninvitedCompany's re-write of August 31, and in the current emphatic form since September 24 --Carnildo 08:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As above, thanks for the links, and let's continue this at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. karmafist 10:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Faux AFDs

Could somebody just block Innaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now, please. It is adding faux AfD tags to pages. Tupsharru 10:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Now checking if he has any legit edits. Radiant_>|< 10:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This appears to be revenge for having the article Hans Ove Skau nominated for deletion (the user repeatedly removed the afd tag and was reverted). Morwen - Talk 10:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Interestingly (or, perhaps, not): User:Innaa nominated Beez von Beezen for deletion. User:Innaa was the original author of that page. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 11:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems Innaa returned via his IP 193.216.36.184 and started adding more AfD notices. After blocking him earlier today I got some extremely strange emails from him which seemed to have very little to do with the reasons for his block. He appears to be Norwegian which might explain his unfamiliarity with English. David | Talk 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Damn Sockpuppeteer

User:DickyRobert has finally gotten me to the point of wanting to drive to Toronto and physically hurt him. I've been dealing with this jackass for the better part of 3 months now. Is there nothing we can do other than rollback + block his army of socks? David or someone else with CheckUser... can you narrow this down more specifically? I know that most of the anon ips with similar edits all come from U of Toronto. One is a Toronto dial up account. Can we definatively link this user to U of T? If so I know a certain school network admin who's going to be getting a phone call.  ALKIVAR™ 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

LOOOOL, internet access providers hold no responsibility for what the user does on the internet, don't forget that. You can keep contact admins all you want, but they don't have to do shit for you. LickyVada 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually we've had some success with some internet service providers. Not all of them take a totally laid-back attitude toward their customers/clients/employees using their services to violate other services' AUPs.

Besides, we can block ISPs or networks who do not cooperate. Redwolf24 (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Fluterst

I have blocked indefinitely Fluterst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pending resolution of his legal dispute with Wikipedia. This will prevent any further damage to either Fluterst or Wikipedia. Please see his talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:Fluterst for confirmation. Fred Bauder 15:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User SqueakBox substitutes articles about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero with redirects

The user SqueakBox has substituted the articles Zapatero's years as an opposition leader, Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003, Zapatero and the 2004 General Election, Zapatero's foreign policy and Zapatero's domestic policy with redirects to the main article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero although those articles taken together contain far more information than that in the main article. He has not provided any explanation about his behavior.

The main article had to be protected last month by the administrator Katefan0 because SqueakBox started an edit war by introducing repeatedly spelling mistakes he recovered once they were removed by other users. The page was unprotected two weeks after being blocked. SqueakBox did not explain his behavior although he was invited to do so in that period.

His attacks against the articles about Zapatero and against the users editing them have spread for a long time since May this year. Zapatancas 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume he was acting under the general tendency to merge information from small offshoot articles into main articles. That said, the main article is already generating length warnings - probably what needs to happen is some careful editing. I'll take a look at the articles later today and see if I can't identify some sections that are either overly hagiographic or just kind of excessive. Phil Sandifer 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Nosharia Vs Wikipedia:Username and other possible infringements

This user has just started editing lately, see contributions. Between that time and now, the user has been warned a few times: by Sherurcij for possible ban evading, for personal attacks by Eliezer and finally by myself for the inappropriate username.

3 possible infringements need attention and an immediate action must be done, especially that the user denies all the charges and accuses me for being a Muslim suppressor. I am still standing on the same basis of my notice; that the username should be changed according to Wikipedia:Username. It is no coincidence for me to see that the user defends two banned users and edits the same articles they edited while having such a username. Cheers -- Szvest 17:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

An explanation, that Sharia is the basis of law in some Muslim circles, so I guess the username ranks somewhere between FuckThePolice and AnarchyDude or something...but combined with the fact he is clearly very anti-Muslim, inserting known falsehoods, greatly POV statements, insults and similar into articles, and acknowledging that he is the sockpuppet of the banned User:Absent on his talk page, I think it's a pretty clear-cut case. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have perm blocked this user since it is an obvious sockpuppet of User:OceanSplash who is currently blocked for personal attacks and blatant racism. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

128.42.7.170 Talk Page

My own talk page has been protected from editing by anonymous IP's. This is a ridiculous abuse of administrator power as the talk page *belongs* to an anonymous IP. The administrators responsible for the protection were engaging in hazing of me because I am a n00b. I have made mistakes and admit it, but I followed Wikipedia policy when archiving my talk page (as seen in the records), and I have a right both to comment on my own talk page, and to respond to comments placed there. This blatant violation of authority is unnacceptable.

I suggest that "n00bs" will be treated much better if they don't come into this site with a chip on their shoulder and a major attitude problem. *Dan T.* 17:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages and user pages attatched to IP addresses are not consider to "belong" to the IP in the same way as registered users are considered to "own" their talkpages. (Even then, asserting a "right" to control it is a bit further than most people go - there is a general understanding over how they are edited, but this is quite different).

Ah the classic "You didn't know the ropes so we have a right to act like dicks" response. No sorry, wrong. Yes, I acted somewhat innappropriately. I am willing to take responsibility for my actions as such. This does not excuse the hazing I recieved.

Nor does it excuse you from the attitude problems you have shown in reaction to being (in your view) treated unkindly as a "newbie". No amount of wrongs make a right, and somebody at some point needs to show the maturity to break the cycle of rudeness. *Dan T.* 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I have apologized and come here to discuss it, instead of writing you a nasty message about your attitude on your talk page. I've come here, I'm ready to start working things out. Why the hell aren't the rest you coming to the table? You're still hazing the n00b.

In my case, I wasn't one of the people who did or said anything nasty to you in the first place; I'm just an outsider who stumbled on all of this arugment here, and added my own comments. I'm not the one you have a beef against. Anyway, you'll get much kinder treatment if you don't keep cursing and screaming, like you're still doing (with comments like "Why the hell..."). Given that some of your edits were vandalism, it's understandable that people weren't completely nice to you, but it's still possible to put it in the past by being cooperative and constructive, and not "hazing" the "oldbies" back. *Dan T.* 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hell is not a "curse word" unless you happen to live in the Bible belt or some such crap. It's an expression of frustration at the utter hazing frat boy culture of Wikipedia. I'm here looking for resolution if you're just going to mock and haze, please do so to some other n00b.

It isn't a curse word in Judaism. 220.233.48.200 09:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not yours. You do not have a right to control it. Shimgray | talk | 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I do have a right to edit it, and to respond to comments placed there, which is all I am asserting.

