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

Continuous violation of WP:LIVING concerning a President in office

Sefringle (talk · contribs) has continuously reinserted libellous information on Ahmadinejad article.[1][2] The sources which is used for the information has nothing to do with the information provided. It seems that Sefringle is misusing his support from certain Jewish admins who monitor the article, to vandalize the article contrary to the WP:LIVING.[3] Unfortunately the highest level admins (namely user:Jayjg) not only do not stop this editor, but force other editors who try to fix his vandalism into blockage contrary to WP:IGNORE. [4] (Also removing tags informing the readers about the problems in the article, which will further encourage his violations.[5])

I have noted the wrong claims on the article's talk page as well as the user talk page, failing to receive any response for his edits, either from him or from the certain renowned admins involved in monitoring the article.[6][7]

The following is simply wrong, let alone uncited:

• Uncited and wrong claim of 50% quota - one whole paragraph, see below.
• Uncited claim that a student leader wants to topple Ahmadinejad's government, see below
• changing back elderly Iranians... -> "numerous Iranian..." - contrary to the source which state the former

looking at the paragraphs and sources in question:

In 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government applied a 50% quota for male students and 50% for female students in the University entrance exam for Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy. The plan was supposed to stop the growing presence of female students in the Universities. In a response to critics, Iranian minister of health and medical education, Kamran Bagheri Lankarani argued that there is not enough facilities such as dormitories for female students. Masoud Salehi, president of Zahedan University said that presence of women generates some problems with transportation. Also Ebrahim Mekaniki, president of Babol University of Medical Sciences stated that an increase in the presence of women will make it difficult to distribute facilities in a suitable manner. Bagher Larijani, the president of Tehran University of Medical Sciences made similar remarks. According to Rooz Online, the quotas lack a legal foundation and are justified as support for "family" and "religion."

• Persian source: the source says it's a bill proposed by some MPs and has nothing to do with the government and/or Ahmadinejad

An organization numbering 12,000 students led by student leader Abbas Fakhr-Avar, living in exile in the United States, opposes Ahmadinejad and hopes to topple his government.

• source: the person mentions the Ayatollahs regime/state, and doesn't mention Ahmadinejad's government at all. The only thing he says about Ahmadinejad is that "Ahmadinejad is stupid."

I understand that those "admins" involved are not to be questioned, but a warning or temporary block on this user is in the interest of Wikipedia.--Gerash77 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

plus what has been told above, please review all the contributions of that user in the main space of WP in that article, clearly violating WP:WTA and insisting on it and ignoring all the calls to honor it. --Pejman47 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For content disputes, please pursue the dispute resolution process. If you have WP:LIVING concerns, please use the noticeboard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you are one of the admins I was talking about in my report. Please respect the administrative policies, and don't interfere in matters that you yourself are involved as an admin. Thank you.--Gerash77 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What? He's one of the "certain Jewish admins" you discuss above? I read the article and its talk page. You and Sefringle have sources that say conflicting things. This happens all the time when you're writing articles. It's a content dispute, which should be solved by civil discussion. It's unfortunate that your civility seems to have lapsed on that talkpage.

Labelling edits made in a content dispute as vandalism is unacceptable, as is calling someone's edits "Jewish propaganda." Accusing someone of bias because of their religion or ethnicity borders on a personal attack. You should also stop asking questions of type "Have you stopped beating your wife?" as they are unhelpful. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't understand the reason for your furiousness. I did not want to name each one of the admins involved in this vicious violation of WP:LIVING, and defamation of a president in office,[8][9][10][11] was because I know what would have happened if I did. My report is very clear with regards to blatant violations, if you could even have a response for one of the libellous insertions, such as the false 50% quota, which is being reverted by this user, and his support from these "admins" who take out the simple tags we have placed there, then I take back my case. In any case, a look at the talk page and history page of the article would reveal the following admins who are not stopping these violations of policies, and taking sides with the violating party: Jayjg (talk · contribs), Avraham (talk · contribs), Jossi (talk · contribs) and Humus sapiens (talk · contribs). --Gerash77 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not angry and don't know where you get that idea. I have no stake in this dispute and am just offering my observation that it is a content dispute, not really something that would require admin tools. I also pointed out that it seems that your behavior on the talk page that is discouraging rational discussion of the dispute. You should confine yourself to commenting on the content of the article and not on the contributors. In addition, as Jossi has pointed out, the place to address WP:BLP issues is the BLP noticeboard. Alternatively or in addition, you could try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have re-checked my posts, and it has become apparent that I never have attacked any Wikipedia editor for their religion or ethnicity, or called any of their edits "propaganda". It seems that my unwillingness to name the admins have resulted in your bad assumptions. Please WP:AGF, thank you.--Gerash77 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You accused them of bias based on their ethnicity, which certainly borders on a personal attack, as I said above. Also, you don't, in fact, appear to have called someone's edits "Jewish propaganda" on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

No. Look at the article: "the Ayatollah regime" "Former President Khatami. 'He was a lie'" (this one I agree with) "President Ahmadinejad. 'Stupid'" ... which part of these Jewish propaganda can be called a reliable source?--Gerash77 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You say they introduce material from a source that is Jewish propaganda. Frankly, I don't see a lot of difference. I have no doubt that you are simply trying to get the article to reflect a neutral point of view, at least as you see things. You do seem to be pretty emotional about the topic, though, and this seems to have impaired rational discussion on the talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this is not a case for BLP discussions. It is a case of a person continuously violating policies, who has put many uncited WP:LIBEL into an article, and revert those who remove these libellous and uncited comments, and hence require intervention of an admin not involved in this issue.--Gerash77 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I did not call someone edits propaganda, thats in reference to an Israeli newspaper, please pay attention to details. Furthermore, please see my above post. Again, if you find one source who claims this 50% quota, or that this person says what is claimed on the article, I take back my case. I doubt that you can find it, which is why you are arguing when the case is an obvious wp:libel--Gerash77 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to find any source. I am not involved with editing the page. I'm trying to explain to you how to resolve a content dispute amicably. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, you are trying to distinguish between "Your edits are Jewish propaganda" and "Your edits rely on Jewish propaganda." I don't see much of a distinction there, but even if there is, use of the term "Jewish propaganda" is not necessary in disputing the reliability of the source and is needlessly inflammatory. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read BLP and LIBEL. The material should be taken out immediately per policies. Constant reversions of the past few days would require intervention of uninvolved admin, hence my report. In any case I thank you for your explanations.--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been called a lot of things in WP, but to be called a "Jewish admin", as if that in itself is a basis for an argument against purported incompatible behavior, is totally unacceptable. This is a content dispute and you have to take the steps in WP:DR rather than place here spurious accusations bordering on the irrational, and waste everybody's time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that no one is trying to waste your .. time. I just noted that you as an admin involved in this issue, can't decide on this case!--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no case, as explained to you by an uninvolved admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

May I please ask you who this uninvolved admin was?!--Gerash77 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, here's an uninvolved admin. Please stop making sweeping condemnations and assumptions of bad faith against an entire class of editors (real or imagined) and make use of one of the links jossi provided you with. This issue does not need administrator attention... Yet. Grandmasterka 05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. I've just taken an interest in that page, and while there's certainly some POV-pushing all round, and a bit of ownership, I've seen nothing that suggests admin misconduct of any kind, let alone anything stemming from ethnic biases. Even if I had suspected the latter, the rules of engagement here on WP firmly abjure me from actually modifying my actions to act on that suspicion. Hornplease 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Existence of Jewish cabal

It seems that some have taken my comments above about Jewish admins to think that I believe in existence of the Jewish or Zionist cabal. I hereby state that by no means I meant to have that kind of impression at all.--Gerash77 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another completely uninvolved admin: I don't care, and I don't much think anyone else does, whether you believe in a Jewish or Zionist cabal. Its that you used it as a descriptor, when it is a religious and/or ethnic label; "Jewish admins" simply doesn't parse in any way which is not at least implying an insult of some kind. Whether you believe there is a Jewish cabal, whether you are personally anti-semitic, or whether you think something else about Jews in general, it simply is rude and insulting and frankly, horrible logic to tie those two words together and expect anything but for everyone with any decency and sense to doubt your decency and sense. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the small (but apparently vicious) Mexican dog. Such prejudiced comments have no place in Wikipedia; in an ideal world, nor would the people who make them. I'm continually amazed that Wikipedia tolerates this crap and defends the people who spew it. Raymond Arritt 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable assumption would be that he is referring to people who he think has an interest in a particular point of view on the article. In that sense, it would be the same as saying "certain Microsofties who monitor the Linux article" or "certain Republicans who push their POV on the Bill Clinton article". Unless there is some prior situation with Gerash77, that's what I would tend to think that he meant. —Centrx→talk • 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Unfortunately, it appears that no matter how much I explain the phrase "Jewish admins", which is the same as any other similar phrases such as "Muslim admins", who in no way has a positive or negative implications, there are some who incorrectly assume that I wanted to present myself as someone who believes in the existence of the cabal, or ridiculously enough, I am antisemitic!!--Gerash77 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I feel like a suitable badass being part of the Jewish cabal....⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For examples of how 'Jewish editors' can be easily taken as hostile, look on this page for the 'anti-albanian' cabal. Also, any angry Litvaks may want to consider DUAL cabal memberships. (I'm JOKING!) ThuranX 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Where can I sign up for this Jewish cabal? Apparently you don't have to be Jewish to be part of it. (A serious comment: in no way does Jewish when referring to a person mean "supporting a Jewish position," it means you are ethnically and/or religiously a Jew, similar to calling someone a Chinese or French admin. It'd be best for Gerash to apologize and find some other way to express admins who support a particular view, rather than clinging on to a bad choice of words.) Phony Saint 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there always a Jewish cabal in every institution? (as one has said apparently... I'm allowed to since I'm jewish) haha. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll join the chorus of voices calling for at least a retraction of the Jewish administrators statement and preferably an apology. This site's assume good faith policy requires editors to seek reasonable explanations for each other's actions. This edit dispute had a legitimate basis in conflicting reference sources. The reasoning behind the Jewish administrators assertion appears to be that certain edits might have reflected a particular viewpoint on Middle Eastern politics - from there one editor leaps to an unwarranted assumption that those administrators had a political bias - and another unwarranted assumption that these people were violating WP:OWN and WP:NPOV in pursuit of that bias - and a third unwarranted assumption that the supposed bias originates in these individuals' religious/ethnic origin. Etymologically speaking, prejudice means to assert a conclusion before seeing adequate evidence. I've watched this dynamic operate at Wikipedia before and it really doesn't matter to me which group gets targeted: prejudice is always an obstacle to collaboration. Durova^Charge! 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice, whether of editors, sources or conclusions, is always unhelpful and uncollegial. Gerash, apologise for your phraseology, retract the accusation, and read WP:DR. Hornplease 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Because neither of the words admin or Jewish is negative, "Jewish admins" on Ahmadinejad article is not negative as well. It is used to categorize 4 admins, whom I did not want to name individually. Please note that if they were Muslim admins, then I would have said Muslim admins, and I am sure none of you would have mind that. It is very unfortunate that you fail to assume good faith per WP:AGF, because I have attempted to remove libellous and uncited comments from an article on a Muslim president, which contradicted WP:LIVING. Regrettably, this form of bad assumptions and calling a person who has attempted to adhere to to the WP:LIVING per Wikipedia's policies has resulted in severe and disgusting insults, such as being called "antisemitic". With this sort of paradox and negative views toward certain group of editors by assumptions of bad faith, I doubt that this behaviour by some Wikipedians is in the interest of a neutral encyclopedia. --Gerash77 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that you Just Don't Get It, and that further discussion of the matter can serve no purpose. Let's all call it a day. Raymond Arritt 03:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am sorry for this sort of paradoxic response and offensive name-callings from some wikipedians.--Gerash77 04:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're sorry that the Jewish Cabal is ganging up on you and calling you names? Come on. This is trolling, plain and simple. You know what you did, you just want a pointy stick to poke things with. ThuranX 05:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerash, you can argue it all you want, but the phrase "Jewish admins" carries a negative implication whether you like it or not. We're not asking you to censor yourself, but to choose your words carefully, and to avoid making such comments in the future. You are engaging what the political world calls "parsing," and what psychologists call "rationalization," but the result is the same: that after the original intent of your words has been derided and condemned, you then find another excuse and reason to give a sense of mistinterpretation by others. Your continued denial will not obscure the fact that such comments, in whatever context, carry such a negative implication as to be found socially and morally reprehensible. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This thread has served one single useful purpose: to put an editor onto my radar screen. As I stated months ago at Raul's laws, any editor who makes an assertion that is simultaneously wrong on three or more levels is a person who is immune to reason. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So much insults... So many threats. It is not surprising at all...--Gerash77 01:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Threats? Now you're just imagining things. Especially as you started this by labeling some admins as Jewish. Phony Saint 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerash should certainly have chosen his words more carefully. There is a widespread problem on Middle Eastern articles with a clique pushing what's essentially an American/Israeli right-wing point of view, which seems to be what's going on here; just as elsewhere on Wikipedia there are problems with nationalist cliques, party political cliques, etc, etc. But labelling those cliques by their religious beliefs as "Christian" or "Jewish" or whatever isn't helpful, and it's not an accurate description of the problem. -- ChrisO 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, and if any POV clique is demonstrably acting to violate WP:NPOV or WP:OWN I'd do my best to put an end to the problem. Burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of individuals who allege impropriety. For my own part I rarely edit on Middle Eastern topics but am neutral enough that I sometimes get solicited to settle disputes. Here's one example from yesterday User_talk:Durova#Request_for_help. Durova^Charge! 08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya know what; Wikipedia is a hotbed of POV arguments over everything from whether winning the war in Iraq is crucial to the existence of human civilization, to whether an overhead cam engine is inherently superior to a pushrod engine. And most of the groups in these arguments can be easily stereotyped as "Old guys who drive Mustangs and Camaros" vs. "Young guys who drive Hondas" or similar; but whenever it veers near an argument which boils down to "Jews are trouble", "Israel is a rogue state who control the US government", "the holocaust is a lie", etc., anybody who takes the other side, whether they think that Israel is a shining example among the nations or that Israel has made some terrible mistakes, gets lumped in as "the Jewish cabal on wikipedia". Nobody resorts to tarring aybody with "the Arabic cabal", "the Muslim cabal", even "the antisemitic cabal", although they are damn easily identifiable. Nobody argues about "the gay cabal" pushing their agenda on Wikipedia. Nobody tries to delegitimize edits as the product of "the conservative cabal" or "the liberal cabal". But the Jews; they're all acting together, you know. People can post according to whatever points of view they want, but anybody mentioning a "Jewish cabal" or similar is too paranoid to be deemed a reliable editor. Gzuckier 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, a lot of those other supposed cabals have been claimed by editors who were themselves troublesome POV pushers for the opposite viewpoint and some editor or other has tried to pigeonhole me into most of them. I'm not certain whether this thread lets me add Jewish to the claims that my religious views are atheist and fundamentalist Christian, but the honest answer there is none of the above - keep guessing and maybe you'll win the cigar. In the past I've offered to provide a full disclosure of potential real-life factors that could affect my POV on Middle Eastern topics, but so far nobody has requested that I make good on it. Shrug. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to ask you Durova; how could you be "neutral" when you can't distinguish a non-negative term and insult, when you call people who disagree with your POV "immune to reason"? What possibly beside being an admin on Wikipedia gives you right to assume that you may get away with any sort of insult and threats, even if you think from your own POV, that I didn't use the right words? Is it possible to humbly ask you why do you think you are "neutral", or would that result in your further insults for questioning your incontestable point of views?--Gerash77 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this to user talk pages. Durova^Charge! 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

About User:Rbj's chronic incivility again

This seems to be a once every two week topic here, but would someone please keep User:Rbj from abusing others thusly;[12] He's previously been blocked twice for incivility and harassment but continues to insist on attacking others. Odd nature 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit you cite is indeed unfortunate, but generally admins only take admin action on WP:CIVIL matters that are really a lot more severe. While I appreciate that doing so is a thankless chore, I think that (if he has, as you say, a pattern of harassing and uncivil behaviour) an RFC or RFAr would be the next step. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a cas of chronic incivility. He's rude, he engages in personal attacks, he gets blocked, he behaves decently for a while, and then the cycle repeats. This is about the third time in the last two weeks or so that I have been aware of. I'd say a community block is in order, but then I think I said that when he made the anti-semitic attacks on User:Orangemarlin last week...or maybe it was the week before when his name was brought up here for personal attacks the week before that... Guettarda 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, while the AGF concept is nice and all that, r-b-j needs to g-o as the likelihood of remediation is roughly the equivalent to that of a blizzard in the Amazon basin. •Jim62sch• 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you all follow the steps in our Dispute resolution guidelines. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no dispute, Morven. What on earth is there to discuss? If you're suggesting an Rfc, all I can say is it would take days to paste all the diffs for personal attacks and hostility and disruption for this user, who has been asked politely, asked more pointedly, told outright, pointed in the direction of the civility and personal attack pages for his edification, and blocked repeatedly, most recently by me (for calling other editors stupid and lazy) - and although I certainly hope he takes my advice and reads up on civility and discussing the content, not the contributor, and applies it in his discussions with fellow editors - but I'm not holding my breath. The OrangeMarlin incident has never been resolved satisfactorily, and he used the attention on his talk page as a good audience for yet more snarky digs and outright abuse. There are times when an Rfc is simply a lot of time spent so people can say "Look, we followed dispute resolution - we knew it wouldn't do any good, but we also knew if we didn't act like Process Wonks no one would take action" - and this is one of those times. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you feel a RFC or mediation would be pointless or has already been attempted, you can skip those steps so long as you justify them. Arbcom does accept cases that have not gone through those steps if the reason why not is argued well, or when the problem has been around for a long time without resolution and is clearly beyond RFC or mediation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom? I wasn't planning on wasting their time any more than I was planning on wasting anyone elses. I suggested community ban when the OrangeMarlin incident happened; see here. I note Avi felt the admins involved were terse, but it wasn't like it was his first offense, or his twentieth; check his block log - and trust me, he hasn't been blocked nearly as often as he could have been. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Rbj is about the most uncivil editor I've ever seen, you needn't spend more than 5 minutes reviewing any discussion section of any article he chooses to edit. He's rude, anti-semitic, crude, dismissive, condescending, and an all around disruptive element. I've seen the administrators here do more for a lot less problematic editors. He claims he's protected by Jimbo Wales, and given the lack of interest in dealing with this person, except by administrators who have either been the brunt of his uncivil behavior, or have directly observed it, I'm wondering if it is true. Yes, I'm still angry about what I believe is blatant anti-semitism. I even filed a complaint, but of course, Rbj doesn't even get his pinky slapped. This is really frustrating. Orangemarlin 05:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some diffs for each of these offenses? Thank you. ThuranX 05:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I did diffs. It was ignored. I give up. Orangemarlin 05:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to that, then? I'm not an admin, i'm just reading along, but I doubt most admins will spend half an hour crawling through things to find the problems. At least this time, someone's reading. ThuranX 05:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend the hours looking up everything that he's done. But here's the diff to my ANI regarding Rbj. No one commented. [13] Orangemarlin 06:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(Undenting) Here [14] is the last version of that section before it got archived. Lots of people got involved. Lots of people commented, including me. Please don't misrepresent things like that. ThuranX 06:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I missed ALL of this commentary. I checked once or twice, saw nothing, and it's impossible to watch since there are so many posts to this area. By the time I checked back, it was archived, and I couldn't find it. Thanks. Still, nothing happened. Orangemarlin 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just spent 5 minutes reading over the comments on my previous ANI. I do not know how I missed all of these comments, but it still bothers me at the lack of resolution to this matter. I know that several editors and admins dealt with the matter in a very direct manner. But Rbj's attitude was petulant and moved from borderline to distinctively anti-Semitic. I quit reading his responses to the matter, but now that I've looked into it more, the comments that he made in response were offensive to me. How dare he make any commentary on my religious beliefs, whether it was real or not, or whether I did it to make a point to him. I always use G_d in talk space, and have since I've seriously started editing here. And in my private life, I always spell it that way. If I make an edit to the article, it always uses the full spelling, if I must. It is my belief, and I find it offensive on how he chose to respond. But I am just one tiny target of his dysfunctional behavior. He needs to go. Orangemarlin 07:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm bored, let me list out my favorite attacks from this editor:

1. Get an education
2. Accusations of lying
3. Jimbo protects Rbj
4. Passive aggressive behavior
5. Still the most despicable statement from his fingertips

Orangemarlin 07:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Came by to see this thread around, so I'll comment a bit. User:Rbj's actions gave me a bitter taste in my mouth during my encounter with him about the situation regarding the banning of User:Nkras. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So did my experience with him on the Marriage article. I'm sure I could go back through that and find all manner of him cursing out Bainer and Coelacan, and I believe some others as well. I see very little has changed since then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that i've slept, I can reply to OM's comments above. OM, I read the last thread, and I think you're right, he's being a jerk. I also think that the lack of action last time has led to this editor escalating, as a result of a feeling of safety. As an involved(in wiki, not in this problem) regular editor, I'd like to see some action taken against Rbj. ThuranX 13:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What action(s) do editors feel are appropriate? I've suggested cutting thru the process mess and simply community banning, but no one has responded - would there be any objections? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite many warnings and chances given he appears chronically incivil and clearly the community has about lost it's patience with him, so continuing as-is is not an option. A community topic ban seems a reasonable solution, and one that I would support. FeloniousMonk 17:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A topical ban at least, if not a complete ban; at this point those would be the only options in my view. Is anyone suggesting that an overall ban is too harsh, and that we should just stick with a topical ban? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the behavior occurs on every topic Rbj touches. Before Intelligent Design it was going on at Talk:Homophobia, which even led to Rbj vandalizing someone's userpage. ··coelacan 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A community ban is the only remedy for someone who is beyond normal remediation. Enough of r-b-j, one of the most tendentious, disruptive, disrespectful editors I have ever had the displeasure of running across. •Jim62sch• 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking a bit deeper into his contributions, this bit of incivility, calling other editors' work "dog-shit", saying "you guys think your own shit don't stink", threatening meatpuppetry, and characterizing another editors' arguments as "bullshit" are all completely over-the-top unacceptable. OK, I'm convinced; support a full indef ban. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if my $0.02 is worth anything more than that, because I'm not an admin, but I want him banned forever. But he does claim support from Jimbo, so I hope this isn't temporary. Orangemarlin 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have "support" from Jimbo.[15] He was unblocked by Jimbo once because Jimbo didn't think that Rbj's reversion of the deletion of Nkras's legal threats itself constituted making legal threats.[16] (Was that clear as mud? Sorry.) Long story short, if Jimbo feels that a community ban is fairly executed, he won't undo it. ··coelacan 07:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I know he doesn't get protection. But RBJ thinks he does. See above. Orangemarlin 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, the last time I raised this "threatening meatpuppetry" thing, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive234#User:Rbj, he argued convincingly enough for me that he was not doing that. I would support a ban on all other counts here, but not that one. ··coelacan 07:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no position on meatpuppetry, and did not suggest community ban for anything but his hostile and disruptive attacks on all and sundry. I see no objections to community banning this eeditor, but he has made only one edit since he came off block, and oddly enough, managed not to insult or attack anyone in that edit. I suggest we take the position that there is community support for a ban, and should he disrupt or attack again any administrator should indef block, pointing to this discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I just indefinitely blocked the user, but reversed it after reading KillerChihuahua's comments. The repeated incivility is a major concern; the fact that everyone here seems to be fed up with him was the whole reason that I hit "block" in the first place. But, as KillerChihuahua pointed out, his one edit since coming off his block wasn't too bad, so I'm willing to give him this final chance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would have supported your block, and concur this needs to be a very final and last chance. This editor has had more than enough chances, and hurt the project and its volunteers enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that is part of his pattern - once Rbj is blocked, he tones dials things down a lot. His level of incivility seems to be a function of the amount of time since his last block or series of blocks. Guettarda 12:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not sure if it's my place to comment, but Rbj has had numerous "chances". His incivility will return, according to his pattern. To expect otherwise is just tempting fates. Orangemarlin 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda is right, experience shows that these quiescent periods part of his pattern to avoid a block. As a frequent target of his incivility I support an immediate block: He's been given plenty of such chances, and if things are left as they are in a week or two he'll be back to violating WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA. 151.151.21.101 23:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

EVula has already told him that this is the very last chance. It would be inappropriate to ban him right now before he squanders that last chance. I agree with you that we're past the point of WP:AGF, but if Rbj can keep it together from now on, no block is necessary. If he does it one more time, the blocking admin should go indef and link to this conversation (which will hopefully be archived by then) in the block log, so there's no mistaking the fact that a community ban is endorsed already. ··coelacan 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess is he's monitoring this ANI, and reading that he's been given one last chance, he'll cool it until another ANI is filed, and he's given the fourth or fifth last chance. Yeah, I'm not assuming one gram of good faith, because he doesn't deserve any more. I'm opposed to his getting one more chance because frankly his actions are pretty much unforgivable from my vantage point, but since I don't get a vote in the matter, I presume he gets to stay. Orangemarlin 07:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin

See WP:RFAR#Miskin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC) I have retitled this section because the old name was not that great. Picaroon (Talk) 19:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I recently blocked Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a WP:3RR violation. Before continuing to read this paragraph, please view the user's block log. My block was the SEVENTH one he had received for either disruptive editing, or 3RR violations on articles relating to Persian, Greek, or Ancient Greece war related topics.

I initially blocked for 24 hours thinking it was a simple 3RR violation. (There was a section on the 3RR noticeboard on it that contains all the 3RR diffs). However, after viewing the extensive block history, I extended the block to 1 month. My justification? After 6 prior blocks, the user should be PERFECTLY aware of 3RR policy, as well as WP:DE: he continues to ignore the policies. This is not a newbie editor, these blocks are over 2 years.

I was warned by email that the user has "admins in his back pocket" and he would be unblocked immediately. That apparently was the case, he was unblocked within 24 hours, and I received several angry comments on my user talk page about it.

So I'm requesting a further block review. I cannot justify allowing a clearly disruptive user to continuously revert war, REPEATEDLY violate the 3RR, disruptively edit, and continue to do so. How other admins can justify unblocking that, I do not know. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• That block log is really weird. Blocked -> unblocked, blocked -> unblocked with references to IRC chats, etc. Strange! - Alison ☺ 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the block log, I'd say your block was justified and that Miskin is needing his/her sorry ass dragged before ArbCom.

I'd love to hear the reason to unblock a user who has shown a continual inability to work with their fellow Wikipedians too. -- Nick ^t 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, ArbCom sounds like a good place to go from here. I'll help you write up a case if you need help; obviously it's not helping that this guy keeps "getting away" with his clearly wrong actions. --Cyde Weys 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Cyde here. Something's not right. While the user's been around a while, they've been persistent in their violation of 3RR and you'd think that having been around that long, they'd know better. Frankly, the initial one-month block was not unreasonable. - Alison ☺ 16:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Or we could just skip ArbCom and give him a one week block right here right now, with a promise of further escalation if his behavior does not continue. Also, I want to applaud SwatJester for bringing this problem out into the open; it looks like this user was getting away with far too much for far too long. --Cyde Weys 17:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I too agree, the one-month block was reasonable given his past blocking history as a repeated offender. This whole "admins in his back pocket" thing smells fishy. Krimpet (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the large numbers of personal attacks on the page (coming from admins who really should know better), I think it would be advisable for those passing judgment to become more familiar with the facts. The admin who changed the block explained why he did it on Swatjester's talkpage, however Swatjester did not mention his (maybe he forgot). I think Dbachmann makes some good points.--Ploutarchos 16:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh please, give that old personal attacks canard a rest. Nobody here has said anything inaccurate. If someone has serious problems with their editing behavior and you call them out for it, that's not a personal attack, it's responsible community management. You're not going to sweep Miskin's problems under the carpet again by relying on a strategy of, "But they said something mean!" --Cyde Weys 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• So I reviewed SJ's talk page beforehand, as is customary in such matters. My point still stands. This guy should know better. Re. Cyde's 1-week comment, I'll endorse that, with the note that the user sit THIS block out in its entirety this time. They've had more than enough prior warning here - Alison ☺ 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subjects this chap edits in, but his repeated appeals to "western scholarship" are a little worrying. Wikipedia shouldn't reject sources on geographical or cultural grounds. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's slow down a bit here. The reference to "seven prior blocks" is worrying, of course, but (even putting aside the reversal of several of the blocks since that has been questioned), I see no prior blocks in 2007 and only one 24-hour block in all of 2006. As such, the 3RR violation doesn't warrant more than the usual 24-48 hours. This appears to be a good-faith contributor, albeit with some rough edges, and reference to "his sorry ass" should be avoided. And suggesting ArbCom seems quite premature without even either getting the blocked user's comments or considering an RfC. Newyorkbrad 17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did anyone say "his sorry ass"? I'm not seeing it. --Cyde Weys 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Above in this thread (not by you, Cyde). Actually, a gender-neutral formulation was used. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

At what point do we say "Enough already"? Apparently not after repeated blocks and persistent incivility, to judge by some. Suggest a one-month block at this point, with each subsequent block to be twice the length of the previous one. Raymond Arritt 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No case has been made here for "persistent incivility." Newyorkbrad 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree broadly with Newyorkbrad here. The fellow's block log isn't particularly relevant. I think Swatjester has encountered a worrying situation here. I do think this should go to arbitration, but not to look at Miskin's conduct alone but at the ongoing warfare on these articles. It looks like a battle of points of view, and that isn't the way we should edit Wikipedia. Perhaps an article probation of some kind might be in order here. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any prior attempt at dispute resolution? I see some references to suggestions for DR on the user's talkpage, but can't tell if any came to fruition. Newyorkbrad 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester's reference to "seven blocks" is disingenious to say the least. As I have argued on User talk:Swatjester, it is my considered opinion that his month's block of Miskin is untenable. His 24h block for 3RR is arguable, and I left that in place. If you take ten seconds to cast more than a passing glance at Miskin's blocklog, you will see that his last block lasted for 38 minutes, back in September, for "unilateral moves" (not 3RR). His last block before that was in December 2005. Some of you admins haven't even been around that long (Raymond calling "enough already" above has been with us since July, and thus at best preserves in living memory Miskin's 38 minute block for "unilateral moves"). Give us a break. Miskin was trolled (his opponent was since permabanned as a throwaway account). He was tricked into a 3RR vio. He is sitting out a 24h block for this now. I daresay this qualifies as "enough" for the case at hand, nothing to see here. dab (𒁳) 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm looking at six blocks here as opposed to seven, so you're correct here. I have to say that Swatjester while far from being "disingenious" as you say, did exactly the right thing in bringing the matter to ANI in the interests of transparency. His 24hr block is far from arguable, frankly. - Alison ☺ 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm having trouble seeing why the longer block was undone; one month seems reasonable. If it is to be shortened, it shouldn't be less than one week. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I came across this user yesterday. Aside from being aggressive and pushy in his editing, the level of rudeness shown by this user is more than I've ever seen. For one thing, most of his arguments are, quite frankly, ad hominem attacks and slanderous generalizations. --AlexanderPar 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine fine, the seventh block (and 8th) are mine. Six prior blocks are unacceptable still. Furthermore, I'd like to mention that this is my only contact with Miskin or these articles: I've had absolutely zero prior dealings with him before, nor have I ever edited any of those articles. Only reason that this came to my attention was because a user felt that there was some "shady adminning" going on, and emailed me to take a look.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) Blocks of Miskin (talk · contribs):

• 2005
  • 4 July, 3RR, 24h
  • 25 August, 3RR, unblocked after 80 minutes
  • 13 November, 3RR, 24h
  • 28 December, 3RR, unblocked after 6 hours
• 2006
  • 25 September, "unilateral moves", unblocked after 38 minutes.

