Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

post new incident

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

User:Mistress Selina Kyle

Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · block log) I'd appreciate input from other admins about this user. S/he's been here for just over two weeks, seems to make very few useful edits, and spends most of her time causing problems and insulting people. She has 500 article edits (most of which I guess are reverts), but 1,633 on talk, project, and template pages. [1] I get e-mails every couple of days from editors she's offended wondering how long they have to put up with it. She's been warned many times and blocked 10 times, but nothing makes any difference. I asked her to stop again today, [2] but her response was to change the header of my post, [3] delete my second post, [4] then alter my first one. [5]

As this is an encyclopedia, I'm wondering what the benefit to Wikipedia is of her presence, and I'd like to know whether anyone agrees that the account should be blocked. Or if I'm wrong and she is in fact contributing constructively in some non-obvious way, I'd appreciate hearing about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My experience with this user is limited, but I do have some, and it hasn't been positive. She was extraordinarly rude and disruptive at Zatanna over a fairly minor issue. I believe, if I'm remembering correctly, that I also blocked her there for violating 3RR. While blocked for 3RR several anons began to show up to continue reverting. The article remains protected, in part because she (and other users) cannot agree on this continuing problem. You may also be interested to inspect this diff [6], the results of a sock check suggesting that Miss Selina Kyle may be User:Chaosfeary. (I note that she left a message on Chaosfeary's userpage as well [7]). · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

However, the last block of User:Mistress Selina Kyle, by Kelly Martin, may have been a bit of a stretch. See User talk:Kelly_Martin#Chat transcript for why the block was done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes - (s)he should send karmafist a thank-you letter for cleaning up after her/him. Anyway, I do agree that if it continues kyle should be blocked - but lets take it in increments please...Start with a day, then a week, etc.. Simply outright banning looks bad - and that's the last thing that is needed at the moment. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've been watching this user quite closely. She is an unrepentent edit warrior on multiple pages. She has an uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia's politics for being here just two weeks. She's been attacking and disparaging multiple users. Blocks of ever-increasing length is a good strategy, until/unless someone can confirm whether she's a reincarnated banned user. -- Netoholic @ 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon comparison, I am absolutely convinced that this user is a reincarnation of User:Chaosfeary. -- Netoholic @ 19:40, 3 January 2006

Hmm, you have a point there. Started contributing just after Chaosfeary stopped, too. User:Chaosfeary wasn't permanently banned, I thought? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced they are one-in-the same based on some specific editing quirks of both users. Chaosfeary was getting blocked progressively more often and longer. In fact, SlimVirgin mentioned a permanent block, right before Chaosfeary's last edit on Dec. 9th. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of her other contributions... but see this revision of {{User antimonarchist}}. There were at least two others like this that I saw. Given the timing of her block, I also strongly suspect it was her behind User:N000 (see its deleted revisions, if you don't mind waiting a long time for it to render), User:Saveus, and the other two IPs I blocked on the 1st in relation to this whole mess. —Cryptic (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am 100% convinced she is a reincarnation of SOME long-time user, banned or not - nobody truly new leaps into Wikipedia and instantly starts MULTIPLE wars on known contentious subjects and knows how Wikipedia works like that. I haven't seen any credible theory on who she might be a reincarnation of, however. The sockpuppetry allegation should be checked out, that's for sure. I would support blocks for excessively warring behaviour; we are here to produce an encyclopedia, not to argue as a goal in itself. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but just a brief note to confirm that MSK, in my experience, has contributed only hatred and disruption. Zora 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I met MSK when she was replacing pics of Jimbo with those of a video-game megamaniacal warlord and I was doing vandalism patrol. After a few 'pleasant' comments on my appearance in the photo on my userpage I made a joke, she felt bad, and we have since gotten on fine. She is a handful to be sure, but does make some constructive contributions to the article space from time to time. My favorite editor? No. (that'd be me of course)... but not beyond hope or redemption. Guide upwards... not crush downwards. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Mr Data (talk · contribs), a new account that turned up to revert to MSK's version at Aisha just after she was blocked for 3RR, and another one on the same day, forget the name, both of which she claimed were friends. CBD, can you direct me to any constructive contributions she has made? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A user with the name "Mr Data" screams "I'm randomly looking around my computer desk for a new name to use". Mr Data is a company that makes cheap recordable optical media. --Kiand 00:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[8], [9], [10], Macro virus, Macro_virus_(biology)

Likewise to CBD here. I think she's her own worst enemy, and far too vitriolic when facing those who disagree with her, but not a bad faith editor. I've let me know that she's just making it worse for herself, I will only intervene again if she's blocked by someone she's having a dispute with or she needs a friend. These are trying times for all Wikipedians. karmafist 20:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. El_C 20:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Willy on wheels seems to hate me, surely I can't be that bad? more than 10 impersonators, wow.. -_-

1. 18:03, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Ky1e (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
2. 18:01, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress-Selina-Kyle (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
3. 18:00, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Discuss my sockpuppets (mistress selina (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
4. 17:59, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle creating a sockpupp (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
5. 17:54, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle - Wikipedia prostit (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
6. 17:53, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle = ME = THE WIKIPEDI (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
7. 17:51, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle personally attacks (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
8. 17:50, 30 December 2005, Antandrus blocked Mistress Selina Kyle hates Pigsonthewing (infinite) (contribs) (abusive sock)
9. 17:50, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle hates Pigsonthewing (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
10. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's second sockpuppet (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
11. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's Sockpuppet for va (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
12. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Antandrus blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's second sockpuppet (infinite) (contribs) (sock for personal attacks)
13. 17:20, 30 December 2005, FireFox blocked Aspergersgeek9 (infinite) (contribs) (WoW)

um anyway joking aside I'm not a vandal or whatever and I'm definitely no-one's sockpuppet: And those other people (Mr Data, CSB and N00000) are NOT me: I bet SlimVirgin never even checked first - *They were* internet friends though, but in getting people to help me I was just doing the same as what Yuber was doing at the time: going round to other editors and getting them to revert for him:

(example, Farhansher, who immediately afterwards went on every Islam-related article and reverted back to Yuber's POV version) - I was just trying to help stop the rampant POV-pushing going on

One example

• Labelling the Pro-Islam source "evidence" while the other is a "claim" is wrong: they're both claims as I tried to point out, I talked to Svest (talk · contribs) and he was ok with it after I explained in more detail on his talk page and pointed Yuber towards that but he wasn't interested and carried on revert-warring
• And it's true that there's no way someone could end puberty at 9. I mean come on, that's a relevant observation: It's a sick joke to say someone at 9 is post-pubescent.

See Lina Medina and think again. alteripse 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• The labelling of one view/opinion as "traditionalism" is wrong, it's just another side of the story: The fact is there's no proof on either side and that's something that's accepted, which is why there's two sections (proof for, proof against etc) in the article already -_-

Some of the edits by Yuber are just blatant censorship and SlimVirgin supports him all the way: Anyone accused of being a "sockpuppet" against him is banned immediately, while anonymous IPs with no contributions tend to appear out of nowhere and revert for him and no action is taken at all

What you say is demonstrably false. I submitted evidence in a fairly recent arbcom case against Yuber, and have taken recent admin action against him. But I will support him when he's being unfairly attacked and possibly stalked, as seems to be the case here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

She really seems to have something against me, probably because I tend to oppose her blatant nepotism and cliqueism (as I have said before). Recently she decided she'd paste on my talk page a link to Irishpunktom (one of her editing friends) insulting me on another article's (Islamofascism (term)) talk page and then complains when I change it, that's what's triggered this off she seems to REALLY want the last word.

Netoholic (talk · contribs)'s not neutral in this at all, he'd love to get me banned not because he's "convinced" I'm a sockpuppet but because I opposed some of his editing on articles like Eminem: He's said before he'd like to get me banned, he's pretty vindictive. After daring to change "his" infobox celebrity (to try and make the image work better, it was resizing ALL images even small ones to be a certain size so messing things up and making them look distorted) he stalked me onto Eminem and reverted me several times and reported me for 3RR on that and then later on Latex, an article he's never even edited —the preceding unsigned comment is by Mistress Selina Kyle (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 January 2006

I've never edited Latex, but I did notice it in your contribs while checking other things. -- Netoholic @ 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try and deal with this in a way which doesn't go into personal attacks. She's still trying to 'find her feet' here, as the metaphor goes. --Sunfazer 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, she's a new user and she does make valuable and valid contributions, so perhaps we should take it easy on her. If she violates WP:NPA, she should be warned with the {{npa}}...{{npa4}} templates and blocked if necessary. But no permanent blocks. - ulayiti (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to start implementing blocks of increasing length for disruption and personal attacks. Karmafist, you said or implied MSK had made some useful edits. Does anyone have any diffs? I'd like to give MSK the benefit of any doubt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to start pasting my contributions onto the administrator's noticeboard because you think I "may not have made enough useful edits" ..That doesn't belong here, and there's definitely no rules about "not making enough edits" - it looks more than anything that you're clutching at straws trying to imply I'm a ""bad editor" --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(Not an admin) I'd just like to point out that some people may have contributed anonymously long before bothering to get an account and log in; their real list of contributions may be more than what is on their user constributions page. Also, some users do not bother to log in unless commenting to a talk page. This may also explain the familiarity of a "new user" with WP. - Synapse 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As Karmafist seems to be MSK's main supporter, I've left him a note asking that we keep in touch regarding how best to proceed. [11] Hopefully, that way we'll avoid wheel wars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is obviously a personal one with me and the fact I don't like how some of your friends act, this shouldn't even be here --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal issues whatsoever with you, and hope you're able to turn into a constructive editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I already am. Your definition of "constructive" seems to mean nothing more than "let my friends walk all over you and revert war all they want" though: This is what's been going on recently. If anyone's "stalking" anyone it's Yuber and Farnhansher doing it to me. For example how Yuber tells him to go around reverting every edit I make all the time on articles he's interested in back to his own personal POV which often include unsourced personal opinions, original research and clear bias: For example like in Aisha how he was venhement in labelling the one saying about that Aisha may have been older as "evidence" and the others as "claims" and reverting when I tried to change this to say both as claims (NPOV): He does this kind of stuff all the time and when he needs help in revert wars he goes to you and you help him: You block my friends claiming they're sockpuppets with no evidence, yet his group of reverting anonymous IPs (with just as much evidence, often with no other contributions than reverting) that appear occasionally when needed are ignored out of hand --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you'd try to defend your editing and revert warring at Aisha with your unsourced, original research e.g. that "post-pubescence at nine ... is unheard of in medical terms ..." [12] and while I've no doubt you have a point (though I think you may be wrong), you need a source for the edit, because your name is not Professor of Gynaecology Mistress Selina Kyle, and the editors who reverted you on the grounds of WP:NOR were right to do so. Your sole purpose in making the edit was to underline that Muhammad, believed to be a prophet by Muslims, was a nasty old pedophile, which shows a lack of knowledge about male-female, male-male, and possibly female-female, sexual relations during that period. If you want to be a Wikipedian, you have to edit and interact within our policies and do at least a modicum of research. If you're not prepared to do this, you ought to leave, though I hope you'll choose the former course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, I was trying to get rid of the POV and disregarding out of hand any evidence that points towards the view that shows otherwise. You don't seem to know the meaning of "assume good faith" that you supposedly hold "highest of all" (quote from your user page) and seem to want to stifle any criticism of anything to do with religion, especially Islam

And offtopic: I do know that it was considered "acceptable" back then for such things but that's nothing to do with it at all: just because middle-aged men having sex with nine year old girls was considered "acceptable" back then doesn't mean it isn't still sick: We know better than to allow people to abuse children now, even if you get certain weirdos occasionally wanting to return to the "good old days" of being allowed to marry and have sex with kindergarten kids. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I read through this all, Selina, the point does not seem to be as much about what opinions you have, but rather about the way you seem to be expressing them. Revert wars, fights with other users, incivil behavior, all must stop. You seem to be accumulating blocks regularly, and that usually has no good consequences. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK -- there is an odd combination of unwarranted hostility toward me (calling me an Islamist and so forth) and an unwillingness to engage with me in discussion, even benign discussion. (For example, my query to you about your vote on the deletion measure for Fascism (United States). This combination of instant hostility and strained silence is strange, since you and I have never had any disputes before. BYT 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK -- I don't care if the user is an incarnation or a mirror of some or a few ex and present users but the behaviour of MSK is to be changed. Seriously!. They have been asked gently many times to refrain from using the ists when interacting with fellow wikipedians. I was one of the first users who noticed the hotty behaviour of the user being curious about about the userbox admin that they posted for fun on their userpage the first day!. I was assuming good faith believing they are really newbies! A few weeks later, still assuming good faith but this time believing I was totally wrong!

One more issue. I am not a fun of festivals of userboxes (I got enough though) but i saw the user creating havoc and anarchy in the community re the issue, which i personally consider it is not the first thing we need here. We need good editors, editing and avoiding useless controversy. I mean, seriously, we have some weird userboxes (i avoid to name them wikiboxes to not participate in their spread and be accused of conspiracy) and see that as a sign of individuality in wikipedia that i am against.

MSK, appart from the non respect of policies (being blocked more than enough) and the amount of conflicts they have had with tens of wikipedians, including myself in the case of Aisha and its relative discussion. This is something serious as it is the problem touches the community and one can never make life horrible for many. We spend more time arguing and witnessing incidents and infrigements (like here) than we do contributing. We got work to do and I can't accept contributing more to this board than to the main reason we all came here for. Cheers -- Szvest 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Just noting here that I've blocked MSK for 12 hours for this edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Could people please focus for a moment on the first thing SlimVirgin said: this "newbie" has been blocked ten times in two weeks. Block the account indefinitely right now. Please note that "don't bite the newbies" doesn't mean "let the reincarnations walk all over us." Bishonen | talk 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Make that eleven. I'm not blocking indef, as I have no first- or even second-hand knowledge of Chaosfeary, but a week for repeatedly removing others' comments from WP:TFD is at best lax given her history just at this username. —Cryptic (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Twelve, rather. Sean Black blocked her indef just before I got there. —Cryptic (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - it is kind of sad, but I've seen nothing but meaningless edit wars from the user, and have seen various pages protected etc. because of it. No objection here. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. 12 blocks in the span of 2 weeks is pretty much showing to me, at least, that the user is pretty much impossible to save. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with an indefinite block as well—I've had enough of this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I'm going to disagree. Looking at the "evidence" of disruption available on this page, I see hardly anything worth a block (with the exception of the vandalism to Iain_Lee), much less an indefinate one. Looking over her block log, I can see only six or seven blocks that were not a) two admins blocking at the same time for the same offense, b) a block to reblock, or c) blatant corruption innappropriate interpretation and application of WP:NPA. Looking at the evidence initially provided by SlimVirgin, I have a few things to say. First, there is no rule against re-structuring your talk or userpage. Changing headers on your user talk page is not innappropriate behavior. Second, I fail to see any evidence in the diffs provided of innappropriate removal of talk page comments. Third, when Mistress Selina Kyle editted SlimVirgin's comment on her talk page, it was to correct the diff she had provided. SlimVirgin had linked to a diff where MSK was removing a blatant personal attack - MSK corrected the link to point to where she implied the user was a fundamentalist muslim. Certainly not "hiding" anything - in fact, being so polite as to point it out to you. Mistress Selina Kyle is disruptive at times, I'll grant that, but I fail to see any egregarious violations of policy. Just my two cents, for what it's worth. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that short blocks applied liberally for specific bad edits may be less controversial than an outright indefinite block. (I'm not saying I particularly disagree with the block in this case tho.) Also, as previously pointed out, she sure looks like no newbie, so a sock check could be informative. Friday (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A sock check was very informative: Mistress Selina Kyle is a vandal. Of the five IP addresses she uses, two belong to a hosting company (unusual) and one of those is shared with at least two dozens vandals of the worst sort, including at least one incarnation of Willy on Wheels. An indefinite block is clearly warranted as it is now quite obvious that she was here for the primary, if not sole, reason of stirring up trouble. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral as ever. Yet another "neutral" point of view in relation to an issue that directly concerns you, in which you suddenly come up with "evidence" that you for some reason don't feel it necessary to present to anyone. Is a vandal? Since when. She was just someone who was trying to prove your corruption. Glad to see that you've managed to get rid of someone who was proving your corruption. Now you can feel free to act however you like without fear of reprisals. This is User:Zordrac/Poetlister all over again. And I suppose now you'll have to ban all of the people who protest MSK's block too. When will it ever end? Will there ever come a time when you tire of the coverups? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Those black helicopters are really coming to get you. Ambi 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would make for a better atmosphere if you tried to understand his upset. He seems to have misconceptualised the situation but slamming him won't fix his misconceptualisation, will it? Be gentle. I don't think Kelly's "evidence" proves much. So she uses a hosting company. Does it issue IPs on the fly? If so, MSK has the misfortune of sharing a hosting company with vandals, and so much for "research". I daresay she uses them because she was banned under a previous name. I agree that MSK is more trouble than use, but it seems to me she's fuelled more by overenthusiasm than malice (the one silly vandalism aside). It surely would have been more friendly to block her for a couple of weeks to think about whether she wants to contribute constructively, and to place her on a revert and PA parole (by which I mean suggest that she should agree to both and agree to be blocked for a week for a breach -- paroles are after all supposed to be agreements on the part of the person who has been punished). You have to ask yourself whether you can believe that she genuinely wants to contribute. Some -- and I don't blame them, SlimVirgin in particular, who has been sorely tried -- are going to think not, but I like to be positive about people -- assuming the best I can about them -- and I think she should at least be given a shot at redemption. Grace Note 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note, I never thought I'd see the day I agreed with you on something, but it appears today is the day. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to you, Evil, for being entirely unaware of who you are, and as a consequence, entirely unaware of why you would disagree with me on every issue. -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

Hosting companies are almost always (I've yet to find a single counterexample) instances of CGI open proxies. A normal user will not get an IP from a hosting company. If she (or anyone else) used two IP addresses from a hosting company, both should be indefinitely blocked as open proxies, unless someone comes up with a really good excuse for the specific IP. OTOH, the use of them is no indication of malice — some people simply like using them, and they being shared with vandals is an inevitable consequence of they being open proxies. She could also have used them to evade collateral blocks (which can happen often if you use AOL, or some ISPs which use a single shared proxy), or to try to access Wikipedia from somewhere which blocks Wikipedia. --cesarb 01:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking by Evilphoenix

• I would like to point out for those reading this discussion that Evilphoenix has now unblocked MSK with the recommendation that she take her case to the arbitration committee after the elections. Apparently MSK thinks new arbitrators will be more favorable to her case. I am all for an arbitration case so all relevant facts can be aired and I think the case should begin immediately so that justice is served either way. Waiting to see what the election brings is a form of temporal forum shopping, and it is contrary to our best interests to hold up action. If MSK has been wronged, or if she has wronged Wikipedia, then in either case the community needs to take and enforce remedies quickly. Johntex\^talk 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to unblock in this case--looking at his recent contributions on this matter, it seems to me that Evilphoenix leapt to conclusions and took precipitate action without proper consultation, against substantial support for this indefinite block. I have restored the block but bring the block here for review as is my practise. I will not block again if this block is removed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that a half-hour prior I had also reblocked the user based on Kelly Martin's sockpuppet check. [13] Demi ^T/_C 03:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm 100% in favor of Tony's action. It would be helpful if Evilphoenix posted here, also, if only so that we may know whether s/he has consulted the arguments above. Especially the argument about 12 blocks in 2 weeks. How does it conduce to writing the encyclopedia to keep such abusive, timewasting users around? Bishonen | talk 01:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

I did look at this thread, and I think this is all very convoluted, and I'm trying to wrap my head around it. From what I've seen on her Talk page though, she seems frequently incivil but not bannable, and I'm trying to sort out why she was banned. I unblocked her because I don't at this time support a ban, and my understanding is that if Admins dispute a ban, then it's not a community ban. (those being ones where user are banned simply because no one else supports unblocking them). That being said, I'm also not going to unblock again, I've taken my action, I'm not here to engage in a wheel war over it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe Kelly Martin used as a justification to block MSK that she was connected to vandals who used the same (or in someway connected) proxy. However it turned out that the user had to use a proxy as her College bars access to Wikipedia so it is unlikely she was in anyway connected to the vandals. The user has made valid contributions and is a member of Wikimedia UK. Although she has exhibited incivility I don't think a indefinite block is justified. Arniep 01:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Arniep on this, there's definitely been some vandalism connected with MSK though, 212.183.131.161 is particularly worrisome, and I think we need to figure out if there's a connection there. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. I've looked through her contributions and don't see justification for an indefinite block. There has been enough incivility and personal attacks to warrant some form of block, though not an indefinite one. I think a week ban as originally suggested would be appropriate. JYolkowski // talk 02:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK did make that claim, which has not been verified. Meanwhile Kelly Martin found that MSK has used an IP from the same provider that has not been used by other editors. You say she's a member of Wikimedia UK--has she attended meetings? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/212.183.131.161 Jkelly 02:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not big on wheel warring, but given the above, I'll indef block her until doomsday. —Cryptic (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we get confirmation that that's her? If it is, so let her be blocked. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. That's obviously not her. I think that's User:Lir, based on his comments on http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general . Almost certainly a user from there. MSK doesn't use those boards. So take your pick which already banned user it is. The IP address should obviously be permabanned of course. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not her. The ISP doesn't match her usual ISP (the one she uses when she's not editing through random open proxies). Kelly Martin (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good to know. Jkelly 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. The comments are still deeply distressing, however.--Sean|Black 02:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If I can chime in, the vandal that Jkelly points out has been on my thoughts- as you can imagine, I was deeply hurt by the things this person said, and if it was MSK, I have lost any sympathy I had for her.--Sean|Black 02:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that you actually showed her any. Grace Note 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please, and please don't assign me motives. Thanks.--Sean|Black 03:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Steady on. "I'm going to block you indefinitely next time you do something I don't like" isn't "sympathetic" in anyone's books, Sean. And I have no idea what your motives are for anything that you do and wouldn't dream of assigning you any. -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

This 12 blocks thing. Can we clarify that she has actually been blocked 12 times in two weeks and that it's not a case of blocking, unblocking, reblocking? How many offences actually was she blocked for? If it's fewer, can editors please stop stirring the pot by repeating the claim? Grace Note 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• She recieved four blocks for violations of 3RR, one block for vandalism, and two blocks for questionable definations of "personal attacks". The rest were multiple blocks at the same time, or unblocking to reblock. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 03:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I forgot to note the eighth block, by Sean Black. However, I am not aware of the reasoning behind that block, as no specific edit or series of edits was pointed out. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 04:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• So basically eight blocks, not 12, and at least a couple on spurious grounds? Four for 3RR? Well, that's not good but it's not quite the trail of evil it's painted to be. Even admins get into revert wars from time to time. -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

So, frankly, let's review. The anon above that's posting inflammatory posts isn't her, so Cryptic's (one of the indef blocking admins) comment that he'll block her till Doomsday shouldn't apply. I'm looking through the diffs people have been posting and I'm seeing incivility and some bad choices, but somebody help me understand what exactly it is that's gotten her banned. This needs to be an RfC or an RfAr. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

She hasn't been banned; she is currently just blocked indefinitely. Bans can only be imposed by Jimbo, by the arbcom (neither of which applies here) or by community consensus (which doesn't apply here either, as there is patently no consensus). JYolkowski // talk 03:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with unblock by Evilphoenix. Appropriate procedural actions (RfC, RfAr) weren't taken, so we have a user, indefinitely blocked for NOTHING (remember presumption of innocence and WP:AGF). I think MSK has already learned her lesson and having this ridiculous block continued is damaging to Wikipedia and its core values. Grue 07:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, drop the drama, please. MSK had virtually no edits to the encyclopedia, and had dedicated virtually all her attention to playing wargames with other users. We've assumed good faith for the last few weeks, but it's gotten well to the point where the ongoing damage she's causing to the project vastly outweights her five or so edits in the article namespace. Arbitration is not required for someone who's making no productive edits. Ambi 09:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Except that she made a number of useful edits, in several namespaces, and certainly a lot more than "five or so". Sure, she was heated often, and definately overzealous in her contributions, but as for "ongoing damage to the project"... there is none. She vandalized one article, and was reprimanded for it - no other vandalism has taken place. She has more frequenly been involved in revert wars, but the way I see it, a revert war takes at least two people. As for "dedicating attention" to "playing wargames", it could be argued that pointing out abusive behaviour is far more beneficial to the project than passively ignoring it under the pretense of building an encylopedia. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop blatant lies like that. It is obvious that she did good edits in various areas of Wikipedia. Just run Kate's tool and see for yourself.  Grue  09:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Spare the personal attacks, Grue. Edit counts really don't cut in here, as even MSK, in her own defence, could only give about eight examples of useful things she'd done - about four relatively minor edits, and about four things in the userspace. I notice that you don't even try to show otherwise, but instead throw ad hominems around. She was a nightmare to deal with for anyone who disagreed with her, and she was actively engaged in driving her opponents off the wiki. At the same time, there was very few, if any, ongoing useful edits. It is patently obvious that an arbitration case would have resulted in the exact same result two months down the line, with either the old or the new committee. As such, there was absolutely no benefit in keeping her around pending the inevitable. I'd like to think you two were above this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense. Just someone is attacking someone you dislike does not mean that they're worth defending. Ambi 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: cut the bullshit. Read her contributions instead of recycling the lies of her opponents. There are lots of good edits in main namespace. Of course there are also bad edits, but good ones outweigh them. Grue 13:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of those that are undecided, could you provide 15-20 diffs of good mainspace contributions? If you're correct that "There are lots of good edits in main namespace", this shouldn't take long. I think it's important to establish whether her good contributions were closer to "very few" or "lots". Carbonite | Talk 14:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Green Berets created from a redirect
2. Saint Hill [14] replaces link to the poor Google sattelite image with a better one.
3. Black Mesa Research Facility [15] Cleans up article, adds a logo.
4. Blue Blood, several good minor fixups, wikifications
5. Latex clothing, [16] looks like a valid addition.
6. Black Triangle, good and valid article created by MSK.
7. Creates several useful redirects such as American Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts of the USA.
8. Albert Einstein. reverts vandalism
9. World citizen. [17] Provides images.
10. Cloning. Minor fix, but a useful one.
11. Christmas, [18] Good constructive edit, provides interesting history.
12. List of punk cities, [19] Cleans up article.
13. Macro virus (biology) Valid article created by MSK.
14. Latex [20] Good expansion.
15. Flogging Molly [21] Good expansion.

