Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 206.222.28.93 (talk) at 08:01, 13 November 2007 (serious question, deserves an answer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)


    Current issues

    Privatemusings

    Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now pitching into Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an incredibly complex debate, which is also a minefield (I have seen the OTRS tickets and discussed this one at length with Jimbo and Fred Bauder). This had gone quiet for a while, but Privatemusings seems to have reignited it (or at least played a part in that). Giovanni di Stefano is the lawyer of an individual whose article Privatemusings' main account edited. At what point does a "legitimate alternate account" become a controversy-evading "bad hand" sockpuppet, I wonder? It seems to me that WP:SOCK is being systematically gamed by a small number of people in order to create drama and ignite controversy. I remind people that the main account here is not a very long-standing contributor, is not traceable to real-world identity, so seems to me to have no credible reason to be using an alternate account to cause friction on one of our most problematic WP:BLP articles. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy, he's editing Talk:Giovanni di Stefano, not Giovanni di Stefano, and is editing on the talk page in a civil and collaborative manner, working with users including Fred Bauder. Describing it as "pitching in" is a little unfair - and I don't see any friction being caused. Is this "main account" actually still editing? I note PM says it is not (which would suggest it is no longer a "main" account). If not, WP:SOCK doesn't apply. Has PM's other account ever edited Giovanni di Stefano (not another aticle tangentially connected)? As an aside, why did you delete Privatemusing's enjoinder to try and resolve things between the two of you? ([1]) Neil ☎ 09:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, would you be willing to email me the name of PM's main account and the articles that you mention here? Or I will try and be on IRC from work but I'm rather busy. Thatcher131 12:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The sock puppetry rules no longer apply, unless you are implying that the original account has NOT stopped editing as claimed. I don't think you are the best person to deal with this, because he has made a good faith attempt to patch things up and you ignored that. ViridaeTalk 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you say. But that is falling for the abusers' frequent trick of claiming that anybody who comes along and shows an interest is "involved" and therefore can't offer an opinion. Actually the overlap between PM's editing and mine is extremely limited, plus (and this is the important bit) such interaction as we have had is the result of attempts to address his problematic behaviour. To say that further discussion of his problematic behaviour is now embargoed because I have started to look at his problematic behaviour is a line of reasoning that will soon leave us unable to deal with any problem at all. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that his last contribution to the talk page was more than 48 hours before Guy popped up to mention it. At least this time Guy isn't visibly a party to the specific dispute, which is about all that can be said in favor of this report. Time to bury the hatchet Guy. GRBerry 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So far as I know, the claims that 'Privatemusings is using multiple accounts to edit the same topic' are based on a single brief comment about the subject of 'BADSITES' (prior to creation of the Privatemusings account) and perhaps a handful of other edits on pages within the vast spectrum of the whole controversy. Unless there is some other account that I do not know about or I am overlooking some connection, there has been no 'vote stacking', nothing which can reasonably be described as 'use of multiple accounts to give the appearance of more widespread support than a view has', et cetera. In short, nothing remotely actionable or notably wrong. That would make some of the statements which have been given about this 'abuse' grossly misleading at best... so maybe there IS some other account which has been involved. I dunno.
    As to, "I have no interest in resolving things". Therein lies the problem Guy. You made no effort to resolve it before going directly to an indefinite block. You didn't change your position even after he agreed not to do the thing you ostensibly blocked him for. You "have no interest in resolving things". You aren't even trying to settle the matter peaceably. You just want to get rid of the guy you don't like. And that, rightly, has no part in our dispute resolution procedures. --CBD 15:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Addenda: Privatemusings' other account has edited the page of one of Giovanni di Stefano's clients (unrelated to the 'BADSITES' issue). However, that's a bit like saying that editing O. J. Simpson and Johnny Cochran with different accounts is 'abusive sockpuppetry'. I see no problem with either account's edits to either page in this case... nor any disruption or problem if they had all been made by one account or each edit individually made under a different name. --CBD 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    CBD, the way we "resolve" abusive sockpuppetry is with the banhammer, especially when concerns had previously been expressed and discussed about the account straying towards the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Before doing anything I discussed the matter with a very small number of people I trust - necessarily small because to do so meant revealing the main account, which is not my normal practice at all. All of them expressed the opinion that this was unacceptable use of an alternate account. That group did include an active member of the Arbitration Committee. The fact that Wikipedia Review are now claiming to have played some part in this rather reinforces my impression that this is someone who is here for the drama, not the encyclopaedia. I am disappointed (actually disgusted, but there you go) that people are representing this as some kind of personal vendetta on my part, or a personal problem between me and this editor. Do you folks really think I have nothing better to do? Shame on you. This is someone who freely admitted that they had registered an alternate account to engage in a controversial debate (just about acceptable) but then stepped outside those bounds to engage in controversial actions in respect of content; I know their previous accounts, this is absolutely not a long-standing respected editor with a history of brilliant contributions who wants to keep that unsullied. All the accounts have a chequered history, all have edited controversial articles, all have edited controversially to some extent. To read the comments here you'd hardly credit that blocking this account was supported at the time and since by a goodly number of respected admins, or that Matthew Brown, FloNight, Thatcher and Lar to name but four have all opined that this behaviour was unacceptable. You'd think this was an editor with years of spotless history to protect, or a tangible link to real-world identity. Not so. The editor had no good reason to register an alternate account in the first place, and their behaviour since has strayed outside of the bounds he apparently set himself, and the bounds of what I consider acceptable from any alternate account. In case people hadn't realised, there is a concerted campaign under way to divide, manipulate and hopefully destroy the Wikipedia administrator community, in order to facilitate abuse by a group of banned editors. Looks like they are doing very well indeed. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, having been told the two prior accounts he used, I really think we are paying this person far too much attention. I never knew the first account, but I thought the second account was a bit of a pest, so this isn't really a case of a good editor hiding his disruptive edits. It's a case of a low-level pest being a low-level pest on two accounts. His interests certainly coincide with those of a number of Wikipedia Review editors who would not be welcome here, and he has a tendency to want to prolong discussion of internal dramas with the argument, "if we don't discuss it, unnamed others will think we are covering it up." And the resolution (or lack thereof) is now compounded because we are kindly not discussing the prior account, which makes it easier for people who argue "don't ban without an ironclad case" to sway the discussion. And, to be honest, if we are going to start banning low-level pests, he would not be at the top of my list. I will be content as long as Privatemusings keeps his promise to abandon his old accounts and stick to Privatemusings--i.e., a voluntary restriction to one account rather than a restriction enforced by a block (at least until he does something overtly bannable). Thatcher131 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, exactly that. One account: fine, behaviour not bannable (and remember I said I'd quietly undo autoblocks). Two accounts? Thank you, but no. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You actually indicated first that I should email you if I wanted the autoblocks undone, then you indicated that your enabling of the autoblocks had been a mistake on your part - just to clarify. Privatemusings 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, you first indefinitely blocked in the context of the WP:BADSITES controversy, a controversy in which you are very clearly an involved party. Less than 48 hours after the ArbComm explicitly ruled that that was rejected and not policy, there you were with a very long screed asking them to overturn themselves and say that it was already policy. That is the context in which you are clearly in a dispute with this user. All of your references to Wikipedia Review make it clear to me that you are continuing to act as a party in that dispute, not as an uninvoled admin. Bringing up this particular claim more than 48 hours after the last related edit, refusing to attempt dispute resolution, and spinning the facts to make the situation look far worse than it really is is exactly the behaviour that we expect to see from users whose conduct is problematic in a dispute. It is very clear to me that Guy needs to bury the hatchet and step away. He doesn't even recognize that he is in a dispute and is himself part of the problem. Let Thatcher, or someone else who isn't a party to the WP:BADSITES controversy, deal with this. GRBerry 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I blocked him because having told me who he is and why he set the account up (to contribute to meta debate) he then stared making controversial content edits. Everybody who knows the other account, including three arbitrators and a couple of admins, has agreed this was an inappropriate use of an alternate account. I did not block the main account and offered to undo any autoblocks quietly to preserve the anonymity. The BADSITES debate and arbitration case is, after all, over. But do feel free to carry on pretending that I'm the problem if it helps you to relax. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't indicate to you that PM was intended to comment about 'meta debate' (a horribly vague notion) - I said "I decided when getting more involved in the external link issues ('badsites' etc.) to create a sock, Privatemusings, for the reasons stated on the PM user page". Please don't ascribe your misunderstandings to me, it's annoying. Privatemusings 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well that is sorted. He has restricted himself to one account now - no more problems. ViridaeTalk 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The sock issue is one problem. Another problem, with this and some other accouts, comes when folks participate in Wikipedia only to engage in disputes. This isn't a debating society. When an editor doesn't make any productive edits and instead only participates in arguments it calls into question whether that account is really contributing. However that matter may need to be resolved another time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So Guy has a problem with PM editing an article which has connections with another article that has allegedly been edited by another account which is/was also PM, but is then advised that PM has been contributing to the talkpage of the article - which isn't editing the mainspace - so Will Beback now has a problem that PM doesn't edit articles, but only contributes in the discussions side of stuff (which isn't editing, which is what people are supposed to do - when not complaining about PrivateMusings...)