Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Flameviper12

Earlier this evening, Flameviper12 (talk • contribs) created the Randomness (Ninjas) article. This was rightly tagged for speedy deletion by User:Mhoskins. I have chosen to do something different, for which I'm now asking feedback. In the article, Flameviper12 begged not to delete it. I therefore decided to move it to his userspace, at User:Flameviper12/Randomness (Ninjas). On his talk page, I explained to him that I did this on one condition: that he improve his behaviour. The feeling (illusion?) I get, judging from his talk page, is that he is a bored child who means well. I have also told him that if he ever creates one more unencyclopedic article or makes one wrong edit, I will immediately retroactively delete Randomness (Ninjas) from his user space. I did this because I wanted to give him an incentive to improve. I wanna know if I did this the wrong way. If so, feel free to overrule me and delete the article from his user space. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You followed precedent in that, although I have my own discomfort. When an editor has generally good edits and then pulls a boner, moving the whoopsie article to his user space is a great thing, but when an editor has a terrible record and merely says "donot delet," I worry that we are a free web host. What I'm saying is in no sense a condemnation of what you did. You did the right thing in showing Wiki-love. I am just personally worried about how often and how much we do this. Geogre 11:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've told him that I will immediately delete the article if he ever makes another wrong edit. So if he continues his behaviour, the article will be deleted, and if he stops his behaviour, we'll have lost a troll and gained a contributor. Calling it a win-win situation would be stretching it, but I don't think it can do us much harm. Anyway, if you ever come across another wrong edit from him, please notify me so I can delete the article, or delete it yourself. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Flameviper has continued in his behaviour, so I've deleted the article. Apparently he wouldn't listen. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

More wheel warring

The one-man struggle to "reform" DRV continues: Patrick Alexander, Colony5. Admin tools are not toys, and having them doesn't mean you get to do whatever you'd like. A good rule of thumb might be if you're the only one who has to keep undoing something, than perhaps you should stop doing it? - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, this one user gets to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without so much as a slap on the wrist. It's getting mighty old. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think an arbcom case will result in any restrictions. DES ^(talk) 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering an RFC at this point, though I doubt it will do any good. In addition to the above cases, we have two out-of-process deletions, both of which are currently on WP:DRV and will result in the same pointless, sterile arguments all over again. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew it was Tony Sidaway before I even clicked on the links.--Alhutch 01:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As did I. That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the solution? I don't think an RfC will do much good.--Alhutch 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Form your own wheel to combat it or do nothing. Chooserr 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, what's wrong with unprotecting a page, with a review notice, so that the history can be reviewed? Tony drives me nuts sometimes too--there are times I wish he were more patient--but the reason he'll never be reprimanded is that he's usually doing the right thing out-of-process. That's better than doing the wrong thing in-process. So, uh, chill out. -- SCZenz 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• We must begin with the definition of the "right" thing to do, upon which there is clearly disagreement. These actions are not anti-process but anti-consensus. Despite cries of "moribund" and "process wonking" by IAR bandits, what is being discarded is careful, thoughtful discussion by editors who understand there exists a place for respectful disagreement and eventual compromise.
• Additionally, the measure of the "sucess" of Tony's actions is remarkably flexible. The deletion of several pseudo-attack templates is an excellent example. TfD was bypassed (Because they would never have been deleted? So much for respecting consensus.) in favour of speedy deletion, and then the extensive wheel warring where Tony deleted {{User GWB}} five times is dismissed as "a bit of a kerfuffle" and declared a "good way to cook". Again and again we have disruption and discord trailing in Mr. Sidaway's wake, with debate and discourse an after thought at best.
• Tony is an almost endless sink of productivity, and the time and energy that he saps from the project as established, productive contributors trail along cleaning up after him is beyond belief. This is best illustrated by another of his "successes", where contrast between the input and the output is stark indeed.

brenneman^(t)(c) 02:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Marvelous summary. Mr. Sidaway's and company "IAR" philosophy have led me to curtail my WP time from 2 hours/day to about 5 mins/day, and I am patient. God knows how many others have given up in frustration with such outlandish, unrepentent, counterproductive egotism. Xoloz 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The surest reason to initiate an RFC is that you feel nothing will be accomplished by it. Don't let fear of the status quo or fear of retribution change the way you express your values. This is a community project, and no one user is allowed to change the way things work. We work on consensus. Avriette 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The hilarity for me has been watching a malformed RFC start, get 20+ supports for Tony, then actual charges get added, see many people suddenly taking it seriously, and then seeing Tony crow that everyone agrees with what he's doing. It's depressing, of course. It is not better to do the right thing out of process than the wrong thing in process. It is better to follow the rules that apply to all, to get feedback from others, and to change the procedures if they're wrong. What you don't get to do is what Tony does fairly consistently: announce that he doesn't care if other administrators disagree with him, because "You'll never stop us" and use the admin tools to enforce his will. It is the crux of what has brought him and Snowspinner, above others, to so many RFC's and RFar's. Both fellows have their good points. Snowspinner and I agree more often than not on blocking problem users (I'm quick on the trigger). Tony and I agree to a large degree on what a good article looks like. That can't cover over or excuse deciding to wheel war and give the middle finger to one's fellow admins. (And I've been here longer than both of them, too, if it comes to that.) Geogre 03:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why feed him? Just ignore him and he'll probably start doing something more useful with his time.Grace Note 03:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Normally, that's the right strategy, but Tony mucks things up, and someone has to revert his "kerfluffery." That's more than enough response from others to feed him and keep his anti-social tendencies going. Xoloz 04:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but please don't be "driven off". There's plenty to be "driven into"! Grace Note 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, I do agree strongly with Geogre. There's a huge gap between "ignore all rules" and "ride roughshod over everyone else's opinion". Tony's often on the wrong side of that gap. If he knows he's right, why not trust the community and convince them of his rightness? I asked the same question in re Gmaxwell: do we just shit on each other because we're convinced we're "doing the right thing"? Is that how it is? Grace Note 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC against Tony Sidayway

I believe this must not continue. The incident listed above, together with this are too much. It is perfectly OK to disagree with other people and defend your position, but using the admin tools towards that end is abuse of the tools. An RFC may not lead anywhere but must be attempted, and if that fails, the next step should be a request for arbitration. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Tony's been RfC'ed before, and (since he was just made a clerk of ArbCom), RfAr chances are bad, but I'll give you an award for courage if you go forward. I'll certify anything reasonable, after giving another try at discussion with Tony directly. Xoloz 04:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

While Tony has the support of the arbcom, any attempt to moderate his behaviour like this is pointless. Grace Note 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But not starting the process is cowardice and only exacerbates the problem. If nobody does anything about it, the actions will continue. Not trying is criminal. Avriette 04:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the ArbCom cabal, I suspect — I have reason to believe Tony is being inspired by a higher level of anti-Wikipedian conspirator. Note also this quote - David Gerard 13:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OUCH! I edited David's comment by mistake. [1] Is it fixed now?

Funny, I read that quotation, and interpret it to mean, "Delete as much crap as possible, and keep it deleted." Undeletion out-of-process doesn't help kill crap. Xoloz 17:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The God-Emperor of Wikipedia could (gasp!) just be wrong. Considering this quote that quote and the fact that people are upset at deleted articles getting resurrected, it looks that careless deletion of valuable articles isn't the problem that some make it out to be. Pilatus 16:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Refraining from action because of a supposed special status simply confers that status, similar to a self fulfilling prophecy. Paul August ☎ 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing some rather vague statements about disruption here, but nothing specific. Please do make an RfC and we'll try to sort it out. --Tony Sidaway 05:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, re:Geogre's comments about mal-formed RfC's, please begin at User:Aaron Brenneman/RfC draft in order to have ducks in a row. Enough is simply enough, and if it takes two weeks to put together a complete and concise history I think that would be time well spent. Please, let us try to be as dispassionate as possible about this. There is nothing personal here, the facts alone are more than sufficient. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I think that it's a total waste of time as RfC has no teeth, but it's better than just kvetching. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that the RFC is the only way to go, as from above it appears that Tony firmly believes that what he does is right, so dialog is impossible. I do think an RFC must me attempted, even if it has no teeth. It may be an argument in a future RfArb, which, I believe, is not toothless.

I gave it a start where you said, at User:Aaron Brenneman/RfC draft. I don't think it should take two weeks to get this done. The statement of the RFC is pretty clear, and I think it should stay focused: "Wheel warring is not acceptable". I would htink more evidence is needed, certification, and we can push it forward. (I must go to bed now, so can't dig for more evidence). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems that Aaron overwrote my version, but either way, the hope is that the RFC will lead anywhere. Wheel warring is just not justifiable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing evidence of this "wheel warring". --Tony Sidaway 06:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's up above, but: [2]. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lest this get any more entrenched, position-wise, than it strictly needs to be, can I offer the thought that ideally, this would be a means of dialogue, rather than an alternative to it, and a RFC on TS, not "against" him? It may be a long shot at actually resolving anything, but that's precisely what it's intended to be, not just grist to the RFAr mill, or the like. Alai 06:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Alai. An RfC is supposed to be a way to improve dialog and resolve disputes, and so I have found them to be in the past. My first RfC led to an understanding of the sheer gulf between two different kinds of thinking on RfC closes--akin to the "bottle half empty/bottle half full" gulf between personalities. In my second RfC I was happy to have a chance to embrace and endorse the civility policy. When I finally formulate a clear idea of what the third RfC is about, then I've no doubt that it will improve my understanding of Wikipedia even further. --Tony Sidaway 06:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, bypassing *FD is something he probably shouldn't have done in a number of cases, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with temporary undeleting something for discussion at DRV. it makes the process a lot more transparent and not just available to admins. That's a good thing. Temporary undeletion doesn't mean it will get to stay. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony has also been unprotecting the articles after they are undeleted, and then proceeded to list them on AFD, thereby forking the discussion into two different forums. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I suspect that much of the problem would go away of there were an agreed and more or less standard process for making articles available during DRV, rather than individual admins making it up as we go along.

I know DRV is not supposed to be about content but about process. But that seems to have crept somewhat (due in no small part to discussion on wikien-l, which is all very nice but not really a substitute for discussion here). The upshot is that Tony considers, not without justification, that it is helpful to see the article content during DRV because in the end this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia so content is the be-all and end-all. I think that end can be served by undeleting and then immediately replacing with a template noting the DRV. For articles which are not particularly damaging replacing is probably excessive, but some undoubtedly are damaging so we need to allow for that. Tony also wants people to be able to "save" the article during DRV. That is not really what DRV is about, but it is what WP is about, so I have some sympathy for that, too, but with contested deletions there is a strong risk of sockfests and multiple nonsense, so if an admin bringing an article to DRV deems it appropriate to lock the article it seems to me wrong to undo that without consent.

It's all very well to say "fuck process" but in the end process is what stops rogue individuals. Nobody think they themselves are a rogue individual, of course, but there must be some reason why every society of any respectable size feels the need to establish some rules and guidelines... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Err, one point. DRV is a check to ensure we on AfD don't delete anything we shouldn't have. If DRV finds that an AfD was carried out properly, but that the article deleted is really rather valuable, then the appropriate result would not be "tough luck, the AfD was completely within process". Wikipedia is not the real world, and we're under no obligation to follow the norms of real-world "appeals courts" just because we have things that could be considered (if you squint a bit) equivalent. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Of course. But that does not mean that an AfD which has achieved consensus for keep or delete should be overturned because a small cabal on DRV decides they simply like the article. Otherwise every single AfD debate is going to have to be hashed out twice. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is about content, and the rules and procedures exist solely to enable us to produce that content. I have argued that, unless there is a good reason not to, we should undelete articles and make them editable while their deletion is being discussed in good faith on Wikipedia:Deletion_review. I obtained a broad consensus on this--there were very few who disagreed. However there are a few people who disagree and they have done their level best to stop articles being visible to ordinary users and, where visible, to stop them being edited. I think this is a bad thing, for nothing is served by those actions. They are unequivocally bad for the encyclopedia. -- Tony Sidaway, 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Requests for Lynching (section break)

I find it interesting to see people accused of undue process obsession decide to hold a lynching, then spend tens of thousands of words thrashing out a precise process for the lynching - David Gerard 14:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, judging by the statements of several people above, the sentiment exists that it is impossible to get dispute resolution involving, or sanction against, people who have friends in high-up places. It would be very disturbing if that were true, and it is well worth investigating why several good editors believe the ArbCom is not the penultimate neutral party that it ought to be. >Radiant< 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom will never have the kind of neutrality that some people expect. Arbcom will always be biases towards protecting the encyclopedia. People who have other interests besides the encyclopedia have to adjust their thinking to that reality if they expect to be counted as "good editors". --JWSchmidt 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect because the AC is more concerned with good sense than torturous procedure, even torturous procedure in the best of faith. But I'm not on it any more (I'm just another editor and admin now), so I might be wrong - David Gerard 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it hilarious to watch this arguing over the correct procedure to "get" Tony, when it's obvious that no one has even begun the process for developing the plan to generate a schedule to outline Wikipedia:Requests for Lynching (WP:RfL). ➥the Epopt 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I shall not be got. Although the RfC severe flaws, I have taken its intent, which is based on serious concerns, in good faith, and have made a sensible initiative to address those concerns:

* Tony's response

This seems to me to be a reasonable trade-off between doing what is sensible and keeping people, who may not have quite the same opinion of what is going on, from getting upset. -Tony Sidaway 16:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems a not unreasonable response, and probably all that could have been expected from a formal RfC in any case. And I might add that lynchings are IMO currently out-of-process :) DES ^(talk) 16:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have the shortcut at WP:ROFL ? Yeesh. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lynch law

I suspect there would be three schools of thoughts on this:

The first would argue that, to follow proper process, Tony should be listed on Wikipedia:Users for lynching and lynched after consensus is achieved over a period of seven days.

The second will point out that, as Tony qualifies as a Rouge Admin (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy lynching), he can be lynched immediately without the need for a full discussion.

The third will argue that, while Tony may not meet the criteria for speedy lynching per se, IAR allows lynching him immediately and listing him on Wikipedia:Lynching review to see if anyone disagrees. —Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• How can you say that! We haven't even elected a Wikipedia:Lynching committee yet! (and of course There Is No Lynch Cabal). We really should discuss that over lynch some time. >Radiant< 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Should Lynching Review concern itself with the content of the request for lynching, or only with whether the process of the lynching was completely as specified per ISO 9001:2000? Process is important - David Gerard 16:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nobody is to lynch anybody until the Lynchmaster blows the whistle — even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say, "Jehovah". >Radiant< 16:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The community does not have the power to lynch people. It mearly has the ability to put them in the stocks for an indefinate period of time before handing them over to arbcom if it so choses.Geni 19:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to congratulate the maturity of everyone involved here for taking other people's concerns seriously. Wikipedia never fails to strike me as a harmonious and civil working environment. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Phil's sarcasm does not count; he had insufficient cynical edits as of 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC). ➥the Epopt 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Holding a Lynching?

Why is it considered to be "holding a lynching" to express what seem to me to be good faith concerns about Tony's actions? Paul August ☎ 19:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• A recurring problem on the Wikipedia is that (some) people who are often opposed by trolls or idiots eventually jump to the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them must be a troll or idiot. Fundamental attribution error, for the psych majors among you. >Radiant< 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a lynching when a mob of angry people get together under a banner (okay, a section head) readingRFC against Tony Sidayway and plan how they are going to "get" him. And I have to wonder: if it's this difficult to find a way to "get" him, could it be that maybe he shouldn't be "got"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Epopt (talk • contribs)

• Yes, it would be. But you're assuming here that this is a "mob" of people, and that they're actually "angry". Oleg's words were "An RFC may not lead anywhere but must be attempted, and if that fails, the next step should be a request for arbitration". That doesn't sound all that rabid to me. Tony himself states that "An RfC is supposed to be a way to improve dialog and resolve disputes, and so I have found them to be in the past" so he doesn't seem to mind. Thus I'd say it's hardly appropriate for others to characterize that as lynching. >Radiant< 01:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm extremely disappointed in the attitudes expressed by the Epopt and David Gerard. I'd ask them to think carefully if they believe that the manner in which they have chosen to express themselves lends itself to the good of the encyclopedia, which they claim to be protecting. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't question the good faith of anyone involved in this. I do question their judgement. I think that's a fair call considering this is life imitating uncyclopedia (the reason is different, the process is as I described). I mean, wtf - David Gerard 11:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Epopt, can you please be more specific? What exactly is inappropriate about Oleg's concerns? Paul August ☎ 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All I know about this dispute is what's currently here on ANI, but... humor is an extremely important tool in many functioning work and social groups. The root cause of this (people upset at Tony) is a valid concern regardless of which side is right or wrong, and this discussion looks useful, but I see no harm in it turning to the slighly silly as Tony seems to be responding in a positive and non-confrontational manner to the criticisms. It would be inappropriate as a response to a flame war, but given what seems to be happening, ... shrug.

