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

Harry Potter full-protection

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is going to be one of the most viewed and edited wikipedia pages within the next 24-48 hours but has been fully-protected by an admin who has as of yet not responded to a request to revert back to semi-protection. I have posted a request on WP:RFP but it has not yet been reviewed, and do to the time sensitive nature of this article, I thought I ought to post it here as well. With the coverage this article will receive, I assumed it should be treated as a Main Page FA, thereby avoiding full protection to the maximum extent. Joshdboz 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is being handled on the article talk page, Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, on the user talk page of the protecting admin, User talk:Alkivar, and on Requests for page protection. This is not an incident requiring extraordinary intervention by an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is not being handled on User talk:Alkivar as Alkivar has not made an edit since fully protecting the article, so another admin would be needed to revert back to semi-protection. Joshdboz 12:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this full protection has stood on a page like this for 6 hours because of "spoiler vandalism" without a single other admin from chiming in? Joshdboz 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Should not have been fully protected. Neil ╦ 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it by one second. Literally.-Wafulz 12:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Joshdboz 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(last) 12:37:58 Wafulz m

Changed protection level for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows": Seems to have been a brief spike. Let's try semi-protection. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop] (expires 06:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

(last) 12:37:57 Neil m

Changed protection level for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows": one second ... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 06:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafulz (talk • contribs) 12:40 July 20 2007 (UTC)

User:9shaun

User:9shaun has been uploading like crazy, tagging them with {{GFDL-self}} but it is very highly doubtful the s/he created those photos. --Howard the Duck 09:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

All of his uploads are of Philippines related things or people, leaving the possibility he's a professional photographer based there. Although I guess it's also possible he found the website of such a person and copy pasted them onto here. Disappointingly though, his edit history would show he pays no attention to warnings about copyrights, or at least chooses never to respond to them. (just providing a little more information). Someguy1221 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No way. Look at the pictures. Some are cropped others are not. Of the ones that are not cropped, they are different sizes! many have a colour casts on them, but the colour casts are different on different photographs. Most of the photographs do not look professional (one has aa very over exposed sky for instance). He's lying about the GFDL self. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, a...um...amateur Filippino photographer ;-) (or stealer thereof) Someguy1221 09:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's the solution on this? Anyone? --Howard the Duck 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the first step it to talk to him. I shall try doing that now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What if he doesn't respond in time? --Howard the Duck 16:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In time for what? Corvus cornix 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Like in a few days? S/he doesn't respond. --Howard the Duck 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What do we do now? I'm appalled the copyright freaks aren't going ga-ga over this. --Howard the Duck 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

9shaun ignored Theresa Knott's message on his/her user page and has uploaded more pics. --Howard the Duck 11:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given him some advice on his talkpage, because some edits do look to be in good faith. Perhaps, if he is a little on the daft side, all the 'Thanks for uploading...' confused him --Hayden5650 12:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm for the record that the pics are pretty but I doubt if it's really free and/or s/he took them by him/herself; that's why I'm quite worried. What actually sent me off was this collage where the rightmost image is a photo of a teen "actress", and no way s/he could've produced that photo. --Howard the Duck 12:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the guy/girl is also increasing the sizes of his/her pics for 250px or more. --Howard the Duck 12:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, most of those images probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but he doesn't seem to have had anything higher than a level 1 or 2 warning, assuming good faith, therefore each one has begun with a Thankyou[1] . If he doesn't heed my advice, I or someone else should slap him with a Level 3 and 4 and then an admin can ban him. --Hayden5650 12:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So what warning should be slapped? Admins can ban him easily, we don't have to go through bureaucracy. --Howard the Duck 12:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just issued him with a final {{subst:uw-upload4}} warning, he is just showing plain disregard now to any advice or warnings --Hayden5650 12:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So if he is blocked, can any admin just delete his/her photos? --Howard the Duck 13:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If he is blocked and he still doesn't talk to anybody about the images then yes. I'd be willing to delete his images as likely copyvios. However, in my experience, a block sometimes gives people the wake up call they need to start talking to people. In which case he may explain ou concerns away. We shall have to see. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: S/he increased the size of his/her pic yet again. --Howard the Duck 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And he has uploaded another pic. I have blocked his account atpo get his attention. If he does reply please could another admin unblock -I'm off on holiday for a couple of weeks so will not be able too. If he doesn't reply I'll delete his images when I get back. (unless they are deleted in the meantime). Howard the Duck will you please remind me if I forget? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. --Howard the Duck 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250 personal attack Talk:Factory farming

{{farming}} WAS 4.250

Background:

There is currently an unproductive slow edit war between editors (One of them is an admin, User:SlimVirgin). Numerous attempts at mediation have failed because unwillingness of editors to go into mediation. Frequently the page degenerates into "personal attack/no personal attack please" discourses. In general I have kept away from them, but recently it has reached intolerable levels, at least for me.

The situation at hand:

I removed a {{Disputeabout}} tag (it contained the definitions of terms) from the article[2], and explained the reasons why in the talk page[3] and edit summary: there is no dispute, as it was conclusively proven that the term "factory farming" is the only viable one. Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point..

WAS 4.250 reverted my talk page explanation of my edit[4] (but not my article edit) with a comment containing a personal attack: revert trolling. we need help. not gas on the fire. In the process, he also removed other previous contributions (all related to edits) to the talk page, and my placing of a {{Round In Circles}} tag. This is clearly unacceptable behavior.

I reverted the talk page[5] with a comment: Do not remove legitimate post by other contributors, if you do it again I will consider it vandalism. Also WP:NPA I am not a troll, and to suggest this is beyond the pale., and repeatedly asked for an apology [6],[7]. The user has since done many edits between my requests [8], but has not apologized.

Perhaps the user feels that there is nothing to apologize about. However, I disagree.

So I would like a neutral admin to intervene, and ask him to stop personal attacks and apologize.

Or explain to me why I am wrong in asking for an apology and thinking there was a personal attack.

I am not following mediation procedure because mediation has been impossible so far.

Thanks!--Cerejota 11:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute, not a personal attack. Also, where is the link to the "failed" mediation case? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It was clearly a personal attack. Cerejota posted on talk in good faith. WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs) removed his post with the edit summary "revert trolling." [9] It's one of a large number of personal attacks, sarcasm, and filibustering emanating from WAS 4.250 and NathanLee (talk · contribs) on that talk page, which have caused a number of editors to withdraw almost entirely from the discussion, including myself. Two editors (on different "sides") have filed requests for mediation. Even though nine editors agreed to the mediation, both requests were rejected because WAS 4.250 and NathanLee won't agree, though they're the ones who have caused the bulk of the content dispute and who've been engaging in the attacks. As for links to the RfM, the first one was filed by me and was rejected here. The second one was filed by Jav43 and was rejected by Daniel yesterday, but for some bizarre reason User:John Reaves keeps deleting Daniel's edits without explanation, so I can't link to it. Admins, see the deletion log for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of the mediation rejection was just a misunderstanding, and it's now undeleted, so here's the link Nwwaew requested. [10] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your mis-characterization of my behavior is an outrageous unjustified personal attack. Please stop. WAS 4.250 19:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: You have on this article pushed through massive changes and page merges with no discussion, then revert warred, ignored discussion (repeated attempts by me to get you to engage.. My latest attempt was ignored also. I'd post up links to earlier ones but Crum375 deleted your talk page history[11]), attempted page ownership of factory farming and other pages and attacks on credibility of editors, accusations of impropriety/sockpuppetry and general level of unhelpful or evasive contribution on the discussion page. Now you're continuing your attempts to blame others for your authoritarian and non-consultative editing style.

It seems to be a habit that same users tag team reverting and the same abrasive dictatorial editing style (with Localzuk, crum375 on hand when you run out of reverts) happens across many animal related articles with many diverse editors. There's a definite conflict of interest that is blinding you on any issue to do with animals and this (combined with your revert-instead-of-discuss approach) is causing lots of conflict. You withdrew from discussion based on a distortion[12] that you must have known was incorrect (somehow confusing animal welfare with animal liberation despite editing on both). The mediation had failed with or without me (or WAS) and another editor had rejected it: that's hardly down to me as you make out. NathanLee 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a participant in the discussion, nor do I really care to read enough of the discussion to comment on the behavior. It is immediately obvious, however, that factory farming is a POV fork of industrial agriculture. For instance, the same set of hog-raising photos appears in both articles (and in a related one as well). It' hardly surprising that the article is constantly fought over. Mangoe 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Industrial agriculture was forked from factory farming - and all negative information about the practices omitted... And that is why you should do some reading, as this entire subject area is currently under, rather heated, discussion - regarding scope of articles etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, that's precisely what the dispute is about. Localzuk, Crum375, myself, and I believe also Cerejota, would like to see two articles: Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). It's WAS 4.250 who has created the POV forks, supported by NathanLee, claiming that factory farming isn't the same as industrial agriculture, which isn't the same as intensive farming. So far as I know, they want criticism to be largely confined to Factory farming, which they feel is an activist term, and which therefore should contain the activist criticism. Or something like that. To be honest, I find their position confusing and hard to paraphrase. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point the redundancies have been removed (both positives and negatives) in favor of a summary style where the agriculture articles can point to each other. Check them out! WAS 4.250 18:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make this about content. The article has a talk page for that. This is about a personal attack I repeatedly requested an apology for and was denied one. I clearly documented the diffs. Please refrain from commenting on unrelated issues in this thread. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In a sense the argument is about content. The tag was placed there a couple of weeks ago. About a week ago, I made a fairly major edit to the intro which much to my surprise remained in place until about the last 30 minutes. The last comment I made in the edit notes was that I thought if the changes stayed put the tag should go. Nothing happened to that definition until Cerejota charged in with what I see as a rather inflamatory remark. Unfortunately, one of the characteristics of the incivility is a tendency to quote WikiRules whilst not acting according to them. So in the context of the sequence of edits starting with my last edit 21:26, 13 July 2007 (I'll go with that edit being mildly contentious but it would allow me to remove the disputed definition tag if others are content with the scope of definition) there were no changes to the opening paragraph which maintained that definition, perhaps inferring a consensus or just more enthusiasm for edit warring on the image until Cerejota's comment (there is no dispute, as it was conclusively proven that the term "factory farming" is the only viable one. Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point.) Suggesting it was placed to be disruptive is offensive, when there was clear good faith to try and resolve the issue.

As of the last 30 minutes, the tag needs to go back in, and it would not be disruptive, it would represent the fact that there is a significant group of people with well-reasoned arguments as to why the definition is inappropriate.

In the meantime, I am subjected to edit comments such as Ethics - this is poor writing, and very POV; hard to copy edit by an admin who simply reverts which I would find hard to characterise as within policy. Spenny 00:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of edits SlimVirgin it appears is currently editing furiously after deciding to not participate in any discussion. Some might regard that as being a little presumptuous and in bad faith especially for a disputed article. But sorry, this is about Cerejota and the harsh injustice and mental anguish he/she suffered from WAS's vicious attack.. NathanLee 00:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Spenny: You still do not comment on the personal attack I was subjected to. You are trying to make this about content and not the uncivil behavior of an editor.

For content, we have the talk page of the article.

Deleting other editors correctly stated, civil arguments is the pinnacle of incivility, regardless of whatever content dispute is at hand.--Cerejota 02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, I have clearly commented that you made what can clearly be seen, and was seen, as a provocative comment. Are you really surprised that you get an extreme reaction when you put such comments on edits and on the talk page? The onus on civility is on all parties. There appears to be a problem that common sense values of good behaviour are lost behind provocative quotations of WikiRules which is exactly why some of the participants find this holier than thou approach to Wiki so fucking annoying and you will get extreme responses if you pretend civility whilst using rules to assert your POV without consensus. Cloaking provocative behaviour behind a veil of WikiLawyering is exactly one of the unhelpful behaviours that has raised temperatures on the page. You seem to be seeking to separate one extreme response from a wide pattern of unacceptable behaviour that has clouded the judgement of all parties. That content is also there for all to see, and has been complained about constantly. Thanks! Spenny 08:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You posted up a message starting with (in capitals and bold) "THIS IS THE MOST IRRELEVANT THREAD EVER".. Yes, it should not have been removed (in my opinion people's posts on discussion should not be tampered with).. But it's back up there now and the user didn't alter it, skew the message etc or repeatedly do anything. Two lessons (one each): WAS don't remove other peoples posts from discussion and Cerejota: consider starting a post with something a bit less obviously likely to rile up others. Oh and consider whether you really deserve to be mortally offended by what on the face of it was really just calling a spade a spade (something which is actively discouraged by excessive sensitivity on wikipedia) NathanLee 09:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of insensitivity, please be advised that the phrase calling a spade a spade is a racist one, at least in our modern context.

I am not mortally offended, I just want an apology from the user, rather than further attacks and irrelevant content issues from uninvolved editors. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it a synthesis to suggest that you are referring to me as an uninvolved editor? I thought I had given a fairly clear rationale as to being very involved - I'm sure I even joined in the edit warring on that tag at some point. If that synthesis is correct, then you need to understand that such a comment is in itself provocative and part of the cycle of distrust and assumption of bad faith. Even if it was not your intent, please understand why it is unhelpful. I don't disagree with your view that the edits were overstepping the bounds of WikiCivility, but if an apology is deserved for that, then a mutual apology for provocativeness is also deserved. Thanks! Spenny 13:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

you may or may not be interested in learning that "to call a spade a spade" (also, "to call a spade a shovel") is completely unrelated to the racial slur "spade", and has seen use since the 16th century. dab (𒁳) 12:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how people can find offence in something completely non-offensive.. I'm not in the habit of using racial slurs and as far as I know (at least in Oz and the UK) it just means "calling it like it is" or "speaking plainly/directly".[13] e.g. "Calling a spade a spade rather than calling a spade a shovel". Amusingly Cerejota has called a spade a shovel in this case.. NathanLee 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Yes, WAS4.250 was wrong to remove Cerejota's comments and wrong to call them trolling. However, there is nothing requiring urgent admin intervention here - I don't think anyone is going to block him based on that one incident. If there is truly a pattern of abusive behavior, as SlimVirgin suggested above, then the most appropriate venue to deal with that might be WP:RfC or other dispute resolution; it's difficult to appreciate such a pattern here, particularly without diffs. Finally, a piece of friendly and unsolicited advice to Cerejota, which you're free to ignore: if you edit controversial articles, it's useful to grow a thick skin. Demanding apologies on pain of AN/I for every slight is not always the most productive approach; it's sometimes useful to pick your battles. I mention this only because I noticed this earlier, somewhat similar, contretemps. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment. I normally have a thick skin, but I do have little tolerance for misrepresentation, and in particular trolling. I apologize if this was not the best procedure, as I admit a bit of unfamiliarity with this as I normally try to resolve controversies directly with the editors. Thanks! --Cerejota 12:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BMF81 continually inserting joke about anally raping a child on Talk:Laughter

User:BMF81's "joke" here about how he'd laugh if the child in the photo on Laughter is anally raped is a blockable offense, and plain sick. I warned him that such a profane statement is objectionable and blockable here, to which he replied on my page that if I can't take a joke then I shouldn't edit an encyclopedia. Then he reinserted the "joke" about anally raping the child here. This is pretty objectionable, and I think a 24 hour block is more than warranted. --David Shankbone 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Only 24 hours? I would consider a much longer block for that shit. Until(1 == 2) 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Objectionable"? That's mighty euphemistic. Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked for 24 hours. I'm wary of blocking established contributors but this pushes it way, way over the line. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block implemented. If anyone wants to extend the block, I have no objection. (I'm not on continually, but I'll attempt to monitor this section drom time to time.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For saying something like that, he should have been indef-blocked. Simple trolling, clearly designed to shock and offend other editors. Walton^One 16:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a 24 hour block is realistic for semantic infractions of this sort - it is a truly execrable picture, although his response was perhaps somewhat OTT and even more execrable. However he now seems to be petitioning the support of admins using a sockpuppet, vide my /talk page , in my view a crime of a much darker nature. Sjc 04:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this edit ? I think 24 hours only was very lenient. Jackaranga 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that edit, right after getting off a block for the same thing, I have indef blocked this user. That is sick shit, and very inappropriate. I don't know if another admin will reduce this block, but I sure will not be. Until(1 == 2) 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite block. Blatant trolling. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unit (1 == 2) (apologies if that is wrong!) spells it out that all this editor is giving us is total shit, I would endorse the indefinite block too.... disgusting. — Rlest 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

lol, Unit (1 == 2), good one. It is Until(1 == 2), it is an infinite loop. No offense taken. Until(1 == 2) 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry..... lol. — Rlest 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(P.S I'm not saying hehe about the sick comments made by the user, just the username mixup). — Rlest 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with this editor, but I believe he/she is a long-standing contributor with no prior history of inappropriate behavior. I took a quick glance at this user's contributions, and most of them appear to be pretty innocuous edits to IT-related articles. I beleive admins should consider the possibility that this is a compromised account, where some mischief-maker is performing offensive edits in BMF's name.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This possibility occurred to me as well. Would a checkuser be in order? Although, I suppose it's unnecessary to pursue this unless/until an unblock request making this claim is posted. Newyorkbrad 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The user page is more of the same, though, so it's simply a matter of figuring out if that's new or has been like that for a while. MSJapan 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance at the history of the user page will reveal that until very recently it contained nothing wacky or inflammatory.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, innocuous edits such as this and this postdate the now-infamous comment on Talk:Laughter. Granted that's some mighty escalation from [this to this, but still... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying we should at least consider the possibility that two people have been editing under the same account, although I suppose it's just as likely that the previously benign editor went bonkers one day.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's a legitimate concern (compromised account I mean). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If the account has been compromised then blocking it is the right thing to do. If the person can demonstrate that it was not them and that they are now back in control, I will be the first to unblock. I agree that we should not assume that this "person" is acting this way, but we do need to treat the "account" as such. Until(1 == 2) 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To me it's way excessive to indefblock a user solely due to a joke, forgetting his valuable contributions on the Wikipedia. After all, we are all here to edit and improve this project, not talking about "anal rapes" on talkpages. I agree it was a execrable joke, but there's much worse behaviours in the Wikipedia which are not punished with indefblocks. His joke about "anal rape" seems to be quoted from a book by Daniele Luttazzi, an Italian comedian of which he is apparently a fan (have a look at his userpage for more evidence). I would reconsider the block, at your place. --Angelo 01:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite block. Blatant, sick trolling.--Sandahl 06:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The indef block seems exaggerated. This user made perfectly valuable contributions, e.g. to software lockout. He made a joke in poor taste, and he insisted on further provocation when he was warned. This does merit a block, but not an indefban. Seeing how much it takes to get people banned who actively disrupt Wikipedia (in article namespace!), this reaction is excessive by comparison. dab (𒁳) 13:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to have to endorse this too. Just because people have made good contributions does not mean they should be immune to punishment. There are funny jokes, there are unfunny jokes, and then there are sick, inappropriate jokes. This was definitely the former. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do hope you mean the latter ;-) Someguy1221 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite isn't the same as infinite... He is free to contest the block if he so chooses, but I don't think a timed ban that just expires after several days without any response from the editor is the way to go. An indef requires a response from him and and I think that it is completely appropriate to expect that before he is allowed to continue editing.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am all for letting a bad joke go off easy, he got a 24 hours block the first time he did it. The indef is due to doing the exact same nasty joke right after his first block got off. This indicated a desire to offend, not just a lapse in judgement. Until(1 == 2) 16:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of TJ Spyke