It does not currently seem to be protected. From the log:

01:23, December 27, 2005 Alkivar unprotected User talk:128.42.7.170 (unprotect) --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And thanks to Alkivar for that, it still doesn't resolve the issue that it was protected in the first place.

It's been unprotected. I have no idea why it was protected, but since it was unprotected yesterday the only reason you are here today is to stir up trouble. The matter is resolved. Please go play somewhere else. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Tina M. Barber blocked

I have blocked Tina M. Barber for one hour due to personal attacks. The user has been warned many times over the past month during the dispute on Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog. Feel free to unblock if you think this was an error. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Rbj

I'm not to sure if this guy is just obsessive, or what, but he's been harasssing karmafist a lot lately; he filed an RFAr (which was rejected), and has basically injected snipes or attacks anywhere he thinks he can. With his latest example, here, he calls Karmafist an "asshole". I seriously think something needs to be done before this escalates further; whatever Karmafist may or may not have done to this user doesn't justify this response. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Eve Plumb

Because of the constant adding of this person's phone number and home address, I had to delete and restore this page countless time to purge the history. The guy who kept on posting the information has been blocked, but switched IP address and kept on adding the information. He signed up for an account once, Eveslover, but that was blocked. I would like to ask what other options are available, since I am frankly getting tired of this mess. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You could try protecting it for a while and see if he gets bored. --cesarb 21:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Done that 5 times, all failed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Eve+Plumb Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it will take longer than much longer than 24 hours for this particular stalker to get bored. Try it for a month. The article went two months without an edit before this particular stalker showed up, so I don't think we're keeping important edits from being made by a longer round of page protection. If someone has vitally important information that absolutely must be added now now now to Eve Plumb, they can contact an admin. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we semi this page instead? novacatz 15:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I recommend that for now. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Rapid IP hopping vandal

We just had a vandal rapidly IP hopping and hitting User:Doom127, User:Hinotori and their talk pages. I blocked 201.29.0.0/16 for 15 minutes. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's like the wiki equivelant of a TKer, swat it with a blocked proxy notice, I hate TKers— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Said IP (201.29.1.26) comes from 20129001026.user.veloxzone.com.br which means its Brazil4Linux.  ALKIVAR™ 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not be so quick to come to conclusions; Velox is simply one huge Brazilian ISP. A lot of people I know use it. --cesarb 14:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you think the likelihood is of there being someone else on a Brazilian ISP (however huge it may be) who has the same exact vandalism targets as User:Brazil4Linux. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably some form of web-footed waterfowl. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Tim handscomb and Carly Kirkwood

I have blocked the user indefinitely, and deleted his userpage as well as the article's talk page, for the suspected stalking of Carly Kirkwood. El_C 01:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Looks appropriate. Can we kill the images as well? They're no particular use to the project and appear to have been uploaded as a personal filestore... Shimgray | talk | 01:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Done. -- Essjay · Talk 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Essjay, my friend! You're back!! El_C 02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why, yes, yes, I am. But shhhhh, we don't want the vandals to find out! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 02:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your secret is safe with me. Hey look everyone, Essjay is back! Sorry, still safe! :D El_C 02:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Go back daily and redo what they undid": revert war invite to Bigfoot

User:Beckjord, the subject of Erik Beckjord, is one of the main contributors to Bigfoot and other cryptozoological articles. He is a strong defender of the reality of these creatures—well, when I say "reality", I don't mean in the mundane sense, as he argues that they are "interdimensional". He has trouble with WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL (though he has been polite in my own exchanges with him) and he acknowledges finding Wikipedia principles and rules in general difficult to come to grips with. Beckjord has now issued a call at his own forum for his supporters to come in and revert war on Bigfoot, with instructions for how to edit the article: "Read article, see all the false sh*t... Click on EDIT THIS ARTICLE... make edits... go to bottom and type in box >> reversing really bad former edits <...Watch the bad guys get upset... Then go back daily, and redo what they undid... If we have ten people doing this, it will drive the skeptics NUTS." Now, I'm not proposing that an influx of cryptozoologists would be a major threat. Still. It mightn't hurt if a few people added Bigfoot to their watchlist. Bishonen | talk 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

• This might also call for a pre-emptive semi-protection of Bigfoot. Suspected meatpuppets of Beckjord will be reverted on sight (by me, anyway). android79 02:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (with a smile on my face) what part of 'this is not pre-emptive' on the semi policy-page didn't you understand? :) :) :) novacatz 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • D'oh! android79 02:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord's edits so far seem solely to promote himself as an expert on these topics and to harass anyone who gets in his way. Considering what I've already seen, as well as reports of his behavior in general found on Google searching for his name (frequent cases of false legal threats to try to quiet critics, etc.), I suspect he's going to give us no end of trouble. DreamGuy 02:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a clearly unacceptale and underhanded tactic. El_C 03:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm unacceptable, or the guy out spamming the encyclopedia is unacceptable? DreamGuy 05:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

El_C's comments at Talk:Bigfoot indicate that he meant the latter (I think). android79 06:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don;t care is this putz Beckjord was on Letterman... inciting a revert war is wrong and deserving of suspension from Wikipedia. Dyslexic agnostic 05:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with Bish and DreamGuy. The kind of person that would make an off-wiki site for the clearly anti-Wikipedia purpose of defying NPOV and consensus has no encyclopedic goal of ours in mind. Anyone who does not only that, but does it while posting the username of another Wikipedian there, and calling him and others "assholes," deserves to go the way of Amalekite and Daniel Brandt. Dmcdevit·t 07:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also note the continued addition of POV and unsourced material to Erik Beckjord. android79 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Beckjord

I have warned the user not to engage in personal attacks; the user has vandalized my user page with a personal attack. Blocked for 48 hrs. El_C 07:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Based on this user's recent forum posting above, his admitted use and encouragement of edit warring, his continued incivility, and declarations to continue it, not to mention his blatant disregard for NPOV and consensus, I question whether this user has any place at Wikipedia at all. Dmcdevit·t 08:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. "rading the rules pages will take 6 monthsm and i feel nobody here follows them anyway" pretty much sums up his attitude about Wikipedia. I've asked him several times to simply give WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV a read and he flatly refuses. The rules are for the rest of us and we all should kowtow to him simply because he's a self-proclaimed expert. There's an indefinite block in this editor's future, and I don't think we need to involve the ArbCom. android79 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