? Have I got that straight? LessHeard vanU 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no, not exactly - I had a problem with the fact that PM was using one account to engage in controversy and another for "clean" edits, except the other account also engaged in controversy and didn't have that many edits anyway, plus he'd already switched accounts once before, and that account didn't have many edits but also had a share of controversy. So I ran it past some people I trust, including members of the arbitration committee, and everyone I've spoken to who knows the identities of the accounts agrees that this was inappropriate use of multiple account, and that there was no credible reason for this particular editor to need an alternate account anyway, and the account was starting along what looked like a familiar path of controversial editing, so I stopped that account, advised him I'd quietly undo any autoblocks, so he could get quietly on with his Wikilife. But of course this person isn't here to get quietly on with his Wikilife. He's here for the drama. And he's probably by now getting advice from others on how best to get it. And the best way seems to be to imply that because PM was opposed to BADSITES, therefore all those who consider his behaviour problematic are in favour of BADSIIES, and BADSITES is bad, therefore those who consider PM's behaviour problematic are bad. Or something. I really don't understand the fuss, myself, because generally we block without hesitation when people register alternate accounts just for trolling. Thanks for taking an interest, though. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting a little confused here now, because you seem to be saying that at first there seemed to be a case of good hand, bad hand which appears to be a conflation of what WP:SOCK allows - the use of an alternative in areas which the original username does not want to have their prior existence/history involved - which then became somewhat muddied? So, which is wrong?. As far as I am aware, the actions that are forbidden in WP:SOCK is for both (or all) different accounts is to represent themselves as different individuals in order to subvert a discussion - especially where one of the other identities is also participating - by making it appear that a viewpoint has more adherents than is the case, or to circumvent 3RR on reverting, or the like. I do not see any suggestion that this has happened. Also, I am pretty certain that there is no WP policy in getting involved in controversial subjects/articles/discussions (see my essay) as being forbidden or even discouraged.
    "He's probably getting advice how to get it" re drama; it appears that you are uncertain that this is indeed happening, so this is a subjective judgement, as indeed is the notion of drama. It is not good faith to assume any motivation other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia for any action, unless you have evidence to the contrary. As well as assuming AGF, WP:NPA makes it clear that any (supposed) affiliation is not grounds on which to judge an editors contributions. Which brings us to the thorny question of BADSITES and ArbCom; where it was recognised that (outside of two specific named sites) there was the possibility that discussion arising from WP critical sites informing discussion at WP was not grounds for such discussion to be disregarded - or those who may seem to reflect some views found in such places. I am aware that you vehemently opposed those findings, and have found reason (which I have remarked in other discussions) to continue to taint the actions or the purported views of WP editors with that of one of those sites. From that I might infer that you are continuing to troll for the suppression of reference to or acknowledgement of Wikipedia Review despite the ArbCom decision, except that AGF requires that I simply believe that your actions and comments are only guided by your belief in what is best for WP - which I of course do. Which brings us to "trolling", an adjective which appears to be the mirror of "sticking to ones principles"; one of which alludes to poor behavior and the other to an admirable personal trait - a subjective consideration, often reflecting a bias.
    To return to my original comment, which was originally in response to Will Beback, do you not find it strange that one person should criticise an editor for making edits to an article while another criticises the same editor for not contributing to article space a few paragraphs later? Surely you both cannot be right? LessHeard vanU 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LessHeard vanU misunderatands my concern. It isn't with participating in discussions - it's with participating in one dispute after another without making any contributions to the encyclopedia. While it may be fun to debate issues, that's not the point of this project. We're here to write a reference work. There are a bunch of accounts that seem more devoted to stoking Wiki-dramas then to getting work done. At the extreme, we've even had sock of banned users coming through and intentionally provoking disputes for the amusement of the WR crowd. In my opinion, we've been too patient with disruptive users who act politely and claim to have the best interests of the project at heart, but whose actions tell a different story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many ways in which to build an encyclopedia than the adding of content in article space, there is the constructing and testing of the systems and procedures by which the content is evaluated and comported. The tools for this is debate and discussion. Without application of new ideas and criticism there is the possibility of entropy eroding the structure of the encyclopedia. What provides the most danger to WP, the supposed ill-willed actions of vandals or a self satisfied oligarchy that permits nobody to note where there might be evidence of decay or shoddy practice? It is even possible that the claim to have the best interest of WP at heart is exactly that, no matter how different their conclusions as to what is best differs from yours (or mine). It just requires a bit of good faith, and the ability to conduct a reasoned discussion. LessHeard vanU 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody ever wrote an encyclopedia solely by arguing over policies. Granted, a certain amount of policy-making is necessary. Disputes, both about content and about policy, are also inevitable. But disputes that aren't resolved are disruptive. There appear to be some editors who relish disputes, who maintain them, who even provoke them. These people do not help the project. Criticism for the sake of criticism isn't constructive. It is naive to ignore the fact that there is a website devoted to destroying Wikipedia whose members have been coming here to instigate disputes within the community. That type of activity should not be tolerated, whether as part of a concerted effort or just an individual initiative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    WP:SOCK cautiously allows the use of an alternate account, with some examples, where the editor has a really compelling reason not to want to get their main account embroiled in a particular controversy. One example I've been given which arbitrators consider appropriate is: an editor who was cleaning up problems with paedophilia advocacy and did not want his main account (traceable to RWI and hence professional reputation) to be associated with paedophilia articles. We might also allow this for, say, scientology articles, where there is a long history of real-world harassment. This user had no such reason. It was a low-activity account anyway, and had shown no previous reluctance to engage in controversy. The idea that the main account needed isolating form the controversy fails to stand up to any kind of inspection, as pretty much everyone who knows the full facts seems to agree. This was a blatant gaming of the wording of WP:SOCK to go absolutely against its spirit, and the Wikilawyering about it has been tiresome and vexatious. Will is on the money above: we are being manipulated by those whose aim is to destroy or undermine us, in order to either destroy Wikipedia altogether, or gain an advantage in their content disputes. I urge everyone to read the evidence and findings of the Alkivar arbitration. I do not think Alkivar is or was evil, he was very skilfully manipulated by people whose goals are utterly inimical to this project. Incidents like this give them endless joy, they see us arguing forever over the blocking of an abusively used sockpuppet account (and do remember that the main account was never blocked, this was an account, not an editor, which was blocked), and they love it. They want us gone, and sowing the seeds of division in the admin community by creating drama in hot topic areas, and by prodding people like Alkivar with known views they can manipulate to create division and strife, is precisely what they are after. I cannot imagine that a year ago we'd have wasted a moment on this block, because it was so self-evidently an inappropriate use of an alternate account that it would have been stomped pretty much on creation. Instead we now have people supporting the sockpuppeteer in order, it seems to me, to preserve what is mistakenly seen as the "right" to free speech or the ability to link to sites that exist purely to undermine and destroy us. Would we have tolerated a sockpuppet account created solely to defend the ability to advocate paedophilia, to use one previous contentious incident? It's pretty clear from past arbitrations on LaRouche that the arbitrators take a dim view of single-purpose accounts for controversial subjects, you need to have a good reason - and this individual never did have a good reason. We have been trolled good and proper. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (unindent) To answer both in turn; of course Encyclopedia's are partly built by arguing over policy, do you believe that Encyclopedia Brittanica simply evolved without discussion? Policies in presentation and content have obviously changed over the various volumes - it is just that the discussion was internal. Disputes that are not resolved are indeed disruptive, but resolution requires both parties to work toward a result. Also, I concede that there are those who prefer the arena of debate to the "drudgery" of adding and citing content - but this is not necessarily a bad thing, since it is best that the talents of contributors be used in their areas of ability and a better encyclopedia can be the ultimate result. As for off-Wiki sites reaction to unfolding events, ignore them. Unless you have proof that an individual (or group of individuals) is a anti-WP member of an off-wiki site (since not all of the membership may be) or is being coached by such a person, then the WP member that is being influenced by off-Wiki comment is you, not the Fifth Columnist or Red Under the Bed. In the matter of PrivateMusings, there was some debate at Wikipedia Review as to what allegiences he had when he first appeared, which indicates that he is not "controlled" from anyone there (and lets not get into guessing games of double bluff, which is simply another drama developer).
    Your interpretation of WP:SOCK appears far more severe than my reading of it - I see no requirement for a compelling reason, simply a desire not involve the main or original account in a "hot" area with the express consideration that the two or more accounts are used separately. It cannot be argued that PM's contributing, or the areas edited, has not been considered "hot" simply by what we are reading here, and that having a previous history which may be considered controversial is what is stated as a legitimate reason for creating an alternative account. (It was not PM who bought up the matter of the original account, either.) Therefore it appears that PM was using this account fully in compliance with the wording. If the wording of the policy does not reflect the spirit (not just an interpretation of the spirit, either) then the wording needs amending. You cannot sanction editors for following what they believed to be the proper course per their understanding of policy.
    I have already commented on the claim that PM is being directed by members of an off-wiki site, and that your referrals to Wikipedia Review in this forum indicated that it isn't PM that appears is being manipulated by them. Perhaps a year ago this case would have been stamped on, but that needn't make it right. Things evolve, people (hopefully) learn, individual leave and other individuals join, the ability to link or not to sites depends on appropriateness and verifiability (not BADSITES), and the dynamics change. It is foolish, if not to say dangerous, to sit outside the process and wish for "the good old days", you have to engage with the situation that exists now - because that is where the encyclopedia is.
    Finally (and this really is the last I will write on this, since it appears that the original matter is concluded) both of you need to consider that firstly you may be wrong either wholly or in part, and that your own obsessions with certain off-wiki sites colours your perceptions of other peoples motives. I'm not saying that you are and they do, just that you should be aware of the potential. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 11:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    <remove previous post, might not have helped.> - on second thoughts - I'm sure all editors would likely agree that this amounts to a discussion about my continued editing on the wiki. We have clear dispute resolution policies - at this stage I think we need to engage them, not just pop up on various noticeboards and (in my opinion) canvas for a ban. Perhaps a fairly simple ArbCom case is in order? I'd be more than happy to engage there, because they way it's happening at the moment is upsetting, and stressful for me, and hardly seems fair.