Recently, TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked 250 hours for edit warring. After that, there was a discussion on the Community sanction noticeboard about what should be done. During that discussion, a CheckUser showed that Spyke was using a sockpuppet to evade the block. The block was subsequently reset, and discussion at WP:CSN continued. 3 days later, Spyke's block was extended to indefinite by Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Many of those taking part in the CSN discussion, myself included, support this, though there are many, possibly more, who believe that this was unfair. Take note of the fact that an indefinite block was not the decision reached at the CSN, though it was generally well received there. Due to the circumstances surrounding the block, I figured that I should post here to see if the block is endorsed. Relevant links are:

• Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#User:TJ Spyke
• TJ's Block Log
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TJ Spyke
• User talk:TJ Spyke

Cheers, The Hybrid 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly and very regretfully, endorse block. TJ Spike was a very constructive editor, but violating WP:3RR nine times (actually blocked 12 times, but three were probably not legit) and using ban-evading sockpuppets is just asking for it. Put very well by Moe: "No, right now it is indefinite, meaning he's blocked until he's proven that he would be able to edit constructively without sockpuppets, without revert warring and without vandalism like he has done in the past." Sr13 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I, am one who opposes his block. When I first started on WP I didn't know one thing. So I went to TJ Spyke. He helped me, he taught me, and he really showed me the ropes. He was like my mentor. I know that he used Sock Puppets to evade his blocks. Was it wrong? Hell yea it was wrong. Should he have been blocked? Your damn right he should of. Although, he still is a fantastic editor. One of the best in my opinion. I say we should put him on probation. Just unblock him though. I really hate to see him go. -- Kings bibby win 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly he has done too much sneaky and bad behavior to justify an unblock in my view. Numerous socks, edit warring, revert warring and so on. Warning after warning, block after block: he ignored them all, and did what he wanted dispite Wikipedia policies/rules/guidelines. He helped out at times, but that doesn't just wipe his bad behavior out. Probation for him: if a set time is on it, he would probably wait until it's over to act out again. Or use socks again, in the hope he doesn't get caught. RobJ1981 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that. I'm sayin he's never been under heat like this before. Leet's give him "one" more chance to stratin up. If he doesn't, I have no problem with you guys banning TJ Spyke and his IP Address. -- Kings bibby win 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he's run out of chances. He's been blocked and warned enough. After this one more chance, I can imagine someone else saying the same thing "give him one more chance". Frankly, TJ (or anyone else) shouldn't be given an endless amount of warnings and blocks. For all we know, TJ could have a sock on Wikipedia right now that hasn't been caught yet. As stated by the admin's block summary (for the indef block): Willful and repeated violations of WP:3RR, Sockpuppetry, Sockpuppetry to avoid bans, BLP violations more than once... this user does not learn from blocks or "timeouts"). Frankly, TJ saying he will change his ways (which he did on his talk), is just a way for him to get unblocked and continue this behavior. I think we need to move on, and let the block sit. I would also like to point out: many people could be for or against his ban, but it's up to admins to decide this. RobJ1981 23:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have run into TJ Spyke's fondness for the "revert button" once. The problem is that he has a gross misunderstanding of the "vandalism" exception to the three-revert rule -- the rule indicates that "simple and obvious vandalism" (graffiti or page blanking, as an example) is exempted from the rule. However, TJ Spyke -- at least in the one time I was multiple-reverted by him -- appears to define "simple and obvious vandalism" as "any edit he disagrees with". See his comments on my talk page. While I am not familiar with his history in general, I feel that unless he learns to distinguish between an editing disagreement and vandalism, you'll be having this discussion again and again. -- Robster2001 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Several of the times when TJ claims vandalism: it's him disagreeing with the edits, and it's simply not vandalism. He also throws around the Wrestling project in arguments at times. While the project helps out articles and has some guidelines to follow, the project certainly doesn't control every wrestling article 100 percent. Vandalism and a difference of opinion on editing is 2 different things. RobJ1981 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No he doesn't think their the same. He told me when people were editing the WrestleMania 20 page, that they put in Guerrero and Benoit would die in three years. He also stated it wasn't vandalism since it's relevant, but it doesn't belong in the article. So he does not do that. -- Kings bibby win 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe what you want, but I've personally seen it. We aren't just lying so your good friend TJ stays blocked, so stop it. TJ did revert vandalism at times, but there was still plenty of times where it was his personal opinion of vandalism. One good example: the taglines for matches. He felt they didn't belong, so he would revert to the version he liked (which didn't have them). No Wrestling Project guideline was in place for the taglines, so that can't be used as an excuse. A difference of opinion isn't vandalism, so reverting the taglines is both bad faith and article controlling in my view. Sometimes the taglines were discussed, but frankly that still didn't stop TJ from reverting the articles anytime he saw match taglines put in. I dont have exact diffs, but I know it was on the Vengeance article (over Night of Champions), Cyber Sunday (over Match of Champions), and a few others. Wake up to what actually went on, instead of just thinking TJ was only wrong a few times. How many pages do we need to show you, before you realize TJ wasn't as perfect as you think? I'm getting a bit annoyed. RobJ1981 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying he is perfect. He made the Wii article a featured article. Without him I frankly think at times our PPV's would flood with vandalism. As the alternative options say, put a multi-month block on his account and put him on probation. BTW, I frankly don't care if I'm annoying you, cause I'm going to let my voice heard. -- Kings bibby win 06:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[Remove trolling by TJ Spyke's attorney ] -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative options?

I've been thinking about this... I still think a multi-month ban could work. He hasn't had a block longer than a week-and-a-half, and it might allow him to come back with a fresh perspective. I realize this will not be popular, given his litany of "second chances" and his use of a sockpuppet.

I was rather impressed with the way he helped elevate Wii to featured article status, and I notice that it seems all the peoples' complains stem from his involvement in wrestling articles. Would a topic ban be possible? Revert parole? Grandmasterka 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Idea, but he does contribute to wrestling articles as well. -- Kings bibby win 06:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a change of heart, personally. I would support a ban until December 1, or maybe Valentines Day. When he comes back I would recommend an indefinite revert parole, so he can edit wrestling articles, and revert vandalism, but to revert a second time he would have to ask permission on the talk page. Any infraction, no matter how small, would be the end of his Wikipedia career. I'm not proposing a second chance, lord knows he's had tons of those; I'm proposing one last chance. I've been editing with this guy for a long time, and he is a good editor. He is usually right in disputes. Personally, I think that a few editors have been purposefully provoking him in an attempt to get him blocked. I would really like to see him be given another shot at being a good wikipedian. The Hybrid 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal

TJ and I have been communicating recently and have come to a compromise of sorts. I always believed TJ Spyke has been in good faith trying to help the encyclopedia. I can't really come to any other conclusion about the vandalism from my userpage coming from his location, it's vaguely clear to me what happened. I don't want TJ Spyke to be indefblocked, for the sake of the community not having to deal with him anymore. If he is to be indefblocked, it should be for something he has done, something definite. So after a modest proposal, TJ Spyke has agreed to do the following:

1. To take a month-long block to reflect on what he has done, albeit it still being listed as indef for now.
2. He is to apologize for the excessive revert warring and use of sockpuppets, and must admit to any former or current sockpuppets he has made.
3. He is to stay on one account exclusively.
4. An indefinite revert parole.
5. If he is to break his revert parole or use another sockpuppet again, he can be indefblocked.

He has agreed to start on this proposal by taking the month off from editing here, he is still free to comment on his talk page, of course. After a month, if he is still interested in editing here, then he can commit to this by accepting this proposal on wiki, on his talk page, and I will request his block be taken off of him. So for now he stands and has agreed to his current status. In a month, given the above, the community can reflect on whether or not this block can stand. As of right now, his current status of being blocked isn't hurting anything, and despite whether or not it is permanent, it is justified right now. I urge everyone to be patient, especially Kings bibby win, who has been a bit disruptive over this block. Regards — Moe ε 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I was the editor who reported TJ for his last 3RR violation, and I feel singularly awful. I would agree with that statement. I sure as heck don't want to have to be running off doing checkuser requests to enforce an indef block for a user that, while a pain in the rear end, certainly doesn't rise to the level of most community bans, who are outright disruptive. The Evil Spartan 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with Moe's compromise. Sr13 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is fine with me; however, there is an issue that bothers me. One user that has been warring with TJ more often than anyone else recently is User:RobJ1981. I'm not going to ask that anything be done, but I want a promise from RJ that if and when TJ returns he will leave TJ alone. It is blatantly obvious that RJ despises TJ, and I feel that there is a real possibility of RJ trying to make TJ violate his parole when he returns. TJ has agreed to serve his time, and I want him to have every chance of redeeming himself when he returns. I want fairness. Now, RJ and I are friends, and I hope that we still can be after this, but I don't think that it would be right for me to leave this issue unaddressed. I want a promise from RJ that he will leave TJ alone, and if he doesn't I don't want TJ blocked for violating his parole. The Hybrid 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an indef block is warranted, even given his multiple sockpuppets used to push his view. He has contributed a great deal of small yet constructive edits, and it'd be a shame to lose that sustained commitment. I am worried though, that the RFCU suggests that members of the Wrestling Project knew about the sockpuppets yet turned a blind eye. - hahnchen 19:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Could you expand on WP:PW members turning a blind eye, please? The Hybrid 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that Lrrr (Spyke puppet) used MSN Messenger to contact members of PW, do you not think they would have known who he is? Or does he really betray all trust upon him? - hahnchen 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at one of the links [14], and you'll see that User_talk:3bulletproof16#Account_hacked. Showing that this user was in contact with both Spyke's personas on MSN. Unless he's a complete idiot, he must have known that Lrrr was a malicious sockpuppet. - hahnchen 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This person (Bulletproof) has been accused of being a TJ sockpuppet, helped him avoid 3RR by reverting for him, and just been one of his closest wiki-friends all around. Since I know Bulletproof as well, so I'm going to AGF and guess that TJ has more than one messenger account. However, there are very good reasons to question if Bulletproof was fully aware of the situation, and chose to let it slide. However, I'm personally going to assume that he wasn't aware. However, if you would like to pursue this further I would be more than willing to help in any way that I can. Cheers, The Hybrid 19:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel a need to promise not to "leave" TJ alone. I'm not going to try to get TJ to violate. If I see TJ (add or remove something) I will either revert it with a good reason, or start a talk page discusssion. TJ (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't need to act paranoid, and think I'm trying to get him blocked or banned because of this. TJ loves to put the blame on me as well (bringing up some of my mistakes any chance he can, and so on), so he can't stand me as much as I can't stand him. But frankly, if I see him trying to control articles again, I will report it to admins at anytime I feel needed. I can see TJ trying to change. But frankly he acted in a controlling way to long... that it seems a bit too simple TJ agrees to all this with no problems. I don't see it fit that I don't revert or change any of TJ's edits: as he and I edit many of the same articles. In most cases: I give a good reason why I revert or change things in edit summaries (for all things, not just when it's dealing with TJ Spyke). Making it so I can't do anything involved with TJ, and then saying he wont get blocked is a bit unreasonable. I have to avoid articles I edit, because TJ edits them? That's a bit harsh, as TJ edits just about every main wrestling article. I shouldn't have to stop editing on those (or editing TJ's edits, or reverting them...which is the main case), just because he thinks I'm trying to get him blocked. I think all that made sense, if not..I will change the wording later to make it more clear. RobJ1981 20:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We know your good-faith Rob, so I find no need to limit you from editing. Your not the one in trouble, thus you don't have the restrictions TJ has. All I would suggest is to tread carefully since you two don't get along well. I know this may be hard to believe, but I actually think TJ Spyke will have learned his lesson if and when he returns. He's now fully aware that the slaps on the wrist are over, and another screw up and he's gone for good. I think TJ Spyke really wants to edit without the revert warring, and show his decent side more often, which he does have. I think once his mandatory break of a month is over, we will either have a reformed TJ Spyke, or a more definite reason for an indefinite block. — Moe ε 21:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

None of what I said has come out of TJ's mouth; if any of it sounds familiar that is strictly coincidental. I'm looking at the history the two of you have. I'm not suggesting that you stop editing the articles that he edits; I'm suggesting that you go to the talk page first, and never the article until you two can agree, or a consensus made up of more users is reached. If you disagree with him you contact him, and after the two of you have reached a compromise, then you edit the article. Changing the article right then isn't important at all. Rob, you are an edit warrior as well. You and TJ both edit in good faith, but you are just as quick to revert as he is when you are in an edit conflict with him. That is why I want a promise. You two argue all the time, and honestly, he's been right in many of your disputes. I don't want his ability to constructively edit articles crippled by your dislike of him and the advantage his parole will give you in conflicts. RJ, we've emailed back and forth. Forgive me if I'm betraying your trust, but we both know that you hate him, and would be glad to see him blocked. I do not like alienating my friends like I am right now, but I want to give TJ a fair shot at redemption, and he can't have that if you keep on him like you do. The Hybrid 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, TJ is too obsessed with things (the match tagline nonsense as one example). The only times those were resolved is when someone came up with a compromise (many times the compromise was going too far, as one little line compared to a few words in another line isn't a big deal, but of course it is to TJ). TJ hates me as well, so don't make it sound like a one-sided thing. TJ brings up many mistakes he "claims" I've done: when in reality most of them are his personal opinion, and not backed up with actual facts. I don't just revert at random, I have good reason. The taglines being a good point here: TJ hates them, so he removes them with no reason. Using the talk page is fine and all, but many times it gets no where with TJ. It gets brought up at the wrestling project talk page: it sometimes get somewhere (if the project is even active at the time). Agreeing with TJ, before editing/changing his edit seems a bit unreasonable at times. He is near impossible to agree with, and I doubt that will change much after his unblock. Restricting what I do, because people claim TJ thinks I'm going to revert to try to get him to blocked again: unrealistic, so whatever. I use the talk page more than enough, I don't need to make special talk page edits just to agree with TJ on articles he edits as well. Many times when TJ hasn't edited: things he has removed, aren't removed again (the match taglines are a good point at this as well). That's a sign that TJ is clearly one of the few against it, but he fails to realize that for whatever reason. But anyway: making me do certain things so TJ agrees to other things isn't very reasonable (and that's what it sounds like to me). TJ should be agreeing to things, with no strings or exceptions attached, in my opinion. RobJ1981 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(Continued to avoid an even longer wall of text): I'm not so sure TJ deserves a fair chance at redemption. Many blocks and edit wars and so on: over the course of less than one year, seems a bit too much. But whatever, his fair chance can happen, and we will see what happens. But there is little chance I will agree to back off him. I'm not just going to go to the revert patrole and bug them or whatever. I'm not going to just revert at random and so on (listed above, so I don't need to sound like a broken record a lot). I see no need to change my editing ways, just so TJ supposedly gets a "fair chance". He can get this chance just fine with me being the same. I use talk pages enough times, when it's a major thing. But little things like match taglines: don't need to be determined each and everytime by talk discussions. RobJ1981 22:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

<---He is, Rob. He is agreeing to everything. All of this is coming from me and me alone. I've been asking you to do things because I want justice, not to appease TJ. TJ has no part in this. Now, I apologize for making this sound one-sided, but in truth his hate further proved my point. You reverting him is just begging him to go over since he hates you, and you are more apt to revert him because you hate him. TJ's hate is the fuel, yours is the oxygen, so one spark and this thing will blow up. I don't want that to happen. As far as him refusing to compromise goes, I know that is a major problem. I give my word that I will do everything I can to bring things to an easy solution. I'll join in the discussions, I'll work to find reasonable compromises, I’ll do everything that I can. I will carry my as much weight as I can to keep this thing from blowing up again. Also, for the record, I think that both of you are being unreasonable with the taglines. One line doesn't matter, so you saying that he refused to compromise is, well, laughable. You both refused to compromise. And no, he cannot have a fair chance if you continue the way you are. You two cannot coexist peacefully. I'm done asking. It is obvious that you don't want to do anything that will make this an easy process. Whether you agree or not I will keep this thing from blowing up, if I have to put my ass on the line to do it. You both act like children when you’re around each other, and I guess I’m the new babysitter. The Hybrid 22:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bending backwards for him, you or anyone else on this matter. If I see him remove something minor, I will re-add (or revert) it back when I see fit. Minor things don't require talk discussions, and just because TJ is put on a revert patrole: doesn't change the matter. If it's something big: like an article name change, new format for article (or whatever), then I will discuss. That's usually my feelings on using talk: if it's major, discuss... if it's minor, it's not needed to discuss each and everytime. This is very reasonable, even if you or TJ or anyone else doesn't think so. With that, I'm done discussing this. My view on this probably isn't going to change, and it doesn't need to. Call me stubborn or difficult, I don't care. I don't need to change to pacify a few people. RobJ1981 05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that Spyke's talk page is now protected. I'm not entirely sure why. The reasoning mentioned here says, "continued removal of block templates", except, it was two removals of redundant block templates. There were two block templates on his talk page: the "this user is blocked indefinitely", and the, "as a sock puppeteer, this user is blocked indefinitely". He tried removing one of them, saying, "2 aren't needed". When an anonymous IP reverted that change, he then tried removing the other one. (This, too, was reverted by an anonymous IP) As it so happens, the anonymous IPs seemed to be the only one who even cared. (Not surprising, since spyke was still leaving one block template on his talk page; the second was redundant, after all) Without warning not to do it again, or even explaining why two were necessary, an admin protected his page. I tried asking why both were necessary, but have yet to be answered, even though that admin's been active on wikipedia since I asked. Protecting a talk page should only be reserved for people who are abusing their talk pages. This certainly doesn't fit that description.
Also, since I have people's attention anyways, what does "add email setting to the block" mean? Bladestorm 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If an indefblocked user is discovered to have sockpuppets, both are nessecary, and removal of them is inappropriate, thus the page was protected. The e-mail setting is a function administrators use when e-mails were used abusively or disruptively from a blocked user. Normally blocked users can e-mail users regardless of whether they are blocked or not, and this function takes away the ability to e-mail while blocked. — Moe ε 01:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So... if both are needed... (incidentally, you didn't tell me why both are needed. That is, why a tag saying, "this user is blocked indefinitely" is still needed when another tag includes both the sock information and the fact that they're blocked indefinitely), then, wouldn't simply telling them that make more sense?

Also, wouldn't removing their ability to use the email function be a bit severe when there are no assertions that he ever abused the email function?