War called off

User:Beckjord has called off this war. Go to his talk page. Martial Law 05:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? His link to the revert war invitation is still here! Dyslexic agnostic 05:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The page says "No such message." Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Aw, the call to arms is gone? Of course that's a good thing, but I was rather hoping the size of the, ahem, influx of Beckford supporters on Bigfoot would answer the interesting question whether he has any supporters out there. So far the magic eight-ball says "Where are they?" Bishonen | talk 13:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, we did get one meatpuppet. android79 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Arabic numerals requested move

Since there is no "Moving review" (heh :)), I guess this is best place to mention this. Basically, there was a request to move to/from (it's kind of involved due to "out-of-process" moves and multiple requests) Hindu-Arabic numerals to/from Arabic numerals, with the result being Arabic numerals. It had very high participation, around 40 users or so, and was quite controversial. So, in an effort of full disclosure I'm listing it here in case other admins want to review it (the discussion was on the talk page Talk:Arabic numerals), and/or reverse it if they so desire (try to avoid a wheer war though :)). Happy holidays! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User SPUI has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:SPUI has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 10:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Assume bad faith, eh? --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That was an extraordinary number of page moves, for what it's worth. I wonder if the bot has a whitelist? Ral315 (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont think it does... but it sure as hell should whitelist all admins so that maintenance like this doesnt get them blocked.  ALKIVAR™ 12:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

SPUI isn't an admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

He isnt? Hrm ... my bad.  ALKIVAR™ 12:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

IIRC he declined a nomination. --cesarb 14:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Come on guys, the bot provides a very useful function and has an autogenerated notice to avoid unnoticed blocks; Curps himself undid the block within a minute and even if he hadn't, another admin would have. What needs to be said here is: "Thanks to SPUI for doing such tireless and often thankless work, thanks to Curps for watching out for Wikipedia and protecting it from potential page move vandalism. Now, lets all take a deep breath, beat each other senseless with a Nerf bat, and get back to work. -- Essjay · Talk 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden Redux

Since the previous discussion has become hopelessly stupid, I am lifting the block on Marsden. If he continues the trolling behavior that got me to put the block up in the first place, I am reinstating it at indefinite. My reasoning in this will be simple - Marsden exhibits behavior that has gotten many people banned before. He exhibits this behavior unrepentantly. He is, in short, more or less certain to get himself banned. Given the choice between a drawn out process that will result in a circus as he rants about the Injustice of it All, or quietly shooting him as the foregone conclusion that it is, I pick the latter.

If and when I reblock Marsden, I invite any admin to undo the block PROVIDED that they can actually give a substantive reason why the block is in error. That is to say, I do not care if it is against procedure - I want to know what's wrong with it. Procedure is not and never has been an end in itself on Wikipedia. But perhaps Marsden will take a lesson from the fact that he is so very close to the edge,and change his behavior - we'll see. Phil Sandifer 16:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Phil, I suspect I speak for not a small number of Wikipedians when I ask, who exactly do you think you are? You seem to imagine that you are some sort of savior for Wikipedia, breaking all the rules in order to ... well, it's not clear exactly what you intend. Why shouldn't someone shoot you rather than me, Phil?

Your comment on unblocking me, Phil ("OK, let's give Marsden a happy 'one last chance' and then see what happens."), belies what I think is a perverted understanding of what Wikipedia is: ultimately, this is a charitable effort, manned by volunteers. "One last chance," Phil? There seems to be a corrupt attitude among a lot of Wikipedians, especially admins (and cerrtainly not just you, Phil), that it is punishment to ban someone from Wikipedia. How long do you think the Red Cross would tolerate a volunteer manager who insisted that some other volunteers were unworthy of stacking sandbags against a rising river? And yet, isn't this pretty much the role you have tried to carve out for yourself at Wikipedia?

Whenever Wikipedia drives away another editor of good faith, that ultimately is a loss for Wikipedia. Sometimes it no doubt is necessary, but to relish doing it, as you seem to do, frankly suggests some significant moral defects.

My participation in Wikipedia became relegated to trying to counter what I see as part of its systemic bias. This wasn't by choice, and anyone who thinks I enjoyed it should take a look at the early work I did make glacially paced changes at the Zionism article, and explain for themselves how anyone could enjoy that.

But in doing this, I encountered an obstruction of reliable methods of inquiry from a couple other editors here: circular objections to changes, and the revert warring that sadly is ultimately what decides what stays in Wikipedia. It was not me, between myself and the group of editors that I have had conflicts with, who first abandoned discussion and reason in deciding what should be in Wikipedia.

But the regime is very strong. I don't know the extent to which different editors are consciously promoting propaganda as opposed to just reflexively attacking any threat to an establishment that they see themselves as a part of, but at this point Wikipedia systemically makes unwelcome (to say the least) anyone who questions certain aspects of the project. That sort of attitude inevitably leads to a spiral descent.

User:Marsden

I smell jasmine in the air...ah, the sweet seductive scent of eternal optimism.  :-) Tomer^talk 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Boki 02 blocked indefinately

Boki 02 has continually uploaded copyrighted text and images despite repeated requests to cease. Following Jimbo's recent example, I've blocked him indefinately and I'll be reviewing the rest of his contributions to identify any other violations. If I'm misinterpreting, please feel free to change the block. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