    Oh, and many thanks to CBD for having the courtesy to notify me of this discussion - it's very unpalatable to discover a conversation about oneself taking place, without the decency of the editor involved to notify you. Privatemusings 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I may have missed it in all that above, but just to be clear, you're down to exactly one account now, yes? By which I mean you are now only editing Wikipedia under the name Privatemusings and will stick to that in the future. Thanks, William Pietri 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am only editing wikipedia from now on as PM, and I'm very angry about Guy's behavior. Thank you too, for your considered comment on the whole situation, William. Privatemusings 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well hell, I'm angry about your behaviour - use of an alternate account that three arbitrators agree was inappropriate, coupled with endless whining and an edit history that contains very few uncontroversial edits on any of your three accounts. And most especially the fact that you continue to pretend that the problem is someone else. My involvement with Wikipedia spreads across every namespace, a couple of languages and more than one WMF project space. Yours, on the other hand, is largely restricted to agitation, querulousness and promoting drama. Let's see which of us gets banned first, shall we? Guy (Help!) 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then let's go forward with dispute resolution, rather than sniping instigated by you at various noticeboards. Your comments seem to me to be a combination of personal attacks, appeals to authority, and outright needless escalation. I can say hand on heart that I haven't promoted or caused any of this recent drama - I don't believe the same of you. Let's take this calmly to Arb Com, mediation, or any sensible discussion forum. Privatemusings 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So the point of this upsetting, rather nasty thread was? I'm still very upset at the way you continue to treat me, and would like some sort of mediation or discussion about your behavior. My door's open, couldn't we start with some sort of dialog? Please? Privatemusings 04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dialogue? About what? Your continued disruptive involvement in controversy? I prefer to leave that to others, I have had a gutfull of your querulousness. As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone who knows the full facts - including three arbitrators - agrees that your use of multiple accounts was inappropriate, the fact that you chose to make this a drama rather than simply going back to your original account is rather symptomatic of your general approach, as far as I can see. I suspect there will be a few people watching your behaviour going forwards. Do be sure to keep out of trouble, won't you? Have a nice day. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well ok, Guy - but for you to say that you've had a gutfull is pretty rich, and to accuse me of creating drama when you've posted multiple times across multiple noticeboards, with no discernible purpose, is self evidently wrong, and hurtful. I welcome every pair of eyes on this situation because you have behaved inexcusably, and should take a calm look in the mirror. Have a nice day? - I will... you too. Privatemusings 12:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh get over yourself. You've been told by three separate arbitrators that your use of an alternate account was not a valid one, now go away and sin no more. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't be rude to me, it's just completely uncalled for. I understand that my actions have caused confusion, but I think the strongest damage came from an indefinite block from out of the blue. By any measurement, that action was a disgrace, and I am glad it was comprehensively rejected as a tenable position. I think you have behaved unethically, and inexcusably. You have utterly refused to engage with me, preferring to post hurtful comments and judgmental nonsense in varying foras. What on earth was your purpose in starting this thread if your genuine desire was merely to shoo me away? Remove the beam, Guy. Privatemusings 14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed one crucial fact: I only blocked your sockpuppet account, not your main account, and I made it perfectly clear that I would happily lift any autoblocks quietly and without fuss. You've also consistently ignored the very many opinions of those who say that your use of the alternate account was not a valid one, which opinions include three arbitrators. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of the drama? Guy (Help!) 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Outdenting) Guy, since you've already discussed this with a "very small number of people you trust," could you please discuss it with me? Not because I demand that you trust me, but because I already know these accounts, and I think Privatemusings would probably authorize you to tell me anything you know about them that I don't. All right, PM? I'd really like to know what these "chequered" histories of previous accounts are, and to know if there's anything I can clear up. Chequered? How so? I'm looking at the contributions now, I don't see anything chequered. Admittedly there is a bit to go through. What am I missing? How far back should I go? What are these "controversial content edits" you mention, that everybody who knows the accounts has agreed were inappropriate? Try me. If I also agree, I'll shut up. Inappropriate how?