Combined, we have someone who's had both their talk page and their email function taken away when it didn't appear to be necessary. He now has no way to appeal any actions, does he? Combine this with the fact that the admin who protected his talk page was also the admin who took away his email function was also the admin who blocked him indefinitely whene the CS wasn't even seriously considering that as an option was also the admin who cited continuing 3RR even when the blocking admin was very specific in his not having violated 3RR (who instead cited 'edit-warring', but cited an article where he irrefutably was not edit-warring either)... uh, yeah, major run-on sentence.

The point is, a single admin has decided to block him indefinitely and take away all methods of communication, in the apparent total absence of email abuse, and the total absence of any attempts to maliciously remove tags. (He never once tried to remove both. Simply telling him that both were necessary would have been more appropriate, since even I still don't see the point in redundancy)

Unless Alkivar (sp?) comes in to say that he was abusing email functions, I'd request that it be reinstated. And I don't think that's even remotely unreasonable. (duh. if a person isn't abusing it, then don't take it away) And I'd request that his talk page be unprotected and that he simply be told that both are required, because that is not plainly evident. Bladestorm 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gerry_Lynch Unfairly blocked as a sockpuppet

I am User:Gerry_Lynch and I've been a wikipedia editor for about three years with barely even an editwar to my name, but on trying to edit some Turkish election related articles today, I found myself blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Runcorn by User:Dmcdevit. Not only am I a real person - a quick Google search should confirm that I am the real world Gerry Lynch - but I don't even know who User:Runcorn is, although I'd hazard a guess that he works in the same place I do. Can I please have my account back? I'd also wonder whether or not any of the alleged sock puppets in this case are really anything other than bona fide editors. This sort of lynch law does no-one any good. 91.125.114.14 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've tried placing {{unblock}} on your talk page yet. I'll leave a message with Dmc, but it looks like he's not very active right now. I'm also at a loss, looking for the relevant checkuser case. Someguy1221 01:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Someguy, I didn't know how to do the unblock thing, am not very good on metawiki things, have now done so and will see what happens. Thanks for your help. 91.125.114.14 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC) = User:Gerry Lynch

Sorry, but I just blocked this IP for self-confessed block evasion. I'll go to Gerry's talk page and ensure he's okay on using the {{unblock}} template - Alison ☺ 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the unblock procedure using one's own talk page either. I don't see why it would be block evasion to attempt to find out WHY a block was placed. Block evasion would be to make edits even though the person was blocked. Here, this person is not trying to edit any articles, just raise the question of the IP block.

Someguy, there's this Signpost article, but I'm still looking for a RfCU.   j    talk   08:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, Gerry Lynch is very much a real person and thoroughly knowledgeable in the field of psephology. No idea who or what "Runcorn" is other than a town in Cheshire, but it sure as hell ain't him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.163.220 (talk • contribs)

Why on earth does it matter if Gerry Lynch is his real name or not, does having ones real name prevent him from creating sock puppets, or from someone creating a sock with their real name as their user? I think not. Whether or not his name is really Gerry Lynch is immaterial. --Hayden5650 10:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm baffled by this statement. A sockpuppet is defined as a false identity. Ipso facto, evidence that this is his real name is very relevent evidence that this name is not a sock puppet-- by definition. Geoffrey.landis 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppet by Wikipedia's definition is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts. It doesn't matter if the new name is their "real name" or not. I'm guessing that Runcorn's real name isn't Runcorn. If they created a new account using their real name, would you disagree with calling it a sockpuppet account? --Onorem♠Dil 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case where is the relevant checkuser? People set up sockpuppets for very specific reasons - in this case I can't see any motivation at all (or proof.) It's pretty clear from looking here at his most common mainspace edits [15] and here at his most recent edits [16] that Gerry Lynch's main contributions are to Northern Irish politics and amateur radio with minors in Turkey and Anglicanism. A look at the similar pages for Runcorn shows that he mainly contributes to pages about prominent Jews [17] with a minor in football. [18] In fact looking at the suspected sockpuppets for Runcorn page, only two of them on a cursory glance seem to be him/her. Banning longstanding users without apparently giving them or others a chance to comment on the basis of trial by I.P. is the most worrying aspect of all this. Valenciano 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The block itself, done without ptoper investigation of the user suspected of being a sockpuppet, steers dangerously close to abuse in my opinion. The block should be stopped asap.--Martin Wisse 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All of User:Runcorn's other alleged sockpuppets have made edits on things like 'list of jewish athletes'; User:Gerry Lynch has not. The evidence for Runcorn's sockpuppetry does not name Gerry Lynch, and Gerry Lynch's page doesn't contain a link to that evidence as the other sockpuppets' pages do. I strongly support rescinding the ban.

I additionally, and separately, support rescinding the ban on the IP above for 'self-confessed block evasion': it would make sense if he were using that IP to make edits to other parts of Wikipedia, but makes no sense, and smacks of censorship, to ban someone for block evasion when the only thing they're doing by "evading" the block is to speak up in their own defense. --Zeborah 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zeborah on both points, there has been an obvious error made here. I am concerned that it looks from his editing history as though User:Dmcdevit hasn't been online in the four days since the block was imposed, and may not have seen the dissenting opinions on the block. I will leave a message on his talk page, and if the block's still in place in 24 hours I'll remove it myself unless he convinces me of the correctness of his view. -- Arwel (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the original unblock reviewing admin (silly me. You should see my inbox), I've looked over everything here, including emails I've received from some folks, as well as noting the fact that the blocking admin appears to be away. Given the evidence at this point, I'm WP:AGF assuming a certain good faith here and unblocking Gerry. I'll followup with the blocking admin when he gets back on here - Alison ☺ 21:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now been unblocked. Thanks to all who supported and to User:Alison for her final WP:AGF. While it's clear that User:Alison seems to have nothing other than follow consensus procedure, that consensus procedure stinks.

Blocking an IP for block evasion for nothing other than protesting their innocence should not happen . Ever. Blocking an established user for sharing an IP address with a troublesome user without supporting evidence should not happen. Ever. Blocking IP addresses that support a potentially maligned user, as happened to the user at 77... above, should not happen. Ever. I don't know how to go about creating a new policy here, but I'll gladly put the work in if a more experienced Wikipedian on meta issues, not things I've dipped my toe into before, can show me how.

By the way, Alison said that checkuser had been run on me and that was her initial reason for supporting my block. There is no evidence of that block being run on RfUC. With an admin out of touch and no evidence of their Usercheck, I should have been unblocked straight away. That is another thing that should not happen. Ever.

Most people, especially newbies, would have walked away from Wikipedia long before being vindicated. That is not a good thing. Lessons should be learned from this. People are so pissed off at the trolls and socks that they are forgetting to assume good faith. Gerry Lynch 21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Alison. Can someone clarify the situation with the user at 77.... above? No talk page exists for them which is where I'd expect to see a ban noted, but I'm not familiar with ban procedures so perhaps it's somewhere else. This is another ban that I'd support rescinding, as per Gerry (and the fact that the IP's previous edits look kosher), so I'd like to know where to find more information about the ban and where to discuss the issue. --Zeborah 22:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

77 user above has also now been unblocked - Alison ☺ 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the 77 user a couple of hours ago, didn't see a need to document that other than in an email to Gerry so he could let the person concerned know, sorry. -- Arwel (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Zeborah 10:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

To many people, this whole incident looks very suspicious. The normal rules for blocking people were violated, and there appears to have been political motivation. The oversight mechanisms appear to have failed, and attempts to protest the unblock decision were immediately blocked as "block evasion" even though they quite clearly were not. Something is badly, badly broken here. I hope the person who implemented the original block appears to explain what the hell happened here, and to me it looks like some people aren't fit for their administrative roles. ComradeStalin1979 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth now, I can confirm that all of this users edits that I have seen in the past are genuine, and I don't see any link to the first account that he is accused of being a sock puppet of.Traditional unionist 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimfbleak does not understand blocking policy

Hello,

I don't think Jimfbleak understands the community policy for blocking. Although he only blocks vandals, he blocks, sometimes indefinitely for only one or two page edits, sometimes without any warning messages left on the users page, or even notifying them of the block. I mentioned this to him and he's responsive to change, but it would be helpful if an admin could talk to him...

Thanks, Isaac 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Blocks like here, here, here, here and especially here where the person blanked the page and didn't even get a warning or notice on their talk page. My comments were more directed towards IP blocking rather than username stuff, which seems fine. What about here. An ip address is obviously not a sockpuppet, perhaps doesn't deserve a one week ban for one vandalism edit. Isaac 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not that uncommon of a practice if an account exibits what is considered VOA or "Vandal Only Account" Activity. These are most often bad faith accounts which directly target articles with multiple edits of extremee bad faith vandalism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Warnings are only needed when it is not clear that the person knows what they are doing is wrong. No need to tell someone that replacing a page with "<insert name here> smells funny" is against the rules. Until(1 == 2) 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

An example or two of blocks you think were inappropriate may help, but it is worth noting that there are several cases in which blocking right away is decidedly better than giving the full warning catalogue. — Scientizzle 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you have been discussing Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with him. If this is the situation you are concerned about, I'm not sure that I think an editor who's first 4 edits are quite so blatant needs to have anyone crusade on his behalf because he wasn't warned...

I do agree that notification of the block is always nice, but I don't necessarily think it is always needed. --OnoremDil 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that this should make any difference to the matter at hand, but User:Qweasd1234 recently joined, and vandalized Jimf's user page here: [19]. I reverted, at which point, Qweasd1234 commented this [20] on my talk page. I suggested he go to ANI, here, and immediately after that, Isaac added this "thread," right here. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it is a bit coincidental, don't you think? Gscshoyru 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've notified Jim of this thread. Looking at his admin block log, I don't see anything out of the ordinary. He hasn't blocked more than a couple of dozen in the last few weeks. Additionally, his user page has been hit with a couple of VOAs in the last few days. I would be inclined to indef Qweasd1234 (talk · contribs)...and I don't understand why Jim's explanation on Isaac's talk page (User_talk:Isaac#Blocking) wasn't sufficient. — Scientizzle 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also remember that blocks are preventive... using the example of Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) where all edits were pure vandalism, a block stops that editor from continuing to create content that has to be cleaned up. I've done the same thing in the past to stop a vandal from continuing unabated. Generally I find it helpful to post a message to them as to why they were blocked and letting them know if they are willing to edit without vandalism I will unblock them. Anecdotally though, I note that in nearly every case I've done this the editor has ended up indef'd by someone else for further vandalism, so I can't say my method is a resounding success...--Isotope23 ^talk 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Scien for letting me know this discussion was taking place. I accept that sometimes I've imposed a short block when a warning might have been more in accordance with policy. I have no second thoughts about blocking Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this is someone who knows the ropes (appeal before advised of procedure) who would run to another username if warned. Jimfbleak 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Having seen Jimfbleak block someone who he happened to see had made personal attacks on my user page, after I reverted his vandalism, I can say Jimfbleak seems very reasonable, and was ready to listen when the user apologised, and subsequently unblocked him. This user has not vandalised since has far as I can see, so it seems it was the right decision. It's not because some are over lenient with their blocks that all have to be the same. When someone is deliberately trolling or vandalising (etc.), it should be no surprise for them if they are ejected from the project. As far as I can see, he is not particularly harsh on users who just did not know a specific rule though.

Just a funny aside: when I first saw Jimfbleak I was editing an article about a bird, and I had always thought of him as "Jimleafbeak", also he has blocked himself on several occasions by accident lol, but seems helpful, polite and ready to listen, rather than just hitting his head against a brick wall until one breaks, like some users on wikipedia.Jackaranga 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you don't have to be a rocket scientist, or a policy expert to understand that this edit is not going to be welcome. Jackaranga 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not posting this about Triplek4, I think that action was fine, and jimf even asked me about it. He's a very reasonable guy, but I still think that his anon bans are farther reaching then policy. Take a look at the clarification at the top of the section. Isaac 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Isaac's examples, the first three I was in the wrong. The fourth was one of a string of identical "tippler" edits from different accounts, which doesn't show on the block log. The last may be similar, but I can't honestly remember. Sockpuppet obviously wrong word, someone using anon account to harass another user is what I meant Jimfbleak 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider this resolved then. Just make sure to use warning templates along with a block! Otherwise people like me might not even notice that a user was previously blocked.Isaac 13:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You should always use the block log, because many users remove the block notice, as is their right to do so. Jackaranga 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the notice was more about the speed in which IP editors were blocked, but I thought users were not supposed to take down warnings from their talk page. Isaac 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox

Hello and apologies in advance for the long followup. More than anything I'm seeking advice on how to best deal with problems involving mainly SqueakBox (talk · contribs).

As many of you know, SqueakBox is a longtime contributor of Wikipedia who unfortunately also has a difficult time handling conflict properly. About a month ago I noticed that he had nominated the category Category:Rape victims for speedy deletion and proceeded to massively depopulate it with the edit summary "silly cat" [21]. I did leave a note inviting him to submit the category to CfD rather than unilaterally destroying it but got no answer (see [22]). Just a few days ago, SqueakBox started depopulating the cat of living members citing WP:BLP and sometimes with the edit summary "update" [23] or "rm trolling" [24] [25] [26] even though the additions of the category were likely made in good faith and the articles clearly support the fact that the subjects are rape victims. SqueakBox got into edit wars over the whole thing with Fighting for Justice (talk · contribs) (see 3RR notice) and proceeded to bite his head off, with a mixture of BLP citing, trolling accusations, "I've got more experience on Wikipedia than thou" and Daniel Brandt gospel [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. There is no excuse for such an experienced editor to use that sort of bullying, especially given that SqueakBox was previously blocked on a number of occasions for personal attacks.

In the same spirit, SqueakBox has also proceeded to rename a number of biographies of crime victims. For a sample, see his move log. For one thing, this is beyond silly as it certainly does not change the substance of the article and leads to unnecessary redirects and odd categorizations. In fact, it was in many cases a great excuse for SqueakBox to remove the categories altogether! In similar fashion, he also made very questionable redirections such as [33] [34].

I also find it very very problematic that this whole business seems to be the result of a thread on Wikipedia Review cited here by SqueakBox [35] about so-called "victim-stalking" or whatever SqueakBox calls it. I think it should be made entirely clear to administrators Zscout370 (talk · contribs) (and to a lesser extent Ryulong (talk · contribs) [36]) that "BLP nightmare" is not a criterion for speedy deletion and that debates on such issues are a vital part of what makes Wikipedia function properly. Even more crucial is to restate that a debate taking place on Wikipedia Review does not carry any sort of weight here.

In any case, I'm bringing this here because I intend to undo SqueakBox's systematic campaign until the issues underlying it can be fully addressed in a proper on-wiki forum. I'd also appreciate other's input on where and how this discussion should take place (and by that I mean a discussion on how and when to use categories such as the various subcats of Category:Crime victims and on the ensuing ethical questions). I fear that without it we'll be stuck with perpetual edit wars, DRVs and whatnot. Pascal.Tesson 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What happens on WR has no place here. The real question is whty the cat:rape victims isnt up for DRV which it should be instead of having been recreated after a speedy which speedied it as a blp nightmare. All I have done is to try to protect the project so the subjects of articles do not feel outed or harrassed by unsourced or even sourced claims that they were the victims of rape. Do we support the outing of rape victims now or what? Unfortunately some editors here, mostly new and invariably SPA's (ie interested only in crime) appear to want to do so and are more interested in giving me a hard time than in ensuring that wikipedia is not stalking living people with rape victim claims so when I remove unsourced rape clainms on living people I have been reverted. What is that? The cat is a blp nightm,are and shouldnt be here. I stand by my claim that claiming living people have been rape victims when they havent made that okay is victim stalking and shopuldnt be happeniong and those who are doing that should be blocked for BLP vios (as Fighting for Justice already was one time). His undoing of my alleged campaign essentially means restoring unsourced content for living people that they have been rape victims and that is not acceptable. It is User:Pascal.Tesson whose behaviour appears to need investigating here not jkine for trying to remove a cat that stalks certain people though at least he recognises there are ethical concerns and hope we vcan indeed discuss this isssue without stalking the subject of even one of our articles. Finally the claim that blp nightmare is not a speedy criterion is simply not so and shows the lack of experience of this user re wikipedia. Finally io wopuld say this shoul;d strictly go to the blp noticeboard as that is at the heart of this dispute, SqueakBox 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As benevolent as you think you are being it is having the opposite effect. All you've accomplished is a bunch of arguments. You have no proof anyone is stalking anyone. That's all your deluded opinion, not factual. Furthermore, the category should be applied to deceased raped victims, not living unless they're a public figure and are unafraid of speaking about their incident. You're the last person in the world who should be bringing up other people's blocks. I have only had two, one was for edit warring. You have been blocked numerous times, and I do not go around nominating or deleting(without authority) article's/categories I dislike. And believe me there are many wikipedia article's/categories I dislike. So grow up and accept the fact that wikpedia is going to have stuff you dislike. Fighting for Justice 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing you enforcing this policy in the coming years. I dont dislike the cat I think it violates our policy and seriously damages the project. I also always find it amusing when some kid tells me to grow up, such is the modern internet world eh, lol, SqueakBox 02:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But when I see edit summaries like this I find it hard to assume good faith with FfJ, SqueakBox 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be more then happy to enforce it; not for you, but for the community of course. Yes you do dislike the category, because in many of your edits you are not altering the contents of the rest of the article. You're focus is primarily on the category. You don't seem to be even familiar with the subjects your editing. For example, in the Dru Sjodin article you removed the cat saying her rape is unsourced speculation [37]. Anybody familiar with her name knows she was raped. They know her killer was convicted of raping and murdering her last year. Yet you had the audacity to dub her rape as unsourced speculation. If handled properly the cat will not violate BLP. In in the case of Sjodin and others like her they are not living anymore. You have a personal crusade on censorship. Not that my age is any of your business but I am no where near being a kid. And you assuming that I am one simply reflects what a misguided person you really are. Fighting for Justice 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What admin action is required here? If this is just an editorial dispute why not try dispute resolution. Until(1 == 2) 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Squeekbox wants to identify anyone outing rape victims on Wikipedia, I'll be happy to apply a banhammer. And articles where unsourced rape allegations are being made can be dealt withh (locks and blocks) if identified. Otherwise, I believe the cat is already at DRV, and nothing else really needs to be done. WilyD 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