There seems to be no lack of agreement to protect the encyclopedia; protecting people's good relations is also important, and humor helps there. Or at least that's how it seems to me. Your mileage may vary, void in states where prohibited by law, every ANI posting comes with five free Ginsu steak editors... Georgewilliamherbert 05:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it seems to me that people involved in the dispute resolution process (such as arbiters) should not disregard a dispute out of hand. Even if the accusations made by either party are unfounded, there's still a dispute that would be better of resolved. Even if there were a lynch mob, a dispute involving a lynch mob can be resolved in other ways than by giving in to the mob's demands, or by ignoring it. >Radiant< 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess the thing that makes it seem more about "getting Tony" than actually resolving something is that Tony Sidaway long since volunteered to address some of the concerns in the putative RFC, before it ever even existed. Yet we're still talking about this. Demi ^T/_C 16:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, we're not talking about Tony any more (who, indeed, took this issue quite well, asked what was wrong, and addressed the concerns), we're talking about the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of the word "lynching" to discount a perceived dispute. >Radiant< 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that David and The Epopt got it spot on, actually. It's natural to think in terms of disciplinary action if one sees someone engaging in a practise that seems to be against the rules. But that's not how we do it here on Wikipedia. Like everybody else I have a talk page. The only edit that has ever been made on that talk page by Oleg Alexandrov, who started this discussion, is this one notifying me that he had started discussing an RfC--this very discussion. Moreover, taking a casual look at his editing history I see nothing to suggest that our paths might ever have crossed on Wikipedia.

Supporting this odd initiative was Aaron Brenneman, an otherwise good editor who has often been described by one serving arbitrator (who otherwise admires him, as do I) as having "a Tony-sized hole in his judgment" [3], and whose last edit on my user talk page, in response to a polite complaint by me about his recent personal attacks on me, was a curt and rude message asking me not to put messages on his talk page. So, not attempt at communication there, either.

Now this is not the way we do things on Wikipedia. If we think that the encyclopedia is being damaged by someone, we ask them to stop in the first instance. If we don't do that, well it's not exactly wrong--as in this case an adept and courteous editor can handle such heavy-handed actions with ease--but it could rather, if it became commonplace, turn disputes into a kind of lynching. I think that the recent abuses of the RfC process, such as the Kelly Martin RfC, may have given some people altogether the wrong idea about the nature of Wikipedia and the role of the community (hint: it isn't the government of Wikipedia) and that it would be just as well if this way of treating serious disputes didn't become commonplace. I can handle it because I'm pretty resilient and very sure of my ground. Less experienced, or less adept, editors, might well be driven off by such treatment. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So basically what you are saying Tony, is that Oleg should have discussed this first with you on your talk page. I agree that probably would have been better (by the way, I think your response to the draft RfC has been very constructive, thanks). But I don't think it helps to characterize his actions as an attempted "lynching". I know Oleg well. He is a thoughtful and considered editor, who is an outstanding contributer to the encyclopedia. I think he has legitimate good faith concerns (as do other editors) about the appropriateness of some of your actions. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that he seems to be a thoughtful and considered editor. And for me this way of starting a discussion on his concerns worked okay. But I think your average Wikipedia editor, administrator, even, might have felt a little intimidated by his style of approach, which was to go to a discussion forum intended for handling serious incidents and discuss his intention of opening an RfC on a person whom he has never once approached to discuss his problems, and in the same edit to raise the possibility of arbitration. This is not the way we proceed on Wikipedia, and I sincerely hope that it never becomes commonplace. David Gerard and The Epopt are experienced Wikipedians with, between them, four years of experience on the arbitration committee. They're not given to hyperbole. This approach to dispute resolution could, if it took off, become lynch law. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok I agree with you that this could have been handled better, and we don't want this approach to become the norm. Can you also agree with me that it is unhelpful to describe Oleg's actions as an attempted lynching? In my view such a characterization is unjustified. Paul August ☎ 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No. As I said before, I think the characterization is spot on. This kind of behavior should not be encouraged because it will lead to good editors being driven away over what are, when all is said and done, quite minor questions such as whether and when an article whose deletion is challenged should be visible to those who are making decisions about whether it should be permanently undeleted.

The power to undelete an article temporarily already resides with individual administrators, and the power to edit articles already resides with editors. This was a case, perhaps, for a sit down and a bit of a natter so that differences of opinion (already aired in various forums, but evidently that was not enough for some) could be resolved.

Coming to WP:AN/I with nonsense about wheel wars and abuses of administrator power is not justified. Talking of arbitration is not justified. Such loose talk tends to encourage the belief that Wikipedia administrators are abusive and given to acting irresponsibly. Talk of arbitration over differences of opinion tends to encourage a punitive, repressive culture. And use of WP:AN/I to air personal grievances only serves to worsen the unhealthy, punitive atmosphere. Oleg was not the only participant in this and he wasn't the first to brandish a torch. But it's not him I'm focussing on, but this kind of hysterical reaction of which his behavior--as someone who had never once edited my talk page and as far as I am aware had never interacted with me in any way--was a part. --Tony Sidaway 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Chooserrr

There is now a user Chooserrr who is imitating me. I don't know what to do. Someone please help before he destroys my good name. Chooserr 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead. -Splash^talk 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Chooserr 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Petahomes

I was wondering is this person an imposter too. She claims that she's an admin, but according to the history she created the account today. Chooserr 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Already been killed by the real Petaholmes. -Splash^talk 01:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:P0P0

This user's only edits consist of adding a sock tag to User:SarekOfVulcan's page, accusing him of being a Chooserrr (or however many r's it is) sock, reverting it when I removed it for lack of evidence, and removing a sock tag I placed for the following reason: to insinuate that SoV was a sock would require prior knowledge of edit histories that new users wouldn't have, so it would seem to me that P0P0 is himself a sock. he has ben blocked, and his pages blanked. I'm certain he is a sock (otherwise none of this makes sense), but I don't know who he is a sock of. Could someone look into this? MSJapan 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Brian0918 in lingerie

I found User:Brian0918 in lingerie using Kate's Tool, and I was wondering if a preventative block would be in order, as was done with User:Brian0918 in a bikini. Are accounts such as these blocked for impersonating other users, or something else? Thanks! ~MDD4696 04:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

They are, and this now is. Well spotted. Alai 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You ain't lived till you've seen Tony Sidaway in a see-thru negligee. Grown men have wept. --Tony Sidaway 07:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Block! Block! Alai 08:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the see-through bit that gets to me. Haunts my dreams, even.--Sean Black (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• d, nn, v, zomg, wtf, bbq, ew!! - David Gerard 11:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone pass me a tissue? I've just thrown up over the keyboard. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I find your fondness for Kleenex ... disturbing - David Gerard 12:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The goggles! They do NOTHING! -- grm_wnr Esc 14:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try creating USER:Grm_wnr_in_peril-sensitive-sunglasses. It might help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay. So we don't have a place on Wikipedia for a GFDL'd "Image:Middle-aged male transvestite, semi-nude.jpg" Fine, I get it. :) --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

New Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Cheese Curd (talk · contribs). Obvious from edit history. Note this one restoring a post by a previous sockpuppet. He's even back at Declaration of Independence (United States)--JW1805 (Talk) 04:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked.--Sean Black (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And Zephram's ban reset, of course..--Sean Black (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Should Cheese Curd be added to the list of resetting socks on Zephram's user page? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology from North Carolina vandal

I am the North Carolina vandal, and I apologise for ALL my vandalism. Please unprotect the WoW template. --Gavona 10:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Your apology is commendable, but I doubt any unprotection is going to come out of it. Karmafist 12:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You keep apologizing, but continue to vandalize. If you want to be treated as a respected editor, just start editing without continually telling us you're the NC vandal. So long as you keep identifying yourself as such, and don't make any valid edits, you will continue to be treated as the vandal you are. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hold it, hold it... the North Carolina (US) vandal uses the UK spelling of "apologise"? Hm... RadioKirk talk to me 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Quite believable. I've never been off the North American continent, but I spell it "colour" most of the time, and I've never been able to remember if I should be using "gray" or "grey". --Carnildo 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic blocked

Per his ArbCom case, Netoholic is under a mandatory one-revert rule, and under restriction regarding the Wikipedia and Template namespaces. We are generally tolerant about his contributions to those namespaces because they're mostly positive and constructive.

However, Neto is currently party to five different revert wars, on three templates ({{Message}}, {{Languageicon}} and {{Infobox}}), one template-related page (Wikipedia:Meta-templates) and one article (Leet). Revert wars are generally understood as disruptive, and he has violated his "one revert" restriction on several of these.

Hence, he has been blocked for 24 hours. Netoholic is requested to discuss controversial changes on the relevant talk pages, and to seek consensus on the issues involved. >Radiant< 11:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed those templates and the changes Netoholic made. I don't find any of the edits disruptive, and he did discuss his changes on Template talk:Languageicon. I am unblocking him. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone else has unblocked him. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He is pushing his essay on WP:AUM now. _→AzaToth 16:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Recidivism

Is it just me, or does Neto's block history show a remarkable facility for being unblocked without actually reforming his behaviour? In the last month he has been blocked 4 times for edit-warring and breaching his ArbCom restrictions, only to be unblocked almost immediately with a comment along the lines of "you children really should learn to get along": on 2 of those occasions a 24-hour block was reversed within 20 minutes, and on one occasion having been unblocked 5 hours into a 24-hour block, he was re-blocked 90 minutes later for continuing to "make threats".

Those of us who have borne the brunt of his bad temper end up feeling like the victim of the school bully who is the "teachers' pet": we simply get patted on the head and told that we're probably provoking him. Neto began his WP:AUM crusade on the strength of advice from Jamesday, which he represented as the combined opinion of the development team: he appeared to recruit a team of admins who were willing to support his continued activities of intimidation and threatening behaviour even when they were in direct contravention of his ArbCom restrictions. Even now that Brion has stepped in and revealed that the situation was not nearly so grave as alleged by Neto, he has continued to insist that his opinion is correct—even alleging that Brion "would of course say that" the servers could take the strain "because he's paid for taking care of them" (my paraphrasing, which could probably do with a bit of merciless tightening-up).

Is there any chance that someone who has been the subject of an ArbCom case, and been heavily restricted as a result, might be actually made subject to those restrictions, or must those of us who have never even yet been the subject of an RFC continue to assume good faith in the teeth of abundant contrary evidence? —Phil | Talk 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think my block history shows that some admins are more than willing to "shoot the messenger". Every blocking admin was directly involved in a dispute with me either over a specific template they WP:OWNed, or on the WP:AUM guideline itself. Wikipedia should be proud of the fact that there are more admins that can see through these sorts of non-neutral blocks. -- Netoholic @ 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Elonka "refactoring" pages and Phil Welch threatening to block anyone who stops her

This is to give everyone proper notice: Talk:Eenasul Fateh (which Elonka tried and failed to completely deleted), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68, and Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology were all tagged by User:Elonka with a "refactoring" template in preperation for her censoring previous comments she and only she believes are personal attacks... as far as I know, that template is normally not used as we don't really refactor talk pages (despite the claims of the refactoring page) except on an informal basis. Either way, it is quite outrageous for Elonka to try to use a little-used guideline in a way it was clearly not intended for to erase comments she objects to.

I have removed these templates, because there was no declaration by any policy here that Elonka was allowed to determine for Wikipedia what gets deleted and what doesn't. Phil Welch above has claimed he would block anyone for attempting to do so, other admins disagreed. If he does go ahead and block me I would hope that his action would be immediately undone as soon as it is noticed.

This is here so it's all out in the open: If Phil Welch blocks me he is clearly doing so without any authority and to assist an editor in a situation he has already taken a side on. We don't need cowboy admins here going against everyone else, we need to either just drop it totally like mature adults or an actual, real decision that's fair to all sides, which certainly is not just letting Elonka erase whatever she wants and keep whatever attacks she made. I note that one of the things she claims is a personal attack for saying that she lied... yet she feels unrestricting from claiming over and over here and elsewhere that I and Bishonen and others lied. The proper response from mature adults here is to just move on, not to try to erase history and censor other people's comments. She claims on her website that everything she has labeled as a personal attack against her must be removed and that that is non-negotiable. That's not how Wikipedia works, and if she thinks she can force her way through on it based upon the comments of just one admin, she has another thing coming. DreamGuy 13:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• What is the difference between what she is trying to do and your frequent removal of messages on your talk page that you don't like? [4] [5] [6] [7].

Also you keep accusing her of lying, which seems to have started this whole thing. What exactly did she lie about to set off this dispute? -- JJay 14:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk page content is almost always up to the user whose talk page it is. Archive content should not change. They're completely different and your comparison comes across as specious - David Gerard 14:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Specious? Frankly, I'm just confused by the absurdities here. -- JJay 14:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidently - David Gerard 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unlike everyone here, I am frequently confused. Nevertheless, the two users seem to share a similar propensity for wanting to remove comments or attacks (call them what you will), on talk pages or elsewhere. While I also think these two were somehow made for each other- and their mutual gyrations are mildly amusing- it might be nice to find a solution so that everyone can just move on. -- JJay 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The solution IS to move on, something you and Elonka and Englishrose, etc., refuse to do. DreamGuy 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you moved on after your "notice" above or statement below or...never mind. -- JJay 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good afternoon Mr. DreamGuy. Forget whether it's policy or not for a second. Is it really necessary for you to keep these comments on the Eenasul Fateh talk page? What reasons do you have for you to be so keen to hold onto them? Could it possibly be because you feel that you shouldn't be censored? Are they really of such an importance to wikipedia that you oppose these comments be removed? Or is it a personal importance? Sorry for all the questions, I’m just curious of why you want these comments to remain. Englishrose 14:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me as a useful record of past conflicts with a user who appears to be attracting conflicts and upsetting even those supporting their position. That's why it's called an "archive" - David Gerard 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes I agree, DreamGuy does seem to be attracting a lot of comflicts doesn't he? Englishrose 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Brilliant attempt to purposefully misread that comment... congratulations. DreamGuy 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've recently come around to what has become a heretical viewpoint: if policy and process get in the way of doing what's right, then screw them. DreamGuy has frequently engaged in needless personal attacks against Elonka, and it's perfectly reasonable for Elonka to seek their removal. That said, can you block someone for making personal attacks? I'd say yes, and if you can block them for *making* the attacks, why can't you block them for *repeating* the attacks once they're removed? Can you delete an attack page? CSD says yes--and if so, why can't you delete attacks *from* a page? In this case the attacks aren't even going to be deleted, just blanked, with a link left to the appropriate diff so those concerned with reading the full history can do so. All I have seen here is DreamGuy beating up on another editor for no good reason. If DreamGuy really, *really* cares about Wikipedia keeping detailed evidence of his uncivil behavior, Elonka may be willing to indulge him with an RfC. But since RfC is a distinctively useless process, and Elonka wants to get this over with more than anything, I think this is the better course of action. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"and to assist an editor in a situation he has already taken a side on". I examined the statements of both you and Elonka on this and came to an unprejudiced decision on the merits of the situation. I daresay that my opinion on this matter is far less biased than yours. Suffice it to say that if Elonka goes too far I will deal with her as well--I will be analyzing her refactoring diffs very closely once she posts them. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You certainly not unbiased at all. The problem here is that "what's right" in her mind means censoring other people for the kind of statements she herself makes on a continuous basis. You just take her at her word that she will be removing "personal attacks" when that's not what she is doing at all. Look at what she removed here. Come on Phil, get real, and stop trying to ignore policies. If you accept her claims that my pointing out the she lied was a personal attack, then surely her claiming over and over and over that I am lying in the claims that got her temporarily blocked means she should be blocked for those personal attacks. She (and you, by extension) are conveniently picking whatever it is you want to call personal attacks without any sense of rhyme or reason for purely selfish reasons. It'd be one thing if you were also applying your angry statements here to Elonka for her "attacks" and asking to block the Casteneda Denata guy for calling me a "true evil" "psychopathic" etc. etc., but, conspicuously, you are not. Why is that, exactly? DreamGuy 19:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you improve your reading comprehension, especially when it comes to phrases such as "if Elonka goes too far I will deal with her as well". Incidentally, if you want to remove personal attacks made against you, I will support you as well. I'm not pro-Elonka so much as I am anti-incivility. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-incivility" while saying "I'd suggest improve your reading comprehension" = pretty messed up there. Did you even look at the difference link I provided above? She has gone way beyond too far into just plain senseless. If you are supporting that then I don't think you can have any credibility to speak of. DreamGuy 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Given your situation you are hardly an impartial judge of my credibility. The remarks that she refactored seemed pretty gratuitous to me. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you clearly have no impartiality or credibility here. And I hope it wasn't you who protected the page, because that's clearly out line and a major policy violation. DreamGuy 19:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Upon further examination, it appears that Elonka also took the opportunity to remove *her* personal attacks against *you*. Rather than "censoring other people for the kind of statements she herself makes on a continuous basis" she appears to be removing personal attacks on a more or less even basis. She's even refactored her own page detailing her dispute with you. Where exactly is she being uneven or biased? — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy asked me to comment and I will though there are some articles I'd rather be editing :) First of all I can understand Elonka's reasons for wanting to remove some of the back-and-forth between her and DreamGuy, especially since, like me, she edits under her real name. But I can also understand that this is frustrating to DreamGuy. I'd rather not have someone I've been in conflict with go and refactor our past discussions.