Hope that helps. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, after taking a look at those diffs and the ones on her talk page, I think we should send this to the ArbCom. If her behavior is poor during the case, an editing injunction might be in order. Carbonite | Talk 14:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just someone is attacking someone you dislike does not mean that they're worth defending. I defend MSK because she was a valuable contributor, not for personal bias. Suggesting otherwise is a clear assumption of bad faith. I'm with Grue - cut the nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think if we do unban her, she'd definitely need someone to follow her around, assign her to mentcom perhaps. NSLE _(T+C) 09:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• There's no need to unban her at all. Ambi 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is clearly no consensus that she should be banned. Personally I would unblock her myself now, but I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak and don't want to get involved. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am going to have to make myself unpopular with the people who are concerned with cutting the nonsense and side with Blu Aardvark here. I have looked through MSK's contributions list and she has several valid edits to the main article namespace, so I think saying that she only has five or so is highly inaccurate. I am not sure either that the ArbCom, present or future, would impose an indefinite ban. Even with highly disruptive and unpleasant users such as Irate, the ArbCom initially imposed a ban of three months only. MSK has vandalised once, but is not an indisputable vandal account like Willy on Wheels so an indefinite block for that reason seems unwarranted. MSK has engaged in edit-warring, but we don't impose indefinite bans for that, initially we enforce 3RR (done here, no complaint about that), and Arbcom penalty for that is typically imposing a 1 revert-limit or a ban from a certain type of article. There does not appear to be community consensus to support an indefinite ban either, considering that several respected users such as Aardvark, Evilphoenix and Grue are opposed to it. Disruption is what this indefinite block is based on, but if we look at the blocking policy: "blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits". The only thing here which I think would justify an indefinite block is if MSK is a sockpuppet of a banned user. That is possible but I cannot see that it is proven. In this case, I do think ArbCom review is warranted, clearly MSK has upset several users and caused quite a lot of disruption, but whether or not the disruption is serious enough to warrant an indefinite block is a decision which should not be made by a few admins only. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK has made a list of some of her positive contributions here User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#A_list_of_some_positive_contributions. Arniep 14:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: The only thing here which I think would justify an indefinite block is if MSK is a sockpuppet of a banned user. That is possible but I cannot see that it is proven. -- I would like, once again, to draw attenntion to the (not-yet-addressed) fact that MSK has a mixture of instant hostility to me and an unwillingness to engage with me in even benign conversation. This despite our never having had any conflict whatsoever. Does this not suggest that there is a past history that took place under another username? BYT 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Who do you suspect she might be a sockpuppet of? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, I think she's User:Chaosfeary. Note [the first response to my post here], which was critical of a long-simmering pet project of Chaosfeary's. I've never had any problems with this person, and she moves instantly to name-calling. I've left about half-a-dozen comments on various pages for MSK since this, and she seems quite eager to steer clear of me. Odd? BYT 15:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Instant dislike? That could be evidence of sock-puppetry (though not neccessarily implying that the original account is blocked) or just general unpleasantness on the part of one or both of you. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. MSK was against Slim Virgin in relation to her behaviour in the banning of User:Taxwoman and extended that towards her behaviour on other projects, which then led to her attacking of User:BrandonYusufToropov. Note that the ban of Taxwoman happened a long time before any attacks on BYT, and can be seen as an extension of her attacks on Slim Virgin. That being said, I would like to know who Chaosfeary was. He is NOT a banned user - but was someone who was given a few short term blocks, therefore even if she was a "sock puppet", then it is not grounds for a ban. However, I can see no evidence that they are the same person, and indeed User:Jayjg had already proven through CheckUser that they were not the same person, and I think that we should take this as given. Whilst it is obviously unfortunate that she didn't like BYT, I think that the issue should be what she said to BYT rather than any allegations of sock puppetry, which, in my opinion, is irrelevant anyway. Since MSK wasn't banned for anything she said to BYT, I think that BYT should perhaps present what she said to him. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the very first response to the post I just cited. S/he called me an Islamist, a strangely familiar epithet coming as it did from someone who was supposedly new to the conversation. BYT 15:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think her calling you an islamist suggests that she knew you previously, just that she is anti-muslim. It looks like Chaosfeary is a friend of MSK as she left a message at the top of their user page User:Chaosfeary. Arniep 16:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked TonySidaway to reconsider, as a number of people (myself included, based on what has been said here) don't seem to think the case for an indefinite block is sufficiently clear at this time, and it therefore either needs to be made more clearly (either here, or through RFC or RFAR) or replaced with some other measure (eg mentorship). Rd232 ^talk 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight; I reinstated a block, originally placed on the basis of known bad behavior over a protracted period and a checkuser report, that appeared to have been removed by one editor without any discernible discussion. I brought it here for review--a practise I have made with all blocks almost since my first actions as an administrator. I wouldn't presume to second guess the checkuser information and I have yet to see an adequate explanation of why this editor, supposedly at a British college, cannot simply edit Wikipedia from a direct connection. This isn't China. The user's pattern of extreme personal attacks since being blocked does not fill me with confidence in his or her willingness to edit Wikipedia. Nevertheless I would not oppose a considered unblocking on the understanding that any sign of this user continuing her attacks will result in reinstatement of the permanent block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

in some UK Colleges Wikipedia is classified as chat so is blocked. Arniep 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Names of such institutions, please? Also, I'm amused by the claim that she's a member of Wikimedia UK, given that's not fully set up yet. I'd love to know what JamesF and Jguk have to sy about that. Not to mention David Gerard and Tony Sidaway who are, IIRC, also involved at some level. Rob Church (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

go to my talk page and find the link for a screenshot, do a search on the page for "photobucket": No I'm not telling you what college I'm going to, as I already said that was the reason for me using http://www.concealme.com (try it yourself, I also said about this on my talk page but half the people posting here didn't seem to bother to read the huge discussions going on there) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

She said she used the hosting service because she was scared someone would trace her to her college and cause her trouble. I think that's plausible enough. Tony, I don't see any "extreme personal attacks" frankly. A bit of mouthiness, that's all. Do you not think that a user who's been blocked permanently might feel hurt though? There's lots of editwarring on Wikipedia and lots of people talking to each other like shit, some of them "respected users". She's probably not quite clear that she's done anything much wrong. Why not unblock her, ask her to agree to a personal 1RR with a day off for each infringement and caution her not to mouth off at other editors? Surely that would be much more constructive than throwing the book at her? -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

Oh I've already indicated that I wouldn't oppose an unblock if she doesn't continue with her personal attacks--which, whatever you may say, were extremely inflammatory. She's been unblocked and I'm fine with that. I've tried to follow her instructions about "find the link for a screenshot, do a search on the page for "photobucket" but, alas, without success. If anyone could help out here, I'd be grateful.

In reply to Robchurch, I'm not a member of Wikimedia UK but I do know people who have attended preliminary meetings. As far as I'm aware nobody answering her description has done so--she could well be involved in Wikimedia in some way but if the extent of that is to put her name down on a wiki page or subscribe to a mailing list it's not really getting us any further in refuting the checkuser evidence.

Of course it's MSK's right to use an anonymizing proxy, and also being somewhat kinky myself I understand that she could plausibly be reluctant to give away any informtion that might lead to her being identified, but users who use such proxies to misbehave risk being blocked. It's best not to misbehave in the first place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: the link you can't find. Here is the link. It appears on MSK's talk page in the section "=(". --Tabor 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

I just saw that MSK was indefinitely blocked and came here to see if there has been any discussion about users with Asperger Syndrome. I stumbled into a revert war at Template:User Aspie and saw a telling comment. I'm copying the discussion here. I have not as yet gotten a reply to my comment. -- Samuel Wantman

You're telling an Aspie to stop being obsessive? Do you have any idea what the syndrome entails and what the primary symptom is? :p That is all. Rogue 9 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I know? Should I assume that an editor has a serious neurological condition, and tread carefully around them? I'm sorry, but I refuse to stare at the wheelchair, if you get my meaning. -- Ec5618 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really know much about Aspies, but I have come accross a few of you here and there. The above note points out a problem I have been pondering, and for which I don't as yet have an answer. The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that it really isn't my role to figure this out, but rather is up to the Wikipedia Aspie community to address. While Aspies have made some wonderful contributions around here, I and others, have found some behavior to be very disruptive. There are some rules of behavior that have been reached by consensus by the community. Some of these rules, like assuming good faith, the three revert rule, no personal attacks, etc... are essential for the continued success of Wikipedia. It seems unreasonable to exempt some people from these rules because of a neurological condition. Instead, I hope the Aspie community could figure out a way to participate without being disruptive. I don't know what that is, but I'm willing to help out in whatever way I can to implement it. Perhaps some sort of mentoring situation is possible.

I was the first admin on the scene here yesterday, and my first reaction was to block everyone. It is not the first occasion that I have felt like blocking an Aspie and didn't. I believe in talking about things and trying to work them out first. It would be very unfortunate if these problems do not get addressed and many Aspies get permanently blocked. I hope that doesn't happen. -- Samuel Wantman 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, there was a bit on the mailing list (wiken-l) a while back. I'll reply with more on your talk page. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that discriminating against someone for a mental disorder is discrimination. Whilst each country has their own laws, I am sure that in USA such behaviour would be considered to be illegal, and it would also cover internet use. Whilst Wikipedia can legally ban or allow whoever they like, they cannot forbid someone entry on the basis of race, gender, religious preference, sexual preference, or mental disability. Pretty simple thing. Whilst you are entitled to treat her as if she did not have a disability, you are not entitled to consider this to be a factor warranting a ban. To do so may be illegal, and put the individual person doing the ban/discriminating and/or Wikipedia itself in to jeapordy for legal action. Just seriously not a good idea. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got this backwards. Please re-read my comments. I am trying to think of accomodations for the disability to help keep people from getting banned. I resisted blocking the revert war because I knew that AS has some compulsive behaviors related to it. Had I not tried to accomodate the AS I would have immediately blocked them. My comment was an outreach to try and think of a way Wikipedia can make accomodations. -- Samuel Wantman 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No problems. I guess that I am a bit wary of people doing things like this. Going for equality really is important, and discrimination is an issue that needs to be considered. I mean we wouldn't ban someone for being muslim, would we? Or even for believing in Goat Cheese. But we might not like them pushing these views. I hope that you didn't think I was attacking anyone there. I just get very nervous when people talk about things like this, especially as at least a few people have commented in a way that suggests that they should be able to ban autistic people for being autistic. Quite simply, you can't. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac, please refrain from commenting on legal issues when you frankly have no clue what you're talking about. You're becoming as bad as Everyking - you comment first, then think and research later if we're lucky. Ambi 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, we can discriminate on any basis whatsoever; as a private entity receiving no governmental support, we are not bound by any nondiscrimination law whatsoever. Volunteer organizations are not required by law not to discriminate when selecting volunteers. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify how being 501(c)(3) is "receiving no governmental support"? If I started "church of the white man" tomorrow, I would not receive tax exempt status. Avriette 20:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that I have ever seen a more obvious Wikipedia:No personal attacks than the one above by User:Ambi. I trust that you recognise Wikipedia policy with regards to such things. You should know it, after all.

I have no clue what I am talking about, do I? I dare you to prove me wrong. Because you won't be able to, you know. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist

I was simply noting that you hadn't read any of this discussion before launching into one of your predictable "fight the power" tirades. No one here was suggesting anything like banning people just because they had Asperger's syndrome, which you would have known had you read any more than the section title. Ambi 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The law (in the US) only applies to employers discriminating against employees anyway... the whole argument is silly. --W.marsh 06:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, (so sayeth the psychs) I've got Asperger's syndrome; however, I am of the distinct opinion that the behaviour demonstrated by MSK could not really be ascribed to that. Asperger's syndrome sufferers are widely held to have issues with social skils, with emotional development and integration happening late-on (or to an impared degree). Asperger's syndrome could not possibly be used as an excuse for some of MSK's vitriol, because quite frankly I am capable of restraining myself from her distinctly unpleasant mode of interaction. Although I do have my odd moment of difficulty in this area I could not see it being expressed in such a manner. I think Wikipedia needs to bear AS in mind, perhaps, but it is not by any means carte blanche to behave poorly. Indeed, to ascribe MSK's inability to behave in a civil and reasonable fashion to AS would be to do a great disservice to its sufferers. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And everyone is affected to precisely the same degree as you are? To say that someone could not possibly be affected in a way you are not seems a rather extreme generalization of personal experience. --Tabor 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As the father of a son with HFA I've grown familiar with the varying degrees of PDD and spectrum disorders. While it's true that all individuals with these disorders share the trait of poor or unusual social skills and vary in their abilities in this regard I would find it extremely hard to believe that one would actively seek out confrontation like MSK has. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but if it has I've never heard of it. The typical reaction would be to shy away from such confrontations and occasionally fall into one by mistake. But, I'm not a shrink, I only deal with my son's issues day in and day out and explain this stuff to people almost daily! --Wgfinley 03:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Like Nicholas and MSK, I also have Asperger's, and he's right, it shouldn't be an excuse for rudeness or incivility. Indeed, despite my eccentric nature at times, i've done things that you wouldn't associate with someone with "social issues", such as running for public office, as well as the seeds of careers in heavily people orientated careers such as Journalism and Real Estate. Asperger's isn't an excuse.

However, Tabor's also right, it's different for everyone, especially for people like MSK, who not only has AS, but is also young, which usually exasperbates the misconceptions that are common between neurotypicals and those with AS. I'm not going to touch the block for the time being, because she needs to calm down anyway, but I hope there's some way we can make her realize that being a jerk to those she disagrees with isn't cool, because I don't think she does or feels that kindness won't work at this point with what's been going on during the past few weeks. karmafist 05:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of autism is that it is a spectrum rather than just something specific. It is extraordinarily ill-defined, and in fact covers a wide range of different disorders. It is also one of the most poorly diagnosed syndromes imaginable. So saying that this is how one person behaves therefore all of the others must behave in the same way is wrong. The spectrum has an allowable set of behaviours in order to be considered to be autistic. Mistress Selina Kyle's behaviours comfortably fall within this spectrum. This does not mean that all autistics will exhibit these behaviours. It is probably less than 10% who would behave in a similar manner to MSK in similar circumstances.

As for the confrontation, no, Aspies aren't scared of confrontation. They misunderstand confrontation. What this means is that in school they will often be teased and take it literally, not realising that it is an attack on them. Similarly, they may tease others and not realise that there is anything wrong with it. This means that Aspies are regularly incorrectly believed to be "stirring up trouble" when in fact they are not. This is typical behaviour. And if you look at the allegations of MSK's "personal attacks" and "incivility", all of them fall comfortably within this boundary. MSK hasn't actually personally attacked anyone here, nor has she been incivil. What she has been is a typical Aspie.

That being said, her confronting Kelly Martin and Slim Virgin is not typical Aspie. That has nothing to do with her condition. That is because she felt that these people were corrupt and needed to be exposed. So if she is being criticised for trying to expose corruption, people should realise that her doing that had nothing to do with Asperger's Syndrome. She might have done it in a different way to others. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I fail to see the supposed abundance of unjustifiable personal attacks; she's simply blunt. This is to be expected, and I find it an admirable quality, though those with thin skins and a better ability to sift through bullshit tend to disagree with me. Be that as it may, despite my status as a plebe around here, I see no reason for an indefinite block. Presuming that she does indeed have Asperger's (unusual in a female, but it does happen and would explain her unusual behavior), then her only behavior which isn't almost inevitable in an Aspie (that is to say, conflicts of personality arising from failure to empathize, not from malice) is her crusade against perceived corruption among the admins, and that is not a blockable offense in itself, as much as any theoretical corrupt admins (or admins annoyed at being so investigated) might like it to be. What that speaks of to me is integrity and overzealousness, and God help us if either of those traits become bannable offenses. Rogue 9 08:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment: I think it should be noted that most "Aspies" are possibly self-diagnosed. The existence of a userbox makes this extremely easy. It is unfortunate that in this day, bad behavior is hidden behind a constructed disorder. We say a child has ADHD and administer pharmaceuticals instead of addressing the possibility that she lacks discipline. When the child grows up she can hide behind the label of an "Aspie" instead of dealing with the fact that she is a jerk. This is unconscionable. Even if someone has a legitimate though manageable disorder, it's the person's responsibility to deal with it instead of hiding behind it.

After reading Kelly Martin's comment on MSK's lack of quality editing and MSK's replies on her talk page, I decided to look into it myself. When I ran an edit count last night, I found that only 30% of this user's edits were on articles, images and associated talk pages. This means that 70% of this user's edits have nothing to do with developing the encyclopedia (unless you strongly believe that userboxes have extraordinary value to the project). Furthermore, if you remove talk pages, deleted edits, and vandalism from the statistics, her useful edits only amount to about 20%. --malber 14:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The dismissal of a diagnosis of any other user, cheapning it as "self diagnosis" is... Well, I'm at a loss for words, in that regard. Let's toss it in the "evil" bin. Secondly, I think some of you fail to understand the symptoms of Aspergers, or more correctly, the behavior of those so diagnosed. I don't particularly feel that the user went out of her way to confront anyone. As others have said, she is dedicated to producing articles and does contribute. It is when that is interfered with (this is commonly referred to as "hyper focus" in text on the subject -- see ISBN 0684801280 for more details), the user is left with very few coping skills. What you see is the result. Lastly, going after edit counts can be used on just about anyone. I recently examined the same statistics for NSLE. The reply was a juvenile "why don't you make me?" Let's leave the edit count out of this, and the deprecating of a person's psychological state as well. Avriette 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never "hidden" behind it and have never used it as an argument for anything so please don't start insulting me, especially making personal attacks like "instead of dealing with the fact that she is a jerk".

I think it's mostly irrelevant really. Not that it's any of your business at all but as you seem to want to accuse me of being "fake" or "covering up for myself", yes, it was done by a qualified psychiatrist/psychologist (I have no idea which but it was at an early age)

a minor point to Wgfinley, "father of a son with HFA" who finds "it extremely hard to believe" that I have asperger's because of basically 'not being shy enough': I'm tended to just not say anything with regards to your perhaps surprising bigotry, but there is nothing about aspergers that makes people "shy away from such confrontations" - maybe occasionally from social situations out of shyness but I know more as well as having it myself I probably know more people with aspergers than you and several I know have been expelled from several schools for standing up to bullies and getting in fights etc

malber (talk · contribs): On the other subject of "useful edits", you really are quite a venomous little man aren't you (don't quote NPA at me, you prick, you're already accusing me of "hiding behind my aspergers" and calling me a "jerk"..) - lies, damn lies and statistics: "I found that only 30% of this user's edits were on articles, images and associated talk pages. This means that 70%" - Sorry, community is not important at all now? And just because it's not an article/image edit doesn't mean it's automatically "userbox"? Ever heard of "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk:"? Sorry, but this is Wikipedia, not Britannica. We're not paid, we're not employed to edit here: If there was no community for Wikipedians to work together, no one would be editing.

Are we now judging wikipedians on the amount of editing they do and banning those who don't work hard enough? What is this turning into? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT doesn't say Wikipedia isn't a gulag. If the community wants to ban you because they think your socks are smelly, then too bad. There's no such thing as an innate right to edit Wikipedia. (This is not to say that the community wants you gone; if they did, nobody would be protesting your block.) If it takes a gulag to build an encyclopedia, a gulag is what we're going to have. All other goals besides building an encyclopedia are secondary. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It takes extreme vanity to assume I was talking about you. I was responding to Zordrac's suggestion that your behavior should be excused because you're a self labeled "Aspie." Asperger's seems to be one of those "bumper sticker" illnesses that people tend to publicize about themselves, like a special club. It's especially troubling that there's a userbox for Asperger's. If we take what Zordrac is suggesting, all a troll would have to do is slap that userbox on his userpage and all should be forgiven. This is troubling. If you want to throw around quotes, here's a good one.

I'm not even going to discuss your personal attacks. I think they speak for themselves. If you wish to regain the good graces of the admins, a little bit of humility and contrition would go a long way. Kelly Martin has a valid point. The ratio of encyclopedia building to "community building" is skewed. Indeed, if there is even the slightest impression that you've been disruptive, the idea that you've been building the community is dubious. --malber 15:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Normally I wouldn't dare enter these types of situations but after reading this and witnessing all the fighting and bias I'm afraid I have no choice. To those who seem to think Aspie's "hide behind our diseases" or "we use it as an excuse" is entirely untrue, pathetic, sickening and offensive to all who have this rotten disorder. Yes, I realise some of MSK's actions may not be due to AS, but for you people who are lucky enough not to experience this disorder firsthand I fail to see how you possibly have a good understanding about it. You should be considered lucky; I went undiagnosed for over 10 years and it's safe to say my life was a living hell back then. I would suggest reading Asperger Syndrome if you haven't already done so. I can say I have never had a bad experience with MSK and I wish the bias and personal attacks would all stop together. I thought Wikipedia was fair; apparently I was horribly misled. Fell free to use your bias and block me, however you will have one less member reverting vandalism. --Winter 16:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is really not the place for debating the merits of an Asperger Syndrome diagnosis, or whether or not this is a true neurological disorder. My response was regarding the idea that a user's disruptive behavior should be excused because of a possible self applied diagnosis. Anyone with a legitimately diagnosed disorder should be offended by this idea. Note that I'm not saying that every "aspie" behaves this way. --malber 16:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Intentional disregard of WP:FU by User:MegamanZero

I happened across an inappropriate use of unlicensed media on a user page today at User:MegamanZero. I removed the inappropriate use and informed the user that I had removed it on his talk page. He has since replaced the removed image. Since I follow 0RR with respect to admin actions, I've merely notified the user that I will report his disregard of policy here. And so I have. I request that some other administrator remove the image again and take such appropriate measures as to ensure that this user returns to compliance with policy in this regard. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: User:MegamanZero altered the license on the image in dispute from "fair use" [22] to "free for any use" [23] in order to get around the fair use policy. This alteration of the license was based on no legitimate claim and was clearly done with total disregard for our copyright policies and the copyright law. I am therefore blocking MegamanZero for one month. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is OTT, though I agree with the block on principle. Would you agree if I reduced it to one week, with a "don't do this again or else" note on the user talk page? [[Sam Korn]] 19:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree he needs a block, but a month seems excessive. android79 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I can live with a week. Note that under policy I'm entitled to block him indefinitely; Jimbo has sanctioned a zero-tolerance policy for this sort of thing. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. Another violation -> month block. Further violation -> indefinite block. [[Sam Korn]] 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A week sounds good - it sends a clear message of "no". And, of course, much longer would be appropriate for any repeat of this -- sannse (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll reduce the block to a week and update the note on his talk page. Thanks for the advice. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This guy is an admin? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Who? MegamanZero isn't, no. Kelly Martin might be; I can't quite recall. -Splash^talk 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That entire statement "0RR in respect to admin actions" does kind of give it away. ;-) Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I must have misread. Thank god. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• These Fair use and other copywrite issues are confusing to many people. Megamanzero is a fairly new user, but he shouldn't have replaced the images under a new proported license. Is a one week block a bit long in light of the fact that he is still fairly new and seems to be quite youthful?--MONGO 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He's not all that new, having been here for at least a couple of months, and deliberately applied an inappropriate copyright tag, implying he knows precisely how copyright tags work. I imagine if he establishes by email with Kelly Martin that it absolutely won't happen again, and Kelly is satisfied of that fact, that the block can be shortened or lifted. But that's up to Kelly. -Splash^talk 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest that a user savvy enough to alter the copyright template on an image in an attempt to get away with copyright infringement doesn't get the benefit of claiming a lack of experience with how we deal with copyright issues. I suggest that the user in question is being treated quite leniantly in not getting indef-blocked. Jkelly 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • NO, it's not up to Kelly. I won't lift the block, but I think he is just very youthful. If he agress and apolgizes for his transgressions, the block should be reduced to 48 hours in my opinion. And an indefinite ban, Jkelly?...you're joking of course? What are we here, a lynch mob?--MONGO 22:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't kidding. There have been a couple of statements recently by User:Jimbo Wales indicating that copyright infringement is serious enought to indef-block for. Jkelly 22:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of those statements by Jimmmy Wales. They pertain to more egregious situations from my understanding.--MONGO 22:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as less serious than two cut-and-pastes from IMDB done over a year ago. I'll grant that its reasonable to disagree with me about that, though. Jkelly 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I will lift the block, it looks like that rfc wasn't enough to end the lynch mob mentality that MONGO's talking about here. You think Kelly would have stopped all of this after that rfc. I try to take some time off, and I see that she's still at it... karmafist 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, leave the block in place, I gave Meagman instructions on what he really does need to do..--MONGO 22:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Karmafist has lifted the block anyway, replacing it with one of his own choice. Karmafist is cruising for trouble. -Splash^talk 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Karmafist, if you are reading this, I request you cease making decisions that are not backed up by consensus. There was not consensus for Kelly's original block. I shortened it. There was consensus for my block. You shortened it. There is not consensus for your block. I don't intend to change it again, but I request that you think more carefully before using your admin privileges in future. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 23:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I can't believe that with an ongoing discussion an admin takes such unilateral action. It shows total contempt for process and concensus and abuses admins powers (hey, wasn't that what Kelly was criticised for in the RfC.... - looks like the pot and the kettle). --Doc ^ask? 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• MONGO is right (and so is Doc); I say, let him take over this case. El_C 01:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I say the 1 week block should be restored. That's what had consensus, and consensus is good. -- SCZenz 08:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the block should not be restored. Don't get me wrong, Karmafist was wrong to shorten it. I think the 1 week block was appropriate, but it is not fair to put MegamanZero in the middle of our fights. Karmafist is an admin, and we need to live with his decisions in this case. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 09:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Megaman Zero appointed me voluntarily as his mentor a couple of weeks ago. As there are enough eyes on this case and he should know not to do anything like this again, I propose that the block remain as forty-eight hours. If he doesn't take copyright very seriously thereafter , then a one-month block would be deserved. I know that an indefinite block may be considered in circumstances where someone has knowingly tried to fiddle the copyright policy (this would apply if he did it again, see this), but this is a user who genuinely wants to help Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems very petty for a copyright issue. Just delete the picture and be done with it. Is a block really necessary? Let alone threats of an indefinite block for what, listing a picture without appropriate copyright? There's so many pictures on here without proper copyright that it's not funny. Whilst that is an issue in itself, I don't think that someone should be blocked over something like this. If its a repetitive thing maybe, but not as a one off. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Other stuff

Would you consider similar action in relation to this removal of a copyvio statement? (See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 January 6) for abuse associated with this action). User:Noisy | Talk 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because this says that the material is indeed Crown copyright. (Unsurprising — it's a crown!) The linkedto list suggests it may appear on some userpages, but I haven't checked them all. -Splash^talk 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you read this portion of the page you cite?

Copyright of photographs on this site appears alongside each photograph. Copies of many of the photographs appearing on this site can be obtained from the sources listed below. Pictures must not be copied, used or reproduced by any means or in any format (including other web sites) without the prior permission of the copyright holder.

User:Noisy | Talk 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The odd thing is that at the source where it says the image is from does say it is under crown copyright [24]. Maybe we should send it to WP:PUI and see what they say, or we can just look on the Commons for a crown photo. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 19:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has Image:Kamelia shojaee.jpg on her user page which is also a fair use image, been on there a while it looks like. funny how only certain people get targeted by certain admins isn't it? -_-

This is also just as intentional, see this edit and this edit.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate policy is at Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy (which is an official Wikipedia policy). It states at bullet point nine (my bold):

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.

User:Noisy | Talk 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed that photo from another user page, but Slim was telling me on my talk page that the copyright situation is being "worked out" with the artist, who lives in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I still think the photo should be removed for the time being, but I am not going to engage in a wheel war over it. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Fair_use#Counterexamples: Some people find it easier to understand the concept of fair use from what is not fair use. Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: … A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War SlimVirgin, used without permission to illustrate an article on the war SlimVirgin. Also note Raul's 4th Law. The image is released under a promotional tag, so it's safe to say that promoting the artist or the Iran Cultural Heritage Foundation, and quite likely the nation of Iran is covered under the image's licence. Promoting the SlimVirgin is not. And I'm sorry to say that this: stating on User:Zscout370's talk page that Iran is not party to the major copyright treaties to be able to keep the image is cheap and disrespectful. Let us respect the artist's intellectual property, even though she does not live in a country that is a signatory of the Berne Convention! Pilatus 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Commons even has a provision about copyrighted items from the Islamic Republic of Iran. [25]. I also believe that Jimbo said that we should respect Iranian copyright though they are not a party to any of the various treaties. [26] Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 01:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This was apparently released for promotional purposes, so fair use isn't being claimed. Give me a few days to hear back from the artist, and if I don't, I'll remove the image myself. In the meantime, I'll add her name and some other details to make sure that I am "promoting" her. I wish as much energy was expended tracking down and removing defamatory, inaccurate, unsourced edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipdia doesn't allow "with permission" images anyway does it, because it's not verifiable other than the person asking for permission? I remember someone saying that. And yes it is fair use, the tag on the picture says fair use clearly (note that SlimVirgin did not take the photograph of the art or upload it) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 08:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Permissions (i.e. verifications of a release under the GFDL) can be verified by emailing permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org. [[Sam Korn]] 11:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the artist wants to or intends to release the image under the GFDL - definitely hasn't so the image is a clear copyvio in its present state: what I'm referring to is SlimVirgin's comment that she will "try get permission from the artist" --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the location of this artist, there is pronbably few times that the artist might even email, so I will suggest this: SlimVirgin launches an email explaining about the Permissions/GFDL and all of that good ol' fun stuff and explain about where the email should be sent to to grant permissions. Until we get a response back from permissions, I respectfully ask SlimVirgin to remove that photo for that duration. Once we get the email and the artist give us the green light, then SlimVirgin can put it back. Deal? Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 09:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Um....let's clear this up, shall we..? Since there are so many misconceptions regarding this situation, and everyone seems to be able to read my mind except for me(!), I'll just say that this was all a immense misunderstanding. My valid argument can found here. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Dschor claims that all third party edits to his user page are vandalism

Dschor appears to have decided that his userpage deserves the same protection from outside editing as a geocities account. As a result he has accused other users who've made simple changes of vandalizing his page. He has since equipped his userpage with a notice which claims that edits made without his authorization are vandalism. Can someone else please ask him to go get a free web account someplace if he is interested in maintaining a personal web presence? --Gmaxwell 07:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion? He can presume that all he wants. However, I would avoid editing it unless necessary (as I do with all user pages) but simply reading Wikipedia:User page will tell you they are community space. gren グレン 07:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

He's just mad because I edited his user page. He needs to grow a sense of humor or something. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh, he's changed tack :) [27] --Interiot 08:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I also edited his userspace to change a flag, i'll see what he says. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:User page:"by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." Crystal clear: it's a convention, but only a convention. Dschor can (foolishly or otherwise) presume what he likes about people who breach it. Rd232 ^talk 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

People shouldn't be editing someone else's user page unless there is a very good reason for it. I will check out the edits and comment further. But please be a bit nicer to him about it. He is clearly assuming that Wikipedia runs in a way that places like Geocities/LiveJournal etc work, and that your user page belongs to you. It is a reasonable assumption to make. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay I checked it and User:Snowspinner has been making misleading edit summaries, stating incorrectly that he was removing text because it was a personal attack, when there was none on there. Really, there was nothing wrong with Dschor's version, so let's just leave it be. It's just very petty to go around changing people's user pages for these kinds of reasons. Get rid of personal attacks by all means, but not opinions. We might call it vandalism if you do edit his user page like that, and with good reason. So please stop. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner has made one edit, with the remarkably accurate summary: "Reverted edits by User:Dschor (talk) to last version by User:Tony Sidaway". Tony made the changes you refer to, and I'm curious why you didn't discuss things with him before acting. Questions of intent and civility aside, you need only look at Dschor's talk page for your comment:

Obviously stating that you oppose Kelly Martin for ArbCom is not a personal attack. However, perhaps you should not include "Beware the Cabal".