After checking, it's actually at CfD - I'm not sure this makes much difference. WilyD 19:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not looking to see anyopne blocked right now though I will recheck the cat in a couple of days and make sure we are sticking to policy, SqueakBox 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was told to recreate it and put it up for CFD, but by the time I got the message, it was done. Regardless, that got attention to the category that it needs to be fixed and enforced properly. My job is done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, as Squeak said, whatever happens at Wikipedia Review stays there and has no bearing on what we do here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. As the comments he makes there are then extended to his conduct on wikipedia. So in my opinion it is very valid. He definitely reveals his true colors there. Fighting for Justice 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean my true colours.? I have a long record of service to this project and it strikes me that you are trying to own the rape victims articles. You dont like someone coming in responsibly to impose vitally needed BLP. And I will continue to enforce BLP, that is my true colours, you knew about BLP FfJ and didnt enforce it, quite the opposite, any hint of its enforcement meets your stiff oposition And Zscout is right, its none of your or wikipedia's business what I do off wikipedia. If you want to respond to me at WR I suggest you join up, SqueakBox 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are the one who gave me the link to WR. An enforcement cop you are not. Such a person would have to be objective to start with. You hold a lot of bias, and you don't seem to care about the contents of the article's of the very people you say you're trying to protect. Fighting for Justice 04:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've encountered problems with SqueakBox in the past, as well; he can be an absolutely dreadful user to deal with when he disagrees with you about something. I've also observed that he has a history of coming in and making substantial, controversial edits without any kind of discussion beforehand. Mike D78 01:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

reply to Mike D78 - I'm sorry that you had to endure so much insults from this person. I'm also shocked no administrator has given SqueakBox a permanent vacation from editing wikipedia. He certainly deserves one. Fighting for Justice 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And whose sockpuppet are you, Mr Pro-pedophile activist supporter Mike D78 who started here 5 days after {{user|Voice of Britain]]'s latest sock was banned (ie June 25) and only concern yourself with defending the pro-pedophile activism article from any atytempts to make it NPOV. Again the same, you dont like me coming in and destroying your litle game of making pro pediophile activism into something acceptable and actively promoted on this wikipedia site. If people who want to own article series and then dont follow policy get peeved at me, well it probably means I am doing my job, SqueakBox 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See, that's the problem with this guy: he decides that he disagrees with you, then acts like he has some mandate to make things hard for you. Everything is a battle with this guy; every move gets you accused of being a sockpuppet or a troll or a "pro-pediophile activist." He decides that his view of what is right and "NPOV" is the only one that matters and then accuses you of being disruptive when you question his reckless edits. Very annoying. Mike D78 05:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain what benefit the rape victims category brings to the encyclopedia? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to know the answer to this question as well, which I have asked elsewhere (in a particular article that was categorised thus), SqueakBox 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Should a person want to look up notable cases of people murdered and raped they will have a list of them in a category. Fighting for Justice 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What I question is why we allow an openly partisan editor, Fighting for Justice, who's user page states: "Always on the side of the crime victim and their loved ones." (openly and blatantly non NPOV), and in violation of WP:UN (# Offensive usernames that may make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, including but not limited to:), why we allow that editor to remain on wikipedia, and push his point of view upon other editors, to the point of promoting a category called "rape victims"???? Have we gone mad? This editor should be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I should note this page where apparently Fighting for Justice has followed Squeak Box (one might argue Wikistalking), just over an hour after SqueakBox's first edit to the page. If that wasn't enough, he then accused Squeak Box of being in bad faith[38], and then called him a "censorer" and said "I assume no good faith efforts from you". I also note Fighting for Justice's complete lack of civility, in this diff here where he accuses another editor of "deliberately ruin(ing) other peoples work"....because they changed the name of a university from Texas Tech to Texas State Technical Institute, incorrectly. Also, accuses SqueakBox of being a troll for addressing a BLP concern, asserts ownership and claims that "nobody gave you the authority to rename this article", etc....and that's just in one page of "contributions". I strongly suggest a significant block for this user, considering that they've been blocked at least twice before, including once for BLP concerns, and have a history of disruptive and tendentious editing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This was shortly followed up by Fighting for Justice leaving this message on my talk page accusing me of being a friend of Squeakbox and just here to support them. Squeakbox as I understand is from UK, and I decidedly am not. The incredible failure to assume any good faith, repeated incivility, and multiple warnings are getting ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all the anonymous IP that edited the Kenneth McDuff article erroneously caused a proper link to go red [39]. I did tell them not to deliberately ruin people's work. Perhaps, deliberately wasn't a good word but I said please. I don't think the comment is going to destroy the person's life. Secondly, I understand Squeakbox raises concern over the rape victim category as it pertains to living people. He snuck around and depopulated the category, then he got lucky and someone speedily deleted it. When he did not get his way and the category was revived again, he went about moving/renaming biographies of crime victim or merging them in order to bypass the category:rape victims. Is this conduct really appropriate? Should he be allowed to do this, while a debate on the categories merit is happening? That's why I reverted his moves and changed his renaming because it was done in bad faith. It was done so his new versions would not have the category: rape victims.

I never accused Squeakbox of being a troll. If anything he is the one who's called me and people who endorse the rape victim category as conducting "troll work" [40], [41], and [42]. I admit I've been blocked twice before but not 5 or 6 times like Squeakbox. I simply told him to read up on wikipedia's definition of a troll [43]. What's so bad about that? Content disputes are not trolling. THe only reason I said Swatjester is friends with Squeakbox is because, they want me blocked; yet they fail to acknowledge that Squeakbox accuses people of stalking rape victims [44]. That right there calls for a good reason to block Squeakbox as stalking a raped person would be a crime. Stalking is an ugly word that no innocent person wants to be associated with; regardless if we go by wiki's definition or the legal term. I don't do that and it highly offends me that he would suggest such a thing. Why isn't Swatjester endorsing a block for that? He/She is an administrator after all. If I get blocked for calling him a censurer then block him for labeling innocent people of stalking. Oh and another thing Squeakbox once very subtly referred to me as a bastard. He purposely left out the last two letters. check it out for yourselves if you don't believe me. Fighting for Justice 09:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Or else, perhaps, he meant ¡Ya basta!. Alai 09:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I meant "ya basta", which means "that's enough". Spanish is my second language and here where I live its the first language, SqueakBox 18:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, a better translation is "Enough already!" and basta is a verb, so it literally means "(it is) enough already!" but yeah. -Nard 18:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Had this comment been made in a Spanish speaking wikipedia forum it would be understandable. But that's not the case here. This is a English speaking forum and all his comments should be made in English. I speak Italian, but I don't type out Italian dialect in here. Fighting for Justice 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually people speak all sorts of languages all over en.wiki, which can be quite a bit of help with translating. Feel free to speak Polish, Greek, German, French, or Spanish, or your native Italian, or even some Latin on my talk page or anywhere where it might be useful. This doesn't go to the comment of what was said, but, this is an international encyclopedia and English is used for content, but other languages facilitate communication at times. KP Botany 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear both comments above. Cos I am in a Spanish speaking environment it is easy for me to switch languages withouit a conscious effort but I dont want my comments misinterpreted and will try to take this on board, SqueakBox 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

AN/I on Jayjg and Humus sapiens closed too soon?

I see that the AN/I concerning the administrative actions of User:Jayjg and User:Humus sapiens on Second Intifada has already been closed ([45]). I'm not entirely certain as to why. As I understand it, the AN/I was raised to address a possible misuse of admin powers, not to explore a content dispute. CJCurrie 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, please explain what "misuse of admin powers" you are talking about, otherwise people will think that you are abusing ANI in another attempt to punish those who may disagree with you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, User:Jayjg and yourself were accused of abusing your administrative powers by repeatedly moving a page (i) without consensus, and (ii) for apparently partisan reasons. CJCurrie 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the case was closed at the right time, as the consensus appeared to be that this was merely a trite, mundane content dispute.Bakaman 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

According to CJCurrie, the "misuse of admin powers" goes only in one direction: against his POV. I think he should be held responsible for abuse of ANI and slander. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, moving pages is not an "admin power", any registered editor can do it. Also, the move accorded with the WP:MOS, so it was hardly "partisan". Now, again, which "admin powers" were abused? Please be very specific; name a power that only an admin has, and which was "abused". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was just wondering about that, but didn't get round to posting it. I have no idea whether or not the page should have been moved, as I haven't looked at it, but it seems to be a content dispute and the discussion was quite properly closed. ElinorD (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... I was under the impression that non-administrators didn't have the ability to move pages (I can remember a time when I was asked to move a page for a non-admin, a couple of years ago). I'll drop the point if this isn't the case. CJCurrie 04:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG and Violetriga blocked

JzG (talk · contribs) and Violetriga (talk · contribs) have been blocked for wheel warring over AJ. I have informed them and recommended mediation. MessedRocker (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While wheel warring by anyone is wholly inappropriate, in my opinion JzG was in the right here to remove this information. Violetriga was previously admonished in the Badlydrawnjeff RfARB for undeleting potential BLP content without careful discussion first. Krimpet 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the blocks. Wheel warring is totally unacceptable. In Violetriga's case in particular she seems to have learned nothing from the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. In light of the criticism of her conduct from ArbCom and the "do no harm" principle, wheel warring over a page deleted for BLP reasons was utterly outrageous. We have all sorts of lovely processes for deleting and undeleting pages - there is absolutely no need to wheel war if we disagree with another admin's decision. We should always seek input from the wider community rather than reverting them. WjBscribe 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The case also suggested that if there was any further undeletions by Violetriga she would be immediately desysopped, now, we need to come to a conclusion as to whether or not this was a BLP violation that Violetriga undeleted. In my opinion, if she was not happy with it, the best venue would have been DRV, not wheel warring over it. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since JzG stopped about 22 hours before he was blocked, and Violetriga stopped about 13 hours before she was blocked, I don't see that the blocks serve any purpose other than to punish two administrators by humiliating them. The wheelwarring seems more serious in the case of Violetriga, and should be reported to the ArbCom (if it hasn't already been), but blocks should really be kept for situations where they are necessary to put a stop to something that is continuing. I would endorse unblocking both. ElinorD (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse an unblock, provided there is a strong warning that any further wheel warring will result in another block. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan that an unblock is probably warranted here, but it should be up to ArbCom, not us, whether Violetriga's actions are sufficient to trigger the consequences set forth in that arbitration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking an admin for attempting to uphold BLP isn't acceptable imho, nor is blocking an established user 22 hours after their last "troublesome" edit. I support unblocking JzG. I don't wish to comment on violetriga's case as that would appear to be a matter that's heading for ArmCom. --kingboyk 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the redirect qualifies for BLP deletion is under dispute, apparently. Lots of people were involved in deleting/restoring. MessedRocker (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the blocks are necessary, the wheel warring was spread over more than 24 hours - given neither showed any sign of backing down I think Messedrocker was right to assume they would be likely to continue wheel warring when next online. If anything the block period may have been too short, but hopefully the fact of the blocks will be enough to bring them to their senses. WjBscribe 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also support unblocking, especially of JzG who seems to have felt that he was upholding WP:BLP. Still, they'll be back in a few hours anyway, whatever we do! Physchim62 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block JzG has been acting very weird lately, removing posts from his talk page as trolling and crap, even though most of the posts were from admins asking for both of them to stop. That tells me alot. Endorse Violetriga block as well for BLP wheel-warning Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In light of the latest comment on the matter from Violetriga: "Wheel-warring is bad, yes, but sometimes you have to do it when an admin is simply wrong and refuses to go along with what has been decided" [46] I oppose any unblock. To have an admin so openly prepared to wheel war is totally unacceptable. I must say I am appalled her ongoing defense of her wheel warring. WjBscribe 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

With that comment in mind, I agree that she should remain blocked until Arbcom determines the outcome. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Me to, maybe indef until arb-com decides her fate, she admit she won't stop. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Valid blocks, valid unblocks I just read Violetriga's comment, that is an unacceptable attitude, OFFICE can deal with things that need that level of unilateral decision. It should not be decided with one admin warring against another. A lapse in judgment is one thing, but this looks like a decision to wheel war. Until(1 == 2) 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Jaranda, I disagree with the notion JzG should be blocked for acting oddly. I blocked him for wheel warring and nothing more. His block might be able to go before 24 hours is up if the conclusion arises that BLP-authorized deletion is right (it's very confusing because it's just a redirect to a name that was already published on the article, but BLP most likely applies). Also, even though Violetriga committed political suicide with that endorsement of wheel warring, I think indefinitely blocking her is a bit much. Let her be blocked for the day, and then we can tell the ArbCom about it. MessedRocker (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said that though, but still edits like this [47] is clearly unacceptable Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see them unblocked. These are two respected, long-term users who got annoyed in the heat of the moment. I feel we should cut them some slack. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, here, SqueakBox 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin -- I am as long-standing as the people I blocked. I don't subscribe to that "they're long-term" nonsense; if they're long-term and respected, how come they can't handle a disagreement without wheel warring when they should know very well that it should not happen and measures should be taken to stop it, even if it means blocking? Being able to cope with stress without reacting immaturely (wheel warring is incredibly immature) is part of life. MessedRocker (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocking is no way to respond to wheel warring, if anything a punishment should reflect one's admin status(and only if really really necessary), not their ability to edit. No sense in throwing out a good editor over a bad admin decision. Until(1 == 2) 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

They were only blocked for 24 hours. --OnoremDil 01:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG in one of our very best, and should be unblocked immediately.Proabivouac 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG is going off the rails as some of his recent actions (before and after the break he is supposed to be on) show. The diff from Jaranda is just one example. Viridae^Talk 01:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone is "going off the rails" is not a constructive comment absent truly egregious action, which this isn't. It's not like he extorted the Foundation or violated 25RR. The sooner all concerned put this incident behind them, the better. Raymond Arritt 03:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked both. No need for any comments on my part. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Blnguyen.Proabivouac 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for comments on your part. MessedRocker (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Overturning a block merits a comment, at the very least. --ElKevbo 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never been blocked before, for anything, and I think this just shows that Wikipedia is probably no longer the place for me. Violetriga appears to me to be one of those who is determined to turn Wikipedia into a tabloid aggregator (though not at all the worst offender, to be sure), and I want no part of that. This also appears to be punitive, not preventive. Regardless, I am really struggling to give a shit any more. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never been blocked either. I'd thank you for not thinking that you know anything about my edits and contributions, and to call them "tabloid" is offensive to someone that has done so much around here. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG: you should have known better, and the fact that you've not been blocked before says you DO know better. Likewise for violetriga. I personally would not like to see any more deletion/undeletion warring from either of you - here or elsewhere. Both of you think you're right, which is fine - but both of you know this isn't the way to settle the disagreement. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this settled back in May[48]...I see efforts then to ensure the article was redirected appropriately as per BLP issues. When long standing editors are blocked, it is should always be for only the most egregious of reasons. Furthermore, JzG appears to be pretty disillusioned these days, so why are we antagonizing him further. Bad block...bad block.--MONGO 07:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Being "disillusioned" does not give someone carte blanche to wheel war. Neil ╦ 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was settled (and indeed further discussed) so the deletion of one part of the picture just seems pointy. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that multiple admins have both deleted and undeleted that page, and specifically deleted and undeleted the redirect. (deletion log). This is definitely a wheel war, and sanctions on both parties are appropriate. Assuming the redirect to be a BLP violation, a redirect is the least problematic of all possible BLP violations, and is no basis for wheel warring. An even treatment of both wheel warriors is correct. The ArbComm completely screwed up in the BDJ, as despite their claims "to review the behavior of all parties" they only actually looked at the behavior of one side. JzG should have been under ArbComm sanction at least as much as Violetrega as a result of that case, so I oppose differential treatment of the two. GRBerry 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear god. It should be apparent at this point that the ArbCom thinks we should delete first and then take to DRVs and there seems to some community support for that. I don't completely agree with it, but waiting to take to DRV is always better if there is any issue. Violet's actions we unecessary, and we shouldn't block for admins trying to deal with BLP issues. In any event, we should all know by now that blocking in these sorts of situations does nothing but create more drama. JoshuaZ 03:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga should be desysopped

She was admonished once already by Arbcom in the BDJ case for wheelwarring, and was notably unrepentant.[49]. As I was a party (tenuously as it was) in that case, it would be inappropriate for me to make the request, but I think someone else should. Swatjester 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

FloNight has been informed already. As for your call here I wouldn't have expected anything different from you given the way you have responded in all related matters. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, sadly. Seems like it was bound to happen sooner or later, and probably best to get it out of the way before additional damage is done. Andrew Lenahan 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Another RfAr in the works? Corvus cornix 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee is aware of Violetriga's activities and will take action under the admonishment if it thinks it necessary. It may well be that there are mitigating factors in the most recent case. Violetriga has been told by a fairly representative proportion of the community that her recent activities were neither necessary nor welcome, and will no doubt learn from that. --Tony Sidaway 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I disagree with your last statement. She was told that her activities in the BDJ arbitration were not necessary nor welcome, and stated she does not believe she was wrong. Then there is this block and its circumstances, and she once again has been told by a large portion of the community that wheel warring is wrong, and once again has stated she believes that it is an acceptable practice. She apparently has no intention of learning, from my viewpoint. Now, as you mention the committee is aware of this (which I know individual members were obviously aware of this, but I'll assume your statement to mean the committee en banc is aware of it.) so there's nothing further for me to discuss here from me.Swatjester 03:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If she doesn't learn, and continues to pose a problem, the admonishment will probably use its teeth. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the arbcom would also have been able to "use its teeth" to react to Guy's inappropriate actions had the case been handled properly. violet/riga (t) 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may have become necessary. A fundamental disagreement over BLP with the project and a propensity for wheel-warring when not getting her way do not a good administrator make. --Cyde Weys 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter at all that she was completely right? -- Ned Scott 03:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"A fundamental disagreement over BLP"? You what? violet/riga (t) 07:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of this has been helpful. The blocks were late, not preventative, and JzGs was completely unwarranted. If Violetriga disagreed that some content violated BLP, a less destructive course of action would have been to follow dispute resolution. When in doubt, the content stays out until the dispute is resolved. Warring over BLP rather than following DR and/or bringing to a wider forum by posting here was extremely ill considered. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt that is certainly the case, but when a redirect is deleted while the content remains in the article there's something going wrong, and while there is consensus to include the name and that BLP is not being violated it is not up to one person to simply ignore everyone else. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do feel that violet's apparent feelings on the suitability of wheel wars to resolve a dispute are incompatible with the ethics of Wikipedia, and the rules. I've not examined violet's behaviour regarding BLP closely, but a question that has come to the fore of my mind is: "Would she be blocked on BLP grounds if she wasn't an admin?". I don't know. Martinp23 17:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not as there is (was) consensus that BLP accepts the inclusion of this person's name. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No excuse! Reversion-limitation (WP:3RR and WP:WHEEL) policies apply to all, no matter what argument they may have to back up their actions. Neither of the parties should have wheel warred, but I think that a heavier burden is placed on yourself, Violet, given the ArbCom's ruling on BLP deletions and that caution they administered to yourself. It may be true that consensus did accept the inclusion of the person's name, but consensus can change - and more importantly the reasons surrounding BLP actions can do also, weakening the previous decision (for example (but not in this case, it seems): OTRS tickets). Martinp23 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Response from my user page

Some people might not have read this, taken from my user page. I hope it explains how the BLP policy was not broken by my actions. In fact, Guy's deletion was after lengthy discussions on the matter:

Wheel-warring significant content is clearly a bad thing. The deletion of a redirect when (incorrect) variations of said name are left and when the name itself exists within the destination article (and does so by consensus of people fully aware of BLP) is inappropriate. BLP, it has been decided, does not apply here as has been discussed. Note that this is a significant reason behind my actions - it was already discussed. Perhaps Guy didn't check through the talk page properly and his first deletion would be understandable, but a second was certainly not warranted when he had sufficient time to comment on the relevant talk page. When citing BLP in a deletion (especially a clearly contentious one like this) Guy should do more than refer to the BDJ case (first deletion) or be rude (second). Guy appears to have gone through the articles in the BDJ case and restarted the crusade to remove them (the other remaining one he tried to AfD).

violet/riga (t) 07:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You have not commented on your actions, except for the rather ambiguous "this is a significant reason behind my actions" stating "it was already discussed". Are you claiming community support for wheel warring with JzG over a BLP issue? Your rationale is unclear to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on my actions already. I'm saying that JzG twice performed a deletion against consensus. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wheel wars are bad, but so is not correcting what is blatantly wrong. -- Ned Scott 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So in response to wheel warring, you feel that Violetriga, very recently and sternly warned against wheel warring, should have wheel warred some more? There are, contrary to apparent belief, more than just two or three admins on this project. We can afford to discuss something for fifteen minutes before throwing our buttons all over the place. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wheel wars are bad, full stop. There are authorities higher than admins, if a dispute still exists, appeal to them. --InkSplotch 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Once the page was deleted the first time (in this saga), it should not have been undeleted without seeking further discussion. Whether some previous discussion deemed that there was a BLP vio or not is immaterial, because situations can and do change. We have at least a couple of hundred admins active within a reasonable timespan after an incident occurs. We also have a massive community who can offer input. If you, Violet, or anyone else disagreed with the original deletion, the correct action would be to bring it up somewhere, rather than simply reverting. This is most true for BLP violations - whether you think it is one or not, the burden is on the person seeking to restore the page to prove (by consensus or reasoning) that it is not a vio, with appropriate discussion. Blind reversion is a big no-no.