Could both parties agree to a neutral third party for doing the refactoring? Or is DreamGuy opposed to any modification or blanking of past discussions? - Haukur 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to oversee and use admin powers to reinforce a refactoring done by a neutral third party. I do not, however, offer myself up as such a party, in the purpose of possible consensus. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point to blanking of past discussions and that it's a horrible, pointless precedent. The things she and Philwelch are removing are not personal attacks, and the only reasons she has for removing them are not at all valid reasons in the slightest. The whole removing personal attacks thing is not policy, and those people who are in favor of it do so only for real personal attacks, not whole conversations she now finds inconvenient. Elonka simply does not have the right to go around doing this, and Philwelch absolutely has no right to lock the pages the way Elonka wants them. DreamGuy 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring status report

I found Haukur's suggestion intriguing, so I'm stopping for now and asking a general question as to what other people (besides DreamGuy) think of the idea of a neutral third party doing the refactoring. I'm willing to consider it, though I'll caution that it's a painstaking and detailed headache to do, and I'm reluctant to ask someone else to clean up the mess. My recommendation is that I continue doing it, and then I can show the diffs of what I have done, to ensure that it is reasonable.

As proof of my refactoring ability, here's what I've done so far:

• Template_Talk:Mesopotamian mythology
• Talk:Eenasul Fateh (note that DreamGuy keeps reverting this one, so it may not show up correctly on the "live" page)
• User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute
• User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute/Evidence-1.
• I have also (messily) refactored my webpage, though the information is still in the HTML source at the moment.
• Other comments at issue have been voluntarily removed off of their respective pages by Admin Android79 and Petros471 (thank you).

As further proof of good faith, I have apologized to Hipocrite for a comment that I now regret. Hipocrite has accepted my apology, and we are both now working constructively together on other projects.

Once the final refactoring is completed (and "sticks" without being reverted), I will also blank related discussions off my talk page, and (hopefully) we can all move on. :) Elonka 00:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. DreamGuy's complaints are, of course, noted, but given (a) his bias and (b) the fact that he's the only one complaining at this point, I think the civil thing is to move on. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud... what about your bias and Elonka's bias? This is simply absurd. We cannot "move on" by simply allowing one editor and a rogue admin to delete anything and everything they want from any talk page just by falsely labeling all of it "personal attacks". This is nothing but censorship, and abuse of the fundamental policies that Wikipedia is built on. We went from saying Elonka's behavior was unacceptable and blocking her for it to letting her get away with making up her own rules, enforced by an admin with a grudge and who insulted other admins who were dealing with the situation and who is protecting article talk pages for no reason other than to have his way. This cannot be tolerated. DreamGuy 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Elonka removed some of her own personal attacks against you, she seems to be acting *against* her own bias. I have no grudge—I don't even know who you are—nor have I insulted other admins. As for your accusations of bias, I didn't know you or Elonka before I involved myself in this. If anyone wants to examine the diffs in question and seriously believes some of the removed comments shouldn't have been removed, we can discuss that. But your behavior in this dispute has been, to put it simply, uncivil, overemotional, and obsessive. There's really no point discussing this with you further—the only reason I'm writing *this* message is for the benefit of any third parties who are reading this exchange. If you regain your cool and are willing to discuss these issues reasonably, I'll be the first to listen. Until then, expect me to ignore you. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology has been protected and moved to Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology/Archive to allow ongoing discussion of the template. Talk:Eenasul Fateh has been protected—since it's a talk page to a non-existent article, active discussion is extremely unlikely to appear on that page. Both pages are also on my watchlist. As soon as DreamGuy appears willing to drop the issue I intend to unprotect them. (If he just shuts up for awhile I'll unprotect and watch for another reversion). I have not blocked DreamGuy. Of course, I invite other admins to review and discuss my actions here. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll review them. I object to this sanitizing of archives. "Archives"? What exactly are they archives of, in this state? Why keep them at all? I don't think it's right for you to extend special editing privileges to a user on the plea of trusting her judgment [no, "discretion" was the word used] discretion (is that the judgment discretion she has demonstrated in posting this infamous mass of attacks on DreamGuy's personality and character, as opposed to a discussion of his edits?), or to protect those privileges with the threat of blocking anybody who reverts her. It makes me uncomfortable, to put it mildly, that you do all this under apparently no other policy (unless I've missed something above, which is possible enough) than WP:IAR ("if policy and process get in the way of doing what's right, then screw them"). For the record, I should perhaps state that I also didn't know either Elonka or DreamGuy before this affair. Also for the record, if it should occur to Elonka to remove some of her personal attacks on me here (same as previous diff), I would object to that. I want them in the archive, I regard them as informative and illustrative (not so much of my character, but nevertheless). Philwelch, I appeal to you to stop encouraging this messing with our records; Wikipedia is not Orwell's Ministry of Truth. Bishonen | talk 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

No personal attacks, anyone? Deleting attack pages? (and if we can do that, why can't we delete attacks *from* pages?) It's true that I don't let policy get in the way of doing what is right, but if I was a Wikilawyering policy wonk I'm sure I could make a decent argument on policy grounds. Sometimes policy is incomplete. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Un"refactoring" status report

User: Mikkalai has undone the censorship of Talk:Eenasul Fateh, and I have undone the censorship on Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology. We don't solve a dispute by simply caving into the irrational demands of one editor throwing a tantrum, regardless of what one rogue admin expressing disrespect for all applicable policies has to say. DreamGuy 02:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, why don't you stop acting like (in your own words) a "needy ex-girlfriend" and leave this issue alone? Mikkalai has refactored the page to remove your personal attacks, and I have done the same to Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology/Archive, while restoring the sections that are not personal attacks. (Keep in mind that I did a page move and created that archive page, so please restrain your disputes to the archive page instead of copy-and-pasting your personal attacks over again on the new talk page. You would also be well-advised to be civil and stop making personal attacks. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Says the guy going against all other editors and making personal attacks while doing it? You have no credibility whatsoever. You would be well advised to pay attention to what other admins tell you and stop violating policies just so you can gleefully do whatever Elonka asks. DreamGuy 13:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Mikkalai has seen fit to remove certain personal attacks from Talk:Eenasul Fateh/Archive2 (as it is now known). I have followed his lead and made more discriminating removals from Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology/Archive. The wide-scale indiscriminate deletions have been undone and replaced with more discriminate RPA that Mikkalai seems to support. Suffice it to say that I've accepted Mikkalai's compromise; I hope Elonka and DreamGuy can do so as well. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 17:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unarchiving comments by User:Geogre on Philwelch's actions

Btw, it strikes me that some editors may be too busy to keep repeating points they've already made. The thread "Elonka mess" has been prematurely archived through a newbie mistake (see immediately below), but in that, User:Geogre also objected to these same plans of Philwelch's. I've unarchived the following dialogue between Philwelch and Geogre, to retain context. Bishonen | talk 02:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

I trust Elonka's discretion, and if she steps over the line I'll address that issue as well. RPA does include blanking entire comments if the only substance of the comment is to make a personal attack, for instance. But if someone makes a "you asshole" remark in passing while raising a substative point, the "you asshole" remark is all that needs to be removed. To make myself clear: people restoring personal attacks that Elonka is deleting will be blocked for violating NPA. If people complain about that, then I'll just speedy the whole page as an attack page. If you want to talk about policy, I have the policy backing to do both; if you want to talk about doing the right thing so we can have a productive encyclopedia-writing community, I'm fully justified. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Has NPA gone over to policy now? It was a guideline recently. I don't support personal attacks of course, and I try never to make them, but I don't support letting the supposed victim of a personal attack be the arbiter of whether or not there has been one, and "who decides what is a personal attack" has been what has kept WP:NPA from getting to be policy all along. All of which is not to say that Elonka can or cannot remove an "asshole" here and there, but blocking for violating RPA would be bad news, too. Geogre 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and civility are Wikipedia's #1 problem, and we need to start taking it seriously. If someone wants so badly to make a personal attack that they interfere with the removal of those attacks, blocking them is the best option to stop the attacks from recurring. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So it isn't policy. Ok. Stopping someone removing a personal attack requires all sides agree that something is a personal attack, agreeing on where the attack begins and ends, and all sides agreeing with what to do with the "removed" attack. Once that's settled, I'll agree with you. (Personal attacks are about #200 on the list of Wikipedia's problems, in my opinion, but perhaps I'm thick skinned.) Geogre 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, WP:NPA is policy. I just checked. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You needed to check that? Of course NPA is policy! It's one of our central policies. You can't think Geogre was questioning that? The whole subject of the discussion is "Remove Personal Attacks", and that's what he's talking about, if you take a look at what's being said. The context makes it obvious that he means WP:RPA, accidentally saying WP:NPA instead. This whole discussion will go better if you assume good faith, and assume an experienced admin like Geogre knows the major policies. Please don't pounce on a typo to make a point. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Obvious to you, perhaps. Not quite as obvious to me. I always thought NPA was policy too, but after my reading of Geogre's comments I decided to double check. Incidentally, hyperventilating about "assuming good faith" while failing to do the same seems inconsistent, although I trust that you have perfectly good reasons for doing so. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 17:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You trust I have perfectly good reasons for "hyperventilating"? OK, after that I don't see any chance of human communication. I'm done in this forum. I regret that my attempt to review and discuss came across as mere point-scoring. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

<Sigh> This is what I get for letting the clerk mess take over my time and then trying to write articles (yeah, I should know better). Ok. What I was referring to is now contained in RPA. It was contained in NPA, which was first proposed by Snowspinner as "semi-policy." That came up in one of the nasty RFar's of 2004. Well, that "semi-policy" never got to be policy (and I don't even know how what's presently in NPA got to be policy, quite) because it was "all personal attacks will be removed." I.e. it was what is now RPA. It's a policy not to make personal attacks. Great. Now, who decides when something is an attack? Is it the speaker or the reader? Is it a third party? Who determines whether they're to be removed by deletion or moving? Who determines which parts are the personal attack? No consensus on that. As for people making personal attacks being the #1 problem, I don't know what to say. Maybe I just don't get insulted enough or something, but I don't see that many personal attacks made by anyone, and especially not enough to compare to vandalism, porn spam link insertion, cronyism, substubs, AOL blocks, sock puppet abuse, vote busing, or even vandals trying to nominate to FAC and RFA. For me, the amount of personal invective on Wikipedia is far below the least of those. But so it goes. I only see articles and words being attacked, not people, as the people are not known to each other. Geogre 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

My involvement in the dispute is after an unprejudiced examination of the issue. I did not know who Elonka and DreamGuy were before this, and I can't claim to know them well now. The protected page is currently located at Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology/Archive, so the protection does not interfere with current discussion on the template. As for Talk:Eenasul Fateh, that's a talk page to a non-existent article (but contains just enough deletion discussion to not be a CSD) so protection is harmless there too. My plan is to unprotect as soon as it appears that DreamGuy will not continue his revert war. I have summarized my actions on AN/I and invite any further discussion of this issue to tale place there. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"My involvement in the dispute is after an unprejudiced examination of the issue." = absolute and total nonsense. You were chomping at the bit to remove anything and everything before you ever saw any of it. You never had approval from people on AN/I and you are just making things up as you go along. This is not how things are supposed to be done, and you are a disgrace to this encyclopedia. DreamGuy 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not making a good case for yourself as being the bigger man in this dispute. Continuing to make personal attacks will not impress anyone. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See, and that's the problem. Stating opinions, especially ones based upon the fact that you are clearly violating all applicable policies and ignoring the clear consensus of tother admins, are not the things that No Personal Attacks was meant to cover. Besides, anything in my statement that might be construed as a "personal attack" has just the same level, if not greater, amount of "personal attack" in your comment. You are extremely biased in what you identify as a personal attack and feel no need to follow the same level of civility you insist out of your opponents, which means all you are doing here is enforcing your bias onto articles by sheer stubborn policy-breaking and hoping to prevail. Multiple admins have clearly stated they completely disagree with your actions, yet you pay no heed, and you count on the fact that they'd rather not get into a wheel war to stop this clear abuse of power. That also means you are gaming the system. Just how many policies are you going to break here in your campaign to censor other people and browbeat them for the same type of actions you yourself do on a regular basis? DreamGuy 13:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Archived

Er, so it ate my edit summary, you might have noticed I've just archived per David Gerard. So, I did. I think I failed to mess it up. InkSplotch^(talk) 15:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, no, I did. I archived it to Archive26 instead of IncidentArchive71. Sorry, folks. I put in for a move, it ought to right itself shortly. I hope. InkSplotch^(talk) 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound territorial, because, really, I'm not, but you messed it up in pretty much every way imaginable - you archived discussions not even two hours old, created a new archive when the old one was only 20k long, pasted the contents into a WP:AN archive instead of a WP:ANI one, moved a different' WP:AN archive into the WP:ANI sequence, and added redlinks to the navigation boxes. I think I've cleaned it all up. Except for the two-hour-old discussions, anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, please, I think I need to be hit over the head with a very large 2X4 at this point. I've been picking up quite a lot through observation, but I wasn't ready to attempt such a large edit on my own. My humble apologies. InkSplotch^(talk) 15:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Full points for good faith and boldness though :-)

(I had to ask for an archive rather than doing it myself because the 428K edit box was manifesting the Mozilla bug where typing goes r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y. I suppose I should upgrade Firefox to 1.5, really. Or try SeaMonkey.) - David Gerard 16:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm running on 1.5 and that doesn't actually help. I'd suggest writing in notepad and cut/pasting into the edit box. >Radiant< 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion for archiving

OK... if I'm reading the History right User:InkSplotch archived the whole page "per David Gerard" (who had asked for archiving because the page was so big, but had not expressed any wish that active discussions be buried alive). If I had noticed before a lot of new stuff had been added to the page, I would have reverted. The lively discussion I came here to post on has been left in the air, for example. We have an archiving bot, right? The bot archives discussions that have had no input for three days. If the page still gets too large (yes, I know that the page still does get too large), I suggest that the bot be set to archive after a day and a half, as a better alternative than killing active discussions ad hoc from time to time. Can we agree to change the setting of the archivebot, please? Bishonen | talk 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Yes, David's request was simply to "archive" without details (it's available in the History from my link above), and my main fault was trying to archive things the same way I've seen people archive their talk pages - en masse. As soon as Cryptic pointed out what I'd done to active discussions (not to mention fumbling where I put the archive, and fouling up the nav boxes), I realized that a page like this has to be handled differently. I put that up to my own inexperience.