And Tony's above that:

Secondly, while your stated opposition to Kelly Martin was probably okay, the allegation that she is a member of some Cabal is an attack and we don't allow personal attacks. I've removed it for now; please feel free to restore minus the attack.

...to see your thinking is along closer lines than you might suspect. Maybe before attempting to set Dschor's expectations regarding his User page, you should reach a consensus here first. I'm sure Dschor doesn't feel like being the subject of a wheel war. InkSplotch^(talk) 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, I am getting tired of fighting this type of vandalism on my page. I never stated that Kelly is a member of a cabal, but I did notice the prominent display of an "I love the cabal" image on her user page. Seemed like a harmless reference to her own stated affection. I assume good faith, but I ask that you please notify me before making significant changes to my user page. It's simply the polite thing to do. --Dschor 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism suggests malicious intent. I don't see that here, but I'm only a neutral party. What I see is a difference of opinion on two counts: should Users (such as yourself) be allowed to reserve edit rights to their User page, and was the "cabal" comment a personal attack. While consensus doesn't seem too firm yet, it doesn't seem to be going your way at the moment. I'd ask you consider the comments above about User pages and community space. I'd also suggest that Kelly Martin's original edit, regardless of it's factual accuracy, was a good faith edit and not a personal attack or attempted vandalism. Use of the word "cabal" would probably be best dropped by all sides.

To others, I'd like to echo Zordrac's comments about "...be a bit nicer...about it." Dschor might be making a test case here over User rights to their User Pages, but poking at him to see how he reacts ("I also edited his userspace to change a flag, i'll see what he says.") isn't going to help all of you reach a stronger consensus, or Dschor to be more amicable to your position. InkSplotch^(talk) 14:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

m Signing my comments, now that I have an account to do so. InkSplotch^(talk) 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but the heading for this section does not reflect any statement that I have made, and is a straw man created to distract the casual observer from the fact that Administrators are taking their POV and inserting it into a user page against that user's strenuous objections. I do not claim unique rights to edit my user page, but in the interests of accuracy, I cannot permit editors to remove my own opinion, or insert their own. I do not doubt that Kelly felt she was doing a service in adding her name to my user page, but her failure to revert upon my request was not appropriate, particularly considering that my account was blocked during her edit. There are many other users who use the same travel brag sheet, and as far as I know Kelly made no effort to add her name to their pages. I did not have any notice advising users to clear changes with me, because I assume good faith. Unfortunately a number of edits have been made to my user page that show a pattern of aggression toward free expression. I believe I have the right not to have my opinion distorted or deleted so long as I follow the guidelines for user space on Wikipedia. I consider this matter closed, and expect that editors will respect my user page, and refrain from edits that do not improve it. Thanks for your attention. --Dschor 12:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have any rights. If you want a homepage, go and find a homepage. Your userpage can and will be edited by other people and you are not justified in presuming malicious intent. In particular, you must refrain from making personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewfro

There seems to be a minor edit war/revert war going on at Jewfro, with one user and an IP contributor who may or may not be the same user reverting to reinsert PoV content. Extra neutral eyes would be welcome. My attention was called to thsi on the help desk. I have placed a msg on the talk page of the relevant user. DES ^(talk) 00:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have nominated that page for deletion as a neologism. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was in a revert war last Thursday on this article, and the other editor was putting in nonsense. In one summary, he called me a vandal Sceptre ^(Talk) 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure

I ran across User:Jim Apple advertising this betting pool on when deeceevoice would leave Wikipedia. My immediate inclination was to speedy it and block the user for disruption, however, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, assume good faith, and give him the opportunity to llist it for speedy deletion himself. I left a note to that effect on the user's talk page, further indicating that if he chose not to, I would list it on MFD and bring the issue here to discuss whether a disruption block was in order. He did indeed choose not to have it deleted, and true to my word, I have listed it on Mfd (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure) and am now raising the issue here to get input from other admins as to whether a disruption block is in order. Given the controversey surrounding deeceevoice's RfAr, I am astounded that a user would do this, but further, I'm astounded that a user would disregard two administrators (Jmable also spoke up against it) protesting against it and pushing for him to have it speedy deleted. I have been online since 6AM this morning (it is 1:30AM now) so I am going home to bed, but I leave this situation in the capable hands of my fellow administrators and rest assured that you will see it solved. -- — Essjay · Talk 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have speedied it as an attack page. If anyone wants to put it up on WP:DRV, fair enough, but that page was simply unnaceptable. -- SCZenz 06:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The page was recreated immediately after the deletion (my guess is that it was an edit conflict, not a deliberate recreation) so I have re-speedied it to maintain SCZenz's speedy. — Essjay · Talk 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1. It wasn't a betting pool; there was no betting involved.
2. I am shocked that you're shocked that someone would disagree with two administrators at one. I'm sure it has happened thousands of times before, and will happen thousands of times again. Jim Apple 08:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • It's three administrators now (and I'm sure that more will join me). We're telling you that you're breaking the policy on civility and probably the one personal attacks, and that you're being a dick about it (and yes I'm being a dick by calling you a dick). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Make it four (and yes I know that Tony Sidaway and I agreeing on something probably heralds the end of the world).Geni 12:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With me, that makes it five (or 4.5, depending on how you see newbies). --Deathphoenix 12:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My comments are on WP:DRV. This is particularly nasty. Whatever you think of Deeceevoice she is a very useful contributor on subjects Wikipedia has otherwise poor coverage. This page treats her serious concerns over the way she's been treated in a flippant manner. No-one deserves that. In other words, make it five. David | Talk 12:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that she has contributed much. That's why I stated that I want her to stick around. I diddn't mention think racism on Wikipedia, so I certainly couldn't have treated it flippantly. -- Jim Apple 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim Apple clearly intends to cause provocation; his perpetual passive-agreessive bewilderment notwithstanding. El_C 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You admit that its wrong to call me names, but you do it anyway? I think that's more abusive behaviour than disagreeing with admins. -- Jim Apple 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

well, I agree with the deletion, but give the guy a break. What he did was not "POINT" since he didn't disrupt anything. What he did was not a PA, it amounted to saying "I don't like you" I suppose, and there are many ways of saying that, many of them frequently seen on talkpages. What he did was poor wikiquette. We tell him we consider it poor wikiquette and delete or blank the page. Dcv is not exactly an unproblematic user herself, what with the insistence on keeping the Nazi vandalism featured on her page. Again, well done deleting the page, but making a "disruption" case out of this is a little over the top imho. I would be grateful if the disruptive editors I have to deal with would confine themselves to their own userspace :) dab (ᛏ) 13:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You lost me. El_C 13:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

He's saying there was no personal attack. -- Jim Apple 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying Jim didn't "disrupt the functioning of wikipedia", and he didn't call dcv names to her face. He was not being nice, and should just accept that he was scolded for disregard of wikiquette, keep the page deleted and move on. dab (ᛏ) 13:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's his insistence on the right not to be nice that has me concerned. The issue is basically settled in my view, but I do kind of wish he'd stop harranguing me and Tony about citing m:Don't be a dick to him. It seems rather applicable. -- SCZenz 14:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to review the situation, and the user's respective contributions again, dab. El_C 14:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no right not to be nice on Wikipedia. You are highly encouraged to be extremly nice, and to avoid any possible meanspiritedness, especially when it is pointed out to you. At anyrate, no good will come of the page, its deleted, there is massive concurance, lets move on.--Tznkai 17:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• "We're telling you that you're breaking the policy on civility and probably the one personal attacks, and that you're being a dick about it (and yes I'm being a dick by calling you a dick). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)"

• sigh* - how on earth do you expect users to respect NPA when admins don't? Or is it one rule for users and one rule for admins? Two wrongs don't make a right you know. Responding to a personal attack by making one yourself only aggravates the situation. Users should not make personal attacks. Admins should definitely never make them, as they're supposed to be setting an example. 84.65.13.206 13:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

GWB again

[28] What is this, the amazing blinking template? :) I personally agree that this should be deleted but let's try to convince people why instead of trying to settle it with a boxing match. Haukur 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Coudldn't we let the TfD go to copnclusion? if the TfD result is "Keep" will that automatically justify undeletion? if not, why not? DES ^(talk) 22:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I will go now and vote for its deletion. - Haukur 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have undeleted it. The decision belongs with the TfD and nowhere else. unilaterally deleting something while votes are going on is an outrageous abuse of power. Unlike there are legal reasons why it must be deleted immediately or it is seriously deficient in a major way (eg, major error in formating, copyright issues, etc) a template should not deleted until a vote has been taken. It is disturbing that people would try to in effect highjack a vote by deleting a page in advance. It needs to be there for users to see it when voting. Deleting it before a vote has concluded is a gross abuse and little short of vandalism. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have to question the motivations of the people who recreate the template without bothering to restore the tfd tag that should be accompanying it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the deleted category: Category:Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush. IMO this refusal to go through the proper channels is unacceptable. Izehar 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the category but removed the subsed copies of the suer box from the category page as provocative and not the sort of thing we normally include in category pages. DES ^(talk) 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see that User:Tony Sidaway has just deleted this for the fourth time in less than 24 hours -- really this is a bit much IMO. DES ^(talk) 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Tony Sidaway for 24 hours for violating the 3RR on Template:User GWB by deleting it 4 times within the same 24 hour period [29]. If anyone disgarees, feel free to unblock him. Izehar 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was taking only the sencond and subsequet deletes to be a "reversion" and so I warend him but felt that he was at but not over the limit. I'm not sure of policy on deletes, so i won't unblock. DES ^(talk) 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have had to undelete the page for a second time. This is absurd. What the hell has got into a handful of users??? It seems that we have an outbreak of popeitis, with some users deciding that they, and not the community, can decide on the issue. Some people may believe that the pope is infallible. But few people that admins posess the same ability. Frankly if vandals behaved the way some have behaved in unilaterally deleting templates I'd have no hesitation in banning them. I'm surprised and disappointed that Tony and Zoe have stooped to such behaviour. I expected better. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Incredible. Sidaway came back after being unblocked by another user and did it again. I've blocked him again. Because I don't think the above block was an actual breach of 3RR (he had done 3RRs to an original move, not four) I've only made it a 24 hour block. As I did the block I'm not doing the undelete. Someone else if they wish can do that. After his antics tonight Sidaway has plummeted in my estimation. He grossly abused his position to highjack a vote. I have lost count of the number of what were IMHO stupid decisions on the TFD but highjacking a vote by preempting it like that is a big no-no. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it isn't his first time to screw around with templates for deletion. Look at this! What the hell is he up to? Does he actually think tampering with templates mid TfD is acceptable behaviour? I'm flabbergasted at his antics. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

just let it sit through tfd. it's a userspace template, ffs, I agree these are getting out of hand, but so far nobody objected to users voicing their political leanings on their own userpages. take a step back, people, edit-warring admins is a sad sight, but why Tony would jeopardize his adminship over a userspace template saying "we don't like GWB" is beyond me. Everybody is still free to say "I don't like GWB" on their userpages, manually, so what's the point. The problem with these templates (as with the "Wikipedians who" categories) is that they are not cleanly separated from article namespace. That's a generic problem unrelated to the GWB case. dab (ᛏ) 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. And guess what! It was deleted again, now by someone else. *sigh* FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

At last count, after several more iterations all 'round, TS unblocked, and template restored. I've filed a 3RR report rather than contribute to the admin-warring further, after my initial undeletion. Alai 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No hassle. The blocks didn't have effect for more than a few minutes and I hope you've now all toddled off to WP:DRV, the talk page of WP:CSD and er, well. edits here earlier today, where you'll find that I was acting on a substantial consensus to delete attack pages. Now we're all in the loop we go through more iterations.

Currently there is a page at Template:User GWB but it doesn't attack Bush and it doesn't incite vandalism on our article about Bush. It only disparages vandalism of that article, which is what the original author claims it was intended to do all along. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"no hassle" to you, maybe, but another blow to the battered "admins should behave above par" principle. "I was acting on substantial consensus" is never an excuse for edit warring, let alone 3RRvio, since if you were, there would have been plenty of other people willing to do the job for you. (un)delete once, or twice at most, then step down and let others deal with it. I don't care about the stupid template, just show some countenance when using admin privileges. [btw, "attack pages" are usually against Wikipedians; it is news to me that GWB is a Wikipedian, and/or it is news to me that NPA extends to politicians or religious figureheads] dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of ever having edit warred. Policy was apparently changed without discussion to make 3RR apply to administrator actions--not something I have a problem with, though I find it unnecessary given the quick resolution of such scuffles as we often have. Blocking was entirely appropriate, the situation was resolved amicably and no harm was done.

On the template, it really strikes me as disingenuous to say that it isn't a personal attack because the subject is not known to be an editor. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of facilitating attacks on anybody, ever. It's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If the template is deleted in the middle of a vote, not-admins cannot see it and have a harder time casting an informed vote. Repeatedly deleting this during the vote is rather discourteous, I must say. I personally don't like this userbox or many of the other non-language ones, but repeated out-of-process deletions do have a negative impact on community spirit, and it is the community that builds the encyclopedia. Jonathunder 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have concluded, based on CheckUser evidence, that Bonaparte is running a sock farm. At the very least, Monor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Boxero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets; he appears to be running a botnet or other collection of proxies to appear to be editing from different locations, but slipped up and executed some of each of Monor's and Boxero's edits from his home base instead of the remote proxies. Monor and Boxero should be blocked indefinitely. I leave the determination as to what should be done with Bonaparte to another admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked blocked them all indefinitely including Bonaparte but the block on Bonaparte is only until feedback can be gotten on how long the block should be and I support it being shortened if other admins think so. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, votes cast in RfA by the socks:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KillerChihuahua (Boxero)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wgfinley (Boxero)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev (Boxero)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rogerd (2nd) (Monor)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juro (Monor)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis (Monor)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Husnock (Monor)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev (Monor)

Kelly Martin (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume you meant you've blocked them all, Jtkiefer? android79 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be yes:

01:23, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Bonaparte" with an expiry time of indefinite (malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet)

01:21, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Boxero" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sock of user Bonaparte)

01:21, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Monor" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sock of user Bonaparte)

--Calton | Talk 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget the "coincidence" that Bonaparte was one of the people questioning Kelly Martin's actions. Surely a coincidence that Kelly Martin is here banning people who disagree with her again. I mean, its not like she hates criticism. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive comments or are you simply interested in ad hominems? Carbonite | Talk 01:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac, your repeated attacks on any and all admin actions have become as tiresome as Everyking's. And Everyking eventually had an ArbCom ruling against him. May I suggest you refrain? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I will soon provide a list of anon accounts which revert warred at several articles following Bonaparte with deceiving summaries like "rv test" or "phrase from the article". I remember Chinese, Taiwanese, Australian and US ip addresses. When Mikkalai (talk · contribs) was reverting them, the newbie admin Ronline (talk · contribs) blocked Mikka and Mikka is still not editing because he seems like lost hope that WP may function.

The matter should be addressed quickly and decisively. If sockpuppet/IP farm used for revert-warring with the goal to provoke the opponents into 3 RR with a "friendly" or just clueless admin from a 3RR board placing a block is simply a fraud, using socks to derail an adminship nomination is a fellony, so to speak. --Irpen 01:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that while I am very happy that Bonaparte is gone (comment below) note that the "friendly admin", Ronline is a principled user. I don't think he was engaged in any game here. If anything, Mikkalai should have been smart enough to not fall into the trap of doing four reverts in three hours; those were not vandalism he was reverting; it may have been propaganda/biased wording, but not vandalism. So, Ronline has nothing to do with Bonaparte's sockpuppetry. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to carefully review a couple of policies; Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, to begin with. It is good for you to say "thanks god he's gone" now, but where all you've been when I was single-handedly fighting him? I asked several Romanians to talk Bonaparte to senses. His ugliness was seen from his very fist edits, but I cannot get rid of an impression that he was a too good an Icebreaker for the Romania Mare cause to lose him. The ugliness of Romanian edotors' assault onto Moldova exceeds even "Balkan Wars" and "Middle East": over there all parties are in blood, so at least emotions of both sides are understandable. So I hold you and you (and you over there too) responsible for this loose cannon. It was also amazing to watch when Bonaparte started kissing asses all over wikipedia and quickly got himslef a big number of just so buddies. mikka (t) 22:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I was myself blocked when fending off attacks by Bonaparte's socks, as he logged out to eschew violating 3RR. It was just impossible to persuade admins that my actions were not vandalism. Fortunately, it's easy to recognize Bonaparte's style when he repeats his pseudo-admin statements ad nauseum: compare Take this a LAST warning and stop editing controversial edits on this page! Take this a LAST warning and stop editing controversial edits on this page! by Bonapate and Do not erase, do not erase, do not remove, do not remove!!! by the vandalizing anon who had me blocked. --Ghirla | talk 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion. You stated above that you were unable "to persuade admins that [your] actions were not vandalism." On the contrary, no admin accused you of vandalism. You violated the three-revert rule, regardless of other editors' actions. We now know that another user committed far worse policy violations, but that doesn't excuse your behavior. You had just reported a 3RR violation on the part of Anittas (blocked at exactly the same time as you), so you obviously were well aware of its existence. But again, had you contacted me via e-mail or your talk page, apologizing for your infraction and promising to edit responsibly, I would have unblocked you immediately. Instead, you evaded your block via an anonymous IP address (and disrupted a project page). Incidentally, you never answered my question regarding your claim that I am "not neutral." Were you implying that I'm biased against Russian people? —David Levy 18:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Loose cannon? My favorite expression for this relationship is pet trolling, a neologism I coined in conjunction with a different fellow of another Eastern European wiki-community. If this term gains usage, there may appear an article under this pet troll so far red link. I repeatedly called on established Romanian editors to deal with this person who placed the shame on the entire community to no avail. I was surprized by lack of condemnation and tolerant attitude from Ronline and Bogdan. The fellow was called "just misguided" sometimes but not a signle time he was condemned by the community which should have been ashamed by such a representation. I don't want to overgeneralize here. Some Romanian editors did agree with me that the issue had to be addressed but not those who Bonaparte claims to be his role models. Mild chastising was the most I've seen. --Irpen 22:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am going to start using that term myself, Irpen - fabuluous phrase. Very apt in certain situations. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see little reason to unblock Bonaparte. While I haven't particuarly been in a dispute with him, I've been in a position to observe his editing at length, and he has never shown the slightest sign of understanding, let alone following, the NPOV policy. He's been a key part of the recent massive flareup on Moldovan topics, and had made very little, if any, beneficial edits. This sockpuppetry is a new low, though, and I think gives us plenty of justification to block him permanently. Ambi 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, I very much hope so! Running a sock-farm for edit wars plus rigging the votes (and who knows how many other votes ArbCom, WP:RM, surveys were rigged) is definetely enough material to be blocked through an arbitration proceeding but they are way to lengthy. The monster case against another obvious disruptor is going for months and we still do not have a formal ArbCom decision to undo the bad faith redirects, even though the ArbCom votes are leaning to undo them, judging by the votes already cast.

There is a reason why there are words "administrator discretion" in our policies. If this isn't obvious enough, the Wikipedia is doomed. We cannot allow the malusers to waste so much time of good-faith editors better spent on improving Wikipedia. The amount of aggravation from a couple of users like this one is untenable for the project. --Irpen 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please keep him blocked. A true troll by all measures. I have plenty of evidence (in form of diffs) of personal attacks by this user. Hope he's gone. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My candid reaction would be "good riddance" (in addition to all the above, his idea of "mediation" seems to be more in line with "content dictator"). To be scrupulously fair, though, I doubt he'd be banned forever by the arbcom, so a block of on the order of a month might be preferable. OTOH, he always has the option of an arbcom appeal anyway... Alai 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Good work...I saw that User:Monor had been doing some voting and was newbie, now I'll go over to my nominee for adminship's page and ensure the vote isn't counted as he/she cast a support vote there. Perhaps a note needs to be placed on each Rfa voted on?--MONGO 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• As Bonaparte's self-professed mission is to advance "Great Romanian" agenda on Wikipedia and to have myself and Mikka ousted from editing, I'd like to point out this troll's long-standing obssession with his IP. I also suspect Bonaparte's socks are guilty of repeatedly vandalizing my user page: see here and here, for example. It would be nice to know if Bonaparte has a hand in this too... --Ghirla | talk 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked 212.179.19.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indefinitely as an open proxy. I was able to edit through it: diff. If anyone disagrees with my action, feel free to unblock it. Izehar 17:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm sure that User:Excaliburo is another sock of Bonaparte's. After as much experience with him as I had, I come to recognize his touch :) Hopefully someone will investigate.--Ghirla | talk 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The open proxy activity, likely by Bonaparte, continues. I reported this yesterday and the proxy was blocked. Right now IP 205.191.194.212 and IP 200.42.209.117 made Bonaparte-style edits to several articles with abusive edit summaries. I cannot check from where I am right now for open proxies. Someone, please do and, if indeed proxies, they should be blocked. --Irpen 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked 205.191.194.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indefinitely as a proved open proxy. I was not however able to prove anything about 200.42.209.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Izehar 21:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that Bonaparte was an active mediator on the mediation cabal, and acting as such, participated in a number of conflict resolutions. How many of these were done in bad faith we'll likely never know... FeloniousMonk 18:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well when he was "mediating" he didn't actually mediate but take a quick look at things and dish out ill-thought out judgements, which he had no authority to do, causing absolute chaos. Basically, a pain in the arse. — Dunc|☺ 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You may also look into User:Anittas as a sock. Bonaparte is often an unwaivering apologist of Anittas's behaviour --malber 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As a person closely involved in this Romanian thngy, I have reasons to believe these are two totally different people, judging from editing style and behavioral patterns. Of course, this leaves a chance of truly split personality... mikka (t) 22:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As a mediator, he was horrid and rather Draconian as Dunc said. For Romanian stuff, I'd have to look at his language usage in both English and Romanian (I'm a linguist -- not paid as one though, because I make way more money in IT.  :) ) Anyway, if we needed research in that realm, I'd gladly do it. Jim62sch 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte and Anittas are two different people. There is an RfC against Anittas for personal attacks. Ronline ✉ 22:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that Bonaparte shared in Anittas' homophobic attacks against Node. Or check this threat: If things don't go his way, Bonaparte promises that "Anittas and me will come and turn all them to dust. Let them disappear from there...". --Ghirla | talk 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As a mediator, he showed zero understanding of the term "mediation" and zero desire to learn. I was a little clearer in my criticism of him than perhaps was completely polite, I basically told him he was being a disruptive element and to stop - and why he voted for me on my Rfa is beyond me. Perhaps a misguided attempt to curry favor? Did he vote "oppose" in any Rfa? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

His attempts at mediation usually consisted of presenting "deadlines" and trollish threats, e.g., "Close case. And I suggest you all of you to calm down or else I will start an RfC against all of you! I will accuse you of Anti-Romanianism if you don't get it!"--Ghirla | talk 10:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby vandalizing section-pov tag

I asked about this earlier, did not receive any responses. User:KDRGibby is repeatedly vandalizing Wal-Mart by removing a POV tag from a section which he wrote. He does not engage in substantive discussion, he only says that he has "addressed" complaints so he is entitled to remove the POV tag. I would like an uninvolved admin to talk to him and/or block him for vandalism. I am trying really hard to resist the urge to block him myself.

This is disruptive editing. Diffs: [30] [31] [32] [33]

Also a personal attack: "I'm repeating again for your thick skull" [34]

Yeah, I am going to complain about this until someone looks into it. Is there some sort of admin shortage all of a sudden? Someone deal with this please. Rhobite 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

well, I'm pretty sure this constitutes an edit war, incivil behavior, and possibly general jackassery, but it isn't vandalism. I'll leave him a stern warning.--Tznkai 07:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, having reviewed the history breifly, it looks like this is developing or has been an edit war. While his comments are uncivil, its still an edit war, which generally require more than one particpant, unless someone self-reverts a lot.--Tznkai 07:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not accusing me of doing anything wrong. I'm adding a POV tag to an obviously opinionated section, and attempting to engage in dialogue with Gibby. If Gibby wants, he can revert my attempts to fix the section, that's fine. But I'm not going to let him remove the POV tag as well. POV tags function as a "release valve" for edit wars - the party that is unwilling to revert war (me) can instead add the tag and engage in discussion. They are meaningless if we allow anyone to remove them. The general protocol on Wikipedia is that nobody should remove a POV tag until there is consensus that the dispute is resolved. Most admins frown upon removing valid POV tags. Rhobite 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I frown on it as well, I'm simply stating that its not vandalism, and edit wars are bad, whatever they are over. For what its worth, you are correct that it is original research, but thats a verifaibility dispute, not a pov one, but thats semantics. At anyrate, I issued a blanket warning, and first, second, third, and fourth person to sneeze funny gets slapped. I don't see how thats a problem--Tznkai 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you finally met Gibby. He's been warring everywhere. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood and Huaiwei Article Bans for Category:Chinese newspapers

I may be the wrong person to do this but I haven't seen anyone else step up to the plate. Since I'm user banning both of them from this category page I'm hoping I won't be accused of bias. If one simply reviews the edit history of the cat you will see these two going back and forth over the same issue from their ArbCom case that resulted in probation [35]. The warring on this cat has been going on for more than a month. Per that decision I placed the ban notice on the talk page and notified them both. I am sincerely hoping that this ends here, the edit warring has to stop as if another Arb motion[36] wasn't enough to stop them already.