Dealing with BLP problems, whether as part of OTRS work or individually, is an onerous task, made all the most difficult by the vocal few who disagree with your actions, and (although often not in possession of all the facts) decide to make a fuss (usually by reverting). If I may be permitted to express my personal feeling - this has to stop. Now. Users and admins alike on this project need to learn the importance of BLP, and respect the decisions made under it, until a clear consensus can be formed in opposition to the BLP action. It doesn't take long to ask for a sanity check somewhere, and, in all likelihood, being without a redirect for a few hours isn't going to cause the world to end. Sigh. Martinp23 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User Jewbagkd's racist vandalism

User Jewbagkd made this edit: [50], in which he blanked the entire talk page for Adolf Hitler and replaced it with racist statements. I think he should be blocked, perhaps indefinitely, but I'll leave the specific punishment up to the admins.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Deskana beat me to it. Natalie 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean he was blocked? Sorry I didn't quite get what you meant Natalie.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's blocked. You can check his block log yourself.--Atlan (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if I should've known that, but I'm new to the whole blocking thing.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Should have been a username block anyway. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

An interesting twist on image vandalism

File:Bolivar vandalism diff.jpg

The difference between the two images

Yesterday Ecuadorian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uploaded an altered version of Image:Simón Bolívar.jpg, adding graffiti in very subtle translucent letters (in this case the word "JEW", vertically - compare this rev and this rev). Looking at his edits he's a reincarnation of Guatemalan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - both accounts have had images deleted as attack images. What's weird is Imnuh33r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who appears to undo some of the former two's vandalism. My head hurts. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A diff of the two images is shown to the right. Hmm, I wonder if this would be a popular feature for new-pages patrollers? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Any interesting meta data? Dan Beale 00:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, nothing further. Until(1 == 2) 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Looking through the image history I can see the edits, but they're clearly at the top of the image, spelled horizontally - not vertically as in the "diff" to the right (furthermore I don't see any difference between the two revs you linked to, only in other revs - like this one: [51]). The "J" and the "W" are at the sides of the person's head, and the "E" is directly over the head. Why does the diff look completely different then?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look through all the revisions he made - on that one you cite, the letters are indeed horizontal, with the E on the forehead. In this version they're vertical, as in the diff image, with the letters in the red tunic below the collarstud and between the two columns of gold flowery things. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone sees that with the naked eye. I had to run a "find edges" filter on it to see the letters. Excellent catch, Finlay.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

07:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw the difference, its very slight. He wrote jew vertically. There's a darker red. I've never seen this kind of vandalism before. Thankfully its practically invisible unless we know whats going on. Definitely deserves an indef block/ban. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at his/her first deleted upload [52], unmistakeable image vandalism. In fact all it's contribs are vandalism. I'd say indef block.--Sandahl 06:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Checkuser shows that
  1. Ecuadorian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Guatamalan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Imnuh33r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Sri Lankan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Bolivian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Uraguayan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Mexican1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Paraguayan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. User1110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. User1112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  11. User1113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  12. User1114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  13. User1115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  14. User1116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  are all the same person. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems Image:Spartacus IIi.JPG has uploaded by User1110 (talk · contribs) and swapped for Image:Spartacus II.JPG on yesterday's main page featured article. It has something written across the bottom, but I can't figure out what it says. - auburnpilot talk 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It says GOATSE. Hope that helps make it a Speedy Delete. ThuranX 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted under G3. Nice catch. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

GOATSE...should have known. Thanks ThuranX. - auburnpilot talk 03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked all of the users Jpgordon mentioned. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page saga

Users CyberAnth (talk · contribs), Linkboyz (talk · contribs) and C.m.jones (talk · contribs) are teaming up to post and repost incivil, irrelevant and unfounded messages and warnings on my talk page. Despite a) the dispute they got so worked up about being resolved in their favour several days ago, b) the intervention of Daniel and NewYorkBrad to revert their edits and tell them why and c) my right to remove such irrelevance from my own talk page, I'm still dealing with this. C.m.jones and CyberAnth have both had conduct problems and blocks in the past and recent contribs show some pretty outspoken edit summaries from Mr. Jones in particular, while the sole focus of CyberAnth's edits over the past 4 days has been on my talk page. I'd appreciate a neutral admin taking a look at this, thanks. Deiz talk 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate. It looks like Newyorkbrad already spoke to Linkboyz and he understands. I've left notes for C.m.jones and CyberAnth on their talk pages asking them to cease. This sort of thing verges on harassment. If the behavior continues, then a block might be in order, but let's give them a chance to disengage. MastCell ^Talk 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have no idea who CyberAnth or C.m.jones are. I am not teaming up with them. I am generally concerned about the issue of bullying on WP, and I posted one supportive message on one of their talk pages, which they keep on reposting. If someone has concerns about my conduct, he should raise them with me directly first, rather than going to the Admin noticeboard. I have not posted anything incivil, irrelevant, or unfounded. I'm disappointed that it has been suggested otherwise. It's ironic that I should be unfairly accused of anything incivil, irrelevant, or unfounded, when my aim is just the opposite, to reduce bullying on WP. As Shakespeare wrote, methinks the lady doth protest too much. Have a great day!!!! Linkboyz 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd look at the contribs closer...the issue seems to be relate to edits made July 7. On July 24, Linkboyz reverts deleted content on Deiz's talkpage as "out of process", then 12 minutes later removes material from his talkpage as "any user has the right to remove content from their talkpage." I don't know who is really at fault here, but when somebody is going to start lopsidedly applying "policy" to pages only when it suits them (and a few weeks after the fact), there's a certain degree of baiting that should be seen to be taking place. I'd also note that Linkboyz has less than 50 edits, and his first three were following Deiz to different articles claiming his deletions were "wrong". I know I say this a lot with regards to incidents, but something's going on here, and it probably deserves a closer look. MSJapan 05:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi MSJapan, thanks for your comments. I was following Newyorkbrad's advice, which I appreciated. If anyone has any further comments on the content of my contributions, please let me know. I'd prefer them on my talk page though. Do you have a link to the baiting policy? And a link to the 50 edit policy? Have a great day!!! Linkboyz 05:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what MSJapan is saying is that it's a bit unusual for a brand-new Wikipedia user to immediately follow an admin around complaining about his deletions, revert people with an edit summary claiming they were "out of process", etc. Not unheard of, certainly, but unusual. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, but there's no policy against "unusual". Let's stick with the policies. In these cases, which were only a small proportion of my contributions, I was not the only person complaining, I was agreeing with other editors. Have a nice day! Linkboyz 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Clive Anderson page needing watching

The page on Clive Anderson was mentioned on the program The Wikipedia Story this might cause an influx of newbie editors. Could a few people please add this page to their watchlists for a while? Thanks. Tim Vickers 03:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the lede, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks."

Hope that helps. --Aarktica 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot generating hundreds of new articles which show up as recent changes

Polbot (talk · contribs), which is supposedly an approved 'bot, is generating hundreds, perhaps thousands if it runs long enough, of bird-related articles by mechanically reformatting the ICUN Red List of Threatened Species into Wikipedia articles. This may or may not be a good idea. The source site has a copyright notice, [53], and the recent changes log is choked with these articles, obscuring human-driven recent change activity. There's some discussion of this at User talk:Quadell, but more from the viewpoint of the bird community. The 'bot's author says that "I'm actually importing all species -- plants, birds, amphibians, mammals". Is this bulk article generation OK with everyone? --John Nagle 04:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time this has happened recently either. A couple days ago, a bot, perhaps even Polbot, flooded the new pages log with similar articles. Makes it harder to spot the nonsense in the new pages log. Resolute 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is approved for this task: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 6, have you tried using the "Hide bot edits" button on the RC? As for the articles, they seem to have useful information that is reflected by a reliable source, good articles. Until(1 == 2) 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a flagged bot's edits still show up in special:newpages? ~ Wikihermit 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The bot flag is not suppressing the logs in the newpages, sounds like a problem with the mediawiki software, not the bot. Until(1 == 2) 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. I thought it might not actually have a 'bot flag. But it's the interpretation of the 'bot flag that's the problem. As long as the bird community, which is quite active, is satisfied with this, it's not a big issue. --John Nagle 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not new, although the issue with Polbot is. Bugzilla 1401 was raised in 2005 for showing and hiding bot edits, among others from Special:Newpages, and is still listed as open. Confusing Manifestation 05:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Creation: OK, Copyright: ?. The copyright problem still seems quite valid to me, and deleting all this won't be fun. So any thoughts on that? Prodego ^talk 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is gathering information and putting it into its own words, it is not copying text directly. Words are copyright, information is not. But then again, I am not an expert. Until(1 == 2) 05:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither am I, and I agree with your conclusion. However the notice says "Use and reproduction of data and figures". It seems like a valid complaint, and merits at least some discussion. Perhaps some of our more legally inclined people could comment? Prodego ^talk 05:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is gathering the data about whether or not a species is on the list and its conservation status from the list, so maybe a lawyer ought to be asked this, the bot paused in the meanwhile. KP Botany 05:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

As noone seems to know wether this is quite legal or not I have temporaily blocked the bot. Any admin may feel free to unblock it should they be convinced that the bot is not infringing copyright. Viridae^Talk 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and the bot is running twice as fast as it should be, according to the task description on it's user page. Viridae^Talk 05:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the site owner of the site you are grabbing the data from? If its under copyright we need to be careful with the idea of just grabbing content and mechanically reformatting it. Remember our site is under the GFDL. It would be better if someone would take the time to write this data in real prose rather then just taking in their data. At the very least please ask the site owner and get OTRS to sign off on it that its ok. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And get a shrubbery too! Until(1 == 2) 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a shrubbery, please confirm the copyright issues. There might not be one, but I'm shocked that a site's copyright was not thought of in the approval of this bot. Rambot, did its work from free US census data. This data is different. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember thinking, when I saw Polbot articles, that there might be copyright issues with scraping information from online databases. It does this for US congress biographies, and I guess I assumed that IUCN was in a similar copyright situation, though apparently not. Ultimately, the issue comes down to whether 1000s of humans doing this, or a bot, is any different. I think the issue is whether a particular set of Wikipedia articles relies excessively on a single source, and uses all the information from that source. When it does, that feels like copying, rather than citing. Note that here, Polbot is not using all the information, and much of the information it is using was obtained by IUCN from other sources. Carcharoth 09:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this has a copyright. According to the page cited above Use and reproduction of data and figures for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holders. Pretty much, since we want commercial reuse of the materials, we cannot use this at all. The proof I provide is an email Jimbo sent in May of 2005 forbidding educational use only images or materials. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If the bot operator is around, I would like a full listing of what articles this bot has created please. Thank you. (yes I know about the contribs, but this bot seems to run other tasks as well.)—— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to Special:Newpages, and in the box labelled "User:" type Polbot. Then switch to 500 listings per page and get ready for a long haul (I'm back 2 days and 5000 articles so far). Confusing Manifestation 06:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, the 13,466 most recent pages created by Polbot were from iucnredlist.org, and then down to 13,884 was politician articles. As far as I can tell, the bot was definitely not creating more than 6 pages a minute (in fact I rarely found more than 4), but the copyright is obviously still the major issue. Confusing Manifestation 06:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah ... hmmm ... that, of course, doesn't cover talk page creations, which when factored in (such as in the bot's contribs) do indeed add up to a too-fast creation rate. Confusing Manifestation 06:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the most recent contributions, it was running at 12 edits a minute, twice as many as it was supposed to. Viridae^Talk 06:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessive edit rates don't seem uncommon for bots when people bother to actually check. I'm not condoning this either way, just commenting. And I'm assuming the talk page creation is lumped in with the article page as an edit, as it is really part of the same overall edit, if you see what I mean. As for the issue of contribs being mixed up between different functions, I'm concerned about that as well. I've been working with Quadell on another Polbot function, and I did ask Quadell if he could make a separate note somewhere of the date and timings of each run, and which function the bot was carrying out, but in addition to this, maybe a piped link in the edit summaries (function 6 or whatever), would help sort the different contribs? With "test" for test runs. Doesn't the bot approvals group already ask for separate functions to be clearly identified if carries out by the same bot? Carcharoth 09:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the thing is, it's not illegal for corporations to claim copyright on all sorts of things that are flat-out ineligible for copyright. Just because a site has a disclaimer saying that everything on it is copyrighted does not actually make it so. In this case, we are dealing with simple facts, and facts are not copyrightable. --Cyde Weys 03:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the copyright question may be much larger than just the Polbot-created articles. If we assume that each and every species in IUCN Redlist had their articles lovingly created and expanded by humans, and each article cites IUCN as source for the protection status, wouldn't that still mean the reproduction of the whole IUCN list – just in a different format? Eventually Wikipedia will cover all the species in the Redlist, regardless of whether the articles are bot-created or not. – Sadalmelik 07:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Right and in our case I think its best if we allow humans to do the writing. For one the end result is better. :P Bots are not good at writing prose, only humans can do that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Well, personally I prefer stubs over red links, at least these stubs have one reference where more info can be found. But still, it does not matter whether the articles are bot- or human-created. Once the coverage approaches completeness and Wikipedia effectively contains the IUCN Redlist, we need to have their permission to use the data. There is a difference between using one reference in each article and completely covering the subject (and therefore effectively replicating the data). There are also lists like this... My point was that Wikipedia might have needed the permission to use the data for non-commercial purposes even before Polbot started creating stubs. I don't pretend to know the nuances of copyrights, though... – Sadalmelik 07:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As noted below, scientific data are (almost always) ineligible for copyright in the US (though not necessarily in the UK, where this was produced). Dragons flight 07:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the people at IUCN to ask them for their opinion on the matter; we should be able to get a definitive answer from them as to whether they consider it an infringement on their copyright terms or not. Krimpet 07:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at 3 examples of Polbot's work. Assuming these are representative, then in my opinion, the material being transfered is ineligible for copyright in the US. The US broadly exempts scientific data from copyright under the doctrine that facts are not creative. As long as the effort is limited to scientific classifications, facts about the habitat/location, and the endangerment status, I don't think there is a US copyright problem here. A worthwhile caveat is that data compilations can be copyrighted in the UK (where IUCN is based) unlike the US, so there might be a potential conflict for someone commercially republishing this material in the UK. So in general, there may be an argument that they consider this copyright infringment, from the basis of their jursidiction, and yet it not be infringment from the point of view of US law. Dragons flight 07:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is taking raw information that is available in the scientific community and putting it in its own words. It is not mirroring the database, or copying verbatim. Until(1 == 2) 07:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the considerations here might be whether Wikipedia's articles are trying to replicate the function of the IUCN website. The IUCN focus (unsurprisingly) on how endangered each species is and why. As part of that, they say what the species is (and give the taxonomy) and where it is found, but that information was itself gathered from other sources. For details, see IUCN sources. That is the real source of the data Polbot is using. IUCN is effectively the middle-man here, though there will be arguments over how 'creative' the action is of IUCN collating the data. Wikipedia's articles are also collating data from different sources. As long as the finished Wikipedia articles (a) initially cite IUCN and are then expanded to cite more sources than just the IUCN (ideally they can go back further and cite IUCN's sources if they are available online); and (b) don't use the "Assessment Information" bits of the IUCN database (other than giving the IUCN endangered classification and a link), then it should be OK. For a typical IUCN entry, see here. IANAL. Carcharoth 09:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a misconception here, IUCN takes data from these sources and assesses these date to select a conservation listing and even inclusion of a taxon. They're the ones whose assessors have decided whether or not to include a taxon, this isn't done independently by all the scientists who study these species. KP Botany 21:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot owner responds

Greetings. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm very well-versed in U.S. copyright law. I was very mindful of possible copyright issues when I wrote the bot. The U.S. courts have ruled many times that data cannot be copyrighted, but only "creative content". In Hearn v. Meyer, the court ruled that "slavish copying" of public domain information was not eligible for copyright, and in Feist v. Rural the court ruled that "sweat of the brow" alone is not the "creative spark" which is the sine qua non of originality. Lists of taxonomic data are not copyrightable. See the article on Feist v. Rural for detailed info on this. Companies frequently claim copyright on materials which are not eligible, both to discourage competition and cover all possibilities.

To be honest, there's a lot more information at IUCN that I wish I could use, but it's written in complete sentences, and I don't have a way to import that information without copying those sentences. (Copying sentences could be a copyvio.) That's why the bot only imports raw information.

Would anyone mind if I unblock the bot and run her again? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(P.S., I do create a list of all species articles (and genus articles) that Polbot creates. It's quite long, obviously, but I could forward this to anyone interested.)