As for bots, well, I noticed the nav boxes seem to update via bots, but I don't know about the main page. If there is such a bot for archiving this page, may I suggest a (templated?) notice to keep well-meaning sorts like myself out of trouble? If there isn't, then I'm going to pay closer attention to how this page is manually archived around active/inactive discussions and perhaps go make some updates to WP:Archive. I'll make something useful out of myself if it kills me. InkSplotch^(talk) 17:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a mention in the page header that it's archived by bot. —Cryptic (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I can, probably without too much trouble, make the bot tailor the lagtime such that the current page is a given length after archiving. Pick a size and I'll see what I can do. (For the record, I think the root problem is that too much is posted here that should be somewhere else - straightforward requests to block a user (with subsequent comments about the lingerie), or protect a page, or edit a protected page - and we should just move them to the proper place. Or I can make the bot look for sections with little <!--archivenow--> html comments and archive those immediately when it sees them regardless of the timestamps.) —Cryptic (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, hm, did you mean "If the page still gets too large" to be determined by a human, and just to run the bot as it currently does, only set to 36 hours? That's just a one-line configuration change. —Cryptic (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You could perhaps make it so that, if the page is over 256kiB, it agressively prunes sections until it falls below that mark, even if 36 hours didn't pass yet (of course, archiving the older sections first). --cesarb 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that if the general feeling is that the page often or sometimes gets too large, the setting should be changed. I propose that we do feel that. (Not that I know what zese problems are whereof you speak, using Mozilla for OSX as I am.) I like cesarb's suggestion, it sounds better than the simple change from 72 to 36 hours that I was thinking of. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

I've programmed cesarb's suggestion; I don't doubt we'll balloon back up above 256k by midnight tomorrow. —Cryptic (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to to know why the Gazeebow Unit discussion was archived while it was still active. I would hate to assume bad faith ... User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So pull it back out. It's currently in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive70. —Cryptic (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• As suggested on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, we simply need to split the noticeboard in several sections. >Radiant< 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And/or possibly be more aggressive about moving conversations to more appropriate venues when they get discursive, á la the Clerks discussion. Ideally, noticeboards should have entries that are short and current. Demi ^T/_C 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I archived the first 50 subject headers, I didn't factor for dates. So, Gazeebow Unit was just on the wrong side of the chopping block. As Cryptic says, feel free to pull it back out. Myself, I'm keeping my mitts off for now. I missed the fine print about the archive bot before, I don't want to get in it's way again. InkSplotch^(talk) 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of the bot having the ability to archive sections tagged with html comments, as mentioned above. This would allow us to tag such sections that clearly won't generate any more discussion and help us cut down the page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I also see the possibility for abuse the moment someone uses such tags to prematurely end a discussion. InkSplotch^(talk) 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but because this page is so closely monitored the tag could easily be reverted or removed for clearly active discussions. The 'bot wouldn't archive immediately. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's really a concern (and I suppose it could probably sneak past in the middle of a long, eye-glazing ramble easily enough), it could look instead look for some template that displays as "This section will soon be automatically archived." —Cryptic (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Dtasripin blocked for WP:NPA

I have blocked Dtasripin (talk · contribs) for making repeated personal attacks. He has been warned several times [8] [9] [10], but removed the warnings [11], which led another user to warn [12] for another personal attack [13] instead of taking increased action.

I bring this up not just to draw attention to the block, but to the removal of behavior warnings as a method to avoid consequences for bad behavior. We have generally "frowned upon," but not taken any action regarding, a user who removes such warnings from their talk page. But I think this stems from a day when most regulars had a general idea of what was going on with most problem users, and this isn't the case anymore. Most likely, if I am looking into bad behavior I won't know what warnings someone has received in the past, and with an extensive talk page history I don't think it's reasonable to delve through every one looking to see if they are there. That means that everyone who issues warnings has to keep an "eye" on people they've warned, lest they avoid further consequences for their bad behavior. I suggest instead we make it a practice generally to revert the removal of behavior warnings on user talk pages.

Demi ^T/_C 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Demi. Behaviour warnings should stick. However, as with anything, how long for? I'd say a few months: an editor may not be bad forever. They may still reform: we do live in hope! I personally have never seen such a thing, but one day it may happen. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's hard to require it, for the same reason WP:3RR generally isn't applied to user's edits on their own talk page: it makes too easy a playground for trolls. For now, let's just see if clicking on talk page history isn't onerous for admins warning people - David Gerard 16:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not connecting the dots--if I understand correctly, you think it would be easy for a troll to make a spurious such a "warning" on a user's talk page, and rely on this practice to replace it when it was removed? Demi ^T/_C 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Spurious warnings are against policy. Removing them is not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How about non-spurious ones? If we continue to let these disappear, then many users with behavioral problems may be stuck at the eternal "first warning." Demi ^T/_C 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, they'd stick until they were "properly" archived. But as David says, we have no real policy about how people manage their talk page in general, and many "editors in good standing" delete messages from their page, so it's hard to tell the "bad editors" they mustn't, or that warning messages are the unstated exception. (Recently I replaced such warnings on someone's talk page, twice, only to be told that I'd reverted five times, and thus needed to be blocked (and incidentally that another party had also reverted five times (when they had not), and needed to be blocked). He, OTOH, despite having 3RR'd both on this occasion and many recent priors, was of course being "unfairly" blocked. Silly me for not working all that out, obviously.)

In extreme cases, there's the option of adding them to the user:-space page and protecting, but that's not reasonable for simple warnings. The most likely karmic comeback for this is if someone files a 3RR or other "incident" report, and mentions the earlier warning(s) and removal of same, the admin attending to it is likely to take this into account, and if so very likely to the further detriment of the offending party. Alai 01:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:151.198.212.250

Please block User:151.198.212.250 for a long time. Just look through its contributions. Cuñado - Talk 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for administrator intervention (specifically, requests for blocks of vandals) should go to WP:AIV. Thanks! (FWIW, the user(s) haven't edited in a few hours and is a shared network, so I don't think a block will be necessary now.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

DVD advert spam on various medical pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=213.86.16.169

Please block and revert Midgley 18:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted and warned about spamming. No need for a block at present. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you can request blocks of vandals at WP:AIV. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas E. Radice IV

Hi, this guy was a candidate for deletion, but he went in and removed the tag, and then deleted the text from the delete page, so anyway this page has existed since September without any resolve. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas E. Radice IV San Saba 19:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Weird. It's not like it's an orphaned AfD. Anyways, I've relisted it, so maybe there will be some activity now. --Deathphoenix 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I got it. It was blanked and the AfD blanking wasn't reverted until the rest of the AfDs on September 21 were already completed (thus noone saw the unclosed AfD). With the Mathbot, this sort of thing probably won't happen again. --Deathphoenix 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor blocked for 3RR, self unblocked, reblocked

ChrisO (talk · contribs) blocked Anonymous editor (talk · contribs) for 3 hours for violating 3RR at Template:ITN. Anonymous editor unblocked himself, and subsequently performed two reverts at Muhammad. I reinstated the block for the (approximately) remaining one hour. Demi ^T/_C 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Demi's block was fair enough. But I don't agree that ChrisO who was involved in the revert war should have blocked me especially since it wasn't exactly a 3rr. I tried to contact him by email and through my talk page about the block but he didn't respond. Also I didn't know I could unblock myself; I tried it so I could inform Chris but still couldn't edit until about five minutes later when I thought that Chris had unblocked me. However I have no hard feelings towards Demi or Chris. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--I appreciate it. I think it would have been better in this instance had ChrisO documented the 3RR on WP:AN/3RR instead. Demi ^T/_C 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Demi. Yeah about that second revert on the Muhammad article, I was about to leave a message on the talk page when I was blocked otherwise I am sure that it wouldn't have gotten to a block. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the edits were clearly not permitted by the 3RR policy (see my comments at [14]); I reverted Zocky, not a.n.o.n.y.m; I haven't received a single e-mail from him; and there's a lengthy discussion of this incident User talk:ChrisO#3RR on my talk page, where a.n.o.n.y.m posted it in the first place.

I appreciate a.n.o.n.y.m's subsequent comment that there's no hard feelings, but I do think that admins need to follow the rules like everyone else, particularly where 3RR and self-unblocking are concerned. -- ChrisO 21:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with following the rules. Chris this is why I pointed out that you were in error by blocking me because you were involved in reverting me. Still no problem. Please check email again. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware, Anonym, that unblocking oneself can get one de-adminned? Don't do it. -Splash^talk 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes however as I mentioned above I didn't know I could. I tried it so I could talk to Chris and I though it had failed and that Chris had unblocked five minutes later. Read my message above. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even going to take the time to check...if this is still ongoing, Anonym, since you say above that you have no hard feelings and that you agree that Demi's original block was fair, and that you believe in abiding by the rules, please, just take your vacation. Count it as a blessing.  :-D Tomer^talk 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Demi's block was for 1 hour. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah going on vacation now...nah to much work to do :). Well atleast I learned a lot from this little incident. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:169.253.4.21

User 169.253.4.21 has been making what I would consider POV edits and reverts on the page titled Ollanta Humala. I made a revert to his edits and put "See Talk Page" in the page history. He reverted the page back without speaking about it on the talk page. I reverted it back and told him in his talk page as well as the page history to see the article's talk page. Again, he reverted it back without any discussion. From his talk page it seems that this user has had problems before, having been threatened to be banned by an admin Viajero.-Jersey Devil 20:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Japanese "Anti-Pornography" Notices Spattered Around

Figured i'd let you know about this.

I got this message from Gobtude twice. Apparently he sent it to many others as well.

乱用がなかったり、またはユーザーの方の個人攻撃をしてはいけない。また、猥褻はここに許可されない。ありがとう。

which means according to Babelfish...

Abuse there will continue to be, or the user privately does not have to attack. In addition, it is not permitted obscenely here. Thank you.

And then after blocking(NPA/TP), I got this message from Hooting Pig and Hooting Drune. ここのポルノグラフィー無し。ポルノグラフィーのウェブサイトにリンクを誓わなかったり、または加えてはいけない。調停委員会は2 つの週の未決の調査のための禁止した.

Which means according to Babelfish...

There is no pornography here. In the web sight of the pornography link you do not swear, or do not have to add. Mediation committee prohibited for undecided investigation of two weeks.^[15]

Draw your own conclusions, I blocked Gobtude for 24 hours and the socks indefinately. Karmafist 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

very strange... but my mozilla just shows Japanese characters as a bunch of question marks anyways--Alhutch 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Now using a variety of socks. One exhibited the characteristics of a broken proxy. I posted that username for a checkuser request to get the underlying proxy blocked. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the Kanji but the babel is much appreciated, since my knowledge of kanji is nil. Why on earth add Japanese notices to the en wikipedia though? This is not attempted censorship, it is nonsense given the circumstances. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

They're equivalents of user warning messages. The first says something along the lines of, "Do not abuse or make personal attacks against other users. In addition, obscenity is not permitted. Thank you." The second is, "Pornography is not allowed here. Do not add or make links to pornographic web sites," and the last sentence doesn't make much sense to me. I don't know why people are getting these messages though. howcheng {chat} 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess Japanese flame wars are more polite, I suppose. I got this one today...

愚かな同性愛者である

which means according to babel

"It is the foolish homosexual person"

Which kind of loses something in the translation... I'd better send this to Mediation Comittee's undecided investigation^  ;-) Karmafist 16:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Haiku For The Occasion

Considering the language it came from. Sorry, but I couldn't resist...

<karaoke>

It is time to block

Angry talk messages are wrong

Bye bye sockpuppets!

</karaoke> Karmafist 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:209.173.10.61

Don't know if this person is blocked already, but just look at their history page. --204.152.176.70 21:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Was blocked 26 Jan [16], no new contributions since. - Mailer Diablo 21:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You can report any persistent vandalism at WP:AIAV. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo gets reverted

Check out this diff.

I have to say I don't particularly agree with Jimbo's reasoning here. We ought to at least know what the complaint was about, otherwise how are we to know what's being disputed here? -- ChrisO 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A relatively harmless action like this, which makes nothing unavailable, is certainly within the discretion of a reasonable editor; especially one that we can expect to receive private complaints from time to time. Demi ^T/_C 21:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced Jimbo's blanking, by the way. Demi ^T/_C 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Demi - Jimbo's actions seem reasonable based upon what we can know from the diffs and the explanation Jimbo gave. I have personally removed comments from a Talk page when I had reason to believe they were harmful. As Demi says, the info is still in the history if it is needed for the discussion. This is a reasonable middle-ground between ignoring the complaint and over-reacting to the complaint by deleting page history. Johntex\^talk 21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what Jimbo actually says: "As a courtesy to a complainant, I have blanked this talk page. I'm not sure what the complaint meant exactly, but I see no harm in blanking this." If we don't even know what the complaint is about, how do we know not to add the disputed material back into the talk page or article? Are we even able to determine that the complaint isn't frivolous? I think we need better visibility of complaints than this... -- ChrisO 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo's reasoning behind this even though I'm still complained why the complaint was made and what prompted it. What I do not agree with at all however is posting on AN/I just because somebody reverted Jimbo. Just because it's Jimbo doesn't make it a big deal, should I start posting here whenever I revert another editor because I will if it will help? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, fairly obviously no, because Jimbo isn't just another editor. What he does in cases like this has policy implications for all of us. -- ChrisO 21:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this complaint was "Marc Tufano" related. A few weeks back, an anonymous user (195.93.*.*, AOL in the UK) kept adding "Marc Tufano" information (hoax or prank) into various articles including Oliver Stone, Robert De Niro, The Beatles, 77th Academy Awards, Leonardo Di Caprio, Al Pacino, Nicholas Cage, Francis Ford Coppola, Gwyneth Paltrow and a number of other articles, suggesting that this "Marc Tufano" was the favorite actor or close friend or co-producer or whatever of all of these. More obscurely, he also posted to Reg Cox claiming that "Marc Tufano" guest-starred in one episode as the young Reg Cox in EastEnders; IMDB does not corroborate this (it does list a Marc Tufano with only one acting credit, which is not EastEnders).

I suspect it was that odd message posted to Talk:List of characters from EastEnders, signed under the name of "MS Tufano", that was the reason for the blanking. It's not clear what this person is referring to, I think possibly some kind of family or child custody type dispute (based on some other talk page messages which I can't find a link for at the moment).