    As for "While it may be fun to debate issues, that's not the point of this project. We're here to write a reference work" (Will Beback)...Well, I've just been looking at the contributions of User:Newyorkbrad and Privatemusing over the past few weeks These two users' contribution patterns have a lot in common. They both debate policy a lot more than they contribute content, and as far as I can see they both debate constructively (and not necessarily for "fun"). But are we sure they realize that we're here to build an encyclopedia? In a comparison of their mainspace contributions, Brad's turn out to be more numerous, but they're very minor. [2] PM's are fewer but bigger (look at his very good edits to Socrates)[3] On the whole I would say PM comes out ahead. Isn't it getting to be time to hint to both of them that it's time to contribute more content and less argufication over policies? What do you say, shall I post a gentle reprimand on the subject on Brad's page? (Privatemusings has already gotten told off, I think.) P. S. No, I'm not currently in contact with PM, or giving him "advice" on how to get maximum drama. And no, I haven't formed any opinion about BADSITES. None. It's a subject I've sort of missed, and I'd love to keep it that way, but I suppose it's getting difficult. Bishonen | talk 13:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    I respect Bishonen's advice enormously, and support and appreciate her help in resolving these issues - so yes, Guy, please do be completely open with Bish. Socrates really should be a featured article, and I'd like to help it get there. Privatemusings 14:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, for sure, if you expected me to take your edits to the NPA policy seriously, especially when you had posted on your userpage that you were a sock account, you are deluding yourself. There is never a time I would accept anyone using anything other than their regular and known account when editing a major policy page. If indeed, you are going to just use this account, then I will accept that you aren't using multiple accounts to circumvent 3RR. But how many accounts have you used? Your forthcoming effort to be accountable on this issue would go a long way to reestablishing your credibility. Until then, I frankly see a lot of your efforts to be little more than trolling. That is not my opinion alone, BTW.--MONGO 19:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally respect your right to only consider posts from whatever subset of editors you choose, and I have no desire one way or the other for you specifically to take me seriously. Of course I stand by my posts, and would consider it collegial for editors to listen to one another. Your courtesy in accepting that I haven't broken 3RR is rather a back handed compliment, and the mention of trolling is both unhelpful and disruptive, as it usually is. That is not my opinion alone, BTW. Privatemusings 22:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Insulting Bots

    • I have a question about users who insult bots. For example this edit summary. Is this considered a personal attack ? If it were "Fuck [username]" it would definitely be a personal attack this much we know for sure. Is a bot a contributor, as designated in WP:NPA in the phrase Comment on content, not on the contributor.? I think that if the bot has a "contributions" page, then it must be a contributor. However a bot is also a form of contribution by the owner and contributions are inherent to content, so it's hard for me to tell. I believe it may be a case that the bot is at the same time a contribution and a contributor.
    • Is "fuck" considered rude, because in WP:CIVIL it says not to be rude, yet the other day I saw BetacommandBot had left a valid but perhaps misplaced (admin was not the original uploader) message on an admin's talk page about a missing rationale, which was removed with the comment "fuck off, silly trout".
    • I'm saying this because many bots accomplish ungrateful tasks and insults directed at them may be perceived as being directed at the owner. I don't agree with the mass deletion tagging of images by bots for deletion, but maybe the solution is not to attempt to antagonise the owner but rather change the deletion criteria, if one is so inclined. I think most bots are made in good faith, take time and effort to develop and keep running. Be it allowed or not, someone who knows should mention the status of bots on WP:ATTACK. Jackaranga 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the policies you cite can't apply to bots; their intent is to govern discussion between contributors. But the first example you gave is a clear example of disruption to the project. — madman bum and angel 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Most bots have pretty thick skin and won't mind. It's all a matter of context as to the verbiage. In this case it's pretty clear that this user is being disruptive. — xaosflux Talk 02:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Attacking bots is probably less problematic than attacking human users, but I'd prefer if it were still frowned upon. Take context into account. Bots (generally!) have a pretty thick skin, but the humans who operate them might not. Particularly in the case of a mass-messaging bot, it seems unlikely that the operator will notice somebody reverting one of several hundred automated messages, however snarky the edit summary may be. Marauding over to the bot or owner's talk page with lengthy streams of obscenity, now, that's probably going to be noticed, and should be avoided. In general, we're all people, so play nice and be considerate. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the user was blocked, and not just for that. Users who insult bots typically are trolling for one reason or another and are blocked for likewise annoying actions. — madman bum and angel 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the specific user in this thread was pretty unambiguously up to nothing fantastic. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    /me is tempted to creat User:Insultbot :o) Guy (Help!) 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I enjoy making the bots cry by insulting their mothers, than realizing that they have none, and rubbing it their proverbial faces. I'm a cruel, heartless bastard like that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon page creation

    Just thought everyone would like to know, apparently anon page creation isn't going to be happening, User:Brion Vibber and User:Tim Starling have said that there would have to be consensus here for them to turn it on - not sure why it was even announced when the developers weren't even contacted. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    YEAH! turning it back on was a bad idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A bot would go a long way towards keeping WP:AFC up to date. For the most part, bad article submissions are immediately rejected, while decent submissions can languish for months. -- Kendrick7talk 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ummmm, are you sure? My impression is that Jimbo Wales, Anthere, and Eloquence all thought Gmaxwell's experiment was a good idea. Those people don't need community consent and can just order Brion et al. to turn it back on. Maybe the board, etc. has decided not to do this without community approval, but the initial proposition certainly wasn't presented as if anyone was asking the community for permission. Dragons flight 02:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It must have something to do with the lenghty discussion at the Village pump. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I'm not sure now you mention it. Did any of them comment about it on the mailing list? I'm not aware of them commenting about it on-wiki. But I think that their word would overule consensus and the devs would probably do it. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they commented on the mailing list. Cbrown1023 talk 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gregory discussed this directly on the conversation that took place on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)‎ he is aware that there isn't a concensus there yet. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I mentioned this at the aforementioned RFC, but wouldn't it be a good idea that if anon page creation were enabled, a feature could be added to Special:Newpages allowing for the viewing of only those pages made by anons. SashaCall 05:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow I love this page. I'm wondering if there is a technical way to redirect new page creation for not autoconfirmed users there. -- lucasbfr talk 13:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let the discussion begin! Grandmasterka 02:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is funny because from reading the mailing lists, I had the feeling that there was a consensus (amongst editors) to try to turn it on again. Weird :-) Anthere —Preceding comment was added at 08:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The subset of regular users of the mailing lists, though longstanding and very dedicated users, may be to small to predict consensus once a discussion gets on-wiky. E.g. I don't think that many of the regulars at New Page Patrol take part in the mailing list discussions. VirtualDelight 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Callmebc