I have no objection to unblocking per that response. Viridae^Talk 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes I do, can you please limit it to the 6 edits per minute that was approved. Viridae^Talk 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also not a lawyer, but my layman's read is that the bot is collecting generic data from entries complied from reliable sources and presenting it appropriately. Deiz talk 11:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked her, and will run her at 6 edits per minute. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. Good luck. Viridae^Talk 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, while facts cannot be copyrighted under the U.S. copyright statute, compilations of facts can. Also, the European Union, where the owner of the web site is located, offers much greater protection to databases under Directive 96/9/EC. In addition, there are contractual claims (the web site's "Small Print" page is likely a binding contract, though I am not familiar with EU or UK law). Also, at least in the U.S. there are potential common law rights under a theory of "misappropriation" if you take too many of the facts. A good summary can be seen here. So, even though the information that we collect are "facts", we need to exercise some restraint when swooping in and wholesale harvesting facts that someone else has compiled into a database. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

user:TJ Spyke's attorney

Resolved

This WP:SPA added this to the Block of TJ Spyke section above. I have reverted it.[54] I'm not sure that further action is required, but I thought I'd post it here anyway. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely.--Chaser - T 06:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Kings bibby win, who was recently indefblocked for a compromised account. — Moe ε 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this should go to BJAODN. Corvus cornix 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate block by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Resolved

 – Block overturned

Morton_devonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked by Gamaliel for this comment after Gamaliel made very inflammatory and baiting comments [55]. Gamaliel's specious talk page BLP claim was fixed on Jul 19. Gamaliel made the block knowing he has been involved in a disputes with Morton before [56] and only after Morton brought up a previous dispute [57]. The least Gamaliel should have done was placed an AN/I notice and let an uninvolved admin handle it. The reality is Gamaliel lost his temper and made an improper block on an establsihed editor over a marginal BLP violation that was fixed 5 days ago made by another editor (a banned editor no less) 8 months ago. Blocks are not to be made for punishment and this is a clear case of an Angry Mastodon admin gone awry. --Tbeatty 06:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I had some discussion with Gamaliel about this block at this combined diff. There was no blockable BLP violation, and the "trolling" was pretty mild. I think the block summary in the log makes this look much much worse than it was to anyone looking at Morton's block log in the future. Something's not right here. - Crockspot 06:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Even worse is Gamaliels comment where he pretty much says he's given up on AGF for everyone. No more carrot, more stick. His excuse for the block is that he's had to deal with 3 totally unrelated editors (Rex071404, JoeHazelton, RPJ, etc) and he's tired? That is certainly not fair to Morton as he 1) didn't add the BLP violation, FAAFA did 8 months ago and 2) Gamaliel trolled first. Morton is not Rex, JoeHazelton or RPJ and he shouldn't be punished because those editors annoyed Gamaliel and he can still taste their bile. --Tbeatty 06:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go along with the 'very inflammatory and baiting comments' analysis, but nor do I see what would actually justify a block. (I could be missing lots of tortuous history on either side, of course.) On that basis, and of Morton's apology, and the other comments 'fessing up to some circumstantial contribution to the situation, I've unblocked. I invite anyone with more insight into the particulars than I to review. Alai 08:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Most people accussing an admin of stalking and harassing them because they removed a BLP violation, which it was, insulting Michael Moore, however common, still falls under BLP, would have been blocked for trolling as well. You can also see TBeatty the thread starter making comments such as What's more amazing is your out of the blue random enforcement of policy on talk pages that you selectively ignore everywhere else. Which are again more failures to AGF in light of a BLP violation that they did not disagree with. Mortons accusation was The dispute that I had with you over Fry Mumia was a year and a half ago, and happened when I was a brand new user -- can you just forget about it and leave me alone? Holding onto a dispute for that long just doesn't make you look very good. Just for anyone missing the trolling and violations of AGF. I would think making accusations against admins who are taking the correct action, one not argued with by TBeatty, should not attract such ire. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that Morton's edit was more of a joke rather than something maliciously intended towards the subject. In any case Gamaliel should not have been the admin making the block. It would be better if we just archived this thread and put it behind us, for it does not appear that we are going to reach a productive solution anytime soon. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

137.158.191.125 reverting warnings on their talk page

The IP address 137.158.191.125 has vandalised a number of pages recently, and warnings as appropriate have been added to their talk page by a number of editors including myself. However the user in question keeps reverting the warnings (diff) claming the warnings are not relevant to him/her. The user has also ignored advice to avoid this problem by signing up for an account - and reverts those messages too (perhaps accidentally?). Marwood 09:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted and explained.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, although the user is persisting in removing warnings from the page. Marwood 13:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BetacommandBot blocked

This bot is playing up (again!). This time it's marking non-orphaned images as orphaned. I have blocked it till it gets sorted out.

Honestly, this bot is far too disruptive. It's not just me who is complaining about it. If Betacommand can't get it working properly, I think he should stop using it or we should remove its bot status. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But the bot had stopped tagging images almost 8 hours ago. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the latest edits of the bot and they all seem to be legitimate. The images were orphaned indeed. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I shall unblock him. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As this bot makes a metric shedload of such edits, please be specific as to which instances you believe(d) to be erroneous. I didn't find any such taggings you'd changed, so I was none the wiser as to where to look on that basis, either. Alai 09:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a database hickup - e.g. Image:Helium logo.jpg appears not to be used in mainspace according to Special:Whatlinkshere/Image:Helium logo.jpg even though it is used in Helium.com. There are other similar cases, too. – Sadalmelik 09:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah-hah. One thing that might help here is to drive the bot from a list of orphans generated from a db dump, and then double-check against whatlinkshere, as opposed to using that exclusively. (In fact, I believe there was a bot doing exactly that, if it's still active.) Alai 09:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphanbot (talk · contribs) perhaps? Viridae^Talk 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The logos issues aren't the bot's fault. A template change caused the logos to be dropped from articles which the bot then tagged as orphaned. I raised the issue here WP:AN#Issue with logos, this morning. --Stephen ^1-800-STEVE 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot is *Teh evilz and methinks that BC logs into it occasionally for teh lulz. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please talk in English, so other people can understand. The Evil Spartan 19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatlinkshere never works for images. Neil ╦ 12:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack! You are right... it doesn't work. The "File links" section is empty though, at least untill the database catches up with the template changes. – Sadalmelik 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatlinkshere does "work" for images. It shows text links to the images, e.g. uses of [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], while the file links section show direct uses, e.g. [[Image:Foo.jpg]]. Personally, I think this distinction is silly, but the devs insist it is intentional. Dragons flight 14:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bots shouldn't be using database dumps (which are always out of date) to determine whether images are orphans or not when it can check the current file links. There's a really simple interface to access file links information using the API (no page crawling required), it's explained here: mw:API:Query - Lists, see the section titled "imageusage / iu". I think any bot doing image orphan work should be required to use the API for its data; just from my experience, most complaints about problems with orphan work seems to stem from using out of date dump data. --bainer (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Like Stephen said, this isn't a problem with the bot, but with Jamcib (talk · contribs) who I had to revert again this morning on {{Infobox company}}. Many infoboxes simply use "logo" for the image, whereas Jamcib's changes appear to require the use of "company logo" or something similar. This causes all the infoboxes using "logo" to simply stop displaying the image, which then causes the bot to tag them as orphaned fair use. Considering this template is transcluded on thousands and thousands of article, would anybody mind if we fully protected it as a high risk/use template? - auburnpilot talk 14:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with protecting the template. Too much collateral damage from careless changes. Thatcher131 14:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, and done. Neil ╦ 14:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not use database dumps. (they are always out of date and I dont have the bandwidth to download them let alone the HD space to uncompress them) I do use the live wiki for my data. The only issue might be is that I generate a list of images that use the {{tl|non-free media)) template and I then have the bot work from those list. (because there are 330,000+ images Multi threading and working off a live list is not feasible. I generate the list just prior to starting a tag run). Yes database hiccups have been known to happen (I cannot do anything about them and they rarely happen). ^∆ 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User: and User talk:Anonimu

Resolved

His user page and his talk page have banners that contain personal attacks; when I remove it or alter it so as to not be attacking, he and one of his Balkan buddies revert me (most of the times) almost instantly[58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] and he proceeded to vandalise my talk page, [71] [72] He has also been taken to AN/I at least once before, [73] Could someone help with this? —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For any other admins looking at this, don't worry I'm taking care of the situation.--Jersey Devil 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The personal attack on the userpage has been removed by myself. [74] User:Anonimu has been blocked for a week. As stated above he has already been warned about this kind of behavior several times in the past and has compiled and extensive block log. [75] User:Anittas who reverted back to the version with the personal attack on it has been warned. [76]--Jersey Devil 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note (whether or not this matters isn't my concern; just making sure that as much information as possible is available), Anonimu wasn't actually notified about that previous AN/I discussion. Bad form, really, to bring a person up for discipline without telling them. Bladestorm 17:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That is my problem as I did not know we were supposed to do that. I apologise. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for a name change to an article

Resolved

The movie The Winter of Frankie Machine (film) is liste on imdb as Frankie Machine. [77] So I'm sure that it is appropriate for an article name change here.

Thank you in advance, SpecialAgentUncleTito 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to the proper board: WP:RM. The Evil Spartan 19:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know where to ask for it at. SpecialAgentUncleTito 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've completed move of this article to the new name on the basis of available IMDB evidence and in the hope that there is no disagreement or controversy with the move. Gnanapiti 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass date-delinking campaign by Lightmouse -- Campaign resumed

This user has taken up a contentious stylistic campaign that has caused much disruption in the past: indisciminately stripping articles of all year-alone datelinks, using bot-like methods to run through large numbers of articles at high speed. I brought this issue to ANI on the 14th: See "Mass date-delinking campaign by Lightmouse" in Archive 271, for fuller background. Under threat of blocking, Lightmouse laid off till the 20th, but resumed the campaign on that date. -- Lonewolf BC 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Before posting a grievance on a user, it is advised that you take it up with them before you bring it to this message board." I have been working with Lightmouse with a view to helping him improve his edits. I suggest you take up any problems you have with the user in the first instance before calling for further admin action. --John 21:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you make it sound as though this matter has not already been taken up with Lightmouse, John? It has, and amply, by a whole string of objecting editors.
-- Lonewolf BC 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A string of two as far as I can recall. I've done what you should have done and explained nicely to the editor why semi-automated edits to correct very minor errors of formatting are deprecated. I also informed him, as you should have done, that he was being discussed at this forum. As I said the last time around, a little good faith wouldn't do any harm here. This person wants to help. --John 04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You must read through the talk-page history. If there had been only two then I could not honestly have said "a whole string". There has been a whole string.
-- Lonewolf BC 17:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon; I see four editors now who have queried Lightmouse's edits. Nonetheless, I stand by what I said about good faith and the importance of informing people if they are being discussed here. --John 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review of Velocicaptor (talk · contribs)

related report

Given Velocicaptor's continued addition of fair use images, negative information about a living person, and general soapboxing to his userpage after I warned him to stop, I've blocked him 24 hours. He seems to have a WP:OWN issue with his talkpage as well. Admittedly, I find the comments I removed to be abhorrant (not to mention factually ridiculous when you consider the timespan between World War II and Emancipation in the United States), but I think the continued addition of fair use images in particular completely warranted a block. If I were going on my feeling about the content there I'd have gone quite a bit longer than 24 hours, but I still figured I'd post here and if anyone feels it necessary to review they can do so.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh. Twenty-four hours is more than fair; we're probably a bit over-tolerant of people who use their userspace as a soapbox and insist on being intentionally inflammatory. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's pretty lenient. I would have indefblocked on sight after this. Am I going rouge? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think indefinite would be overkill; he's been around awhile and has some contribs that appear constructive, but I wouldn't have a lot of tolerance for repeat performances. Incidentally, what is the record for the shortest time between RfA and going rouge? MastCell ^Talk 15:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Velocicaptor is not getting it, from what I've seen in the past 12 hours. He continually removed content from his talk page. I've given him a final warning based on his most recent activities. If he should remove the content and replace it with a THIS IS MY PAGE screed, I will block him indefinitely as soon as I discover it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Velocicaptor indefblocked

Velocicaptor has done exactly what I had predicted he'd do, and use an incivil edit summary at the same time. I have blocked him indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a bit excessive; he's still been making constructive edits. Perhaps a bit shorter? A week or two? --Eyrian 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophecy, that one. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If he should e-mail me (or another administrator) civilly and request that he be unblocked, and he has learned his lesson, then he'll be unblocked. The way he's going about things now is uncalled for.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wow... That escalated quickly," as Ron Burgundy said. I was down with the 24-hour-block for fair-use image abuse and Hitler conjectures on his talk page. In fact, I thought maybe it should be longer. But was he just indef-blocked for removing comments from his own talk page, albeit somewhat rudely? I don't condone his behavior, and I'm not agitated for him to be unblocked, but users are typically allowed some latitude in removing notices from their own talk page.MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He has extreme ownership issues with the page, and is incivil when doing so. He was given a warning from Isotope, which he removed, and then a warning from myself, which he also removed. I explicitly stated in my warning that if he were to proceed to remove messages and do so incivilly, that I would block him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated open proxy nonsense

Well, Ryulong removes useful content from user pages all the time. Check this example. (BTW - Ryulong removes all critical comments about him from this page, see history.) 77.181.78.63 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The comment above is posted by the user who was on that open proxy that I had blocked. Same shit as another thread on either here or AN. I blanked all content except my block message. Ignore him, as this has nothing to do with Velocicaptor..—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Danish Wikipedia seems to think that 77.181.78.63 is a Tor node. Corvus cornix 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They happen to be right. There was a seperate open proxy that I blocked (209.250.234.50) who just happens to be using TOR nodes to try and say ZOMG RYULONG ABUSED BLOCKING and shit lately. I think it's under Ryulong violates blocking policy. Now he's mad that his user talk was protected and that I removed everything (including personal attacks where he linked to Brandt's wonderful hostmask thing) save for my blocking message.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Revert. Block. Protect talk page. Ignore. Nothing to see here. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite to contrary: Ryulong abusively protected talk page, without reason. 82.217.128.26 23:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And more complaints from another TOR node... RBI isn't working here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW - he also removed the whole thread about relevant link before protection. Note that Mozilla Firefox is FA, and talk page shouldn't be protected without real reason. 203.218.94.163 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Tor node blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, anon, for continuing to edit with Tor nodes, so that the admins can keep blocking them. Corvus cornix 01:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Salmoria

This user has been using IPs to edit war for months on the Tina Turner article (IPs in range 201.89.x.x and 201.3.x.x). When a bunch of user's images were tagged for deletion as not complying with the NFCC rules, user edit warred with me from various IPs removing the tags (See related checkuser). User went over to Commons to upload copyvio images as "free" images using account names identical to the names used here (Checkuser confirmed[78]). When I issued the user a very stern warning about violating the non-free content rules and copyright, and edit warring using IPs, user responded that his account was compromised. Surely we should help this user out and block this compromised account. -Nard 21:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy

DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include

• Adobe Photoshop 3
• Photo editing 2
• Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
• Satan 2
• Domain name 2
• Shroud of Turin 2

Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing#Photoshopping. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry! --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"? If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom. Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them. Eh? Jehochman ^Talk 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13_(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)

Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Wikipedia, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing#Request_for_Comment and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Wikipedia is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Wikipedia:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.

But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked. (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism. Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the views expressed here

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page: [79]. There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position. I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment [80]. I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Wikipedia out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Llandudno

Please help me this concerns only external links. I request help or advice with the current vandallism. Essentially two locally opposed parties are trying to fight a vendetta. One runs a forum at: http://www.llandudno-forum.co.uk/ and the other runs a forum at: http://www.llandudno-forum.com/ They each apparently claim that the other stole their mirror address. Unfortunatly they have each initiated direct email communication with me on this matter. Like me they are both local to Llandudno (and one of them like me is over 70 years. Unlike me neither is a regular wiki editor. The latest escapade seems to have been the insertion of a straight replacement link that somehow diverts to a direct advertising site. This seems to have been done with expertese and possibly at some cost (and possibly by the elder of the two - the other appears to be a journalist in his mid forties). The external links include one to my own website. Please email me if you wish at: NoelWalley 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

I've semi-protected the page for a little while and will keep an eye on it, hopefully this can be cleared up. CitiCat ^♫ 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.NoelWalley 06:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Noel, I have commented out your email address, it's never a good idea to give it publically on Wikipedia as it can en up being automatically discovered by spammers. Neil ╦ 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, it is the email address that I publish on my websites - not the one I use for personal matters, again thanks NoelWalley 11:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Eyrian

Article Raygun has had for nearly 2 years un-queried a table of info about fictional rayguns, to give an impression of what fictional rayguns are about, and a section about other uses of the word "raygun". Today User:Eyrian summarily bulk-deleted both without discussion. I reverted and invited discussion. He kept on deleting it without waiting for discussion to come to a concensus, to the limit of the 3RR rule. See Talk:Raygun#Deletion of the list of fictional rayguns?.

See also his deletion of Thermal lance#Appearances in fiction, although this matter is in mediation in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance: see also User talk:Eyrian/Archive 3#Uses of thermal lances in fiction and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance.

Anthony Appleyard 23:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article in question has been tagged for months as not citing any sources. By a similiar token, a big huge table of examples is not good practice -- it's basically a trivia section, and guidelines tell us that these should merged into the main body of the article, when possible. I suggest you guys work together on writing a good, sourced, section about Rayguns in fiction, or thermal lances in fiction, or whatever, rather than edit warring over a trivia section. See Dune (novel)#Cultural influence of Dune as an example; it replaced a trivia page called Dune in popular culture. --Haemo 00:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

While I think Eyrian should've engaged in discussion one step earlier, I think the unreferenced/WP:OR info should stay off the page while its being worked on. Corpx 01:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Discussion (I hope) continued in Talk:Raygun#Deletion of the list of fictional rayguns?. Anthony Appleyard 05:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Role account issues at Ted Turner

User:Teicorpcomm edited Ted Turner mercilessly a few days ago. I haven't been able to make heads or tails of it, but based on some of the changes made to the introduction, this appears to be a role account actually related to Turner Entertainment. I've blocked this account indefinitely on the grounds of a {{usernameblock}}, but based on the edits (Ted Turner's article is the only one edited by this account), this appears to be a SPA role account that is inserting weasel worded corporate-speak statements and/or deleting potential criticism of Turner from the account. I'm not sure what we should do here... revert to the last known good version might not be prudent, since I feel like some of the information is relevant, but this could certainly use some investigation to see if anything blatantly against the spirit of WP:NPOV/WP:OR. I thought I'd gauge what others see first, both in terms of the article and my block. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I vote for reverting to the previous version. It is now a complete whitewash with the inclusion of a load of promotional links within the article. IrishGuy ^talk 02:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor having difficulty with fair-use image policy

mathewignash (talk · contribs) has uploaded hundreds of Transformers-related images over the last couple of years but has had difficulty abiding by WP:FAIRUSE -- in particular, providing fair-use rationales for the pictures he's uploaded and identifying sources. I've offered some pointers and requests regarding Wikipedia's image-use policies (e.g. here, here, here and here), as have other editors. Additionally, his talk page is littered with templates regarding lack of sources and fair-use rationales. Following CSD flagging for a few of his pictures, I posted a request for him, and directions on how, to check his upload log to review pictures and provide fair-use rationales and source information -- which he has not done. However, just a few hours ago he uploaded Image:Grimlock-classic.jpg with an attempt at, but not a sufficient, generic fair-use rationale (and certainly not covering each of the three articles he added it to). I'm reminded of the question raised previously here. Anyhow, would someone please step in and offer another look? I'm new myself to the nitpicky scruples and shades of gray to fair use and don't know what else to do. I kind of wonder whether this user is at times overloaded with talk-page flags, or simply Just Doesn't Get It -- mathewignash seems to focus solely on Transformers-related material, with articles that overwhelmingly are OR, in-universe and don't follow cornerstone policies; it appears that there isn't a lot of "leading by example" in that particular sandbox. Anyhow, my two cents... --EEMeltonIV 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He has added a fair use rationale for that image a few hours ago. Seems you got through to him. Whether it is sufficient for the three instances he uses that image, I'll leave that for you to decide.--Atlan (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Discount for Spammers?