Still, blanking the entire talk page was overkill, as there were perfectly valid discussions on other topics such as "Little Mo/Kacey Ainsworth" which were only a few days old and not in need of archiving. Why not just remove the Tufano stuff if necessary and leave the rest? -- Curps 22:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that matters like this promote a certain "huh?" factor when it's not 100% clear in what capacity it's being done (maybe we should develop a Wikipedia:Simon Says policy to the effect that one must announce "in my capacity as an admin/bureaucrat/FAD/arbcom member/developer/godking/other I hereby..."), nor why it's being done. So people don't know if they're "allowed" to undo the edit, or what other solutions might achieve the desired effect. So in this case, an obvious alternative is to archive (the whole page, or the particular section in question, if that is the particular section), but if what's wanted is to (in the fullness of time) take the page off google and the mirrors too, that might not be sufficient. I'm extrapolating here from the reasoning expressed in a similar concern about AfD archives. Obviously the material's still in the history anyway, so total elimination of this material isn't at issue at present, and would require further admin action. Alai 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't feel Jimbo should be blanking pages like that. I also don't think that Demi should have reinstated the blanked page after it had been reverted. If that had been any other editor, people would have been screeching on ANI about how unilateral and bad faith it was. I'm inclined to restore the comments. Again. Avriette 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a consensus be reached before a wheel war is begun. The reasonings behind such blankings aren't to obscure prior discussion, they are to prevent the often-negative nature of such discussions to be indexed by search engines. Due to Wikipedia's high rankings in search engines such as Google, a discussion filled with comments such as "Person isn't notable at all, not important, DELETE" can rise to the top of search results for a person's name, even if they had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the article in question. I think we can all agree that this is not an aim of Wikipedia.

How about some sort of boilerplate message be applied to pages blanked in this fashion referring viewers to look at the history of the page in question for past discussion? In this way, absolutely no discussion is lost, and any user, anonymous, users, and administrators alike, can view the discussion, without it possibly affecting the person/organization personally. Thoughts? --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this, and I support blankings of this sort in the future, though perhaps more selective if there is ongoing discussion about other topics. It removes the main source of harm while leaving discussion available in history. And for the record, if this had been any other editor, I should hope no one would have immediately gone "screeching [...] about how unilateral and bad faith it was", but would, rather, ask first why it was done. If the reason was not "I wanted to vandalize pages!"—which it generally isn't—surely either a compromise could be found (such as, say, a boilerplate message saying the discussion has been removed, please see history) or a more helpful explanation given for those who might question it. (As for Jimbo's actions, I do tend to assume he's got some sort of good reason for them and deserves at least to be heard out.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say, the power of a single not-sure-what-it-means complaint to effect the removal of potentially upsetting content is quite impressive. Hmmm, let's give this a try:

Dear Jimbo,

Dirka dirka Muhammad (pbuh) jihad dirka dirka
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons dirka!" [17]

Should work like a charm. :-) -- Curps 05:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Slow motion minor vandal

Review requested... 24.62.158.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making edits to Sleeping car that are the typical "Bill is da bomb!" insertions over the last three days. Today I noticed he also touched the Joseph Glidden article, changing a couple characters in the lead section. After each, I added successive {{vw}} tags. Following this pattern, he would have two more days of minor vandalism before a block is imposed (he'd get {{vw4}} tomorrow and a block on Friday). The question is whether I'm being too lenient and if should just block him now for two days (since the edits are generally a day apart, 24 hours probably wouldn't even be seen). I haven't blocked anyone yet, but if this guy keeps up, he may be the winner of my first block sweepstakes. AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'd give him one more warning, then block him. You're right, he seems to vandalize a little bit then run off somewhere else, but he doesn't do it just one day at a time. If he vandalizes again and you give him a final warning and he keeps going, I think it's reasonable to block him. Mo0[talk] 16:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. He skipped yesterday, but returned today and was reverted by another editor. Now he's {{vw4}}'d. Slambo (Speak) 18:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary link spree

Brya (talk · contribs) has created dozens of new articles over the past few days. Many of them have been speedily deleted, followed by an equally speedy recreation. The articles consist solely of a link to wiktionary (see for instance Xylology, Palaeoxylology, Dimerous, Trimerous and Tetramerous). Is this a proper use of the main namespace, or should these articles continue to be speedied? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• It seems that nobody has mentioned at User talk:Brya that this might not be the best use of an editor's time. I left a note. Jkelly 00:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've looked at the edit history of the four articles linked to above. None of them were created by Brya (talk · contribs). Xe seems to be simply replacing {{wi}} with {{wiktionarypar}}, nothing more. Uncle G 01:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • From what I can gather, Byra moved them to Wiktionary, and them replaced the articles with {{wiktionarypar}}.--Sean Black (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. She has moved perfectly good stubs to the wiktionary and replaced them with a link to wiktionary. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • No. The last three articles are adjectives, and cannot, by their very nature, have been perfectly good stubs. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives). Moreover: trimerous was tagged for transwikification by Mysid back in November 2005; and tetramerous never was even a stub. The only two articles that had a real chance of being perfectly good stubs were the first two. palaeoxylology was created in Wiktionary by SemperBlotto, not by Brya; and was deleted from Wikipedia by Enochlau, not by Brya. xylology was turned into a {{wi}} by Howcheng [18], not by Brya. Uncle G 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Those templates either need to be replaced with their proper stubs or totally deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and an empty page has the advantage of not only pointing people to wiktionary, but also to wikibooks and other projects and allowing for the creation of a non-dicdef. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Block of Krappa

I have blocked User:Krappa as an impersonator of User:Kappa. DES ^(talk) 01:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=152.163.101.13

the IP address has violated the 3rvt rule on the LifeStyles page, inciting that I was commiting vandalism in putting it up for deletion. I would like someone to revert his edits if possible (so I won't get in trouble) and block him or atleast issue a warning. Thanks Chooserr 23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• 3 reverts, but have not violated it yet (i.e. 4th or more). BTW 3RR violations go to WP:AN/3RR, thank you! - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Odd, because Chooserr (talk · contribs), has violated the 3RR on just about every article he's edited in the last 24 hours, racking up dozens of reverts per article--152.163.100.65 05:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You just lied, about the masturbation article do you think people will believe I reverted 6 times? Chooserr 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, I said your next revert will be your 6th 7th--152.163.100.65 05:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Even that is a lie, because I haven't done 6 reverts on that page, and it was only vandalism by an anon user which was being reverted. There was no summary or description of why, just threats. I have issued you a warning, and if you keep this up I will attempt to not only get your IP block but also to get the page protected. I respect Ruby's reverts, but I reasoned them out, and your reverts don't count. Chooserr 05:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this needs to stop now. ChooseRR and anonymous AOL editor, please resolve this conflict amongst yourself, using dispute resolution procedures, or by article talk pages. This has no place on AN/I, and anon, please read WP:POINT. Chooserr, I recommend you quit reverting Masturbation and address any content issues you have on the talk page. This editor will eventually grow tired of following you around and challenging your edits (not addressing whether your edits are right or wrong). --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bbatsell,

I honestly don't know how to solve this, an IP or several IPs have been following me around all day, lying about me, and calling me names. I haven't reverted 6 or 7 times, and I don't even consider this IP a person due to their lack of respect for the wiki rules. Even if they follow them letter for letter (something that is more of an illusion than a fact because they'd just switch IPs) they are gaming the system. Not trying help wikipedia. It might by aolanon who was set against me for a long time - this is an Aol IP after all. Chooserr 05:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting edits by Congress (RFC, etc.)

See: [19]

Kim Bruning 03:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

and [20] - please re-block the IP - the IPs vandalism was reverted, and then repeated from the same Congressional IP; I reverted this. I know an IP block is alleged to block other users. Congress refuses to self-regulate; we must take action; I grow weary of reverting. Elvey 04:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AND! Has attacked the RFC again, I'm in a slow revert war here. This person has been removing comments by Jamesday. Kim Bruning 10:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello! They messaged me again. Could someone please block, checkuser, and all that? User_talk:68.50.103.212, thank you for your time. Kim Bruning 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no ability to checkuser, but I have blocked this IP for 12 hours for removing these comments. I'd rather not block for longer, in case they decide to contribute to the RFC more constructively, but if someone thinks a longer block is needed, I have no objection. Demi ^T/_C 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Blocking Complaint

I will post here the same text I posted to WikiEN-l mailing list in search of answers: -- 68.50.103.212 10:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Context

This concerns the article Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, within the subsection "The established conduct methods have not been used." This section erroneously states "Both the Senate and the House have established ethics bodies which, so far as I can see, have not yet been used in an attempt to resolve this matter." (only members of the respective body can refer matters to the ethics committee)

Background

I possibly erroneously removed this [21]. User:Kim Bruning reverted my changes reminding me not to delete comments from an RFC[22]. I then corrected myself moving the erroneous text to the discussion page [23], explaining "Comments are misguided and statements are blatantly false, moved to talk." User:Kim Bruning immediately reverted my changes, ignoring my comment and saying "RV political vandalism. Please watch, block"[24] I later reminded Kim that this was not vandalism and again moved the erroneous material to the discussion page [25], and explained "These comments are in the talk area and contain factually incorrect accusations. please do not revert again (3RR)." User:Kim Bruning threatened me on my user talk discussion page with "consequences" that "can be rather dramatic," and though not an administrator ordered me "don't touch that page."

Blocked

Responding to misleading comments by User:Kim Bruning, administrator User:Demi then unilaterally intervened and blocked me for 12 hours with the brief explanation of "Repeatedly removing valid comments from RFC." I believed this was an abuse of administrative privileges. I do not see how was in violation of any Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia article for blocking policy under the category "Excessive Reverts"[26], links to the Three-Revert Rule. ("The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period.") which as you can see I am not in violation of. I was not warned by any administrator and no arbitration was offered.

Follow-up

I have twice emailed User:Demi asking for an explanation, arbitration, or leniency for the excessive 12 hour block.

As explained in these emails to Demi, I am one of the primary contributors to the article in question. I am the original author and primary contributor to the related article Wikipedia:Congressional Staffer Edits. I also was the user who originally uncovered the extent of the abuses by the Congressional IP address beyond Congressman Meehan. I have repeatedly worked to revert vandalism in Wikipedia as represented by my contributions. All of my edits have been in good faith. I believe this absolutely falls under the Wikipedia:Blocking policy for Controversial Blocks.

Plee

I ask that some form of arbitration be introduced to this situation. I still protest that my edits were correct and leaving factually incorrect information in the RFC degrades the credibility of the RFC and Wikipedia as a whole.

Furthermore if you have a review process for administrators I would recommend it for administrator User:Demi as I was blocked with no warning from any administrator, no arbitration was offered. Demi posted on my user discussion page [27] but gave no explanation of my block other than he “disagree[s] with your description of the situation.” Admin [[User:Commander Keane] added to the discussion that “This isn't a democracy, we don't have to present you with laws (policies) that you violated . You did the wrong thing.”

Questions

I ask the Wikipedia Community, are there no rules or regulations for administrators? Can administrators make unilateral decisions as to that what is “wrong or right?” How can any user know what is wrong or right? Were the actions of User:Demi correct?

Can any user post false declarations in an RFC? -- 68.50.103.212 10:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

3 Tools

(discussion moved to Noticeboard).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The ten revert rule

This is outrageous, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons has IPs reverting six, seven, eight times and no one is blocking them. I don't like to use admin privileges on Islam-related articles, but someone has to do something about it. Moreover, someone needs to restore the semi-protection of this page. The semi-protect guidelines are very clear that when necessary, we can protect pages that are linked from front page. In this case, we have a swarm of socks and IPs that are blanking content against consensus, and the only time the article stabilizes is when it is semi-protected. SOMEONE HELP! Babajobu 07:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The image removal stopped when the "good" guys temporarily stopped being dicks [28], but now they are dicks again. Babajobu, you should go ahead and block those IP's since the 3RR violations are blatant and blockable regardless of the page type--IMO you needn't consider it to be Islamic content related. Yes, semi-protection stabilizes the page, but stabilizes it in favor of one POV. If locking is needed it should be full locking, not semi. 71.141.251.153 08:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I second this motion. It is beyond ridiculous how many times anonymous IPers are reverting the article page to remove valuable content. Jimmy Wales has already had to delete the discussion page once because of the continuing meltdown, and this will only continue until _someone_ starts applying protective rules to the page. Sol. v. Oranje 08:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Then we'll full protect the page. Semi protection is not appropriate here, especially when alot of the IP edits are perfectly valid. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think fully locking it would give some motivation to find an acceptable consensus Thparkth 11:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We just had an IP get to his tenth revert without sanction...modifying title of this section. Babajobu 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If anonymous users are repeatedly defying consensus, then it should be semi-protected. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This situation has devolved, again. No reasonable solution (like putting the image in the center, and a link at the top to the image) can be reached with an ongoing revert war with a series of POV-vandals. Given the consensus on the talk page, removing the image should be considered vandalism regardless of WP:VAND, and treated as such. I hope that some adminstrator rosse shows up and solves this problem with judicious use of the block button, using WP:IAR, if no other excuse can be found. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem was apparently "solved" by admistrator Brendanconway, who reverted to a version without the image, without a link to the image, without a protection notice, and then protected the page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually he kept the image to the middle. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, he put it back as I was going around to all corners of the world assuming bad faith, thus proving that I suck at life. Apologies to admin Brendanconway who did a perfectly fine thing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Hicocrite, I should have done everything in the initial edit. I find it difficult to work extremely rapidly though!--File Éireann 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Bhojarajug

I don't know what to make of this one. The user hasn't edited since September, and now all of a sudden there's this anon adding decidedly private things to his userpage- a phone number, an e-mail address. I've talked to the anon, but I don't know if this is as serious as the situation with User:Megan1967. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich has yet another sock...

User:Jaulern just posted this on my talk page. Yet another sock. At least he's admitting this one. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I just saw some of these on several people's talk pages. My first thought was it's a bit blatant even for Gastrich, are you sure User:Jaulern is not an impersonator? --Canley 11:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• He is blocked indefinitely as an impersonator [29]. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Big Daddy 777

Is a reincarnation of the blocked user User:BigDaddy777. Also note the page BigDaddy777 Returns To Wikipedia, which currently has the text

 
[[User:BigDaddy777]] has returned to Wikipedia as [[User: Big Daddy 777]].

OK, ArbComm, what are you going to do??

<P>[[Image:BigDaddy2005.jpg|<font size =4  color="#00688B">'''Big Daddy '''</font>  |200px|center]]<br style="clear:both" />

 </center><P>




<font size =2  color="#00688B"><center><B><font size =4 color =" #A56B08">Big Daddy<P><p>
<i>Editor-at-Large</i>  <P></font><P><font size =2  color =black><br style="clear:both" /></i></center>

--[[User:Big Daddy 777|Big Daddy 777]] 10:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bluap 10:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Big Daddy 777 is blocked forever. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry's Place

Dear Sir,

For several days now I have been trying to add a factual entry to the "Harry's Place" entry.

It reads as follows... "Harry's Place consistently features articles that seek to put an anti Islamic spin on news events and never prints anything that is critical of the state of Israel.

This entry is being consistently removed by user Dbiv.

The above statement is factual. I have visited every day Harry’s Place for years. I have never seen a word of criticism against Israel and there is a never ending stream of articles that put an anti Islamic spin on news events. This description is true and it is verifiable.

Despite this I am being threatened by Dbiv with being blocked.

I have tried to compromise with Dbiv by moderating the entry to reflect pure facts but Dbiv continues to remove the post.

I suspect Dbiv is somehow involved with this site and that this represents a severe conflict of interest.

The entry as it stands is a public disgrace as Dbiv is effectively sanitising and promoting a racist website.

The least you can do is allow some factual comment that highlights some of Harry's Place less attractive characteristics.

Yours sincerely,

Harry

Please see User talk:Dbiv#Harry's Place, User talk:85.70.184.85 or the history for more on this if anyone's interested. David | Talk 13:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Harry, thank you for bringing this to my attention so that I know to put the site on my watchlist and assist Dbiv in removing your addition to the article. The point here is that your characterization of the site's content represents your own point of view, with which many readers of Harry's Place would disagree. This does not mean that your view cannot be reflected in the article, but it certainly cannot be presented as "the simple facts" about the site. Thanks! Babajobu 16:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Continuing problem with anonymous IP on Jack Abramoff

Yesterday, Hall Monitor finally put an end to someone deleting information from the page against consensus by semi-protecting it. This was after blocking numerous related IP addresses for vandalism. The page has now been unprotected and the person is back with a vengance. This page needs some heavy admin monitoring to contain this person. Please see this history on the main article and its talk page for many, many examples of what is going on. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 12:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for block

Does this go here? User:64.251.51.194, known for vandalising a lot, has done so again. Could somebody block him please? Cheers! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• according to arin it belongs to the CONNECTICUT EDUCATION NETWORK, probably a high school, or a university--64.12.116.65 16:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've blocked the IP now. If you want to report other vandals, WP:AIV is probably the best place. Thanks. Leithp 16:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (also for the info)! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 17:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Note left to Jeff Adams at Darien Public Schools. Pilatus 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Can 24.15.173.210 be blocked?