I realize that since I was an advocate for Instantnood this may be seen as bias, I think it's obvious to one looking at the category history but I welcome any reasonable comments on my actions. --Wgfinley 09:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good shoot, and indeed exactly like their Usual Revert War. Of course, I still have the niggle that, as I pointed out when the decision was being finalised, much of this dispute was over catgeories, and those aren't expressly included in the probation (though at least on arbiter has expressed the view that it covers them regardless, by what seems to me some Mysterious Method). Alai 09:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I also support this move. Ambi 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, but I noticed this post (and linked from the one in my talkpage) only after doing my "routine" of going up my watchlist and basically scrutinising every instantnood edit and making reverts/edits where neccesary. Meanwhile, may I point out, that the revert warring is much more widespread then otherwise suggested above. I even posted a list of "current hotspots" several times before (including in this very page), with little intervention from admins so far.--Huaiwei 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And your "routine" could be considered wikistalking and by ArbCom precedent has been shown to be an offense that can get you banned. My suggestion to both of you is to quit following the edits of the other around, this is how this keeps occurring. Also, I would cease the POV-pushing into just about any article that has anything to do with China, the dispute is the same carried from page to page to page as shown below. I'm well aware it was going on, I chose this one to make the point and apparently it didn't take because today you two have been at it again. I'm not the only one following this now and I strongly suggest you guys try something to work out your differences before it gets one or both of you banned. --Wgfinley 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all.. Thanks so much for help bringing the issues towards resolution. While I understand that sysops have to respond accordingly as mandated by the ArbCom decision, I'd like to emphasise that it's much more important to help Wikipedia to solve the trouble through discussions, with the inputs from the broad community who're familiar with the issues. Only by doing so can we get out of the trouble by mechanisms of consensus building. — Instantnood 19:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Huaiwei Block

I blocked Huaiwei for 48 hours for this edit [37] in violation of the article ban. The talk page shows the ban took effect at 4:01 on 11 Jan [38] and his edit was after that. I picked 48 hrs because 24 hrs has previously been tried in this case with little effect. --Wgfinley 03:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I notice the 'user ban' templates on the talk page say that people should contact the banning administrator, but they don't actually reference who was the banning administrator was! Is it possible to add the name of the admin in the template? novacatz 01:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, changed it. --Wgfinley 01:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Probable open proxy blocked

I'm blocking 142.150.204.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a probable open proxy. This IP has been used to create multiple user accounts with obviously inappropriate names (full titles of recent movies) and is vandalizing. The IP is at the University of Toronto. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is another in this series. What IP is it using? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to another IP 142.150.205.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I wonder if we're going to have to block all of 142.150.204.0/23. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Further sockpuppets of User:DickyRobert have been created. I have imposed the one month range block which Kelly suggested and hope that will end matters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjakkalle (talk • contribs) .

This problem has moved on to 142.150.160.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (the University of Michigan vandal, below). I'm starting to wonder if we will have to block all of uToronto in order to get the attention of their computing services department.... We'll give it a try: 142.150.0.0/16 blocked for 4 hours. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

SEWilco blocked from commenting on William M. Connolley

Per the consensus of myself, Ambi, and Extreme Unction, SEWilco is blocked from commenting, either directly or indirectly, on the actions of William M. Connolley. This is to be interpreted liberally. This restriction is to last for one year, or until we believe that SEWilco can distinguish what actions are appropriate in respects to other users. Ral315 (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should also say that this block is in conjunction with the Probation placed upon SEWilco per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. Ral315 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all happy about SEWilco's harrasment of WMC, but... is it not the ArbCom which has the power to enforce such sanctions? Please correct me if I have misunderstood something. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Strike that, I see the remedy now. Good. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I object. This flies in the face of freedom of speech. Yes, SEWilco sometimes can be a PITA. Yes, some of his comments and behavior violate WP:Point or WP:AGF or WP:CIV. But there is no reason for a blanket block on a whole class of comments. This message will go to User talk:SEWilco, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 --Stephan Schulz 14:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia. See WP:NOT. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia is a great vehicle for freedom of speech. The closest I could find at WP:NOT is "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.". Fine. As far as my interpretation goes, this applies to vandalism, POV-pushing, massive anti-consensus edits to the article name space, and so on. I don't think there is consensus that "regulation" should go so far that a whole class of comments on talk pages can be outlawed for a year. I am certainly not part of such a consensus. --Stephan Schulz 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Regulated" free speech would not be free. This restriction is a "regulation" that, if within the bounds of the ArbCom's decision, is entirely appropriate. I think the question is: is this restriction within the bounds of the ArbCom's decision. That's a valid question. But it just clouds the issue to bring up inapplicable concepts like free speech. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A consensus is not required; the imposition of this restriction is pursuant to an order of the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee has determined that such regulation would, when applied by the agreement of three administrators, be in the interest of furthering the development of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a "vehicle for free speech" or a soapbox; it is an encyclopedia, and speech which does not further the development of the encyclopedia can be curtailed, especially when it becomes disruptive. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think consensus is the main method of decision making on Wikipedia. I know about the ArbCom decision. In fact, I initiated the reopening of the case. ArbCom created a tool that I disliked at the time, fearing misuse. I think it has now been misused. I quite agree that "speech which does not further the development of the encyclopedia can be curtailed". But apparently we disagree as to where this starts. Disallowing comments on someone who currently stands for office (and whom I very much support, BTW) is a very strong and, in my opinion, very much anti-productive restriction.--Stephan Schulz 15:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Assuming when you say free speech you are referring to the First Amendment, it doesn't apply here. First, it says "Congress shall make no law." Sorry, we aren't Congress, we're the cabal. Second, we are a private foundation running a private website; we can ban who we want, block who we want, and restrict the contributions of who we want, and the only things that we have to answer to are our own policies, which we can change at our discretion, and Jimbo Wales, who formed the ArbCom and gave them the power to issue orders like the one against SEWilco. Outside of that, we can censor what we like. You have two rights on Wikipedia, and two rights only: the right to fork, and the right to leave. -- Essjay · Talk 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You missassume. I'm speaking about the abstract concept of free speech that has been recgnized by nearly all reasonable enlightened societies to have a massive overall beneficial effect and that hence is enshrined in nearly all modern constitutions as well as in e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I don't claim there is a right to free speech on Wikipedia (altough I do hope there is a strong community consensus for a reasonable right to it), I claim we should have and allow (reaonable) free speech. I don't claim I have right to a burger this evening, but I still think I should have one. I also think this ban is hasty, unproductive, and plain sucks. --Stephan Schulz 15:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

there is no "free speech on Wikipedia" any more than there is "free speech on Britannica" or "free speech on Stephan's cellphone". "Free speech" means that you are free to speak, using your mouth, or media in your possession, without fear of punishment. It does not mean that you may use media paid for by others. Where do people get the idea that there is anything like a principle of "free speech" on Wikipedia?? What you do have, on Wikipedia unlike Britannica or Stephan's cellphone, is the right to speak, at all, within strict bounds known as Wikipedia:Policy, as long as you are not banned. After you are banned, you have no right to speak, even within policy. dab (ᛏ) 15:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this action is probably a mistake. I have seen no evidence supporting it, and I see no reason to cooperate in enforcing it. I urge its reconsideration. It is apparently within the letter of the current ArbCom ruling, but I think the admins imposing this block ought to lay out their ressons in detail, either here or on some page to which the provide a link here. DES ^(talk) 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As to "free speech" the legal protections of free speech in the US Constitution apply to govermental action and do not apply on a privately owned forum such as this, as others have said above. But I hope that free communication is an important value on wikipedia, and that we would tend not to block speech unless it is positively disruptive to the goal of building an encyclopedia. DES ^(talk) 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That is by no means as clear as some people seem to think. To quote from Marsh v. Alabama: "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." Wikipedia is about as open fot the public as possible, and it is certainly for the advantage of the owner (who wants us to build an encyclopedia). But I'm not arguing for a legal right to free speech under US or other law. Wikipedia is not primarily a number of files on a hard disk. Our goal is to make a great encyclopedia. But our tool for doing this is the Wikipedia community. And I think that we as a community, essentially making our own rules (under Jimbo's benevolent, but remote dictatorship) should recognize a reasonable right to free speech. As I wrote above, that does not extend to massive vandalism or similar. But commenting on the actions of someone who runs for office is one of the most elementary, most protected form of expression in any society. If SEWilco uses spamming for that, we should censure him. But a reasonable way to do this would be a revert and a limited block (for, say. 24 or 48 hours). --Stephan Schulz 23:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll: SEWilco not blocked from commenting on William M. Connolley

I request that "three or more Administrators" remove the above "block" on my "commenting". I note that my recent comments on WMC have been within his RFA. It is not clear if "commenting" includes the neutral "you may be interested" phrasing in my incomplete WMC RFA notifications. I'll note that the above block gives no indication of how many Administrators opposed such action, and only says there were three who supported it. (SEWilco 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

• Note that the probation does not say "a majority of admins" gets to decide this, but "any three administrators". The number of admins opposing the action is not important, and there is no provision for any three admins to remove the block. Therefore the outcome of this poll cannot have any effect on the block. Eugene van der Pijll 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Support (remove block)

1. So fart as i can see, the block seems top ahve been imposed for sending neutral notifications to a neutrally selected lsit of an ongoing RfA. I do not see this as disruption nor as a valid reason to block. DES ^(talk) 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Rd232 ^talk 00:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose (keep block)

Comments

1. Was the sole reason for the block the notifications of the ongoing RfA, or were there other reasons? I do not want to support lifting a valid block, nor to act out of ignorance. DES ^(talk) 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

   In the run-up to the second climate change arbcomm case, SEWilco repeatedly posted to WWP:AN/3RR regarding months-old violations of WMC's arbcomm parole (these issues had already been raised before the arbcomm, and they had made no comments). Subsequent to this, the arbcomm agreed to re-open the case, lifted the restrictions against WMC, and placed SEW on parole for his actions (the text is quoted higher up this page. SEW's latest action was of the same spirit as his prior actions for which he was rebuked by the arbcomm. While I think that the language used is somewhat extreme, this "block" would appear to fall under what the arbcomm ruling allowed. Guettarda 17:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Why are we deciding this by democratic fiat?--Tznkai 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
3. The Arbcom didn't give 3-or-more admins the right to remove such a restriction. It just gave 3-or-more admins the right to impose one. We could, if it were warranted, tell the 3 in question that we think they were wrong; but this strawpoll wouldn't be binding in any case. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

   So, as I recall from the enforcement requested blurb, this particular strawpoll is pointless?

4. Having spent considerable time dealing with SEWilco's previous efforts regarding WMC (the 3RR/parole episode), I nonetheless find it hard to understand this decision. Possibly the failure to explain the rationale is a factor here... On the face of it, SEWilco has had a difficult-to-enforce restriction imposed without terribly good reason (per DESiegel above). Furthermore, Wikipedia sanctions are, in my understanding, largely preventative, not punitive: since WMC is unlikely to go through an RFA any time soon (since this would require desysopping first, barring the unlikely failure of the current RFA), what purpose does this restriction serve? (If the restriction relates to other behaviour, why isn't it mentioned in the remark that begins this section?) Note also that this restriction does not merely place a burden on SEWilco, but potentially also on others who may have to deal with the fallout from it. If his actions deserved a temporary block (for disruption, say), fine. Just because the Arbcom made this restriction possible does not mean it was the right thing to do at this time, in this way. Rd232 ^talk 00:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

   It is preventative. SEWilco has been harrassing WMC for months with all means at his disposal (not just his RfA, but things like wikistalking and bringing up repeated frivolous requests for sanction). WMC needs a break, and it was precisely this sort of behaviour that the arbitration probation was meant to cover. This shouldn't effect SEWilco's editing in the slightest, and should he behave himself, will likely prevent him from getting a more serious ban for the same reason. Ambi 02:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

   As I indicated, I'm aware of SEWilco's past behaviour, having been involved with dealing with some of it. I just don't think this particular behaviour alone warrants this sanction - it seems disproportionate (1 year, blanket no-commenting), if you take into account that he was being relatively neutral in terms of who he was contacting. It also seems to require a fairly liberal interpretation of the ArbCom decision: "If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia..." This, in my view, does not qualify, especially as in the ArbCom context it relates most obviously to the use of a bot. Has there been other recent behaviour that could reasonably be considered harassment of WMC? That would make all the difference to my view of this sanction. Rd232 ^talk 11:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

5. This "poll" is a horrible idea from start to finish. It miscontrues the nature of the arbcom remedy, but more to the point, while it'd be one thing if some large number of admins spontaneously opposed such a measure (for the record, I support it), for the subject of it to immediately start initiating "appeals" and other made-up-on-the-spot processes is entirely another. A good-faith attempt to comply with these restrictions really would be the best way to "circumvent" them, in the longer run. Alai 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to saw, SEW, this is not good behaviour. It is not for you to decide how admins are to decide their consensus. Your restrictions were validly invoked under the ArbCom ruling. If you want the admins' decision overturned, you should contact the Arbitration Committee. Admins, other than those who initially imposed the ban, are not able to revoke it. [[Sam Korn]] 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this poll is crazy. Second of all, the use of this measure is straightforward - simply put, most of the case regarding SEWilco regarded his harassment of WMC. This brings that to a halt.

Thirdly, regarding SEWilco's questions about the limits of this, allow me to be clear, though speaking strictly for myself. The purpose of this injunction is to prevent SEWilco from causing WMC the slightest bit of distress, irritation, or difficulty. The clear message is not "moderate your conduct" or "only be impartial," but rather "leave him the hell alone." Should SEWilco find bold new ways of being a problem for WMC, he should expect these bold new ways to be forbidden as well. Should he focus his attention on other people instead of WMC, he should expect to be pried off of them by force as well. There are no rules here to game. We are playing Calvinball. If we do not like how the game is turning out, we will simply change the rules until it turns out right. It is thus far more important for SEWilco to understand the goal than the rules. For that, there is no literal phrasing to parse - there is only common sense and basic decency. If he lacks those, there is nothing that can be done for him. Phil Sandifer 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it so clearly Phil. I agree. Guettarda 02:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Bleh: more spamming. Dragons flight 05:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours, as the clear and explicit intention here was to find another way to make the notification. Phil Sandifer 05:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I endorse Phil's actions. Guettarda 07:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The block I have no problem with: there's a clear rationale and a clear and proportionate remedy. Incidentally, SEWilco raises a valid point here: if we must have this type of "blocked from commenting" sanction, we should find a specific name for it. I suggest ASBO. Rd232 ^talk 11:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

PackerFan1000322 blocked indefinitely for uploading copyrighted photos

WikiFanatic blocked PackerFan1000322 indefinitely for uploading copyrighted photos from NFL.com and other websites, after being repeatedly warned to no response. I agree with this block, though since I didn't see it publicized anywhere, I figured it should be posted here. Ral315 (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, he apparently did respond... [39] Ral315 (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Were these headshots of the players or other types of photos? android79 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Most were headshots, though I know of at least one action shot. In any event, many of the pictures were unsourced, and I don't believe he tagged them either. Ral315 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but AFAIK headshots are probably fair to use; see {{promophoto}} (the wording of which has been made stronger since I last used it myself; that's troublesome). If they were unsourced and untagged, though, then I've got no problem with this block. android79 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Unsourced material. And by the end, he was blanking pages and the like. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Inexhaustible vandalism from the UK Internet for Learning: range block warranted?

Explanation: I'm bringing the following out of the archive to discuss the returned vandalism by the IP block range owned by UK Internet for Learning. The following is my note on the vandalism to User:Demi:

I have just stumbled on your research at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive54#Recent_activity while trying to find out what has or can be done to deal with the massive amount of vandalism coming from the IP block 62.171.194.0 - 62.171.194.45 (owned by Research Machines/IFL up to 62.171.195.255, though no vandalism seems to be coming from the rest) which is the network for a school or several schools in the UK. You originally suggested that users be blocked individually for a few hours at a time. The vandalism seems to have died down during the holiday break but now is coming back in full force (except for the weekends). In particular, there have been some especially nasty edits like subtle word changes (bonds to bondage on Three Gorges Dam) and numerical changes (33% to 37% on Asch conformity experiments) that weren't caught for days and that I only caught because I was checking for vandalism from these users. This is in addition to countless incidents of blanking and childish vandalism, dozens happening just today (the 10th) during school hours.

Most of these IP addresses have been blocked 5-15 times, and it doesn't seem to be doing the trick. In fact, the vandals probably don't even notice they have been blocked most of the time. I propose blocking anonymouse users from the whole set (about .5 - .45) indefinitely, and allowing only valid user accounts (there is at least one administrator who accesses his user account from this range). Is this possible? I would hate to see dozens of people working hours each day to chase down and revert the changes these IP addresses make, not to mention the many harmful edits that might make it through unnoticed.

...It seems to me it is not worth the effort to continually warn, re-warn, block temporarily, and repeat. There must be a better way...

And following is User:Demi's response:

(copied from talk page)

You wrote:

I propose blocking anonymouse users from the whole set (about .5 - .45) indefinitely, and allowing only valid user accounts (there is at least one administrator who accesses his user account from this range). Is this possible?

Unfortunately it is not. When an IP range is blocked all edits from the range are blocked, including editors with user accounts. I was on the fence before about blocking the whole range, the fact that there is an admin editing from the range as well as an increase in vandalism. I would like other people's attention--would it be possible for you to copy the discussion out of the archive and bring it up on WP:AN/I again? Thanks so much for looking into it. Demi ^T/_C 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This vandalism has occurred again extensively today (the 11th) in many IPs (I am only up to .13, from .5). Also of note is this instance in which 62.171.194.7 (now blocked for 31 hours) blanked a page and added "I will not stop until all IPs are not able to edit Wikipedia."

What can be done? This is extremely harmful to Wikipedia - who knows how much vandalism is slipping through the cracks? --Renesis13 15:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have just completed a check for vandalism from this range today. There are 19 IPs involved:

4 - 13

36 - 38

40 - 45

All vandalism from today has been reverted I believe. Now that school is out, we have about 18 hours before it starts again.

-- Renesis13 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I sent an email to ifl abuse yesterday on this subject matter and so far have received only an automated response. I did note in my email that their entire connection to Wikipedia might be blocked if they didn't deal with the vandalism. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

They appear to be all proxies.

PING webcache-01.swgfl.ifl.net (62.171.194.4) 56(84) bytes of data.

PING webcache-02.swgfl.ifl.net (62.171.194.5) 56(84) bytes of data.

PING webcache-03.swgfl.ifl.net (62.171.194.6) 56(84) bytes of data.

etc. All the way up to webcache-25 (62.171.194.45). Sometimes packets come back from ge4.dist-01.core.th.ifl.net (217.180.8.193) with Packet filtered. Don't know if this helps in any way. - FrancisTyers 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Guessing from the name of this host and a traceroute, I'd say that the thing that is filtering the pings is one of their external gateways in telehouse. Of course this is pure conjecture. - FrancisTyers 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked 62.171.194.0/26 (62.171.194.0 - 62.171.194.63) for 24 hours--because I'd like to give the abuse desk a chance to respond to Zoe. These 64 addresses are tighter than the 512 that were blocked before; we can hope this is the correct suballocation. Demi ^T/_C 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I still have received no response from them. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RM aren't, in my experience, the most competent, nor the most helpful educational IT provider out there, and the South West Grid for Learning is a joke at times. You might not get one. Rob Church (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

From Archive

These IPs (and surely others that I haven't come across, and indeed the whole range) are registered to the UK Internet for Learning, according to notes on several of the talkpages:

• 62.171.194.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

From them flows a steady, deep, inexhaustible river of childish vandalism into the encyclopedia. After quite some time spent sampling, I haven't found one single good edit from any of them, though I can't swear that one isn't hiding out somewhere, obviously. All the warnings posted on all the talkpages by all the ambitious Wikipedians have an air of pathos, if you read them all together. Don't we have enough to do? If the range is indeed static, and the sole purview of enthusiastically scrawling children, can it be blocked wholesale, by someone who understands the art of range blocking? Or can somebody who's better than me at navigating the intarweb find their way to someone in a position of responsibility at the UK Internet for Learning? Or, does anybody have any other suggestions? Please? --Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

My thought is to block all of these and then wait for some feedback from any legitimate users. It seems to be a network which would go to all primary schools in the UK when it is built out. Fred Bauder 17:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

From whois "All abuse reports should be sent to abuse at ifl.net Fred Bauder 17:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There may be a handful of good edits in there - see the recent [40] by User:62.171.194.12. Which is not to say that I object to massive blockage. FreplySpang (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to Fred Bauder, the whois indicates that Research Machines have sub-allocated 62.171.194.0/23 to ifl.net. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh... I ... see. (Not.) Could somebody get on it, please? Bishonen | talk 18:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

See Classless Inter-Domain Routing. 62.171.194.0/23 is a range of 512 IP addresses from 62.171.194.0 to 62.171.195.255. It's also the format that you use for range blocking on the block page. Personally, I would like to see a greater consensus here before we take action to indef block such a large range. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Do it. Just make sure the blocking admin has an email set and send a complaint at the same time.Geni 18:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I blocked 62.171.194.0/23 indefinitely. I sent an email to their abuse desk advising them of the block and the reasons that it was implemented. I also asked them if they subnet in any way that would enable us to reduce the size of the block and if they had any additional comments. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

:-) Outstanding. Thanks! Bishonen | talk 00:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Make sure that indefinitely means indefinitely and not infinitely! Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable about potentially blocking every primary school in the country. It seems horrific. Secretlondon 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that 18 IP addresses cover every primary school in the country. I think that was a misconjecture on someone's part during the above research. In any case, I see no problem with blocking editing from a set of IP addresses which contribute 99% vandalism, including dozens of incidents per day. If these IP addresses are only used by schools, then I assume anyone with good intent would still have other opportunities (home/work) to contribute meaningful content. --Renesis13 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would probably only effect users accessing through the South West Grid for Learning. - FrancisTyers 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment... primary school is quite young. I have a child at one. I'm rather doubtful that a school would encourage children to edit wiki anyway... they tend to be sensitive to possible exposure to naughty things. So for a school to lose write access would probably be no big thing... though this is a guess. William M. Connolley 13:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

The X grid for learning aren't just for primary schools, but for secondary schools aswell. I doubt highly that the vandals are primary school pupils. I don't know what primary school is like now, but I'm doubtful as to whether, 1. the kids would have much unsupervised time on the internet, 2. that internet would not be a walled garden or something similar. It's been a while since I was in the school system though ;) - FrancisTyers 16:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage

I received an email indicating that this block is also affecting some libraries in the UK. I still haven't heard back from the ISP and I asked the user that mailed me to try and get the IPs of the library computers to see if I can work round that range with the block. Is this worth maintaining if we're going to cause collateral damage? --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds promising. They must divide that block of addresses up. Fred Bauder 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If we can get the library range (i.e. if the vandal fonts are, indeed, static), we can except them, but we need to be aware of the fact that libraries may be one of the sites of vandalism, and the only thing denied them now is the ability to edit. We're still good for researching on. The amount of spew the range was producing was truly staggering. Geogre 14:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking a wikibreak, so I removed the block on this range. Feel free to re-block it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent activity

In order to try to get a handle on what these folks have been up to, I've documented the contributions from all the IP addresses in this range (addresses with no contributions are not shown):

Activity since 1 Dec

Address	Vandalisms	Other
62.171.194.6	[41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]
62.171.194.7	[54] [55] [56] [57]
62.171.194.8	[58] [59] [60]	[61]
62.171.194.9	[62]	[63] [64]
62.171.194.4	[65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]	[78] (revert) [79] [80] (revert) [81] (revert) [82] (revert) [83] (revert) [84] (revert)
62.171.194.10	[85] [86] [87]	[88]
62.171.194.11	[89]
62.171.194.12	[90] [91] [92] [93] [94]	[95] (questionable)
62.171.194.13	[96]
62.171.194.37	[97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]	[105] (revert)
62.171.194.38	[106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118]	[119] (new) [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] (revert)
62.171.194.40	[129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136]	[137]
62.171.194.42	[138]	[139] (revert) [140] (revert)
62.171.194.43	[141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]
62.171.194.44	[150] [151]

The "other" edits are good-faith attempts to create content, or at least, aren't clear vandalism (some of them have been reverted, some have not). Many of them are reversions of other edits from this range. The overall pattern seems to me that of schoolkids teasing each other using Wikipedia, and some other people (older students?) reverting them and sometimes adding content. The vandalism seems to come in short spates, and I'm guessing the IPs might correspond to workstations in a computer lab or school library. My gut feeling is not to re-block the IP range, but since the vandalism doesn't come very fast, to block the individual IPs as needed for short periods (but without separate warning). Demi ^T/_C 08:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Stalking

This is probably one situation where a "stalk" feature might be useful (i.e. the ability to watch a user and show all edits by that user on your watchlist, instead of just watching a set of articles). --cesarb 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is easy enough to place a link to a user's list of contributions on your user page or a page in your user space. You cna then visit that list any time. it is not integrated with your regualr watch list, but it fulfills the purpsoe pretty well. i have such a link on my user talk page right now. DES ^(talk) 21:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The integration is the key part, as if you want to watch 20 users you'd need to open 20 tabs. --cesarb 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Celestianpower

Sorry for the new section but I don't know where to put this. This is the IP address of my school's network so if it's blocked indef, I'll never be able to edit at school again. Am I allowed to unblock temporarily so I can edit, then reblock (like I have right now)? --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, if the block is not directed at you (i.e. you are an innocent bystander who was hit as a side effect), you can unblock. --cesarb 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I support this interpretation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good, then I support the permenant blocking of this IP. --Celestianpower ^háblame 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

When you say "this IP"--do you have a specific IP that you always get? Maybe we can block the others. 64 addresses isn't too much to block individually if necessary to make an exception for legit users. Demi ^T/_C 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant "these IPs". Sorry. I usually come up with 62.171.194.6 and .9 but I'm sure its different in the various rooms around the school. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to leave the block for a week or so so that the users who have been adding vandalism in the past get used to not being able to edit? Then you could probably go ahead with unblocking for yourself without much risk of anyone trying to vandalize while its open. Another option is the 19 IPs that have contributed from that range could be blocked individually, and then you could unblock one at a time for whichever you come up with. Just a thought. -- Renesis13 06:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will only be unblocking briefly to make a few edits then reblocking, so no more vandalism should come out. Also, I plan to do this mainly out of school hours to reduce the risk. --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I recieved this on my talkpage and thought it best to reply here:

Hey man, first of all, do you have access to "Internet preferences" ? Tools->options in Firefox, Tools->internet options in IE. If you do, you could try changing the proxy settings to just one of those IPs (its probably currently a round-robin) and then use that one and block all the others. If it is only set to one IP, this is probably some kind of local proxy that makes requests to a round-robin of upstream proxies. In this case, you can still try and make direct requests to the upstream proxies, but I don't know if it will work. Is your sysadmin a reasonable (and non-braindead) guy? You could ask him about it. If all else fails I can set you up some kind of HTTP/HTTP proxy. If you have no idea what I just wrote and you think you might be interested in it, feel free to email me. - FrancisTyers 10:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

First, no. I have no access to that. Second, no idea what on earth you're talking about ;). Third, he is, but he is so stressed at the moment with the huge problems with his new servers. It'll be a while before I can talk to him about it. Fourthly, sounds interesting - what does it entail? --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin unblocking 'Fair Use' blocks

Yesterday, I noticed a blatant 'fair use' violation on User:Sansvoix's userpage. He had redirected his userpage to an earlier version (in the history) to circumvent the removal of a 'fair use' tagged image, and display it on his page. Looking at his talk page, I noticed a number of warnings and policy explanations (by Gmaxwell and others), and reference to the WP:FU policy. So I blocked him for 24 hours - with a note saying I would lift the block if he indicated an agreement to abide by policy. I was met only with his legal arguments on copyright, so the block remained.

Some hours later, User:SlimVirgin undid the block, with the summary: There is no basis in policy for this block. She did not discuss this with me, although I was on-line, but did inform me by e-mail. She indicated her ignorance of the law and status of the image, but her view that User:Gmaxwell had been 'bullying' her and User:Sansvoix.

Not finding this acceptable, I reapplied the block. Explaining to Slim my reasons, my disappointment at her lack of discussion, and inviting her bring the matter here if she still disagreed [152]. Instead of that, she undid the block again, and suggested that I was acting at Gmaxwell's behest [153]. (I have never in my wiki-life interacted with Gmaxwell AFAIK). She also suggested that the image in question might be pd, and at any rate the user seemed to believe it was.

This isn't primarily a moan at Slim (although her recent complaints about others undoing her blocks, see a bit rich. And she seems too personally involved with the parties involved to be acting as an admin on this issue - that's why I suggested that she brought it here.). My questions for fellow admins are. 1) Are copyright blocks policy? 2) Can images tagged as fair use be used if the user disputes the status? 3) Was I wrong to block or reblock this user?.