Swatjester's block was for 3RR, and he argued that the user's block log aggravates the penalty. I argue that this is nonsense. I did not look into recent civility issues. If you want to block him for 3RR, block him for 24h and be done. If you see civility or disruption issues, properly warn the user, and issue blocks if he persists, but don't conflate it with the block log, or the troll-induced 3RR vio. Miskin has served a total of 56 hours blocking time in 22 months, the bulk of it when he was a very new user. I also object to the title of this section and to Swatjester's, I repeat, disingenious presentation of the case. This is not the way to do it. Miskin is a valuable and long-standing contributor. If he has civility issues, he deserves detached admonition and proper warning, not a kangaroo court on his "sorry ass". thank you, dab (𒁳) 17:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. The block log here (regardless of the 6 or 7 whatevers) shows that the editor simply doesn't grasp the concept of 3RR. You'd think after this long that they would. I'd certainly endorse a 1-week long block at this point, and one which needs to go to term. This revert-war block + unblocking just has to stop. They are not immune to the rules any more than the rest of us and simply applying 24-hours blocks (which sometimes get undone) is obviously not working - Alison ☺ 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to be a valuable, long-standing contributor without being blocked once, let alone 7 times. Perhaps something else is at work here? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I also object to my presentation being referred to as disingenuous. I submitted this here for transparency. Would you mind refraining from such accusations? Or does good faith not apply to everyone anymore? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) There is no such thing as a "troll-induced 3RR vio". If you're convinced someone who's edit-warring is wrong, you seek wider input. If you're right, other people will readily back you up, and there will be no 3RR. If you find people to agree with the "troll" instead, well, maybe you're not as right as you thought you were. There are exemptions to the 3RR for simple vandalism, BLP issues, etc. If what's happening doesn't meet one of those, "I'm convinced they're wrong" is not one. Unless said "troll" has somehow compromised your account, no one but you can choose to hit that revert button. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I support Swatjester's stance. Last time I checked, having 3RR violations spread over two years is not a valid excuse to have a short block. Rather, it is a valid reason for the direct opposite; to have the block lengthened since this user knows policy and is deliberately violating it. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• • the blocks are spread over four months, followed by a 17 month period with no 3rrvios. Why do people keep harping on the 2005 episode? dab (𒁳) 18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Then that only makes his current behavior all the more suspect. He should have learned not to edit-war, yet he still does it, and gets blocked for it. It does not matter if it was done two years ago or two days ago. Your continuing defense of him is based on time, which is not a valid excuse. Does having blocks two years ago allow him to forget that he isn't suppose to violate 3RR? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok - I'm going to be bold here and extend this editor's block to 1 week for repeated violation of WP:3RR. This is not a month, nor is it 24 hours. The message that revert-warring and 3RR has had enough time to have become understood, yet it has clearly not been. In light of previous offences, this is entirely justified. I am ignoring any comments re. emails and whatnot as they are simply hearsay at this point. I am focussing on this editors past history here re. 3RR. - Alison ☺ 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

look, it's easy to keep a clean block log if you don't descend into the swamp that are nationalist infested topics on Wikipedia (I might add that I've spent more than two years in this swamp and still have a clean block log, but tempers are varied, and it's not for lack of people trying to have be blocked). I repeat, the 2005 blocks should be left out of this. If you're going to block Miskin for disruption, do it, but not after fair warning. This has nothing to do with 3RR at this point. Incidencially, if anybody still thinks I am "in Miskin's back pocket", you may want to review the archives of Talk:Ancient Macedonian language where I was significantly involved in the "breaking in" of Miskin from a trollish newbie to a valuable Wikipedian in good standing. In my book, Miskin has been blocked without warning. The 3RR block didn't need a warning, this new block for disruption would have needed one. Look at his talkpage, he gets a kind note regarding the trolls on Battle of the Persian Gate, then a "tireless contributor" barnstar, and in the next section he is slapped with a one week block for disruption. That's not acceptable practice for me. If you like warn him that further incivility will result in a 1 week block. dab (𒁳) 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm over 3 years here myself. I've been intensely involved in both vandal reversion and dealing with POV on Irish Republican/Nationalist articles for a long time now. So far, no blocks whatsover. I'm ignoring anything to do with admins/pockets/emails/whatever. The guy was out of line here and was being disruptive. He's done so repeatedly before. A 1-week block is entirely justified, IMO. A 1-month block is certainly not. - Alison ☺ 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• No one here gives batshit about whatever awards or honors he has if he violated policy. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• And another thing, referring to my efforts here as "patent bad judgement" on that user's talkpage, apart from being phenomenally rude and out of line, isn't helping matters at all. Further, if the editor has a problem with my block, they can just use {{unblock}} and state their case, just like anyone else. Another admin will review accordingly. I am so not impressed with this at all - Alison ☺ 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The first 6 blocks weren't adequate warning? What about the 3RR vio noticebohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=48ard complaint?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This fellow definitely knows enough about the three revert rule: he has made comments about it recently on the relevant page: [17] [18] [19]/ --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, people are being a bit too harsh on this user. I believe I have seen instances of greater leniency in more serious cases. I am especially wondering about the "repeated violation" argument: if someone violates the 3RR-rule a couple of times in 2005 and then once again almost one and a half year later, can it still be considered as part of one pattern of 3RR-violations (as I get the impression that this is the case in this discussion)? And does this also imply that a user could be permanently banned after, say, five or ten years on the base of one violation despite a clean record of several years? Iblardi 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that depends on who ones enemies are. Apparently people are not allowed to improve on Wikipedia; their newbie mistakes stay with them forever. Reverting a troll running on open proxies (i.e. a likely sockpuppet) [20] should not count towards the 3RR. It just rewards sockpuppetry. What do we have WP:IAR for?--Ploutarchos 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's ignore the 3RR rules, after all they only apply to others and not to us ... right? It's quite possible to deal with sockery/vandalism/whatever wihout breaking the rules. I and so many others seem to manage just fine. Maybe we could keep a list here of editors who are allowed to break rules and those who are not. That way, we can avoid "patent bad judgement" in the future. Ugh! - Alison ☺ 19:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean I now have a lisence to use untraceable sockpuppets running on open proxies to rv war? Should it be allowed? As it's impossible to trace them (unless the user "slips"), how else can they be dealt with? Also, misrepresenting another's position like you just did is such a lame tactic. I would have expecet better from an administrator.--Ploutarchos 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And with that comment you just misinterpreted all our arguments. Congratulations for calling the kettle black. Anyway, has anyone noticed that when admins crack down on such violations, they are heckled for the constantly frivolous charge of "admin abuse," but when we start cutting slack, we are accused of over-leniency? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another section break

Oh god, not IAR again. Inevitably it's always brought up to avoid policies. Here's the rub: I did EXACTLY what I was supposed to do per WP:3RR and WP:BP. Quoted relevant sections from Blocking Policy: "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity do not require further warning."blocks for all types of disruptive behaviour are typically for 24 hours, longer for successive instances;,blocks on types of user accounts considered disruptive are typically of indefinite duration;

and 3RR:

"Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations., Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. "If an editor violates the three-revert rule, they may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block."

Oh, and also, "Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." and from WP:WW "Possible indications of wheel warring are:.....An admin takes it upon himself to undo another admin's actions without consultation."

Honestly, what the hell is going on here? There's clearly overwhelming support for the block, both from other admins, and by freakin policy. And yet, I'm told that I'm "not allowed to indefinitely block for the 3RR". Let alone that my block was only for 1 month, policy says otherwise. Then, I'm told by a non-admin to go read blocking policy, which supports my actions. I didn't believe the allegations that there was an "admin in this user's pocket" at first, but I'm starting to believe them now. Something incredibly fishy is going on. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I thought a one-month block for this editor was outlandish, and I'd never heard of him before this afternoon. Newyorkbrad 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Before we get to the point of painting Miskin as some kind of saint, I think you should look at his remarks on Battle of the Persian Gate dismissing opposing viewpoints with trollish comments like "you know that you're POV-pushing, so it will only be a waste of our time" , "Don't make me laugh", "Don't let your imagination run wild", "What can I say, this is for laughs". From my limited experience with Miskin on this topic, he is as much of a nationalist as one can be. --AlexanderPar 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, Swatjester and SouthernComfort. What I'm asserting is that edits made by open proxies are illicit as editing through open proxies is forbidden under WP:NOP. Such edits should be revertable and reverting them should be exempt from the 3RR (as the policy says such edits are "banned", so reverting them should be like reverting a banned user). As far as I can tell, this is the only was to enforce the NOP policy. If users see they cannot use them to revert war, they won't do it. Anyway, I don't expect you to understand; people rarely admit they're wrong. No one is perfect on that article (in fact people are worse), and I'd be very interested to find out who was behind the open proxy.--Ploutarchos 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you dragging the topic of open proxies into this conversation? We're not even talking about them. Please get back on topic and not go off in tangents. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the topic. Miskin was reverting what proved to be an open proxy [21]. Honestly, don't you read what I wrote?Ploutarchos 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You conveniently left out User:AlexanderPar, with whom Miskin (and you) was having a content dispute with, though 3RR was not breached in respect to AlexanderPar. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, however, did Miskin rv him (and/or another legitimate user) more than three times? No.Ploutarchos 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You just repeated what I said earlier. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:3RR? Show me the part that says "reverting open proxies is an EXCEPTION TO THE RULE"? I'll wait. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's where IAR comes into play? If you don't invoke it, you are rewarding a breach of WP:NOP.Ploutarchos 19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"reverts to undo actions performed by banned users" is, in fact, in the list of exceptions enumerated in WP:3RR. WP:NOP states "Open proxies are banned from editing Wikimedia projects". I'll let the wikilawyers figure out how to do the math, but the idea that 3RR doesn't apply to open proxy edits doesn't seem crazy given the above. 75.62.6.237 02:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Again per, 3RR "Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly." If you ignore this rule, you are rewarding edit warring, which is FAR more dangerous than a proxy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite considering that the open proxy user was most likely a party to the existing edit war. So you are also rewarding a breach of WP:SOCK for rv warring purposes. In fact, your approach encourages edit warring by open proxy sockpuppets.--Ploutarchos 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that for sure? No. That's pure speculation. That also ignores the fact that we can simply block open proxies, problem solved. But Miskin made a conscious decision to edit war, instead of reporting to an admin to block the proxy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a realistic possibility. Open proxies are not allowed to edit, period. Allowing them to edit and treatign open proxy edits as legitimate just created more and more potential for edit warring. Miskin for example next time he wanted to rv war, could do it with an army of open proxy socks, his opponents do the same, and then there is ten times more edit warring. Do you want me to give you an example of that happening? See Republic of Macedonia on 3 April 2006 (that sticks out in my mind it was so blatant).--Ploutarchos 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been following closely but I choose not to comment. For the example you were trying to find, check the recent history in Odorheiu Secuiesc where an anon user seems to be reverting himself! In fact, it was two editors who chose to pick the same open IP!! That was the funniest instance that comes to mind ("funniest" in the sense of "black humor" of course). NikoSilver 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also who is the Southern Comfort person you keep referring to.

Your justification is inadequate. Miskin could not have possibly known that he was reverting an "open proxy", and he CHOSE to violate the rule. --AlexanderPar 20:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's sufficient ground to overturn a block though, don't you agree, SouthernComfort?Ploutarchos 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not SouthernComfort, but no, it is not. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to bear that in mind. The problem with it though, it that by treating open proxy edits as legitimate, it'll encourage people to use them more for single purpose revert war socks.--Ploutarchos 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin did not indicate his knowledge that he was reverting an open proxy when he was edit warring. You are only using the hindsight bias. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, your approach rewards violating WP:NOP (and likely WP:SOCK), whereas mine rewards reverting "banned" edits.Ploutarchos 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which violation harms Wikipedia more: edit-warring, or using open proxies? Please get the priorities straight first. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I say using open proxies for edit warring is worse that straightforward edit warring.Ploutarchos 20:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd say that edit warring, whether using open proxies or not, is equally harmful and should not be treated differently. --Iamunknown 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Both are harmful and neither is okay. If an open proxy edit wars, it will be blocked for being an open proxy and/or for edit warring. If a non-open proxy editor edit wars, he will be blocked for edit warring. I don't see any confusion here. --Cyde Weys 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that open proxy reverting is a violation of the policy WP:NOP (and potentially in all cases, of WP:SOCK), whereas rv warring plain, merely violates a guideline? I didn't know that 1 + 1 offences = 1 offence. Interesting logicPloutarchos 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, the funnniest of all is that the anon users with the same IP in Odorheiu Secuiesc technically did not violate 3RR because it appears like it was one who was reverting himself to avoid it! NikoSilver 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Blatantly violating policies and blatantly violating guidelines merit equal dealings. Creating a false dichotomy between policy and guideline in this manner is reprehensible. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're resorting to a straw man argument, misrepresenting my position. I say that violating a policy and a guideline (or two policies or two guidelines) is worse than violating one guideline.Ploutarchos 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I apologize for my mistake. But you are still wrong, because violations are not necessarily compounded by additional violations. We don't work like the courts with mandatory sentencing rules here. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we work on what's practical and common sense. It's better to discourage edit warring through open proxies than to discourage normal edit warring (of course both should be discouraged). The reason for this is that normal revert warring can be regulated. Once an open proxy sock is blocked, the puppetmaster just creates another one, whose edits will still be treated like those of a legitimate user and reverting them is subject to the 3RR. Open proxies are banned, they should be treated as such.Ploutarchos 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Miskin edit-warred, and therefore he was blocked. He has edit-warred in the past, and therefore the block is longer. The open proxy thing has nothing to do with this, since Miskin gave no indication that he knew he was reverting an open proxy. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: Open proxies are banned, they should be treated as such. Please read WP:NOP where it says that open proxies are "banned" and WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. Oddly 3RR is disregarded when reverting a banned user (e.g. User:Bonaparte) even when there is no conclusive evidence (e.g. checkuser).--Ploutarchos 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that there is no indication that Miskin knew that he was reverting a user from an open proxy at the time. The fact that the user edited from such a proxy was only discovered after a checkuser was performed later. Therefore, Miskin was not intentionally reverting a banned user. The idea that, if a user's edits were later found to have come from an open proxy the person reverting them is then exonerated, is fallacious. Will (aka Wimt) 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make any difference. Once it emerges that it is a banned edit, 3RR should not apply for reverts of that edits. Example:[22].Ploutarchos 20:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) That example which you have just given was a banned user. Unless I'm mistaken, this was not a banned user but merely a user editing from an open proxy. There is a marked difference between reverting edits by a user who is not banned (but is later found to have edited from an open proxy) and reverting edits which are (in many cases obviously) those made by the sockpuppet of a banned user. In the latter case, it is a fair assumption that the reverting user might realise this to be a banned sockpuppet. But in the former case, there is no reason why the the reverting user would suspect the edit to have been made from an open proxy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To make things clearer, we block on intent and context, not after-the-fact apparitions of apparently exonerating facts. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case I mentioned, that didn't happen. Alaexis reverted the banned user's sock before it emerged that it was a banned user (you can see that for yourselves). Why the double standards?Ploutarchos 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which banned user's sock? I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that this was the sock of a banned user; all I see is that this was a user editing from an open proxy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the example. Back to the point: open proxies are "banned" per WP:NOP. They should be treated as banned.Ploutarchos 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. Miskin had no idea that this user was editing from an open proxy and had no evidence that this user was banned (and indeed this user appears not to be banned). Therefore, Miskin intentionally edit warred. There is no evidence to suggest that had this user not been editing from an open proxy that Miskin wouldn't have edit warred. The exception to the 3RR is very specifically reverting the actions of banned users. And to do that you need to know that the actions were performed by a banned user. Will (aka Wimt) 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. In the example, Alaexis didn't know Tiraspolitan was a banned user. It conclusively emerged later after a checkuser. Nevertheless, his reverts of Tiraspolitan were not counted in determining a 3RR violation, even though they were made before it emerged.Ploutarchos 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I've become entirely bored by this argument, but in my mind there's a very clear difference between a banned user and a user editing via a method that is banned. All I see here is that there was an obvious intent to edit war by Miskin and there are a few people who will do everything possible to find some loophole to get him unblocked. Will (aka Wimt) 21:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that "loophole" has worked before (of course I consider it a very widely invoked exception). And as far as I know, a ban is a ban.Ploutarchos 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Who is "SouthernComfort"? --AlexanderPar 20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A pleasing alcoholic drink? --Cyde Weys 20:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request posted

Mishkin has now posted a formal unblock request. I would reverse. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would only reverse for pending arbitration. But it's not my call. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I support reversing the block. It has been proven that one of his reverts was reverting an edit made in defiance of the ban imposed by WP:NOP, so that revert shouldn't count.Ploutarchos 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've made clear above, I don't think that fact is relevant to any unblocking decision. Will (aka Wimt) 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been before. An admin chose not to count reverts of banned edits for the purpose of 3RR even though the user in question did not know they were banned at the time.Ploutarchos 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That was entirely unrelated to WP:NOP. A banned user is likely banned because their edits are disruptive and so it follows that any of their future contributions can be reverted. The same is not true of a user who has edited via an open proxy. I have not seen any evidence that a user editing via an open proxy has ever been a reason for another user to have not violated the 3RR before. Will (aka Wimt) 21:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A WP:BAN in a WP:BAN, as I said before.Ploutarchos 21:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ploutarchos is not an admin. You do the crime, you do the time. I think unblocking will set a bad example for the community, punishments are supposed to be severe enough to deter the violator from repeating the same violation again. --AlexanderPar 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Alex. Tell me, what do you think of evading ArbCom article bans through sockpuppets?Ploutarchos 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you be more specific as to what you are trying to say here. --AlexanderPar 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman ring any bells? Also, see WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy to make sure you know the implications of what you're doing.Ploutarchos 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't ring any bells. It seems to me that you're trolling to change the topic, but I'll give it a wack anyway. What are you accusing me of, exactly? And on what do you base your accusations? --AlexanderPar 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What does Ploutarchos's status have to do with anything? Non-admins are encouraged to contribute on the AN pages. I would weakly support a reduction to 48 hours, but I don't think there is sufficient support for a straight unblock, which, if executed, would be a slight to two administrators. There is no consensus yet that this was an unwarranted or bad block; that IMO is the only reason for a straight unblock. Anchoress 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought only administrators could vote to reverse the decision. --AlexanderPar 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but anyone can comment on it. Anchoress 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin hasn't been blocked for 3RR in over a year. He has repeatedly said that he didn't consider it a 3RR violation and the first admin to decide his case when he was reported to WP:AN3 said it was not a revert and he shouldn't be blocked. Swatjester then streched to rules as far as possible to interpret an edit as a revert and blocked him for a month. This seems more like an honest mistake on the part of Miskin to me than a deliberate persisten 3RR violation.Ploutarchos 21:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So? He broke the rule, he got blocked. He broke the rule before, he got blocked longer. Seriously, enough with the emotional pleading here. By the way, Alex, we don't punish. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument again? It's also questionable that the rule was actually violated. Looking at the diffs, I don't see it. The first admin to look at his case thought so as well. Science fiction when deciding 3RR cases is a bad combination IMO.Ploutarchos 21:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw man? Where? And it's always questionable if there is a cabal or not. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain how exactly Miskin violatred 3RR? Also, see this [23].Ploutarchos 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring the now-blocked editor. And why do you ask for the obvious? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum Just because one admin says so doesn't mean that I, and other admins, can't dispute it. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with reversing the block. I've followed this chain but have not commented. The User's 3RR block log is one thing; his contentious editing and abrasive style don't merit leniency. There is short shrift given to civility on Wikipedia these days, and he needs to take some time away to learn how to communicate in an educated-setting, which is what Wikipedia aspires to be. I also think a group of admins should discuss with Miskin the tone he uses in what is meant to be the building of an encyclopedia, not a pissing contest. Besides, he doesn't even give reasons for why his block should be reversed, just repeats that they should be "reviewed" which, which is restating the request to have the block reviewed. I'd like to see Miskin stick around, but I'd also like to see him mature in his manner of discussion. --David Shankbone 21:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with reversing the block, he's been blocked 7(?) times before - he knows what he's doing and knows if he edit wars, he will get blocked. 1 week seems to sum up what he did fairly well. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)`

• Hopefully Miskin learns his lesson and just creates a new account. There is no point in building up a history of good behavior on this one. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

When did the "electric fence" get knocked down? 3RR has always been a goal, not a right. Somebody who's been blocked and warned repeatedly about edit warring knows what the purpose of the 3RR rule is, and it isn't to give somebody the right to edit war three times in every 24 hours. Whether he's technically violated three reverts plus in 24 hours, he's edit warred, and has been warned and blocked before. He knows better. The block should stand. Corvus cornix 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The block should stand. If anything, we're too lenient on edit warring and incivility; we shouldn't be shy of using admin tools to deter such conduct. -- ChrisO 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The block rationale cites the 3RR violation and (ancient) history of same; civility issues aren't mentioned. I have counselled the user to change his editing behavior per the discussion on this thread, whatever happens to the block. As I mentioned in the sub-thread below, the initial reviewing admin didn't even believe there was a 3RR violation. A borderline situation might warrant 24-48 hours given a prior history, but I consider the one-week block here excessive (and the original one-month block truly outlandish). I find it difficult to believe that the events of today would not affect the editor's approach, and if problems continue, then a longer-term block could be considered with far less dissent than currently exists. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• As someone who has both edit-warred AND been incivil in the past, and been blocked for it, I found them highly effective tools for me to examine my behavior, and improve it. --David Shankbone 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate accounts and disturbing behavior

The following statement by dbachmann concerns me "it would seem justified for you to begin editing under a new account (using only one at a time of course). That basically seems to me to be encouraging evading a block. Dbachmann, what is going on with you? You unblock without even consulting the blocking admin (a violation of blocking policy at [[WP:BLOCK, and the guideline at WP:WHEEL), and then you encourage him to get another account to bypass his block? This is very disturbing to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say, that is a popular opinion this day [24].Ploutarchos 22:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the implication was that the user should get another account to bypass the block. It was to get another account so that future edits won't be unfairly evaluated based on a "long history of prior blocks" most of which the editor characterizes as newbie mistakes from a year and a half ago. Personally, I would prefer to see the editor continue editing under his current account, but as indicated I have serious reservations about the current block. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then no issues. However, it doesn't read that way to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one. However, because of humanity's basic instinct of never admitting error, we'll remain remedyless.Ploutarchos 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you stop with the glib comments? The vast majority of commentators here agree with the block. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't support block evasion; I suppose he can sit out a week, then create a new account, assuming this block is not overturned. But why keep a black mark on your account if it will be held against you forever? That's just foolish. I'm just saying that if we have a punitive, unforgiving system (and I think the block you gave was certainly punitive and unforgiving) then people will act to avoid being punished, and I don't really blame them. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think anyone is engouraging block evasion around here. Obviously those administrators were speaking for when after the block has expired.Ploutarchos 22:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann wasn't encouraging block evasion, he was suggesting that Miskin serve out the block and then start over so he wouldn't get blocks from 2005 held against him. Miskin's manner of editing is distinctive enough that he'd be recognized under a new name, though. At any rate, like Newyorkbrad, I have strong reservations about the length of this block, and think it should be no longer than 48 hours. It seems clear to me that the block is as long as it is because of Miskin's abrasive personality rather than the 3RR violation in and of itself. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's questionable whether there even was a 3RR violation. As Miskin has pointed out on his talkpage, the initial reviewer at AN3 found no violation. Granted that edit-warring can be sanctioned even without a 3RR violation, I don't find this situation sufficiently aggravated to warrant a block for that a certainly not a one-week block. My view is still in favor of reversing or reducing the block. Having said that, I have counselled the user that whatever happens with the block, he should address the perceived civility issues and moderate his style of editing to take into accounts the comments that have been made here today. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think there was a 3RR violation. Miskin's third revert [25] comes after Dharmender6767 was indef blocked as a sockpuppet. And as noted, the admin who initially reviewed the AN3 posting found that the fourth "revert", [26] was in fact not a revert. Now, if you want to argue that Miskin was acting against the spirit of the 3RR rule, fine, but I don't think that justifies a 1-week block. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The third revert came after Dharmender6767 was blocked for 3RR, he was was apparently indef blocked one day later. This is all besides the point though, Miskin made two partial revert after that. --AlexanderPar 23:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on the timing of Dharmender's block, but I don't think those "partial reverts" qualify as 3RR violations. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 7 blocks, I know an admin who's been blocked also 7 times, but these 7 blocks weren't an obstacle to his easily and with a formidable amount of votes obtain adminship, and rightly so. I'm probably the admin that's more often interacted (and clashed) with Miskin, as it's almost two years I know him, and I can say that Miskin, while he remains often too confrontational on talk pages, has made enormous progresses, as from his block log should be blatantly evident, and has become a quality mainspace contributor; punish him for misbehaviour committed in 2005 - when only few of the presents here were active in wiki - seems to me incredibly cruel, and more imoprtant, of no help to the encyclopedia. I see that you're a very fresh admin: this may explain part of your passion, and what I read as an obvious misjudgement. I must admit that also your tone isn't perfect: comments like "I didn't believe the allegations that there was an "admin in this user's pocket" at first, but I'm starting to believe them now. Something incredibly fishy is going on" would be nice to avoid, especially considering that you've readily warned (correctly) Ploutarchos to be less exhuberant. Sorry, but I have to stand with Newyorkbrad, it's not even clear Miskin violated the 3RR, and while I'm not against blocks when less than four reverts, I certainly find a week too much, and agree with Newyorkbrad and Akhilleus.--Aldux 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Aldux, I don't think you're honoring Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You were involved in this edit-war, and took sides with Miskin. --AlexanderPar 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If its for that, I should be recused for having a (very) long records of quarells and dispute, so I may be considered to have good reasons of resentment against Miskin, to a level that nobody has here. As for Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, maybe you should consider reading it, instead of giving the link.--Aldux 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you should be recused for having been involved in this edit-war in support of Miskin, using vandalism-fighting tools to revert edits that were not vandalism. [27] I like you as an editor, but I don't think your involvement here is appropriate.--AlexanderPar 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is totally out of line. We're neither discussing Aldux's use of the tools here, nor the article content. We are discussing Miskin, and they are not exactly buddies as everyone knows here. As for the diff, I think you should know better. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice examples we are setting here:

1. defying original admin's reasoning [28]
2. defying reviewing admin's reasoning [29] (who btw has confronted Miskin in other subjects)
3. defying WP:NOP that explicitly states that open proxy edits are WP:BANned, and WP:3RR that states that reverts on banned don't count
4. defying that Miskin's block log has been clear of 3RR for 2 years, with a brief intervening block for "unilateral moves" that was later revoked (as old as 6 months ago) [30]
5. defying that the 3rr itself is a borderline case regardless of the WP:NOP issue (see 3d rv vs 4th alleged rv and rationale)
6. defying precedent that such cases where rv's of WP:BANned edits are exempt [31]
7. defying that 6(!!) esteemed admins here have questioned the block (Seraphimblade, Dbachmann, Newyorkbrad, Christopher Parham, Akhilleus, Aldux)
8. defying that all supporting admins accuse Miskin of irrelevant offenses (vague incivility insinuations in other venues), for which he hasn't been warned and for which no diffs have been brought forward (a.k.a. his block shouldn't stand)
9. and now for people consulting him to erase his past ([32] [33] [34] and Dbachman) because the rest cannot disregard it as they are supposed to...
10. if not to resort to open proxies himself since legitimate editors suffer the same consequences

...and punishing him for a week over all that! Congratulations ladies and gentlemen. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did I hear something quack? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I look like an [accidentally unlogged] WP:DUCK? Thanks for the good faith. Or maybe we should also punish Miskin for avoiding his block now eh? And I don't get it, are you arguing that anon comments are illegitimate here? Should they be intimidated at sight? NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The tone of the (previously-anon) comments seemed strangely...blunt and combative. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia problem: Block logs in perpetuity