repeat willful violations of image rules

Just wanted to note here that I have locked the userpage for User:Gateman1997 since he is willfully violating fairuse guidelines and image guidelines. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I counter that my page is being willfully vandalized by User:Jtkiefer because he has a less then accurate view of the fairuse rules and logo rules. Especially with regard to Mozilla Firefox who have licenced their logo for uses such as Wikipedia. I would ask any admin with half a brain to unlock my page at once.Gateman1997 19:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Also please note this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gateman1997&action=history which shows his less then par attitude for an admin. Can someone direct me to the nominations for de-admin page?Gateman1997 19:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The fair-use rules on Wikipedia, which you refer to, state clearly that Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. HTH. Shimgray | talk | 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Then why does Wikipedia:Logos counter that?Gateman1997 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It doesn't, as far as I can tell. Note "Therefore, their use must also conform to Wikipedia's fair use guidelines." Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtkiefer, are you going to do the same to everyone that is using Template:User democrat? Jkelly 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have rasised the matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use. It seems to me that given the promotional tag, this use is reasonable. DES ^(talk) 19:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you. Can we get the block raised while this is under discussion. I'm reasonable and will refrain from readding it until the matter is resolved.Gateman1997 19:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On that basis, I will lift the block. DES ^(talk) 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'd also like to apologize I may have gone against WP:CIVIL at. I get very defensive when people edit my userpage.Gateman1997 19:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. I agree fair use tag is reasonable. Let's be sensible about this, the image is being used to promote firefox, it is small, it is a logo. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, however fair use only allows direct use on articles and even then only on certain articles that directly pertain to the topic. Unless Mozilla Foundation is willing to license the image under a compatible license or release it into the public domain our image guidelines state that we cannot even upload the images except in this case as fair use for articles. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Then our guildlines need to be changed because this is plain daft. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The policies make good sense, in the sense that we can use fairuse images on articles directly pertaining to the organization of the image but fairuse doesn't stretch any farther than that and userboxes are way beyond the scope of fairuse in the conventional sense. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Just for reference, here is Mozilla's (Firefox's owner) official logo policy. "You may make t-shirts, desktop wallpaper, or baseball caps with Mozilla logos on them, though only for yourself and your friends (meaning people from whom you don't receive anything of value in return). You can't put the Mozilla logo on anything that you produce commercially -- at least not without receiving Mozilla's permission. Of course, Mozilla owns and operates the Mozilla Store, which sells a wide range of CDs, Guidebooks, T-shirts, and products with Mozilla software and logos. That's how we make some of the money that keeps us around.There are two additional broad categories of things you can't do with Mozilla's logos. The first is to produce modified versions of them. A modified logo also would raise the possibility of consumer confusion, thus violating Mozilla's trademarks rights, too (remember the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing?). The second concerns high-resolution copies of Mozilla logos, which you cannot have or use. If you've a very good reason to seek an exception to the rule against having and using high-resolution copies of Mozilla logos please contact the Trademark and Licensing Team."Gateman1997 19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As you can see a userbox logo does not violate their logo policy and shouldn't violate ours either in this case as a low resolution image may be used for ANY non commercial purpose.Gateman1997 19:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue never was and never will be Mozilla policy, the issue is that even though they give up certain uses they aren't licensing it in a way we can use except for fair use which allows certain rights. If you want to change the way they license their images feel free to ask them to release it into the public domain but I doubt they'll say yes. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then maybe it should be. I find it absurd that Mozilla has licensed this for us to use but we create a new rule that prevents us from using it?Gateman1997 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also if this is the case perhaps a new licensing option is in order as fairuse is overly contrictive in this case if we are to follow your interpretation of it.Gateman1997 19:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Also here is their FAQ specifically about using the Firefox logo on a website. "Can I put Firefox or Thunderbird banners on my website? Can I link to you? Thanks for your support :-) Of course you may. We have button programs for exactly this:

Also non commercial use is another issue since images should be able to be used if we ever get around to releasing a DVD version of Wikipedia but that isn't the main issue at the moment. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"We" as Wikipedia aren't using it. Individual wikipedians are. Mozilla is happy about it therefore we change our rules. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not as terms of the way we license our content Wikipedians and Wikipedia become one and the same once stuff gets posted up here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User namespace and article namespace are different. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Gateman, what Jtkiefer is trying to get that while the Firefox logo has been granted, by them, for use on our website, we still need to realize that their logo is their logo and they still have some rights for it. And, since it is a logo, it falls under the fair use rules that we have at WP:FUC. And, one of the fair use rules for images that was created was that fair use logos, icons or photos of anykind should not be used in templates and should not be used anywhere outside of the article space. While I think that the Firefox guys are glad that we love and support their browser, do understand that we are serious about copyright violations and try to follow and understand them next time. While this is not related to you Gateman, if you think other templates are violating the fair use rules, just change the icon and null edit every user page that you can. That will be a whole lot easier. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are we serious about copyright violations? Spell it out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Because copyright violations could get Wikipedia sued just to name one reaason. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Because what Wikipedia is content, full of words, pictures and sounds. And, in order to keep the content for all, we need to make sure that we follow all relevant copyright laws that apply to us. If not, our goal of "making the Internet not suck" cannot happen. Also, copyvios can bring legal liability to Wikipedia and I know on a few occasions that Jimbo himself has not only blocked people for copyvios, he also single handedly change various ways that we deal with copyright violations and about no source images. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Which certainly is not going to happen here is it seeing as they have given permission.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Firefox is one of few who said "here, use this." Many others have not done this for us, so that is why we have our policies. [[User:Zscout370|Zach] ^{(Smack Back)} 20:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So we create a new cat of image - Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

True but why do we have to ignore the rights they've granted us with regard to it? If anything we need another version of fairuse for this then since it doesn't fit the fairuse guideline as that is too contrictive, yet it also doesn't meet PD either.Gateman1997 20:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

All we need to do Gateman is get a Firefox logo that is under the GFDL/CC/PD licenses and just use that as the icon only for that template. That is all we are asking for. For the Firefox article, we can still use the standard logo with no problems. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The other, more appropriate, license here would be non-commercial-use-only. Unfortunately, we have an explicit "no non-commercial images" prohibition. [50]. You are, of course, welcome to go argue the toss with Jimbo, but it's his server... Shimgray | talk | 20:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