I realise we are developing rules on this as we go along - so I'm happy to be guided. --Doc ^ask? 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy is what we do. The policy that is written down often poorly represents actual policy. It's written as we go. The block sounds completely sensible to me, as copyright is a very important isseu. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Let's find those edits made by User:Jimbo Wales that make it clear that repeated copyright violations are grounds for blocking. They should then be added to WP:BP.
2. That way lies madness.
3. Given my impression that User:SlimVirgin usually makes good decisions, I'm reluctant to speculate without more information. Jkelly 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1)No, it's not in WP:BP, but Jimbo has indicated an unsympathetic approach to wilful copyright infringement (he has specifically said we can and should block for it).

Uhm you might want to open your eyes... it is in there :)  ALKIVAR™ 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

2)Personally, (IANAL), but I figure that unless the image is clearly under a free license, editors can't decide to have it on their userpage. If there is no source on the image proving that it is free, especially in cases of PD assertion, then I'm inclined to insist on a source, tag as a {{no license}} or {{PUI-disputed}} in the meantime and remove from userspace in the interim. There's no critical hurry if there's a dispute, unless the disputation is plainly frivolous.

3)Probably not and probably not. -Splash^talk 16:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1) Yes (continuation) (here, too).

2) No (here, too).

3) No. —Cryptic (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been seeing Fair Use messages on SlimVirgin's talk page, as if she is involved in a dispute about use of "fair use" images on her User page. One of them is User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive24#Fair_use_on_your_userpage (SEWilco 16:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

The user was sufficiently warned; I don't see why the block shouldn't stand, at least until the user agrees not to keep reverting the page or placing other unfree images on it. WP:FU states "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." As Splash notes, Jimbo has stated that we can and should block for this. If the user agrees not to place any more unfree images on his/her userpage, it can be lifted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the user is currently unblocked [154] (although he says he's left) --Doc ^ask? 17:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The offending image (Image:Littleprince-businessman.jpg) is, in fact, considered to be in the public domain in Canada. (See Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country for details.) It is not, however, considered PD in the United States. Here is the page with the offending image, and here it is without it.

In order for the block to be valid, we would have to assume two things:

1. . . .that if a user places an image on his userpage that is PD in his own country, but copyrighted in the U.S., he can be blocked for this.

   That sounds a little fishy to me. I'm not sure I agree with this. Maybe, but I'm not yet convinced.

2. . . .that there is a legal difference between showing a "fair use" image in an article, and showing a fair use image in a history page for an article.

   Legally, it would seem to me that this is invalid. For example, let's say I added a picture of a TV show character to my user page. This would probably not be a fair use of the image. If I then removed it, would the violation be removed? You can still see the page in the page history. If the copyright holder wanted to sue, I'm not sure it would make any difference whether the image was "removed" or not. Either way, Wikipedia is hosting a viewable violation. This is troubling, since a solution would require either a change in Wikipedia's fair use policy or a software modification, and I think this is an area that could be better debated elsewhere. So I'll skip this one.

3. . . .that it is a blockable offense for me to link to a previous version of a page if that page contains a copyright violation.

   Again, this sounds fishy to me. By linking to the previous version of the page in question, above, am I violating policy? I don't see how it could be acceptable for Wikipedia to host the page history and allow people to see it, but unacceptable for someone to link to it.

In conclusion, Doc, I would say you might have been justified by re-instating the block. But given Slim's personal request, it would have been more civil of you to discuss it here first. (As an aside, Doc, it sounds like you're saying that your reversion of Sansvoix's page [155] and blocking of him was unrelated to Gmaxwell's admonition[156] that "you may not use fair use images on your user page. If you do so again I will ask a third party to block you from editing." Is this really what you're saying?) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Gmaxwell has never communicated with me, not I with him. I did note, from the talk page, that the user had been warned. That's all.--Doc ^ask? 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Point 2 doesn't require a software modification: all it takes is for an admin to delete the whole page, then do a selective restore of the history (ie, restore everything except for the versions that include the copyvio image). --Deathphoenix 18:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. But that's still a lot of work every time someone adds an image to a page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, the blocking policy quotes Jimbo as saying "such activities", but doesn't say what he was referring to. He was referring to the case of *drew copying text from IMDB into Wikipedia. That is a clear case: the text was obviously copyrighted; "fair use" text isn't allowed on Wikipedia; and the text would not have been appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. In this case, none of the three apply. The image was not considered copyrighted in Canada, an obvious source of doubt; fair-use images are allowed in Wikipedia (so long as they are actually used fairly); and the image is used legally on the Little Prince page. For all these reasons, this is not a clear-cut case, and it is arguable whether Jimbo's admonition about "such activities" applies. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless you mean something obscure, "fair use" text is "allowed" on Wikipedia. We claim "fair use" whenever we quote copyrighted material, from books, song lyrics, etc. This just doesn't tend to get controversial until somebody reproduces an entire work, like the IMDB instance, which is the equivalent of reproducing an entire image. Jkelly 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good point. But we can reproduce whole copyrighted images, so long as we make a fair-use rationalle. We can't reproduce whole texts. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've explained to Doc Glasgow why I lifted the block, once by e-mail and once on his user page. Gmaxwell has been (as I see it) bullying a number of users, myself included, about images on their user pages, including threatening to block them, though I can't find his name on the admin list. I don't want to get involved in the fair-use debate, because I know nothing about it, but whatever the rights and wrongs, editors shouldn't be bullied and harassed about images, but should be approached with civility. Gmaxwell was very rude to me, and Sansvoix spoke out on my behalf. Because of that, Gmaxwell turned his attention to Sansvoix and removed an image from his page too that Sansvoix believed was PD. Whatever the status of the image, removing it looked vindictive because the two of them were in dispute, and so Gmaxwell should have asked someone else to look at it. When Doc Glasgow removed another image, Sansvoix assumed he was acting on behalf of Gmaxwell, and Sansvoix responded by redirecting his user page to an earlier version with the image on it, for which he was blocked.

The whole situation is the result of a nasty dynamic started by Gmaxwell's (in my view) unnecessary aggression, and I ask that everyone involved try to resolve it without recourse to blocks. Sansvoix appears to have left because of it, though I hope he'll reconsider, I am close to leaving myself, and I know of a third editor who has been subjected to the same treatment by Gmaxwell, who I fear may consider going too.

This aggression over fair-use images has to stop, especially in cases where there is room for doubt and the editors are acting in good faith. Whatever Jimbo has said about images, I don't believe he would approve of the way this has been dealt with. I dislike undoing other people's blocks, but I don't want to see Sansvoix leave over this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

New solution: how about we just nuke the photo from our servers? Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? The image is being used legally at The Little Prince. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Zach has in fact deleted one of the images out of process, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Kamelia_shojaee.jpg even though it was being used appropriately (even if it's fair use) in Culture of Iran until Gmaxwell removed it, and in fact is likely to be PD anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think Gmaxwell is being incivil in his dealing with fair use images on userpages, that's one thing; take it up with him. But if a user absolutely refuses to remove fair use images from their userpages, they shouldn't be allowed to edit their userpages. This is a question both of legal culpability, and moral concerns associated with stealing other people's property. "I wanted to do it" doesn't override either, ever. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the image should have been removed. The question is whether the user should have been blocked for linking to an old version of the page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think so. Linking to your history is a sort of malicious obedience. I don't think users should always have to "obey" admins, but when they are in violation of copyright law and don't want to comply on their own, they need to be made to. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Before we begin to out-vote the law, can anyone find an argument to justify fair use in non-article space? To re-phrase the last sentence, we are building an encyclopedia, and must sometimes use copyrighted images images to illustrate some subject matter. That's the essence of "fair use". But why would the use of copyrighted matter on a userpage be "fair"? Pilatus 19:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "I found this really useful image to illustrate this article: aren't I clever?" which would seem to be in line with a fair proportion of the "boast-sheets" many user-pages contain. You might argue that the image should be linked in-line, YMMV, but referring to its discovery and use would appear to be fair comment. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't acceptable for a copyrighted image to be used in non-article-space. The arbcom (at least all who spoke up) was unanimous in this. But in this case, the user thought the image was PD - and he was right, at least in Canada. The image should probably have been removed, but it should have been done politely, and with careful discussion, without resorting to blocks except as a last resort. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I can certianly suggest cases where the use of such images might well be legal under US copyright law. Most of thes uses that people have made of such images on user pages probably do not so qualify, however. In any case, current foundation policy bars such use even if legal, which means that the queation of what the law permits is of only limnited relevance -- the first question is what our policy permits and what it should permit. Obviously we should not permit illegal actions, but we are not at all required to permit every action that is legal or that might arguably be legal. Vandalism, andf PoV editing is legal, but we forbid it. (By the way someone above said that there is no "fair use" text on wikipedia. That is simply incorrect. Every time that an article quotes a book in disccusing it, that quote is used under fair use. Much the same applies to most quotes from sources. There are probably hundreds of times as many instances of text being used under fair use as ther are of images. But since such fair use is obviously appropriate and is unlikely to lead to leagal action, no issue has been made of it.) DES ^(talk) 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to gently encourage anyone who has any reason at all to think that a user might be suspicious of their motives to not take it upon themselves to be the one to discuss the "fair use" in userspace issue with that user. It can easily have the effect of making an important conversation much more difficult. Jkelly 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I find the actions SlimVirgin has taken here very hypocritical given that I also unblocked a user twice, and she has accused me of "wheel warring" a number of times (for example here). Given that she's recently started a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard talk page about undoing other admins' blocks without discussion, where she argued "it's damaging if every block is likely to be undone" and categorically stated "my own policy if I disagree with a block is to try to persuade the blocking admin to undo it, but otherwise not to interfere", it greatly surprised me to see she unblocked Sansvoix - not once but twice, fitting her own definition of wheel warring - without discussion. I argued on the discussion to assume good faith in contributors and to unblock if in doubt. To repeat SlimVirgin's comments back at her, in a beautifully ironic coincidence, I'm glad to see that SlimVirgin has seen the error of her ways. ;-) Talrias (t | e | c) 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's starting to look like a personal attack, Talrias. I can't see how that comment is at all useful to the rest of us, except for disparaging Slim. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a personal attack. It's the true facts, with honest opinion on her actions. I think there is an inconsistency between what she has said and what she has done. Stating that is not a personal attack. The comment is useful because it allows editors to form their own opinion about her actions based on the facts, rather than opinion. Please consider the facts I have included in my comment there and decide for yourself whether SV's actions were appropriate or not. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It struck me as a personal attack as well, and you have a history of personal attacks aimed at SV, for which you've been previously warned [157]. FeloniousMonk 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong to use one of the words I did in the diff you cited, and I immediately revoked it. In fairness, I was provoked by a string of mischaracterisations of my behavior on both Wikipedia and the mailing list, some blind reverts she did of my edits (which she later admitted was wrong), and starting various discussions about my actions without specifically mentioning my name. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, blatant copyright infrinment (i.e copying a text verbatim and creating an article) is grounds for a block (after warning), however, fair use images seem a bit more dubious to me. Yes, it probably isn't fair use to use the image in the userspace, but IMO, that is up for debate. I think there needs to be a community wide vote on what specific rules we have on fair use images in the userspace and what type of punishments we can impose on those who violate them. Until that happens, I think all fair use releated blocks, including yours Doc, are wrong. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah generaly if they don't coperate it's probably simplest to remove the images then protect the page. Not that I've had to resort to this yet.Geni 03:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Greg but you can't hold a vote over legal issues as they are a concern for the Foundation and not the community. In any case, the users behavior called for the block... he was being a jerk about it. Unless you think calling Anthere a psychopath is acceptable (true, the user had confused us and was just trying to attack me...) --Gmaxwell 05:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

But the foundation hasn't explicitly stated their opinion on this, and until they do, I don't think unliateral actions like this are okay. And the block in question isn't about him being a jerk, it's about the fair use image. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation has stated over and over again, in symbolic and literal ways, that we need to abide by copyright law. I don't think we need some special announcement to know that using copyrighted images for decorating user pages is legally questionable and exposes the project to pointless legal risk. Demi ^T/_C 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy and legality

To sum up the most important point made here: if Wikimedia Foundation policy says "no fair use justifications for images on user pages", that should settle the matter, since that is who owns this site. If I were to write a record review on my user page, and claim "fair use" for a picture of the record jacket as an illustration, I could be violating policy, even though legally the fair use justification would be exactly the same as in article space. If the Foundation has not made such a policy, then the same fair use standards apply as in article space. DES seems to be saying that policy bars this. Greg Asche seems to be saying it does not. Does anyone have clarity on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask the foundation about it? Whether they agree with me or not, I think we need some clarity. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Does the juriwiki-l mailing list still exist? It's about damn time someone laid this to rest. Rob Church (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

1 week block of User:Nixer for violating WP:3RR

I have blocked User:Nixer for 1 week for violating WP:3RR no fewer than 10 times including at least one other 1 week block. He has protested this block, but as he is blocked, can not bring my actions here for review. As a result, I'm bringing them here myself in case someone disagrees with my actions. Wikibofh_(talk) 20:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, having experienced firsthand what it's like to work with Nixer, and having observed his pattern of actions, find this block completely justified.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 20:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• The original 3RR report I acted on can be found here. Wikibofh_(talk) 20:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like your block was entirely appropriate, and your bringing it up here was also appropriate. Good work, fellow custodian. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. I didn't get the mop just to use it as a wig.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I (and many other users) have been in a content dispute with Nixer where he has been conducting some magnificently bold revert wars. He knows that he has violated the 3RR and yet proceeds, I can't imagine what is going on in his brain while he is doing these things. He recently nominated one of the disputed article for deletion. I call that blatant trolling and IMO that alone could justify this block. Check the revision histories of the articles in question:

• Comparative military ranks of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Basque language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He has been pushing an extremely odd POV on these articles and has been opposed by many editors. He revert wars consistently and he knows he is doing it. He continued to revert after the compaint had been filed. I have no idea what he thinks he's doing, perhaps he can't understand the 3RR, but I think he is a very problematic user. Izehar 21:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixer is extremely difficult. Most of the time he doesn't even appear enough sense for me to understand what he wants. Maybe he'll learn, maybe not, at least the block buys a week's peace. dab (ᛏ) 21:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The previous block had no such effect. Time for a month, I think? — Dan | talk 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it's probably time for an RfC or Arb. It's probably past time, with that many 3RR blocks. Wikibofh_(talk) 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  I concur with both Wikibofh and Dan. Nixer has also numerous copyright issues, see my comments on his talk. --Ghirla | talk 10:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Talrias & SlimVirgin

Sorry to bring this up again everyone, but I feel this is important. There's been a lot of public vitriol between us lately and it's spilled over into a number of pages and unfortunately a number of people have been drawn into what was originally a legitimate disagreement of opinion but escalated out of hand. I take my share of the blame and I would like to apologise to everyone but most importantly Sarah for my attitude, my comments towards her, and how this has affected her and those also involved. I've apologised to her privately but I thought I needed to apologise to a number of other people too and I thought this was the best way to do so. Thanks and once again my apologies. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude! I think the community consensus is that comments as mature as that have no place in Wikipedia. If you continue in such reasonableness, you may expect sanctions. ;) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If all comments were as mature as you say that comment was, then they wouldn't be needed! Interesting paradox. Thanks for your forgiveness. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Talrias, thank you for that. It's very decent of you. I apologize to you too, and to anyone else who was affected, and I'm really glad we can put it behind us. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, it's good to see that there's some sanity left on this place. karmafist 03:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Aww, Wikilove! --Golbez 05:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yaaay!!! I love you guys :).--Sean|Black 05:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Grееbo

User:Greebo was blocked by Curps and has requested to be unblocked, but I don't know what to think. Please see User talk:Grееbo and comment. Thanks. Izehar 22:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That was G-r- Cyrillic-e Cyrillic-e -b-o, not "Greebo" as you indicated above. I blocked it as a confusing username (spoofing Latin letters with Cyrillic or Greek). -- Curps 23:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP address. Don't know if the account itself should be unblocked, but Greebo (whom he was thought to be imitating) has no edits. David | Talk 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new name and was able to make the edit I wanted to. Thank you David. The account with the cyrillic characters can be deleted. By the way, this page is huge. Greebo the Cat 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That is without doubt true. [[Sam Korn]] 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

University of Michigan vandals blocked

1. 20:04, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:Hermite The Frog" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
2. 20:04, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:Seller" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
3. 20:04, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:DoodBlocker" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
4. 20:04, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:Teh Priest" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
5. 20:04, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:Analysty" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
6. 19:59, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:Analysty" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism)

--I hit them all for 24 hours because I'm not quite sure how the autoblocker works for periods longer than 24 hours, but this should do it. If someone could check user so we can just ban the IP, I'd be happy.--Tznkai 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It was the featured article yesterday, and is still linked from the main page. What makes you sure that these are the same IP? Ral315 (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

you came late to the party I think, and I may have missed a couple. All of these accounts had one vandalistic edit, linkspam, and usually the same link--Tznkai 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

New bans placed on Huaiwei and Instantnood

I have banned both Huaiwei and Instantnood from Char siu, List of railways in China, and Guangshen Railway for the duration of their probation periods. They have continued sterile edit wars, despite all of the warnings and previous bans. Earlier up on this page I said I would unprotect Guangshen Railway and ban them if they restarted the edit war (ie, protection is a means to allow dispute resolution to take place, but here we can enforce an end to the dit war without it), and it has restarted, even after the latest ban yesterday (above). I find almost no productive edits, just continued alterations of wordings and format, back and forth, with snippy unproductive edit summaries, and little or no discussion of reverts on talk pages (since they already thoroughly know what the other will say). In fact, I'm sure there are other articles where they are doing the same thing, and I hope this will send some kind of a message. I urge admins to take a look at this situation and scrutinize their edit wars, as it's been going on entirely too long. This action is, of course, up for review. Dmcdevit·t 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And Another....

They don't seem to want to stop, I have now added Queensway to the growing list. It's sad really, it's a pretty innocuous disambig page but there had to be a Queensway in Hong Kong so of course the Huaiwei and Instant battle had to be carried there. --Wgfinley 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There is now a log to record bans annd blocks in this case. Please add yours. Dmcdevit·t 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea, I have done so. I also did a 24 hr block on Instantnood for this edit [158] on Char siu, he "turned himself in" and apologized on my talk page, saying he didn't realize he was banned from that one [159] so I made the block for 24 hrs as opposed to the 48 for Huaiwei. I still thought it merited a block for him to consider reviewing the articles he's being banned from. --Wgfinley 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Machine translations

Zonk43 (talk · contribs) is mass-posting what appears to be machine translations from other Wikipedias of articles on churches. Some are somewhat comprehensible but for instance, Sankta Klara, Stockholm, is two lines of complete incoherent gibberish, translated from the beginning of the Swedish Wikipedia. As I pointed out on the user's talkpage, anyone trying to clean up these articles will in any case need to know the original language (and have access to the original text) to see through the absurdities which result from automatic translations. Unless someone rewrites them immediately, most of these articles should better be deleted. Tupsharru 01:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated long-term personal attacks

Rbj (talk · contribs) has engaged in repeated long-term personal attacks against me. I've informed him, numerous times, of WP:NPA, however he refuses to stop.

• 06:38, December 31, 2005
• 20:35, January 1, 2006
  • 20:39, January 1, 2006 - here is where I direct him to WP:NPA (I've done so other times as well)
• 01:06, January 12, 2006
• 02:35, January 12, 2006
• 02:49, January 12, 2006

Some help here would be appreciated. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: someone blocked rbj for 48 hours (or until an apology is issued) for personal attacks. Quadell 15:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That was me, but he has since e-mailed me indicating that he will not. Oh well.--Sean|Black 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

North Carolina vandal has promised never to vandalise again

User_talk:A_Man_For_The_Glen. See also [160], where he posted as 63.19.131.31.

We'll see. I unblocked 63.19.128.0/17, taking him at his word (I'd just as soon leave it unblocked whenever possible, since there's a good user at that range). I also unblocked User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes since he claims he wants to use this account "to do good." It's easy enough to block again if necessary, and now we have a promise we can hold him to. Antandrus (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remington_and_the_Rattlesnakes_and_the_Socks? Not promising... Dmcdevit·t 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... Indeed I'm skeptical too. This is the first time I remember him actually promising to stop, and he also made this interesting edit [161] changing his vandalism to past tense. If he vandalises again ... ka-blam. Antandrus (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes!!1!! [162] He has threatened he will start vandalising again unless I unblock his account! What shall we do!! LOL. (By the way, I did unblock this account last night-- [163]. --Doesn't exactly look like it was a good-faith promise to stop vandalising. I needed a laugh this morning anyway. Antandrus (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial?

Does Wikipedia have a clear stance with reference to Holocaust denial? I ask because of the conversation now going on at Talk:Budapest#Please delete Holocaust promotion from Budapest page. Frankly, it is straining my limits to stay within the bounds of civility there. It is possible that I am misreading the remarks by Bloblaw, but it reads to me as if, besides questioning the mention of the Holocaust in this particular article, he is saying that it is POV to make an unqualified assertion that the Holocaust occurred. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I left a note on the article talkpage. As for the more general issue, I don't think any opinions should be verboten in Wikipedia. Someone can think that Santa Claus or Xenu is real, that the moon landing was a hoax, or that the holocaust is a fabrication. What they cannot do is force these opinions into articles over the objection of a consensus of editors citing reliable sources. But we don't need a special stance for holocaust denial. Babajobu 07:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a special stance, but we shouldn't let fringe groups influence content in a wide range of unrelated articles. For instance, WTC conspiracy theorists have tried to rewrite conservation of energy to express the belief that the release of energy during the building collapse "disproves" the laws of physics. I see this as similar to a holocaust denier attempting to influence the content of Budapest. It is fine to explain the beliefs of holocause deniers in Holocaust denial. Outside of that article, we can deal with widely accepted historical facts, without the need to make concessions to the holocaust deniers, who in truth are a tiny minority. NPOV doesn't require us to give their opinion every time we mention a holocaust-related statistic. This falls under the "undue weight" clause. Rhobite 07:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, but there isn't much harm if they keep it on the talk page (unless it gets really excessive).--Sean|Black 08:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. I was saying they were entitled to mention their position on the talkpage, but not to have it inserted into the article over the consensus of reliable sources that rubbishes their opinion. I don't think that sort of opinion has a place in the Budapest article at all, just as the belief that the moon landing was a hoax has no place in an article that mentions the landing only in passing. Babajobu 08:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

On that note, one of the most popular vandalisms on my watchlist is adding "allegedly" to Neil Armstrong... Shimgray | talk | 12:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

About User:Bloblaw specifically, this attack convinces me that he will probably never be a worthwhile editor: "You are very likely a Zionist shill paid to police the internet media by your ideologic handlers." [164] i.e. the Jewish media conspiracy. He also believes that all Muslims are holocaust deniers. Nothing wrong with blocking people like him after a few of these anti-semitic rants. Rhobite 08:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went the gentler route and put the "welcomenpov" template on his talkpage. He hasn't edit warred, just argued and attacked on talk pages. If he keeps it up, though... Babajobu 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Deeceevoice and GFDL

Deeceevoice made a comment on her user page [165] "And in case you're wondering, no. I don't agree to free license diddly squat." I wasn't sure we shared the same definition of "free license", so I asked "You're still licensing your diddly squat under GFDL, aren't you?" Her reply [166] was "Still? Never did." As far as I know, licensing under the GFDL is completely non-negotiable. I think it's very important that someone who's more familiar with copyrights look into this potentially serious situation. Carbonite | Talk 11:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to Wikipedia:Userpage#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space, userpages are GFDL like everything else. What a person can deny however, is licensing the materials with the Creative Commons license. I am not entirely sure if any action is needed unless Deeceevoice starts to make trouble with people who want to make derivative works of her userpage. (Besides, who would want to do that?) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A similar attitude came up with Pioneer-12 (talk · contribs) back in July of last year. Pioneer-12's intent was not to licence his non-article space edits under GFDL. Following discussion on WP:AN and the mailing list, it was decided then that an indefinite block would be imposed until such time as he agreed to abide by the mandatory GFDL licensing terms. (Such a block would be immediately lifted should the editor in question agree to abide by the terms of our license.) If Deeceevoice genuinely intends to stop contributing under the GFDL, she cannot contribute at all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

OK... thanks for the info. I am never happy about blocks being applied to reasonably sincere contributors, but I agree, if Deecee is serious about this, then she cannot edit Wikipedia, GFDL is a very important part of Wikipedia. Perhaps a formal warning first might be best? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant - if you hit the same button, you agree to license you contribution under the GFDL. If someone says "what agreement" point them to the line under the box they type in when they write. Guettarda 14:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity over whether click-through licensing is actually legally binding. As a result of this, there has been general agreement that people who openly state that they do not want their contributions licensed under the GFDL should not be allowed to continue making them. Dragons flight 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If the text at the bottom is legally binding (and Wikipedia seems to assume it is), then when a user enters text into Wikipedia the user does agree to license it under the GFDL, whether the user later denies it or not. A similar case would be if a person went to an Apple software store and asked to purchase some Apple software, but stated out loud that he does not agree to the terms of conditions, even though he will click "yes" in order to install it. Since such a case has never appeared before the U.S. court system, no one knows how that would play out - it would be up to Apple to decide whether to sell it to him or not.