Is there any way that 24.15.173.210 can be blocked from editing Woodridge, IL. Basically, s/he keeps messing up the income values on that page, possibly for racist reasons. For more info, see the Woodridge talk + history pages.

There's no way to know what the person's reasons are, but considering it's a consistent IP address (it maps to Comcast, so I'm guessing it's a cable internet user), I would suggest leaving a comment on User talk:24.15.173.210 to see if you can get this person to explain their actions. Otherwise, there's no policy violation that would permit a block at this time. howcheng {chat} 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking the Jews from the Abramoff page

I am one of the users who is being blocked.

We were contributing to the Abramoff page and our edits were reasonable. At some point in the discussions STUFFOFINTEREST AND MP4wav decided to change the status quo and an editing war ensued. They then went to heavy guns bringing in Admins who would shut us out altogether.

We are being treated unfairly when, and you can see this in the history, our edits were just one word: Jewish, in the "early Years" section and we changed some of the conjecture in the "organizations" section without changing the basic meaning.

Why do you have this liner on the MAIN wik page if it isn't true: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Because we changed one word we are not WELCOME anymore?

It is not reasonable that we can't edit the page the way we want. You can't call our edit "VANDALISM" JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT or it doesn't meet your agenda.

85.250.102.83 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Range block / Jack Abramoff

The problem with anons at Jack Abramoff continues, and has now spread to the talk page hist. So:

• Can I sprotect a talk page (yes I know I *can*; is it considered unreasonable?)
• Can I reasonably range block 217.132.174.44/16?

Your input is appreciated... William M. Connolley 20:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

From Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy : In the exceptional circumstance that you protect a User or user talk page, use {{usertalk-sprotect}} instead. With regard to the range, it's not an AOL IP range, but maybe it belongs to another ISP. Jacoplane 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind that, you were referring to an article talk page. Jacoplane 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The IP you mentioned: 217.132.174.44 ISRAEL, TEL AVIV, Jerusalems BROADBAND SERVICE. Should be fine to block. Jacoplane 20:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

He's actually asking about the IP range 217.132.0.0/16, which is a lot of addresses—presumably the entire ISP's pool of broadband IP addresses with maybe some collateral damage on the side. It might be better to sprotect the pages in question if that's the only place where trouble is coming up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll hold off the range block for the moment :-), esp as it would have been my first. William M. Connolley 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Okay, I have to admit my own ignorance here. But will someone good with slow people (read: me) mind explaining to me what exactly a range block is? What is this /16 thing... a multiplier I guess, but how does it functionally work? If this is too much explanation to be reasonable on-wiki, maybe someone could point me to an informational website somewhere. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

m:Range blocks, and no, I don't really understand it either.--Sean Black (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See CIDR for the explanation of the /16. --cesarb 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Our Subnetwork article lays it out pretty well, but it is not a simple concept. Where I work, I need to explain how IP ranges work sometimes in training, but I need a blackboard to make it clear. Jonathunder 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Unh, Jewish "vandal" here. You could try to to range block our IP address as part of the CIDR block, which as you can see matches the CIDR prefix but then you would essentually have to block out EVERYONE IN HAIFA, and a little secret. We are rerouting. You might have to block out the entire north of Israel. But going by some of the Israel Bashing attitudes here YOU MIGHT LIKE DOING THAT. 85.250.102.83 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Once you set the R-block, we can reset the range until you will have to really shut out the entire world. Or so says our smart Jewish Computer expert. Who we are holding back with a chain.

• • Such histrionics will get you nowhere, sir. Calm down. --Golbez 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that several ranges have been used. Another one seems to be in Haifa. See the history on the main article and its talk page for other examples. If you can keep the article and it's talk page semi-protected for a while I think things will be better. The person (or persons) in question don't seem to be ranging very widely. --StuffOfInterest 21:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, sorry to be a pest, but the vandal has now turned his attention to Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor. Could it possibly be included in the protection? --StuffOfInterest 21:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And add in with that Talk:Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor. Current round of vandalism coming from 85.250.122.199. --StuffOfInterest 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And now from 85.250.102.83 --StuffOfInterest 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --StuffOfInterest 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

66.237.172.226 (talk · contribs) has just come to Wikipedia:Articles for creation asking for a talk page for Talk:Jack Abramoff, to discuss its semi-protection. ☺ Uncle G 23:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I've already made one Talk:Jack_Abramoff/anon_talk, though it may no longer be needed... [30] William M. Connolley 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

I see that that sprotect was removed overnight (Eastern US time). Of course, soon afterward, our friend who contributed above returned. I expect that things will be going full speed ahead again soon. He is now working from 62.0.142.2 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Also interesting to see that he is posting threats and acusations over here now (noted above from IP 85.250.102.83 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). --StuffOfInterest 11:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible personal information disclosure, needs attention?

I don't know if this is worth attention, but the articel American Chess Association had someone write up a strongly biased, highly PoV rant on the subject, that also included someones SSN. Is this grounds for revision deletion, or am I overreacting, or...? Thanx 68.39.174.238 21:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Says the guy is dead, so does it matter? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it matters. I have removed the infor from the page history, along with plenty of other reverted vandalism by the same IP. The IP has been blocked for repeated vandalism and legal threats. Physchim62 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Upon notice of your death, the federal government publishes your SSN. I'm not sure why they do this, but if I had to guess it is probably to help reconcile banking and financial records which may be part of your estate. Regardless of the reason, the SSN of a deceased person is public record. In fact I just went and looked it up and I can verify that the name matches the SSN provided. The SSN is not something we need worry about. Dragons flight 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The main reason for publishing the SSN upon death is to prevent misuse. If someone tried to use that SSN to open a bank account, for example, it would raise red flags at the bank as soon as routine checks were done. Jonathunder 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters or not, but it does not seem to add to the article, so I took it out of the text of the article. As for deleting it from the history, it does not seem to me that Physchim62 has actually done this. The information seems to still be there. Johntex\^talk 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All the personal info appears to be gone now. Ral315 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Mallowans

Could a British editor have a look at this article? An email to the Help Desk mailing list by a person claiming to be the Ian Mallowan discussed in the article says there is no such tv show. I have no idea about BBC reality TV, but the email claims it was created by a friend to make fun of him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The footnote gives it away a bit! Physchim62 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a self-admitting obvious hoax. And yes, I'm British and I'm sure. I've speedy deleted it as 'vandalism'. If any policy wonks want to undelete and take it to AfD, they can go ahead and waste their time. --Doc ^ask? 01:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Policy-wonk that I am, I have just deleted the image that went with it. teased you with the edit summary, huh?-Splash^talk 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

use of sockpuppet during a block

During a block of user Tina M.Barber on 1/26 a new Wiki account was made with IP 24.242.252.125. Posts by this new user continued in the same manner as Tina M. Barber but were signed as "Carmen" Today, 2/2 this same IP address was again used yet this time the signature was MaShiloh, also used in signing Tina M. Barber's account [[31]] . It appears that the new account 24.242.252.125 was created either by Tina M. Barber or a meatpuppet as a way to circumvent her block and continue with attacks. There is a current Rfc on this user yet she continues to break Wiki policies with total disregard. I would ask that this be investigated and yet another block on both accounts. Thank you ShenandoahShilohs 02:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Final Solution linking to a virus-inserting site

The Final Solution (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked the above user indefinitely for repeatedly inserting a link to wikipedia DOT on DOT nimp DOT org, which apparently infects loads the browsing computer with a virus malware/forkbombs. If such actions don't warrant an indef block, feel free to shorten it, but I believe that such actions are extremely harmful and are grounds for banning. --Deathphoenix 02:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I got the IP. Working now on adding the link to the blacklist. Raul654 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I got it working. Any attempt to save a page with a link to that page will fail. Raul654 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No virus, just a Javascript forkbomb, a bunch of shock images, and a not-computer-lab-safe shockwave sound effect -- none of which works in a text-only browser :-). --Carnildo 08:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Corrected above. I was just repeating what the WP:AIV reporter said, and I was certainly not willing to test the link myself, since my "test" computer is currently out of commission. :-P --Deathphoenix 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what I keep a copy of Lynx or Telnet around for. There's very little that can get through Lynx, and nothing can touch telnet. --Carnildo 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look urgently at attack on Main Page article Restoration spectacular

Thank you for trying to stop him; however his edit led me to getting a virus and having to restart my computer. I want his IP address hard-banned and all user accounts indefinitely blocked. NicAgent 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I got the above message on my page from a user who has helped revert vandalism on today's Main Page article. OK, I don't understand these things. Does it make sense about the virus? I have semiprotected the article; no, I know I'm not supposed to, but a concerted attack like this warrants it, I think. I'm going to bed now, could somebody please look into the virus thing, and unprotect the article whenever it seems possible/reasonable? Compare also the thread above, it's the same link being inserted. Bishonen | talk 02:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

See my comment above. Raul654 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The named accounts are all indef blocked. -Splash^talk 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Clicking on the link that was added to the page certainly brings up a load of GNAA-branded mal-stuff; very possibly a viral payload or two in there as well. Fun. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am checking on that possiblity right now. Raul654 02:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I've indef blocked Cyber_ninja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was inserting the link into Wikipedia. Before I saw this discussion, I was going to check out the website to see what it was, but my instint told me not to, and from the description above, I'm glad that I didn't. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the semiprotection from the article. Because I've added the website to the blacklist, any attempt to revert to a version of the article containing that link will fail. Raul654 02:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul654, thanks guys, you rock. Bishonen | talk 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

Wonderful! --Deathphoenix 02:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Last Measure

I took a look (using wget and less) at the source code of that page, and it is obviously Last Measure. It's not a virus. --cesarb 02:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What's more, [32] has the revealing snippet: "Any subdomain or file on *.on.nimp.org leads to the above linked Last Measure, as the 404 error page has been replaced with Last Measure.". Raul654, please change the blacklist regexp to be more abrangent. --cesarb 02:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's good. I'll note that this one did launch Outlook express on me, a behavior I don't see mentioned on Last Measure (Though the visuals all fit, of course. And I'm always glad I run with my speakers turned off :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, looking at the code for that page, it seems it has code to create some iframes with mailto: links. I'd guess the visual effect of that would be the same as clicking on a mailto: link — to open whatever has been configured as your default MUA. It also seems to use news: links. --cesarb 03:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how to modify the blacklist entry so as to include all *.on.nimp.org files. I've added an entry for on\.nimp\.org (which is my best guess) but I performed a test and it appears not to have worked (at user:Raul654/temp). Raul654 02:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at other entries on the blacklist, I'd try \.on\.nimp\.org (perhaps the extra \. at the beginning does the trick). --cesarb 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good call - that did it. Raul654 03:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How could it not be a virus?? When I clicked on the link to gauge the magnitude of the vandalism, I was appaled at its shock-site nature, but then all of a sudden my virus protector detected four infections, only two of which were corrected before no less than 47 processes on my computer started up and forced its rebooting to clear the viruses through the safeguard I use, eTrust Personal Firewall. NicAgent 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because it triggered your antivirus program doesn't necessary means it's a virus. Antivirus programs nowadays tend to be on the lookout for lots of different kinds of malware - not necessarily just viruses and worms. Raul654 03:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why did the programs of Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook open like 20+ windows each? Obviously something went wrong... NicAgent 03:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See my answer above. --cesarb 03:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but virus or no virus it was "malware". Goodnight; its been quite a long evening for us here on Wikipedia. NicAgent 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a fool rushing in where angels fear to tread: It kind of depends on your definition of "virus." There was no code downloaded to you, NicAgent, that replicated itself in your memory. It ran once. Now, that one run meant "Open everything! Play obnoxious noises! Show disgusting pictures!," and it could even have meant "Overwrite the home page on the browser to us," and it might even have been "Redirect all searches to our Pr0wno site." Those things are malicious, damaging, potentially very, very, very damaging, but they're not replication. So they can be fully awful, immoral, evil, bad, stinky, uncool, stupid, pustular, vaccuous, invidious, abhorrent, vile, assinine, puerile, criminal, and otherwise bad without actually being viruses. Geogre 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Leifern

Threats, baseless assertions of vandalism and reverts, first without reading the Talk page and then again.

I'd be grateful if the pages in that cluster Thimerosal Anti-vaccinationist (which I think needs a lot of work but will become rather interesting, and really would benefit from the anti-vaccinationists joining in and editing rather than attacking) could receive some ovrsight, please. I don't like the threats and calumny - the edit is arguably bold, but not without discussion and is sensible. Thimerosal in particular was much improved by it. Midgley 03:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Leifen's communication - I think he may have trouble achieving NPOV on that page...

" Vandalism

If you delete an entire section of an article like that again, I will report you for vandalism. My son was poisoned by thimerosal and is only now starting to recover. I don't expect everyone to believe me, but I want people to be aware of the specifics of the controversy. Readers of Wikipedia have a right to make informed consent. --Leifern 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you a sockpuppet for Geni? --Leifern 01:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You are now reported for vandalism. --Leifern 02:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC) "

This isn't really a matter for AN/I. It's only been going on for a few hours so it is probably a little early for an RFC. Best left until we see what effect everyone getting some sleep has had.Geni 03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A note to Leifern, if he's reading this—it's not a matter for WP:AIV, either. Please don't mistake good-faith boldness in refactoring articles for vandalism. Please, everyone, get a good night's sleep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• section blanked pending clarification from User:MSJapan *

Talk:Acharya S

See this and this, and [33]. Violation of WP:NPA. --Ragib 07:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Gave him a {{npa2}}. If he continues past {{npa3}}, just block him. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik

Ambi has blocked Bobblewik for two weeks for his efforts in unlinking dates and used rollback to reverse his most recent changes. I understand where she's coming from but I feel the block is a bit excessive. Bobblewik has not been trying to force the date linking issue - he uses the edit summary "Make date links match policy ie MoS(dates), MoS(links) etc. Revert or comment in MoS talk". I was happy to see those changes on pages on my watchlist and those who have not been as happy have reverted without problems. Discussion on this issue has been stagnant for some time and it seems to me that Bobblewik's efforts are a good way of generating wider discussion - but I'm obviously biased since I happen to agree with him :) - Haukur 07:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If discussion has stalled, he should post here or at the Village Pump, not just assume "Silence=Agreemant" and instistute his changes en masse.--Sean Black (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I will say this: even though I disagree with the unlinking project, when you revert his unlinks, he leaves it alone. He doesn't edit war over it. Sometimes I leave articles after his unlinking, and sometimes I roll them back (if the article is highly historical, where each year matters a great deal), but, whichever action I take, he doesn't pursue it. I agree that he should get positive assent, not lack of dissent, before making a mass change, but I also don't think a block of that duration is necessarily called for if that's the only issue. I doubt it is. Geogre 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can see Ambi's reasons for the block at User_talk:Bobblewik. - Haukur 12:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

She makes excellent points. I agree with her requests and therefore her block. I do hope he uses a separate account for his -bot. Geogre 13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Can we document scope and duration of suspension of the Manual of Style? Thincat 13:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• "His efforts are a good way of generating wider discussion" sounds like WP:POINT to me - "state your point, don't show it experimentally". >Radiant< 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  I may be nitpicking but WP:POINT refers to actions which one undertakes but doesn't actually want done just to prove a point. Bobblewik clearly believes that his changes are beneficial. Your new signature is striking, by the way. - Haukur 14:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think that's nitpicking - it's an important thing. Just because someone perceives a bold action as "disruptive" doesn't make it a WP:POINT violation. (I hope I should know, I wrote large chunks of the guideline in question!) Personally I think Bobblewik's changes are largely beneficial, though I've disagreed with them in some cases - though not at all enough to demand he stop - David Gerard 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I point out that his edits are strictly in line with the current recomendations of the MoS, and while this guideline has been much debated, a consensus to change it has not yet formed, as far as I can tell. Disclosure: i favor the current guideline, and have made soem edits of the same sort. But blocking soemone for editing in accordance with the current state of the MoS seems improper to me. DES ^(talk) 18:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