• Packnight501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm really concerned about the comments on this image (which I deleted as spam). We should make sure the company is not explicitly offering discounts for posting at Wikipedia, as that smacks of MyWikiBiz. I blocked the user indefinitely. The account has been around for a while but it has only edited its user and user talk pages, aside from uploading the spam image. I have no objection to an unblock, but I thought we should see what was going on first. -- But|seriously|folks  04:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a naive mistake to me. If this user were contributing to the encyclopedia I might invoke WP:BITE, but I think this is bannable anyway per WP:NOT (not MySpace). Durova^Charge! 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That is, frankly, some really scary shit. I think the block absolutely made sense, especially since it was a user who'd been around since mid-2006 with no contributions at all. Let's just hope this was an isolated incident and not the wikispam wave of the future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the indefinite block; we're too tolerant of the promotional use of Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 15:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block too, per above. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters at this point, but... me2. - Philippe | Talk 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot block review

I left an entry at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and the account was permanent blocked by bot. Is this correct and can the perm block review be checked (although I agree with the block) If I took the wrong action wrt adding at the username page pls advise of the correct procedure Kernel Saunters 13:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to this, where a helperbot removes your report after the account was blocked by WBJscribe. That's what happened; bot remove reports of users that have already been blocked. Leebo ^T/C 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Almost certainly a Vintagekits sock anyway. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ummm - almost certainly not, given the editing style. Vintagekits is indef'd right now and is unlikely to reply in their defence - Alison ☺ 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - that explains it Kernel Saunters 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

People also keep an eye on the block logs and if the user places an {{unblock|reason for unblock}} then it will categorise into CAT:RFU and eventually be reviewed by an administrator on whether it would be considered OK to unblock the account. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Strich3d reverts

Resolved

This user has continuously removed sourced and relevant information from Bulgarians and Macedonians (ethnic group). He has continued this pattern for months and has not used the talk page since May 18th this year. Mr. Neutron 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A related matter was reported on WP:AN/3RR and I have blocked 4 involved users for edit warring. --Tango 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks against me by User:Iwazaki numerous times

Violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:STALK

• 1 In user Talk page, diff 1 Offending sentence And finally please be noted that the editor involved in those article is a contributor to racist tamil web-sites..

• 2 When asked to clarify why he reverted my edits,diff 2offending sentence There are many reasons, including it has come from some one who writes to racist tamil web sites.You want to know who ?

• 3 In a mediation case,diff 3 Offending sentence If you have anything to put so, why not ?? How about also, making an category for wikipedians who also write for racist web-sites ? I may even be able to help you there

• 4 In Thandikulam massacre article following my edits, he reverts them and says diff 4 Offending sentence To the tamil nation/net/com/org/co.uk/ne.jp editor (caption) This is Wikipedia. Please bare (this)in you mind when you edit here.Thanks

• 5 In Expulsion of non resident Tamils from Colombo article his rationale for putting the Tottaly disputed tag is because,Dif 5 Offending sentence As long as tamil net contributors are involved this should remain as disputed.Not only that, this whole incident is used for pathetic propaganda, written in some pro tamil tone by a possible sock puppet. Inherently biased, and so on...obviously disputed as long as above two are involved with the article

is this acceptable for admins to accept ? Thanks Taprobanus 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Warned. If he continues to further imply that you are racist, notify me. Lexicon (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you actually read the comments but,

1. ...a contributor to racist tamil web-sites
2. ...some one who writes to racist tamil web sites
3. ...who also write for racist web-sites
4. Don't see what's wrong here. User:Taprobanus, previously called RaveenS (talk · contribs) has admitted he contributed to Tamilnation.org and Sangam.org [81], [82]
5. again, same as above

If you warned Iwazaki for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for calling http://www.tamilnation.org a racist website, then you'll have to start warning a lot more people, cos for starters I call tamilnation.org a racist Tamil website as well. Other than that, I don't see where he implied User:Taprobanus was a racist. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Although Iwazaki may not have explicitly called Taprobanus a "racist", his comments show a clear trend of questioning the editorial integrity of Taprobanus based on his off-wiki affiliations. I would not go so far as to say that his comments constitute outright attacks, but they are uncivil and certainly do go against the spirit of WP:NPA: comment on content, not the contributor. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning Iwaziki?! Its Taprobanus who has to be blocked for disruption. After wasting several hours of several editors who warned him not to use non-RS sources, he is continuing to do so. Editors cant keep wasting hundreds of hours just explaining/pleading with him not to use non-RS and partisan sources. Not to mention that all articles are infested with POV, UNDUE and WEASELing. He seems to think that it is alright to use non-RS sources and import politically loaded commentary as long as nobody objects! He's been here long enough to know better. And as for tamilnet, tamilcanadian etc., its not at all an exaggeration that they're racist. Just take a look at their mission statements. Sarvagnya 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:STALK in an ANI posting

From WP:ATTACK

Posting of personal information - Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

Based on the above clear statement isn't USER:Snowolfd4 violating that ? I need admins to rule on that. Thanks Taprobanus 01:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA, User:JamesRenner

See this edit to my userpage. He's apparently upset about an AfD nomination I did. Since he's upset with me, I think it would just escalate things to warn him about userpage vandalism - just looking for a little outside intervention. I have no dispute with him to take to WP:DR, just think the article should be deleted. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I can see why the user is angry. He's a published journalist and author and you're calling his work garbage, even though WP:COS and WP:SPS allow citing one's own published reliable sources. I think the best approach is trying to calm him down and explaining to him how to edit Wikipedia in a neutral way. Our policies DO NOT exclude him from editing, despite Videmus' claims. -Nard 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry - what claims? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is true you didn't write most of the material that has upset this editor, but the multiple cross-postings attacking his credibility is what I refer to here, here, here, and here. The user has come in good faith to write about a subject he knows about, since he has interviewed the relevant people and published about it, and he practically gets accused of yellow journalism and an all out attempt to run him off Wikipedia, despite the fact that our policies merely caution people writing from sources they themselves have written, not actually prohibit them from writing. You have called him a "single purpose account" and called into question his motives "nice conflict of interest" and have challenged his claim that he got permission to publish a picture that's on the cover of his book! He came to write an article on something he's an expert on. His views may violate some of our policies, but instead of enraging a good faith editor and attacking him, you should try engaging in dialogue. When I've done so he's been more than reasonable and willing to learn Wikipedia's policies. -Nard 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You do know that WP:EXPERT is not an accepted policy, right? And Renner seems to be relying on his own OR for his edits, nothing to back up his claims. Corvus cornix 23:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• User_talk:JamesRenner#Block - JR has been blocked for 24 hours by Golbez. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate protection of User talk:Anonimu

Resolved

 – protection shortened to 48 hours from 1 week

I am of the opinion that this page protection by User:ST47 was an extremely bad idea. The user removed two comments from his talk page. This is not abuse of his talk page. User:Sceptre has informed me that he believes the user is removing the comments because he previously had a banner on his talk page, saying "This user may delete comments made by ultra-nationalist editors, as well as blind supporters, on his talk page". I do not dispute this is probably the reason why Anonimu is removing the comments from his talk page. However, I this edit is not disruptive. He is removing comments from his talk page. His motives are irrelevant. It was a bad idea for ST47 to jump in and protect the page; given the speed with which he did it, I don't think he fully reviewed the situation. I think this page protection should be done immidiately, and the user should be allowed to remove whatever comments from his talk page as he sees fit. In the instance that the user actually disrupts his talk page, I would gladly reprotect it myself. --Deskana (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

His removal of the text was in effect a personal attack (calling me either a "nationalist" or "blind supporter"). Reverting to edits that generate personal attacks, especially when the user's been warned before for it, is, in my opinion, most definitely disruption. Will ^(talk) 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the comments were the subject of an edit war, and the edit warriors, including the user associated with the talk page, continued reverting immediately after an unprotection. It's the same theory as a stronger block against those who vandalize immediately off a block. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you block all the people edit warring, which implies that the remedy here has been unevently applied. Anonimu was not the only one edit warring, here. --Deskana (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the protection was inappropriate. Anonimu removing others' comments may have been rather rude but not disruptive at all IMO. Calling the removal of comments a personal attack is stretching it a bit. This may sound like a fine point but after all, Anonimu did not say "This user may delete only the comments made by ultra-nationalist editors, as well as blind supporters, on his talk page". If s/he said that, removing others' comments would have been a personal attack. - TwoOars 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But I did not find said banner. There was a banner saying "This user chooses not to listen to ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation.". - TwoOars 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I vehemently agree with Will and ST47, even though I was confused when I saw Anonimu's page protected. Although Deskana, none of us broke the three revert rule, and I purposely kept myself from doing so. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec x3) See also #User: and User talk:Anonimu. Springeragh, myself, and Digwuren (though I'm unsure about the last one) are friends of User:K. Lastochka, an editor he particularly doesn't like. Sounds a lot like I'm a "blind supporter", doesn't it? Will ^(talk) 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is rather interesting: he meets K. Lastochka and doesn't like her, so when her friends stand up to help her they become nationalists. Extremely interesting because the only nationalism I have is for Ireland, not Hungary or any Balkan states. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I get it, he doesn't like you and has stupid reasons for removing your messages. I still don't think protecting the page because he removed messages is a good idea. --Deskana (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on that conflict seems like a good idea. I added the userbox which said that the user chooses not to listen to nationalistic rethoric, and they called that a personal attack, too. That userbox is used by others, including an admin, User:Jmabel. Click Here to read what he had to say about this conflict. Furthermore, I don't see how one reserving his right to identify people as ultra-nationalistic and removing their comments, constitutes as a personal attack. The user was never warned, nor was he notified about any ANI discussions; and the admin who blocked him refuses to explain his actions other than calling it for a "personal attack." Other than that, he never said that he would only delete comments made by ultra-nationalists. He merely said that he MAY delete them, which means that he may not, but also that he may delete the comments of other people. To disallow him to remove the comments of other people from his talkpage is a severe abuse, but because he has a bad reputation, people can get away with it. And yes, I do believe that they gang up on him in an act of vengeance. PS. I identify myself, at times, as an ultra-nationalist and he removed some of my messages, too. Why is being an ultra-nationalist a personal attack? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the userbox on Jmabel's page - as an admin, he should really know about WP:USER. Also, calling people ultra-nationalist is a personal attack. Removing comments based upon that belief is effectively a personal attack as well. Will ^(talk) 20:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. There are many people and political parties that identify themselves as ultra-nationalistic. It is not a personal attack to call someone for being ultra-nationalistic, but like most of everything, it can be used as a personal attack. And I do think that people are allowed to remove comments from their talkpage based on anything--including their values and beliefs. The fact that the userbox exists and has existed for such a long time, is enough proof that what I say is true. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the userbox was deleted and substituted. It is a personal attack to call someone ultra-nationalistic, as its use, especially on Wikipedia, is akin to the word "nazi". You may identify yourself as one, but calling someone it is 99.999% of the time a personal attack. Will ^(talk) 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of the argument, let us presume that you are correct. There is, however, one more problem: that message did not direct itself against any specific person or group of people; therefore, even if it is deemed as being disruptive, it can never be a personal attack, because if the attack exists, it lacks the target. Secondly, many people are identified for being ultra-nationalists, even by administrators. As I have said: it can be counted as a personal attack, but calling someone an ultra-nationalist and providing good basis for the argument, is rarely deemed as a personal attack. Example: in many edits, admins say 'ultra-natioanlistic edits" (refering to the subject) and 'X is an ultra-nationalist'. In either case, the user has the right to remove any comments from his talkpage. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To Anonimu: I have to disagree with your last statement: While a few organizations call themselves "nationalistic", I know of no organization calling itself "ultra-nationalistic." In general "ultra-" is added by the political opponents, with the purpose of making the other feel bad. Disclaimer: I was not involved in this conflict, but if I recall well, some of my edits were reverted by Anonimu with "nationalistic edits" as the sole explanation. Dpotop 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It was I who wrote the message, not Anonimu; but I agree with you. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if the userbox in question constitutes personal attacks, the removal of comments by Anonimu from their own talk page does not constitute a personal attack. - TwoOars 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me where I go wrong here.

Person A says they'll remove comments on their talk page made by person type Y, when type Y is an obvious personal attack.

Person B posts a civil message on Person A's talk page.

Person A sees Person B as being type Y, and removes the post on this basis.

While it's not specifically expressed, it's a personal attack by implication. Will ^(talk) 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will tell you where you go wrong: Person A is allowed to say that they will remove comments made by Person Y; secondly, Person A is allowed, then, to remove those comments. Other than that, the userbox which you have removed from several users, including an admin (User:Jmabel, User:Maurice27, User:Tovarich1917, and User:User:MauritiusXXVII, is in my opinion, more abuse from your side. That userbox did not warn against those users deleting anything; it just advised that those users will not choose to "listen to ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation." That is their preference and they have the right to have it, just as I may say that I will choose not to listen to any kind of opera. It is not an attack against opera, or against those who listen to opera; it is just me expressing my preferences. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT. Read it. And no, person A is not allowed to remove the comments under that basis, as it's a personal attack by implication. Will ^(talk) 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The userbox says "This user chooses not to listen to ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation." That means the user chooses to ignore whatever rhetoric, not remove it. So I do not see how the removal of comments can be a personal attack. Person A sees Person B as being type Y, and removes the post on this basis. - Person A never mentioned why they removed the comments, so there is no way to tell that they removed it on this basis. I feel the userbox issue is confusing this issue. I do consider the userbox inappropriate. But I still can not understand how this can be connected to the removal of comments. - TwoOars 21:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-iterating what Springeragh said - I'm a friend of an editor he doesn't like. It doesn't take much conjecture to realise that's the reason he's removing them. Removal for that reason is forbidden under WP:NPA. Will ^(talk) 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just to clarify, I'm talking about the banner that was on his page, not the userbox. Will ^(talk) 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Will you speak about the userbox? You have removed it from the userpage of several users without offering them any kind of explanation. And yes, Person A is allowed to remove comments which he sees as "ultra-nationalistic rhetoric." --Thus Spake Anittas 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, removal of comments for that reason is a personal attack. Read WP:NPA, under what is never acceptable:

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views.

The userbox said nothing about removing anything. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dismissing. Not removing. And you're trying to derail this onto the userbox. We're talking about the banner. Will ^(talk) 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this thread was about admin User:ST47 protecting the talkpage because you reverted the userbox: so this discussion is very much about the userbox. And the userbox said that the user will choose not to listen to ultra-nationalistic comments. You removed that userbox; and then you put back some of the comments that Anonimu had removed from his talkpage, saying that removing any comments constitute a personal attack because his disclaimer was a personal attack; however, that disclaimer was not there anymore, at the time when he removed the comments. My questions are: why did you remove the userbox from so many users; and why did you not allow him to remove comments from his talkpage, when there was no longer a disclaimer saying that he may remove ultra-nationalistic comments? --Thus Spake Anittas 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, ST47 protected it because Anonimu was disruptively removing comments because I'm a "blind supporter", the userbox was inappropriate and polemic content, and even if there's no banner, the intent is clear. Will ^(talk) 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will ask ST47 if that is the reason why they protected the page. WP:UP#NOT is not official policy. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So? The only difference between policy and guidelines is that you must follow policy, while you should follow guidelines. People have been banned under WP:HARASS (a guideline) before. Will ^(talk) 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I'm not under any obligation to explain anything. The userbox was polemical, and polemical statements are prohibited in userspace. Will ^(talk) 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you do need to explain things that you decide to remove from user pages and user talkpages. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, saw the banner now. It is definitely unacceptable, but I don't particularly like the I'm a friend of an editor he doesn't like. It doesn't take much conjecture to realise reasoning. When we start acting on conjectures, things become very subjective, and it is a slippery slope. And not liking someone is not a crime, nor is it a personal attack. While I do understand your position, I do not agree with it. But I am not particularly bothered whether the page is protected or not. :) - TwoOars 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, not liking people is okay, but acting on that on-wiki isn't. I'm perfectly allowed to think that Jimbo is an idiot (no offense, I actually don't), but once I start calling him that, it's crossing the line. Will ^(talk) 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(<--unindent) But there is a difference! Anonimu didn't actually say anything to you. And I too agree that acting on the dislike is not Ok. It is rude. But it does not warrant a page protection either. And since you think the whole thing is personal attack, a relevant passage from WP:NPA says On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited. Of course, here it is not the removal of text, but the reinstatement and page protection by you and others. Read the related ArbCom ruling too, linked there. - TwoOars 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If the user has been warned and blocked for doing it, and he continues doing it, take away his toys. Will ^(talk) 22:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with everything said by Thus Spake Anittas. --Maurice27 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree to, the Wikipedia Thought Police need to find something better to do. --MichaelLinnear 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I was asked on my talk page, I'll clarify my position. There were three factors, if you will, that contributed to the protection. First, the existence of edit warring, reverting back and forth over the comments, second, the fact that it began immediately after the page was unprotected, and third, the incivility (cleaned of comments from rowikipedians(and my replies, for consistency) & other shit) and apparent WP:OWNing of the page (restoring my right). After a previous protection and due in part to the edit summaries, it was clear that the owner, Anonimu, had no intention of discontinuing. Protection policy states that:

Temporary full protections are used for:

• Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war.

A previous 24 hour protection had no effect, perhaps protecting for one week was slightly excessive. I'll reset it to 48 hours from the time of protection. --ST47Talk·Desk 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently related: User:Sceptre's edit to User:Jmabel's user page

While we are at it, User:Sceptre (Will) has taken it upon himself, with no discussion with me (and presumably as part of this incident) to edit my user page. I will point out that (1) the pseudo-user-box made no threats to anyone: it simply said that there are things ["ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation"] I have no interest in listening to and (2) its placement as a "chauvin-0" language box after my many real language boxes was clearly a joke on my part. Is there now a ban on humor?

I've been relatively disengaged from Wikipedia this last 7 months, and I have not been closely tracking changes in rules. If such humor on one's own user page is now "illegal", so be it, Wikipedia can turn itself into a painfully self-serious, unwelcoming, pedantic enterprise, and I will be less likely ever to return to the sort of active participation that I gave it for many years. If the content on my page did not violate any rules, I ask that his edit be undone. In either case, I will not edit war over it, and I hope that if someone reverts Spectre's change he will then have the good grace to leave my user page alone. - Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Will apparently considers this content to have constituted an unacceptable polemic. To put it bluntly, I think that claim is absurd. - Jmabel | Talk 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't use the word "ultra-nationalistic" then. Humour can be indistinguishable from malice on a computer screen. Will ^(talk) 23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Will, I was not accusing any individual of ultra-nationalism. Again, you appear to be reasserting the same claim over and over. At least as many people have spoken up here to disagree with your interpretation as to agree with it. I think you might at least consider the possibility that you are interpreting the rules poorly.