    This user has been blocked no fewer than nine times, always for the same things- edit-warring on Killian documents and its related pages, and incivility. He is now blocked, for a week for-- wait for it-- edit-warring on Killian documents authenticity issues, and he's spending his block spewing personal attacks and accusations of incompetence and conspiracy against... well, pretty much everyone who crosses his path, as far as I can see. He doesn't seem to have made any real changes in his editing patterns despite the many blocks and the assorted people who have tried to gently guide him into the right way. Do you think it's time for an indefinite block? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I extended his block to a month as a result of his mocking remarks, and protected the talk page for the duration of this block to prevent any more of them. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse, and would endorse a theoretical indef if xe misbehaves again. The community's patience can, in fact, be exhausted. - Philippe | Talk 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also endorse, I got bad vibes after I didn't block him and another person for 3RR. Caribbean H.Q., is there any reason you blocked with autoblock disabled? east.718 at 04:17, 11/9/2007
    I was under the impression that the box was checkmarked, not sure it should be established anyways since autoblocks are temporary and one will expire shortly probably affecting hundreds of users if his address is dynamic. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, autoblocks only last 24 hours and generally it is a feature that only helps in stopping a user with a history of socking. Keegantalk 05:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Occasional good edits but he seems unable or unwilling to understand the concept of original research. From his calls to battle, wild accusations, and incivility, I'm not sure he cares. This current block should be his last chance if it isn't extended to indef (which I'd have no objection to). - Merzbow 05:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't a topic ban be put into effect? SashaCall 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally that would take a community decision from dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration. The community noticeboard used to try to tackle these things, but reaching consensus in a noticeboard format proved to be a problem since discussion wasn't organized to define an outcome. Keegantalk 05:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why we couldn't hold a consensus discussion regarding a topic ban here. To demonstrate, I'll propose it: let's topic ban Callmebc from Killian documents and related pages. DurovaCharge! 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think User: UBeR is considering an RfC. This might be a better forum, as the aim there should be to demonstrate to the user which parts of his behaviour (as opposed to his opinions) are unacceptable. My experience with User:Callmebc suggests that a topic ban will be waste of time, as it will be hard to make him understand that the reason is not political prejudice. --Stephan Schulz 12:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we at least remove the full-protection from Callmebc's talk page so s/he can respond to some of these accusations and potential bans? I realize the page was being used for less than productive purposes, and have blocked Callmebc myself, but s/he should be able to respond to a potential ban. - auburnpilot talk 13:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, protection reduced to semi. Regarding how this editor perceives it, I'd rather try topic banning as a lesser solution to sitebanning, which can and does get applied when editors act as if all of Wikipedia were with 'em or against 'em. Some people used to use a template for transclusion back when WP:CSN was operational, so editors who were blocked could convey their point of view to a sanctions discussion without impediment. Would someone go through the archives and install that for this discussion, please? DurovaCharge! 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't indicated that all of Wikipedia is against him, but that someone more powerful than admins is against him and altered edits. Actually, his memory of the edits is as faulty as his reading of my cited source. (SEWilco 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Can someone put a linked mention of this discussion on User talk:Callmebc and change its protection to semiprotection? As Durova mentioned above, he changed to semi, but he didn't mention this discussion so we don't know if Callmebc's resulting ranting (and reprotection) were in response to this discussion. (SEWilco 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I've left a message and asked the protecting administrator to change the protection level. It's already been flip flopped once. I am not going to add to that confusion. - Jehochman Talk 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally would fully support any extension to this user's block, including indefinitely. If that must be achieved through some other venue as Keegan suggested, then I feel that would be appropriate. As Dr. Schulz noted, I was hoping to at least achieve a RfC regarding Callmebc's behavior and conduct. I was holding that off because we was blocked for a week for violating 3RR on at least 3 different articles over the course of 24 hours. His block was also extended to a month due to inappropriate comments left on his talk page after being blocked. Most recently, his talk page was unblocked per suggestions above, but had to be re-fully-protected because of soapboxing. However, if he was blocked for a month simply because of his inappropriate conduct while being blocked, I suggest a review of the myriad incivility and personal attacks that spans over several articles and involves several editors, to discuss the possibility of an extension on that block. This user has been warned by several administrators through several venues over the course of his time here, and has been blocked a number of times due to his continued incivility, disruption, and personal attacks among other improper conduct. If this is simply his latest stint, I ask, how much longer are the administrators going to tolerate continued harassment and disruption? ~ UBeR 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The proposal is a topic ban, not a block extension. DurovaCharge! 00:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know he's been a big pain at the Killian related articles. My only problem with banning him from Killian articles is that he'll have more time to focus on other articles that I'm involved with--namely global warming--and this is where I experience most of Callmebc's rudeness. Don't forget, this user has acted inappropriately across an array of articles--not just the Killian ones. It is his behavior displayed other users that I am most concerned about, and I don't think a topic ban will address that (though it may reduce disruptiveness at the Killian articles). This is why I favor an extension on the block. ~ UBeR 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Case in point. ~ UBeR 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An indef topic ban on related articles is a most appropriate action. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He considers Global Warming and Killian documents as being related and refers to them as fronts in a war. (diff) (SEWilco 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I'm the admin who reprotected the user's talk page. I did so because within an hour after it was reduced to semi to allow him to comment on this thread, he went back to the admin corruption / incompetence tirade rather than addressing the topic. I am fine with going back to semi as long as it is understood that this is to enable productive comments only and not trolling. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, a topic-specific block will not address this user's longstanding and flagrant violating of WP:CIVIL. Even after one of several recent blocks for Civility (User:Callmebc#Civility) he continues to make disparaging comments about other editors, has accused totally uninvolved administrators of being part of a massive conspiracy to silence him, and frequently includes insulting or offensive edit summaries as part of his contribution to Talk pages and articles. How much more clear can it be that he should desist from personal attacks? As for me, I have ideological differences with this editor and am myself a longstanding editor of Killian documents, but it is his basic inability to avoid continued sarcasm and personal attacks that is most tiring, and which really violates the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Please consider this. I would be happy to discuss further with diffs as required. IMO it isn't his viewpoint that makes working with him "challenging," but his Manichean view of these articles - him against an evil cabal of "right wing idiots." A topic ban would likely make it easier on me, since I don't share that much edit space with this user, but I think it misses the truly dispiriting part of his presence on WP. WP:NPA should be easy to understand and non-negotiable.Kaisershatner 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC) If Rfc is a better forum for this, I am for that as well. Maybe even a better place than this, given this user's special concerns that there is a witch hunt of admins out to get him. Kaisershatner 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume he will be allowed to serve his block (I'd highly oppose an early unblock, he still needs time to cool off), and then the topic ban will take effect. If he starts up again with the bad behavior on other articles, I'm sure admins will take quick action if it's reported here, since this is clearly his last chance. (Global Warming is a highly-trafficked articled, it's unlikely disruption there will go unnoticed or unremedied for long). - Merzbow 00:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Would someone be willing to mentor Callmebc? DurovaCharge! 01:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He has replied on his talk page (User talk:Callmebc#My Reply). He copied this discussion so he could reply to it, then ignored this discussion and repeated his erroneous complaints about the Killian "Mother's Day" issue (it's a short section which is based entirely upon the Campenni source; Callmebc's flailing is illustrated in the article Talk page by his taking a month to recognize that Campenni mentioned supporting official records[4], and we haven't even been able to deal with the main flaws of his item 1 statement). Callmebc's second to last paragraph applies quite well to him, particularly as the rest of User talk:Callmebc shows there is reason to not AGF. The last paragraph of his reply seems to refer to the first paragraph of User talk:Callmebc#Yet more Wiki Wackiness; when reading it remember that he promised to cause more 3RRs (and that carries more implication than meaning). (SEWilco 05:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    His main point seems to be that he was justified in reverting because his version was correct, and the other one was obviously false. If so, that evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of 3RR and the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, which suggests a high risk that there will be future problems. His statement that "a topic ban would a total ban for practical purposes" shows a lack of interest in editing on other topics where he might be able to edit more constructively. So it looks like a topic ban wouldn't solve anything. -- But|seriously|folks  18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SPA. DurovaCharge! 19:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Early in the Mother's Day talk, he found an excerpt of Campenni's text which was five sentences long and based several arguments upon that being the entire text, despite being told he was mistaken. You can see at that point in the discussion that he spins quite a web from that text fragment, with his edits correspondingly certain of falsehood. If you look at his user talk page for that period, you find that while he was blocked he said he'd make many changes and proceeded to spew across the article without being able to discuss individual changes. (SEWilco 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Callmebc's talk page was unprotected for the limited purpose of discussing the proposed topic ban, rather than an all-out block. The discussion there has recently turned to the content dispute that caused him to be blocked in the first place. I have asked him not to continue that discussion, because it is beyond the scope of the unprotection. I have also asked the others engaged there not to continue, because it wouldn't be fair for them to persist with the argument on his talk page when he is not supposed to respond. -- But|seriously|folks  03:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hangon without db