This discussion raises a valid problem: there is little reason why a block log should remain a "permanent record." Even though I think Miskin's abrasive editting style deserves a week-long block, I find it very problematic that block logs are never expunged. This is something that should be changed, lest the only way for a person who has "grown up" in how they edit forever have years' old blocks follow them around for the rest of their Wikipedia life. It's pretty ridiculous. I think block logs should be expunged every 365 days. I think dragging up two year old blocks is unfair to any editor. Are we going to bring up three, five, or six year old blocks as Wikipedia ages? These things will outlive bankruptcy filings? --David Shankbone 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The admins should do their work like they are supposed to. Historic blocks may be interesting for unrelated issues. I also think it is not technically feasible. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we all understand that editors' habits change over time, so we don't hold very old blocks against people whose more recent editing is unproblematic. The question of expunging old blocks came up in the Giano arb case (the first of them, I think) and the result was that even a block that everyone agreed was incorrect didn't get expunged. 75.62.6.237 01:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It was, in fact, eventually expunged, but you are correct that it was not immediate. Picaroon (Talk) 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sadly unsurprised at this point that Swatjester should attempt to squeeze as much "incriminating" evidence against me out of my comments in order to be able counter my "disturbance" at his attitude with "disturbance" on his part (metoo). My comment to Miskin, as anyone following the discussion will recognize, have nothing to do with recommending block evasion. In the unlikely event that this isn't self-evident to everyone except Jester: I was rather objecting that a long-standing contributor should be made to go through this sort of nonsense because he did show some disruptive behaviour, back in 2005 (I remember this case: I would have blocked Miskin myself then, but I was involved in the article). My comment reads: If our overworked admins these days cannot be expected intelligently read a block log, duly making a difference between a stale history of 16 months ago and more than redeemed with valuable contributions, and a history of permanent troublemaking, it may be better for a user with a log of historical blocks to start over with a clean slate. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the fact that we are discussing the possibility of such a valuable and long standing admin as Dbachmann resorting to idiotic (not to mention suicidal) gestures such as instructing a blocked user to evade their blocks, is a sign of utter deterioration. NikoSilver 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The deterioration is also evident from the fact that we have come to the point of discussing expunging block-logs so as to forcefully make admins disregard them, as is their duty. NikoSilver 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Few of these arguments make much sense, since a person only need go through the five-second process to expunge their block log themselves by creating a new User name. What it does is penalize stability in the User names; if a person wants to shed their former poor behavior, they can do it themselves. The "technically impossible" argument doesn't hold much water with Wiki, and in the technological age; absent any hard knowledge it is impossible, this is just musing. If a person changes their user name, then all the arguments above fall to pieces. Instead, we should look to reward improved behavior by not dragging out the past and using it against people all the time, and look at their present contributions. Using either light, Miskin's block would still hold without having to talk about what they did years ago. --David Shankbone 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional input from the blocked user

I have requested and received some additional input from the blocked user (see final thread on User talk:Miskin). The unblock request remains pending and at this point I am inclined to commute the block to time served (and keep a close eye on Mishkin's upcoming contributions). Newyorkbrad 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this idea. I think the case for this being a 3RR violation is not strong, and I don't think that it's right to issue such a long block based on behavior that occurred over a year and a half ago. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I'd be inclined to support that conditionally that if he violates again, it's indefinite block time. That allows him to continue editing, and if he wishes to be constructive he has one (and only one) last chance. Without that condition, I'd have to lean against unblocking. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on this editor and telling him be careful, no problem. "If he ever makes a mistake again, indef" would be a bit much. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "make 'mistake' again, one month"? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends what kind of mistake. Prearranging these things in advance rarely works. There will certainly be enough eyes on this editor, without giving those (I don't mean admins) who don't care for him a target to shoot for. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The "mistake" I meant was another 3RR violation, if I wasn't clear. —Kyриx (什麽呢?) 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. The vast majority of the administrators here have endorsed the one-week block (19 administrators!). The reduction of the block would be against consensus, and in violation of WP:WHEEL if not implemented by Alison. --AlexanderPar 01:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While I oppose a straight unblock, I am willing to tentatively support a block reduction. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am against unblocking. I found him very rude and uncivil. Altough I had no previous conflict with this user when I started a discussion with him/her , He/She started atacking me personaly and accusing me of being nationalist instead of responding to my reasonable discussion. Because he got blocked for persian gates battle I want it to be clear that he had broken 3rr elsewhere too. He obvioulsy violated 3rr in Last stand but I was surprised when he was not blocked.(Arash the Archer 01:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

I'd hazard a guess that Miskin understands the concerns brought up here and will be careful from now on, even if he is reverting open proxies. (Discussion above suggests that most do not view that as a 3RR exemption.) So I think we should unblock with, as Brad said, the time he has already been blocked as the extent of it. Blocking is not punitive, and I don't think there is anything to prevent; if it turns out there is something to prevent, he can be reblocked. Picaroon (Talk) 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Miskin does understand the concerns brought up here. Look at User_talk:Miskin#To_Swatjester, 2 3RR violations in 2 days, and he still refuses to acknowledge any fault or take any blame or make any promises to improve his behavior. I think he has to learn his lesson the hard way, Wikipedia shouldn't be rewarding such behavior.--AlexanderPar 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the person who reviewed the 3RR violation, he unambiguously and clearly violated the 3RR AGAIN after the report was filed (but before my block). See here. He clearly does NOT understand the 3RR rule, otherwise he wouldn't have broke it multiple times, and STILL complains that he "did not 3RR vio": while it's clear he unambiguously DID violate 3RR, without touching the fact that he STILL violated the spirit of 3RR. Remember you're not entitled to 4 reverts per day. Apparently, he thinks that. I have to agree with AlexanderPar. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the block remaining in place. It has been shown clearly that he was in violation of 3RR after being fully aware of the rule. He has been blocked more than a handful of times before, and no good editor should ever break 3RR more than once, whereupon they are informed about it and never do it again. That it was an open proxy has no bearing on the block whether he knew about it or not (and there is strong evidence to say he did not) because even if someone is editing from an open proxy, that doesn't make reverting their edits exempt from 3RR - if they are using an open proxy, report it, have it blocked, then continue editing without that disruption. The arguments that his history of blocks some time ago is being held against him unfairly would only hold water if he was squeaky clean now - however he isn't, has not been shown to have learnt anything from any of those blocks and consequently an escalation in the length of the blocks is appropriate. I do not at this time support a indefinite block, or the threat of one as condition of unblocking. I don't believe he has reached that stage yet, but he is getting very close to that or an arbcom case. Viridae^Talk 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't learned anything? His behavior has been more or less acceptable for nearly 18 months during which he has thousands of constructive edits. Had he switched account names at that time he would have a track record of equal length and approximately equal quality as the original blocking admin. It troubles me that numerous admins are unwilling to put aside his early troubles, and are willing to dismiss thousands of constructive edits over the past year. The episode suggests our community has become unforgiving and incapable of accepting reform. I would say Miskin is an excellent example of someone who has learned something and has substantially reformed himself, which is not to say he is without error, but even arbitrators pick up a 3RR violation now and then. If we are incapable of forgiving and forgetting then there is no point in users attempting to reform; hence my point above about Miskin simply making a new account -- why try to reform yourself if the community rejects such efforts out of hand? Miskin's response to this whole situation has been unfortunate, but in my view unsurprising given Swatjester's initial action. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That the original month long block (although in my opinion excessive) was reduced with no consultation whatsoever with the blocking admin is serious in itself, but that the user has continuing support despite policy being clearly shown to be against him leads me to believe that a certain admin should not involve himself in any further blocks or unblocks of this user. There is quite obviously a conflict of interest here. In future I ask that they refer the matter to this board or another uninvolved admin. Viridae^Talk 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry Alison, I wasn't refering to you) Viridae^Talk 03:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• *sigh* - as the current blocking admin, I'd like to say that while I would personally be opposed to lifting the block at this time for numerous reasons, I would certainly defer to community opinion here. Given that the matter was brought here in the first place by SJ for that very reason, that is the most appropriate response. Having said that, I have to say I am disappointed by the way this whole issue was handled here by numerous people on all sides of this heated debate; the assumption of bad-faith on behalf of others, the incivility, the making of grossly inappropriate comments on the talk page of the blocked user in question, the email campaign that started up. And on it goes. While blocking for 3RR violation is not meant to be a punishment, I don't feel the user in question has learnt from this experience. My one-week re-block was done in good faith to prevent this whole issue getting out of hand, which ultimately it ended up doing anyway - Alison ☺ 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that much of the tone of this discussion has been regrettable (to say nothing of an "e-mail campaign," which I know nothing about). My strong view remains to reduce the block to time served at this point with a stern warning and some monitoring, but I was waiting for your comments. At this point consensus appears to be that the block stands, and I will not unblock overtly against consensus. I say that with regret, in part because it appears we may wind up losing this editor permanently, and that would not be a good thing. Newyorkbrad 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

yet another section break

Honestly, I think the way the block was originally imposed is inappropriate. Miskin was reported to AN3, and the admin who originally reviewed the case said there was no 3RR violation [35]. User:Mardavich then posted on SwatJester's talk page, requesting SwatJester review the case: [36]. To echo some of the language used above, this may not be a technical violation of the forum shopping language in WP:CANVAS, but Mardavich certainly violated its spirit. The news that there's been an "email campaign" for the block doesn't make me comfortable either. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad, I appreciate your waiting. And yes - I can see from your perspective re. unblocking. However, I will defer to community opinion on this one. I note, though, that Mardavich's behaviour was inappropriate as it was ostensibly "admin shopping", and that kind of behaviour hurts everyone. Not impressed. It would be a pity if the blocked user chose to leave as a result of all this, but that is ultimately their decision - Alison ☺ 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't "forum shopping", I did nothing out of the ordinary, the closing admin had made a mistake which he later recognized and regretted[37], I had asked him to review it[38], the admin wasn't available, so I asked another admin what step I should take next [39]. That's not forum shopping. Akhilleus's got it all upside down! If there's been an "email campaign", it's been to get this user unblocked, the disproportionate number of editors/admins involved in Greek-related topics showing up here out of the blue (such as User:Akhilleus) is a clear indicator of that fact.--Mardavich 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagine that, an admin showing up at the administrators' noticeboard, out of the blue. By the way, on what basis are you saying I'm pro-Greek? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I reworded my comment to avoid the ambiguity. --Mardavich 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nice of you to change that. However, you still seem to be claiming that I'm posting here because I've been urged to do so through email. What basis do you have for claiming that? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what I said. I didn't single you out, I said a disproportionate number of the individuals coming here to support Miskin also happen to be involved in Greek-related topics which appears to be out of ordinary. That's a simple observation. --Mardavich 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true, you didn't single me out. You said I was part of a group of "editors/admins involved in Greek-related topics showing up here out of the blue", which is a "clear indicator" that there's an email campaign to get Miskin unblocked. I suggest you refactor that comment, or provide some justification for saying that an email campaign drew me (and whatever other editors you were thinking of) to this thread. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your brought up the topic of "email campaign", not me. I just made an observation based upon your statement. --Mardavich 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you'll note that the original admin who said "no violation" has since changed his opinion, he now states there was a clear unambiguous violation. See User Talk:Sam Blacketer. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that post, but I'm confused by it, and I hope that Sam Blacketer will explain his comment further. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope so too, but it seems pretty clear to me: At the time of the inital 3RR request, Sam found no violation. By the time I saw the request, there had been a clear violation. Upon notifying Sam, and over night, he saw that after his initial decision there had been a clear violation, and he changed his opinion to "violation occured". That's how it reads to me, ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that Miskin made another revert after Sam looked at the 3RR request? As far as I can tell, Miskin didn't make any edits to Battle of the Persian Gate after Sam decided there was no violation. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After I had filed that 3RR report, User:Miskin had made yet another revert within the 24-hour frame-work. --Mardavich 06:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So, um sorry to jump in well into the conversation but I've got two things I feel I need to add. 1) I think that wen admins start debating whether one another are pro-whatever on an unblock request, the process has gone horribly awry. 3RR blocks are given out, not because of content disputes, but because of disruptive behavior during content disputes. Our discussion here, as to the appropriate duration of a block, should be about conduct not content. Therefore, this discussions' participants' POV should be totally irrelevant. 2) We seem to have lost that blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. This thread is one of several examples going on right now. My final opinion on the matter? I think Miskin deserved a block, just not a 1 month block. I don't know what the right number of days is. I don't think there is a right answer. But, this user is not a "SO-AND-SO IS GAY" vandal. This is someone who has made positive contributions over several years. I think it is important not only to prevent him/her from edit waring now, but also to encourage him/her to continue making positive contributions in the future. --Selket ^Talk 05:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love this to make positive contributions. Nobody's trying to scare him away. We're trying to get him to follow the rules, which he thusfar refuses to do unless it suits him. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I should say investigating this potential 3RR violation is by now making my ears bleed. When I closed the initial report it seemed to me that the central 'approach' issue in Miskin's reverts was whether the Battle of the Persian Gate should reflect the Encyclopaedia Iranica or the 'western consensus', with Miskin a supporter of the 'western consensus'. He had three clear reverts, but the edit at 18:44 looked more like a compromise: it demoted the 25,000 to 40,000 estimate to merely being "the western consensus" rather than stated as fact. For that reason, and the fact that I don't believe the 3RR should ever be used to stop editors being bold and trying to find a compromise, I held the 18:44 edit not to be a revert and closed as no violation (although Miskin was clearly sailing close to the wind).

Following that reasoning, I think the 10:21 edit was a revert, because the effect of it was to elevate the 'western consensus' about when casualties were inflicted into a clear factual statement in the article, in line with Miskin's previous reverts. For this reason there was a 3RR violation. I think that a 1 month was extreme, because Miskin's block history shows no 3RR blocks since 2005, and I disagree with SwatJester's comment in the block log that Miskin has "clearly no intent of editing constructively". He is a combative and forceful editor but he was discussing on the talk page throughout. Sam Blacketer 08:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting something out of this issue

OK, there is a point of contention here, policy-wise, that has been generally unadressed. WP:NOP says that "Open proxies are banned from editing Wikimedia projects." However, that page is a copy from the Meta page, Meta:No open proxies, which means that "banned" does not necessarily have the same connotations it has here. As far as I know, open proxies are not immediately reverted, so they cannot be exemptions from the 3RR. Does this need to be clarified somewhere? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is correct; open proxies are banned in the normal colloquial sense, and they are blocked as discovered because of the potential for damage. There is no reason to revert constructive or good faith edits from open proxies, though such edits may be few and far between. I don't think this needs to be clarified any more than it is; I think most of us can recognize that attempts to evade this issue on a purported technicality are a red herring. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's totally irrelevant to this topic. As discussed before, Miskin could not have possibly known that he was reverting a registered user on an open proxy. If we make an exception in this case, edit-warriors will cite it and ask for an exception when excessively reverting newbie users that may—or may not— turn out to be using an open proxy. --AlexanderPar 09:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

nobody disputes Miskin should have properly served a 24h block, and I never did "unblock" him in spite of what Swatjester would have you believe. But seriously. Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs)? Does it really matter if this account was editing through an open proxy? This sort of new user joining an edit war triggers "sock attack, semiprotect" in anyone half familiar with nationalist trolling campaigns. Disclaimer: I do not endorse Miskins position in the edit war. I am saying it is obvious he was reverting a troll. And still deserved a 24h block for technical 3RRvio. As opposed to a one month block and a rude threat of permaban. dab (𒁳) 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFAR#Miskin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock for ArbCom

As a anrbitration request has now been filed, I think it is only fair that Miskin is unblocked to defend himself, that is not me questioning the 1 weeks block, but it seems to make sense in light of how things have moved forward. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have copied his opening statement to the case page from his user talk page. If the case is accepted, he can post evidence on his talk page as well. Although, with the current arbitration case backlog, a week's delay in posting his evidence would likely not affect the outcome. Thatcher131 17:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless an arbitrator requests it, I'm not sure unblocking is a good idea. Miskin is free to participate in the case while blocked, either by adding a statement to his talkpage which can be copied to the Arbitration page or by emailing ArbCom. WjBscribe 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe an unblock would be appropriate in this situation. Please see my statement in the arbitration case, including a motion which I have addressed to the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed to Miskin that I will unblock his account, provided that he only edits the arbitration pages that he is involved in, if he edits other pages, I will immediately reblock the account - the block is punitive if he agree's to the condition. I will unblock the account; firstly, if Miskin agree's to this, and secondally, if there is no clear community outrage at me doing this. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Miskin upon condition he only edits arbitration pages related to his case, any other edits will result in his immediate reblock. I have asked NYB to forward an email to ArbCom explaining my reasoning. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, though after May 19 (18:10 UTC to be specific) he should be free to edit generally once again, since the existing block will have reached expiry. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and I explained this to him. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As the last blocking admin, I have no problem with this. It's a de facto block anyway - Alison ☺ 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the RFAR, I have no problem with it. If he's under ArbCom scrutiny, he'll have to be on his best behavior won't he? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Mona Lisa?

User:Madmedea tags reproductions of Renaissance paintings as "unsourced", floods the uploaders' talk pages with loud threats to delete them, etc. Here's an example. Does he/she really think that the heirs of Andrei Rublev or Leonardo da Vinci will launch a suit against Wikipedia? Please investigate what's going on. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The copyright has expired on the originals, and the photograph is ineligible for copyright, is that not so?Ploutarchos 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality." --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then just revert Madmedea or ask him to revert himself. Has he seen this dicussion? I doubt he'll object. Do you want me to do it?Ploutarchos 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It so happens that he/she reverted me and restored her threat to delete the reproduction within two days. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to provide source URLs, Madmedea's edits are not inappropriate. For more information, please see commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. --Iamunknown 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to remember "source URLs" for images uploaded in 2004 (see the diff above). Even if I provide URL, what's the use of it? How does the presence of a source URL effect the copyright status of a Mona Lisa reproduction? The commons essay you refer to was started less than two weeks ago and cannot be the basis for deleting images uploaded three years earlier. Furthermore, it does not mention the word "source" or otherwise sanction Madmedea's activities. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec w/Nick) The Commons "essay" points out something that we have long neglected and need to now realize: that we cannot simply upload digital reproductions of two-dimensional works without attribution. If that means that it cannot be the basis for deleting images, then what can?

The copyright status of any work depends upon the country in which the work was produced; if the photograph were taken in the United Kingdom, for example, where the threshold of originality required for a copyright is much lower and is, in fact, based upon the "sweat of brow" doctrine, a slavish photograph of a painting would be copyrighted; in the United States it would not, as established by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. By knowing the source we can beging to figure out where the photograph was taken and which jurisdiction the copyright was created under. I personally do not generally tag PD-old or PD-art images with no source when they were created in 2004, but that does not preclude others from doing so. --Iamunknown 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that images should include a source, but for images that are clearly public domain such as these, a source isn't necessary and we're just being subjected to needless process wonkery. It's at this point we invoke WP:IAR, ignoring the blurb about needing to find a source for images uploaded 4 years ago - this nonsense will disrupt or prevent our ability to create and distribute our little encyclopedia, so we just ignore it. -- Nick ^t 22:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

These images are not clearly public domain. --Iamunknown 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What's not public domain about [40] ? -- Nick ^t 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Where was the photograph taken? --Iamunknown 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Under US law if the image is proved to be a slavish copy of a PD work it is itself PD, no mattter where it was taken or who took it. it might possibly not be PD in the UK, but wikipedia follows US law on copyright. DES ^(talk) 23:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can copyrights in the United States expire (or, in this case, not exist) when they are still active in other countries? I was under the impression that they could not. I, however, am not a laywer. --Iamunknown 23:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

DES, AFAIK Wikimedia operates servers in .us, .nl and .kr , and therefore probably needs to follow international law. Even if that wasn't the case, documents might still be protected under the berne convention. --Kim Bruning 00:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC) IANAL, hence the caveats.

Maybe we can solve this by adjusting the server software so that images with this specific problem are hosted and served only from the US server. 75.62.6.237 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

US law is fairly clear on these points, and i can find sources for you if you like, IANAL either, but I have had a good deal to do with copyright for some years, including over on Distributed Proofreaders, where I am a content provider and project manager, tasks for which some copyright knowledge is required. The Berne convention requires that works of nationals of foreign counteries (that are members, but that is prectically everwhere these days) get the same protection in the US as do the works of US nationals. It also sets some minimum standards (Life plus 30 is the absolute floor for new copyrights, IIRC) and forbids requiring "formalities" of foreign copyright holders -- this was largely aimed at the former US rule that without a copyright notice, all rights were lost, and at former US registration requirements. But Berne does not in any way expand US copyright law, and there have indeed been cases where US courts have held works PD in the US that are in copyright elsewhere. And there have been cases of foreign works that are now PD in their countries of origin (including th UK) but are still in copyright here. As to the foreign serves, i can'r aay, but it was my strong impression that the Foundation considered that for legal purposes wikipedia was located in the US state of Florida, and must obey Florida and US federal law, and that particualrly on copyright it need not conform to the laws of other jurisdictions. DES ^(talk) 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Finding URLs for images uploaded years ago is impracticable, as URLs don't normally live that long. Would you delete a Titian reproduction just because you can't find an URL featuring a reproduction that matches it to a T? I don't see how an URL may give one food "to figure out where the photograph was taken and which jurisdiction the copyright was created under". If an URL points to a French website, it does not mean that the reproduction was created in France and should fall within the scope of French laws. Basically, this road leads us nowhere. So far there have been no legal threats involving PD-art images. Of course we can try to be holier than Christ, but then it's more reasonable to delete all "unsourced" PD-art images en masse, than to bother all the hard-working editors who may have uploaded thousands of PD-art images, especially ro Commons. It seems that now, when fair-use problems are more or less resolved, our copyright defenders are in search of a new field of boundless activity, which may keep them busy for months if not years, at the expense of time and energy of those wikipedians who prefer to contribute new articles, rather than browse for the so-called "source URLs". --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how adding a source affects the copyright status one iota. Perhaps someone can explain. (I guess the argument is that adding a source helps us to verify copyright status, yes/no?)

I am not an expert, but my understanding is that it is pretty clear that a slavish copy of the Mona Lisa does not attract copyright in the US, following Bridgeman v. Corel (I believe there is also some debate about that conclusion). But are you saying now that we need to check the copyright status of all of our images in every jurisdiction in the world? ("This image is subject to copyright in X and Y, but available under fair use in Z; it is public domain in A and B"?) So we delete images that are copyright in Tuvalu or Andorra, even if they are public domain everywhere else? Are we proposing to delete user's photos of images of buildings in France because the architect has copyright in that jurisdiction?

Anyway, this indiscriminate spamming of long-term editors with aggressively-worded template messages is simply awful. Where is the Wikipedia (not Commons) policy (not essay) page which mandates the deletion of all images without a source? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the relevant Commons page was not an essay. Can you recommend otherwise? Regardless, you may be looking for Wikipedia:Image use policy. --Iamunknown 23:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So who got asked to source the oldest image? I'll see your Mona Lisa and raise you the 14thC manuscript Prose Edda. Also uploaded in 2004. What do I win? Bishonen | talk 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Image:0511.jpg Ancient Maya art c. 600 - 900 AD, also uploaded in 2004. Sorry you don't win; I don't expect this to either. Any Ancient Egpytian copyright violations spotted yet? -- Infrogmation 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, neither of those are clearly slavish reproductions. Then again, I am not familiar with case law surrounding copyrights of Rollout photography. --Iamunknown 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, get it? Ancient Egyptian? Slavish? --Masamage ♫ 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Image:0511.jpg is copyrighted by "Justin Kerr". See [41] (even though the colors look somewhat differenet, see the bottom right corner of the images and you'll seethe Kerr number 0511 on both) ... perfect example illustrating why sourcing is important even though it is a pain in the neck. Abecedare 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, United States museums claim copyright on reproductions of now-public domain works, and they are wrong (per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). But I do not think that Bridgeman applies to this image; it does not appear to be a slavish reproduction in the manner described in Bridgeman. --Iamunknown 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Image:0511.jpg is claimed to be copyrighted, but that claim is not necessarily defensible under US law. I think it is only prudent that we don't delete such images from wikipedia till a consensus is reached as to how expansively Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is to be interpreted on wikipedia. Perhaps Village Pump will be a better venue for this debate than ANI. Abecedare 00:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the text of Bridgeman (but I should); I would imagine off-hand, however, that it does not specifically address rollout photography and, as such, we should consider such photography non-free (unless it is freely licensed) until case law concerns itself with such photography. I would hope that others would agree; in general, however, further discussion is definitely necessary at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights (with ads at the VP). --Iamunknown 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the noticeboard is low-traffic and suffers from bias. It is frequented by those who apriori consider all our image database as "suspect" and are seldom interested in the improvement of our articles. I would rather discuss the matter at a more sympathetic and high-traffic venue. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that Image:0511.jpg has a tag which states it is a reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art. Since it's a vase it is manifestly not a 2-d work of art and nor as it happens is the image a simple photograph of the item in question. The image is a two-dimensional representation of a painting on a three-dimensional surface and has been produced by some technique or other. No idea what this means for copyright in terms of Corel though! The Land 12:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Corel only applies to 2-d works of art not photos of 3-d... there are actually quite a few images that are currently tagged PD-art which are ineligible for this reason, I'm collecting them here Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#May 14 - hopefully a less inflammatory tag than no sources! Loathe to add Image:0511.jpg myself after my debacle here...Madmedea 12:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created {{ImageRound-Nosource}} and {{PD-Roundart}} for #-d works of art, without and with sources speciied, respectively. DES ^(talk) 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Broader discussion: Tagging centuries old images as "no source"

Discussion needs to be broadened as it dealing with very much more than the Mona Lisa. For example, Image:ADurerCardinalAlbrecht.jpg notes it was done by Albrecht Dürer in 1519. I would consider that as mentioning a source. Madmedea list that as "no source". Such images of art have been tagged to be deleted withing 48 hours. Some of these artworks were created over a thousand years ago. Some have been illustrating articles here at Wikipedia for 3 or 4 years. Some were uploaded by users who are no longer regulars and are unlikely to reply to the notice within 48 hours. Clearly we need to decide if Madmedea's actions are the appropriate approach within less time than that. Personally, I see nothing wrong with keeping useful images that very clearly are public domain and have no risk of causing any potential copyright problem. -- Infrogmation 23:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Inactive URLs

If I uploaded the rare reproduction of an ancient icon and indicated the source URL, will the image be deleted after that URL is no longer working? Will the reproduction of a Titian painting pointing to a dead URL be considered "sourced" or "unsourced"? --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends upon who was viewing the image and upon some copyright questions that are currently unanswered. Hopefully they would first look at the Wayback Machine. --Iamunknown 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the analogy with the Unreferenced articles is valid. Sources for the images are important and simplify verification of the author of the image, that it was not altered to push editors POV etc. On the other hand we do not delete unreferenced articles of 2004, instead we source them. I think the same approach can go for the old PD-art images without URL. Put {{unreferenced}} on it and try to reference it. For the attributions of the reproductions of art we do not need the exact source. I think references to other reproductions of the same painting are sufficient. Alex Bakharev 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking about the Rublev's Theotokas of Vladimir painting we have higher resolution on commons Image:Rublev3.jpg. Since the source of the commons' reproduction is given it can be used for validation of the image here Alex Bakharev 00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Although, as Wikipedia is not a collection of images WP:NOT, if the image is available at the Commons then it could be used instead. Madmedea 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to say - I am not an admin! I am not deleting anyone's photos, I am simply tagging them as lacking sources. An admin will review the image and decide if it needs deleting, not me. Even if the original source cannot be found, if the image is in the public domain a link to a current source would seem fine to me - or even noting which gallery/library the object is in, as it allows verification. Please this debate should be about sources not copyright. Madmedea 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter whether you are an admin or no. There is no lack of admin volunteers to run a bot and delete all tagged images en masse, as was the case with Betacommand and PD-USSR images. Once the image is tagged, you may expect it to be arbitrarily deleted any minute (at least, in my experience). --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On close inspection Image:Rublev3.jpg and Image:A Rublev-Virgin of Vladimir.jpg are not two photographs of the same painting (not only are the colors and paint erosions different, but look at the virgins left eye and the fold of cloth under her right ear). So either Rublev drew the same subject more than once (very likely!), or Image:A Rublev-Virgin of Vladimir.jpg is a more recent "student copy" of the original - which would make its copyright status suspect. Abecedare 00:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I am sure it is the same icon just photographed at different times. Icons were objects of the religious ceremonies not an object of art. There were candles and oi lamps burning in inches from the paintwork. There were golden "icon-settings" (oklads) nailed to it. Thus every few years an artisan "bogomaz" would put a new layer of paint over the icon. They usually were trying to keep the painting the same but if you have 50-100 layers of paint over the original paint work it looks quite differently from the originals. In the 19th century people discover that you can "clear out" ancient icons: remove all the paint layers but the original one. They were astonished by the bright fresh look of the result. Still usually clearing out icons destroys part of the painting completely. The two images show just the difference. The icon as it was confiscated from the church (with tens of layers of paint over the original) and the cleared out original (with some damage due to the process). Alex Bakharev 08:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My response

• Now someone has had the courtesy to notify me of this debate I would like to comment. Images require source AND copyright tags. One or the other is not enough. This is clearly stated on the official wikipedia policy regarding images - WP:IUP#Rules of thumb. I know its a pain but without a source an image is basically like an unreferenced fact in an article - ok we all know what the Mona Lisa looks like but for other images without a source how can a user check its authenticity? The message left on user talk page is automatically generated from the {{nosource}} tag, I didn't write it. I did start leaving an extra message to try and make the purpose of the tagging in PD cases a little clearer. Please, Wikipedia has policies for a reason - tagging a problem for admin attention is not a crime and in line with everyone's rights as a Wikipedia editor. You may find it annoying but the policies exist for a reason. It will be up to an administrator to decide if any image gets deleted. Madmedea 23:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd actually suggest instead of just tagging images, you help try and find sources, if your so concerned about them, in saying that, sources aren't useful for these images, I've just confirmed a few points with a fellow admin and the source is actually useless, we actually need to know under which countries jurisdiction the images were uploaded, not the source for the image nor the actual jurisdiction under which the image was created. If your in England & Wales and upload a reproduction, you would likely be breaking the law, whereas if you upload the image in the USA, you would most likely be protected by the precedent set by the Bridgeman v Corel case. -- Nick ^t 23:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I honestly wasn't worried about copyright, just sources, hence the source tag! Without one it undermines WP as an encyclopaedia as everything should be referenced. I didn't mean to cause a row by just tagging some images for problems. Still miffed that my edits have been mass reverted though! Madmedea 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  Where have you seen an encyclopaedia where "everything is referenced"? Only monographs (i.e., original research publications) require thorough referencing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I spend a lot of my time finding sources, uploading things to Wikimedia Commons etc. Many of the uploaders of the images I've tagged have been able to provide their sources when reminded. I didn't think this would a problem! What is the point of policy if its not followed? Madmedea 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  It's easier for me to upload a new image of a well-known painting with a fresh URL than to browse all over the web to retrieve an URL from which it was downloaded years ago. But what's the point of these exercises in formal adherence to the rules? Last time I checked WP:POINT it said that "WP is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone. (These are arguably not defects.)" --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• What this problem reveals is a serious need to clarify what is acceptable on the English-language Wikipedia.
  1. Must all free content be able to be published under the GFDL? If so, we cannot use non-multilicensed CC works.
  2. Must we only obey United States copyright law? If so, I think (but really do not know, so don't take this a legal advice at all) United States citizens can upload slavish reproductions of anything out of copyright in the United States (while it may be in copyright in other countries)

     Surely the category in question would not be citizenship, but location. A non-American in the United States is subject to U.S. copyright law. A U.S. citizen in France is subject to French copyright law. Beyond that, the issue of location of uploader should only be important to the uploader. Perhaps it is a copyright violation (I have no idea) to upload a slavish reproduction of an old painting in France, and the person who does that would be violating the law. But that doesn't mean that Wikipedia, by hosting that image, is violating the law, since, as I understand it, wikipedia is subject only to U.S. law. So any such image should be fine for wikipedia, although I suppose those outside the United States might want to be careful of uploading such images for their own sake. john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  3. Do we accept works where the copyright holder (or former copyright holder) is not clear but are arguably in the public domain due to age?