More malware at Restoration spectacular on Main Page

At this edit is yet another GNAA link which was inserted an hour or two ago; please do what it is you do with that as well (see above). I've blocked the inserter, another nonce account. Bishonen | talk 08:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

Tinylink.com, tinyurl.com, and all other URL shortener sites should probably be on the spam blacklist -- there's no way to tell where the URL goes. --Carnildo 08:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is a malicious site spreading malware, it should probably be deleted from the history as well. I have not tested the link :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 09:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I did. It's a nasty shock site that cycles various potentially offensive and/or disgusting pictures while spewing Javascript alerts to make leaving the site difficult. It also includes sound, but I didn't turn the volume up enough to hear what it was playing. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you tested it and not me :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 10:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is User:Timecop still blocked? And yet we still have GNAA members allowed to use Wikipedia. Has the person inserting the malware links been blocked indefinitely? User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Watch this space - David Gerard 17:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Unblocked by Curps with reason "Whatever", reblocked by Mark Sweep for trolling (well duh) then unblocked by Freak of Nurture because nobody is commenting on this (huh?). On the one hand it may be time for an ArbCom case on the entire GNAA matter. On the other hand they'd probably enjoy that. >Radiant< 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, the offending and potentially damaging link is still in the history. [34] I thought it had been removed? --Cactus.man ✍ 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, deleting individual reversions is (1) very difficult/impossible for pages with a large number of reversion, and (2) a very bad idea while it's on the main page Raul654 19:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked IP

207.172.82.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 1 hour per WP:NPA and vandalism to User:Eusebeus. Not on the AOL range lists as far as I can tell, can someone please double check that this is OK. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like a cable modem IP, and they tend to be a little sticky. I would have blocked him longer, since he uses sneaky edit summaries and has been doing this for at least a day. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, will extend to 24h. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism after repeated warnings

Anonymous user User talk:209.158.191.252 was blocked at December 9, but vandalized several pages since. On January 6 he received a last warning. Today he changed text in Pompeii and Stonehenge into nonsense. Please block. China Crisis 13:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Skull 'n' Femurs sockpuppet block

One of the many contributing to pushing Freemasonry toward 'wasteland' status is Skull 'n' Femurs (talk · contribs), who has been running at least two (Blue Square and Ima User). I blocked him 48 hours because he knew damn well what he was doing. (Assume Good Faith, but not in the face of the bloody obvious.) - David Gerard 14:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio violation

This is a copyright violation. The author of the piece, User:Zapatancas, is reverting the copyright violation himself instead of leaving an admin to sort it. he has now done this twice, here and here.

I warned him after his first revert here and he writes back accusing me of disruptive behaviour. Please can an admin urgently intervene as the author of a susopected copyvio cvannot keep reverting the copyvio notice. Perhaps a 24-hour block to cool him down? SqueakBox 15:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox has harassed me for long and that is another part of his harassment. The supposed source of the article, [35], explains clearly that the article is copied from the Wikipedia (in case of doubt, search Wikipedia with your browser). Zapatancas 15:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't, and won't, comment on the supposed harrassment here, but Zapatancas is definitely right about the "copyvio". The article SqueakBox linked to is from TheFreeDictionary, which is a copy of Wikipedia. Thus, not a copyvio. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

More riuibbish from Zapatrancas, who is the one harrassing me not the other way around. I did not put the copyvio notice on the article but I do nknow Zapatancas has no right to take it off. When Ihe first reverted I told him to get an admin to look at it but he would rather harrass me. If it isn't a copoyvio someone else can remove the notice. Zapatncas cannot so if Mark wants to he can. Zapatancas has now done it a third time. Please can an admin look at this situation, SqueakBox 15:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the notice. The article is obviously not a copyvio, and I see no reason why Zapatancas couldn't have removed the notice himself. In principle, we probably don't want "authors" removing copyvio notices. However, this tagging was so obviously a mistake that somebody had to remove it, and forcing Zapatancas to go get someone to do it is just silly m:Instruction creep.

By the way, I notice you both came right up to the very edge of the 3RR. Tut, tut. That's very irresponsible. I don't know what your problem with each other is, but revert warring is harmful wherever it takes place. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Abramoff

New day, new IP addresses for the vandal on Talk:Jack Abramoff. Today he is giving a repeat of yesterday in subtituting a modified version of the article text for the talk page. --StuffOfInterest 15:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, only one IP was hitting it today so I blocked it. So far so good. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Male bikiniwearing

The deleted article Male bikini-wearing has re-appeared as Male bikiniwearing. Can someone delete it?? --Sunfazer (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and protected. Have a nice day. --cesarb 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

With Male bikini wearing already protected, maybe we can look forward to "Ma1e bikini wearing", "MALE BIKINI WEARING", "Male bikini wareing", etc. etc. --Deathphoenix 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. --cesarb 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Male all natural bikini wearing v1agr4? Geogre 17:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• No need to suggest that, see MALE BIKINIWEARING and its deletion log. Some trolls just don't give up easily. DES ^(talk) 18:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We may just wanna buy the guy a nice bikini and be done with it. Any cash left over from the Foundation drive last month? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I said "MALE BIKINI WEARING" (with the space), but I guess the existence of the title without the space shows that my attempt at humour is already a reality. --Deathphoenix 18:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"MALE BIKINI WEARING" has also apparently been a reality. ;) SyrPhoenix 18:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh great. I'd better stop making suggestions, lest WP:BEANS comes into play. --Deathphoenix 19:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

esotericgoldendawn.com spammer

We've been having a problem with someone spamming www.esotericgoldendawn.com across the External links of a wide range of articles recently, with the descriptive line modified to fit whatever article the person is putting it on. See for example, the contributions of User:66.46.183.16, User:216.30.172.221, User:24.22.204.79, User:209.200.60.124, User:Dr. Gold, and I think lots of others I could track down if I spent the time.

The person doing this seems to have the sole purpose of adding that site to as many articles as possible, but occasionally adding one other or (more often) removing some other links). Normally I'd just undo these by hand, but there have been soooo many of them lately and sopersistent, it'd be nice if the site was added to our blocklist (I know it exists, have edited articles and not been able to save because an existing link buried in the middle of the article somewhere was on the list). Anybody want to tackle this or knows what's best to do, please be my guest. DreamGuy 17:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked the lot of them for 48 hours so we can discuss this with a time-out from further linkspamming. Given that this campaign has been running for quite some time already, somehow I doubt that'd help. What is the nature of these IPs? Open prox? Flexible dialup? Or what? >Radiant< 17:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User: Terryeo

Terryeo has been a problematic editor of Scientology-related pages for quite some time now, deleting large portions of articles that are critical of Scientology and replacing them with illogical, poorly-written, non-neutral advertisements for Dianetics and Scientology. Since his edits are quickly reverted by many others, it hasn't been worth complaining about until recently: he has taken up the trolling tactic of attributing insulting statements to other editors that they did not make, especially myself. Today on the Talk:Suppressive_Person page, he claims I have stated "Scientology is bunk", which I have never said. A few weeks ago he stated on several different talk pages, "Wikipediatrix said 'Dianetics Kills'", which I also never said. There are at least three other incidents where Terryeo has done this, and when pressed on the matter each time, he simply ignores it and changes the subject. This constant lying about me is highly annoying and seems to be to proof of Terryeo's lack of good-faith editing and his desire to simply cause trouble on the Scientology pages, not to mention smear the reputations of editors who dare oppose him. wikipediatrix 17:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

One needs to show efforts to resolve the matter before escalating a dispute. If you can give a list of edits where you have attempted to resolve the dispute that would be useful. Then I can approach him too and see if we can't get some communication in progress without everything going apocalyptic - David Gerard 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it occurs to me he's ignored several people's concerns in this matter. This is the sort of situation an RFC was made for - David Gerard 00:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to wade through the many edits on literally dozens of Scientology articles.... it's not something it occurred to me to keep records of till now. I was really expecting that some Scientology-watching admin would have already noticed his edit-warring which approaches vandalism at times (see the diff on this article where he typically inserts criticism of previous edits and their editors into the text of the article itself!), and his insufferable behavior on talk pages (Talk:Sea_Org and Talk:Clear_(Scientology), for example). If anyone out there reading these words cares whether or not the many Scientology pages on Wikipedia are censored by Scientologists and turned into blatant POV commercials for Dianetics, I urge them to keep a CLOSE watch on Terryeo and his edits. wikipediatrix 05:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Netoholic for revert warring on Template:Infobox

Earlier today I blocked Netoholic (talk · contribs) for engaging in a tandem revert war on Template:Infobox (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infobox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after someone requested on WP:RPP that it be protected. Considering the parties involved looked to be administrators I wasn't confident that protecting it would have any effect...but when I looked at the block record of Netoholic and checked the directives given on enforcing his ArbCom decision I felt he was being disruptive so I decided to enforce the ban regarding 1RR. I didn't block either of the other two because neither party violated 3RR in my opinion.

As Netoholic has contacted me by email and requested that his block be lifted, I welcome comments on this matter here. I will admit I am still somewhat new to my adminship so perhaps my interpretation is wrong, and I wouldn't be opposed to a shortening or lifting of the ban based on comments. I have also offered him an immediate repeal of the ban if he will refrain from the revert war on that template. --Syrthiss 18:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User is unblocked. --Syrthiss 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

He usually does something similar. silsor 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to stop this merry-go-round of aggravation (before we get Netoholic's fourth block today) I have suggested that a simple test be performed to determine whether or not edits to high use templates represent a risk to the servers. I'd appreciate any comments at the talk page linked above. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• He is also revert warring with Locke Cole on Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, which I have protected for the time being. >Radiant< 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• • What a funny, and biased, way to describe the situation. I can barely make any template-related edit anymore without being wikistalked. -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Incipient wheel war

There appears to be an incipient wheel war brewing on {{User admins ignoring policy}}. See [36] for the status so far. The template was nominated on WP:TFD, where the usual arguments ensued. Then, about a day after its listing, it was speedy deleted by User:MarkSweep with the summary "trolling". This is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion, and is very ill-defined; in practice, the term is often applied not only to disruption but also to good-faith disagreement. There was no consensus on WP:TFD, and at least one user asked for the template to be restored so he could see what he was discussing [37]. User:Karmafist then restored it since the original deletion was out of process and a debate was still ongoing. MarkSweep then deleted it again with this summary: "out-of-process re-creation". This, too, is spurious, since it was the original deletion that was out-of-process, and a discussion was still taking place on WP:TFD. I am re-creating (from memory, as I lack administrative powers) the userbox at this time. Apparently, the initial userbox contained a link to User:Kelly Martin's RFC. This has been removed, and replaced with a link to WP:ACC, which cannot possibly be construed as a personal attack against anyone. I strongly urge that the debate on WP:TFD be allowed to run its course. I have attempted to discuss the issue with MarkSweep on his home page, but have received no response (except an accusation of WP:POINT on an unrelated TFD nomination). The irony is that by deleting this userbox, Mark is proving the point of his opponents. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I restored the history, although my connection is a bit dodgy at the moment so I cannot check that all is OK. Personally I think this template is about as much use to an encyclopedia as {{user OJ}}, and should be deleted accordingly. It's only saving grace is its irony, as users who place it on their talk page are ignoring WP:DR and instead making remarks which they do not verify. Physchim62 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no jutifaction for a speedy delete, much less repeated deletes on this tempalte. The current TfD seems to be heading towards delete, which I disagree with, but if that's what people want... In any case what is the rush about this? DES ^(talk) 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You maybe didn't check the link. This is (was) a personal attack template against an individual editor. Speedy deleted. Physchim62 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It wasn't a personal attack. It was critical of a particular editor, though, in a possibly-inappropriate way. Isn't editing it a less invasive way to remove the alleged personal attack than deletion? Friday (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• If people are upset about admin actions, they should use dispute resolution (ANI, RFC, RFM etc), not grumble about it on their talk pages. 'tis better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. >Radiant< 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• We don't need the kind of incessant needling and taunting expressed by this template. I've seen a number of trolls act that way: they whine and complain and taunt, and when someone tells them to cut it out, they whine even more about how they've now been wronged and attacked. We shouldn't let ourselves be bullied into keeping a template which serves no useful purpose, just because someone will construe its deletion as a confirmation of the template's message. If you have specific misgivings about specific admin actions, you're more than welcome to air them in the appropriate venues. But vague whining and passive-aggressive farting in the administrators' general direction as exemplified by this template is utterly pointless, it's poisoning the well, and it will not stand. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist (talk · contribs) and unfree images in template/userspace

Hi. Karmafist (talk · contribs) has started reverting userbox templates back to containing unfree-copyrighted images again [38] [39] [40] [41]. I left a message at User talk:Karmafist quite some time ago, and the response left me with the impression that I am not the best person to get through to that user about this. Since it is my impression that User:Karmafist is a valued member of the community, I was hoping that someone who has a good collaborative relationship with User:Karmafist could perhaps have a word with him or her. Thanks. Jkelly 22:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea for a respected admin to play on the border of the 3RR rule. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC) [42]

New Instantnood Block

Not even two days after the block expired Instantnood is at it again, based on the following edits I have blocked him for two weeks for violation of his probation.

• Stanley [43]

  Queen's Road [44]

  Queensway, Hong Kong [45]

  Category:Cinema of Hong Kong [46]

  Category:Macau newspapers [47]

  Category:Hong Kong newspapers [48]

  --Wgfinley 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Democratic peace theory

There was an arbcom case on several articles, including this one, which resulted in a decision that the revert war on it should stop, and be replaced by consensual editing. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine.

I was invited to edit the article again in January. When Ultramarine returned to it, be did (literally) nothing but add fivedispute tags to it, and make disputes on the talk page - largely advocating a revert to his November edit. Some I agree with; some I think are unjustified; some I don't understand. Kim Bruning is mediating this.

Today Ultramarine added a paragraph, and some {{dubious}} tags, which inspired me to do a long job of editing I had been putting off - including editing his paragraph, and addressing some of the complaints in the dispute tags.