    Quite often, authors of pages tagged for speedy deletion will replace the speedy tag with their {{hangon}}. That would seem to be why it keeps the page in the category. The main problem it causes is where the authors misunderstand the notification on their user talk page and put the hangon template there instead of on the article. Sam Blacketer 11:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also sometimes article gets speedy-deleted, and the original author recreates the article immediately with {{hangon}} on it. Check the article's deleted revisions and/or the author's deleted contributions and you'll probably figure out what they're trying to do. Speedy deletion process confuses the heck out of people - expect every form of weirdness. Luckily, there's a logical explanation for almost everything. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that happens where the user has gone to edit the article, and in between clicking on 'edit this page' and on 'save page', an administrator has deleted it. Sam Blacketer 14:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I don't really see what the problem is with hangon-ed articles being put in Cat:CSD, since these articles should be deleted more times than not. This particular categorization has also alerted me to people improperly tagging their usertalk page, or accidently adding hangon to the article talk page instead of the article - somehow they always miss that huge red message. But the hangon template does also place articles in Category: Contested candidates for speedy deletion, a sub-category for Cat:CSD, so if this is a real problem perhaps the tag could just add the contested category. Natalie 14:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The other situation I see this happening is when a new editor confuses their user talk space for the article talk space and puts the {{hangon}} there instead. If you see a lonely {{hangon}} on a user talk page, that's probably what happened. Caknuck 15:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's anything really ambiguous about the user talk page notice that one of their articles is going to be speedied. Usually, they replace the speedy tag with a hangon tag thinking that {{hangon}} is an ironclad defense against erasure. Sometimes, that kind of thing is missed; so I think the template should keep that category. JuJube 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bot-related suggestion Is this not simply a case of a particular type of either typographical error or action not in keeping with present procedure? If yes, then perhaps articles that have a 'hangon' and lack a 'CSD template' could be addressed by bot to add the 'CSD template' ... if examination by the bot of the edit history reveals that a CSD template had been affixed and removed ... or to remove the 'hangon' ... if examination by the bot of the edit history revealed the absence of a previously placed CSD template. Not having authored bots, I'm not sure if this kind of discrimination is within the capabilities of standard bot scripts or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the newer users put the {{hangon}} tag in place of the {{db}}. I find this in a lot of article edits by newer users. Like, if adding to a list, they simply write a new person over another person's name on a list, for no apparent reason. If anyone finds out why, you've solved one of the greatest mysteries of my Wikipedia life. нмŵוτнτ 01:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Many images tagged for deletion today

    Hello, just informing you that we have tagged all the images licensed under {{MEP image (EP)}} for deletion today, as replaceable fair-use. Please note that even though the European Parliament allows reproduction as long as they are attributed, Wikipedia:Non-free content does not allow replaceable non-free images. As all the images using this template depict living persons they are not irreplaceable, and had no fair-use rationale anyway, they have all been tagged for deletion (around 250 of them). I also tagged about 50 images from Category:New Zealand Crown Copyright images for deletion for lacking fair-use rationale.

    Commented at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:MEP image (EP). Quite glad you didn't report User:NoSoftwarePatents, that would have been a bit of a stretch. By the way, Image:Istvan Palfi (EP, 6th term).jpg, speedily deleted under the rationale that it was a depiction of a living person, was, in fact, a depiction of a dead person, so I undeleted it. Are you quite sure all 250 images you tagged this way are of living people? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it wasn't me who had tagged that one, but I have now, because it has no rationale. Jackaranga 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it did, you just didn't see it. Added a heading so it's more obvious. Again, are you quite sure about all 250 others? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Don't know what is to be expected though, I mean User:NoSoftwarePatents has uploaded over 150 images in violation of policy. It took long enough to tag all those ones. I will go through and check them all (the ones I tagged), but I don't like the fact that other users should fix his policy violations 150 times over. Jackaranga 02:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They were uploaded 2 and a half years ago, in April 2005, and clearly in good faith, since you will notice he quotes the EP permission in each upload. At the time, the permission template said nothing about the image being non-free, that was changed in 2006 [5]. You're getting upset at him for a rule interpretation that changed a year after his action, and is disputable even now. This isn't a vandal, this is a hard working contributor, who should be treated with respect. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in the around 130 I had tagged I did find one that is dead now, so I changed the tag. Also note I am not accusing him of being a vandal and it was he who created the template in the first place. He is not a bad faith editor, I apologise for that, I was getting more annoyed at you really, shouldn't have taken it out on his edits. Jackaranga 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My opinion, for what it's worth: While these images might not be entirely free in a technical sense, it strikes me that there is no real-world issue with their licensing status, and that pushing for these images to be deleted or replaced should be, among all the image-rights issues facing the project, a fairly low priority. Newyorkbrad 14:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Edit war updated, marked as policy

    The blocking policy has long allowed blocking for edit warring. I left a request on 2007-10-28 asking whether Wikipedia:Edit war could be updated to reflect our practices better. User:Dmcdevit did a significant rewrite on 2007-11-3, and on 2007-11-7 User:Heimstern changed the tag from guideline to policy. I believe this is a positive development. While the three revert rule is a useful and important objective metric for edit warring, there are many other forms of edit warring that are equally disruptive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps it ought to be renamed to Wikipedia:Don't edit war lest people start thinking edit wars are policy... Oldelpaso 11:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would we then have to change Wikipedia: Vandalism to Wikipedia: Don't vandalize then? Natalie 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's what we've been doing wrong, all this time. :( More seriously, is it worth perhaps looking at a merge between this and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule? They seem to go hand-in-hand. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with a merge. - jc37 21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Several people have brought up that idea, and I don't think it's a bad concept. But 3RR is a very comforting rule to some people, which might complicate the merge.
    On the talk page, User:Geni has stated the opinion that before this is marked as policy, the size of existing policy has to be decreased by the same amount. I have never heard that expressed before, and more comments on Wikipedia talk:Edit war would help clarify whether there is much support for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So, Cosmo advises women to create Wikipedia page profiles....

    I was chatting with my girlfriend tonight when she mentioned that this month's issue of Cosmo suggests that for job interviews, women should create Wikipedia pages with their pictures and resumes. I had a Sam Seaborn moment and told myself I wasn't going to get involved, but here it be:

    "Brilliant Ways to Get Ahead"

    • 6. Smart girls send out resumes only after running their names on Facebook, Myspace, Friendster and Google to eliminate all incriminating pictures and rant postings.
    • 7. Of course, after that, they create their own Wikipedia entries with gorge photos and life achievements.[1]

    So there's something new to look out for. Keegantalk 05:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Cosmopolitan. (243);6 December, 2007.
    Faaan-freakin'-tastic. GlassCobra 05:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So who wants to volunteer to send a note to the editor explaining the concept of notability? (And who'll volunteer to distribute valium to the new page patrollers dealing with the results?) Tony Fox (arf!) 05:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll volunteer for that latter duty, though I won't guarantee that all the valium will end up being used for its intended purpose. We already had a small-scale drill for this sort of thing here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive265#SEO at Business.com giving out bad advice. We may want to send Durova out again to spread the word about COI, vanity articles, and such. With luck, this latest offering from Cosmo will go unheeded and join the magazine's weight-loss advice and sex tips in a more-or-less total intellectual oblivion. --Dynaflow babble 05:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh god. Look out for edit summaries that say "Cosmo told me to". Dfrg_msc 08:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose deleting article on this pathetic magazine in retaliation. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    <sarcasm>And I want to delete 4chan</sarcasm> because its members trolled and death-threatened me, but if you'll notice, I haven't so muched as touched the actual article. Retributive deletions are just as bad as rogue blocks. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete? IF some of our detractors are to be belived expanding our Kate White article would be more effective.Geni 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seraphimblade deleted "Random Person" (Do NOT, under any circumstances, hire this person!)
    Alright, so I'm not that mean...most days... Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add {{COI}} templates and protect the pages. That will look great to prospective employers. (Warning: do not actually do this!) - Jehochman Talk 08:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You realise that people would respond to this by createing articles on other people applying for the job?Geni 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete? If some of our detractors are to be belived expanding our Kate White article would be more effective.Geni 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add the pages to Category:Drug addicts seeking job that I just created for this purpose. Jackaranga 08:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This along with the move to allow IPs to be able to create new pages is a winning combination. –– Lid(Talk) 10:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm simply confused why anyone should think that "gorge photos" will have any effect on their career prospects... LessHeard vanU 10:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Cat:Wikipedians seeking better and more frequent orgasms in an effort to lose post pregnancy weight while writing new blockbuster when wearing this seasons must have fashions.[reply]
    IS that sarchasm? Guy (Help!) 11:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just commenting on my faulty observation... 13:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs)
    This thread's getting a bit rocky, isn't it? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can yon dig it? JuJube 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, replace their photo with [6]. (Note - don't actually do this either). ELIMINATORJR 11:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yowzah. I'd hire her! Well, at least for a song or two.... -- Kendrick7talk 17:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise! Let's get that girl an article; she'd certainly fit under WP:HOTTIE... GlassCobra 16:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I didn't create an article about me here, but I put in my résumé that I know how to setup and use MediaWiki. I wonder what these girls put in their articles, and whether their bosses edit their salary to pay less. -- ReyBrujo 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no doubt that Cosmo suggested this tactic as a means to stand out from the crowd: "I'm notable! I have a Wikipedia article me! You have to hire me!" Unfortunately, many notable people would not be a good fit for any job. Honest. These Cosmo readers would spend their time much more profitably with an account on a website like LinkedIn -- llywrch 18:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only hope the readers of that publication are more interested in this month's sex tips and nail polish. DurovaCharge! 19:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I the only person who sees rule #6 as much more pointless than rule #7? Good luck wiping your existence off of Google, ladies. JuJube 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Google cache doesn't last forever, just... some months? <joke>Besides, you never know when your "G1v3 M3 53X!" profile at MySpace will help you a raise :P</joke> -- ReyBrujo 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, when I see a tongue in cheek, I take it as a joke. Pulling out my (totally heterosexual) copy of December's issue of Cosmo you can see the article also recommends hot pink business cards and the term "BFF". While it's probably half-serious, I don't think we need to fear a rash of young women making Wikipedia article about themselves with "gorge photos" (well, moreso than they already do) anymore than we need to worry about being blinded by personalized business cards. --Haemo 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your mileage may vary, but have you seen who reads Cosmo? Some of the women I know that read it would jump off the side of a cliff if the magazine told them that it would get them better {sex | job | man | body}... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like this stunt, er article, should be mentioned in the article. Vegaswikian 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess it's the most notable thing I've heard from the magazine this decade... -GTBacchus(talk) 20:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah. I was hoping they might be encouraging their readers to try and seduce us all, wikipedia as the new sex or something. I hope we are not seen as an upmarket social networking site.. We get a fair amount of user page spam - they often want to be renamed to their actual name so it can be found using google, and so people think they have an article rather than a user page. Secretlondon 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe someone could post a note about how video clips might be useful for newbies seeking adminship? John Carter 20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my, I'd love to see video clips for the people who apply for adminship with a few dozen edits. That'd be absolutely hilarious, in a gut-wrenching, "you poor human being" kind of way (read: the best kind of way). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we get Simon Cowell to vote at their RFA's after that, do you think? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's the first suggestion I've seen that we lighten up on RfA candidates... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, oh, god. It'd turn into something like viewing audition tapes for The Real World after a while. нмŵוτнτ 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Real World: Wikipedia. This is the true story...of seven editors...picked to work on an article...edit together, and have their talk pages watched...to find out what happens when people stop following WP:CIVIL...and start getting real." EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AWB Checkpage