How sad. If that's the case Jimbo eventually intends to use Wikipedia for profit.Gateman1997 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't own the servers. And he doesn't intend to use Wikipedia for profit. The GFDL allows commercial use. Wikipedia can be copied and reused by for profit organisations. That's why we don't allow non free licences. However commercial organisations are highly unlikely to use user pages. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That point aside, we still can't use not for commercial use images. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that non-commercial images should not be used anywhere on the Wiki. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that licensing Wikipedia content as "non-commercial" produces a surprising amount of problems - it means, essentially, that producing hard-copy versions (a massive success story for de.wikipedia) becomes financially impossible. There are very good reasons for wanting everything to be commercially reusable, especially when you start considering the long-term goals of penetration into the third-world and other, mostly offline, areas. Shimgray | talk | 20:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Back to the heart of this however. I would like to point out that WP:FAIR is only a guideline... not policy. I think there needs to be alot more discussion before any users go around deleting images from users pages simply because that is their interpretation of a guideline or until it becomes policy.Gateman1997 01:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While this is not policy, per say, if you scroll down, there is a list of agreed upon uses that are acceptable for FU images. This is what I have been pointing to this day: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)." So, all we want to do is limit the amount of FU images, and also limit on how they are used. If the picture is used for an article, fine, but if the FU, all it's doing is decorating a user page, has no need to be on Wikipedia servers. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 01:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • A question then if I may. Please look at New England Patriots specifically the template and it's use of the Patriot's symbol. If you were to follow the strictest interpretation of the Fair Use guideline, would this not be a violation of the policy?Gateman1997 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that's fair because it relates to the article. Back on topic: even if it is guideline (not policy!) says that use outside of the encyclopediac (sp?) context is illegal, that gives you no right to abruptly change dozens of userpages without warning. This admin has abused his powers, if even with the right intentions, and should be blocked for some period of time. If you are going to make abrupt changes like this, tell us first. give us time to change it. And allow the average user to participate in interpreting the policy. This user broke pillar four (writer's rules of engagement) and five (no other firm rules) in pursuit of a nuance of pillar three (free content). Let's talk this over, not go about changing hundreds of pages without warning. Also:I don't know who deleted Image:MozillaFirefoxLogo.png, but somehow it is no longer part of the wiki. We have to go to Mozilla for this one; my copy has some sort of copy protection that keeps me from getting a good quality image. Even it was being (ab)used in userpages, there was no reason to irreversibly get rid of an image that could be used for encyclopediac purposes. I think we all lost our cool on this one.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Lots of Wikipedia mirrors sell ad space, and they copy User pages. Doesn't that make them commercial sites? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You deleted the image from the WikiProject Macintosh templates! An image that was voted, justly, as the project image! You'll never hear the end of this, Jtkiefer. The entire Wikiproject will be after you, and perhaps multiple WikiProjects (who knows how many logos you got rid of?). This is policy violation in that you did it suddenly without consulting anyone else. Action needs to be taken aginst this (ex?)admin.--HereToHelp (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have to admit that is part of what is rubbing me the wrong way about this. Not only the questionable interpretation of policy but the unilateral action being taken by one or two users over a broad spectrum of pages, user or otherwise.Gateman1997 04:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • When legal concerns are involved, that is necessary and appropriate. For what it's worth, I agree with Jtkiefer's analysis of the relevant laws/policies, and oppose the proposed changing of the rules to allow this. Fair use is one of those things we need to be especially careful with, and this falls outside the bounds. We cannot use special-use licenses that the mozilla foundation would grant us because they would not transfer to (possibly commercial) project mirrors. Fair use is the only acceptable use of the relevant logo, and use on userpages falls outside that scope. There's no way around that, and if this argument holds, it is necessary to remove the image from user pages for legal/policy reasons, regardless of how many users would like otherwise. --Improv 06:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, true. But if this has to be enforced, give us a deadline to find or create new images to replace the fair use ones. To go around and delete images off hundreds of community pages is simply unacceptable. It's a violation of the trust that outside of typos userpages are the domain of the user. About the Firefox logo: wouldn't that be promoting firefox on the mirrors and thus acceptable? Regardless, I propose, as mentioned above, a deadline that is not immediate for the users to remove fair use images from their own pages and find substitues. Before hat happens, I also suggest that the entire community take part in this discussion to increase awareness of this major change and also give people a chance to fight it. Even if they (i.e. we) wind up losing, they'll (we'll) be much happier about it if they know why they have to change and have time to do it.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Re: Project mirrors... I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but how are copyright violations on mirrored pages a Wikipedia problem? If the images can be used fairly in the user namespace at en.wikipedia.org, but not at mirrored sites such as answers.com, why should that effect what the user namespace can do? It seems to me if the copyright holder wanted to sue someone, they would have to go after the servers that are using the content illegally, not Wikipedia. Is this interpretation wrong? It may be Wikipedia's content, but how is it Wikipedia's responsibility to make sure the content is used correctly even when it is copied off the site where they no longer have control over the content? Paul^C/_T+ 14:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, everyone should have {{userpage}} on their userpage anyway.

3RR blocks overturned

At 08:18 yesterday, Miskin (talk · contribs) was blocked for 3RR at Macedonians (ethnic group) [51]. A few hours later, Merovingian (talk · contribs) unblocked him, making no comments about it anywhere (I can find), with the reason "User's edits have been justified, as he was removing unsourced claims". Four hours later, I blocked Miskin again for a second 3RR at Manakis brothers [52] (along with CDThieme) as well as excessive edit edit warring at a third article, Macedonian Orthodox Church [53]. Not to mention edit summaries like "one more time and I'll report you for 'official policy vandalism'," so I made the block 36 hours. Despite all this misbeavior, an hour later, Merovingian unblocked him, without an explanation anywhere, with the reason "Miskin has been reverting the insertion of unsourced claims, and his edits are therefore justified." Funny thing is, I had been talking it out with Miskin, explaining how edit warring is wrong in every circumstance, that even if you're in the right, that's why we have mechanisms like RFC and such to deal with it, and that only vandalism is excepted by the 3RR, not POV-pushing (which would be self-defeating) [54]. And then an admin disagrees and unblocks him for just those reasons, twice. I'm not going to engage in a mini-wheel war, but anyone else uninvolved want to take a look at this and consider reblocking? Dmcdevit·t 20:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I advocate full protection on all three articles. I initially protected Macedonians (ethnic group), but when I realised that the revert war spanned three articles, I thought it wasn't worth it. Still though, despite 3RR blocks, pointers to WP:DR (I have even begged Miskin to consider mediation), the revert war persists. He is convinced that he is reverting vandalism and is 3RR exempt. I have told him that WP:V violations do not make him 3RR exempt, it made no difference. Izehar 20:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because administrators unblock him for just that reason that he thinks 3RR doesn't apply to him. Considering it spans 3 articles, that's why I thought a block was more appropriate than protection. Dmcdevit·t 20:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merovingian (talk · contribs) is clearly violating policy and needs to stop, and if he does it again he should be blocked himself. An admin can't abuse policy like that to push his own agenda. Unless he apologizes and promises not to do it again, that's clear reason to have his admin rights taken away. DreamGuy 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone talk to Mero about it? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't - I don't think he knows. Izehar 22:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, DreamGuy, what are you talking about? Merovingian is not violating policy. Izehar 22:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he was --- he was blatantly violating the 3RR policy by letting someone make multiple reverts without cause and undoing legitimate and quite necessary blocks. Apparently now from his posts below he knows not to do that again, so there shouldn;t be a problem in the future, but it's inexcusible when admins try to enforce or even overrule a policy that they haven't bothered to read. He shoudl not have unblocked someone without going to the policy page to read it, or to ask about it for the people who did block the person, or the project page used for enforcing the issue. That was clearly out of line. DreamGuy 00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Per the question above, both the involved admins should probably work on their communication. Merovingian should have (at the very least) notified Dmcdevit when he undid the blocks. Dmcdevit should have asked Merovingian about the unblocks, and notified Merovingian that he started this thread. (My apologies if there was communication that I missed.) Come on, guys—talk to each other! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm, I did the second block, yes, but not in disagreement with Merovingian, it was a separate block. When he unblocked, I decided to take it here rather than reblock or make any further action, putting it up for review. That was communication. I admit I didn't think to notify Mero about this thread, but the point wasn't to criticize him anyway, but to figure out what to do now. Dmcdevit·t 06:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late! Miskin approached me on IRC and asked to be unblocked. Now, I wouldn't just go ahead and unblock him, so we had a good conversation about what was going on at the articles in question. Miskin had been reverting some unsourced claims, and the other user (User:Macedonia, IIRC) wasn't discussing his changes at all. I thought Miskin was in the right, and that the blocking admin had made a mistake. Did I miss something? --King of All the Franks 22:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well he still did violate the 3RR and even if he was removing unsourced claims, the relevant policy (WP:V) does not exempt anyone reverting unsourced claims from the 3RR. It is not like vandalism, which is an exeption. Also, he has been violating the 3RR in more than one article - that's never good. Talk pages are there for a reason. Izehar 22:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh! I thought reverting to remove unsourced material was alright. Miskin was trying to invite the other user to the talk page, but it seemed like he wasn't going to have any of it. --King of All the Franks 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please take the time to go read the 3RR policy, as it is spelled out quite clearly there. You should actually read the relevant policies before making decisions that overrule other admins. No harm no foul if you learn from this, but come on... DreamGuy 00:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That still doesn't exempt him from the 3RR. The page should have been protected to stop the edit-war and no one should have been blocked (which is what I told the blocking admin and he agreed). Blocks don't stop edit wars - once the blocks are over, the edit-war continues (it has happened). Resolving disputes stops edit-wars. I offered to lift Macedonia's block if he would use the talk page. I made the same offer to Miskin, and they both e-mailed me agreeing to talk. However, further 3RRvios came to light and more blocks have been handed out and everything is left hanging in the air. Izehar 23:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection over blocks: I can dig it. --King of All the Franks 23:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