But it doesn't sound like she's really obstinant about it; it just sounds like she wasn't aware of what she agreed to. Someone should simply notify DC in as non-confrontational a manner as possible that all text she entered is explicitly licensed under the GFDL, as specified in the not-so-fine print at the bottom of each edit page, and move on. (Unless she comes back with an unambiguous denial of some sort.) I wouldn't elevate this unless there's no way around it, and though DC can be reactionary and uncivil sometimes, she usually responds to friendly reasonableness with reasonableness. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I did ask her in a rather friendly manner "You're still licensing your diddly squat under GFDL, aren't you?" and the response seemed quite unambiguous "Still? Never did." It's probably all a moot point now, since it seems that she agrees [167] with Sannse's comment that contributions have to be licensed under the GFDL. Carbonite | Talk 15:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should make an issue of it unless she does, at least in a more forceful and less ambiguous way. Fred Bauder 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere out there, an encyclopedia awaits. El_C 14:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda. She is essentially signing her name to the agreement much as one does when downloadingg software so if she doesn't agree with GFDL she shouldn't sign. But whatever she claims, she is legally making the agreement in signing and wouldn't have a hope in hell of preventing anyone using her published work because she has signed. it could be pointed out to her that regardless of what she thinks she has signed a legal agreement every time she edits and as she is not above the law she cannot negate the reality of having signed, and that if she doesn't want anything else released under GFDL she must herself stop editing because if she continues she is putting her legal agreement to release it under copyright. If I sign a contract and then claim I didn't mean to my declaration would have zero value in court so she shouldn't be blocked merely for blowing off steam and showing a poor understanding of her actions (ie that she has signed all her works over to GFDL). Wikipedia has done all it needs to in forcing people to agree to the GFDL and doesn't need to act further (but I am no lawyer) SqueakBox

this is obvious. but we have a precedent of blocking a user who said they didn't agree with GFDLing their contributions. Since we don't know what "diddly squat" means precisely, we may not assume that dcv is actually refusing to honour the GFDL. In any case, dcv is behaving increasingly abrasive, even considering she was provoked by vandals or stalkers or whatever, and is in my impression rather close to risking a community block dab (ᛏ) 15:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

H-m-m. This is interesting. Frankly, I just put that blurb on my user page, prompted by something another user (I consider him a stalker) said about seeing something elsewhere on the Internet that read like me. So, you're telling me I could press this and prevent Wiki from disseminating my ish if I so chose? And if consent is automatic with editing, why do people go around asking people to put a blurb on their user page stating that they consent? If it were automatic, and unambiguously/bindingly so, why bother? What's the real deal here? Dragons flight? Anyone? (Just curious. This has piqued my interest.) deeceevoice 15:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The only blurb worth putting on the userpage is the one where you agree to multi-license your contributions with both GFDL and Creative Commons. If you don't declare that you are multi-licensing with CC in some way, then you haven't licensed it with CC here. As long as you agree to licensing everything under GFDL there is no problem. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe when a new user account is set up, it could be required that the user activate a check box that says, "I know that contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GFDL". --JWSchmidt 15:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It is my view, and that of a number of lawyers who have studied the matter, that the "contracts of adhesion" created by "click-through licensisn" as well as the older "By opening this box and using the software, youa agree to..." are not legally binding. if so no such sign-up check box would be binding either. In copyright matters particualrly, there has been a tendancy not to accpet adhisive or implied licenses in the face of contrary explict statemetns. There has not, so fr as I know, yet been a case testing click-through software licenses. All that said, i see no reason to press this at the moment. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In the past I have, without controversy, indefinitely blocked one user who claimed an exception to the licensing terms of the GFDL, on the grounds that they were in a de facto legal dispute with Wikimedia (I think this was the pioneer-12 case mentioned above). I am reluctant to do this here because Deeceevoice is a party to arbitration proceedings, but I think that the situation should be considered by the arbitrators, so I'll make an application for an injunction. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that she seems to have acknowleged that her contributions are GFDL as of 10am today. Let's not make mountains out of molehills. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone bothered to address her concerns about mis-attribution? El_C 22:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because rather than pointing us to an instance of misattribution, she has claimed that someone told her that somewhere out there on the internet is something that looks like her writing but is not attributed to her. That's about as close to meaningless as you can get, I think. Babajobu 07:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't meaningless if it serves as the impetus for her concern, and if a simple, albeit general, answer can respond to it. El_C 10:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange revert war at Benjy Bronk

If an administrator could lend me a hand with Benjy Bronk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that would be really great. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I semi-protected it. No idea why people want to remove all the external links and cats.. that's vandalism. Rhobite 15:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cypriot stud

This user has been waging a quixotic campaign to change the nationalities of second-generation Americans from "American" to "multiethnic American-born", and similar such gems [168]. He has so far been asked to stop by Arniep, Woohookitty, RandalSchwartz, Eurosong and Extraordinary Machine among others, but to no avail. This has been going on for several weeks, and is causing substantial disruption by clogging up the edit histories. I would be considering a block, but I think I'm too involved in the matter. Any help would be welcome. Mark¹ 14:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm digging through this. Give me a minute. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Cypriot_Stud has a valid disagreement over the interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Even if he is asked to stop, it's not clear at this point that he's wrong. We need to establish consensus before we resort to blocking. (Of course if he clearly goes against consensus, that's another matter.) The debate is currently going on here. In the meantime, I'd advise that no one revert these changes either way until we know what consensus is, and I let Cypriot_Stud know this as well here. (By the way, Mark, you were right to bring this here instead of making the block yourself.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but this not a legitimate disagreement as everyone disagrees with him including the manual of style. He seems to believe that somehow people are not really American but an amalgamation of whatever ethnicities that come from somewhere else and thus tries to add "American born" and of x, y and z descent at the top of every article that he finds. Arniep 16:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not "everyone" disagrees. Just because you find someone's arguments unconvincing, that doesn't make the disagreement invalid. The manual of style's declaration is ambiguous, as some believe "nationality" refers to ethnicity as well as citizenship, and some do not. Please let's wait and see what the consensus is, instead of reverting. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Arniep here. I think the consensus is fairly clear. Even if it were not, editors who disagree are jsut as free to revert this as over any content or style dispute, although discussiuon is always better than revert warring. If a consensus on a particular page is clear, editing in opposition to it may become disruptive. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this hasn't even been discussed (except on cyp's talk page) for even 24 hours at this point, I wouldn't say that the consensus is clear yet. Give it some time. What's the rush? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken -- I was engaged in a discussion of this over a week ago. I don't recall the precise page, off hand, but I can find it, I'm sure. DES ^(talk) 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

For example, please see this series of edits, adn later ones in the same section of the same MoS talk page. That is 10 days ago. DES ^(talk) 17:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. But I still don't think consensus is yet clear, and I'd like to give it a little more time. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been going on for nearly a month now and we have discussed it endlessly on various pages including Talk:Jennifer Aniston. It is clear this user is going against everyone else's opinion as I don't see anyone else reverting his way so what he is doing has now become disruption. Arniep 18:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually this has been going on since November so it is even more important to stop this disruption now. Arniep 22:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Arniep, and I don't believe the definition of Nationality is ambiguous at all. Even assuming it was ambiguous, consider the original intent of the Manual of Style - do you think it really wants editors to define every person's ethnicity in the first paragraph of their biography? I think User:Cypriot stud is missing the point and for some reason campaigning to fulfill every technicality of his interpretation of the MoS. The argument is just silly. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) does NOT intend nationality to mean ethnicity; the only reason we need consensus is to modify the policy to make it unquestionably clear that it doesn't. -- Renesis13 23:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason is that he did not get his own way in highlighting Aniston's greek ethnicity at the top of the article (the user is himself Greek Cypriot) so he set out to make a WP:POINT by trying to replace nationality with ethnicity on Michael Douglas, Kirk Douglas, Lauren Bacall among others. Arniep 00:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If another admin is convinced that he violated WP:POINT, I won't object to a 24-hour block - I'm just not convinced enough that it's warranted to do it myself. It seems he has stopped, though, at least temporarily, so it's probably moot. If you think it's clear what "nationality" means, go state your opinion. If you already have, in a couple days I'll deal with it by announcing consensus (if it's clear), and if anyone repeatedly reverts against consensus, they can be blocked for that. Quadell 13:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

it's pretty obvious that the consensus is against him already, just look at the messages on his talk page User_talk:Cypriot stud. Arniep 14:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I wasn't involved in the dispute regarding nationalities, but I commented on his talk page in response to his edits to Katie Melua in which he changed the section headers against WP:MOS guidelines ("Early life" to "Early Life" etc., see [169] [170]), despite being asked not to before. However, I don't think that he's a deliberately disruptive editor, just unaware of the importance of the MOS (though as I said, I haven't been involved in the nationalities dispute). On a related note, are administrators allowed to use the rollback feature for MOS violations? I thought that it was only supposed to be used in response to vandalism or spam. I'm not an administrator, so I don't know much about this. Extraordinary Machine 19:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jonah Ayers/Biff Rose

I have blocked Jonah Ayers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some associated IPs and usernames, for one week due to persistent disruption. The most recent incidents have been vandalism of a user's page. [171][172] The editor has been very disruptive to the project, including abuse of sock puppets and harassment of editors. -Will Beback 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

it is apparent that the vandalism Jonah Ayers points to by Sojambi Pinola is actual. this block may very well be unwarranted abuse by an administrator.Wallawe 20:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Wallawe" is most likely another Jonah Ayers sock puppet. -Will Beback 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It is apparent that this was Wallawe's fourth edit. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:LawAndOrder

LawAndOrder (talk · contribs) just spammed a bunch of pages b3gz0ring for votes from people who voted oppose on William M Connolly's RFA. Time to hang this sock out to dry, please. -- Netoholic @ 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I knew this was a bad idea. —Ilyanep (Talk) 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's sockcheck it for SEWilco first. :) Phil Sandifer 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked LawAndOrder for 24 hours for this blatant violation of WP:POINT. Ambi 01:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it's SEWilco. I think it's a combination of WP:POINT and the user's hatred of myself (why, I'm not exactly sure). Ral315 (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

School IP blocked, please review

209.226.83.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) does lots of vandalism and no good edits, as far as I've seen from my sampling (I expect there are a few helpful edits hiding in there if you look hard enough). It resolves to ns.hpedsb.on.ca, and a note at the top of the talkpage implies that it's a school with a static IP. I have blocked it for one week (please just look at the talkpage before you lynch me), and I request that someone with a better head for these things would kindly check; if it's not in fact static IP, it must of course have a block of at most 24 hours (of less, IMO). I left a note, I hope prominently enough, on the talkpage to explain that there's a lot of vandalism coming in from the school and for students to please ask the IT administrator to e-mail me to work something out. I absolutely don't want to keep a school blocked for a week, any more than other people do, but I just don't see the point of having all those warning templates waste their sweetness on the desert air. We need to do something more practical in these cases. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

Nah, this is definately a static IP. Judging from the name, its a nameserver, and seems to be responding to dns queries. - FrancisTyers 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Full many a t*rd is born to stink unsmelled. The talk page is a work of art: they've got warnings and blocks going back nearly 3 years. Students can still research on Wikipedia while blocked, and, honestly, what they have to write from the school can be accomplished by setting up a named account. They haven't seen fit to do so in all this time, so it's highly unlikely that there is going to be editorial damage from the block. Geogre 22:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What G said is exactly what I was planning to say while reading this. Students can still read WP so it doesn't affect those who want to research. Finally resolving Bug #550 might help in this too. —Ilyanep (Talk) 22:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a static IP address for a domain controlled by the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board. This board, like all others in Ontario, provides a number of services for its schools, including internet access/routing. Thus, this IP address provides access to 54 schools in the district (of which only eight are high schools), plus to staff of the school board itself. This block is far more aggressive than you may have intended. Perhaps it is better to simply contact the board's IT department and work in conjunction with them - they certainly won't want to be associated with vandalism and trolling. Mindmatrix 20:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. No, I didn't intend to block 54 schools, it was exactly to ensure against something like that that I posted here. I'll leave the contacts to abler pens (=to somebody who knows what they're doing with IPs, IP ranges, and district boards; where's User:Hall Monitor when you need him?). Unblocked. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Alteration

Grace Note altered a signed request for comments I made at Wikipedia:LGBT notice board to insert his/her agenda into what I created as a NPOV RfC (as NPOV as could be given its location, anyway). Then s/he labeled it a "minor adjustment." Is this the proper place to report that behavior? According to his/her user page this user has been blocked fairly recently already. Is this a blockable offense or what? Thanks for your attention. Dave 02:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note is a relatively well behaved user. I don't track what he gets up to, but I put a suggestion on his talk page about this. It's a bit careless of him and he should have appended his own comment instead. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dave 02:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I genuinely didn't notice that I'd adjusted a signed comment. My apologies. Tony, I haven't been banned under any user name. That's an untruth and I ask you to retract it. I could edit under the old user name tomorrow if I chose but I don't want to. Please retract the personal attack, remove it from this page and notify me at my talkpage that you have done so.

Dave, if you have a problem with something I do, the first thing to do is leave a message at my talkpage. I'm very approachable. Bar one stupid drunken incident, which I apologised to the person concerned for unreservedly, I've adhered to the policies of Wikipedia throughout my time here. What I'd suggest is not a good approach is running to teacher to try to get me blocked over something that could could be and in fact was entirely innocent. You and I have a disagreement, not a war. Please try to remember that in your dealings with and about me. Grace Note 02:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Grace. I genuinely misremembered the result in that case. You were banned (prohibited -- Grace Note.) from removing an image from an article. You left for a while and then came back with a new username. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have refactored both comments to remove the suggestion that I was banned from editing. I hope you'll feel this is satisfactory.Grace Note 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. Tony accommodated the clarification about not being banned; making him seem to make an evaluation he didn't make isn't quite "refactoring." I've restored his words (or tried, to, if I made a mistake, I apologize to all). Demi ^T/_C 03:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony has left his personal attack suggesting I'm a sock of a banned user on the page, and used the word "banned" again. I am not a sock. This is the ID I use to edit Wikipedia. Under my former ID, I was prohibited from removing an image by Tony's clique after we disagreed about it. In line with this guideline, which Tony himself has often followed, I have removed the personal attack and I have noted his comment to remove a further suggestion that I was banned from editing, which I was not. If Tony has a problem with the editing, I know he'll be in touch. It's not becoming for admins to make personal attacks against unempowered users, and even less so for another to support it. Please don't. Grace Note 05:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I again apologise for imprecise and offensive use of words. Yes, you were prohibited, and strictly speaking your quiet adoption of a new username was not sock puppetry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Unitheism

The article Unitheism needs some serious attention, as it has been the subject of vandalism, POV pushing, and some complete nonsense. -- Jonel | Speak 02:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, so we either get a definition by the guy who coined the term, or a disambiguation page to three things that "unitheism" doesn't actually refer to... Yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation was a quick revert to something coherent. I didn't know anything about the topic and didn't expect to have much time today to learn about it, so I brought it here. Turns out I have got some time today, and having done some more research into it, I agree that AfD is the way to go as the term is a neologism (and, incidentally, all four of the disambig page items were erroneous). -- Jonel | Speak 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Aren't neologisms a case for AfD? Aren't dictdefs something for Wiktionary? (Yeah, I know: I think deletion is the answer for everything. It is, you know.) Geogre 11:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when I said "definition", I guess I really meant "short essay". I can't think of a way to construe it that isn't AfD-able. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Maoririder

This guy is quite a problem, as anyone who has run across his edits will know. At the end of last year, after a series of bewildering edits, and a course of mentoring which didn't work at all, he was banned for a week. After the week was up, there was no sign of Maoririder... but up popped User:Jingofetts, with an identical style, and eventually he revealed himself to be Maoririder. Having lost his password, he had simply come back with a new user name. So far so good, except that his extremely distinctive editing style hadn't improved any, and in his first week back, he was blocked again. Now Jingofetts has fallen silent, and we have User:MaoJin. Exactly the same MO, and the user page says that the user "lost password".

Something needs to be done about this guy. It's fairly clear that his intentions are good, but it's a hell of a job mopping up after him - unintentional vandalism would be the best way to describe it. And since he keeps losing his password and coming back with a new name, it's never easy to know where he'll pop up next. Cleaning up his patent attempts at stub-templates alone takes long enough... he seems to have a fixation with using as many templates as possible (have a look at this for a fine example. So, what to do? Grutness...wha? 12:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

d'oh! should also have noticed the name: Maoririder/Jingofetts. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole, as with the B-Movie Bandit back in the day. We've spent enough time on this guy. Ambi 13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

From my limited experience at the Reference Desk, I did note he often asked childish, though legitimate, questions. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, he became obsessed with the word "nigger" which caused a lot of problems. Rhobite 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

He accused several users, including me, of calling him by that word, and became very disruptive about it. android79 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, the B-movie bandit. Those were the good days. Ilyanep 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

AAAH! Where'd my sig go? Ilyanep 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up here, Grutness. Maoririder is currently under mentorship following an ArbCom case filed against him. I and several other users have been trying to help him. I'll try and deal with this, but if anyone notices that he's using any other accounts, please let me know or post here. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that MaoJin has been caught by the followign block: 13:22, 12 January 2006, Hall Monitor blocked 169.244.143.115 (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (severely high ratio of vandalism from this IP; please contact an administrator to have this block removed) DES ^(talk) 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised people think this user's intentions are good. He admits to trolling here: [173]. He has not only done a great deal of damage but did so with full intent. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a combination of assuming good faith and the fact that he seems (hm.. how to say this delicately...) not the sharpest needle in the box. Personally I suspect some form of mild intellectual/psychological problem, but I also feel it's wrong to speculate too much on that without evidence other than his bizarre edits. Grutness...wha? 08:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Maoririder is currently under mentorship. This doesn't seem to be going particularly well considering he has yet to give any indication that he has read WP:YFA, as you have asked him (on many occasions). --TheParanoidOne 12:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

vandal at wikinews

193.39.158.195 see his http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=193.39.158.195 all he does is vandalize... please ban.

Sorry, but Wikipedia administrators do not have access to those priviledges at any other sister project. Please check with administrators on Wikinews to report vandalism. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

More fun with Bigfoot

I've indefinitely blocked DrJoe (talk · contribs) and Dr Joe (talk · contribs) for being obvious sockpuppets of Beckjord (talk · contribs). Beckjord is an abusive editor who refuses to heed just about every Wikipedia policy and guideline that there is; these and other sockpuppets have routinely filled in for him when he's been "out of town" or "on expedition". I can provide detailed reasoning for this block if requested, but a quick glance through the contribution histories of all three accounts should make it readily apparent.

Since I am involved in a dispute, such as it is, with Beckjord, I welcome review of my actions. android79 13:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain how DrJoe/Dr Joe are abusive sockpuppets of Beckjord? I reviewed this when it was on WP:RFCU and I didn't see evidence of abusive use of sockpuppets (and refused to do the sockcheck as a result). The use of sockpuppets to be merely annoying is not clearly against policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This edit from Beckjord's IP, 205.208.227.49 (talk · contribs), may be the most illuminating regarding this situation:

do not tell me what to do. Your best bet it to take some of what I edit, and make the references changes that make you pedants happy, and save it. Cooperate. Because I WILL NOT go away. Go work on your own pages. I will accept NO orders. I will come back in a 1000 otehr means and ways. Got it? Now go home to momma.

Note that the Dr Joe (talk · contribs) account recently became active again today, to make this edit [174], which contains material present in the preferred version of 205.208.227.49 (talk · contribs), here: [175]. In the meantime, the Beckjord account has conveniently gone out of town: [176]. The DrJoe accounts have been used to revert war, inserting the same material inserted by Beckjord, and to campaign for the inclusion of said material on the talk page. I think this is abusive. Using multiple accounts in this manner is covered in WP:SOCK under "purposes of deception" and "create the illusion of broader support for a position". I feel this goes beyond mere annoyance into a blockable use of sockpuppet accounts.

If consensus is that these blocks are inappropriate, well, so be it. A request for arbitration is forthcoming; I just wanted to confine the incessant POV warring by this lone editor to one username. android79 18:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am most definitely not saying that the blocks are inappropriate, just that I don't feel that there's enough of a violation here to reach the level where I can use CheckUser to confirm the sockpuppet allegation. I agree that Beckjord is a vexatious user who needs to change his editing practices. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So, to recap: annoying, blockable, but not quite CheckUser-able. Works for me. android79 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits on 205.208.227.49 (talk · contribs) have been variously signed "beckjord" "DrJoe" and "Jeff", so a CheckUser will only tell us what we already know. All "three" of them on that IP and also individual accounts consistently add the same highly POV and OR content, vanity/spam links to his own site, unceasing personal attacks on the article talk page and other locations. Kelly, would you suggest admins blocking on their own, or straight to ArbCom with evidence, or what? DreamGuy 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User vandal out-of-process deletion reversed

Please comment on my undeletion of Template:User vandal, which was deleted at 12:32 13 January by Doc glasgow, despite a TFD discussion that is clearly at "no consensus" (and was so at the time), with many people saying that this joke template (it refers to the University of Idaho mascot, not Wikipedia vandalism) should be kept. ~~ N (t/c) 15:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, that userbox's template name is very similar to {{vandal}}, so that was probably the reason for the TFD. So, what I did is I moved the template to {{User uni idaho}} and that should end the problem. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge

A certain User:Ruy Lopez has for months been trying to add an allegation in this article concerning US involvement in the 1970 coup that brought Lon Nol to power in Cambodia [177]. Yet he refuses to answer questions regarding his source in Talk:Khmer Rouge, which have been posted for months, and his efforts are also opposed by everyone else who is contributing to the page. Can someone do something about this since he refuses to give a decent response after repeated appeals? CJK 20:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, sounds like many someones are already doing something, namely reverting him. What else would you suggest anyone could do? -- SCZenz 21:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, perhaps some sort of a penalty, such as a block. I don't no. He shouldn't be allowed to put his propaganda on the page for one second, IMO. I would arbitrate him if it wasn't so trivial. CJK 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• We don't give blocks as punishment. Perhaps a request for comment might be in order to bring broader input to the page? -- SCZenz 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Been there, done that. If no one here actually punishes anybody, can someone point me to a place where they will? CJK 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Because Pol Pot's regime was hostile to Vietnam which was a Soviet client state, but I guess the Cold War was but a dream ... no massive bombing campaigns by the US in Cambodia, no arms flowing to Pol Pot from Thailand and the PRC. The US was a totally neutral participant in the incredibly bloody conflict in Indo-China (namely Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos). Someone wake up the millions who are dead to verify. El_C 21:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. I guess you must feel proud of yourself, having single-handedly exposed my evil plot to subject this article. I'm sure Che would be proud too. Lets just ignore the fact that you didn't bother to take two seconds to scroll down in order to see the actual dispute concerning Samuel Thornton and the coup. CJK 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am beaming with shame that I suddenly have no clue who Lon Nol is. In answer to your querry: WP:DR. El_C 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything in that has already been attempted, and the matter is way too trivial for full-blown mediation, RFC, or arbitration. CJK 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not too trivial if it: a. continues-on; b. historically not insiginficant. But if you want content resolution by administrative decree... El_C 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who actually thinks this projects integrity is important and should not be damaged by propagandists? CJK 22:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I deal with pseudoscience all the time, which I suspect is similar. It's not easy, and requires attention, but you really can't call on admins to settle content disputes by blocking. -- SCZenz 22:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I note that with this edit, User:Ruy Lopez gives Samuel Thornton as a source. That is immediately reverted to an unsourced statement. I know nothing about the subject of this article, or the reliability of whoever this Thornton person is. I notice that there is discussion on the Talk page. The article may need protection to end the edit-war. There may also be WP:3RR violations, but I am not at all convinced that the major problem here is User:Ruy Lopez' disregard for WP:V. Even if it was, of course, admin action wouldn't be necessary or appropriate. Jkelly 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about the subject, then with all due respect stay out of it. The questions were not whether or not the source existed, it was regarding the credibility of it. CJK 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was refering to this, gah! My mistake. I stand by what I said, of course. In advance: please refrain from saying "good for you" El_C 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will as long as you don't misrepresent what I say in a sarcastic and knee-jerk manner. CJK 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent what you said, I made a comment about history, here on WP:ANI. El_C 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But you put forward a strawman arguement. CJK 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that would be an historical misrepresentation. El_C 23:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it would not. CJK 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. El_C 00:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The edit obviously implied that I was in denial about US bombings and aid, which was flat out untrue. CJK 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As noted, I was refering to another edit; it wasn't an "untrue" response to it. But that isn't important at this point. El_C 01:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It was untrue. No where did I assert that the US did not bomb Cambodia or that the US did not support the KR after their overthrow. CJK 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We've already established it wasn't your edit I was refering to. El_C 01:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of that as well because it was factually incorrect (as the US never supported the KR while in power). CJK 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That depends what is meant by support — they didn't press on the right-wing govt. in Thialand to halt arms supplies and so on. But this really isn't the venue to explore these issues. El_C 02:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what I'm beginning to understand that nobody actually does anything here. May I request an outlet in which people actually block disruptive users relatively quickly? It would be somewhat rediculous to go through mediation, RFC, arbitration etc. over one sentence. CJK 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You mention to Jkelly "to stay out of it" if he isn't familliar with the topic, noting that it isn't "whether or not the source existed, it was regarding the credibility of it." But, like Jkelly, most admins are not familliar with the subject. Then you say "I'm beginning to understand that nobody actually does anything here". That does not strike you as somewhat contradictory? El_C 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant nobody does anything useful CJK 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not moi, but I think Jkelly blocked a vandal during the early days of summer. El_C 23:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically there is no such place. If the matter is not worth those steps, and it is a content dispute rather than vandalism, there is nothing in the blocking policy that justifies a block, and no one is likely to impose one. Of course if you convince any particular admin that a block for "disruptive editing" is justified, there you are. DES ^(talk) 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright. So there is no policy for blocking users who insert maliciously distortional information repeatedly short of arbitration, which would not be accepted because of the minor nature of the incident. CJK 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not unless you can prove it's malicious. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. -- SCZenz 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I understand now. Thanks for your advice. It is just immensely frustrationg to know that I will be spending the rest of my life removing this questionably credible sentence. CJK 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand this approach. Why do you find the DR steps to be worse than "spending the rest of [your] life removing" that addition? El_C 01:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Because we are dealing with a sentence. When is the last time an arbcom case has been accepted on the basis of one disputed sentence? CJK 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For information purposes, I note that Ruy Lopez was sanctioned previously by the ArbCom (see the case here) 'for failing to discuss reverts' on articles including Communist state and Opposition to U.S. foreign policy. He received a one-week ban. If he is engaged in similarly inappropriate behaviour, a warning might be in order.

I note that in the history of Khmer Rouge ([178]) CJK and Lopez engaged in a revert war back on or about December 15 on this topic. A request for comment on the article content might be appropriate, as might an RFC on the users in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerald15

I have blocked Gerald15 (talk · contribs) for one week for repeatedly creating hoax articles and adding hoax information to existing articles. He has made up a city called Comerica City, which he claims, with no documentation, is the name of the city that the Peanuts characters live in, and has created multitudes of articles about each street in this made up city. He has been warned many times about the hoaxes, but now he has created The Five Peanuts Cities, which he inserted into the Peanuts article, and which I have speedy deleted, and have blocked him for it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Such vandalism is more heinous than simple vandalism, and a week is probably lenient. I'm still wincing over the User:RyanCahn insanity. --Golbez 23:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I still see Ryan trying to edit on a weekly basis. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Increadible volume of vandalism on List of ethnic slurs

(Comment has also been posted on 3RR notice board for faster response.) Upon review it appears 155.84.57.253 has reverted the edits of several users on the List of ethnic slurs entry giving the explanation non-notables, repairs, version by ---, last credible version, or reliable [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189] (as if one can distinguish reliable versions in an article with almost no citations). And this is only in the last 12 days! Thus, it appears as if many quite possibly valid entries have been deleted. This anon has been editing just this page since November, 2004 [190]. Most of his reversions appear to remain unfixed. --Primetime 22:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review, it appears as if the anon has deleted comments on their talk page warning them to stop reverting other people's changes [191]. It also appears as if they were given a 24-hour ban on January 6,[192] although they have continued their ways unabated. --Primetime 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to resurrect Wikipedia career

Bishonen made an interesting comment subsequent to my three-day departure from Wikipedia. I had returned today to search for something and while I was here, decided to browse through some disputes that have grown old. Analyzing her talk page history, I came across that comment and decided to proceed to post a comment here. I would like to take this opportunity to announce that my Wikipedia career had been cut short due to a ridiculous situation. I had been blocked and subsequently banned from this website because various users assumed bad faith (I am tired of bringing that guideline up) and insisted that I had been conducting the accounts User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario and operating them as sock puppets. This was due to an IP check. However, without allowing me to go into much detail and plead my case, both of the accounts were blocked, and my account User:Hollow Wilerding was subsequently banned up to two weeks. This had been based purely on assumptions, bad faith, not allowing me to have a major case, and ignoring a compromise. I had suggested a compromise by creating the account User:Siblings CW, for my brother who previously operated the User:DrippingInk account. The User:Winnermario account was operated by a roommate of mine who abandoned it because she was temporarily blocked. I attempted to file an RfC against Bishonen because of her misuse of administrator abilities; this part is truly laughable, as it presents poor judgement from the Wikipedia community, instantly painting a bad name for the website. The "cookies" and "cupcakes" is basically speaking the following: personal attacks. No compromise was suggested at the RfC either. So what is the use of the request for comment option if the entire community is going to laugh about the situation and suppose that they're correct? They had never considered that they could be the ones who are wrong.

I would like a compromise and a chance to operate another account solely, without my brother or roommate accessing Wikipedia. (They're both... infuriated with the situation that occurred.) The only reason I came to Wikipedia was to make it more wholesome and widespread. If this is the way Wikipedians are going to treat others on the edge of slippery slopes, then we're far from ever completing the encyclopedia. As I am attempting to plead my case, please don't block this IP. It'd be appreciated. 64.231.179.104 00:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• snores* This is boring, Hollow.--Sean|Black 01:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. Why are you ignoring my case? Do you think I'm joking and am so incredibly bored that I decided to come and waste my time posting this? Why don't you give this thought? Why don't you say something productive and help enhance the Wikipedia community? Your attitude presents that you don't care if the encyclopedia had one less editor who has taken the time to improve a few articles. Please just listen to me. 64.231.179.104 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Come back on the 16th. If you're truly dedicated to the project, prove it by waiting. Blocking IP until then.--Tznkai 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How is proving dedication done by refraining from editing? I feel as though my editing skills have not been meaningful. 64.231.179.104 01:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

blocked until 20:00 JAN 15 UTC. I hate time syntax, I don't get it. Block evasion is a no no. Take it up through proper channels.--Tznkai 01:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) ::Surely you could have found a more civil way to say you were not inclined to support HW's request, Sean. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only five days; why not take the time to collect thoughts/materials on what contributions you want to make when the block ends? Rd232 ^talk 01:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I could have. But if she wants to come back, it's obvious that her old accounts won't get unblocked, and that if she keeps insisting that she never did anything wrong, we're not going to listen to her. Get a new account, don't say that you are the same person, and move on.--Sean|Black 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean all that after going through a two week block, don't you, Sean? So far, this user has not stopped editing at all, so the block counter keeps getting restarted. The two weeks begins, at this point, on Jan. 13 or 13 Jan. 2006. That's when it starts, because the user continues to edit as an IP during the block. Geogre 12:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody would question that you are devoted to the project.