     Of course we should. Who on earth cares who the former copyright holder of something which is clearly out of copyright is? john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• That doesn't even mention serious GFDL-related issues surrounding merging (which I think are much more difficult to decide than image-related issues). --Iamunknown 23:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the current nosource tag sucks, why not change the text around a bit, or make a newer , usefuller tag? Everyone would use it for this kind of image then! :-) --Kim Bruning 00:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Madmedea 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder how useful the source is. If we know that an image is a slavish reproduction of a work currently out of copyright, then it's public domain. The source of it seems basically irrelevant if there's no actual possibility for it to be copyrighted. john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that an image is a slavish reproduction if we don't know its provenance? If you uploaded an image of the Mona Lisa with subtly altered colours and composure, I am not at all confident that I would recognise it as a derivative work. Hence the need for provenance information. The problem here isn't that the demand for source is onerous, but that it is not onerous enough - we should be demanding a source, AND demanding that that source be a reputable library or archive that can be trusted to provide good-faith "slavish" reproductions. Hesperian 03:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Subtly altered colors does not give something in the public domain a new copyright. Question is irrelevent. Something in the public domain is public domain regardless of source. Period. DreamGuy 03:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd want to be pretty darn sure of that. This is not something we can afford to get wrong. Everyone else on this page has been talking about the necessity of "slavish reproduction", and all of a sudden you are claiming that I can lighten and crop the image and it will still be PD. Where do you get that idea? Hesperian 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See derivative work: "Although a derivative work author usually has been authorized, through license, to incorporate the previous work into his derivation, he does not gain thereby a copyright in any preexisting material." ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The key word there is "pre-existing". All that is saying is that I don't gain copyright of the Mona Lisa just because I produce a lightened and cropped version of it. But if there is any intellectual property in my lightening and cropping, then I retain copyright over my derivative work.

Bridgeman v Corel provides an extremely broad scope for photographic originality - "posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved".

I still contend that we shouldn't be claiming photographs as PD per Bridgeman v Corel unless we have shown due diligence in checking that the images really are slavish copies. Hesperian 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of a derivative work is not limited in scope by Bridgeman v Corel. Although you are correct that anyone may assert creative authorship in any trivial modification of the original work. For our purposes, I agree that we must verify the authenticity and integrity of the reproduction of the original work. However, if a lightly modified version (that is, cleaned up in Photoshop or some-such) is presented as the original in a publication with no claim of authorship for the modification, I think we're in the clear. The distinguishing feature between derivative and transformative use is intent: if it is the image editors intent simply to better present the original work by selectively cropping it or adjusting the color/contrast/etc., then the result is definitely a derivative work that is covered under the original copyright. Further, if such modifications are contributed by a Wikipedia user, then we don't really have to worry about licensing. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have said. But the issue at hand is images with no source, for which we don't know whether it was presented as the original in a publication, and for which we do not know the author's intent. You make a valid point though: if someone uploads an image without specifying the source, and someone else goes to the trouble of checking that the uploaded image is a faithful reproduction of the original, then having a source for the image would not be necessary. I hope that the proposed {{PDnosource}} tag comes with clear instructions that a editor should tag an image with it only after they have carefully checked that the uploaded image really is a faithful reproduction of the original, and not a (subtly or otherwise) altered version. Hesperian 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So long as the {{PDnosource}} tag allows for a reasonable amount of time to verify the backlogs (months, not days), I agree with your stance. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning "subtly altered colors", etc.

• Firstly, I have a habit of modifying colors in Photoshop before uploading reproductions of old paintings to Wikipedia. Could I claim copyright on those images?
• Secondly, most images of paintings by Old masters were uploaded to Commons by commons:User:File Upload Bot (Eloquence). They are properly sourced but differ enormously (as regards colors and contrast) from paintings that actually hang in art museums (or from reproductions of those paintings that may be found on museum websites). Should they be deleted?
• Secondly, museum version of paintings are also by no means "official" or definitive. Reproductions of the same painting from two museum websites may differ substantially. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• See the newly created {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}}. DES ^(talk) 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts and suggestions

It looks to me that Madmedea was working to apply procedures-- but those procedures were designed to protect Wikipedia from copyright violations. Applied in a context where this was not the specific concern, the result has been problematic. I would suggest:

1) Short term. Remove the "no source" tags from images for which there is no challenge to public domain status. An alternative template or text to the effect that "This public domain image should have better source information" and perhaps a related category would be good. However time is already ticking on useful public domain images used in articles to be deleted as "no source" images, so I suggest removing those tags be prioritized within the next day even if the final wording of a new template hasn't been decided on yet.

2) Intermediate term. I think we could use some policy for providing more information on public domain images, especially legacy images which may have been uploaded years ago by users who are no longer active. I'm thinking along the lines of a category added to the images requesting an expert second look, and that when the intermediate "source" of the digital copy of the public domain image cannot be identified it be acceptible for someone to add something, for example, confirming that it is indeed a 16th century work atttirbuted to Pieter Bruegel the Elder since it is listed on page so and so of a certain book.

Other thoughts and suggestions? -- Infrogmation 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems sensible enough. john k 02:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Same here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Building off of Infrogmation's idea, we could create a template like {{PDnosource}} for instances like this. The current template applies to non-free images and doesn't really fit our use with sourcing PD images. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an elegant and practical solution. According to [42], any work of art created prior to 1887 is almost assuredly fair game. Of course there are possible complications that arise when dealing with derivative works, or with properly identifying the authenticity of public domain images. Tagging them with {{nosource}}, however, is a horrible idea based on a flawed and overly legalistic reading of policy. URLs fade, museums and private collectors often attempt to claim copyright when it is obviously expired, and many paintings are mistakenly attributed to artists based on circumstantial evidence. Still, whatever quirks we have to work out, paintings that are hundreds of years old are in the public domain regardless of flawed attribution, and Wikipedia sourcing policy is a means, not an end. {{PDnosource}} should take these considerations into account, and provide for several methods of verification. We should allow for citations that reference written scholarly works, museum catalogs, published biographies, and other content that might not appear on the internet. Until then, lets abide by common sense and not delete images that portray ancient works of art. (Although the 2d replication of a 3d vase is an interesting case and might be copyrighted.) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

I propose it contain the text: "We're claiming this is PD per Bridgeman v Corel, but we haven't actually bothered to check whether it is a slavish reproduction. It might be a subtly altered version, and we wouldn't know, because we don't know where it came from." Hesperian 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Subtly altered versions do not get new copyrights. Only significant changes get new copyrights... enough to be considered a new work of art completely. That's not going to apply to 99% of the images tagged as public domain. DreamGuy 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite certain you're wrong; discussion continues in the subsection above. Hesperian 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All of this seems reasonable (except Hesperian's comment), but there should be some discussion of what constitutes a "source". If an image description clearly and fully identifies a work of art, and its current location, then I would argue that it has been sourced. Dsmdgold 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me - if it hasn't been done already I'll untag the images I tagged - and sorry for causing such a hoo hah. I would just like to say that source has importance far beyond any copyright claims - by referencing where an image came from it gives a way of checking whether the image is what it says it is. We all know what the Mona Lisa looks like (altered or not), but do you know that an ancient manuscript or unfamiliar painting is what the uploader says it is without a way of checking via a source - or if that really is the 4th duke of marlborough? Just as articles need to be referenced, so do images for the purpose of verifiability WP:V, which is what started me on this in the first place and I would presume this is one of the reasons why both WP and the Commons ask for sources! Madmedea 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All tags have been removed from images that are highly likely to be PD works of art. Madmedea 09:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}} for use in cases where the art is clearly 2-D public domain, but the photo is uncreditied. Please consider using it in such cses in future. DES ^(talk) 15:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a couple of suggestions for some possible modification; I've started discussion at Template talk:PD-Flatart-Nosource. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there somewhere where we could have a decent discussion about what these tags should look like, as this is obviously not the best place. I would like to discuss the tags that DES has created before they get used widely as, although a good start, I'm not sure they are quite what is needed as they mix copyright/source and the 3d one doesn't actually seem to fit with the law. Madmedea 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, found the right page myself, DES has already started the discussion - Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#New tags for images of art not fitting existing tags - I would really appreciate other contributors feedback on this.Madmedea 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious editor disrespects page protection and recreates disputed page

ResolvedDemo article, userfied to Smee's space. ··coelacan 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee, a prolific editor with a history of complaints for tendentious editing, just recreated a page that is the subject of page protection so as to evade the page protection and avoid resolving the pending issues. By the numbers:

1. Ongoing dispute at Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports over what constitutes a "government report". Arguments going against Smee's inclusion of a cherry-picked 1979 document.
2. Smee renames to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents (diff) and then simply Groups referred to as cults in government documents (diff) after reinserting the disputed document (diff).
3. I rename it back to (almost - my bad) the original, to Groups referred to as cults in government reports (diff) and restore the last version by User:Jossi as a last fairly undisputed starting point (diff} and then I ask to have the page protected ([43]) and it is.
4. User:Anynobody asks to have the page unprotected and the disputed document reinserted by the unprotecting admin then it be protected again with the disputed document included (diff). Declined, see discussion here.
5. Smee asks that the page be unprotected (diff).
6. About two hours later, Smee creates a new page for Groups referred to as cult in government documents, evading the dispute, the page protection, and the dispute resolution process (diff). The disputed document is prominently featured.

I am sorry to have to come before this board again but this is extremely serious WP:DE and I am seriously at a loss as to how to deal with an editor that disrespects the process to this degree. Smee is an extremely experienced editor and knows that disputes are resolved, not evaded. --Justanother 23:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother - disruptive to the project, previously blocked for violating three policies

1. Justanother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has an ongoing history of violating policy, and disrupting the project to make a point, or purely to remove information, much in the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, and this striking and most troubling history of policy violation, most notably WP:TROLL, and WP:NPA, have been documented by users including myself by also other than myself, at User:Orsini/Sandbox3 and User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3 in preparation for further action.
2. User:Justanother has been blocked for what the Administrator noted as: Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA [44].
3. As to my recent actions, they were obviously misperceived. I asked for feedback on a new version of the article in question, here. Then User:Milomedes asked for an example, and specifically referred to the model used at List of groups referred to as cults, here. The initial user who requested this example be provided, then commented that the example provided was sharp, with clean editing work, here. Thus, I was simply responding to this user's request that I provide an example as to the new model that I had suggested and asked for feedback on, on the talk page. Smee 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

okay, folks, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Second step: Disengage for a while

If it was a demo, the proper place for something like that is in a sandbox, not in article space. I have speedy deleted the article as a WP:POVFORK. I do not see any glaring reason for Justanother or Smee to be blocked today. Please continue to use article talk pages in a civil manner and pursue dispute resolution if necessary. ··coelacan 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

At Smee's request, I've moved the article to a temporary sandbox at User:Smee/Groups referred to as cult in government documents so it doesn't reside in article space as a POV fork. Hopefully that resolves the issue. ··coelacan 00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I acknowledge that this could have been construed as a "fork", however, that was not my intention. My intention was to respond to a request to provide an example, after I had requested feedback on a suggestion from the talk page. After polite input from User:coelacan, I will make these sorts of examples in the future as subpages in userspace, instead. However, User:Justanother's actions were highly inappropriate in this matter, as is noted on his talk page. Smee 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Granted Smee should've tagged the proposal article as such to avoid confusion on the part of anyone who stumbled onto it through a search or some way other than the message on Talk:Groups referred to as cults in government reports#Feedback on new formatting idea as you did coelacan. However Justanother, unlike yourself, HAS been editing on the talk page both before and after Smee made the above linked request.before (diff) after diff after diff2 after dif 3.

I'm not saying you should have done anything different than you did, based on what the post says, and the lack of identifying itself as a proposal you'd of been wrong not to speedy delete the page. I am saying Justanother did (or should have) known the nature of the page. Anynobody 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing clarification. Smee 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

This issue is far from resolved

I do not think that this issue is resolved. A user that creates a fork bypassing page protection on May 12 23:02 Diff (diff after page move) and three minutes later on May 12 23:05, replaces the protected article with the forked article in a template used by hundreds of pages. Diff with an edit summary "fix link" and without discussing this "swap" with anyone, and after doing that, which is an obvious violation of POV fork to avoid page protection, rather than show contrition and apologize, choses to defend his/her actions with a counterattack designed to poisoning the well. In his/her defense the user claims that "My intention was to respond to a request to provide an example, after I had requested feedback on a suggestion from the talk page.", when his/her actions show quite differently. This issue will be resolved when this user receives strong advise as to do not engage in that type of behavior in the future, do not respond to ANI notices with attacks on the filer, politely address the concerns expressed, and apologizes to his fellow editors for the offending behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• That was not my intention. As stated above, I was responding to a request on the talk page to provide an example. I was advised about this, and acknowledged the advice, and the next time, I did provide an example in my user space, and am getting some positive feedback on it with amicable discussion on talk pages. As I have already stated, I will not create this type of example-page in main-space again, but rather in user space, and engage in discussion on talk pages, and that is exactly what I am currently doing. Smee 13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Diff, taking into account advice that has been provided, and engaging in positive feedback/discussion progress on talk pages with similar issue in a subsequent situation. Smee 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Amicable discussion? Not your intention? Positive feedback? Can you explain then why you did [this] saying that you were "fixing a link" to your fork, please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I received a positive comment from Diff an editor that has not been heavily involved in that particular page, but was a long-time editor and expert on the past discussions at LOGRTAC. Smee 13:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

And that was enough for you to replace the article with your fork behind everybody's back, without informing anyone of that and despite the page protection that was approved on the basis editwarring? Do you really believe that that type of behavior is acceptable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that the opinion of a relatively un-involved editor that was much more experienced than I with regard to the history of these type of list articles was important, and that we should begin to utilize the page. There was NO, "behind everybody's back", for it was discussed on the talk page, as can be seen from my previous statements, above. In any event, what's done is done, I will do my absolute best to avoid anything that looks like a "fork" in the future, without discussion on the article's talk page - and that is exactly what is going on now at the talk page for Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media - positive feedback and discussion on a potential idea for a new page that I have used as an example in my user space. Smee 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, you are digging a bigger hole for yourself with every answer. You changed your forked article 3 minutes after you created the fork. Your discussion with that editor was five hours later as per your diff. Yes, what is done is done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that I have correctly heeded the advice given to me by User:Coelacan, I will not create pages that could be construed as "forks", unless this has been heavily discussed on talk pages and agreed to by all as a page move, and I am now correctly having a polite discussion in a separate matter with other editors about a provided example in my userspace, at the talk page Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media - which shows positive application of User:Coelacan's polite advice and correction. Smee 14:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

No, that is not the point. The point is that you attacked the editor that called you on that violation, and then lied in this noticeboard about the reasons for your actions. You should be strongly cautioned not only on your behavior on these articles, but your behaviour on this noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing out the issues relating to the history of the "tendentious" editor that reported me, yes. I did not lie as to my intentions for creating the page. My intention was not to create a "fork", NO ONE said anything to me about this before this report, and if anyone had brought this up politely on a talk page, that would have been a different matter entirely. And the fact remains that User:Coelacan intervened politely, gave me some very good advice and counsel, and I have reformed my actions after the fact because of this advice. Smee 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I am not addressing the fork issue that could have been an honest mistake, I am discussing what you did after you created the fork, and your behavior in this noticeboard. You changed a template using the fork despite page protection, and when asked about the reasons for doing so you said you changed the template after you discussed it with an editor, a fact that is proven false as per the diff you submitted. You replaced the template 3 minutes after you created it, and you discussed the issue with the editor 5 hours later. Was that another honest mistake, Smee? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should have provided this as well: DIFF OF USER ASKING FOR EXAMPLE TO BE PROVIDED. This is where the user asked for an example to be provided, and that is what I was responding to. And please, use more polite language. Sarcastic language like: Was that another honest mistake, Smee?, is highly inappropriate and not conducive to a constructive and polite discussion. Smee 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

<<outdent>> You keep skirting the issue, but I have said enough already. Other admins will hopefully comment and provide further advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I have acknowledged above that the page may have been misconstrued as a "fork".
2. I wish that someone had brought this politely to my attention on a talk page, and I would have moved the page accordingly to my user space and asked myself that the mainspace version be deleted.
3. I appreciate the polite advice provided by User:Coelacan.
4. I have begun to employ User:Coelacan's advice, with polite and positive feedback from others, at Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media. I have also refined my actions a bit and received some other postive discussion and worked with a different editor since this issue, at Talk:Scientology in popular culture.

Smee 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

From what I can tell, this was a rather egregious attempt to sneak around a protected page, compounded by a less than honest recounting of events afterwards. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi would you please show some diffs regarding this statement:

You changed a template using the fork despite page protection, and when asked about the reasons for doing so you said you changed the template after you discussed it with an editor, a fact that is proven false as per the diff you submitted. You replaced the template 3 minutes after you created it, and you discussed the issue with the editor 5 hours later. Was that another honest mistake, Smee? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When discussing another editor's behavior it's always helpful for everyone if the actual events can be seen by all. Anynobody 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

All the diffs have been provided above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. jossi diff 1 = A non existent page in the article namespace.
2. jossi diff 2 = A newly created subpage in Smee's userspace.
3. jossi diff 3 Smee making a spelling erroran error in a cult template.

I was assuming there was other information, but I must say these don't exactly show intentional wrong doing on their own let alone when compared to the diffs Smee provided. Anynobody 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now hang on a second, Anynobody. You're overlooking something. User:Smee/Groups referred to as cult in government documents used to be Groups referred to as cult in government documents, until I moved it into Smee's userspace. And that third diff wasn't a "spelling error", nor has Smee, to my knowledge, suggested it was. It was a change of the template to point to Smee's new page instead of the established page. ··coelacan 05:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I failed to see that page. Still I doubt the action was intentionally calculated to avoid the blocked page, so I'm guessing it was a spelling/grammar error correction attempt. (Groups <plural> referred to as cults <plural> means calling Hare Krishna a cults). Anynobody 08:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

what else is there to do?

Okay, jossi or Jayjg or anyone: I told Smee yesterday to be very careful not to do anything like this agsin.[45] Smee assured me that it would not happen again. Assuming it doesn't, what else should be done? Should Smee be blocked for this? Should we just leave the conversation as is now, and let the archive bots record the minutes of this meeting? Smee's been told in no uncertain terms to be careful not to misstep in any way that would look like a WP:POVFORK. Is that sufficient? ··coelacan 05:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I will avoid replying or posting further to the ANI page, as per a helpful outreach by User:Bishonen to myself and Anynobody, Justanother, and Lsi john. And as far as this particular matter is concerned, User:coelacan is correct, I will abide by the advice/suggestions/warnings User:coelacan has put forth, and not misstep in any way that would look like a WP:POVFORK. Smee 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The running Justanother/Smee ANI battle was getting out of hand IMO. I have posted an attempt at dealing with it below, in a separate thread currently at the bottom of the page[46] for greater visibility. Bishonen | talk 12:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

It is indeed sufficient, Coelacan. Blocking should not be used punitively, and Smee has agreed to be more careful with her actions, and with the way she behaved in this noticeboard. What was done was done, lessons have been learnt, and now is it time to let it heal. The community is strong enough to let people learn from their mistake and recover any loss of dignity by demonstrating with their actions that they are capable of changing for the best. We should all thank Bishonen for the valiant intervention to set in place some ground rules so that users do not harm themselves any further. Let's move on, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, let's. Thank you to Coelacan and to Bishonen for their instructive yet polite actions in this matter. Yours, Smee 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Un-sourced statements

I removed[47] a bunch of un-sourced material from Verio, per this discussion, but User:Ronz keeps adding it back without any sources except a "fact tag" at the top of the article that has been there for days. I don't want to edit war with him over it. Do I have the right to remove un-sourced material from Wikipedia? -- Stbalbach 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the wikipedia verifiability article: Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Pacingcar 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't know what to do, the user keeps reverting un-sourced material in direct violation of WP:V which I thought was one of the "non-negotiable" Wikipedia policies. -- Stbalbach 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:CITE states: "if it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag ... and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time," I presume the source of contention between you is the definition of a reasonable time? --Kralizec! (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish they would ask, the user has not asked for time, they just revert and say "you don't personally like it" in the edit note. -- Stbalbach 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When you post on AN/I, you should probably give the entire background of the "incident". This is nothing more than another episode in a long-winded content dispute between you and Ronz. In fact, on Talk:Verio, you previously argued for the inclusion of material without sources. You seem to be using AN/I as a sneaky way to backdoor the numerous results of the third opinions and other suggestions made on the talk page. Furthermore, as an admitted previous employee of the company, you might have a possible conflict of interest (and indeed, it seems like your edits attempt to shine a positive light on Verio's actions). If you really must, take this to a request for comment. Content disputes do not belong here. Alsandair 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But it's not really a content dispute since I wrote 90% article myself, as an ex-employee with an admitted grudge, and without any sources. You'd think yourself, Ronz and others would be arguing to remove it (or at least the stuff I wrote that is un-sourced), but instead your fighting to keep it. LOL. -- Stbalbach 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and notify Ronz that this discussion is taking place. MastCell ^Talk 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have no interest as to whether or not the information stays - I am just pointing out that you are inconsistent with your application of policy. Note that the bulk of Wikipedia is made up of uncited, uncontentious material (if we removed all of it, we'd probably be smaller than Britannica). That pretty much describes the information you took out. Finally, it doesn't matter how much of the article you wrote, this is still a content dispute, as defined by that term. Since numerous third opinions have failed to help, I suggest you file a request for comment. Alsandair 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is clear - un-sourced material may be removed by anyone at any time. If it is uncontentious than you should have no trouble providing a source. There is no content dispute here Ronz despite what your trying to make of it. -- Stbalbach

I am not Ronz by the way, nor do I even know him. Alsandair 04:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy WP:V is very clear - un-sourced material may be removed by anyone at any time. I would like to remove the un-sourced material and need help from someone to do so. Can someone help me remove this un-sourced material? How far up the chain do I need to go to remove material that I wrote myself, as an admitted disgruntled ex-employee, that is un-sourced? -- Stbalbach 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you wrote the material yourself has no bearing on anything - you seem to want to own the article. At least leave the uncontested information in to allow for somebody to come up with a source. I'm sure that after this lively discussion one will be happily forthcoming. Alsandair 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. I said I wrote it because you framed this as a "content dispute", how can there be a content dispute over something I wrote? If someone adds citations I would be thrilled. If someone asked for time to provide citations I would be thrilled. None of that has happened. Unless it does happen this material can be removed per WP:V. There does not need to be RfC for removing un-sourced material, WP:V is non-negotiable. -- Stbalbach 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I insulted you, I certainly did not intend to do so. Again, the fact that you wrote the content does not matter. You want to remove content, others (chiefly Ronz, I guess) want to keep it. That's a dispute over whether or not to include content. I don't know how else to say it. And look, I'd be thrilled if someone added citations to all the unsourced material on Wikipedia, but because they don't, that doesn't mean I'm going to delete it. If I did, I'd have to destroy ninety percent of the encyclopedia. This is basically the the largest application of ignore all rules. It's what keeps Wikipedia feasible. If you delete the information on Verio, please make sure you apply the same standard to all the other articles you edit. Since you were previously advocating ignoring verifiability policy on the very same page, I severely doubt you'd do that. Alsandair 03:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR, debate over. You win. Look, the burden is on Ronz to provide a source if he wants to keep it. It is not my burden to start an RfC to remove un-sourced material -- this has nothing to do with content, it is a policy violation issue. WP:V is very clear. -- Stbalbach 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability may be very clear, but you are not clear in your application of it. Using a double-standard to your advantage is not something that is appropriate. You seem to be dissatisfied with the article (having had your pro-Verio edits removed, particularly those to the external links), and are now suddenly an ardent enforcer of a policy you previously disregarded. You know just as well as I do that unsourced material must remain in Wikipedia, otherwise there will be no Wikipedia. Alsandair 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

unsourced material must remain in Wikipedia - uh, no. Seems like you'll say anything to avoid providing a source. -- Stbalbach 05:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach are you disputing the truth of the material in question? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What I said is true. You know it, I know it, anyone who knows anything around here knows it. Please don't troll by disputing truths that, while not nice, are certainly not disputed. Once again, I'm asking you: would you be willing to go around and delete every single unsourced statement from Wikipedia? While quick to attack my character, you are slow to answer the important questions here. Alsandair 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some of it may be wrong - claims about being first, largest, dollar amounts, etc.. all hearsay "street talk" propaganda from Verio itself when it was going through an IPO and merger which has never been verified. Without a source it's questionable. -- Stbalbach 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach, you're making no sense. Above, you admit you wrote over ninety percent of the article. In the diff you provide you show us that you would now like to remove ninety percent (or even more) of the article. Are you saying that you deliberately included "hearsay street talk propaganda" that "may be wrong" in your original authorship? Alsandair 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Alsandair, policy clearly supports Stbalbach in this case. Please stop trying to characterize his position as "there will be no Wikipedia." If Stbalbach admits he was wrong, let him fix his mistake. Phony Saint 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I know policy supports Stbalbach and frankly, I don't care whether or not the material is removed. I just don't think it's fair of him to only apply Wikipedia:Verifiability when it suits his purpose. I cannot see this situation as anything other than (1) Stbalbach writes an article on Verio, an isp he used to work for, (2) Stbalbach doesn't like how others have "edited his contributions mercilessly", and (3) he subsequently realizes that since he provided no sources when he wrote the article in the first place, he's got a sneaky way of circumnavigating all those third opinions that didn't work out in his favour. All that said, I'd support moving the contested info to the talk page, just not deleting practically the entire article. Is that a compromise we can all work with? Alsandair 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the controversial material[48] to the talk page with explanations [49]. -- Stbalbach 17:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me...I sincerely apologise if this conversation became uncivil at times. Thank you for taking a level-headed approach to fixing the problem. Alsandair 17:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Stbalbach has left out a few important issues, besides the many obvious ones on the article talk page: I notified him of my concern that he was not attempting to reach a consensus [50]. He treated my attempts at dispute resolution as harrassment [51] [52].

I think this is a simple case of WP:OWN, then WP:POINT when Stbalbach lost control of the article.

I find it very disturbing that he uses his own questionable editing practices as justification for disrupting Wikipedia. --Ronz 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Offensive, racial and political aggresive comments

User alidoostzadeh has used very offensive and aggresive language in his last comments and response to comments by other users of different POV in the discussion for dispute related to Persian Gulf' name here. He lokks going to do some trolling and turn the talk related to the page to be political and racial. In sequence of appearing, sentences like:

• Sunni Arabs political groups and governments who are going around and making genocides... making genocides in Sudan (slavery at this age is deplorable) or in Iraq (blowing up mosques) or beheading innocent people (Afghanistan, Daniel Pearl), causing civil wars, ramming planes into buildings, blowing up shrines because of their sect, killing innocent civilians....and finally distorting historical names

• we know which group destroyed civilizations of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and etc. So don't give me Arabs are moraly superior to Iranians

• the world and destruction of the name of Islam with ideologies like wahabism or pan-arabism

• we can not have spokemans who believe in pan-arabist visions to attempt to represent them. End of the story. You = zero votes. Ibn Saud (plaintiff explanation: Kings of Saudi) =zero votes. As-Sabbah (plaintiff explanation: rulers of Kuwait) =zero votes. SCIRI=millions of people elected it, millions of votes.

• I will mention the genocide comitted by Sunni Arabs, pan-arabists, ba'athists against Shi'ite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomens, and the different genocides done by Arab nationalists, pan-arabists (those that believe in unification so they wipe out all of their minorities) in Sudan and other countries , as well the victimization of Iranians , their deporation and the victimization of Shi'ites in Bahrain, Saudi..and deporation of Iranians in Iraq.