Ultramarine now appears to claim here that the Arbcom decision affotds him a veto over all my editing (on this page) whatsoever, and threatens to appeal. I thought I would make this statement for the record first. If there is consensus in favor of Ultramarine's reading, I should like to know. Septentrionalis 22:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no absolute prohibition of reverts, and it is generally thought that reverts do have a place in consensus-building, (obviously, within reason) as a part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. So revert, as long as you are planning to discuss, as well, towards consensus. Edit warring, specifically, persistent anti-consensus reverting is another matter entirely, and what should be met with blocks. I trust your mediator, or any uninvolved admins, to make that judgment and react accordingly, but there should be no stop to consensus-building. Dmcdevit·t 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This edit, however, is an exact, verbal reversion to the edit Ultramarine has frequently indicated he wants to revert to. That is very close to the line, if not over it. These salami tactics are unacceptable. (The first sentence is not part of the reversion; it is consensus.) Septentrionalis 04:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I moved some text from your own version to a different place and added some well-sourced information. The text is not in the same sections and not in the same context. Furhermore, it is not the same text, "democide" is changed to "internal political violence", as you yourself found acceptable on the talk page. You have made numerous edits that in essence reverted to your version. I have not reported this and instead have tried to discuss the changes on the talk page in good faith. However, also I am allowed to add contents to the article, you do not own it. Pmanderson, please instead discuss the factual contents and arguments, we have a mediator. Ultramarine 05:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

user:Simonides

Personal attacks directed at two editors on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Wyss 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

As many here will have noticed, this article has received a mindblowing amount of user attention over the past few days. Because the article is still linked to from the main page, it cannot the protected or semi-protected. The result of that is that the cartoon is removed from the article on an almost minute-to-minute basis. This is being done despite a clear and overwhelming consensus on the talk page to keep the cartoon in the article (currently 161/21/12), and despite massive warnings surrounding the image, telling the user that the image should by no means be removed. I believe that these warnings are not enough, and that removers won't listen to talk page warnings, since Allah is more important to most of them than Wikipedia. I propose a drastic measure. It has probably never been done before, and I hope it will never be done again. I believe that it is necessary to immediately block anyone who removes the cartoon from the article for 24 hours for blanking vandalism. This should stop the influx of vandalism on the article, which would reduce the need for full-protection/semi-protection once the article is no longer linked to from the main page. This in turn would allow good-faith IP's to contribute valuable information to the article. I'm afraid that the situation on the article is getting out of hand. We currently need around-the-clock vigilantes on the article, which costs valuable editor time that could be spent much more effectively on other articles. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, we can 3RR block persistent image removers. I just blocked 211.43.206.161 for example. howcheng {chat} 23:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem is also rapidly approaching a block. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem has been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to exempt those restoring the image from 3RR, but I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of blocking someone because they're expressing their faith, even if their methods are less than productive. Block persistent edit warriors (like with any article), not passerbys.--Sean Black (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that insta-blocks will work; most such editors are drive-by. I'm beginning to think we should semi- the article for a little while since it is probably being hit harder than George W. Bush on a pre-semi day. -Splash^talk 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to complicate things, current reversions are coming from Saudi Arabian block proxies: anyone care to turn off Wikipedia in Saudi Arabia, 'cos I don't... Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be an exemption from 3RR for people who restore the image. The IPs go through 8,9, 10 removals before being blocked, and all the conscientious users exhaust their three reverts. This should be regarded as simple vandalism, and we should be able to restore it as many times as necessary? Do people agree with that? The community consensus is well over a supermajority here. Babajobu 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. These reverts are blanking reverts, which is 3rr exempt. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and I've said before this may be the exceptional case where it makes sense to protect an article linked from the main page. However, consensus is not actually established by polls, it is also established by action, and going down the road of discounting the opinions of those people removing the image from the article in your definition of consensus is a dangerous one. It is a tempting thing to imagine that having the image missing for a while is a terrible consequence, but it isn't really, and the article will eventually stabilize on a good (accepted) version. In the meantime, many people will have learned they can edit Wikipedia, and a few of them, even if they might not be making such great edits to this particular article, may stay and do something useful. There is precedent for restoring consensus being exempted from the 3RR (Gdansk/Danzig) but that was very well-discussed for a long time, while we have actually not been discussing this for that long. Demi ^T/_C 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Demi, you cur! You fiend! You Judas! ;-) Yes, your points are well taken. I agree with you that polls are a crude manner of gauging consensus, but this one has produced an unusually emphatic answer. Regardless, I suspected that not everyone would agree that this situation warranted an exemption from 3RR; some agree, some don't. Perhaps a poll? ;-) Babajobu 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Instablock is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. That's my 2¢. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm happier with sem-protecting than with instant blocking. Semi is unfortunate and un-wikilike - and leaves noobs wondering what wikipedia is. But a good-faith drive-by noob who sees an image he passionetley objects to, reads 'anyone can edit' and decides to do just that, then gets blocked without any warning? That will look like draconian anti-Islamic censorship. If we have to do something (and do we?) lets semi for a time. --Doc ^ask? 23:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Main page articles can't be semi'd, but I think IAR was meant for cases like this. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, forget instablocking, what about allowing restorers of the image to do so as many times as necessary? Are we agreed this is exempt from 3RR? Babajobu 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd not really necessary. There are plenty of people avalaible. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Baba here. It's not fair to block one way and not the other since the image is a disputed item here. Most people who visit the page probably didn't visit the poll on the talk page. Also the poll is full of people whose only edit has been to that poll and also IP addresses. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They may not have visited the poll, but they will have noticed the two massive warnings directly above the image. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well at least three people have disagreed that exemption from 3RR is appropriate as of now: Anonymous Editor, Demi, and Theresa. So for now I think that's enough to conclude that there is no consensus for exempting restorers of the image from 3RR. Though I've only very rarely engaged in revert wars, in this case there's really no other way to defend consensus, so before anyone blocks me, please give me a warning because at this point I have no clue where I stand in relation to 3RR! Cheers, Babajobu 00:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove sourced and valid information against consensus can be classified as vandalism without being unreasonable. Warn and block. Phil Sandifer 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Phil 100%. Removing the image is vandalism; it's black-latter policy that reverting vandalism does not count against the 3rr . Raul654 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Raul, so how should I and others proceed? Many admins do think this calls for exemption from 3RR, but at least three have stated that they don't...for those of us trying to ensure the image is kept as per the very strong consensus, do we regard 3RR as applicable here or no? Babajobu 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not breaking 3RR if you're reverting vandalism, that's all there is to it. So don't break 3RR—but restoring an image with strong consensus, when it's removed without discussion, isn't breaking anything. If an admin blocks or warns over your actions, politely refer them to this discussion. -- SCZenz 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Goodness! Then I've discovered a terrible vandal--right in our very midst! And the vandevelopers are in on it, too! Sorry--as much as we might wish we could dismiss the opinions of people we disagree with as "vandalism", this isn't it. Twisting the definition of vandalism to include everything you disagree with has become a common tactic--I think it might need to be added to our guide to discussion. However, it's engaging in sophistry to avoid dealing with an actual dispute as what it is--a dispute. You may disagree with the disputants, you may even be right, but that doesn't in itself make them vandals. Demi ^T/_C 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Slamdac is being awfully non-productive on the talk page... I think he's running dangerously close to some violations of policy. Anyone else? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, he's indicated that he agrees it's not helpful and he seems to be willing to back off. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Some admins are instablocking for one hour, even on shared IPs. If you must block, can you keep the time shorter on these IPs (for a first offense, obviously), there seem to be plenty of admins around to treat the problems on this page. Physchim62 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I said to Babajobu before that these people need at least one 3rr warning. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that people must get at least one warning before being blocked, I don't support instablocking. However, AE, it seems like there is a lot of support here for regarding removal of the image as vandalism, rather than a revert. Also, I'm not blocking anyone on this article, I only blocked one person who showed up on WP:ANI/3RR after I'd been away for several hours.Babajobu 00:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does the insta-block suggestion have to be for 24 hour blocks? Why not issue an hour block or something to start? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing the image is vandalism, but vandals get warnings. At least one hand-written explanation inviting the user to use the talk page would be the minimum appropriate before any block, I think. -- SCZenz 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't even support instablocking, there should be at least one warning, then block. Babajobu 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been using {{bv-n}} for first offense on thsi one, with an added msg explainign that ther is consensu to leave the image. On repeated removals after the warning, i will block as disruption -- but only for a short time if the IP might be shared. DES ^(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but these vandals are being meatpuppets/sockpuppets; a justification to block on sight. Calling your (cyber)-terrorist cell mates to come over and help vandalise Wikipedia puts them in the same boat. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf, your remarks are way out of line. There is no evidence these are sockpuppets or meatpuppets—in fact, I rather suspect they are not. -- SCZenz 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See also WP:BITE and WP:NPA. -- SCZenz 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the "terrorist" remark is in EXTREMELY poor form given the topic under discussion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...natalinasmpf, I actually do suspect there is some meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry here, but the terrorism remark was totally inappropriate, cut that out. Babajobu 01:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My experience on the Qu'ran page makes me suspect meatpuppetry. (The cell remark was just out of sarcastic exhaustion, pardon, I meant it mostly with the "cyber" prefix in there.) We already have a warning on the editing page. One should notice how the majority of the removals are mostly uniform, in the same kind of style. This kind of suggests someone posted about our article in some forum and asked people to help them vandalise it. It's just like voteflooding at AFD, only within a vandalism context. I don't have good opinions of people who are out to censor Wikipedia. I do have compassion for clueless newbies, but this is clearly malicious editing. I rather like the protestors' form of eye for an eye in expressing free speech, but it's the vandals who I equate with terrorism, I admit my remark it was a bit risque. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand the situation is frustrating... But for any given vandal, you can't tell if they're a clueless newbie or malicious; you can only see the general pattern. That being the case, I think we have to warn them—the situation is not so dire as to suspend basic Wikiquette. -- SCZenz 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well one warning and that is it, IMO. Looking through most of the diffs it appears that most have a bad faith intent. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created Template:Mohammed as a warning template for users removing the image. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The page was semi-protected for a while, and that seemed to work fairly well. I realize its disadvantages for brand-new editors, who simply want to genuinely add the article. (A template on talk suggesting accounts?) Septentrionalis 04:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See template:anon. We already have one! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Look up the user history of the IP User:165.230.149.152 - and you'd see that there was no repeat cartoon blanking vandalism on the Mohammed controversy from that IP. 165.230.149.154 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC) That means that there was no reason for that IP to be blocked.

Locke Cole

Can someone please take a look at Netoholic (talk · contribs)'s user page? A number of editors have removed fair-use images used in violation of our fair-use policy (specifically, WP:FUC, item 10). I've attempted to inform him of the policy on his user page, but he removed it and continued to insert the fair-use images. Instead of accepting policy, he has accused me of wiki-stalking on my talk page. Some assistance here would be appreciated. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This user is wikistalking me the last few days. He's revert warred on my user page, and left taunting challenges across several other pages. Admins, please look at his contribs and confirm that he's been following me around.

• reverting me on my user page, including vandalism after I change the image inclusions into links.
• followed me to Template talk:Infobox CVG in order to oppose my comments - a page he's never edited before.
• reverting me three times on Leet - a page he's never edited before
• About an hour after I made this edit on Template:Ship_table, he posted this note. He's never edited Ship_table or the talk page before.

There are more, but these are the most obvious ones. I would appreciate someone giving him a warning. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole is blocked for 24 hours edit warring and 2nd block for harassment of Neto on his user page. Neto, fair use images are not allowed in the user space so that image should be removed but it's not his place to keep reverting your user page. Obviously this has absolutely nothing to do with Neto's user page and has everything to do with arguments on Template:Infobox and AUM and this kind of nonsense should cease post-haste. --Wgfinley 06:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I saw this is Locke's 2nd block in 24 hours for edit warring and 2nd block for harassment so I have increased the block to 48 hours. --Wgfinley 06:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how this block is consistent with WP:AGF. Aren't we assuming bad faith by conjuring up a nefarious motive for what is admitted to be justified edits? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

He's still edit warring on someone else's userpage. This is a good block, though Neto should back off, too.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that by sanctioning Locke and not Netoholic (even though Netoholic was himself technically violating Wikipedia policy on fair use images) there are some concerns about evenhandedness. This is especially important because Netoholic has often been able to get away with pushing the rules very far, and in some cases, outright breaking them. He's under an Arbcom injunction that is basically a dead letter. He has gotten some admin support by spinning various developer comments into support for WP:AUM. I'm afraid that this block of Locke Cole will simply embolden him to further edit warring and disruptive behavior. I'd have less of a problem if both had been blocked. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus, nothing in AGF states that you also have to be completely ignorant and pretend that Locke and you for that matter have been warring with Neto all day and might be just a wee bit enticed to harass him about his user page and Locke to coincidentally visit a number of articles he's never edited before that Neto just coincidentally happened to edit recently. --Wgfinley 06:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Who said it was coincidence? If a user makes disruptive or unwise edits on one page, it's perfectly reasonable to go through his other edits and see whether they might have been unreasonable as well. I do this all the time when I catch someone vandalizing or POV-pushing. Neto may be a bit more ambiguous, but his penchant for trying to fly "policy" in under the radar makes it necessary to watch his actions. Why have a "user contributions" link if you're not supposed to use it? FWIW, I have no interest in revert warring with him on his user page. When he tries to force his views on articles or templates against consensus, though, I will stand up to this. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Do I need to post a list showing that you're baiting/wiki-stalking me too, Crotalus? Here's just the most recent one, as food for thought. -- Netoholic @ 06:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That edit summary was indeed ill thought out. I apologize for it. I do not, however, apologize for preventing you from imposing your views on other Wikipedians. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Harassment: "This (Wikistalking) does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Reading" is never a problem. I made no statement that AUM was policy/guideline/whatever... I simply used it as a shortcut to explain my edit. As such, by reading my contribs and then using that information to make that edit was not some good-natured attempt to "fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". It was harassment. -- Netoholic @ 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't revert all your edits, or anything close to it. I only revert those few specific instances where your edits don't fit with the community consensus. Along with the disruptive edits, you make many productive ones, and those I leave alone. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting "all" of my edits would be a silly definition of "harassment", since it only takes a few well-placed reverts or comments to cause stress. I'll ask again... do you really want me to post a list of more examples of recent harassment by you? You don't have to answer, and if you don't answer, I'll take that as a sign you acknowledge what I'm saying about you is true, and I'll put it behind us. -- Netoholic @ 07:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus, Locke, Neto: All three of you need to stay the hell away from each other until you cool off.--Sean Black ^(talk) 07:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Fine. No more edits on this subject tonight. I need to finish the last part of Liberty Head nickel anyway. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you.--Sean Black ^(talk) 07:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

(3 edit conflicts later...)Crotalus, you are verging on wikilawyering, let me explain. First, there's a big difference between tracking a vandals edit and tracking the edits of someone you are having a disagreement with and so you follow him around to other pages where you don't agree with him, that's called wikistalking and per prior Arbcom decision is an offense which can get you banned. Second, I'm well aware of the issue with the image and am addressing it with Neto. There is nothing wrong with a user deleting an image from another user's page that is in violation, when it's undone that's when an admin should be notified, you don't take the law into your own hands and edit war on someone else's user page. Finally, many of your comments towards Neto that I have noticed throughout the day are ad hominem and speak of "imposing views" and "imposing policy" on people. He's not imposing anything by continuing to defend his position, he's doing it appropriately and maybe if you guys spent more time on the issues and less on personal attacks of each other on these articles/templates/etc in question there would be less of a problem. --Wgfinley 07:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You say that Locke Cole should have notified an admin.

Firstly, I disagree with that statement; admins have access to some extra buttons, but we do not possess a higher level of authority when it comes to policy enforcement (beyond the acts of which other users are technically incapable). Netoholic was patently wrong, and his persistent reversions didn't somehow change that. Locke didn't even violate the three-revert rule.

Secondly, Netoholic reverted my removal of the images too. (Though again, I don't see how the admin vs. non-admin issue is relevant.) —David Levy 07:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTHING justifies and edit war and that's exactly what he was doing on some other user's page! Look, I've seen lots of user pages that absolutely abhor me but I'm not going to go edit their page because I don't like it. Yes, he shouldn't have the fair use image on his page. How about leaving a message on his talk page asking him to remove it? No, neither you or Locke took the time to ask him on his talk page to remove it. So, yeah, if you came to MY user page and removed stuff and didn't bother to tell me why on talk (edit summaries are not a good method of communication) I would probably revert them. --Wgfinley 07:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic was edit warring too, and he was deliberately violating a policy in the process. And yet, you didn't block him, but you did block a user who violated no policy.

I don't understand why you believe that a talk page message was necessary, given the fact that several flawless explanations were provided via the edit summaries (and dismissed by Netoholic). Nonetheless, Locke Cole did post a detailed policy citation on Netoholic's talk page, and Netoholic "archived" it three minutes later.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain that whole "admin" thing to me. —David Levy 08:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic was not editing someone else's talk page, Netoholic was not following someone else around to other articles and then reverting them, Netoholic didn't cry and whine when I told him the image had to go, he just wanted it explained.

Finally, why would a talk page message asking someone to remove a fair use image from their user page be necessary? I don't know, maybe to be polite? Maybe because he didn't know about the policy? Maybe because that would give him an opportunity to take care of it himself?

Your last comment, I have no idea what you're talking about. --Wgfinley 08:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)