At least now User:Macedonia is using the talk pages - the problem is that they still are not listening to each other. The revert war continues. Izehar 23:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• The point is that whatever the end, revert warring is not the means to reach it. Even if you're right, revert warring is still wrong (in fact, most revert warrers consider themselves right, and by definition at least half of them must be wrong). Radiant_>|< 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That was exactly my point. It seems to me (based on the above) that Merovingian also missed that the second block was for a second 3RR in that time, when he unblocked again. Which was the reason that I preferred blocks over protection in this matter; it spanned multiple articles. I also note that Miskin is unblocked right now (and CDThieme never was), should anything be done about that now? Dmcdevit·t 06:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Bobblewik

I've blocked Bobblewik (talk · contribs) for 3 hours, for making rapid edits (in some cases up to 10 a minute) for a bot he does not yet have permission for. It is policy to block bots indefinitely until the bot owner explains himself satisfactorily, however since this is his main account I have only temporarily blocked it. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Bobblewik is using a bot. He's almost certainly using WP:AWB manually, which can enable a user to make several edits per minute. I'm not going to unblock right now, but I will if he states that he wasn't using a bot. Carbonite | Talk 20:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

AWB can in theory be used in conjunction with a bot but I'm not sure if that's the case here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean "can in theory be used in conjunction with a bot" as all bot functionality in it is disabled. Martin 21:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that it is a bot (or it effectively is at least how he is using it). He is making edits at a phenomenal rate, as I mentioend above up to 10 a minute. I believe the AWB requires the running user to verify the edits themselves, I'm not sure exactly how this works but Bobblewik can't be taking more than a cursory glance if he is making one edit every 6 seconds. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he's running a bot. He's been using AWB, which lets him edit stuff really quickly to get rid of unnecessary links. He's fighting the good fight! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he's doing something which is improving the encyclopedia (of course, this is up for debate at this very moment), but the fact remains that he hasn't got approval for the edits he is making through this automated system and he is making them incredibly quickly. Both are grounds for a block until the bot's owner explains himself satisfactorily per Wikipedia:Bots. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

AWB, which I am also using, is not a bot -- a user must manualy accepet every edit, and a user should (and I do) reveiw the effects of every bedit before approving. I might also add that at Wikipedia talk:Bots# Bot permission please? The majority of the comments were supportive, I think it might be argued that if this were considerd a bot permission has in effect been granted. DES ^(talk) 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I just tallied up support/oppose to get a rough idea of the consensus, and I make it 21 supports, 10 opposes. I don't consider that consensus for the bot to be used. Your point about accepting every edit is valid, but I have argued above that at the rate Bobblewik is making edits, he cannot be giving the articles more than a cursory glance. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you bothered to follow the link in his edit summary you would read the first line "This is not a bot...", he does check every edit, the software makes this very easy. I am going to unblock him now, but ask not to carry on with this particular task until any controversy is cleared up, he is very reasonable and I have no doubt he will be more than happy to comply. Martin 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

All but 2 of the opposes are purely against a bot doing the task (I am one of those opposes). I therefore make that a clear consensus. Martin 21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The rules state that you cannot run a bot unless you have permission, AWP is not a bot and therefore he shouldn't be blocked no matter how fasts his edits are unless of course he is using a bot in conjunction with AWP which is a possibility but a remote one. I am going to unblock again. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean about a bot in conjuction with the software? Martin 21:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In theory he could be using a bot to click the save bntton every 5 seconds to do it but I doubt that's the case here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The bot proposal Bobblewik has drafted says he will carry on using the AWB in exactly the same fashion as he currently is, except under a different account and with a bot flag. That makes it pretty clear to me that not much will change when he decides to use the bot account he has asked for. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

He is requesting an automatic bot to do the task hence him saying "It is a huge slow task (for me anyway) and I would rather do something else.". At the moment it is not automatic, he checks every edit. Martin 21:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is automatic, he just approves the changes suggested to him by the AWB. If this is not true, I would expect there to be an example where Bobblewik has rejected a suggested change by the AWB. If this is not the case, then for all intents and purposes, Bobblewik is running a bot. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The program shows him the changes he has made, he can then make any further changes he wants, or reject it altogether. It is of course impossible to show a time when he didnt make a change. Martin 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously it's impossible to show a diff of an edit he didn't make, but it is indeed possible for him to mention an article and hopefully the rough time AWB scanned that page, suggested edits, but Bobblewik decided were not appropriate. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Even before the existence of AWB, I became familiar with suggestions that I am a bot because of the speed of my edits. If you look on my talk page, you will see an old section titled 'Are you a bot?'. Other such questions are in various discussion pages and archives dating back some time. I am not now, nor have I ever been a bot, nor has any bot run on my behalf.