Whether or not you're devoted to helping the project, on the other hand, seems manifestly up in the air. Phil Sandifer 02:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Although Snowspinner — Phil Sandifer — has blocked the User:Hollow Wilerding account indefinitely, it's my earlier two-week block that's the operative one, since shortest block rules. My block will be released on January 15th or 16th — whatever your timezone says — together with any longer block. I won't reblock, personally; I've blocked HW—the main account—twice, and that's enough from me. It's indeed obvious, as you say, Sean, that all the other old accounts won't get unblocked: they've been used for block evasion, vote stacking, and other abuse,[193] I can't imagine them ever being unblocked.

Sean, I have to say, though, that I'm quite opposed to advising Hollow to get a new account and pretend (yet again) to be somebody else — hasn't there been enough of that? A truly new departure, IMO, would be to start the new career, if any, with acknowledgement of the past and the use of the original (more or less) account. If the HW account now appears, understandably, as an albatross, I advise an open change of username. Bishonen | talk 02:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right.--Sean|Black 05:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, this user has been committed to block evasion. The user was blocked as Winnermario, then became Hollow Wiledering. When that was blocked, he immediate became Siblings WC. When that was blocked, he became Empty Wallow. When that was blocked, he continued to post as a series of dynamic IP's. Now, what's clear is that the user has not endured any block time and will not play by the rules that all other users have to abide by. For me, this is a far worse case than any given misbehavior (personal attacks, voting for himself three times, supporting his own motions, etc.). The misbehavior shows a dedication to lying, but the block evasion is an attempt to avoid the only method of discipline (not punishment) that Wikipedia has. That cannot be tolerated. When the user ceases to edit, from any IP, for two weeks, he will have simply caught up with past offenses. The offense of block evasion is a separate matter, with a separate penalty. In the Willy case, I believe we wanted a hard ban. I am not recommending that, but I wouldn't be too shocked if others wanted it. After all, the behavior while editing has been deception upon deception, although not article vandalism. How much should that count? However much it does, block evasion counts more. Geogre 22:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I can simply no longer refrain from participating in this conversation and therefore must post a comment. I would heavily appreciate it if User:Geogre, User:Bishonen or any user finally answered a question that has constantly been ignored (which I'm beginning to find peculiar): what is your evidence that I am one user and I operated all three accounts? Also, User:Siblings CW was not created after I was blocked but two days before. Please do not post a comment if you are unaware of the accurate information because it makes me look like a criminal. I believe that I deserve to post on Wikipedia just as anyone else does. After all, the motto is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" It is not "The free encyclopedia that anyone who is not a vandal, sock puppet, or user who has been accused of something that has not been proven can edit!" Besides, if it weren't for my contributions, Cool (song) and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask would not have become FAs. I find it very questionable why one would come to edit Wikipedia, make enhancements like these, and subsequently be called "a useless contributer". I would like to create a new account (unless User:Hollow Wilerding is unblocked). I would also like to know where a few users are getting the idea that User:Winnermario may be me, but User:DrippingInk is not. Please be as civil as possible when responding and do not block this IP. If I never have a chance to edit Wikipedia again, what will be one's reason for blocking my IP in the year 2020? Block evasion? Uh... 64.231.176.254 23:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your various lies by various sockpuppets all run into each other. Here's a good one: [194]. And please don't insult our intelligence by telling us that edit wasn't made from your account. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not type that. It was my brother in an attempt to settle the score but he made it worse. Yes, that contribution came from our computer, but was made by my brother. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Civil answer from an administrator who has no involvement in this whatsoever and no ties to any of the other administrators previously involved:

1. All the answers to your questions are right here on this page, as well as the demonstrations that many of your assertions are mistaken. I saw them and have no other source of knowledge about you.
2. For example, no one is keeping you from editing wikipedia. You are welcome to make a fresh start with another account. It is the previous persona, behavior, attitude, and bad faith that have been blocked and are unwelcome, and the paragraphs on this page provide direct or indirect evidence of all of them.
3. Please do not argue about this any more. We are all sick of it. Your next post is your choice to make. Either
   1. Start editing an article of interest in a different manner than before under a new name or even just an IP number, or
   2. Keep arguing here about how you don't understand or don't accept the community response to your previous behavior and it will tell us that what you really want is a public theater or courtroom to play out your victimization psychodrama; if you choose this course it will of course confirm everything you are denying.

Be a grown-up. Enjoy the chance to make a completely fresh start with people you have offended in a way that never happens in the real world. Join the community as a new account and be a different person. Your move. alteripse 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will therefore register a new account. User:DrippingInk, my brother, will not edit, and my roomate User:Winnermario will not edit either. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding/64.231.75.102 (talk · contribs) wrote on user talk:Everyking that she had originally joined Wikipedia under the Winnermario (talk · contribs) account [195], but above she says that it was operated by "a roommate of mine". Coupled with continued incivility (among other things), it's clear that Hollow Wilerding has not realised the error of her ways, and I'd recommend that the ban on her editing Wikipedia, whether anonymously or not, be maintained indefinitely. Extraordinary Machine 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That was also written by my brother in a foolish attempt to resurrect our lives on Wikipedia. It was posted from our computer, yet I was not the contributer. I am not User:Winnermario. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Smn? How did this notice get to the bottom? El_C 01:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

here El C. I thought about reverting it, but I decided not to. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 01:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Worked some magic. That's all. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new account, the one I came currently contributing from. I would appreciate it if no one blocked this account, and I will go around informing people of this. My name will not be displayed in my profile, but I will continue editing my usual articles including Gwen Stefani singles and other music-related categories. All hail Mariah Carey! Thank you for allowing me to return to Wikipedia. Solar Serenity 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm so confused; tempted to block on account of that alone. El_C 01:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Alteripse noted that I should create an account and just go on and edit. Why not? It was an opinion from another admin. I agree; I never meant to cause any harm, I'm just another editor here improving articles that I desire. User:El C, your concern appears to be stable, but let's have this entire façade end. I just want to help the articles that I feel require article enhancement. I'll see you all later. Please let me be from this point forward. If one has a concern, just talk to me on my talk page, and please don't block. Discussion should always be conducted first. Thanks! Solar Serenity 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Though User:Bishonen sure doesn't want me to edit. She plans on blocking me again. How about a discussion first? —Solar Serenity | Ytineres Ralos 01:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't plan to block you again; you're still blocked, and therefore the new account is yet another sock. I certainly will block it. Sorry, but I'm quite confounded by alteripse's statement that "no one is keeping you from editing wikipedia. You are welcome to make a fresh start with another account." Making a "fresh start with another account" while blocked is one of the things that have gotten the person — not any one of her accounts, or all of them — into all this trouble.I'm surprised at the need for saying this, but I'll say it: HW — the person, the user who operated the account User:Hollow Wilerding, is not welcome to edit under another account while blocked! No blocked user is welcome to create another account while blocked and edit from it, as I'm sure alteripse knows. Alteripse, I'm wondering if perhaps there's a date confusion: did you realize she is still blocked? My two-week block will run out in two days' time, and when that goes, so does Snowspinner's indefinite block. We have been talking, above, about letting her start editing again at that point. You haven't unblocked HW yourself, and nobody else has either. To Hollow: I've blocked the new account. I'm sorry if you were given the wrong impression, and I won't hold it against you that you created a new account at this time, since there seems to be some misunderstanding. But as you can see above, you are expected to sit out this two-week block. It's frankly little enough to ask, considering the circumstances. DO NOT try to edit until the two-week block runs out, unless a total change of consensus is indicated here, in this thread, before then. So far, nobody but alteripse has suggested that it's remotely appropriate for you to start editing before then. Please don't try. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For those who may not know, this isn't solely about creation of sockpuppet accounts, deception and disruption (though those infractions in and of themselves I would consider grounds for permanent banning). Winnermario was blocked for 24 hours for making homophobic personal attacks not too long ago, and also became one of the subjects of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues (there's more to be said, which I'll leave out for brevity's sake). I have an extremely difficult time believing that Hollow Wilerding's admittance that she had previously been Winnermario was "written by [her] brother", especially given the falsehoods that whoever this person is has been coming up with while rotating through new accounts and IP's. See also this edit to Sorry (Madonna song), in which user:Solar Serenity formatted a track listing in violation of normal English conventions or Wikipedia's manual of style, despite several previous warnings about this. Additionally, Wikipedia:Blocking policy states "There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked." To say that Hollow Wilerding/Winnermario/etc. has "exhausted the community's patience" would be extremely accurate in my opinion, and she should be blocked from editing articles at least until the two-week block expires in accordance with Wikipedia:Banning policy. Extraordinary Machine 02:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion

I just checked my log to make sure I'm not crazy, but Hollow was blocked until the 16th. I reblocked Hollow's new IP until the 16th. The USER is blocked, and evidently Hollow, her siblings, her dog, and anyone else who has access to her name is also blocked as they all have showed spectacularly similar conduct. At the very least Hollow is blocked. This has not changed, and continued block evasion is just asking for a new block.

Anyone able to give me a good reason NOT to block the new user name and IP until the 16th if not later?--Tznkai 01:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Both IP and new account are blocked until 20:00 Jan 15 UTC, although I'm considering extending them.--Tznkai 02:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, please see my reply to alteripse above. I really think he may be unaware that she's still blocked. Anyway, I very much agree with you, and I've also blocked the new (sock) account. As I said, still higher up in this thread, I'm not planning on re-blocking HW after the two-week block runs out (unless there are more shenanigans). Please don't sanction her for creating the Solar Serenity account, as it looks like she was led by alteripse's post into thinking she had a right to do that. But honestly, if she now, after my clarification above, can't or won't sit out the remaining two days now, I'd be all for you re-blocking. Behaving herself for two whole days would be the very first gesture of good faith and cooperation she has made since this sorry business began. I don't think that's too much to ask, as a token of respect for the community and its policies. Bishonen | talk 02:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Bishonen. The user has not been two weeks without editing. In fact, the user has evaded the block on every day but three during the two weeks. Re-blocking this one particular account name may be moot, as the user now has six accounts, but I would not be satisfied until the user goes fourteen days with no edits as an anonymous IP, as Siblings WC, as Empty Wallow, as Solar Serenity, or as Winnermario, or as Drippinglink, or as Cruz Along, or as any of the other accounts the user has set up to evade blocks. After those two weeks, let there be Arb Com or Mentoring. If no one but Everyking is available to be the user's mentor, then I'd suggest ArbCom and permanent blocking on sight. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the only method of discipline the project has is the block. Evading the blocks is vandalism, no matter the content of the edits. Geogre 04:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanket Block

On the off chance Hollow is telling the truth, I'm going to issue a blanket block for all person's in that house because of their inability to clearly show a lack of sockpuppetering, individual identity, and civil behavior. In otherwards, they are all blocked for the same duration, for disrupting the Wiki, whether all is one or twenty. Objections?--Tznkai 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, the ArbCom already formally defines such households as one person. But, since this has been explained to HW several times and she seems to have trouble grasping it, I think the blanket block is a great idea: it may help her get her mind round the concept that she's responsible for anything, including any lies, that are posted from her computer with her password. Bishonen | talk 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me once more say very clearly, in words that the user can grasp: fulfill the two week block by not editing, under any guise, for two full weeks, and then you can have an RFC on your actions. At the very least, you would need someone trusted and dispassionate to be your mentor. I don't know why user:alterpise said what he did, but his view is not supported by any of the other administrators (except one) who has reviewed the case. You are not free to open yet another account and edit away. In fact, you are responsible for each of the edits made by the brother/lover/husband/roommate/self (and you've explained each each way). The lies pile upon each other to such a degree as to render each and every statement null. There is no information you can offer about yourself that can be believed. At this point, the single user case you remind me of most of all is Michael. He was blocked for over a year, and when he came back, it was only with a very patient mentor. Let ArbCom decide on what terms you can edit, if you wish to edit at all. Otherwise, you are going to be treated by many administrators as simply a vandal to be blocked on sight. Geogre 04:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Gang stalking as a subpage

Nrcprm2026 recreated Gang stalking as a subpage of Conspiracy theory. I deleted it. Someone speak up if that was wrong. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind: on second thought I'd rather not have to shepard my proposal to merge the two. So much for my bold attempts to propose a compromise. I just want to state for the record that I though part of the article has merit, and part didn't.

I do think that the content presents a few fairly important questions. It does seem to be partially verifiable. If I offended anyone, let me know how, please. --James S. 00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a personal essay without sources, and subpages in the article namespace are never good. --Golbez 00:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So my proposal to put fiction articles like Daniel Jackson in places like Stargate/Daniel Jackson is a nonstarter? --James S. 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. We used to do that; it was specifically deprecated. Check Wikipedia:Subpages. --Golbez 04:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking. Deletion applies to the content, not merely to the content under a given name. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to merge the content piece-wise. I realize now that, even if I actually wanted to do that, which I don't -- and I was more hoping to try to convince the people who keep re-creating Gang stalking with sockpupets to merge it -- there's no reason to completely re-create the whole thing. I screwed up. Live and learn. --James S. 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Gang Stalking should *NEVER* have been considered for deletion. It is absolutely essential to Wikipedia to have something about that. The piddly little piece on Wikipedia:Harassment for Wikistalking is thoroughly inadequate.

Sure, we can sit around here and debate policy, and say that "the people spoke" and that it was deleted with consensus, etc etc, but the reality is that it never should have been deleted in the first place. Just look at Wikipedia's pathetic articles on cyberstalking and cyberbullying and how little attention that Wikipedia gives to this important subject. It is especially important in the context of an online community, which Wikipedia is.

What we should be doing is debating about what to include and so forth. It shouldn't ever have been deleted. It shouldn't have been nominated for deletion even. And it should be undeleted. This shouldn't even be a question.

We talk about putting process ahead of content, but this is a case where we've really totally blown it. We sit around deleting user boxes and banning users on a hunch and being totally untransparent with things like that, yet we sit around here worrying about whether or not an absolutely essential article about an incredibly relevant topic should have a part here.

If we are building an encyclopaedia, Gang Stalking belongs. If we are trying to be a community, Gang Stalking belongs. But if we are trying to be a place that is so full of rules that it misses the point, then delete it.

At a bare minimum put the darn thing on to Deletion Review already, and give it a chance, rather than this ridiculousness. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR, which was widely cited as a reason for deleting this page. Radiant_>|< 11:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Masssiveego

User:Masssiveego has gone through over a dozen Rfa's and made numerous votes in the arbcom elections, all with the vote "oppose" and no reasons given whatsoever for his vote. Editor has apparently been around since 9/2003 but has less than 700 edits total. Contributions: [196].--MONGO 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Does he not have suffrage? What am I missing here? --Aaron 03:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the contributions...every single one of his votes in the arbcom elections and on Rfa's has been an oppose and no reason given. Does that not seem trollish to you?--MONGO 03:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should consider this to be trolling to the same degree as someone who votes "Delete" on all articles up for deletion. In other words - no. The only issue should be whether they are suitably new. Why block someone for trying to state their case about which administrators they think should be promoted? It is supposed to be some kind of a vote after all. Zordrac 03:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does appear trollish, but he either has the right to vote or he doesn't. If he wants to vote against every single person that ever gets nominated, that's his right. --Aaron 03:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I think its laughable that people even criticise this. I got criticised for voting "keep" on a whopping 40% of articles nominated for deletion, and then criticised for voting "oppose" on about 40% of candidates on RFAs. So did Freestylerappe. Its laughable really. Unless we are supposed to automatically vote delete on every article that's nominated and support on every administrator, it just reeks of an attempt to try to de-individualise people. We are all individuals, and should be allowed to vote outside of the box. Its little wonder there is so much paranoia about sock puppetry. Zordrac 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is about User:Masssiveego... --W.marsh 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Really, it's not all that disruptive. I'd say wait and see if the behavior continues. BDAbramson T 03:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they first logged in in early 2003, and made almost 1,000 edits before first commenting in an RFA. I am pretty confident that there is no rule prohibiting someone from voting oppose on candidates for a period of time. Zordrac 03:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You're joking of course...for three days, this user has voted oppose on every single nominee he has cast a vote on. Where do you see the 1,000 edits in total? I saw less than 700 in 27 months. Up until the voting a few days ago, nothing was eyebrow reaising, but my guess here is that we're dealing with a drug enduced trance at this point.--MONGO 04:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems harmless to me. There's often one or two people hanging around RfA and opposing a lot, just because they like to do that. User:Zordrac opposed my RfA, and I felt really good about it. If User:Masssiveego is carrying the torch for a while, so be it. They're not really affecting any but the most borderline decisions (not much harm done there), and if they make us think a little more often about the whole admin system, then good job. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A troll is still a troll. Bad faith votes like the ones I pointed out have nothing to do with keeping the good editors inspired to continue to produce quality work. By just saying, oh well, it's no big deal, all we do is condone such behavior.--MONGO 08:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jackjohn

User:Jackjohn is a newbie consistently adding her personal images and creating and re-creating articles that are useless and speedied. She has already been blocked once. I've made some attempts at explaining her misuse but to no avail. Now she has taken to leaving nasty messages on my talk page. Y'all might want to address. Wknight94 03:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

blocked for a week by User:Bunchofgrapes. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a softie. The user was creating nonsense pages with text "Ban me" or similar. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

defamatory user

User Beckyhtchang is an obvious bad-faith newuser creation intended to defame some poor third-party, most likely the eponymous Becky, per the content of their userpage.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 04:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Page deleted, and I'll indef blocked if recreated.--Sean|Black 04:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Her talk page is a red link. Has no one talked to her? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats

I have indefinitely blocked User:IAAL for making legal threats. See the bottom of Talk:Main Page. Should I remove the discussion from there?-gadfium 05:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but for those who cannot tell, IAAL stands for "I am a lawyer." Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that was a legal threat, though. Bogus or legitimate, it was a notice. Quite different. It doesn't say "I'm going to sue you"; it says "this legal thing happened and you might have a problem". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like its related to Wikipedia Class Action, and how seriously you take it probably depends on how seriously you take the Class Action bit. I think that the links provided should be presented somewhere and answered by Wikipedians. Whether there is really a restraining order or not, I don't know. But does WP:NLT cover threats against Wikipedia as a whole? Or even bogus notices against Wikimedia? I am not convinced that it does. Even if it is bogus, I don't think its bannable. And, depending on the legitimacy of the links (I don't read German, sorry), I am not sure if they should be deleted either. Perhaps moved to the Village Pump or some other appropriate place though. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read his contributions, it looks like he's a lawyer who stumbled on Wikipedia, and then thought he'd alert us to a problem, rather than threatening us himself. If this is the case, I'll unblock him so he can discuss this here rather than on the main talk page.-gadfium 06:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

I read it and reread it. There was absolutely no threat there. He even says on his user page that he is a lawyer but does not work as an attorney. Are we going to start blocking everyone who mentions legal liability at Wikipedia? Unblock immediately and cool down. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hm. This deserves some browsing in the German media. Here's a discussion of it from a few days ago: [197]. There are some fascinating aspects regarding German law and defaming the dead! See [198] for some of that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He's confirmed that he's involved in the case - he's supposed to be faxing documents to Jimbo. The matter is being discussed in German at [199]. I'm not sure if it is necessary to also discuss it here. I can't hang around; if anyone wants to unblock him, I won't object. I will move the original item from Talk:Main Page to here.-gadfium 06:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll unblock. I am also discussing this with him too. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 06:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you very much to unblock me. Hello Gadfium. No, I am not insolved in this case. It is a case between the parents of Boris F. and Wikimedia Foundation, Jimmy Wales. My part here is only to inform or to warn Jimmy and you admins, simple to avoid big damages to Wikipedia. The decision was filed on 14. December 2005 and the Marshal is already on the way to Jimmy Wales, see also my complete report. Thank you very much. --

IAAL 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning: IAAL is a troll. He is not a lawyer, while he likes to make people to believe the opposite. On his use page in the german wikipedia he states "Here i am again as a jurist" but at two other places (in the discussions about the case) he admits that he is not a jurist or lawyer. It is commonly believed that a well known german troll (famous for legal hasslement, harassment and a lot of other ugly actions) is behind that nick, because the actions and posts reflect the normal behaviour of that troll. Before creating a user account under the name IAAL in the german wikipedia, this person trolled by abusing an open proxy in the US. -- Kju (de) 13:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

ACK --ST ○ 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Main Page

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION (+++URGENT+++)

TO:
Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
Mister Jimmy Wales 200 2nd Ave. South #358
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313
United States of America

Tron, Boris F., Boris F(amilyname), Case-No. 209 C 1015/05 of 12/14/2005, AG Berlin: In the case between the parents of departed Boris F. and Wikimedia Foundation, the Municipal Court of Berlin (Germany) decided on December 14, 2005, that it is forbidden to publish the complete familyname of Boris F. anywhere at WIKIPEDIA.ORG. This restraining order has to be respected by everybody. If this decision will be ignored, then the Court will be allowed to impose a fine up to 250,000 Euro or to place under restraint up to 6 months. It is unknown, if Wikimedia Foundation will file an appeal to the Municipal Court of Berlin. According to the german law, filing an appeal will provocate a hearing in Berlin. The next step would then be the mainhearing in front to the same Municipal Court of Berlin (Germany), next instance County Court of Berlin (Germany), next instance Higher Regional Court of Berlin (Germany). The last instance is the Federal Court of Justice of Karlsruhe (Germany), which is also known as the Highest Appelate Court in Germany for Civil and Criminal Cases. After it, there is also the right for both parties to let check the complete case by the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. And then there is still the European Court of Law, because Germany is part of the European Union. I personally would suggest to lock this article about Boris F. especially his familyname, simple to avoid a disaster for wikipedia. Another nice idea would be to forward his familyname into a list of "bad words" to filter out this familyname within this software of wikipedia. This would then be a global solution and the Judge of Berlin will not be angry because of the danger to post a fine to Wikipedia. I know, it might be, that some wikipedians will not like this decision by the Court, but the current english version is also aviable in Germany and also to the german Judge in Berlin. -- IAAL 22:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1. How do we know that this is a real case?
2. Wikipedia would have legal standing in this case just as Encyclopedia Britannica has the rights to publish Bill Gates' name
3. Germany cannot rule on the United States Wikimedia Foundation.
4. Why don't you actually send this to the board if it's that urgent and real?

&mdash; <span style="color:black;">Ilyanep</span> 05:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? Two words: BS and Trolling.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• See also press
  • Telepolis: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21750/1.html 00:56, 10. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,394374,00.html 17:08, 10. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • http://www.symlink.ch/articles/06/01/10/1926208.shtml 10.1.2006
  • http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,kulm1/kultur/artikel/970/67903/ 12. Januar 2005, S. 13
  • Der Standard http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=2302429
  • http://shortnews.stern.de/shownews.cfm?id=605027&u_id=330694
  • http://www.netzeitung.de/internet/377381.html
  • http://www.n24.de/wirtschaft/multimedia/index.php/n2006011318422600002
  • http://www.sat1.de/news/wirtschaft/2006/01/13/n2006011318422600002/index.php
  • ...
  • more http://news.google.com/news?q=wikipedia+tron&hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UTF-8&filter=0
• See also blogs:
  • fukami http://fukami.vakuum.net/archives/2006/01/10/tron-und-realnamen/ 02:13, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Hal Faber: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/68103 08.01.2006
  • R-Archiv: http://www.r-archiv.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2219 20:44, 10. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Blog „Sex, Drugs and Compiler Construction”: http://www.andreas.org/blog/?p=122 01:50, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • burks.de: http://www.burks.de/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=28997 07:00, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Bloh The Lunatic Fringe http://tim.geekheim.de/2006/01/11/tron-der-ccc-und-wikipedia/ 10:25, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Berlin Blawg http://sewoma.de/berlinblawg/2006/01/11/sevriens/das-postmortale-persoenlichkeitsrecht/
  • Netbib http://log.netbib.de/archives/2006/01/10/wikipedia-kriegt-arger/
  • wortfeld http://www.wortfeld.de/2006/01/wiki_p_und_die_namen/ 10.1.2006
  • Winfuture http://www.winfuture.de/news,23722.html
  • Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,394833,00.html
• See also statement of CCC
  • http://www.ccc.de/updates/2006/wikipedia-vs-tron 13.1.2006

-- IAAL 05:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, google news returns nothing, all the sites are in german, and this doesn't have solid legal grounds (and I can see that even though IANAL) — Ilyanep | Ilyanep 05:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

how does all this rambling have anything to do with the main page? Go talk to the designated agent. Don't post this on that page's talk page, either, just use the information there to contact the proper person. Gentgeen 05:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked IAAL for making legal threats. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats-gadfium 05:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a legal threat but rather notice of an actual temporary restraining order made by a German court against Wikipedia, on the grounds of privacy. On the order itself, I don't see any problem with complying with this temporary order, which seems to be genuine. It may be that Wikipedia can comply by refusing to serve the page to German-allocated IP numbers. IAL should probably be unblocked. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

More discussion

Zscout370 (talk · contribs) has deleted the page. Personally, I do not agree with this action. Comments? — Scm83x ^talk 07:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The lawsuit looks genuine to me, so I complied with his wishes. The Germans already deleted their page and moved it to the same title I moved the new page to Tron (hacker). Honestly, I am surprised this page did not go to AFD, but if you think my actions are wrong, revert my changes. I will not change it back, nor I will call for others to change it back. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You are under the misimpression that the german wikipedia changed the page title because of this legal threat. This is not true. We already had long discussions about the subject about half an year ago, and the change of the page title was only meant as a compromise (typical for german wikipedia) to get both sides satisfied. So the impression that german wikipedia is following the injunction is wrong. The opposite is true: The article still holds the full name (and thats what the injunction is about), and was locked by administrators to keep it that way (and prevent the edit war which occured when the article was not locked). And one more thing: Despite what IAAL is trying to make people belive, most german jurists who have commented on the case believe that the injuction is junk and won't stand a trial anyway. -- Kju (de) 13:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Zach. This was an excellent job by you. Nickname is ok, short form Boris F. is also ok - and the complete familyname is locked. Perfect! :-) The other things in the other languages, that's still awful, because all the articles with his complete familyname (note: The Judge said "no familyname anywhere at WIKIPEDIA.ORG") are still accessable to Germany especially to the German Court via the Internet. Is there a technical solution, to make an entry of "global bad words" into the Wikipedia-software, so, the complete familyname will not appear anywhere in any languages? If not, uh.... aren't there about 170 different languages at wikipedia, and so all articles (existing, non-existing) must be locked? -- IAAL 07:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see how a German judge has power over the English Florida-based Wikipedia. Can someone explain precedent? I don't think there is one. Scm83x 07:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n5p16_internet.html says that even if the content is posted in the United States, as long as it is accessable to Germany, the German courts can rule to have such materials deleted or bocked. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, they can certainly pass that law in Germany, but that doesn't mean people in completely different countries with completely different laws have to pay any attention to it. The worst they can do is try to impose fines on us that we won't have any legal obligation to pay. This is a gross overreach of their legal power, and, furthermore, an admin taking it upon himself to delete the page based upon the claims of a lawyer party to the action is a hugely bad precedent that will only lead to more and more censorship. I recommend restoring the page and keeping it there until US law recognizes German authority on this matter (i.e. likely never), or until an AfD or Jimbo says otherwise. Furthermore, why is IAAL still posting here? This is a clear case of a party to a threatened legal action talking here, that's against all policy. DreamGuy 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Zach and Scm83x. You are very correct, this strategy by the german attorney-at-law is very intelligent, because in one side there exist the internationality of wikipedia and in the other side there exist also the internationality of the Internet. This is why you have all national laws of each nation within one pot. A chance to lump together all the laws and to provocate international conflicts especially to abuse it. In the other side, there has never been a reason to publish an article about Boris F., because he has never been a person of the contemporary history. Goethe, Einstein, Schiller, Mozart, no problem, but Boris F.? It is the free editing, that everybody is allowed to create an new article and now the Wikimedia Foundation and Jimmy have a problem. Onto my User:IAAL I collected the information of law-steps. HTH! :-) -- IAAL 07:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is still a minor problem: the recreated page presumably uses content from the original page, but as that has been deleted the authors of the original are not credited as they must be under the licence, GFDL. This is not an urgent problem; if we take a few days to sort it out I'm sure no one will mind. We could decide to have no article at all on this person; we could rewrite the article entirely; or we may be able to do something clever with selective undeletion of the original so the exact earlier contents are not visible but the article history is. Cutting and pasting the original's history page (without the surname) to the talk page would be the simplest method of preserving the GFDL requirements.-gadfium 07:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gadfium. Wonderful. Thank for your info. I personally think, that Jimmy should be insolved into the right one technical solutions. -- IAAL 07:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My intent was to nuke the previous article and write it from scratch at the new location, so GFDL concerns will be met. But really, I do not see anything notable about this person at all, but with what has been going down in Germany, he might get an article. I will nuke my new entry and start it from scratch. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page for Boris F should probably be deleted as well. Although there is nothing linking to it, it is using his name on Wikipedia in a manner which would annoy the German judge. The article itself, which now just bears a protection against recreation notice, contains no material on Boris himself and so I would assume is okay.-gadfium 07:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