It is clear that I, ralhazzaa, didn't involve in the bad part of discussion as he is trolling me and mentioning me many times in his comments, and neither the user Ahwaz showed such violant, aggressive and racial response to him and his culture. I need someone to take an action. Ralhazzaa 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:KETTLE. You turned the discussion into ethnic politics by saying " Everyone know very clearly that it banned in Iran ...I heard once that people in Al-Ahwaz are abused for talking in Arabic, their mother tounge!...let's avoid an Iraqi MP lived 80% of his life in Iran and get his Iraqi passport last year, and neglect Ahwazi over-reactions for Iran policy... etc" And that's what instigated all the political mumbo jumbo from both sides.--Mardavich 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this was a reply on the discussion which sources are more reliable Arabic or Iranian. It is directed against the governments not against the particular wiki editors. Well, there were wars in the regions not long time ago. There is almost Civil war-levelled sectarian violence in Iraq just now. There are violent clashes in Khuzestan. With all these taken into account we should expect the discussions on the relevant topics to be sometimes heated. It is unavoidable. User:Ali doostzadeh is a great Iranian editor that produces a lot of content, usually he is quite level headed, I like his work. Ahwaz brings much needed Iranian-Arab perspective to the discussions, Ralhazzaa is a very good editor too. We deal with very controversial topics and heated discussions on the modern politics happen now and again. I do not think any administrative actions necessary at this stage. Alex Bakharev 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to report this, but since Ralhazzaa raised the issue it would have been good to at least warned alidoostzadeh about his extraordinary response to a simple comment I made that Ahwazi Arabs use the term "Arabian Gulf". This user made a series of offensive anti-Arab comments and personal attacks on me, including accusations that I am a Sunni extremist, a Ba'athist, a pan-Arabist, anti-Shi'ite, an Iraqi Saddam supporter, etc. He also said I had no right to have an opinion on the matter as I am not an elected official. His intention was to use various basless racial, political and religious accusations against me in order to refute my argument. It seems that admins like Alex Bakharev believe this is appropriate behaviour for Wikipedia and refuse to even warn editors when they engage in unprovoked racial and political smears. It proves to me that a main determining factor in enforcing Wikipedia rules is the ethnicity and religion of the users concerned.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just went through that debate, and while I agree with Alex Bakharev that heated discussions on the modern politics happen now and again, Wikipedia is not a forum, so both of you should have stopped. You know what they say, it takes two to tango. You're also exaggerating, alidoostzadeh said you're not a spokesman of Arabs, not that you don't a right to your opinion.--AlexanderPar 11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not a neutral voice here. I want an admin to answer my points below, which have been backed up by diffs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like admins to tell me whether the following statements by Ali Doost Zadeh are acceptable:

Racial smears

• Unlike Arabs who are going around and making genocides (fortunately the pan-arabist dream ended with the beheading os Saddam but he comitted genocides against shi'ites,turkomens,kurds), making genocides in Sudan (slavery at this age is deplorable) or in Iraq (blowing up mosques) or beheading innocent people (Afghanistan, Daniel Pearl), causing civil wars, ramming planes into buildings, blowing up shrines because of their sect, killing innocent civilian[53] (racist slurs intended to portray all Arabs as terrorists)
• don't give me Arabs are moraly superior to Iranians, given the horrendous record in the world and destruction of the name of Islam with sick ideologies like wahabism or pan-arabism[54] (again, a racist attack on Arabs claiming Arabs are all terrorists)
• fat and immoral Shaykhs of UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi, and etc [55] (a racist attack on Arab tribal leaders)
• if you guys attack Iranians and play innocent infront of wiki community, I can go off topic as well and I believe the record of the other side is much more bleak with regards to outside issues. [56] (Ali threatens to use Wikipedia as a platform for his anti-Arab opinions if users "attack" Iranians, although there has been no attack, only a point made about the Arabian Gulf)

Personal attacks

• Arab Shi'ites elected MP's in Iraq democratically and are the majority and for the most part do not share racist feelings towards Iranians. That is why Sunni Arabs like yourself call them :Majoos, Ajam and etc.. but they are technically Arabs and native Arab speakers. [57] (an attempt to portray me as a racist, when I have not used these racial smears against Shi'ites)
• you are a sunni iraqi [58] (I am not, but the idea is to invent an identity for me in order to rally people against me)
• you call the persecuted people by genocidal ba'athist as Ajams, not just khuzestani Arabs. And heck you are anti-Shi'ite [59] (Again, I made no such racial smears. This is an attempt to portray me as a Ba'athist and an anti-Shi'ite)
• You made the racist attacks first [60] (I made no racist attacks)
• you have been supporting pan-arabism in Iranian articles for a while and I called you by your political name [61] (I have never supported any pan-Arabism in Iranian articles - this is a deliberate attempt to undermine me to win an argument)

I would like an admin to tell me why this is acceptable and why Ali is not even getting a warning, let alone a block for his racial smears and personal attacks.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are deliberately misquoting alidoostzadeh, using diff links don't reflect the final comment. From what I see, alidoostzadeh edits and re-edits his comments over and over to make himself clear, perhaps because English is not his first language. For example, he changed "Arabs" to "Sunni Arabs political groups and governments" in a matter of seconds to clarify that by Arabs he meant Arab governments. But you're being dishonest and using the old diff links instead of his final comment which is visible on the page, in order to score a point against him. --AlexanderPar 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He initially referred to all Arabs and later chaned this to Sunni Arabs (not seconds, more like an hour or so), it is still a racial smear. If admins are interested in stopping these attacks - which are not the first I have faced - then they can judge the matter for themselves. I am asking for a proper review of attacks on me. I gave Ali opportunities to apologise and withdraw his allegations, but he refused. This matter has now been reported to this noticeboard by another user and I am unhappy with the dismissing of racial and personal smears by one admin. There is no defence to Ali's outbursts and diatribes.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're still misquoting him. Criticizing "Sunni Arab political groups and governments" is not a "racial smear". You’re being too sensitive. You shouldn't have been discussing politics in the first place, it takes two to tango. --AlexanderPar 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not good enough. Ali changed his wording after I told him to stop his unprovoked ad hominem attacks. Moreover, I was not the one launching into long political speeches - I simply made the remark that Ahwazi Arabs used the term Arabian Gulf, which resulted in a string of abuse against me, against Sunnis, against Arab tribal leaders, etc, which went on for about 3,000 words in the Persian Gulf talk page. There are also other personal attacks and racial smears that I want admins to address. I am sure that if I made such racial and personal on Iranians and Iranian Wikipedians, Ali would have no hesitation about going here to complain and I would be blocked. As it is, I offered him chances to withdraw his remarks and apologise. He refused and another editor decided to make a complaint. I don't see why I have to suffer these attacks every time I edit Wikipedia and am sick of the protection given to those who make these smears.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, if he changed his wording following a reminder not to use ad hominem argumentation, the user in question is amenable to reason in such matters. Given that, I suspect Alex' warn-and-watch is sufficient to mark it as resolved.Hornplease 01:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He changed the wording from Arab to Sunni Arab, but the rant was still racist. He made no attempt to withdraw his personal attacks. Admins appear to condone or perhaps uphold such racist attacks.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing political groups is not racist. Specially if they have comitted genocide. You brought u persecuted ahwazi arabs (and right now in the Persian Gulf article you brought it again ) and so I had to mention real persecuted Iranians by Saddam and persecuted Shi'ites in Iraq. Using terms like persecuted in a discussion that does not have any relavence to it, is emotional. Either you have scientific articles discussing the issue Persian Gulf or else do not make a political debate. --alidoostzadeh 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also changed my wording mainly because I was refering to political groups and not average people. The discussion all of the sudden turned political. I believe if one side criticizes a political group (he started the political discussion), then other political groups can be criticized. The user has made racial smears by posting sites that have maps that have ethnically cleansed groups of Iranian. He has been doing it for a while now. He has also been insulting me before hand by spelling my name multuple times : Ali Doost Zadeh instead of Ali Doostzadeh. I can bring various diffs with this regard. I am back into the discussion of persian Gulf and I am discussion matters calmly. My log is clean despite being involved in many discussions (some very heated) but ultimately resolved. Check some of the discussions I have made a consensus work. Two good examples are Nizami and Safavid, where a very complex situation requiring expertise knowledge and also constant calm was needed to solve the dispute. It's been months and year and some of the consensus pages I have worked on have still stayed. In the end, everyone left satisfied. I thank the admins for reminding me and I will do my best to remain calm despite people like Ahwaz posting sites where maps are shown that have ethnically cleansed other groups. I will not fall for such attacks and hopefully will not end up with a bad wiki log record. --alidoostzadeh 04:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, there was a call for warnings. I have given warnings to Ali and to Ahwaz. What else should be done before the situation can be marked as resolved? Alex Bakharev 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why am I warned when I am the victim of unprovoked racist attacks? Alex must provide reasons for warning me and where I have violated Wikipedia rules or retract his warning.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You started the political discussion, not me. You brought anti-Persian websites whose maps have ethnically cleansed Persians and Lurs form Khuzestan. So that is a clear example of racism which was started by you and user Ral-hazza. Such racist maps where a whole group of population is ethnically cleansed was initially brought by you guys through the links you brought to try to prove a point and you knew what you were doing eaxctly.. And note your comments here:How strange that you should call him anti-Iranian when he is an Iranian citizen and this article says he is a supporter of the current Iranian regime. But we now know that, according to Ali Doost Zadeh, it is sufficient to be a blogger quoted in a newspaper to merit an article in an encyclopaedia.[62] before Persian Gulf. This user is constantly insulting me by not spelling my last name correctly and the above is a personal attack, way before the current debate on Persian Gulf. He constantly brings websites that have ethnically cleansed whole groups of population. I can delve into details with this regard. My name is Ali Doostzadeh, but he is separating the Doost from the Zadeh and he has been doing it several times now. Such users are constantly trying provoke other users instead of enriching the discussion. In the Persian Gulf discussion, user Ralhazza for no reason mentions the Pahlavi dynasty right now in his last edit. For absolutely no reason, just to keep the political mumbo-jumbo going and keep on provoking. It had no relevant to the discussion. Someone should just look at his latest edit and see that he is trying to bait me:[63]. In the end, the Persian Gulf issue is an emotional issue. The idea behind the name Arabian Gulf is simply anti-Persian , and there is not a single mention of Arabian Gulf in any Arabic text before 1950's. It would be like calling the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of Canada, because Canadians might not like Mexico. Such a political action unfortunately should not spill to wikipedia, but it is hard to stay calm when you see this action. Unfortunately pan-arabism did not just end with a simple name change, our country suffered chemical weapons victims due to this continuation of this racism, which is also apparent with the sites al-ahwaz mentions which in their maps have ethnically cleansed native populations of the region. 1 million Iranians were killed during the Iran-Iraq war due to such racism. Anyways I am not here to upset respectable wikipedia users. I am discussing sources in the Persian Gulf issue, and these guys out of no where come supporting fringe separatist groups with ethnically cleansed maps of Iranians/Persians and making discussions that are not relevant. Check user Ralhazza's latest message which was full of insults and cheap points: [64]. Also Ahwaz should be asked to either spell my name correctly (Ali Doostzadeh) or not mention it. He has been doing it for a while unfortunately. Way before the current issue. I kept silent about it, but he knew what he was doing. Anyways I will let go of this and thank the admins for reminding me to stay calm and I will do so. --alidoostzadeh 04:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when is separating Doost from Zadeh a personal attack? I knew an Iranian with this name and he spelt it "Doost Zadeh". So what? As for the other allegations, I have not brought any "anti-Persian" websites into any discussion on the Persian Gulf. This is another smear that is not supported by any diffs. The "insults" Ali Dootszadeh quotes are not insults at all but enquiries into the notability of the subject of an article (Nasser Pourpirar), which admins had to intervene in due to libellous remarks made by Ali in the article which seriously violated WP:BLP.

I reject the claim that any talk of Arabian Gulf in the talk page is "anti-Persian". This is just another way of smearing other users and closing down discussions.

Again, Ali uses the Admin Noticeboard as a place to launch into a long political diatribe. How long will admins give this guy a licence to use Wikipedia as a platform for his rants and continue to make baseless accusations against other users?

I would like an explanation about what I am being warned about, since I have done absolutely nothing wrong.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that is not how I spelled my name. But nice execuse, but zadeh is not the last name of any person and it has suffix. Lutfizadeh for example. Separating a person's name and saying it slowly is personal attack. And calling other people's writing rants shows that you are not here to discuss. The term Arabian Gulf is anti-Persian and due to hatred of Persians, it was coined by Gamal in the Arab world and I brought evidence for it. Bringing sites that have ethnically cleansed a group of people is also racist. Anyways I have understood the admins and I do not see any reason for defending myself here from a user who is trying to set bait. I would like to call the attention of admin to emotional words being used again by Hamid in the Persian Gulf page, while the discussion had nothing to do with it. --alidoostzadeh 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is Lofti Zadeh's website: [65] It clearly separates Zadeh. Doing so is not a personal attack. Again and again, Ali Dootszadeh tries to smear me and misrepresent me, now claiming that my use of "Doost Zadeh" is a personal attack when it is just another way of spelling his name. I challenge Ali to show where I have made a single racist comment or quoted from a racist website on the Persian Gulf talk page. It is outrageous that I am portrayed as a racist when I have been the victim of his personal attacks. I would like admins to examine how I am misrepresented by this user.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had some concern about doostzadeh as well. He seems to push POV and edit war. For example, keeping an article about a non-notable for POV reasons - "Never mind , such revisionists should be exposed." That article, by the way, has serious BLP issues as it is based on non-English apparent attack pages or non-English blogs, so I'll probably report it to the noticeboard. The guy isn't notable enough anyway, considering the lack of English sources and the lack of RS. But then again, this article was kept to "expose" him. The Behnam 15:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have a right to mention a revisionist (making him known), he has 10 books and is mentioned in the media. Ask someone that reads Persian to translate it for you, obviously there are a lot of Iranians in wikipedia, and others can do it. "Seems" is not really evidence. If you have evidence that I mistranslated anything, then that is evidence. But unless you can read it, or ask someone who you trust to read it, then please do not simply accuse. And note the discussion is about Persian Gulf. --alidoostzadeh 04:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this is about you, doostzadeh. You decided to keep a non-notable to "expose" him; that is unacceptably POV editing. BTW, the "seems" sentence isn't evidence anyway. I provided one piece (so far) and that is in the diff I provided. What is it? Do you want me to get more? Hey, how about your behavior at Talk:Father of the Nation? The Behnam 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert war at GNAA

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) insists that even though Gay Nigger Association of America was deleted, and the deletion review kept it deleted, it should still be listed on the disambig page for GNAA. I asked for cited policy, and he said WP:IAR. I pointed to the MoS, which says "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles." Obviously, red-linked entries that currently have the potential to become articles are also allowed, but that is not the case here, either. Any input on the talk page or possible protection of the article is requested. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 18:34Z

• Another user filed an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 18:37Z

• I'll keep a watch on it and revert if anybody puts it back. Can't hurt to have more eyeballs on it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like it was just unprotected after a month of protection due to revert warring; unfortunately, it looks like the problem hasn't gone away. I've protected it again. Krimpet (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I had nothing to do with the earlier controversy. I think edit dispute is more accurate than edit warring. There was tremendous confusion at the beginning dealing with this edit. Not quite sure why this should have created such a stir and suggest someone put a warning in the text. I am also baffled by the opposition to merely pointing out who this group are (which isnt the same at all as making an article about them). As long as readers and editors like myself dont know who GNAA is I would have thought the only way to stop the dispute is to permanently lock the article or place hiddent ext giving an explanation, SqueakBox 19:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you're looking for the meaning of any and all acronyms, you want a site like AcronymFinder.com, not an encyclopedia. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 19:16Z
    • And the rest of our readers? I thought we were here to disseminate knowledge and the reality is almost all our acronym pages are superb. Telling me (or anyone) not to use wikipedia is IMO misguided, especially in an area in which it excels. We musnt lose the point of why we are here, SqueakBox

• Ah, SqueakBox, you may be mistaking information for knowledge. The number one source of knowledge about GNAA is the same as the number one source of demands to add that knowledge to Wikipedia, and the number one source of assertions that there is a demand for that knowledge: GNAA themselves. They should get themselves a website or something. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't link pages that don't exist and are not likely to exist from disambig pages, what do you hope to accomplish by doing so? The group simply is not encyclopedic because it has not verfiable sources, so no point in mentioning it at all. Also, Squeak was not edit warring, his edit war reverted to a vandalized version and he undid that, not actual edit warring was going on. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, keep deleted, indef block anyone who undeletes or restores. Life is sunny and simple sometimes :-D --Kim Bruning 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC) baleet balock badone

Yeah, the only controversy is whether to link to a redlinked German archaeology group. Moreschi ^Talk 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, link them, and create the page too. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I started to try that, and then came to the conclusion that they weren't notable :) Moreschi ^Talk 08:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If something doesn't have an article, they shouldn't be listed on a disambiguation page. My personal opinion. Couple that with the oh-so-exciting world of "GNAA-related wiki-mischief", and my position is only cemented further. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• This has got to be the first time I've ever seen a POV notice on a disambig page. *** Crotalus *** 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

2 comments which seems uncivil.

User:Tony Sidaway made this comment earlier today on another discussion on this page which is higher up. It is old and will most likely be archived soon so I will bring it up in a new discussion. Quote: "This is unacceptable. The editor in question obviously has no inclination to work on Wikipedia and the account should be blocked for that reason alone." (The "editor in question" is User:AmendmentNumberOne) Earlier he even said "Please don't waste anymore time on this idiot". He called AmendmentNumberOne an idiot. Seems like a violation of WP:NPA right there. Also, by his logic WP:SPA is a policy and violating it is worthy of an indefinite block. Funpika 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a very long-winded way of saying "I don't like Tony Sidaway". – Steel 19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More like "I don't like Tony Sidaway's comments". What would lead you to believe "I don't like Tony Sidaway" is my reason for this? Funpika 19:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My user talk page is over there: ---> --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) No it isn't, but it isn't really relevant here either. (It's saying that Tony Sidaway is often uncivil, which is a different thing.) What admin action are you requesting, Funpika? I don't think that making these comments merits a block, and I am quite sure that Tony Sidaway knew that the comemtns were less than polite when he made them. You could try a user Request for Comment I suppose, or Dispute resolution, or even file an ArbCom case, but soemhow i doubt it will go anywhere, on past history. In any case it doesn't really seem like an ANI matter. DES ^(talk) 19:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to think that this is better on his talk page...I don't know if the 2 person RFC threshold can be met. An arbcom case would be going too far. Funpika 19:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone an idiot is no grounds for anything whatsoever. The Land 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that this fellow AmendmentNumberOne still hasn't edited a single article. In short, he's a waste of time. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy that says he should be banned for not editing. Mayby after being called an idiot and having false alligations made up about him he does not feel like editing. Guess what tony, thats perfectly ok for him to do that. AmendmentNumberOne has not done anything wrong and he DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE HIMSELF TO YOU. The block was overturned because he did nothing wrong, you on the other hand violated wp:civ. 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. People who aren't here to build an encyclopedia can be gently and courteously told to fuck off with our kind blessing. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuff and nonsense. If you edit here but don't contribute productively, you get kicked out sooner or later. Moreschi ^Talk 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony: yes, precisely that. Here to push an agenda using a single purpose account? Piss off then. We have more than enough troublemakers who provide some nett benefit to the project, we have no need of additional troublemakers who don't.

Guy (Help!) 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"you get kicked out" for multiple violations of wikipolicy, show me in diffs how this user has violated policy. This should not be such a hard job if you believe there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to support an indefinite block.Hypnosadist 20:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'd say it a bit differently, I have to agree w/ TS's take on the user in question. If his comments were baseless, then we'd all be over him like simile on metaphor, but, despite the colorful way he's put it, Tony seems to have accurately summarized the group consensus regarding AmendmentNumberOne, a disruptive SPA that appears to exist only to push a single item agenda in talk pages and has not brought a net improvement to the project by being here. We have a responsibility to identify and deal with situations where an inordinate amount of time is being invested in tip-toeing around abusive users (who drag everyone down and create reams of paperwork and suck up volunteer time like there's no tomorrow). While we roll our eyes at Tony's choice of language, it.... does seem accurate. It's almost physically painful to acknowledge, but... there it is. Would I hire Tony to be in a customer service position at my company? No. Does his grating, chainsaw like typing-voice cut to the chase regarding Wikipedia problems? Yeah. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For the third time! Have you any diffs showing AmendmentNumberOne being disruptive? Hypnosadist 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• If SPAs pushing PoVs can be blocked with no showing of disruption, then half the editors of the various mid-east topics can be blocked, and a quarter of thsoe editing US politicial topics, at least. If SPAs with no mainspace edits can be blocked, I wonder how many others would be incluced. In short, Tony does not speak for any consensus that includes me on this issue. I also depore the tone and incivility of his remarks, and i said do when they were first made. But there is really nothing to do about that except try to convince Tony to change his tone, which has been tried before with no success. He is convinced that he is acting correctly, i gather. DES ^(talk) 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  If Tony is convinced his incivility is acceptable by wikipedia policy and he has been talked to about it then a short block would seem in order but thats up to an admin, of course if he does not edit for 12 hours we could block him for that! Hypnosadist 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  If they're not building an encyclopedia, of course they can and should be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  Some people seem to get very confused about what we are doing here - this is not a talking shop which also happens to have an encyclopedia attached - he's a SPA who seem to have no interested in editing encyclopedia articles - he has no purpose here. I agree with tony 100% --Fredrick day 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  Then get consensus to change the blocking policy to that effect. I don't see such consensus at the moment. DES ^(talk) 20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  Agree with tony all you want but wikipedia has rules called policies. Until wp:work or be banned is created and accepted there is no policy that says because he has not edited in the less than 12 hours since his unblock he must be reblocked. Hypnosadist 21:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the reviewing administrator on the second block of User:AmendmentNumberOne. Opinion on this page was divided and no consensus was reached, so I exercised my discretion in favor of unblocking, for reasons discussed exhaustively on this board. Since the unblock, AmendmentNumberOne has made exactly one edit, which was here on ANI to thank me for unblocking him. He certainly hasn't done anything that could be considered as disruptive since his record was discussed and this matter was resolved yesterday. The user said in the comment that he planned to make further contributions, but he hasn't yet. If he does, and they are problematic, I or any administrator will evaluate them. In the meantime, I have absolutely no idea why we are having this discussion. Newyorkbrad 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A bad call. You should have kept him blocked because this is an encyclopedia with discussion pages, not a discussion forum that happens to have an encyclopedie section. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

*editconflict* Then why don't you go to WP:VPP and try to make it policy! It isn't at the moment FYI. Funpika 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is. It is frustrating to see Newyorkbad ignoring, and you blatantly denying, the nature of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say "Any user who does not contribute to the encyclopedia will be blocked indefinitely" then? Did I miss part of the blocking policy perhaps? Funpika 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

NYB, your grounds for unblocking seem a bit shaky. Heck, even your letters are all wobbly and look like they're going to fall over! Heck, an unblock is probably fine, but wasting a lot of time arguing about this user is a shame. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have trouble taking the initial complaint at face value when the first quote they provide is merely Tony giving his opinion. That said, I'll agree with others that Tony is not as smooth as, say, practically anyone else, but I don't see an actual problem with that, as regards his adminship. Regardless of the merits of the block (don't want to get in the middle of that particular shitstorm), I wouldn't consider it as much a personal attack as it is a "potentially excessive expression of opinion". EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pathetic. This is an account registered specifically to argue for undeletion of That Number, has zero edits to mainspace, zero edits to mainspace Talk, a deliberately provocative username (which in passing misses the point that Wikipedia is not free speech), has spent most of the last fortnight trolling, and getting us trolling each other, and now it's unblocked to carry on its merry game. It's a sockpuppet! A blatant sockpuppet, used outside the permitted uses of sockpuppets! Guy (Help!) 21:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I truly don't understand the obsession with this user. AmendmentNumberOne has had the opportunity to make exactly two substantive edits, contributing to a DRV. For what it's worth, I found the edits strident and unhelpful, but that's a far cry from block-worthy. Since then, every one of this user's edits has been a function of the drama caused by the blocks themselves. We have no idea what, if anything, this editor might have said or done if he hadn't been blocked twice for little reason. In any event, now that he is unblocked, AmendmentNumberOne will either (1) not contribute any more, (2) contribute usefully, or (3) contribute inappropriately and be blocked, probably by myself. Um ... which of these outcomes is problematic? Newyorkbrad 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• "has spent most of the last fortnight trolling" no he has not thats the point! He legetimately made an unblock request, NewyorkBrad brought it to ani for discussion. Now this second discusion on the incivility of Tony was started by Funpika. AmendmentNumberOne has not trolled, civily complaining about a block is not trolling and claims that it is are very troubleing to me. Hypnosadist 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• A "blatant sockpuppet" JzG? Well then who is the sockpuppeteer!? It seems that because WP:SPA is only an essay, we can only block for being one by ASSUMING it is in violation of WP:SOCK. Funpika 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Who is the puppeteer? Who cares? It's irrelevant. No brand new user masters Wiki process that fast. If it was any subject other than That Number he would have no supporters whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope this is not about the Number (your mind reading/bad faith is wrong in my case), this is about following wikipolicies of when to block and when not to block. And this section is on the incivility of tony sidaway, so can he or i for that matter go round wikipedia calling people idiots or not? Hypnosadist 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is possible for someone to figure all this out as an IP editor and be able to use that knowledge from the beginning if he/she decides to create an account. Funpika 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quoting this again, because people continually keep bringing up the totally unfounded accusation that the editor in question is "incivil", "whining", "trolling", "disruptive", "acting in bad faith", and "an obvious sockpuppet" - claims which have been made repeatedly with absolutely no support, rationale, or basis in any evidence:

Well, if you look at his contributions you can see that he registered, set up his user and talk pages, commented on deletion reviews, and then was blocked with the reason single-purpose account that has served its single purpose.

His next edit after being blocked was then to request being unblocked, where he asserted My edits have been made in good faith and represent a legitimate attempt to communicate my opinion on the titular subject of an article that I feel is important to Wikipedia. I believe the blocking admin has incorrectly and without reason assumed bad faith on my part. The block was then reviewed, and declined, with the argument User clearly acting in bad faith.

He then proceeded to argue on his user page that he was not acting in bad faith, and cited policy repeatedly to justify this. He was then replied to by User:Yamla, who was the reviewing admin, who accused him of [a] deliberate attempt to get Wikipedia sued by posting information you know will cause the MPAA and asserted this was a clear indication that you have no business being allowed to edit here.

The user then replied, on his talk page to this comments, calling them unwarranted and in bad faith. He asserted he was upset about being accused of disruptive actions, and demanded an apology from User:Yamla.

He then, apparently following the blocking admin's actions, posted a response to accusations made against him on another talk page, which he was unable to edit - namely that user was banned for making a lot of (now-deleted) articles containing the HDDVD string, and for tantrumming about how Digg was being an Evil Awful Censor. As he notes in his reply, this is totally untrue. After no reply for a number of hours, he requested help from any editors, especially to post on this noticeboard. After no action, he commented again, requesting help.

After, apparently, a comment was made on this page, the blocking admin replied here, stating More to the point, I freely admit that I may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction, but he showed up with a Frea-Speach (sic) name and immediately started fussing about in the HD-DVD Decoder String Deletion Review. A single-purpose account if I ever saw one, and I've damn well seen lots of them. The user then replied on his talk page, questioning why he was blocked if this was the rationale, and asking what he did wrong. He continues to comment about his block, citing policy, and asking for justification for his block, and posting related information to his talk page. Days later, he requests help again. He then write a letter to the blocking admin, summarizing his few. A few minutes later, he was unblocked, with the reason Fine. Let's see if you behave.

He then thanked involved users, who agitated on his behalf, and opened an informal complaint on this page, asserting that he was blocked for no reason, and asking for remedy to protect other users from the same treatment. He then reverted a couple of User:Ryulong's reversion of his pages. He was then blocked, with the reason I have blocked this account indefinitely for having no impetus to contribute to the encyclopedia at all. This was created solely to raise issues with the encryption key debate and has not made a single edit to any page outside of the Wikipedia or User spaces.