Just while we are at it, it seems remarkable to me that this small thing on my user page should raise your ire when user pages such as this (see his subpages, too) have long been tolerated? (By the way, I notice now that page contains a userbox for something called the "Counter-Propaganda Unit". How is that even arguably less contentious than what you object to on my user page?) And don't get me wrong: I think what Morton has on his user page should be tolerated, though not embraced. I believe that people should be allowed a pretty wide latitude to judge what is appropriate content on their own user page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This got me looking around for an example of something on a user page that I would actually object to. Here's something that at least comes close: "Any criticism harkens the threat of another genocide, and all non-Jewish humans are divided into two halves: the obsequious pro-Jews who slavishly shower praise on the tribe, and the 'Nazis', ranging from everyone who ever utters one peep of criticism of the Jews to those who want to finish Hitler's work." (From the user page of User:Zionists United.) Myself, I'd leave it there and let someone damage his or her own credibility by putting such things on his or her user page. But I think that this was rather more what someone had in mind by objecting to polemics on user pages. Again, I think that the application of this rule to my user page constitutes, at best, an excess of zeal and extremely uneven enforcement, and I would really appreciate comment from someone other than the person who made the edit. - Jmabel | Talk 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but it looks like User:Sceptre is being a dumb-ass little shit. Going around vandalising other user's userpages over something as trivial as that userbox is a clear sign of way too much free time, and a highly misplaced sense of proportion. User:Sceptre probably ought not be editing Wikipedia - he doesn't have the minimal level of clue required. Argyriou (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jmabel's user page looks fine to me. I feel the same, SqueakBox 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• My chauvin-0 box is edited to say, "This user chooses not to listen to ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation. The same goes for ultra-religiosity, scientism and, for that matter, obnoxious school spirit." This is a simple statement of preference, not a polemic. It says others may play these games, but I'm not participating. I don't deal in polemics. Therefore, quite naturally, I object to someone editing my user page to suit his own perception of "polemic." --Halcatalyst 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote User:K. Lastochka - "There is nothing offensive or attacking in that userbox--it might as well have said 'this user chooses not to listen to Italian opera." It's an opinion, not a polemic'. Enough already of people imposing pushy opinions on other people, good judgement, a little wisdom, and a sense of humor, is REQUIRED. Modernist 04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As of this writing, my user page content has been restored. I am willing to consider this matter resolved, if Will is willing to let this stand. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Julio Lugo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

Can an administrator take a look at Julio Lugo. Over the last few days, two IP users (see below) repeatedly added irrelevant content (1 and 2 are examples) to the page. When I saw this, I requested that the page be S-Protected (it was), and an admin removed the content the IP addresses added.

If the problem had ended there, I wouldn't bring this up. Today, the users turned to the talk page and one of them copied the text of the article to the talk page (presumably so he could rewrite with the removed content included) 3.

We also have two new users (see below) who have both asked that the information be included in the article. And a third IP address forged a signature on the talk page 4.

The Users in in question are:

• 24.250.24.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) the one who forged the signature
• 12.27.8.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) one of the two who added the content
• 209.31.140.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) one of the two who added the content
• Real Sox Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) One of the two new users
• Realest Red Sox Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The other new user

Pats Sox Princess 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the whole little troll fest (48h for the IPs, indef for the socks). If it persists, we can protect the talk page as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was getting a little frazzled dealing with all of them Pats Sox Princess 21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock of IPs used by banned User:JJonathan

Hi. Could someone please put a long-term block on the 172.1xx.xxx.xxx range? User:JJonathan (WP:LTA#JJonathan) is now using IPs in this range to continually add false information and sneaky vandalism to his favourite target articles. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JJonathan for the extent of the problem - the vast majority of these 172.1* addresses have been used by him in the past couple of weeks, since his other primary IPs were blocked long-term. He ceases editing with a certain address once he is discovered and reverted, then changes IP and resumes again a few hours later. This is now becoming a chronic, daily problem. Thanks very much. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do my eyes deceive me or would that cover some 6.5 million IP addresses?! Unlikely at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) That IP range is both huge and very, very shared. I've usually thought of that AOL block as 172.0.0.0/8, but WHOIS shows it as 172.128.0.0/10 -- either way, that's well over four million IP addresses, and it's AOL, to boot. If we haven't already sent a few, an ISP abuse report is probably in order. If that fails, massive semi-protection sprees will probably be less damaging than locking out several hundred potential contributors (including several long-time and very productive users). Bit of a Catch-22, in that regard. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay - I didn't realize. Thanks. I guess I'll have to get started on writing an ISP report sometime - what a headache. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, MediaWiki will not allow the admin to block a bigger range than a /12. I'm not particularly eager to check that, though. Shadow1 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw some documentation page that said /23, but I'm not sure. -Amarkov moo! 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has a few /16 proxy blocks on the books. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best that AOL gets softblocks on all dynamic IPs. Too long has AOL watched my sister been a vandal's haven. (And apologies for the LOTR links) Will ^(talk) 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I know from personal experience that AOL are a nightmare to deal with when it comes to abuse from their users. They didn't even take action against a nut-case I had the misfortune to encounter who was using their service to post other people's full home addresses and telephone numbers on a public forum and make threats of physical violence. So, in all honesty (be as cynical as you wish), do you think it will be just be a complete waste of everyone's time and effort to compile the necessary and report someone for *adding false info to an encyclopaedia*? I can't imagine them even glancing at the email twice... :( --Kurt Shaped Box 04:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Thebiggestwwefan

Resolved

I don't mind being named in people's user pages, but I prefer something a bit more complimentary. After replying to the above user on the talk page of Ohio Valley Wrestling, wherein I pointed out the talk page was not a forum, he went on a crusade against me, taking out a random talk page comment twice, then blanking my user page and despite warnings from two other editors and an attempt by another to get him to remove my name he has decided to keep my name on his page.

I haven't personally replied to him, other than on my own talk page, and I haven't posted on his user page since adding the warnings about the removal of talk page comments. I don't want to involve other editors (User:Jrphayes acted off his own back, although I did thank him for trying to get through) but I would like an admin to look at the events and advise what needs to be done, ideally I would prefer my name off this user's talk page. I am certainly not unique in trying to get this user to use the talk pages correctly, although he obviously feels that I am somehow persecuting him. Darrenhusted 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it and told him not to replace it. 86.7.163.83 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think that may not be enough. Darrenhusted 23:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor's edits have been solely forum-like posts on talk pages or personal attacks. I've given him/her a final warning, and will block the account unless he/she decides to make useful contributions to the encyclopedia. -- Merope 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked indef. This editor is obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 02:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

I feel I am being harassed by ILike2BeAnonymous since he recently stated " It IS a park that allows dogs off-leash; THAT'S WHAT YOUR REFERENCE SAYS. Why are you so god-damned STUBBORN? " Here, after I made this contribution. This user and I in addition to many other people as is evident by the tone and arguements on his talk pages and the Richmond, California talk pages have had many run ins up to this point. But his use of extremely uncivil language which was totally unprovoked is making me feel badly. He is also shouting by using all caps, and refering to me negatively in an edit summary. He has now begun an edit war as he has also reverted another editor's cleanup of my original addition which may be seen here.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) I think he should be blocked for his threats.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He also called my attempts to dialogue arguements as "mini shit storms" here^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that this excuses anything, but why are you guys even arguing about the difference between "allows dogs off leash" and "leash free"? -Amarkov moo! 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, he immediatly alters any edit i make to the Richmond article and i felt his edit in this case didn't make much sense, another editor then altered the text and it made even more sense and i agreed with that, IL2BA then reverted that edit too. I am discussing the issue to avoid another painful edit war which if you flip through the history of Richmond, California are very destructive and time wasting.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You've come here because you want him blocked for making threats but you haven't provided any evidence of him making threats. Please provide links to him actually making a threat. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about his intimidating and threatening languge. Whatever you call it, I believe if you make comments such as calling someone "godamn stubborn"hereand calling my discussion "mini shit storms"here does constitue an insult/insulting language, if its okay to talk to people like this, please tell me, but otherwise he should be blocked.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely incivil, yes, but not necessarily personal attacks. And arguing about a "leash free" park and a park that allows dogs to be "off leash" is incredibly lame. —Kurykh 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that Cholga changes that ridiculous signature of hers it makes a mess of the page --Hayden5650 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What's so ridiculous about it, does it bother you? Would you be so kind to please explain, funny i noticed it is a bit long.

IL2BA also called my edits mini shit storms here (this is a separate offense and duplicate of the Richmond talk page)see it here

So calling me "godamn stubborn" is not a personal attack and it's okay to say that to people on wikipedia?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention to repeat what I clearly stated above. —Kurykh 04:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Is this an acceptable edit summary? SqueakBox 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[83] <------- how about that one? accusations of trying to harm a family I don't know. Fighting for Justice 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so, FfJ has reverted 4 times, I have only reverted 3 times. Yes it is acceptable to say that categorising a non public figure as a rape victim is unacceptable and distressing to the victim's family while giving graphic details of some nut pedophile's actions is not acceptable, SqueakBox 00:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Squeakbox, have you read WP:POINT? You should probably limit your action in this area to the "Rape Victim" CfD, your actions across the wiki are becoming disruptive (just my opinion). Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts don't stop being facts because they might "distress" somebody. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If the article is so bad, then check it meets WP:BIO. If not, including it in its proper category is hardly distressing to the family. I'd say getting raped was the distressing part, not the damn wikipedia category. --Hayden5650 00:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENC, I can't believe that the attitude of some editors here, is to degrade the information within the article just in case the deceased' family might not want it there. I was actually quite surprised that you would chose to delete what looks to be a very notable murder victim, Leslie Mahaffy, and yet keep an utterly inconsequential half-hour radio program on Radio 4, The Wikipedia Story. It should be about whether a subject is notable and encyclopedic, not whether we can crowbar in a BLP "concern". And no, they're not the best of edit summaries, but he does have a point. And you know when you're arguing over how many reverts you made, it's not good on both sides. - hahnchen 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia story does no harm but outing rape victims does, SqueakBox 01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks from his contribs as if SqueakBox may be wikistalking Fighting for Justice. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like he does. I've had all these crime victim articles on my watchlist for the past 2 years. I wrote a few of them myself. I would never have encountered SqueakBox had he not removed the rape victim category. I felt compelled to give that graphic description, because I can't believe SqueakBox has the audacity to claim he's no rape victim after everything the child went through. I think it's more insulting to the victim's family to omit the category then to remove it. Furthermore, the victim family saw the very pictures of this crime. Just the visuals must have been way worse then my words. In my opinion the victims family must be a lot stronger then SqueakBox is willing to give them. Fighting for Justice 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Give those descriptions agin and you wwill be blocked, as promised by admins, SqueakBox 01:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I say I was going to give one again? No I did not. It was one administrator not administrators, so there's no need for the plural form of the word. Fighting for Justice 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How did you conclude that, Videmuus? I was looking at the rape victims cat not FfJ's contribs. That accusation is out of order, and yeah FfJ is right that we met re the rape victims cat, which is completely unacceptable given we are writing an encycloipedia and nothing else. Facts being facts does not justify us outing rape victims and there is certainly policy that says we should, SqueakBox 01:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to be your near unilateral attempted depopulation of the category while it's still undergoing discussion at CfD. (Note I haven't commented there.) The category has existed this long, can't you wait another few days for the consensus/decision rather than causing disruption? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cfd does not affect our policies and to claim we must ignore BLP, verification and other policies because of a Cfd is absolutly contrary to the wikipedia spirit, and to claim my action is unilateral is incorrect, SqueakBox 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Samantha Runnion's categorization as a rape victim falls under WP:BLP? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Same for Mia Zapata, who happens to be dead. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tragically not but somebody murdering her doesnt mean we stop protecting her reputaion and she is not a public figure, please read the rape victim cat page and talk page where we have agreed that only public figures nshoudl eb included. I dont beleieve weither of you really mean that because some nasty murders somebody that we shopuldnt take that person and their family seriously, SqueakBox 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If Mia Zapata is notable enough to have an article, she can be classified appropriately. If you don't find her notable, then submit the article to Afd. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll also add that "well known" is an un-wiki requirement for category placement -- if a subject is notable enough to have an article, they are well-known enough to use any appropriate Wikipedia classification. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No there is no agreement yet. That's false. There is 4 or 5 comments about it and most of them are from you Squeakbox. I think it's important to also note that Samantha's mother, Erin Runnion, has a very public foundation in her child's memory. you might want to check it out So Squeakbox you are wrong that her family doesn't want her name and story out in the public. Fighting for Justice 02:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also agree that it seems like SqeakBox is trying to discredit and harass FFJ. He even filed a RFC about his username, which was closed very quickly because no one thought there was a violation. As for the category, how does categorizing someone as a rape vicitm cause any more distress when it will invariably say they were raped in the article? i ^{(said) (did)} 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually that wasnt my suggestion, see above. Fighting for justice, with its implication that the user is in the right, isnt a POV name? Any stalking claims re me are well out of line as FfJ doesnt own the rape cat or the articles in it. All I an trying to do is impose policy, if you dont likre our policies you should try and change thenm but to create policies that out victims isnt going to get very far, IMO, SqueakBox 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

POV doesnt appy to usernames...? He doesn't your correct, but neither do you. And what policy are you imposing? The one that says we cant out rape vicitims by putting them in a category? Well, the article says they've been raped so the only thing that would be any more outing would to put a huge notice on the top of the article that says THIS PERSON HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF RAPE in red flashing letters. As said below, most people don't think the cat violates policies. i ^{(said) (did)} 03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to impose your view of policy. Given how the Rape Victims CfD is going, it would seem that your actions are hardly supported by consensus. Resolute 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh if the community has no problem with his name nor do I, and I made very clear I was looking for him to change his name not be blocked. You can taccuse me of having a PIOV name and the use box controversy indicates your claim that POV is only for main space isnt backed up by reality. Having a list of rape victims is not a good idea and that only happens in the cat, hence my description of this cat as outing rape victims. IMO there is no consensus either way on the cfd but anyway perople's opinions dont pre-empt policy. We arent here to stalk people as most of the responsible admins well realise. Nobody has answered Slim's question on this page as to how this cat improves this encylopedia, I guess criticising me takes less effort than addressing the real iisues, eh? SqueakBox 03:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, This page in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Nothing about usernames. The userbox war wasn't really about POV is was about it being polemic. And why is having a list of rape vicitms not a good idea? As for the CfD, I think there's consensus, but I'm not the closing admin. And why did you pick out SlimVirgin's question? i ^{(said) (did)} 03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox you know perfectly well that my user name wasn't a problem. Because you have looked at my block log and you know only administrators can block people. Therefore, you know this name wasn't a problem. You reported me because you dislike the fact I endorse a category you hate. Fighting for Justice 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Iwas following Swat's suggestion, nothing more, see the thread above with my name on it, SqueakBox 04:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose everyone should know this battle has moved to the 3RR noticeboard, where SqueakBox was not blocked but the argument continues. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That isnt so actually, see this, please feel free to leave me a message if you have anything to say to me re this issue, SqueakBox 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and deletion of my contributions.

I have recently began editing on the page Straight pride. I have discovered major problems with references that are both spam links as well as inappropriately sourcing the wrong person or site in what looks to be an attempt to link the "Straight Pride Wear" retail site which sells t-shirts as an official web page for a movement. The site itself does not actually state that it is "Official". There appears also to be some very questionable use of references in the article and in at least one case the reference simply does not exist.

As a member of the LGBT Studies project I have listed this article for improvement to elevate it's ratings but all attempts to edit the article have been reverted or edited by the user Cheeser1. Who continues to tell me a consensus must be formed before I can make any changes to the article or correct references or add tags. This may or may not be an edit war, but I know I have a right to edit the page. I added a section that had no source as a test and it was removed by the member, but when I did the same thing it was reverted and I was told I could not make changes without discussion first. This has continued by the single member and I am beginning to feel that this page may need to just be submitted for deletion a second time. If it stays as it is, it is merely a propaganda page with a great deal of OR with false claims and links to a retail establishment.--Amadscientist 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "Straight pride" even a notable article topic? Looks like the solution is simply to delete the article. <<-armon->> 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion in January of 2006. It was kept. Now this single user is reverting every ones edits. I looked back a ways in history and it does appear that he has been doing this a great deal. While attempting to leave a message on his talk page to explain myself I noticed that he has been banned before for something similar. I am very distrusting of the article at this point and may just nominate it for deletion again if it can be done.--Amadscientist 04:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that there are but a few options for this page. Either Cheeser1 should banned again or blocked from further edits to the page or....I have added the tag for speedy deletion due to the huge amount of references to "Straight Pride Wear" also known as "Straight Pride.com". Either this page has been purposely made into an advertisement for the site to sell T-shirts or to simple advertise this site as a social political website. I noticed that even small edits that try to make the references more direct (substituting "some people" with the actual organization that made the claim was edited back by Cheeser1. I am of the opinion now that the page should just be deleted.--Amadscientist 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by admin Alkivar

After I saw this edit summary by Alkivar, I left a mild note on his talk page, at which point I was told to "step off". When I complained, I was informed that I am not an administrator, and should not involve myself in his affairs until I am an administrator. Nice. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have had very little interaction with Alkivar, but what I did encounter firsthand made a very negative impression. I conferred with two other administrators at the time but otherwise remained quiet because I hoped that was a single incident out of character. Are there others who have encountered the same imperious tone that shuts down reasoned discussion? Durova^Charge! 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The only interactions I've had with Alkivar always left me with the impression he thinks of himself as an administrator first, and an editor second. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the tone pointed out by Videmus Omnia seems fairly par for the course. I'll second the comment by Quadell (talk · contribs), and suggest a little civility. Beyond that, nothing I'd question.- auburnpilot talk 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

HistoricDST

I have been editing the article Delta Sigma Theta in order to get the article to quality standards. HistoricDST is a member of Delta Sigma Theta and has been editing the article as well in order to match it to the orgnaization's website and has not made any effort to improve the article's content. In addition, I, as well as other people, has warned her of this conflict of interest. In my opinion, HistoricDST is in violation of WP:COI and is owning the article. Now, I have given up in improving the article because she is "policing my edits". Please see this regarding problems in content, this as a problem with content, this where she "accused me of being a member of another organization" and where she says that I am a member, when I am not and the argument which started it all. I just need a third opinion on this. I am not trying to bite the editor, but she is not understanding the whole concept of Wikipedia. All imput would be helpful. Thanks. Miranda 04:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Administators,

I need assistance on deleting my account. Thanks in advance. HistoricDST 05:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Place {{subst:speedy|User requested}} on the top of your user page and talk page. If you do ever decide to create another account, reading the welcoming message is crucial in order to understand core guidelines of the site. Thanks and best wishes. Miranda 05:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)