New article nuked, and I started it from scratch again. All references to the hacker's name and gender (the gender part was my bit) are no longer in the article, so I hope this works. BTW, Scm83x, if you think I did something majorly wrong, please turn WP:RFC/Zscout370 into a blue link. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the discussion page, me and Scm83x had a small discussion about why this ruling, though we are a US based website, can still take effect from a German court. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, please check out these two links that Zach found concerning the law and its implications: [200] and [201]. — Scm83x ^talk 07:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I have no interest in an RfC. After reviewing the law, you did the right thing. It was a "just wondering" query. I was hoping that you weren't being reactionary and you weren't. This is definitely merited. Scm83x 07:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the family name is readily available elsewhere (e.g. http://www.legal-rights.org/NDSTHEFT/breakingthecodes.html), and WIkipedia can still inform its readers by linking to it and stlll comply with the judge's order until it is properly disposed of. Wikipedia (or, for that matter, the Internet) cannot afford to censor itself inorder to conform with Germany's idea of a "free" press.- Nunh-huh 08:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

While it might be considered ideal if German law didn't apply to the US, the precedent of Dmitry Sklyarov, who broke no laws of his own country, and who broke no US law while in the US, yet was still arrested in the US, might give us all some concern.-gadfium 08:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That case is not relevant to this article unless we wer eto travel to Germany. Scm83x 08:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't likely to come to this, but would you really not want to ever be able to travel to Germany? Even on a stopover to somewhere else? Since Germany is part of the EU, that restriction might even be wider. Anyway, this is getting rather off the topic.-gadfium 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen, the point here is, whenever any large group (organization, business, etc.) has a legal threat come in, they don't just let some individual working on his own take it upon himself to do whatever the person making the threat says. That's why there are legal advisors. This action is hugely bad precedent, and the deletion should not be done by admins trying to interpret laws on their own. Furthermore, this is a clear question of censorship, and we can't anyone just come along and make a threat and get some naive but well intentioned person to do whatever they ask. This is nonsense. The article needs to be restored until Wikimedia lawyers, Jimbo, or some official decision is made through some other process. The German law is totally bogus. The same thing happened with the Canadian courts when they tried to gag people on details of various murder trials there, and we never followed their threats, and if Iran comes along and tells us to remove everything for our servers that they feel is objectionable, then China, etc., we won;t have anything left. Stop and think about this. DreamGuy 08:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The German law is totally bogus. Please don't judge the german law on grounds of a single injunction. Such injuctions are issued without much checking into the legal background of the case. If the argumentes brought before by the plaintiff sounds remotely reasonable, such a injuction is granted. It is up to a court to decide if the injunction will stand. Also the injuction was issued by a so called "Amtsrichter" which is the lowest grade of a judge in germany. More often than not such judges make wrong decisions (often even ignoring general decisions made by the german supreme court) and their decisions get invalidated by the next higher courts. Many german lawyers have commented (in germany) on this case, and most of them believe that, while the topic is fishy, the injuction does not stand on real legal background and is trash. -- Kju (de) 14:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If you can point to diffs and precedent for the Canadian thing, we should definitely undelete. Scm83x 08:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as is for the moment, and let Jimbo, the Board etc decide what to do. We've made a good effort to avoid damage, and it can all be reversed by more knowledgable people if need be.-gadfium 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, as they say "this is way over my pay-grade". Regardless of who makes the decision, if DreamGuy (talk · contribs) can provide links, etc. then that would help whoever does make the decision to make it. — Scm83x ^talk 08:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is perfectly unacceptable. You deleted a perfectly good article, replacing it with a stub referring to Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales instead of the actual case, without AfD, just because some user posted legal threats to Talk:Main?? I say, undelete at once, post the threats to the board, and do nothing until board members request deletion.

Friedrich Kurz, der von Trons Eltern beauftragte Anwalt, will zu dem Fall nichts sagen, redet aber vage von einer "Strategie", die man verfolge. [202]

Heise.de thinks the threat is void, and quotes Friedrich Kurz, the lawyer of the F., alluding to a "strategy" they have to get their way. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Kurz' strategy was to sign up under an ominous username, such as "IAAL", and try to confuse Wikipedia admins into obliging him. dab (ᛏ) 08:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello dab. I am not Mr. Kurz, the german attorney-at-law of the parents of Boris F. -- IAAL 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is another hint that you can't take IAAL serious because he does not know what he is talking about. Mr. Kurz is the attorney of Müller-Maguhn and the parents. He is not an attorney-at-law, and i belive there isn't even any attorney-at-law involved in this case, because its not about criminal matters (currently) but about a civil law case. Müller-Maguhn just got some lawyer who went to the court and got a injuction against wikipedia. There is no attorney-at-law involved in this, and it should also be noted that such injunctions are often granted without checking the legal background very deeply. So many such injuctions are just junk. Warning: I am not a lawyer. -- Kju (de) 13:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

However, you had identified yourself to gadfium (talk · contribs) as being involved in the case: "He's confirmed that he's involved in the case - he's supposed to be faxing documents to Jimbo.". Any involvement calls for immediate block until the case is resolved. — Scm83x ^talk 09:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's getting rough to type anything with all the edit conflicts (om 6 now), but Wikipedia:No legal threats specifically says to refrain from taking action until AFTER it is resolved. DreamGuy 08:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It might be, that some wikipedians will not like this decision by the Court (me, too), but the current english version is also accessible in Germany. There would be 1000 arguments with an endless discussion especially emotional arguments ("censorship", etc.). We are American. We are cool. We calm down by a very easy way because of this provocation from the German Court. Fact is, that there is just now - temporary(!), note: it is only temporary - the restraining order with the tenor of the German Judge "no complete familyname of Boris F. anywhere at WIKIPEDIA.ORG, or a fine of 250,000,- Euro or up to 6 months jail". And the american admins made a perfect job to realize this as soon as possible as well as possible especially to avoid big damages for Wikipedia and Jimbo. Removing the familyname does not make anybody poor but ignoring. So the final things things must be regulated by the Wikimedia Foundation themselves and Jimmy Wales himself, who are responsible for this case. I am sure, they have phantastic attorney-at-laws, who will help them. I am also sure, they will bring the crazy case to the right one and correct end. It is just now unknown, if Wikimedia Foundation will file an appeal to the Municipal Court of Berlin in Germany or whatever. But after it, everybody here will know what's going on with the familyname of Boris F.. This is only my voluntary advice to the admins. If you will do another thing especially without asking Jimbo, then you will clearly have to stand for the consequences, f.e. regress, damagefees of regress, etc.. I hope, I could show you a little bit my goodwill to you. Thank you very much. -- IAAL 09:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning: IAAL is a known troll. See hints above. Thank you for consideration. -- Kju (de) 13:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are involved with this threat you should not be discussing the issue here, you should be discussing things direct with out legal counsel. Wikimedia doesn;t have to file an appeal in Germany, as it isn;t in Germany and doesn't have to pay attention to any of its laws, all it has to do is ignore the stupid overreaching and nonsensical ruling by a judge who doesn't respect other countries' rights to govern themselves. If they send a fine, it can be ignored. If they threaten to arrest someone if they ever go to Germany, well, fine, I love the beer and chocolate, but Australia is close enough. This whole thing is idiotic, and if you are involved with the court case you should already be banned. Goodwill has nothing to do with this, it's just scare tactics to trick people into doing what you want them to do. DreamGuy 09:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with above, undelete post haste pending a realistic legal consultation. This is absurd. And if they want someone to sue, have them bill me. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The argument of censorship runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Censorship is not merely an "emotional argument", it runs contrary to the entire spirit of Wikipedia. Where is the slippery slope? Of course, I'm not too sure what to think about this, and we should of course, err on the side of caution, but I hope you understand, that we will not take kindly to bullying. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be of interest that Andy Müller-Maguhn, speaker of the Chaos Computer Club is among the people who stand behind this. It is a fact that people who used to fight themselves for free information and know the "spirit" of this project did not sue one of several german newspapers or publishers mentioning Tron's real name but Wikipedia. This is one of the main reasons for the irritation and it has caused several critical remarks in german media. Recently, the CCC has reacted and stated that it does not take sides in the case. [203] --Lightlike 09:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiegel speculates that Mueller-Maguhn wants publicity because he thinks Tron was murdered and wants to keep the issue vaguely live. It also says that a recent novel gave Tron's full name; the publisher received a restraining order but refused to endorse it. (Oh, and I don't know if it's been corrected yet, but the restraining order to Wikimedia was initially misaddressed to St Petersburg, Russia.)[204] Rd232 ^talk 11:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It should also noted that Müller-Maguhn is losing his (rather small) supporter base even inside the Chaos Computer Club. Many people nowadays see this a a private business of Müller-Maguhn and the CCC has officially distanced the club from the incident in a recent press release (see url above). So don't see this as a case of CCC against Wikipedia but rather a case of some (probably misguided) people against Wikipedia. Most people in the CCC are of sane mind and do not believe in legal hasslement. (Disclaimer: I was a member of the CCC and left it for a couple of reasons. Some people believe that i'm working against the CCC because of this. This is not true, but you might want to consider that). -- Kju (de) 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User wikipedia

There is a revert war going on this template, I have been trying to resotre tens of userpages getting broken due to this. Can someone please lock the template meanwhile? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, that goes straight to the Oxymoron of the Month award. Radiant_>|< 11:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we allowed to move the "locked" tag to the talk page? It looks really nasty on userpages. Mark¹ 11:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

(after ec) Locked (by me) - but I don't have a clue what's going on, so if anyone does and disagrees with the protection, feel free to reverse. I think the 'protection' notice has been fixed (I screwd up). If not, then yes move it. --Doc ^ask? 11:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had a general guideline against metatemplates on grounds of server load? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That template really shouldn't be used. It would not be difficult in the slightest to make separate templates that don't cause outrageous server load. If people don't want broken userpages, they shouldn't use templates that put undue strain on the server. [[Sam Korn]] 12:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just creating the userbox in ones own userspace would eleviate any problems concerning people messing with the template. Why, may I ask is that so difficult..? Just make your own userboxes. This is getting out of hand. -MegamanZero|Talk 12:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. I have removed all the meta templates. {{User wikipedia}} now just says "this user is a member of Wikipedia". In contrast to Radiant!'s oxymoron, we now have a tautology by mere existance. [[Sam Korn]] 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me why are you breaking tens of useprages? If you want to edit templates please be responsible and fix every userpage it links to. While it is easy enough for me to fix my own useprage, it is imperative that such large scale removals be done carefully. Lots of userpages are broken which perhaps is none of anyones business as its not userpage. I fail to accept that level of apathy, sorry. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As Tony said, there's a general guideline against this sort of thing because of the servers. In this case, the onus is on the users of the template to update their userpages, and not the other way round. Johnleemk | Talk 12:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between 'avoid using meta-templates' and 'go out of your way to break things'. The reason that meta-templates are to be avoided is that when you have a template which calls many other templates that is used on many pages updates to the template can cause significant server load. That isn't the case here. The load from this template is insignificant. The thousands of un-subst'd 'welcome' messages on various talk pages are a bigger deal. The babel templates (yup, those are meta-templates too) are a bigger deal. There is no reason to remove every 'meta template' in Wikipedia. Even if there were... there would then still be no need to go about it in the most disruptive and uncivil manner possible. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I broke nothing. All the templates still worked. I'll agree there is no need to get rid of every meta template. On the other hand, there is no reason to use them when it is unnecessary. See [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sam_Korn&action=raw my userpage] for how to avoid unnecessary meta templates. I was not uncivil. I disrupted nothing. There are bots that subst welcome and test messages. Stop attacking me for following policy. [[Sam Korn]] 13:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

<?> I wasn't even talking to you. Which should be obvious if you 'broke nothing'. The template got broken. Some people were saying 'this is a good thing'. It isn't. Yes, there are ways to fix it. Yes, we should look to not use meta-templates (or templates at all) when we don't need to. None of which changes the fact that breaking things and saying, 'Ok now it is your job to clean up the mess I just made' is equally "unnecessary". Most meta-templates can be seemlessly replaced without anyone noticing that something changed (see Template:Journal reference for example). For those which can't a plan to convert them should be announced and the changeover accomplished as quickly / cleanly as possible. We should never be talking about how it is 'good' to make a mess of things and then force people who don't know what is going on to sort it out. That is needlessly disruptive. Which also ought to be obvious. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I just removed the entire meta-template thing from the template, so I assumed I was being addressed. My mistake. [[Sam Korn]] 13:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no - the reason we don't use meta-templates is server load. The policy has been there for a while. And the only pages we are breaking are userpages. The right of userpages to have their pretty userboxes do not trump the server issues under ANY circumstances at all. Simply put, user pages just don't matter enough to keep meta-templates around. Phil Sandifer 16:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

....Especially considering the obvious fact that userboxes can (and should) be made independently of ones own userspace. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

First - "the reason we don't use meta-templates". False statement. We use meta-templates all the time. The Main page is chock full of meta-templates. Both of your userpages (Snowspinner & MegamanZero) contain meta-templates. The policy is "AVOID" using meta-templates, not "DON'T" use meta-templates.
Second - only templates which get called by many pages cause significant server load... and then only when they are updated. This template was seldom updated and appeared on less than four hundred pages. The 'server load' issue here is virtually non-existant. Updating the 'Test1' template would be a bigger deal... even though it is not a 'meta' template.
Third - even if the policy were to hunt down and destroy every meta-template no matter how insignificant its impact on server load... it would still be wrong to 'break first and sort it out later'. There is no need for it. Just plan ahead and transition the templates to new methods smoothly. Why would we ever advocate causing annoyance and disruption for no good cause? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The main page uses nested templates, not meta templates. That modifying Test1 would cause more harm is not a reason to cause harm this way. It's an argument to stop the harm Test1 does. [[Sam Korn]] 18:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, if you want to get technical then actually the Main page uses 'meta-templates' (templates "created and used to keep other templates in a standard format") and things like 'Qif' and 'Switch' are the 'nested templates' (templates which call other templates). Either way the root issue is the same (and applies equally to simple templates like Test1)... every page which calls a template (or which calls a template which calls that template, and so forth) must be updated when the template is. This creates server load. Because some of the 'if' and 'boolean' templates get called by MANY other templates, which are in turn called by MANY pages, these sorts of 'nested' templates (technically not meta-templates per the definition on the page) are amongst the most problematic. My point with Test1 and other examples is that we need to establish some degree of sanity here. This 'all meta-templates (widely re-defined as 'nested' templates) are bad' concept results in 'fixing' problems which don't exist while leaving significantly worse 'non-meta' templates in place. We should be seeking to remove templates used on thousands of pages... whether they are simple, nested, meta, or whatever is irrelevant. Once you get down below a thousand pages linked I'd question just how significant the server load is... but if we want to avoid even those minimal drains then people need to understand... we aren't talking about doing away with 'meta-templates'. We are talking about doing away with templates. In my opinion going after relatively harmless things like the main page, babel boxes (not the userboxes, but the actual babel meta-templates which call them), open tasks lists, picture of the day templates, et cetera would be silly. The 'server load' issues are insignificant for those and the hundreds of other nested templates in common use throughout Wikipedia. We should be looking at how many pages the template links to and how frequently it gets updated. Those are the determinants of 'server load'. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is a misconception that templates only cause significant server load when updated. The main page templates and babel templates are among the most widely viewed, and are definitely candidates for demetafication. Radiant_>|< 19:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  Nested (or 'meta') templates take longer to render than straight text, but there was a recent discussion on WT:AUM about the fact that some 'simple' template implementations can take longer to render than the meta equivalents (e.g. evaluating 50 parameters vs calling one of 50 sub-templates). Longer rendering on frequently viewed pages can slow down response time... but in most cases this 'rendering' issue is fairly minor. Reading over WP:AUM shows that it is the added load when updating heavily linked templates which is the primary concern. If you want to make an issue out of rendering double transclusion templates like the Main page and Babel then we are back to getting rid of virtually all templates... which, again, also take longer to render than straight text, and indeed can even take longer than meta equivalents in some cases. For example, the main page templates and that 'pic of the day' meta-template on your user-page would either have to be updated daily as straight text OR require a large parameter switch which would take much longer to render than the current double-transclusion. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 21:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Zen-master apparently has problems with the term "conspiracy theory" in article titles. Rather than using WP:RM for this purpose, he has created a policy proposal (Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory) which was soundly rejected, and has now made basically the same proposal under a bowdlerized name (Wikipedia:Title Neutrality), and now insists that this must be voted upon despite the fact that many people (Cberlet and Uncle G, among others) already objected to it on the talk page, and Zen is apparently the sole supporter. Any suggestions on how to handle this persistent wikilawyering? Radiant_>|< 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiant omits some pertinent facts. For starters a proponent of "conspiracy theory" in titles, I believe it was Adhib, just 2 days ago added and updated the keep as is counter argument here so other editors are actively working on it besides me. Secondly, a week or two ago there were half a dozen editors on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories that agreed "conspiracy theory" is pejorative for a proposed subsection split to a sub article (6 other editors or so disagreed so there was no consensus). Thirdly and fourthly, title neutrality is drastically different and updated compared to the original "conspiracy theory" proposal but even if it wasn't the original Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory vote closed over 6 months ago which is more than enough time to have elapsed before proposal resubmittal. Feel free to vote against it but please don't censor it. If you have a problem with the title of Wikipedia:Title Neutrality then voice your concerns on the discussion page, I am open to renaming version 2.0 of the proposal, but I am not open to letting you censor or misclassify it. zen master T 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Deleting a page would be censorship. Flagging it with {{rejected}} (as I have done) is not. And policy or guidelines are not generally created by voting on them. There already is substantial criticism on the talk page, which you have entirely ignored. Radiant_>|< 19:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanking vandalism and 3RR at Elevator levitation

Over the past few days, several anonymous IP addresses have been deleting the article at Elevator levitation and replacing with variously worded copyright infringement claims, alleging that the article violates copyright from a magic-information commercial site. The issue was posted at requests for immediate removal. The copyright claim is not valid: Unless the exact text of the article was stolen from another source (that is, the wording, not the concept), there is no violation. Magic trick methods are not copyrightable, and although they can be patented, a patent only prevents an unlicensed party from performing the trick, not describing its methods. For more information, please see Intellectual rights to magic methods. The anon has only claimed that our article discloses the method, not his wording, so there is no violation. I cannot continue to revert his vandalism without violating 3RR (although he has already violated it himself when you count the many IPs in use), so I am not going to continue, but I would appreciate some help from other users and admins. Thanks! -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 18:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Another round of deletions out of process

...this time by Voice of All (deletion log). He seems to have developed his own Speedy Deletion criteria, and yesterday speedied four articles with the comment "vanity". At least one of those articles clearly asserts notability, but with only 50 Google hits it didn't meet Voice of All's standards. When I asked him about it, he dismissed it with a "Lets try to keep BS off of Wikipedia" ([205]) and "Anyone can challenge at deletion review" ([206]).

This new admin seems to prefer the convenience of the one-click "delete" button he has over the trouble of an AfD: "I wish listing AFD could be done automatically with a click" ([207]), and isn't interested in process or policy.

I would appreciate a third party's help in dealing with this. Owen× ☎ 18:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, out of context. "One click" was refering to the 3 stop listing process, as in LISTING it automatically, as in not having to add {{AFD}}, follow the link, list it on the WP page. I am not "new" either. "Vanity" has been used for years to delete nonsense, so mentioning the other deletions is just a red herring.

Also, the Google hits only mentioned the name and banjo. I went to the pages and he got less than a line of mentioning, such as noting him a player and moving on to the main topic. I found no articles on him, and nothing that said anything about him, other than being a banjo player who played with more notable people.

Oh and I am interested in Policy like the correct (WP:V) assertion of notability. I have argued for Semi-Protection policy, WP:NOR, WP:PP, WP:V and others to be enforced more. Please stop making false strawmen accusations, all of this drama is making my head spin.

Please try not to make a huge issue over one Speedy Deletion. You disagreed and restored, fine. I am not wheel warring over, disagreement keeps admins actions checked.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Let's see...
  • Corrosive Bat is apparently a group of seven people founded in 2004 that have created several movies, most of which five minutes in length, or shorter. Nothing there claims they're more than a group of friends with a handycam.
  • Douglas Dunlop was a Scottish teacher and missionary in Egypt who advised the minister of education there. No evidence of significant deeds, awards, etc.
  • Kim Anderson is the lead singer for a band that hasn't released its first album yet and that claim to have created a new style.
  • Louis 'Lou' Black seems notable enough by the article.
• That would make two obviously right decisions, one that may be borderline (Dunlop), and one that is apparently wrong. Which is a far cry from the alleged "round of deletions out of process". I'd say he's doing fine. Radiant_>|< 18:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. While I apologize for using the word "BS", and I probably should have listed that one article (if you have to do research or even think twice, then don't speedy) just to be sure, I dont see the need for all this drama, including the RfC threat on my talk page. I am just trying to keep Wikipedia from being a "big trash bin". I found that article while cliking random articles (just to see the ratio of good/total). As I said, I don't mind if admins look over and correct each other. It is better than listing every vanity page on AfD, which wastes time for everyone and leavs embarrasing material on Wikipedia. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Douglas Dunlop contains a clear assertion of notability a Scottish missionary and He was entrusted to modernize the Egyptian educational system - remember if it is a debatable assertion it is not a speedy. Whether the assertion makes him notable, is a matter for afd. I've restored this, with the intention of researching it. Unless I can establish notability, I will send it to afd myself. --Doc ^ask? 19:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I've already researched it, but if you find something, then let me know. All I get are Wikipedia mirrors, 404 errors, and Dunlops technical systems.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunlop is clearly notable, he should never have been deleted - and certainly not speedied (Doc fears that he is turning into Tony_Sidaway) --Doc ^ask? 22:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • You can't just use google for this sort of thing. Secretlondon 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All, you'd do better to not use "vanity" as your description. It is not a CSD. An nn-bio, or an A7 is. An article not asserting notability is. But vanity is not, and has never been. It's kind of psychologically important too, since, if you are working on "vanity" as a CSD, that's an entirely more liberal version of "nn-bio" than is acceptable. -Splash^talk 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally when people say vanity, they mean nn-bio as well, otherwise they would just do a POV fix. Vanity usually is a non-notable bio, nn-bio is not necessarily vanity. I should have just tagged the damn thing, but whatever...let the pile-on continue (expect for Radiant)! Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've accepted the speedy was a mistake - no big deal, we've all done it. Story over, further pile-on unneccessary. --Doc ^ask? 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Puppeteer

There has also been some recent creations of users that have been calling themselves sockpuppets of each other and I feel that "The puppeteer is an inappropriate user name.

1. The_Puppeteer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. reeteppuPehT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. ATeppup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. BTeppup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are the list of "Puppeteers". SWD316 ^{talk to me} 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

IP 195.93.21.10

This IP just did a couple of blanks. I went to the talk page to post a warning, but it seems there are already several. It appears nothing has ever come from the many warnings. Perhaps someone should look into it. If this is not the right place to post this please let me know so I can get it right the next time.--◀Puck^talk▶ 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Once a user has been warned that they will be blocked if they continue to vandalize, and then they do so again, you can use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to let us know. I've left a warning at User talk:195.93.21.10 about today's blanking. Thanks. Jkelly 19:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's bound to be a shared IP address. Secretlondon 19:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an AoL proxy server. The IP reverses to cache-los-aa10.proxy.aol.com. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that pretty much makes it an impossible situation to deal with, right? You guys have my sympathy.--◀Puck^talk▶ 19:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

68.109.223.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps reverting my edit, in which I move the Bias section to its own article, saying that I'm destroying the article. I told him on his talk page to check the article talk page but he ignored me. I'd like to actually be able to do this without being bothered in such a trollish way. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the content dispute the IP violated 3RR so I have blocked for 24 hours. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool. — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Edbon3000

Edbon3000 (talk · contribs) is contributing a vast amount of articles concerning the Filipino film directory. Of the articles I have checked, I can not find evidence for the existence of any of these people, or indeed even the films credited in filmography or the studios producing them. I'm not assuming bad faith, but unless Edbon is able to provide a published source of his information, it's not suitable for inclusion. Edbon has already been asked by other editors to cite his sources. // paroxysm (n) 21:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

An example of a (partially?) verifiable contribution: Lvn Pictures. // paroxysm (n) 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Filipino film may not come up very much in google. Secretlondon 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh good, I just came here to mention this user as well. Like Paroxysm said, there is an enormous amount of junk being added and modified by this user. He's also messing up categories, etc. I could spend all day adding {{cleanup}} to his articles and deleting his categories. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I should say that I don't know enough about his/her article subjects to say they aren't real - but almost every one of them needs a lot of cleanup from the first edit. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Rate is around 20 articles per hour while s/he is on. That's a lot of cleanup for people that we have difficulty verifying in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

But actual articles on Korean cinema is a good thing. We probably need loads of work on world cinema generally. I'd rather have them on cleanup then not have the info as English language google can't verify. Other Koreans will pick up if it's rubbish. Secretlondon 22:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He should at least comply to the requests on his talk page and provide a source. I'd be much more inclined to clean up all these articles if I knew they weren't going to be deleted at any time, but if he doesn't even provide a reference there's no basis for including them in Wikipedia.

Edbon also added this tagline to some of his articles, which I think's interesting:

Movie archieves by Edebro

And more recently his email address. // paroxysm (n) 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Projects sockpuppets

Can we get some permanent relief from this person? The info about the case is here: User:Dijxtra/Sock. This user is either actually demented or a very sophisticated troll. This has gone on for weeks and weeks, one article is really bollixed up, this could go on forEVER, it take's people's time every day, and there is nothing more to be done but block the entire range for a while, please. Just read User:Dijxtra/Sock, I request a 1 or 2 week block on the entire IP range and all the puppets. Herostratus 21:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master (talk · contribs) 3RR and probation violations

Zen-master has reverted the addition of the "rejected" tag on Wikipedia:Title Neutrality (created by him) five times in 16 hours. Three different editors have reverted him. The 3RR violation has been listed here at WP:AN/3RR, but hasn't yet received comment from an admin. In addition to blocking him for the 3RR violation, I also ask that an admin ban him from editing this page for at least two weeks, per the terms of his probation. Carbonite | Talk 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Izehar has blocked him for 24 hours. I'm agree with Carbonite that Zen-master should be banned from editing the article. What do other administrators think? -Greg Asche (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he should be banned (yet). The talk page of that page has never been used. If he was revert warring with three other users, they should have discussed the reversions on the talk page. The way I see it, they have been just as disruptive (of course I do not know whether what he has been doing has any merit). IMO when the block expires, if the trolling resumes, then ban him. If he takes the hint and walks away, then there is no need to. Izehar 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems fair to me I guess. I don't think the other users are being disruptive though, the proposal has the support of only Zen-master and one other person. Hopefully he does lay off of the reverts. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of banning him from that (and related) policy or proposal pages. "Title Neutrality" is an intentionally misleading name. What it actually is, is a proposal to rename articles to not contain the term "conspiracy theory", which Zen finds offensive. If you read the proposal, it refers only to those kinds of "neutral" titles. This has previously been proposed on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, and was soundly rejected. Zen has been requested to use WP:RM to discuss page moves, but prefers to create a policy page to "back" his opinion. He's already using this page in discussion as if it were policy. The guy seriously needs to stop wikilawyering. Radiant_>|< 22:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)