The rest of this brings us here. Now, frankly, if that is "whining" or an inappropriate use of a user's time, then we have a much more serious problem. I know that if I was blocked for no apparent reason for days, before being unblocked without any serious acknowledgment of what went wrong, my first move would be to bring this up here - and for exactly the reasons he brought it up. I see no reason to categorize this as "whining" or as any sort of conduct that is worthy of a block. We should not expect users who are understandably upset at being blocked for no apparent reason, and then unblocked without any acknowledgment of a mistake to just "roll with it" and move on. --Haemo 07:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There has never been any evidence to back up charges of disruption, or sock-puppetry. Accusations of "trolling" and "whining" are based solely on the fact that the user advocated to be unblocked on his talk page, and disagreed with the blocking admin. In fact, accusations of "non-contribution", which is not even a justification for blocking, amount solely to the fact that some users do not believe commenting on deletion reviews serves a "constructive" purpose. Frankly, the continual name-calling, and assumptions of bad faith on the part of other users towards this editor really stretch the bounds of assuming good faith and being civil. --Haemo 22:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm lost here... did we block the time-waster or not? If not, when are we going to? Should we tell him where he can open a free blog, just to be helpful? Because Wikipedia is, as Tony succinctly put it, not a forum with an encyclopedia, its an encyclopedia with discussion pages. And Haemo, AGF doesn't mean we should pretend this "editor" has made any useful contributions, because s/he hasn't. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion about what "useful contributions" are. I happen to believe that deletion, and deletion review, discussions are important parts of the encyclopedia, and that contributing to them is a contribution to the encyclopedia. I also believe that making admins accountable, by bringing up incorrect actions on their part is contributative. Other people believe that only mainspace edits count. Regardless of who is right, or who is wrong, non-contribution is not a reason for blocking. Editors should not have to meet some arbitrary, undefined, undocumented, and subjective definition of "contribution" in order not to be blocked. --Haemo 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption is a reason for blocking. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For the Fifth time any evidence of disruption, please provide diffs! Hypnosadist 12:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope you're not addressing me, although your visit to my talk page makes me think you are. What diff do you want from me, the one where disruption being a reason for blocking was added to the blocking policy? I think that was added around mid-2005 or so, and I'm certainly not going to dig through the history of the policy to find it. As all I've stated was that Disruption is a reason for blocking, which is easily found on the blocking policy page, you can have no reason for demanding diffs of me for any other reason. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am addressing you, provide me a diff of Amendmentnumberone being disruptive to back up your claim that he should be banned for disruption. Hypnosadist 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're confused: demanding I provide a diff to prove a case I never made is silly. You failed to post a diff where I "claim that he should be banned for disruption". As I haven't done so, I am now done with this conversation, which seems to be as much of a time-waster as anything Amendmentnumberone may have done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[66] <----- where you say disruption is a reason to block. Any diffs to back up this claim or not! If you don't please stop wasteing time and claiming editors should be blocked without evidence.Hypnosadist 16:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How simple can I make this for you? I said disruption is a reason to block. It is. I also said I have no intention of digging through the history of the blocking policy to find when it was added, and I don't. I never claimed an editor should be blocked without evidence, and I never stated that Amendmentnumberone should be "banned for disruption" as you seem to think I did. The entire discussion is here in this section. You are attributing to me statments which I did not make, therefore I do not need to provide diffs for statements which never happened. To claim otherwise is complete and utter nonsense. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not about when the concept of disruption was added to wp:block! It is in there and should be. This is about you saying "did we block the time-waster or not? If not, when are we going to?" and when challenged as to why he should be blocked by Haemo you say "Disruption is a reason for blocking.". OK now are we clear what you said. Now provide me some diffs of Amendmentnumberone's edits that you claim violate wikipedia policies. Hypnosadist 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result from Luigi30's Non-sequitur Machine: Tony should stop being a WP:DICK, and people should refocus on editing an encyclopedia. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AmendmentNumberOne is disruptive, no matter how you try to gloss over it. It's an SPA for the sole point of pushing a POV, has by newyorkbrad's own admission only made unhelpful substantial edits, and is contrary to the goals of wikipedia. Lay off Tony's nuts, and let's focus on the ral problem here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For the sixth time! Show me the diffs of AmendmentNumberOne being disruptive! Hypnosadist 18:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean blocking an editor for violating an ESSAY!? Those aren't policies you know. Funpika 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are we continuing to discuss this? Newyorkbrad 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because some people still seem convinced that this guy should be blocked but are failing to give good reasons. They just say "disruptive" over and over but never give diffs. Funpika 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's just drop the issue and move on. Some overworked admins made a mistake, a new user refused to accept an apology, he's unblocked now. If ANO creates a large enough history where he clearly has no other purpose than to disrupt, we can revisit the issue; otherwise, this is all a waste of time while ANO hasn't done much of anything. Tony called someone an idiot? Warn him and move on. Phony Saint 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It comes down to this, blocking requires disruption (or one among a short list of other antecedents). To claim disruption requires diffs (you must have evidence to support your claim). No one is providing diffs because disruption has not occurred (other than two unsupported blocks). DragonflySixtyseven's apology was not accepted because he did not acknowledge what he did. Rather, he blamed haste. The diffs show otherwise. DS also gave some throwaway commentary at the same time that indicated he did not take gagging another editor seriously. Surprising, since the editors who came to advocate on his behalf seem to feel strongly. Tony Sidaway has been warned before. Not treating new accounts civilly and as acting in good faith is a real problem. The short-circuited deletion process with respect to the number deserved comment.-AmendmentNumberOne 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So what in all of this requires administrative action, that it should be taken here? The admins made a bad judgment call, it's been reversed. Unless it becomes a recurring habit, the users and admins get a warning and everyone moves on. Admins don't typically get desysopped, nor are normal editors blocked, for a single incidence of assuming bad faith or incivility. Phony Saint 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this idiot still here? Somebody block him please, he's done absolutely nothing for two weeks now except waste our time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a community, not a community that just anybody can join and not contribute. --Tony Sidaway

Please link to the policy which backs up that block. Funpika 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony stop violating wp:civ and wp:npa!!!! Hypnosadist 13:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of murder

This whole rant is a tissue of lies, but I believe that the accusation of murder, reference to a police cell and the call for a lifelong ban are all breaches of WP policy, requiring admin intervention, please. Note also the same users previous defamatory edits made using sock puppets. Andy Mabbett 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Lewisskinner needs some education and possible support dealing with a Wikistalker, not banning. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear confused; I'm Andy Mabbett, not "Lewisskinner". Andy Mabbett 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone appears confused. You linked to Lewisskinner's post and objected to it. --Masamage ♫ 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the accusation of murder here. --Haemo 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it, and I may be wrong, as 'killing' the participation of a wikieditor, not of outright removing the pulse of a living human. ThuranX 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

that's how it seemed tome also. DGG 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

From the cited diff. "He has already murdered another wikiuser". Andy Mabbett 11:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as literally accusing anyone of murder, given that he specifically couched in the context of an analogy. --Haemo 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, let me identify myself as lewisskinner, using an IP here, and only here to defend myself (having been blocked, see beow). Of course, feel free to block this IP too after posting.

Secondly, why Pigsonthewing, did you not think to notify me of yet another AN/I complaint made against myself by yourself? (from the top of this page - "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting"). But congrats in finally getting what you wanted!

Thirdly, the accusations of sockpuppetry are a) false, as explained, and b) Irrelevant in this particular incident. But hey, I expect to get that thrown in my face everytime Pigsonthewing has a dispute with me!

Fourthly, to defend the comment, it was a direct quote, as cited on my talk page. Twice

Finally, why does Pigsonthewing seem so averse to coming on to my talk page and requesting retraction of my comments? I can think of only one occasion in which he's ever posted on my talk page, and that was in response to user:Adambro gallant but ultimately (and always destined to be) futile attempt at mediation at User_talk:Lewisskinner/Archive_May_2007#Regarding_User:Pigsonthewing. Why will you not sort these problems out in private Pigsonthewing? Why must you always go to admins? It only wastes their time, our time which we could be spending editing articles rather than screaming each other down and trading insults, and other user's time who have to come here having been dragged in by the insults. I'd have retracted/reworded the comment if you'd asked! 91.105.170.205 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for a user to evade a block in this manner? Andy Mabbett 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(info) I blocked Lewis for 48 hrs yesterday for this; the murder comment, in or out of context, was uncivil and inappropriate. If this is felt to be inappropriately harsh feel free to unblock (he's got an unblock request up now). I did not see it as an analogy; if Lewis meant it that way, he should communicate in a manner less prone to interpretation as accusations of physical violence. Neither threats nor acusations of that should ever be taken lightly. Georgewilliamherbert 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett is currently involved in another dispute on this page [67]. Is he involved in any other ones? -- Kleinzach 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply anything positive or negative about this editor, but maybe some history would be helpful.

I've seen him on this board a few times in the past, and gave my opinion once or twice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#False accusation of stalking. While looking for this post I found another archive where a search revealed a couple of other threads: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive227. Anynobody 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Having second thoughts about a particular user.

I just gave 203.214.123.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) eight spam warnings for spamming 8 different articles with external links to a website. The Admin report board for spamming pretty much says to wait until the guy violates again. So I told him "I'll consider all eight as one warning, don't spam again!!," but after abit of thinking, I think I might've goofed. Any opinions if I handled it correctly or should the guy be banned instantly seeing the accounts activity was just to spam links??

Also, another user (58.167.15.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) also spammed the Wangan Midnight article with just the link (and not the associated text). And both WHOIS lookups say they reside in Australia, in the same town.

WHOIS 203.214.123.67 WHOIS 58.167.15.79--293.xx.xxx.xx 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's obviously the same user then the warnings on the first account count against all subsequent sock puppets. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've blocked the new IP for 48 hours. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Which one, the 203 or the 58?--293.xx.xxx.xx 02:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

From the block logs, it looks like J.smith blocked the 58. --LuigiManiac 12:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry from User:MarkStreet gets no response from User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Two days ago, a new sockpuppetry case has been discovered on Transnistria-related articles. More precisely, it has been determined that User:Buffadren was in fact a sockpuppet of User:Mark us street, as determined by checkuser here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Buffadren.

The administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, which keeps an eye on Transnistria-related pages has been notified, but replied that he doesn't see a problem because the accounts User:Mark us street and User:Buffadren were not used at the same time.

I do, however, see a problem in having a known puppeteer (User:Mark us street) changing identities at will and thus avoiding scrutiny from fellow editors, which is explicitly forbidden by existing Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors. Note that the various puppets all edited the exact same articles.

Furthermore, from the history of the various accounts it is quite obvious that User:Mark us street is avoids blocks and bans by successively changing his identity.

My question is: Is this situation normal? Can everybody change name once he/she was blocked, so that there's no trail? Then, why not switch to anon editing only? Dpotop 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

unless they use the sock to get around a block (use one while the other account is blocked) or use it to get around the 3RR, then yes, there is no policy violation. Nothing wrong. -M^ask? 08:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors? Is this policy obsolete? Dpotop 08:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We know its him, he's clearly not avoiding leaving a trail. Thats a nonstarter just from the checkuser trail. Also, thats not fully relevent or used. We let people start over all the time. This guys not starting over, because he keeps up his same antics, so just monitor it. No worries. -M^ask? 08:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying that he does not infringe on Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors? Dpotop 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what im saying. -M^ask? 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I understand that "Buffadren" did at the outset try to conceal the identity, so a case of "covering up his tracks" might be made. Also, there is a possible case of conflict of interest, when it comes to Buffadren trying to introduce links to a site that "MarkStreet" was connected with. But at the present moment a block for these reasons would be purely punitive. This case is at Arbcom and I suggest we should wait for Arbcom to decide on how to judge it. At the moment, the administrative priority is to keep the level of edit-warring down on Transnistria, nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. Where is the Transnistria case submitted to ArbCom, and what is being arbitered? I cannot find it on the ArbCom page. I believe I asked you this same question before, without obtaining an answer. Dpotop 09:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Does content arbitration suspend Wikipedia rules that apply to editors? Dpotop 09:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria.
2. The Arbitration Committee does not make content decisions. Daniel 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have asked Buffadren for some clarifications regarding his relation to "Mark Street". So far, he seems to be still denying the identity and I find his answers evasive and deeply unsatisfactory. This makes a difference. Starting over with a new account is all fine and well, but falsely insisting to be two different people when challenged about it still constitutes abusive sockpuppetry, in the sense of creating a false show of support for one's position in a talkpage (even if that double support is not done simultaneously but at different times.) I will block Buffadren and ask Arbcom to endorse a ban if he doesn't come up with a better explanation soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

I am presently being wikistalked by a user who, whenever somebody disagrees with me on anything, chimes in to state that he also disagrees and that I'm such a nasty person and so forth. While I'm tempted to simply ignore this as trolling, perhaps someone could inform him that this isn't acceptable behavior? [68]. >Radiant< 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop being such a nasty disagreeable person! Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Real reply: Warned on the talk page. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  And now realized Radiant is not Ryulong. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Let's see. What part of that is an apology for your personal attack? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Im pretty sure he wasn't serious. -M^ask? 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal-related question (re Philippine general elections, 2007)

Hello! I'm not sure if this is the proper place to write this. A fellow Filipino user from the Philippine regional notice board (also known as the "Tambayan") informed us that a Senator sent him an email and said that because of a particular election-related law, we were "obliged" to include the unofficial tallies for the recently concluded Philippine general elections, 2007 and not push through a currently-debated proposal to have it deleted from the election article. However, I double-checked the law that was being referenced in the email and could not find anything related to Wikipedia (or for that matter, any website other than the COMELEC's official website), nor was I able to come up with something that could be construed as relating to Wikipedia (since most information was related to print and traditional broadcast media). Anyway, my head is running with questions, but the first one I'd like to ask is: in a tricky legal situation like this, is Wikipedia bound only by US laws (and the laws of Florida in particula) as the Wikimedia Foundation was incorporated there? In a situation like this, what recourse do Wikipedians have? Thanks! --- Tito Pao 08:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of hot air, to me. The cited law has nothing to do with Wikipedia, whatsoever. I'd wager this is either a bit of dodgey business, or a Senator who doesn't know what he's doing. --Haemo 10:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not bound by Philippine law, if that's what you're asking. It's a load of nonsense. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, Philippine law is? Or the demand? Hornplease 09:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Angry Sun blatantly ignoring set guidelines

Resolved

 – Content dispute, not relevant to AN/I.--Jersey Devil 13:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have recently merged some enemy characters from the Mario series to List of Mario series enemies because they lack the notability, real world information, and sources that articles need. Angry Sun is a big fan of the series, so he thinks that I am cutting "major articles" and cites various opinions to back his argument. I gave him WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT, and WP:NOT, but he has decided that I'm a vandal that needs to be stopped. He has decided to "change all of them back with a friend". Can someone speak to him? TTN 10:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While Angry Sun (talk · contribs) certainly appears to have a loose grasp on Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines, several of your edits ([69], [70], [71], [72]) appear to be in violation of WP:CIVIL. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint is a content dispute. We do not settle content disputes here on AN/I, please see WP:DISPUTE with regards to how to go about settling your dispute. With regards to these contributions provided by Kralizec ([73], [74], [75], [76]) they are completely unacceptable and are in fact violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I would suggest that you stop such comments immediately. This is officially a warning, further such comments might result in a block. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 13:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jazzman123

User:Jazzman123 does not seem to use his account for much except trying to convince other users to leave wikipedia for his own wiki, and for discussing the business of that wiki. Don't know how bad that kind of thing is looked upon here.

He has made lots of edits to Christian-related articles. He appears to be Conservative on Conservapedia and his talk about it should really be restricted to Conservapedia, but I do think his asking of users to join Conservapedia could be constituted as spamming. I take it back: [77], [78], [79]. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Offshoreholdingco

This user has added a {{sprotected}} tag to several articles on Colleges of the University of Sydney, including The Women's College, St. Paul's College, Sydney and St Andrew's College, Sydney. I do not think they are semi-protected and I do not think he is an administrator. I did an edit on the first when not logged in to check it. What should I do, if anything? --Bduke 10:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on his talk about the use of the sprotect tags, and also on BLP. Sometimes new editors think adding protection templates actually is what protects a page, rather than are just put there to indicate that it's been protected. That's a pretty common mistake, and not a big deal unless he keeps it up after being notified. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you can check if a page is protected by adding ?action=protect to the end of its URL. (You can only change the information shown if you're an admin, but everyone can view the protection level.) --ais523 11:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Snegkrib

Resolvednot quite an WP:ANI issue yet. ··coelacan 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Snegkrib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User systematically removing {{unref}} tags without addressing the lack of references or engaging in discussion ([80], [81], [82], [83]) - Tiswas^(t) 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight, this issue would be better resolved between myself and Snegkrib - Tiswas^(t) 12:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably. I have left a note with the user so that they know WP:V is not just your opinion. Hopefully they'll come around. ··coelacan 12:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

HelenRail2

Resolvedblocked by Riana. ··coelacan 12:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A user named HelenRail repeatedly vandalized the article Let's Rock the House as well as my own user page, yet I am warned against personal attacks. The user was finally blocked and then registered the same day as HelenRail2, where they went on to perform the exact same vandalisms. I suggest an IP block. Rhythmnation2004 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Riana has blocked the user, but since we can't see the IP directly, we can't block it directly. The user has been autoblocked which will last for 24 hours. I will semi-protect the article and your userpage for a while to discourage a repetition of this nonsense. ··coelacan 12:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can probably get a faster response at WP:AIV in the future, and though WP:RFPP is the place "for" page protection, if you ask while you're reporting a vandal at WP:AIV, you might get protection thrown in. ··coelacan 12:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The warning you received about personal attacks had nothing to do with this user.

"Just because you're insecure about yourself, you feel like you need to suck up to the people on the Haven board. Don't you dare tell ME to grow up. Your comments on the message board are extremely annoying and immature. Everyone is fed up with your nonsense posts, and it's quite obvious you're 13 years old. Get a life."

That comment, which you left on User talk:J9306, and this edit summary are why you received a warning...and it was well deserved. --OnoremDil 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those comments are out of line. HelenRail was also vandalizing, but there's a problem on both sides here. ··coelacan 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to some editors of Scientology articles

I wasn't going to take this report to ANI, where it'll quckly roll off anyway, but Smee has asked me to provide a public summary. The thread higher up on the page, "Tendentious editor disrespects...": [84], is only one of many recent expressions of hostility between Justanother and Smee. The battleground between them seems to be rapidly getting worse, fuller of landmines, and more personal. We see for instance, Smee, above, unfairly accusing Justanother of violating WP:TROLL (I believe Justanother to be a good-faith editor), and Justanother in his turn unreasonably calling Smee "a prolific editor with a history of complaints for tendentious editing" (Smee does have such a history, but the complaints have mainly been posted by Justanother himself...). Friends, Romans, countrymen, does this long-running battle require administrator intervention? (Preferred reply: no.) It's getting to the point of vexatious litigation, and of needlessly blocking up ANI. Two more editors, Anynobody and Lsi john, make occasional appearances in the drama, but mainly cheer from the wings. I have asked all four to agree to voluntarily withdraw from AN and ANI; to stop posting on each other's talkpages; and, after a third problem was pointed out to me by Justanother, to stop discussing, for the benefit of the gallery, their perceived enemies on their own talkpages. My more detailed suggestions and their responses can be seen on their pages, and at the thread "Hello" on mine. Several of their responses to me were quite heartening. Briefly, this is what the four have undertaken. Minor exceptions are not mentioned, and past actions are emphatically not the point here.

• Justanother has agreed to stop posting to AN/ANI about Smee or Anynobody; to refrain from posting to their talk pages unless expressly invited to; and to avoid posting discussions about Smee and Anynobody on his own page "in the hopes that other editors and admins are watching". To take the first step, he immediately removed a quotation from Smee, which she didn't like to see there, from his userpage.
• Lsi John will not file AN/ANI complaints " unless recommended and supported by a neutral admin". Obviously I would rather take this without the "unless", but I make allowances for a new editor's typical tendency to think admins infallible... anyway. LJ has not addressed my requests that relate to user talkpages, but urged me in a general way to pull him up short if I should see him interact inappropriately with other editors.
• Smee will not definitely undertake any of the things I ask, but pledges to do her utmost to avoid posting on AN/ANI, and to take Justanother's and Lsi john's pages off her watchlist. She will however explicitly not "be silenced" in talkpage discussion of JA and LJ, which is a pity, as I think that one condition might have done much to cool tempers and promote a less poisoned climate between the four.
• Anynobody rejects my suggestions, considering them irrelevant or even offensive to himself, as he never did anything wrong, and always had the best reasons and motives for pointing out bad behavior by "the other side". My proposal being of course entirely voluntary, he is entitled to take this stand.

I'm pleased to note that Justanother and Lsi john have explicitly not made their own compliance conditional on anybody else's reciprocal undertaking. I hope and believe this decision will work wonders for their stress levels and for other editors' confidence in their good faith. For any user interested in following coming developments, I provide some permanent links here, to wit: The thread above that this is about, "Tendentious editor disrespects...":[85]. This very thread you're reading: [86]. My original proposal: [87]. Justanother's responses: [88]. Lsi John's responses: [89]. Smee's responses: [90] (with a few comments from Anynobody). Anynobody's responses: [91].

Dear Gang of Four, if you feel you must comment below, I can't blame you, but I ask you to please begin as you mean to go on: keep it brief, don't comment on each other, don't reply to each other's points. I also appeal to other ANI editors to think twice before using this particular thread for criticism of the people involved.

Man. I'm a fine one to talk about keeping things brief. Sorry. And sorry for not posting this on some appropriate mediation page instead, but ANI visibility was requested by Smee, and I too think it a reasonable thing, in what I hope will amount to a "Goodbye to ANI" from some of its most prolific posters, and a way to avoid the indignity of a formal noticeboard page ban for some of the editors involved.

Bishonen | talk 12:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

• Thanks. --Justanother 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of misinterpretation

I really do appreciate Bishonen's | talk suggestion, but I think my polite refusal has caused some irritation based on the main section of this post. This is how I responded to the initial question:

Thank you for the idea Bishonen | talk, I agree that there is a situation that needs some kind of compromise. After reviewing my contributions and thinking carefully about this, the solution you've proposed doesn't seem to apply to me because I don't post to either editor's talk page unless it is absolutely necessary and the last WP:ANI post I started was to ask for enforcement of the latest sock of Barbara Schwarz.

You can review my contributions if you like:

my contributions to User:Talk pages and :my contributions to Wikipedia pages. Anynobody 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To conserve space here I'll simply refer anyone interested to my talk page for the rest of the conversation: here. Thank you, Anynobody 00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Soulfly761 (talk · contribs): Is this Social Networking?

I stumbled upon both the userpage and usertalk of Soulfly761 (talk · contribs). Given this user has no edits out of personal space (and only 1 outside of his personal space), his usertalk is a list of World of Warcraft-related names and weblinks and his userpage, to me, is WP:NONSENSE, I suspect he us abusing WP as a social networking site-- but before any actions, I want some second opinion. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

All the links could easily be removed as spam. That's not what a user talk page is for. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC) I removed the WoW stuff and left a warning. -M^ask? 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)#Request for comments

I am seeking an admin to clarify policy regarding commenting on an involved editor's statements on the article's talk page. User:David Lyons has been rewriting and removing my comments as an involved editor in an RFC. The diffs are here: [92][93]

I have told the editor here [94] that the text at the top of the RFC is standard text and that deleting and rewriting involved editor's comments is not acceptable. Even if this wasn't an RFC I am sure the editor would have no right to remove and rewrite talk page comments. I have also urged the editor to stay calm in discussions, stop accusations and moderate his tone.

PS: If you would like to comment on the actual RFC itself I would also be most grateful. Sparkzilla 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Following advice from Jossi and Addhoc, I have simplified the RFC back to its simpler original form. Thank you for your comments. Sparkzilla 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Duraiappa stadium mass grave

Admininstration, please involve above article to resolve and fix things. Wikipedia is becoming too cheap place with highly POV issues.Lustead 16:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing more than protection can be done to this kind of situations. Please have a break and sort out your issues at the talk page. If that wouldn't work than please follow other procedures. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Resolved

AIV is particularly backlogged at the moment. Some admin attention would be appreciated. Thanks! --ElKevbo 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Empty now. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 17:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Threat of physical violence against Abu badali

I missed this when it happened, but it strikes me as rather serious. User:TechnoFaye threatened to physically assault User:Abu_badali with a baseball bat: [95]. I think this should be taken very seriously. —Chowbok ☠ 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. If someone thinks it is not enough please feel free to change the duration. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef would be entirely justified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem with these situations is the underlying causes of vented frustration. In that spirit, perhaps an admin should look into Abu Badali's actions as well? I'm not addressing the offer to brain him, TF's words are violent and stupid, and he needs a good long cool off, but did the actions of abu badali incite him through continuing escalations? and if so, shouldn't that be addressed as well? ThuranX 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is why i stopped right there. Abu badali is already at the ArbCom for the moment. Whatever the case is, personal attacks especially threat of violence got no justification. An indef would have been too harsh as the climate surrounding the ArbCom case is hot and maybe that what added to TechnoFaye's behaviour which was unacceptable but i don't believe it merits an indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be the only person that's going to say this, but the comment was written... on May 2. Blocking him for 1 month on the 15th knowing that the Arbitration is undergoing and he's cited as a party doesn't strike me as making a lot of sense here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Penwhale. I have no problem unblocking the account in order to give the owner the opportunity to participate at the ArbCom case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Yorano

Appears to be vandalism only account, User talk:Yorano suggest permablock. Pete.Hurd 17:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV would be a more appropriate place to report this. You'd probably get a quicker response, too. --ElKevbo 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee

There's an edit war going on at Cherokee primarily between User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (contribs) and User:Kebron (contribs). Both have violated 3RR, it appears (Merkey: [96], [97], [98], [99]; Kebron: [100], [101], [102], [103]), and there are other edits in dispute as well. This is part of a larger dispute about claims of North American native tribal membership; see policy proposal and related discussion at WP:NATIVE. I have been involved in the discussion at the last location, and would appreciate it if some admins could have a look at these pages. There have also been some accusations of bad faith and trolling, and an objective viewpoint would be helpful. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 17:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst, I appreciate you bringing this here. I am citing an article from a news station kotv.com and he continues to remove it. --Kebron 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The citiation listed (go read it) contains none of the statements attributed to it and should be removed. It's speculation and unsourced statements. There is no 3RR with vandalism from a troll account. As for Kebron, he is an SCOX Troll with an account here merely to engage in trolling, wikistalking and harassment of me. He follows me from article to article simply to revert edits and harrass. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can read what about these trolls antics on the SCOX message board. Todays activities are at this link. They should remane this message board "MerkeyX" instead of "SCOX". Al they do is plan forays to disrupt Wikipedia and troll me. http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/SCOX?action=q&board=SCOX Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, these people are stalking your wikipedia edits there in real time - thousands of nasty posts. It's creepy. I've blocked one account who's only edits for a year and a half were negatively related to you - no significant content contribution.

Kebron, from your edit history it's starting to look like you're only interested in following Jeff around and goading him. --Duk 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I give up. You deal with Merkey. Check his record. He is a pathological liar. I will leave him to you. --Kebron 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kebron, I don't think you get it. It's not your job to "deal" with anyone, nor is it mine. Editors will stand or fall on their own work, given enough time and eyeballs. But a prerequisite for this is that they get treated fairly. Stalking and goading someone isn't part of the equation. --Duk 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do not care what you think, care or do with him... he is all yours. --Kebron 10:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging for non-free logos (formerly: Betacommand appears to be at it again

Betacommand appears to be at it again; this time their target (at the rate of several edits per minute) is all images which they perceive to be logos lacking a "fair use" rationale for use in the articles about the companies that the logo represents.

Now I'm not a Wikimedia Foundation copyright lawyer, but this seems to me to be a pretty safe "fair use", and I would expect that most companies would actually LIKE the use of their logos to decorate their articles. If this is true, then someone needs to rein in Betacommand. If not, then I think we need to either:

1. have someone draft a boilerplate fair use rational that covers this exact case, or
2. tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use.