I am responsible for all the edits that I make. I am confident with what I do and if you look at my talk page, I try to explain myself in good faith. Naturally, somebody with a different editorial policy might interpret my edits as 'not checked properly'.

As far as rejecting AWB suggestions are concerned: yes I do reject some in accordance with the Manual of Style. All editors are flawed. As long as the number of good edits (whatever that means) exceed the bad edits, then that editor is improving wikipedia. I flatter myself that my good/bad ratio is much higher than 50%. Bobblewik 22:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell an anonymous editor asked if you were a bot because you were converting measurements from one standard to another. I fail to see how that's relevant to this discussion. Could you give an example of an AWB suggestion which you have rejected, please? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I quote AllyUnion:

Yes, as I mentioned above before to Martin (Bluemoose), that his tool at that speed would in effect qualify as a bot for anyone who uses it. Users who wish to use his tool beyond the recommended limit must apply for a separate account, and run any high speed edits under a bot flagged account.

Making 10 edits a minute like this needs a separate bot account, and as such, the block was valid. I'm not going to reinstate it, but I fully believe that this is a block-worthy offense. Ral315 (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, this may be right, but it is a technicality, the point is whether it is automatic or manual, clearly it is manual. The next question is whether the edits have community consensus, and as far as I can tell at the moment it does very much have consensus, although it may need to be opened up to debating, I dont feel strongly on the issue so I don't really want to get into details. Martin 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean it has consensus? The bot proposal currently has just over a 2:1 support:oppose ratio. 66% has never been considered consensus on Wikipedia. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, all but 2 (3 now Ral315 voted) opposes are against it being done automatically, and 29 support to 3 oppose (or 21 to 3 if you count the others as neutral) is a good consensus, but like I said, I dont feel that strongly on the issue. Martin 22:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising that people are voicing opposition to it being done automatically because that's what the proposal is. Some people might expand on their beliefs on the opposition (like Ral315 did) while others might just reply to whether they think the bot proposal is a good idea. I don't think you should read any more than that into it. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

66% has never been considered consensus on Wikipedia. FWIW, Wikipedia:Consensus indicates that in some cases it is (although this admittedly something of a distortion of the meaning of consensus). For approval of a Bot only a "rough consensus" is needed, which is often interpreted as being about 66%. older≠wiser 22:06, 29 December 2005

As someone who has expanded year articles, I am strongly opposed to unconditionally (or nearly-unconditionally) unwikifying years. Even if a consensus is reached to unlink a lot of years, the benefit of doing so on a mass-edit basis would be small compared to the possibility of making bad edits. Demi ^T/_C 22:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Having been blocked for his campaign the user in question then opted to come on using an anonymous IP to continue the campaign. That I think is overstepping the line. I have blocked that IP and reverted the edits he was doing using it. Frankly Bobbywik's campaign is really annoying me at this stage. I see no evidence that he is taking any care to only remove unnecessary links and instead seems to removing all links but one irrespective of whether a particular other link may be necessary. So yes, Martin, I too oppose it and so do a lot of others I suspect. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please dont address these comments to me, I have repeatedly said I dont care that much about it, I just dont want people to think my software is a bot, plus I have felt obligated to point out obvious facts, maybe we should a centralised discussion on the issue ( of which I will take little part). Martin 22:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

p.s. what ip did you block, I would be disapointed to find out he carried on editting even after he was asked to stop. Martin 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked his username as well for 24 hours for his date link campaign even though I don't think AWB should be classified as a block and that had nothing to do with the reinstatement of his block. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly understand why Bobblewik is doing this, but Talrias was in the right here while we figure out things. However this seems like more of a triage unit, this conversation should be moved to WP:BR or WP:BOTS or where have you from here on. karmafist 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it should be discussed here first, then we can decide whether we want a bot to do it. thanks Martin 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Though it's a bit late, I also agree that Talrias was in the right here. Get consensus first, then act. Bobblewik's answers on this page are hardly satisfactory, either. Ambi 00:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are refering to the edits at User:66.24.251.76 those were NOT made by Bobblewik, they were made by me. I was not trying to evade a block -- I had not been blocked. My login cookie apparently expired without my being aware -- as soon as I notice I logged back in. I might add that I have been using AWB for date link removal, but I have been significantly examing each such edit, in several cases I have restored a datge that AWB would have removed, in a number of other cases i have added birth/death category links, in yest others I have done minor manual cleanup edits. Whatever may be said of Bobblewik's edits, i deny that my edits are in any way those of a bot, and I do not feel the need for a bot flag to make them. Indeed I have previously made similar edits with similar levels of scrutiny on a purely manual basis. I also suggest you note the alphabetical list in my edits just befofre and after those of User:66.24.251.76 as evidence that these edits were mine. Perhaps ssuming that Bobblewik was evading a block (IMO an invalid block) does not quite squarte wiht WP:AGF. Did anyone ask Bobblewik if those edits were his? DES ^(talk) 03:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Revealing personal information

DannyWilde (talk · contribs) has been revealing personal information about Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), in particular Antaeus's real name ([55], [56], [57]). Antaeus tells me that Danny's information is in fact wrong, but that's hardly the point. Users have the right to pseudonymity on Wikipedia, and I feel it is very inappropriate to expose others. I believe a block is in order, but would like a second opinion. Radiant_>|< 22:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is no better than what various users have been doing to Jimbo. I agree with a block. --King of All the Franks 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