Atlant 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is that the images do not contain the fair-use rationale, then the burden is on the uploaders to fix the situation. The images are not embedded in articles, they are resources that are linked to as needed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you bring this here first as opposed to Betacommand's talk page? --Iamunknown 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I wanted advice and guidance before taking action. Atlant 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Iamunknown 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

that is the problem Boiler plate templates are not fair use rational. if people would actualy follow policy and take the time to write a one or two sentence explaining what the image is and why we need it the problem would be solved. as it is images need valid FU rational and templates dont do that. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is acting quite correctly in this case. We require individual rationales for all fair use images, not a boilerplate one. Its not a matter of whether the companies would like us to use their images, its a matter of Wikipedia's policy on unfree content. We only allow copyright content in a very narrow range of circumstances. In particular, images must be free not only for Wikipedia to use but also for anyone else to use for any purpose. If this is not that case, a valid individual fair use rationale must be provided. Images are unlikely to be fair use if merely being used to decorate an article. Betacommand has approval to tag all images that do not contain a fair use rationale, either by himself or using his Bot account. If they are not added before 7 days after the uploader has been notified by the Bot, they will be deleted. WJBscribe 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Betacommand is doing the necessary this time. -- FayssalF 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This is needed and necessary work. -- ChrisO 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) While the edit rate is a little high (4-5 edits/min) but not quite bot speeds, FU images need a fair use rationale and a source. He isn't quite saying they aren't fair use, just it isn't explained how they are fair use to fully meet Wikipedia fair use criteria. Commenting them out in the artices can help as well to encourage readers to add the info after thinking: "Where did the image go? I better do what th tag says." As opposed to just seeing a redlink for an image after a few days "Where did the image go? I better upload it again." Mr.Z-man 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The first step in dispute resolution is to....contact the user involved. Swatjester 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• One problem is that many images were uploaded at a time before it was made clear by Jimbo and/or Wikipedia policy that a justification beyond the template was needed. Rather than tagging at bot-like speeds, it would be better if someone could go through individually to check fair use images. If there is no justification but a good one could be made, then write it. If the image violates fair use policy, nominate it for deletion. Crotalus horridus 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  Bots are for large scale operations like this. Atlant wants someone to either draft a boilerplate (not a good idea, rationales should be written on a case by case basis) or "tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use." The latter is obvious: if nobody has written a rationale for using a non-free picture, then fair use cannot be justified. We have had these images on-site for years now in such cases, and nobody has bothered to justify their use. Time to get rid of them. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Bots are impersonal and rarely even describe the problem adequately. I've had at least one bot that never really gave me specific pointers in a peer review, just a general dump list of what needed to be done period. And in that list, I actually fulfilled 75% of the list. Even if you added a human element, we'd still have problems. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've always wondered why people, instead of tagging en-masse and causing problems, don't simply create the fair use rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is certainly something unclear here, not so much about the policy but about what people think the consensus about its interpretation is. Do we believe that the practice of routinely having a logo image on each company etc. article is justifiable? In that case, a single type of valid fair use rationale could be devised that would apply to all these images in pretty much the same way (and the demand of having it written out individually in each case would be not much more than an enforced symbolic bowing down to policy but of little practical value, and we could really just as well have that standard rationale templated.) Or do people think that logos should be used on company articles only in special cases, for instance where the design of the logo was of particular encyclopedic interest? In that case individual rationales would be crucial but, first and foremost, 98% of all existing logos would have to be deleted. This is a real question. What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? I honestly don't know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Creating a fair use rationale takes time and thought, tagging random logos with a no rationale tag cuts out the latter requisite. The greater concern is to make sure that logo usage complies with Wikipedia:Logos. In my experience, simply deleting an image is unlikely to deter anyone from uploading a poorly sourced duplicate. So why not create a blanket rationale for the majority of cases? Asking individual contributors to cobble together a rationale that complies with policy as well as copyright law ignores the fact that the majority of users are not too well familiar with either. If we assume a janitorial role with image uploads, then lets address our own concerns. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Anetode. If WP:LOGO is appropriate then I don't understand the problem against a boilerplate FU rationale specifically for those logos (I thought there used to be a pulldown choice for uploading logos, which was implied FU, before they rearranged all that stuff). If we want to be more hardass about refusing FU images (an idea that I sympathize with) then the problem is WP:LOGO, which would need to be redone with the result of getting rid of almost all of the logos in the encyclopedia. I don't see the need for a handcrafted FU rationale message for each logo given that the actual usage is about the same in almost all cases. This particular bot operation looks ill-advised. I'd add that backlogs of stuff like this get large precisely because of the thought required to handle them correctly. Stuff that can be crunched through mindlessly usually gets taken care of quickly, either by hand or with software. So bots are usually the wrong way to deal with a backlog unless there's consensus to abandon hope of dealing with the backlog properly. 75.62.6.237 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

um there was no bots involved. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 07:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd Canvassing

A new user, Free Software Knight appears to be attempting to get people to join the programming team for Gretl. (see here and here) While his edits are harmless, it seems a little odd to be headhunting on Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 18:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• That is kind of odd. A violation of WP:CANVASS, probably. And Wikipedia is not Monster.com. And almost certainly a single-purpose account. Block? Or maybe warn about policy? ♠PMC♠ 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a block is necessary anytime soon. They have good edits (here's onw, not the only one). I'll welcome them and ask them to knock off that particular behavior. ··coelacan 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:207.245.79.201

User:207.245.79.201 has repeatedly been warned about vandalism on talk page. Today, this edit was done. There have been four previous blocks, with the last on December 19 for a month's time. Another block may be in order. - Dozenist talk 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV (theoretically) gets faster blocks done and vandalism like that goes there. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. - Dozenist talk 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This encryption key thing

I just protected AACS encryption key controversy in response to this protection request. The WP:RPFP request implied that the consensus was still to keep the key out of articles ("hard coded in the spam blacklist"), but I'm being told it isn't [104]. I've been avoiding this whole thing and have no intention of getting involved now. Someone deal with this please, people have been edit warring over it like mad in the past few hours. – Steel 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's posts on the Talk:AACS encryption key controversy. It's the consensus that it should be included in the article, and the page is whitelisted from the filter of the number. However, the number is not in the usual blacklist but in some special blacklist that for some problem conflicts with the whitelist. Also, there isn't much of an editwar other than the person requesting protection removing the number and reverting whenever anyone tries to replace it. ≈ Maurauth 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The key itself is hard coded into the spam blacklist. If you type it in, in it's standard form, your edit will be rejected by the software. Pro-key editors have asserted this is a software bug. There is no confirmation from the developers that such a bug exists. One pro-key editor asked to have the key whitelisted on en here. Another pro-key editor asked to have the item removed from the softlist here. The article circumvented our blacklist by including multiple '' characters in the text, which prevented the blacklist from tripping but merely made the number italic. I have no opinion about the key itself, but will not stand for editors circumventing site security. I see no evidence that the page is on some sort of "whitelist." Please note that more than one editor has removed this key persuant to the blacklisting. One might ask when Consensus has changed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate thread about whitelisting it is here. Due to the method that it was added to the spam filter, it seems that there is some difficulty with whitelisting it which is why circumvention tactics were having to be used on the article page, as far as I understand it. Wimt 19:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no meta admin commenting that he would whitelist the number there. The only meta admin commenting on that thread stated he was powerless to change the blacklisting. I may be missing a meta admin, but I do not see a "software bug" manifesting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Any en. admin can whitelist a page, at Mediawiki:Spam-whitelist. Prodego 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this was not the case because it was added to the wgSpamRegex by a developer rather than the standard spam blacklist. I have no idea about the technical details of this, but I'm lead to believe that it means that only a dev can whitelist it. Have I been misled? Wimt 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I am talking about regular whitelisting, which is not possible for this. Prodego ^talk 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The addition of the key to wgSpamRegex seems to have been a bad move not only due to it's questionable reasoning, but it's now causing technical difficulties. ≈ Maurauth 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also; the developers implemented that deep coded block of the number to prevent WP:KEYSPAM not to prevent it's inevitable encyclopaedic inclusion into the artical of which it is the subject. The blacklist is there to prevent spam, not encyclopaedic content! If the special list used to prevent spamming of the number bypasses whitelisting then it should be removed and placed in the correct blacklist if prevention of 'KEYSPAM' is still a factor after inclusion of the key in its relevant article (which I highly doubt). ≈ Maurauth 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Where has a devloper said that? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The key is in the 'SPAM' part of 'spam-blacklist'. ≈ Maurauth 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You work with the tools you have. Are you saying you don't have a developer saying that they hard-coded that restriction in to prevent any posting of the key? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The only quote from the devs about it that I know of is here. It says it was added to the blacklist because of spam. Wimt 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that definitly shows that the inclusion of the number in the blacklist is due to the spamming of it. As the use of the number as the subject of an article is not WP:KEYSPAM, there shouldn't be any problem. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simple really. If an item is in the spam blacklist, don't try to sneak it into articles. And don't talk about the blacklist being a "bug" unless you like people looking at you funny. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The way Hipo portrayed the issue is very obscure. Nobody said that the blacklist is a bug, they said that if it is on the blacklist, AND on the whitelist for that article, and that it cannot then be input into a whitelisted article, there must be a problem.

It's hardly sneaking it into an article when there is 200 or so lines about it on the talk page, a discussion on the whitelist article, the blacklist article and even on THIS page.

Also it was on the spam blacklist due to WP:KEYSPAM, not to prevent it from being inevitably and logically included into an article in which it is the subject. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh I definitely don't want any more people looking at me funny! Can you clarify that this means I was misinformed then, and adding it to the whitelist would have worked? Will (aka Wimt) 19:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Update Post unprotection by Steel the number was promptly readded into the article with '' to avoid the blacklist. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Absurd though it seems to most of us, the rights owners have issued takedown notices to sites which publish the key, they assert ownership, and continuing to publish it ourselves despite knowing this - and knowing that special efforts have been made to prevent it on this site - is both irresponsible and disruptive. Foundation will give us a policy decision well before the publication deadline, in the mean time let's laugh at The Man rather than actively taunting him, shall we? Guy (Help!) 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If the foundation and its lawyers are going to issue a policy, let them. From what I've read, it looks like the community has been given the go ahead to treat this like any other content issue. --Alecmconroy 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The process for getting something removed from the hard-spam-blacklist is to ask a developer to remove it, not to circumvent the blacklist. Unless the developers or above have blessed this action, it's not even remotely appropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to that argument. It certainly looks bad, and I could live with it as long as no one objected, but clearly, people do. I'd suggest people hold off on editing it and let me try to track down an answer. --Alecmconroy 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems that "consensus" is to risk being sued (presumably because it's someone else's money) because knowing the whole of the key is Really Really Important to understanding the controversy. Or something. Completely irresponsible. When we have "consensus" to include things that violate copyright, we remove them, because they violate copyright. Does it violate copyright? Who knows, but Digg were sufficiently persuaded that they honoured the DMCA takedown notices. Rights owner issues takedown notices, we then republish the content so everyone can see how controversial it is. Or maybe how big and brave we are. Way to go.

Also, I do not believe this is on the spam blacklist. I think it is in the sitewide regex filter, which exists to prevent posting of unacceptable content. I believe this is editable only be developers. Anyone feel like speculating on why developers would do something like that? Guy (Help!) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The devs did it because it was being spammed across multiple wikis (see the quote earlier). And it was entirely the right thing to do because many posts at Digg were encouraging the key to be posted on many random Wikipedia pages. I don't think that the fact that this was added to the spam filter should affect the decision whether to add this key now though. The important factors are the consensus of opinion versus the legal risk. And there is certainly a very sensible argument to act cautiously. Likewise, there's the counter argument that it has been on es wp for weeks (the Foundation were informed of this and chose not to act) with no consequence. I'm going to abstain myself because I've had enough of being embroiled in this. Will (aka Wimt) 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK, over to WP:RFAR Guy (Help!) 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I posted on this topic before!

The unofficial position is that:

• spamming of the Number-That-Must-Not-Be-Named is not permitted.
• Use of the Number-That-Must-Not-Be-Named in an actual article about the key is currently up to the community to act as they see wisest.

Myself, I'm worried about a digg-like revolt if all use of the Number-That-Must-Not-Be-Named is not permitted. Therefore, I suggest we just wait and see. If we get more instructions, we'll have all uses of the number in just a couple of places, and can easily comply.

I'm personally not sure if the DMCA was intended to be used this way, the chilling effect in this case is enormous.

--Kim Bruning 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything from Guy at RFAR, and Arbcom just rejected a case against TheBainer about protecting pages from having the AACS key inserted, etc. Circumventing the spam blacklist to insert an occasional editorially legitimate link is a well known past practice, maybe not as common now because of the new whitelist features. The links to Daniel Brandt's sites in his biography used to be inserted as text to get around the blacklist, iirc.

I think Kim Bruning's analysis above is correct. Consensus seems to have emerged on the AACS controversy page to include the key, and the key is in the article now. I'd prefer that the article be unprotected since I'd like to edit it. There's no point protecting it to stop the key from being inserted, since it's already there. It's also all over the internet like the Xenu story that Scientology tried to similarly suppress for a while, and the AACS lawyers (like Scientology) seem to have given up sending out notices. Since they haven't (and presumably won't) rescinded any notices, there will be a lingering cloud of FUD for a long time, but we should not let it paralyze our editing. We are not usurping the Foundation's authority by including the key--see the discussion in the rejected arb case. Obviously if the Foundation directs us to get rid of the key, we have to do so; but for now they seem to have deferred to the community and after much discussion it looks like we're publishing the key.

I don't know that the hex digits are really encyclopedic in the nontechnical article about the controversy, but I've requested (on the controversy discussion page) that a separate technical article be written at a level of detail similar to our article about SHA-1, that should (like the SHA-1 article) include all the relevant hex numbers needed to create a functioning implementation. The hex numbers would definitely be encyclopedic in an article like that. 75.62.6.237 06:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The blacklist entry was made during the spamming campaign, and rightly so. That's blown over now. If the Foundation wished to say "Absolutely under no circumstances is the full number to be placed on any page", I think they're probably capable of issuing such a statement. Instead, even when the Spanish Wikipedia included it, their response was a deafening "No comment". If in the future the Foundation takes an office action to remove the key, everyone will be expected to abide by that until they say otherwise. But a dev happening to hardcode something because it was the only way to stop the spam is hardly an office action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice sought: User:Ron liebman socks and Baseball articles

We have a moderately prolific sockpuppet family Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman running which is making moderate rate (10s/day) edits throughout primarily baseball related articles, making changes to statistics and various other details which are believed to be falsified information. It appears that the vandal is impersonating people off a list of members of the SABR baseball statistics society based on the accountnames, but is also using IP addresses.

Query 1 to the assembled peanut gallery: Is it worth semi-protecting the articles which Ron's socks are repeatedly hitting?

Query 2 to the peanut gallery: A large fraction of the edits appear to be coming from the New York City public library system. Would this volume of problem justify an IP range block on those IP addresses (for a few days to discourage?), or is that unreasonable overkill?

We are able to continue spotting and manually whacking the sockpuppet moles as they arise (1 to a few per day), however this is time consuming and has been going on for a week now.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Locking my user page

Resolved

Is it possible to have my user page fully protected from editing? I'm getting rather tired of the constant vandalism. Rhythmnation2004 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This request belongs in WP:RFPP methinks. --24.136.230.38 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been protected. IrishGuy ^talk 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Harry et al.

Perhaps an admin can take some action to deal with the incivility at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the writings of William Monahan (second nomination). User:Black Harry has now referred to another user as a "stupid S.O.B." and charged him with "incest".[105]. Likewise, another user, on Black Harry's talk page, has described the other user as a "scumbag".[106] My suspicion is that this will only get worse unless an admin steps in with a block or the like for some period of time.A Musing 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked 24 hours for gross incivilty and personal attacks. Hopefully when the block expires, he'll be more careful about what he says. John Reaves (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.A Musing 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Last time I mentioned who I believe to be this user here, it was archived without comment. I figure this last incident is worth mentioning the possible sockpuppetry again. Also, please note that Mrscottjackson added Black Harry to the NBA WikiProject, which to me points towards this being yet another sock. --OnoremDil 00:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. John Reaves (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at WP:RFCU, but thought this issue fit more into "Vote fraud where the possible sockpuppet votes do not affect the outcome of the vote". The solution they have there is to list on WP:ANI. --OnoremDil 11:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AlistairMcMillan Incivility

User:AlistairMcMillan has been getting very emotional at the Apple inc article, and done, what I feel to be incivil treatment.

The use first stated here that I am "yet another person who doesn't really have anything useful to contribute to Wikipedia" then went on to swear at me about reading:

User:AlistairMcMillan 13:46, 15 May 2007 diff here "My edits also come from actually reading the ***** sources."

I am heavaly offended by not only the use of this word but its context when User:AlistairMcMillan refered to my worth. there are so many words that could have been used, but the one used is also threatning in nature. combined with this editors use of my first name in the comments to follow the one about my worth:Here[107] and Here[108] As my first name is not listed anywhere in my talk page or my user page, I question where they got this info. If he is following outside wiki websites to locate me... Is this not stalking?--Zeeboid 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To anyone reading this, please note Zeeboid's first edits to Wikipedia were an attempt to write an article about himself. The article was deleted. The AFD still exists if anyone is interested. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThePete AlistairMcMillan 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alistair, I'm failing to see how it's relevant? He created an article on himself, and!? Matthew 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Its relevant because Z is complaining that AM knows his name; Am is pointing out how William M. Connolley 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This complaint is just trolling/pointless/hopeless/whatever. Z's "heavily offended" cannot possibly be taken seriously, compare his own behaviour [109] William M. Connolley 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where Zeeboid's name is used, and bloody is just a British way of swearing. Phony Saint 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I believe Alistair is only using the editors first name to get to Mr. Zee. I've seen that Alistair is generally an uncivil person, so I can understand that this user is slightly miffed. Perhaps Alistair should apologise and they should both move on. Matthew 20:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"generally uncivil"? Because three months ago I pointed other editors to our policy that says articles about fiction shouldn't just be plot summaries? On an article that three months later is just a great big long plot summary? AlistairMcMillan 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the use of "Paul Roberts", that's the person who wrote one of the source articles here. I see no indication of using Zeeboid's name, unless he happens to be the author of that article. Phony Saint 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In edit comments I said "Reply to Pete". I dislike using made up names. That's why I have my full name everywhere. AlistairMcMillan 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. It's not helpful to others in the debate to refer to someone by a non-obvious name, but he did reveal his name publicly. Phony Saint 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Read "emotional" as "extremely frustrated". Pete kept citing two sources to prove the statement "multiples sources criticized". I kept telling him the two sources were pointing at the same article on two different websites and removing one leaving the original. He kept restoring the duplicate. AlistairMcMillan 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So then, My actions justify an administrator using a violent swear and upon the first alteration to what you had done (an undiscussed major overhaul of an article section), saying I am "yet another person who doesn't really have anything useful to contribute to Wikipedia" and the use of my first name, which you had to hunt for to find? I reverted your changes, because upon the first change you used insulting personal reasons instead of policy or fact.[110] Your emotional state started before I made any reverts to your changes.

I am not the one that resorted to swearing and claiming an editor's worth to be zero. that was way beyond the line of Civil. we can go back and forth on the use of my name, which if I used reciently, I can understand, but you had to hunt to find it from Oct 16 2006.--Zeeboid 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong sockpuppetry

I don't really have the time to look into this, but below is a report copied from AIV. Thanks, Martinp23 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• In the beginning of this month, User:Samuel Luo was indefinitely banned by the ArbCom from editing Falun Gong related articles. [111] A few days ago, CU by User:Dmcdevit revealed that the more or less long-term editors User:Yueyuen, User:Pirate101, User:Kent888, User:Kent8888 and User:Mr.He have been his sockpuppets. They were all banned. However, Samuel keeps attacking Wikipedia. In all likelihood, User:Foullou, User:Shimanan, User:IamYueyuen, User:Gtyh and User:Fufg are his sockpuppets as well. [112] They've all been registered during the last few days; they're engaged in similar revert warring and POV pushing, and none of them have even sought to deny the accusations of being Samuel Luo. After being indefinitely banned, Samuel's only intention is to cause as much trouble as possible. The ArbCom declared that he is using Wikipedia as an ideological platform for his activism. He's bound to continue. He'll probably even try to edit from different IP addresses. What can be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf Stephanos (talk • contribs)

• Please post this to ANI (of all the irony, I was about to block you for 3RR - luckily I spotted this saying that the user was banned :)). Martinp23 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi. About to go blocking. Martinp23 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

All blocked, RFCU filed to find underlying IP. [113] would appear to be a most contentious edit, but I'd prefer not to revert based on my role a few minutes earlier (protecting, blocking, RFCUing). I should also note that, since the conclusion of the ArbComm case, a MedComm case is on hold pending a clarification of the situation. Martinp23 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to clarify. Dmcdevit indefinitely blocked Samuel Luo for disruption, sock puppetry, and expressed intent to disrupt. Unless some other admin wants to unblock him, Luo is indefinitely banned not just from FG articles but from the entire site. So revert, block and ignore the socks. Thatcher131 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I should have been more precise in my wording - the MedCom is awaiting clarification from the ArbCom (and is in communication with it) regarding whether Mediation can continue after the ArbCom. Pending the RFCU, the only issue remaining for discussion/ignoring here is the issue of the contentious move (diffed above), which, admittedly, I haven't had time to look into. Thanks, Martinp23 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Vartanm incivility on Talk:Varoujan Garabedian

I apologize for taking your time, but I would like to report personal attacks by User:Vartanm here [114] calling me "idiotic". Despite my warning, user persists on his perceived correctness [115]. So could you just remind or warn this user to be civil in discussions and also stop removing legitimate references from the article. Also, despite being nominated, this user somehow did not get included in the latest relevant ArbCom case, and has been abusing his lack of restriction on several pages, getting engaged in revert wars. Could you please, advise, on how can this behaviour be addressed? Atabek 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

But he didn't call you "idiotic". He called an accusation you made "idiotic". Funpika 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a hilarious conclusion by yourself and definitely gives more freedom in wording. Now if I want to call someone an "idiot", I will just feel free to say that his comment was "idiotic". Thanks for clarification and I am sure this kind of interpretation will be quite "civil" for Wikipediting. Atabek 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of administartive abilities to edit protected pages by Steward/Admin Drini

Greetings, I was shocked to discover an immense amount of articles which transclude {{spoiler}} frakked up. The aforementioned user edited the template at 22:16[116], and was promptly reverted by DESiegel five minutes later citing guidelines. This is also not mentioning the fact there's no consensus for this edit. I am personally so shocked by these edits I would like the user to relinquish their administrative abilities. The user then reverted (in another language) to their version[117], which I believe to be stating: "Don't just revert[..]" Matthew 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a bit early in the game to be asking "the user to relinquish their administrative abilities". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Just ask for the reasons Drini had to make that change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User has made them quite clear on the talk, from my understanding I interpret it as: Because it's not used how I like it, you should all fix it to my liking. Matthew 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The sequence is Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Shoot Editor in Face. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, not: Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Talk. Matthew 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, this isn't so bad, just ask him what he's up to next time. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I left him a mesage about this, then saw the reference to this. It's a bad idea, he's NOT a bad editor. I don't want that spoiler system reinstated, but I think wiki'd lose out to UNinstate Drini. Should've asked? Check. Bad application of BOLD? Check. baby with bathwater? No Check. ThuranX 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

/me can't parse stupidity. Did you know about WP:BOLD, go ahead and try new stuff? Don't be afraid of making mistakes? I guess that mindset is gone, and they lynchmob has replaced it.

First pages looked wrong for a second, (since endspoiler tempalte took a few seconds more to save after spoiler one. So I reverted again jsut to see how it looked. People didn't like my changes, fine, put things back. But this is just insane. Now I remember why I barely edit on english wikipedia, I'm gone again. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Endspoiler isn't obligation. Bold went out the window the moment you reverted to your version. Matthew 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, shooting in the face time NOW. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(ECx2)Uh, I CITED BOLD... But you're a steward, and an admin. YOu know about sandboxes. really, that's about it. Please use them more. YOu clearly confused lots of people by the sudden change in the spoiler template, and how people read the pages. All we're all saying is that somethign that basic, as an admin and steward, get a second opinion. Not a massive consensus, but find a good admin, and say, hey, check out this sandbox idea. would it work, does it break a policy? But no one here's saying leave wiki, man. Just... remember you're the exemplar for the rest of us as an admin and steward. ThuranX 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This incident report is unwarranted and should have been submitted if the situation escalated. I think it's clear that the system worked itself out, with editors filing complaints about the formatting and the admin in question desisting his activities. I don't necessarily dislike his idea, but it's a major change for a lot of media-related articles and should've sought a consensus. From what I've seen in the past, we've gone through a lot of spoiler-related discussion already, and there should have been one for this template update. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to move to pull the report, so as not to drive Drini away? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think soem people here are overreacting. I did revert, twice, becaue ther changfe was undiscussed, was opposed by many on the talk page, and the edit summary on Drini's second revert said "don't kneejerk revert" which seemed to imply an intention to retain the change, not discuss it, (but that may have been a failrue to WP:AGF on my part, and because the tempalte is widely used. But i donm't think one edit or set of edits is enough to go flinging accusations of "abuse" around. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

other spoiler-related edits today

In a possibly unrelated matter, but it seems like a coincidence, there have been some other contentious edits involving the use of {{spoiler}} today. User:David Gerard removed it from many articles, citing "rm gratuitous spoiler warnings - should not be on anything not recent release" as his edit summary in most cases. many of these changes have since been reverted. he also edited Template:Spoiler/doc to add the bolded instruction "This template should only be used on very recent or unreleased works of fiction. Be sparing in its use" without discussion. I reverted. Another editor has since added a different but equally undiscussed instruction. i have not reverted, but have tried to start talk page discussion. i wasn't going to bring this here, but since the thread on the template reverts is already started, I think I should mention it. I don't think this kind of mass change without prior discussion is a good idea, this is a case IMO where "Bold, Revert, Discuss" is a mistake, and 'discuss" should come first. DES ^(talk) 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While I was typing this out a thread appeared! Apologies if anything is repeated.

Today I am seeing strange things happen with Template:Spoiler. Removal on the grounds "patronising - of course a 'plot summary' will tell people the plot"[118]. Removal on grounds of "rm gratuitous spoiler warnings - should not be on anything not recent release" [119]. This latter change seemed at that time to be supported by Template:Spoiler, but only because this change [120] at 19:03 today apparently added this clause, 5 minutes after the previous change. This is not isolated to the one article I am watching. It tends to irritate me when previously uninvolved editors drive past an article making changes to some undisclosed agenda, so I have been reverting it.

Requests for clarification on Template talk:Spoiler and on User talk:David Gerard#Spoiler tags get no reply. On Wikipedia:Help desk#Spoiler tags there is the suggestion that this proceeds from some off-Wiki discussion.

Then we see Template:Spoiler changing rapidly. Four times today, in fact, adding, then removing code to hide the contents of spoilers, with corresponding complaints of messing up countless articles.

Well, normally I'd write this off as a content dispute, but just about everyone involved seems to be an administrator. Indeed, the template is fully protected, so not everyone can play.

I have no view on whether this spoiler tag is a good thing, and I would plead with anyone replying to this not to start debating that; it doesn't seem to be the place. What I would like to understand is what process is being followed here: what consensus was reached, and if so, where it is to be reported, whether the consensus is such that it overrides any local consensus of article editors who - when they chose this tag, did so in good faith and according to then prevailing instructions; and finally what editors should do faced with something like this, where templates and the instructions on how we are to use them are changing with dizzying rapidity, and what is going on doesn't seem to fall under any kind of normal warning template I might use when faced with disruptive editing (even assuming that warning administrators is a good idea). Notinasnaid 21:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I attempted to discuss my edits, but i won't revert on this matter further now, so there is no need to warn me. As to where consensus was reached for these changes: nowher that I saw, which is why i did so much reverting. I didn't, however, revert removals of spoiler templates in the few cases whre I personaly thought they probalby wern't needed anyway. DES ^(talk) 22:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a budding {{spoiler}} fight over on Blazing Saddles. It was started by David[121], and after its revert[122], the cause was taken up by User:Eclecticology[123], who is on a similar bender (check the contribs[124]). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, things become clearer. A guidline relating to the 'spoiler' tag is proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. If it isn't stretching WP:AGF too far, it may be that some editors believe that (a) the result is a foregone conclusion and (b) that deleting the guideline will lead to the deletion of the tag and (c) that they might as well start before the conclusion of the debate. This would hardly be worthy of mention here except that, so far as I can judge, those involved may well be administrators. Notinasnaid 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Actually what's happened is this: a number of admins including David Gerard (I think probably David first, he was the first to bring it to my attention anyway) noticed that there were huge numbers of utterly absurd spoiler warnings (including the Book of Ruth, some 1st Century Greek texts and so on. Mostr spoiler warnings appear in a section "Plot details" or some such; it is hardly a stretch of the imagination to realise that the section on plot details might contain, you know, details about the plot, so if you don't want to know about the plot, don't read it. In fact, if what you're looking for is a book review that doesn't give away details of the ending, you are probably in the wrong place anyway. So, large numbers of absurd and inappropriate spoiler tags were and are being removed. And the project will be a better place for it, I reckon. You need a really powerful reason to include a spoiler warning in an encyclopaedia article. This is not a fansite or book review collection, remember. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A few more blatant User:JJonathan socks for your attention

Resolved

Anyone able to deal with these? It's pretty clear from the editing patterns and usernames that JJonathan is behind them. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• User:Mr. Groove
• User:Mr.club
• User:Dancypopper
• User:Dancepopper

Thanks very much. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Got them. :) IrishGuy ^talk 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've just created a long term abuse report on this user (Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#JJonathan). Does it look okay to you? --Kurt Shaped Box 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 issues

Hello there. I am coming here reluctantly, as I certainly would not like to have to reprimand a user of such stature, but there have been many recent problems with this user that I have noticed. Raul654 has recently been discussion with other users here the problems he has with the Today's featured article (TFA) requests process. I have certain problems with what he is suggesting (and certainly think that it is not within reason) but that is not why I am coming here.

We have been having good quality discussion recently about how the process is not working and how it should be fixed. Raul asserts that the idea of requesting dates is not good because he is getting too many complaints from people who do not get what they request for a TFA. Fine, whatever. But my problem is that the discussion on his part has not been civil and he constantly bashes any ideas or proposals of him stepping down as the sole TFA selector (which other users think would be a good start to fixing the problem). But this still is not the reason I am here.

I'm not sure when, but very recently, Raul deleted two templates which go on talk pages of TFA requested articles: {{Main Page request}}[125]; {{Mainpage date requested}}[126]. Now, he gave no notice of deleting these, no edit summaries as to why he did so, and had removed the template from every page it was on without discussion. Now, he certainly knew what was going on at TFA requests and certainly there would be some disagreement with the deletion of these templates, so I come here to report that Raul has exceeded his duties and thinks that his position places him higher than everyone else in the community. I urge this entire situation to be looked into further, and, again, it was not my wish to come here and complain, but I felt it was my duty because of a wrong doing to everyone here. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jared has taken it upon himself to cause as much trouble for me as possible. (And has publicly said so: "I'll have to figure out the solution to the obvious problem of having only one person as FA coordinator myself."). The templates were discussed here, where everyone who commented on the matter expressed great dislike for them. Furthermore, as anyone who looks at the templates can see, they serve (literally) no useful value except to direct people to the requests page to vote for their article (which is prohibited by the directions on that page). Jared above claimed I gave no notice of deletion - this too is false. Basically, this is Jared's attempt to stir up trouble for me. Raul654 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, actually Raul, I must be missing something, but why do we even have a featured article director? I'm sure there is some reason for it, but I've just never seen it. Thanks ahead of time :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because when we switched from an all-text main page to the 4-pane view, some form of decision making was needed to allocate limited main page FA space. After 6 months of me doing it all by myself, a troll tried a breaching experiment and challenged my informal authority. A poll was taken, and (by near unanimous margins) I was given the title of featured article director. I also set up the FA criteria, FAC and FAR pages, set their policies, 'etc. In short - I more or less set up the whole show and since then, I give order to the process. Raul654 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting how my next statement in that first diff there (supposed to be bashing me) was "If you would still like to help work out a solution, feel free to contact me." Seriously, I do not want to cause him any trouble; it's too much trouble for me (and I have a lot of homework I could be doing right now, but I am choosing to ensure that this problem is righted). Anyway, I don't feel it was appropriate for Raul to just delete the template because there were adequate reasons not to delete it. It also didn't formally go through the process for deleting. Templates shouldn't just be removed from pages at a person's will. Overall, I don't think Raul was in the right to delete this and I would just like comment on this. I repeat that I am not looking for him to get into trouble, I would just like to right an obvious wrong. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm ok, I can go with that. :) If the community is some how unable to figure this out on its own and it requires one person, fine. Though honestly I do think at this stage, the community is mature enough to think about maintaining the main page itself, but I won't go there :) As far as the templates, if you feel process was violated , we have deletion review for a reason :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of going to DRV, but I quickly realized that my issue was more about the ideas behind the deletion than the deletion of the actual template. Plus, it would be too much work to revert all the edits he made to fully remove the templates from all the pages. Again, I don't think this is just a deletion issue; I think it is an abuse-of-power issue on a small but growing scale. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this correctly... You're forgoing doing your homework because you feel Raul654 is being a dick by deleting a template on article talk pages that says that a specific date is being requested for a featured article to be on the main page? Exactly why is this a big deal that requires administrator attention? Grandmasterka 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue, if you've been following it, is not straightforward at all. It all, however, stems from the fact the Raul is in a position where he has been given the sole rights to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure an article appears on TFA each day. The latest problem was, yes, the deletion of these templates. But certainly there have been other problems, including a poor attitude, a lack of ambition to work with others to fix problems that may (or may not) exist, among other things. I really am not sure myself what I'm looking for here because I certainly don't think he should be blocked or desysopped or anything else. I just want to have other administrators assess the situation because I think his actions are going unchecked. (And FYI, the homework reference was for effect. Haha.) _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that if "the community" wants to have some sort of conversation about how long the "Featured Article director" appointment lasts, this isn't the right venue for it. It's not clear to me what admin action is needed here. Jkelly 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment "If you would still like to help work out a solution, feel free to contact me." is a clear statement by Jared that he wants to take over from Raul, and given the manner in which this is being pursued, Jared replacing Raul is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Nick ^t 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I certainly don't want the position. It is too high stress and time consuming for me. I do, however, think it is worth the time to think of a logical solution. Please dismiss this whole thread if you don't believe there is anything an admin can do to fix the situation. If you can fix it, please do. If it is an unfixable situation, though, I we can leave this issue be right here. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  23:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken. Raul654 does a superb job keeping that whole thing organized. It's a potential problem any time someone's article doesn't get promoted, or doesn't get promoted when they want, or if it doesn't end up on the main page at the right time or at all. All that can reasonably be expected is that he handles it gracefully any time there is a bone of contention. It might be wise for him to have an interim coordinator ready in the interest of cross training, but that is nothing that belongs on this page. --Spike Wilbury 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that too many interests are at stake to solve Main Page problems individually by consensus--everyone just argues fervently for their favorite article. There are two possible solutions: employ a rigid system, which is the solution for pictures (they appear in the order they were featured), or have a director. Since we've never had any kind of consensus about what the rigid system would be if there were one, we're left with Raul. It's imperfect, since people bug Raul constantly and he gets (understandably) grouchy about that, but it's the best compromise we've got so far, and Raul stands in the way of total chaos. Chick Bowen 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discussions were going fine on the various talk pages in question. The deletion of the templates could have been done at TfD, but there are arguments for db-author and WP:IAR in Raul's favour. Not too much to discuss here. More input at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests would be more helpful. Carcharoth 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On the note prior, Jared couldn't be the FA director even if he wanted to be, as he hasn't been given the trust of the community to edit protected pages at this time. Daniel 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Raul654. Oh, wait, that wasn't the question ws it? Oh, no, I see it was. Endorse, then. And also endorse application of the Wikitrout to Jared if he continues this silliness. It ain't broke, and even if it was, this would not be the place to fix it. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there definitely are some problems, but I am definitely not trying to solve them here. That's what the talk pages are for. What I was trying to do here was right a wrong whereby Raul deleted something with little to no community support, knowing darn well there were active objections two sections below. That's what's really irking me here. I just think he thinks he's able to do whatever he wants in regards to the FA/TFA process, and I think he's sadly mistaken. Sure he was ratified as TFA coordinator, but that was a long time ago, had a limited group voting, and frankly, times have changed since then. I was just hoping that someone here could have some sense to talk to him admin-to-admin, telling him that he has overstepped his limits because apparently he doesn't think he has any, or at least that's the impression I get from him. And once again, I not, have never, nor will ever wish to become the TFA dictator; the whole idea of doing so would be against what I've been fighting for for the last couple days. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  10:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is a procedural issue. Any further discussion of the way FA and TFA is handled should take place at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, Village Pump, or a similar venue. nadav 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? This is nothing to do with Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Raul's only involvement with WP:FAC is to carry out the promotions based on the community discussions there. I think you meant Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. The template discussions could take place at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion and Wikipedia:Deletion review. The Village pump is also not the right place to discuss these issues, though a link there advertising the discussion might be appropriate. No offence, but if you are going to direct discussion somewhere else, at least try and link to the right place. :-) Carcharoth 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption at Brandon Teena

Resolvedsemi-protected by Nick. ··coelacan 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Related to the disruption yesterday [127], a number of anon users and single-role accounts have been disrupting the Brandon Teena article. One Nanaharas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefblocked for legal threats yesterday, but a number of others remain disruptive. In the most recent episode, the issue is repeated blanking of content without citation based on claimed personal knowledge [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] despite three cites to the contrary (discussion thread here.

The disruptive users involved include: 63.215.29.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Faytay2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 162.58.0.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other anons (please see page history).

When you examine the anon editors' edits to other articles many are vandalism and disruptive, so I believe this is likely not a matter of content dispute but an ongoing troll of the article due to its' subject matter (a transgendered murder victim). In any case, the situtation could use a few admins to take a look at the editor contribs, the article history and talk page and perhaps (though I'm loathe to go there) the article should be semi-protected temporarily. Thanks for any and all input. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Page Protection -- Nick ^t 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much Nick. Should I wipe this from the page or leave it here for now? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note I also left a 'vandal1' tag on User:Faytay2002's talk page. If there's a more appropriate warning tag for a single-role account being used for disruption/vandalism, or if tagging that user's talk page is inappropriate, please let me know and I'll fix it immediately. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to wipe this section. I'll leave a "resolved" tag to get it out of the way. This looks like a content dispute. Rather than calling it vandalism, it's better to get the user talking on the article talk page. If they won't work cooperatively, use dispute resolution. ··coelacan 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's been discussion in a thread there, but the reverts continue by users not participating. I'll invite this user to participate in the discussion there. Thanks a lot! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again for your advice. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an update: The talk page dispute has continued and I've actually just invoked 'Godwin's Law'. Aargh. I've asked a few times for dispute resolution but so far the anon/single-role account's argument continues to be tendentious, evasive and illogical. Hope it gets resolved soon and the article can leave semi-prot. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

66.215.28.84 inserting false information?

I've blocked 66.215.28.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for six months for what appears to be repeatedly inserting false information over a period of time, with several blocks in the past for it. The information is usually in video game articles. I'm not sure if I should blindly revert everything- some of the edits appear legit. --Wafulz 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's the longest non-indefinite ban I've ever seen. Does it need to be so huge? --Masamage ♫ 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Six month blocks are not uncommon, particularly for school and other public IPs. --Wafulz 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping an occasional eye on this troublemaker since October (that I recall), over this and one or two other IPs on the same network, one of which shows this behaviour as far back as August. Every time, as soon as the block expires, the same crap. It'll start again in six months exactly, mark my words. Next time, take it to the ISP.--Drat (Talk) 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User possibly tried to put Wikipedia in trouble with MPAA

User Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log) has put a secret HD-DVD encryption key that the MPAA has been trying to erase from the web (see news article) and has also pursued legal action in order to prevent publication of the key. This is a bad faith edit, meant to put Wikipedia in legal problems. For example from the news site:

DMCA take down notices have been issued to sites like Spooky Action at a Distance and Digg.

The Digg users who published them have even had their accounts closed by mods.

This user's edit and the diff (including my news link, if possible) should be deleted and made inaccessible to protect Wikipedia from any possible legal trouble. By the way this is the same user who last week wrote the words "fuck you" in a hidden comment and edit-warred with admins who rightfully tried to remove it. Last week he got blocked for 3RR, abuse, disruptive editing and his block expired today. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that is needed, since the key is in the AACS encryption key controversy article. That is certainly worse then a hidden comment. Prodego ^talk 02:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. I see, we are safe then. thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted it as "silly keyspam nonsense", which indeed it is. It's pretty close to WP:POINT - Alison ☺ 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

kirbytime indef blocked

I'm done with him. I don't care whether the key is on Wikipedia or not, but he is just trolling by inserting it in his userspace as a comment. It may be acceptable fair use in the article, it's not fair use in his userspace. I've blocked Kirbytime indefinitely; I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia anymore, if he ever was. If another admin wants to undo the block, I won't scream about it, but unless there is a clear sign of an intent to turn this behavior around, I think it would be ill-advised. ··coelacan 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, good call. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He's posted an extremely pleasant unblock request. [133]. I don't really understand this whole situation with the key itself; however, it's quite clear to me that Kirbytime posted this as an act of trolling. I will not object to this block given Kirbytime's history of disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. We have got to learn the difference between people who are here to help, and people who are not. The former, when they misbehave, get all manner of opportunities to reform, and rightly so. It is too bad we fritter away so much goodwill and energy by extending the same to the second group. Hesperian 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the block log, I endorse the block. He should have been gone a long time ago. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And note the subsequent (not very) veiled threat to sockpuppet. I should say that Kirbytime has just given his block the strongest possible endorsement. Hesperian 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep.[134] As long as it's agreed this is a community ban, any puppets can be blocked and reverted on sight. ··coelacan 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disgree with indef block. The code is certainly not supposed to add anything to encyclopedia but it is not vandalism either. First of all, it is his own userpage. Our contributions to our own userpages are not supposed to be of encyclopedic value in the first place. Having said that, addition of the code on that page was quite unnecessary. BUT it doesn't deserve an indef block. For just adding a hidden message to personal website. It is true that Kibri have had some blocks over "request" for some sex related pics which I don't approve but I think he has stoped that (or please prove me wrong).

I suggest for an indef block, his case should be submitted to Arbcom. --Aminz 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody WP:OWNs any pages on Wikipedia, including the userpages connected with their accounts. Userpages are not required to be encyclopedic content they way articles are, but they are to facilitate work on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Myspace, as the saying goes. And trolling on one's userpage is definitely blockable. 75.62.6.237 05:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of encyclopedic content or not; but a question of copyright infringement. It may be fair use in the article, and there are reasonable arguments that it is allowable in the article under WP:NFCC. But that explicitly does not extend to userspace. ··coelacan 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What does fair use have to do with this? --ElKevbo 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but Ctrl-F for "I consider it blatant trolling" below, as I believe the block stands on Kirby's intent, regardless of the exact legality. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, I still don't see how a copyright infringment can justify indef-block. It is too harsh. Indef-blocking of a user means that the user doesn't satisfy even the lower standards expected from a user. --Aminz 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the result of an extended pattern of behavior, not just this single issue. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with an indefinite block as well. — MichaelLinnear 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that we didn't block the user just for pasting the code; there were plenty of other blocks issued in the past feew weeks for causing disruption, including asking for NSFW images at articles, including Child pornography. I feel like we gave this user way too many chances. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Zscout370(edit conflict), Kirbitime was asking for addition of pictures but as far as I am aware he has stoped it for awhile (please correct me otherwise). I think it is best to be addressed through RfCs and ArbCom. On the surface, issuing an indef block for some hidden addition to a personal userpage really seems unjustified.--Aminz 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer if I unblocked and reblocked indefinitely for threatening to sockpuppet? Because he's done that already now. ··coelacan 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of case is a waste of time at RFC and a waste of ArbCom's time. Once a troll, always a troll. Editors that take actions like this are not welcome to continue editing here. --Spike Wilbury 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, it is his objection to "indef-block" for adding something to personal userpage. I think we are moving too fast. --Aminz 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MichaelLinnear, this is not a vote. Please explain your objection. ··coelacan 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is overly harsh. — MichaelLinnear 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, as you may be able to convince another admin: if the block were reduced, when would we be free from his trolling? When would the games stop? Do you have reason to believe that he's going to improve his behavior? I don't mean to pick a fight or anything; if there's answers to these questions that I and others are overlooking, someone should put them on the table. ··coelacan 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

May I conclude that a more appropriate reason for blocking is "exhausting the community's patience"? —Kyриx 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please list User's faults. Please note that I agree that Kirbitime's instance on porn image was disruptive but did he continue this? I think he stopped it (please correct me otherwise) --Aminz 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or Coelacan? —Kyриx 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To you actually :) --Aminz 04:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I never expressed an opinion supporting or opposing the block. The above was just a conclusion drawn from observation. So I don't quite get your request. —Kyриx 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that :P I misunderstood your comment. --Aminz 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, do you really want me to make a list of his diffs? I'll have to probably split it into 3 columns to prevent the page from getting lengthy. Here's one group diff though: edit-warring with admins. You should support better users of Wikipedia. Realize that you will be helped more if you have good users working with you; at the least not anyone who edit wars with admins, requests child porn, writes the words "Fuck you" in a hidden comment, gives a link to Piss Christ and so on. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't say that kirbi satisfies the highest standards but that he doesn't fail the lowest ones. Some of these edits may not be justified but may be explained. Aside from these you don't have a good editting record either Matt. --Aminz 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with high or low standards of editing, and everything to do with incessant trolling behavior. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We all realize that indefinite doesn't mean infinite right? John Reaves (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I hoped to make that clear at the beginning of this section; if another admin honestly thinks he's going to shape up, they can reverse the block. For what it's worth, he's now saying he copied the number there through a sort of misunderstanding.[135] You'll have to read his talk page. But I think the threats of sockpuppetry speak well enough for his intent here. ··coelacan 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would consider unblocking if I could take Kirbytime's protestations of innocence seriously. But his history makes me unable to believe him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John Reaves, i think indefinite means infinite. It means that the user fails the minimal standards. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean infinite. It mean an undefined period of time, i.e. it could eventually be reversed. John Reaves (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think in practice it means the same thing. --Aminz 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I've seen indefinite blocks overturned. —Kyриx 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern, indef block seems too harsh. Some of the previous blocks were related to asking on the talk pages for porn pictures which was bad but as far as I am aware the user has stoped that to best of my knowledge. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with indef. Too much trolling. - Merzbow 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this long due indef block. This is one of the strongest trolls I've ever seen. The longer you keep this user in, the more trouble he will create for users and admins (edit-wars with admins) and the more you'll keep wondering why he wasnt blocked before.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are far from an impartial party in this. — MichaelLinnear 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For whoever says this is copyright infringement, this is not; it might be a violation of the DMCA, but you cannot copyright a 128-bit number. At best, it qualifies as a trade secret, which means that once released to the public like it is now, it is no longer controllable legally. The DMCA is the only law that applies here, most likely. "Fair use" is irrelevant, from what I know. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The (bad) idea is that it's a circumvention tool and thus subject to the DMCA. I agree that it's daft and that fair use has nothing to do with it. --ElKevbo 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, while I will not express an opinion on the block, I would suggest that any block made should be specifically made for the user's incivility and attacks, not for posting a number which has been run in many major news sources such as Wired, Yahoo News, and so forth. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The block should be applied because he deliberately makes edits like this to cause maximum chaos; his history is full of such behavior. - Merzbow 04:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider it blatant trolling, the same as if he had written expletives in his html comments (as he did last time). The intended purpose is disruption, even if the action was not a violation of US law. It's WP:POINT either way, and he's given us enough of that. I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia so much as for a "game" inside an encyclopedia; I stand by my block. Again, other admins have the prerogative of reversing the block. I will not. ··coelacan 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, writing hidden stuff on his personal userpage doesn't harm wikipedia nor produce chaos; I assume he is blocked and he is free at home so he started playing with his userpage. The main problem is with the article not userpages (and even then hidden writings). User pages are not supposed to add anything to the wikipedia.

coelacan, I am not saying he satisfies the highest standards but that indef-block(i.e. failing the lowest standards) seems harsh to me. But that's only me. --Aminz 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this "failing the lowest standards" stuff is. An indef block represents my appraisal that the net effect of Kirbytime is more trolling than benefit, and that he's exhausted the patience of too many other editors. How many times has he been on ANI in the last month? How much time have we wasted running around this guy? I'm hoping that when this thread is archived, the answer will be "no more". ··coelacan 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the edits he made adding the key, for what it's worth. Might also be worth noting Kirbytime's reasoning for inserting it (I have my doubts - the key was inserted with ":" after each two numbers. This was done presumably to circumvent the blacklist, because I can't think of any time I've seen the key formatted like that...) Ral315 » 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's formatted like that on a couple of websites. — MichaelLinnear 04:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I have a problem with the block. My only interaction with Kirbytime was the ANI thread where he claimed to be confused about what kind of images constituted child pornography. If someone can demonstrate that he's made recent positive contributions to the encyclopedia, I'd reconsider, but this user seems like a determined, long-term troll to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am personally aware, the user had stopped that. --Aminz 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Because he was blocked for it. So he moved on to other things, like revert warring and html comment games. ··coelacan 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of "html comment games". Would you please explain it. Thanks --Aminz 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"HTML games" refer to the user putting thing in <!--hidden comments-->. John Reaves (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

One example is this edit. You can't see them just looking at the page, but they show up when you edit. Phony Saint 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This editor appears to be an unrepentant troll. I was around for his requests for child porn. While he finally gave up that effort he didn't do so quickly. I see some editors here saying he wasn't that bad but I don't see anyone pointing to positive contributions to offset his disruption. On the whole, I think Wikipedia is better off without this user's involvement. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who want to review Kirbytime's recent ANI history can see archives 240, 239, 230, 227, 221, 221. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good block. We don't have to put up with this nonsense from obvious trolls.--Jersey Devil 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

an indefinite ban is excessive for vandalizing your own talk pages imho, if he is to be blocked indefinitely it should be done by the arbcom Bleh999 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This block doesn't make sense as the key is out in the open in the Wikipedia article on the subject and Jimbo Wales has said there is no problem with posting the key to Wikipedia. The indef block for this non-"offense" is totally improper. That said, I am unaware of his past history, just that this latest offense doesn't appear to be an actual "offense." --Abnn 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Shall I unblock and reblock for threatening sockpuppetry, instead? Would that make things clearer? ··coelacan 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't actually threaten sockpuppetry from what I read, rather he suggested being unfairly banned drives some to do so, I doubt he would admit he was going to sockpuppet and thus expose his intentions Bleh999 05:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can read "It's almost like you guys are asking me to sockpuppet" any other way than "I will sockpuppet". ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I can't comment as I don't know. In all honesty, I can't knowledgeable oppose or support a indefban based on an analysis of his overall behavior as I am not familiar enough with him and this territory. --Abnn 05:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he has been helpful in the past: I first met him and encouraged him to help us out on WP:PNT, where we needed people who could read arabic script at the time. He did handle a few cases. But I understand the sentiment behind his indef-block due to his behavior since then and I don't oppose it. Grandmasterka 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block, the editor has been warned several times. (If one considers previous blocks warnings, which I do). block log Anynobody 05:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime now threatens "revenge".[136] I don't have enough AGF kool-aid in my cupboard to continue entertaining the possibility of unblocking. Later, ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hos is that athreat of revenge? Viridae^Talk 06:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Threat or not, it crossed the line into trolling... again. I have now protected his talk page. Hesperian 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For those that don't know, it is a quote from the Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare: [137]. --Abnn 06:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew it was a quote, but it doesn't appear to be a threat - the context of it says that even more. Viridae^Talk 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Kirbytime had contributed for a year without major problems - I recall him being at some times reasonable and at others contentious and not really standing out in this respect - but recently has for whatever reason gone totally rogue. I was amazed to see him resume edit warring to push a completely ridiculous image (since deleted) immediately after coming off a 24hr block for…well, edit-warring, and having only minutes earlier assured others (sort of) that he wasn't going to immediately resume edit-warring after his block expired.

Re his latest behavior, this explanation strains credulity, and who knows what we should make of this Shakespearean reference? ("And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?") Besides the vague hints of a threat, this continues his very odd line of am-I-Muslim-Jewish-or-atheist identity trolling which like too many of his recent contributions seems designed to draw others into pointless discussions.

Were this block infinite and irrevocable, I suppose I might oppose it, but indefinite is a different matter: he is and should be free to petition for an unblock at some point in the future (say, a couple months from now) if and when he's regained his senses and is prepared to admit to his missteps instead of pretending he doesn't understand why the community is pushing back. In the meantime, I counsel Kirbytime to step away from Wikipedia for a bit and not make the situation any worse by sockpuppeting; see User:DavidYork71 for a user who dealt with this situation exactly the wrong way, and a result has probably blown his chances to come back.Proabivouac 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the above statement... He's been okay in the past and we should leave the door open a crack barring further problems. Maybe one problem of his led to another and he let himself snowball out of control... Just a thought. Grandmasterka 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• My patience with Kirbytime is certainly exhausted, though my patience is pretty exhaustible these days. I would think that if he asks nicely after a month or so away form the project, to regain his perspective, we would be quite likely to let him back in, but right now he's looking like a time-sink with no obvious payback for the project. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't know that too many editors are following Kirbi's edits... :D --Aminz 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

His name pops up rather too often. I have left a note on his Talk. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with the key is that the consensus over at the controversy article talk page seems to indicate that it should only be presented in the article and nowhere else (that's the primary reason it was added to the spam blacklist-- it was being spammed). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirby deserves a long break (i'd say something like 6 months) to review their behaviour and understand that wikipedia is not a game. Instead of editing the encyclopedia we end up having long discussions that we could have avoided. But indef is surely a harsh block. At least they've contributed plenty of stuff. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. We have had trolling, desruptive and pointy cases much more worse than that but people are still present in the project, probably because they changed their behaviour. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. In brief, if there is someone i totally agree w/ in this thread is Proabivouac. Excellent analysis and synthesis. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Danny Frawley vandalism

This page has been vandalised a large number of times over the last 48 hrs and it seems to be the work of 3 different IP's, perhaps a case of sockpuppeting or a group of friends collaborating to defame this individual. Could someone please lock the page and look into it. Cheers Crickettragic 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You've come to the wrong place... but I have rewarded you for it by semi-protecting, as this vandalism was unusually persistent. Hesperian 06:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:58.71.21.66

Resolved

 – User blocked for 48 hours for vandalism.--Jersey Devil 06:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This editor has made unsource, controversial edits to Alan Peter Cayetano (among others) and because of this, the said article was noted on the running breaking-news account on the [website of a nationally-published newspaper] in the Philippines. I submitted a RFP for this article, but soon after this user again vandalized the same article. I've placed warnings on this user's talk page. Thanks! --- Tito Pao 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 48 hours.--Jersey Devil 06:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ^___^ --- Tito Pao 06:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Art Dominique

ResolvedAll socks have been blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Will (aka Wimt) 11:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned user Art Dominique is evading his ban again by using sock puppets: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Art_Dominique. --Whiskey 08:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

I admit that i don't understand what the recent link added to Freedom of speech is actually linking to, but it appears to me that linking from an article to a user's talk page — User:Advocates For Free Speech — is, at the least, unusual. Someone want to take a look? (And if possible, explain what the h... this is???) thanks, Richard Myers 10:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Advocates For Free Speech's link has been removed, but what concerns me more is his userpage and talk page, if he attempting to be a "wiki-lawyer"? Ryan Postlethwaite 11:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it may also be a role account. Advocates, "Our purpose", "We defend", "We inform". --OnoremDil 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This guy is presumably a sock (role account or not) of indef blocked User:Bully-Buster-007. The way, the truth, and the light 11:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

already blocked as a sock. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In his defense(?), I did find "The virus in the sandbox" section of his page interesting in a "can anyone really be that stupid" way. --MediaMangler 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Was still being nonsensical (reverting block notices etc.), so page blanked and protected. Review welcome. Daniel 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Nembard

This user has been maing useless edits malignig some of his friends and even created a new article for this purpose See contribs: A block would be helpful.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

All edits reverted and warned. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MDS International / MDS America conflict bothering Wikipedia

→ See also: MDS International section on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Ok. We've been here before. I know it has much to do w/ WP:COI but the latest developments have gone beyond that. Believe me, i consider this case the most difficult one i've handeled so far and that's why i need help. This is the situation in brief:

1. MDS America is in a legal conflict w/ MDS International (based in France). Notice that MDS Intl. redirects to MVDDS dispute as its article has been deleted twice (went thru DRV).
2. Both MDS America employees (User:Bhimaji, User:WizardOfWor, maybe User:Macrhino as well though i am not sure, but of course many IPs hailing from Stuart, Florida where the company is located. Also User:72.19.4.235 claimed once that he is the CEO of MDS America who already got an article called Kirk Kirkpatrick) and MDS Intl User:Jeanclauduc aka User:83.206.63.250 (claiming he is the CEO of MDS Intl) ones have been editing in wikipedia and they have been edit warring of course and in many occasions personal attacks and uncivility have been noticed.
3. On The account User:Fabrice10 has been created on May 2nd. His first edit was at the AfD page claiming he is the son of User:Jeanclauduc and that he is still a shareholder of MDS Intl while cooperating w/ MDS America. What we can get from that is that the alleged father and son are engaged in a family business conflict as well!!!
4. I've tried to mediate between the two sides as you can get from the ANI link above (because User:Jeanclauduc speaks French but poor English) but he stopped cooperating after i asked him a few questions for clarification but he never contacted me again.
5. On May 15th, User:83.206.63.250 has personally attacked and threatened User:Fabrice10 to divulge personal info about their family affairs. In fact he has already done it in French. As a result User:Kuru blocked him for 31 hours. His alleged son Fabrice10 has just divulged on my talk page some info about him which i've just removed.
6. Editors User:Nadav1 and User:EdJohnston as well as User:Ronz and User:zzuuzz have tried to sort this mess out but in vain.
7. For more information please refer to this case at WP:COI/N

Maybe i missed some facts/incidents but all i want is a community opinion. Blocking Jeanclauduc indef would not fix the problem as we have the COI stuff going on here w/ employees of a company are editing many related topics. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to personally thank FayssalF for having the patience and fortitude for dealing with this very complicated case. The file over at WP:COIN has been open for over a month now, and while some progress has been made in sorting out the COI issues, there is still much to be done. What has made this saga especially difficult for me, and perhaps has also tried the patience of other editors who have tried dealing with this, is the constant bickering and personal attacks that have continued to appear on the talk pages. Some of these attacks, namely those emanating from the presumed JC Ducasse, have grown especially viscious as of late. I hope other editors can suggest some sort of solution to this whole mess. nadav 12:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Wc systemic vandalism

• The welcome committee's main greeting page is looking like it's in an edit war and has apparently become a vandalism target here. Can someone(s) add it to thier watch list, and if this goes on, perhaps throw a page protect on it for a few weeks. It's been hit so hard, it bounce me out to my homepage when viewing on MSIE6 as reported WT:WC#Vandalism_or_Our_Page_Problem. T'would be appreciated. (this page is currently doing that same old tired IE6 dance too! Sigh!) // FrankB 12:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Someone should probably oversight-away this edit with personal information: [138] —dgies^t_c 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pikimon Vandalism

This user struck again at WP:AR2. Can an Admin halt this? Bearian 12:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any recent vandalism there. That user's last edit to WP:AR2 was in March. Resurgent insurgent 13:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Libsmasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account which, as the name suggests, exists solely to "correct" Wikipedia's liberal bias. Or rather,m to quote his user talk, To me, there is nothing more satisfying than crushing the myths that a liberal lives by, i.e., that FDR solved the Great Depression, that JFK actually WON the 1960 election, or that LBJ's war on poverty, the cost at over 30 TRILLION dollars, was effective. No prizes for guessing, then, what happened to this editors contributions to Mike Farrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ed Asner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and so on. This choice one, for example: [139], which includes a link to a right-wing site on Mike Farrell with the link summary Critical article on Farrell's involvement in left-wing ANTI-AMERICAN politics - Libsmasher's own capitalisation. It's highly likely that this is the same individual as made these anonymous edits: [140], [141] and so on. Libsmasher's provocative username and tendentious edits to biographies of living individuals seemed to me to be grounds enough for a block, but Libsmasher disagrees. From his emails to me:

I love rubbing the face of people like you in the dirt. You have a little power and turn into a censor-nazi. Just because Britain is like that, doesn't mean the rest of the world is. I am the frigging KING of open source intelliegence and here is the date and page number of the article from the LA Times.

TV Doctor From `MASH' Scrubs Up For Salvador Surgery:[Home Edition] by MARJORIE MILLER. Los Angeles Times, Aug 11, 1985. p.17.

Under heavy police guard, Farrell and neurosurgeon Alejandro Sanchez worked for 2 1/2 hours to restore use of the right hand of Nidia Diaz, a commander of the Revolutionary Party of Central American Workers, a faction of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front.

Now unblock me and quit freaking messing with my posts on Farrell.

Keep it up and I'll see about getting your admin status ended.

I've emailed the situation to people further up the food chain to have me unblocked as well as removing your admin status. It cost me ten bucks to have the microfiche of the story researched at the LA Public Library but well worth it. BTW, vice wiping my posts, you should have stream-lined them as per Wiki rules. Have a nice day and reast assured, my next email goes to the co-founder on this.

I take this as garden variety rouge admin abuse bullshit, but invite review of the block anyway. By co-founder I assume he means Larry Sanger, much good may it do him, though if it's Jimbo perhaps he'll have done the world a service by giving the God-King a belly laugh to relieve the 09:F9 foolishness. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally consider edits starting w/ stuff like "Mike's work seems to be enabling terrorism, especially against the USA" as BS. Libsmasher argues that it is referenced and the source was FrontPage mag. Of course there is a BLP issue here as the edit is so inflated and biased. It sounds as if Libsmasher jumped to a conclusion that even the FP mag couldn't do.

However, the indef is too harsh especially that it was his first. Can they learn from their mistake if he'd have gotten a month block?

No way, i've just see the "I love rubbing the face of people like you in the dirt" stuff. Well done Guy! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. That degree of bias and aggression is generally not reformable. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, he has made no edits outside his talk page and yours since December of 2005, so blocking him would not seem to be much of a problem for anyone. He has been 'contributing' as 147.103.49.141, but what he added on Mike Farrell and Ed Asner violated the biography policy. Adding 'Liberalism' under 'See also' at Non sequitur (absurdism) was clearly not a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. He seems not to care, and to intend to continue doing what he came here for - telling The Truth about liberals - so the blp violations and vandalism will continue unless he is blocked. Looks like a good call to me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, good call, Tom said what I wanted to better than I was going to. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. The user's only apparent purpose here is to push an extreme POV (as admitted by the user). Rack it up as a disruption-only account, even without the threatening e-mails. · jersyko talk 14:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Such disruptive users seldom reform. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

I think you should take a look at this and this SDas 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

All that needs to be done is reverting and warning the anon. If he continues after warnings, you go to WP:AIV. Phony Saint 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)