He also used the edit summary "fuck off, feldspar.". block of 24 hours minimum. Martin 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A block seems to be in order, if that's the only way to get his attention. I suspect that we will be accused of being part of the cabal, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with a block. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Considering that in addition to the above, he had been making personal attacks and already had a vandal warning on his talk page as well, I've blocked for 48 hours. Radiant_>|< 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Has my support - such behaviour IMO falls under the disruption clause of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Izehar 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No. The information is straight off User:Daniel Brandt's page here http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html and quotes to Antaeus Feldspar's own blog. So all that he is doing is repeating Brandt, who in turn is repeating Feldspar. Quoting web pages shouldn't be bannable. Besides which, Antaeus is a hopeless stalker, and this was a way to try to combat this. Banning him is a green light to Antaeus to continue his abusive behaviour. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if anyone checks, they'll see fairly plainly that Antaeus's website doesn't mention his name, be it "Joseph Crowly III", "Smoggy Fancypants", "Dr. Blackula Rodriguez", or anything else.--Sean|Black 08:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet again I'll make my proposal regarding this sort of harassment: Anyone using Wikipedia to divulge another person's personal contact information without their consent thereby elicits a permanent ban. Posting the contact information of "enemies" serves no other purpose but to facilitate physical, real-world harassment and violence. There's a vast difference between online name-calling "harassment" and the sort of harassment that involves inviting thugs to abuse the "enemy" in person. --FOo 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle - intentionally revealing the personal contact information of editors who do not publicize their identity is a dangerous form of harassment which serves no useful purpose. However it's like blackmail, in that the victims may not wish to draw further attention to the posting by bringing a case. A formal proposal might adress that problem. I suggest that, aside from any formal policy, we as administrators should be vigilant about removing personal information quickly and even deleting it from the edit history. Editors shouldn't have to make a big noise in order to get personal info erased. -Willmcw 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Quoting web pages shouldn't be bannable." is a rather silly straw man. Your actions on Wikipedia can in some cases be bannable, and it doesn't matter if they come from some webpage. For instance, we will ban people spouting nazistic comments, but there are quite some webpages where they may have been quoting it from. Radiant_>|< 10:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am all for stopping stalking, but we have to make sure we are stopping the stalker, not the stalkee. Given what Antaeus has done to me, I am in no doubt who is the culprit in this case.

Oh, and his web page *DID* say his true name, as you can tell here [58]. He's just wiped it.

But the point of the matter is that this guy didn't start the revelation, Daniel Brandt did. So punishing someone for repeating that would be as good as punishing anyone who was involved in the editing of Daniel Brandt, since a simple click on to the hivemind page reveals details like that. That is the point here.

If this guy was presenting his personal details by himself, then sure, he's done the wrong thing. But he's quoting Brandt, which in turn is quoting off Wikipedia, so he's done nothing wrong.

And you should not, no matter what you do, excuse Antaeus' behaviour, and Antaeus did stalk this user. So if you ban the user, you are effectively saying to him "Banned for being the victim of stalking" which is entirely the wrong message. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Get your facts straight. I did not ban Danny for anything. I blocked him because he was harassing Antaeus. That does not imply I condone anything Antaeus did; if you believe Antaeus has behaved badly, please provide evidence rather than allegations. FUD doesn't cut it. Radiant_>|< 13:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, that link, if you look at the cache, tells us "These search terms have been highlighted: antaeus feldspar. These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: joseph crowley". Try again... Shimgray | talk | 13:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Biased User Account

Could someone who has a moment please take a look at Biased_User_Account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After I blocked him (or her!) I left a message on the talk page, and he's now claiming that his account was "taken" by Willy on Wheels, and that the arrow started moving on the page even though the mouse was stationary. It doesn't seem very likely to me, but I don't have a huge amount of technical knowledge, so I'd be glad if someone else would take a look at it. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 22:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The chances of that are remote, in the best-case scenario. He's bluffing. Besides, he also should have gotten hit with a {{usernameblock}}. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that qualifies for a username block anyway. Rather confusing, no? --King of All the Franks 22:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

All of his contributions are blatant vandalism. There's no reason for him to want to keep the account. --Quarl 23:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't feed the biased troll. Radiant_>|< 23:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I thought he was probably bluffing, but I just wanted to be quite sure. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:University of Ottawa

Ok, here's the situation. I welcomed Ardenn (talk · contribs) a few days ago, s/he still has under 100 edits., getting involved in University of Ottawa, where Anakinskywalker (talk · contribs) has caused some problems in the past [59]. Normally, i'd block Anakin as he's violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:NOT/bureaucracy, WP:OWN, and so on(Ardenn has also violated 3RR, but he's new and didn't know). However, I assume that somebody would think i'm biased here because I welcomed Ardenn and therefore was the first person he came to for help. So, as a reverse Harry Truman, i'm passing the buck so I don't get anymore b.s and can help end this issue. karmafist 00:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked both for 24 hours for 3RR violations and for incivility. Despite being a new user Ardann was quite incivil including cursing off anakinskywalker in an edit summary and anakinskywalker wasn't much better and was just as guilty in terms of revert warring. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks JT. I feel bad for Ardenn here, but you're right, he went too far, even if it seems he was suckered into it. Hopefully he can cool off in 24 hours.karmafist 04:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the early unblock by Karmafist btw, true he went too far and he didn't do anything to stop the edit warring but anakinskywalker wasn't much better and I can see where WP:BITE comes into play here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that WP:3RR policy requires all parties in a revert war to be treated equally shouldn't Anakinskywalker be unblocked as well? Granted, as Jtkiefer said, he "wasn't much better", but he shouldn't receive a harsher penalty just because he isn't quite as much of a newbie as the other guy. As to the rest of this... Karmafist, these threats [60] [61] are unconscionable. Anakinskywalker was mildly territorial and got into a revert war. That's no cause for going beyond an "indefinite block" to "cruel and unusual punishment". Actually... there aren't any grounds for that. Ever. Don't go there... or I will act to stop you. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Persisent vandals

I know I posted this at various spots at Wikipedia but I thought I would repost it here. There has been a, or some, persistant vandal(s) lately at the talk pages of Chadbryant and SWD316's (mine). I would like someone to monitor the situation there as a user(s) have been creating numerous accounts to vandalize and make Personal attacks. I'll start listing users that he has been creating here so everyone can be on alert.

1. OSJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
2. Captain_Spinkicker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
3. Ham_Kazerooni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
4. Mister_Marbles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
5. Thar_She_Blows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)

And since the latest vandal, Mister Marbles just posted:

You've obviously decided to bed down with Chadbryant. Let the fun and games begin!!!

Im sure he's going to create more socks. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 05:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Help with copyright violations

I just blocked Glenncando (talk · contribs) for copyright violations. After I noticed Centro Escolar University had been recreated (after I previously tagged it for copyvio and it was deleted), I found it to be a copyvio and left a message for this user. He removed the notice today and has continued contributing. Glancing through his contributions today I found several more copyright violations. Normally I'd try to harder to discuss this first, but there is are too many contributions to go through (the images probably will have to be deleted as well) and given his previous refusal to discuss this I don't want him to continue to copy-and-paste text. I tried going through his contributions but there is too much for me to check everything; if anyone has any extra free time I'd appreciate if they could help search for copyvios. Also I have no problem with someone unblocking him if they are willing to closely supervise his contributions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As a start, I added {{PUIdisputed}} to all the images he uploaded (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Glenncando&page=&limit=500&offset=0) -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If they orphaned, I went ahead and deleted them. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the reply. Can somebody unblock it now please? Bobblewik 14:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)