    The Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage has some users waiting for confirmation over 24 hours and it says I should ask you guys on here. Cheers thanks alot! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 10:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone will probably come along shortly. Don't worry :) Qst (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done... Why on earth someone put that on the page... —Reedy Boy 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Help on protected page

    Hello. I would like to have Outriggr's assessment script (see here) installed on my monobook.js. It is protected. Could an administrator please add it? I would like to help WikiProject Military History. Thanks, Auroranorth 11:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    checkY Done Gnangarra 11:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK update

    The DYK update is over 9 hours too old. I have updated the next update (I've done it before). Would someone please promote it immediately from the next update? Royalbroil 16:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Thanks! Royalbroil 16:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Scipo

    Resolved

    Scipo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Myself and twsx have filed a request for comment about Scipo because of his constant edit waring, however his edit list is getting stupid, and still nothing is done about him.

    Can something Please be done about him

    cheers PhilB ~ T/C 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The RFC, which he was notified of, has been running for three weeks and Scipo has not responded. Three editors have gone on record as saying they've tried to work this out with Scipo. I'm blocking him for a week for edit warring. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! XD PhilB ~ T/C 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SockPuppet

    Yes, hello. I am Bugman94. When I was editing Wikipedia under that account all I wanted to do was vandalize. That is also what I intended to do with a couple sockpuppets. As I got older, and used the wiki more I began to love it and the people on it and I noticed the impact it had on many many people. So I ask you. Please PLEASE, will you allow me to create a new account and start new please. All my recent socks have no intentional vandal contributions. Please. Have faith in me. My vandal days are over. Thank you. KingPuppy 20:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, at least you'r being honest. The decision is not up to me though. Qst (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SOCK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have many times. I just want a chance please. KingPuppy 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you use a single account and on your userpage write a brief history of your involvement identifying past accounts and explain that you've changed. You could put the full details on a subpage in your userspace. If you reveal the history, that may protect you from any claims. What you don't want is for somebody to discover the socks later on and file a complaint. If you declare, explain, and behave properly with the new account, Wikipedians are likely to forgive past mistakes. If you old account is banned on indefinitely blocked, you should first petition to have editing privileges restored. Do that by email, not by creating more socks. I hope this helps. - Jehochman Talk 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're using the KingPuppy account, which is new...what's really going on here? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why can't you use the account your editing from now? Oysterguitarist 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to start new w/ a new account. Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingPuppy (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming the system won't let you for some reason, follow Jehochman's advice, use the talk page of KingPuppy. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have written an apoligy on my userpage. Also would it be smart to apologize to those I have been in conflict with for example EMC or PGK? KingPuppy 23:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. But you were actually BANNED, not merely blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy is a sock of a banned user who has created loads of multiple accounts. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bugman94, whether he's sorry or not, he's once again evaded the ban. If he wants to appeal his ban, he should take it to ArbCom. I've blocked this account indef. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, where was the ban discussion? Or is this one of those old indef block / no one willing to unblock bans? (I ask because there is not an entry at Wikipedia:List of banned users.) --Iamunknown 00:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He admitted that, do you have any reason to assume his apology is insincere? I don't see any reason why the arbcom has to be involved with this otherwise. —Ruud 00:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He caused a hell of a lot of disruption with his socks, there's no reason to believe that he's not editing with other socks now. I suggested ArbCom to appeal the original ban, because I'm no way comfortable with this guy editing given his history. Interesting point about the ban, I always thought he was community banned, but it could be one of those "no-one willing to unblock" bans. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no reason except WP:AGF. How long has it been since his last sock got blocked? Or did you not know that either before capriciously blocking his new account? -- Kendrick7talk 00:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, this is stupid. I told him to just get another account and not be honest this time. Terrible advice to give to a 13 y.o. but honesty clearly isn't always the best policy around here. -- Kendrick7talk 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know to the hour, but I remember blocking one about a month or two ago per check user evidence. That's my problem here, and we don't assume good faith when there is clear evidence to the contrary. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if he was vandalizing with that last account I'd be less inclined to assume good faith. If it was a CU for the sake of CU based on topic area or something, I'd be more inclined to believe in his reformation. The original ban was way back in May of 2006. If he was really 12 back then, then he could have changed a lot by now. Were any of Puppy's edits problematic? -- Kendrick7talk 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The past history shows he has the potential to disrupt and he's been banned for a good reason - Since 2006, he's created multiple socks, up to at least last month, so there's no reason to believe he's going to edit constructively. Editors that are banned are not welcome here under any account. Admission of him having this account is admission of ban evasion. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it's just that confession is bad for the soul is completely counter-intuitive to my religious tradition. Sneaking back into the community with a wig and a pair of Groucho Marx glasses is a strange option to even have which only works in cyberspace. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! -- Kendrick7talk 01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When a user is banned the only way to lift the ban is trough ArbCom, thats the main diference between a indef block and a ban. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, if he quietly creates a new account, does not vandalize or disrupt, does not reference his past misdeeds, and does not display suspicious editing patterns, he effectively doesn't need to ask ArbCom. I really think these "please, I promise" postings from banned serial vandals are just poor trolls, and we shouldn't bite. We should have an essay or something explaining it, and when the requests show up, we just link to the essay and tag "resolved". <eleland/talkedits> 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've been thinking a series of parables might do the trick. They are stories which repeat themselves over and over around here. -- Kendrick7talk 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If he would create an account and just keep quiet he would be able to edit. Oysterguitarist 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not what he wants to do. Keeping quiet isn't on his agenda. - Jehochman Talk 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But maybe a request for checkuser is? Oysterguitarist 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume his last account was User:SLSB. That account had over 1,000 edits and seemed like a productive editor before being suddenly blocked in September as a sock of the May 2007 vandal account. No explanatory link was given in the block log. -- Kendrick7talk 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned users can't edit, period, even if their contributions are viewed as constructive. The ban must be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. If you don't like this, feel free to initiate discussion on WT:BAN, but given this procedure has been pretty much stable for as long as I can remember on WIkipedia, it is unlikely that consensus will change. Daniel 02:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I understand that. I'm just perplexed his last account, after months of being a productive wikipedian, ever got found out. -- Kendrick7talk 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On that point, I have no idea :) Daniel 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When is the last time that this user, under any account, was actually vandalizing rather than seeking to contribute constructively? If it was several months ago, a request for lifting the ban might be in order. If not, not, but a response of "if you refrain from socking or block evasion for [N] months we will lift the ban" might be in order. Newyorkbrad 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wondering... was the ArbCom involved here or not? Was there a discussion about banning him? If this is a community ban, it will last as long as no administrator is willing to unblock him. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the difference between a ban and a block, was this user banned? Not that I'm in a hurry to see an unblock but I'm wondering why Arbcom action would be needed here? RxS 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't know of any ArbCom case on this user, and I'm familiar with most of the cases from the past year and a half or so. (For that matter, I don't see Bugman94 on the list of banned users at all, but that's not dispositive as often enough no one remembers to add a community-banned user to the list.) I think the meaning of "community ban" has evolved to the point that if there has been a lengthy community discussion resulting in a ban, no single admin should unblock without consensus. However, my question as to whether the user's non-constructive edits are recent or date from many months ago stands. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, of course. I am just trying to understand the situation. The original user was blocked last year for page move vandalism, his log block does not indicate he was banned, just blocked until PilotGuy changed the template at his user page, and the only discussion I find about him is this one. -- ReyBrujo 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking into this. I of course can't see any potentially oversighted edits, nor do I have any evidence that there are any. This user created an account on May 31 2007, User:Jlsatty, and requested via his other account User:JohnnyB123 (created on 30 May by other sockpuppet User:SuperBall53) to create the account Mr Bubbles on May 30th 2007 (note that he already had used the account User:Bubbles2430 the previous year). The user User:Hahaimbored, from May 22 2007, was clearly a disruptive sockpuppet. The User:JellyBelly372 was not really disruptive, but was yet another user created in the same week (28 may 2007). The user SparkleMan, created a few weeks later, could not recall his previous ID's when asked sepcifically for it[7]. Then again, SuperBall53 also had no idea why anyone would think he was User:WikiMan53[8], already created in December 2006.
    But perhaps this is the most damning? [9] Half of these have since been blocked as sockpuppets of this user. At the end of August, he didn't feel the need to reveal his previous accounts and troubles, but was preparing to become an admin...[10] (and in case you wonder, this user was perfectly aware of how to use alternate accounts in a correct way[11]).
    In short, this is a user who has created tons of sockpuppets between May and September 2007, has already twice attempted to become an admin while having undeclared other accounts, and denies having other accounts even when sepcifically asked. Why should we now, only three months later, suddenly trust him? Support ban, definitely. Fram 13:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, sure, I know. He disrupts, he must be blocked, indefinitely if necessary, etc. What I still don't see is where he was officially banned, by either the ArbCom, Jimbo or the community. The difference is minimal since he apparently continues to disrupt, but I don't like the idea of people getting banned by just changing a template at the user page. -- ReyBrujo 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the discussion you linked to did conclude that "One blatant vandalism and this user is banned". I can't find a more formal ban, but this seems to me a case of "a ban is an indef block where no one is willing to unblock / the consensus if to keep indef blocked" If needed, I belatedly support banning this user. Fram 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That list of account creation doesn't make any sense. If you were going to do this maliciously, wouldn't you log out first? and wouldn't you actually use the accounts you've created? Maybe he just edits from a school computer or something and doesn't log out; or eagerly shows others the joys of wikipedia (only to see all his friends banned as his sockpuppets) It's really screwy. -- Kendrick7talk 19:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. First, not every vandal is smart enough to figure out what can be easily found, what needs a bit more work, and what is near impossible to check. Furthermore, it looks like he mixed his own sockpuppet accounts with real, separate, requested accounts, making it harder to block (or just be certain) by looking at the creation log alone. But the interaction between different accounts is suspicious, and the fact that some of them have been found through checkuser seals it for me. That the same kind of behaviour is repeated (the May creations, and then the August creations) is even worse, and doesn't give me the confidence that the current apology is genuine, or that enough time has passed to consider this editor for a second chance. Fram 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    backlog!

    backlog at WP:UAA! need admins to start blocking@--( Mulligan's Wake)(t) 01:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleared, thanks for letting us know. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a pretty significant backlog at WP:RM as well. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaked Episodes

    I have a question about leaked episodes. If an episode of a TV show was gotten by hacking the stations Website and posted online, can people cite that in an article or not? What policies concern a situation like this? The Placebo Effect 18:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your question has little to directly involve an Admin's attention, & would be more appropriate over at the Village Pump, however I'll answer it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If someone posts information that they claimed to have received from hacking a website, how do we know that they aren't just making it up? Further, at least one television show (i.e. Lost) has exploited this hunger for advance information, & release foilers -- leaking disinformation about future episodes in order to keep viewers guessing. Let's just avoid this quagmire, & only report what the networks officially announce, unless the information is otherwise worth including in an article. -- llywrch 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuous misdemeanor and vandalism

    I found that the Keyngez has continuously committed vandalism on the thread for Seoul in Wikipedia. Keyngez has kept removing the previously uploaded pictures without any consent and replacing them with some ghetto pictures that are not even sure they were took inside Seoul. It is so clear that he has a bad intention to harm on Seoul. I asked him to stop doing it by leaving a message to his user box, but he denied my polite requestm and left messages written in very clumsy Korean on my talk box as follows. Judging from his particular words and grammartical structure used mostly in Japan, it looks that he is plausibly Japanese in Korea:

    나는 한국을 좋아합니다.그 사진은 내가 실제로 서울에서 촬영했습니다. 당신은, 쓸데 없게 깨끗한 사진으로, 한국이 깨끗이 보이도록하고 있다. 당신은, 자신의 마음에 들지 않는 사진을 자기 중심으로 제거한다. 그리고, 문서 훼손 과 마음대로 단정짓는다. 최악인 성격, 매우 초조합니다.

    그것과 타인의 이용자 페이지로 당당히 코멘트하지 않게.화가 난다.--Keyngez 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    실제, 서울은 그렇게 깨끗한 도시가 아닙니다.--Keyngez 06:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    In short, the summary of translated version of above paragraph written by Keyngez is he likes(?) Korea, but Korea is dirty country, and you (me, patriotmissile) has uploaded beautiful pictures of Seoul, which are not true faces of Seoul, so he took pictures (of some ghettoes) to let world know true Seoul's dirty faces. And he (Keyngez) defamed me (patriotmissile) that I have a worst personality and made him nervious.

    His pictures are obviously not true faces of Seoul, and also those pictures looks unlawfully borrowed from internet, and also they are in very poor quality. I don't even know where actually those pictures were taken.

    I strongly request administrators ban Keyngez's id and password for Wikipedia. I think this guy believes that harm on Seoul and South Korea is a patriotic act to his own country.Patriotmissile 19:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was told this is where you people request bans and such...

    So, like the fancy title things says, I'd like to request that you happy admin folks ban a user. No, not me. Bluemaven. I, as an Uncyclopedia admin, have had to deal, recently, with a user by the username Zana Dark. Yes, the Zana Dark who was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia on November 4th. She is now banned for the same amount of time on Uncyclopedia (as of last night), due to her behaviour. The same fate has met Bluemaven, who, while a CheckUser does not show it, is very very likely to be a sockpuppet of Zana Dark, based on her edits. Now, Bluemaven has come to my Wikipedia talkpage, and I'd like to request that you fine and lovely chaps ban her. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is I think specifically noteworthy that Bluemaven self-identifies as "Zana" as per here. John Carter 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You should leave a note asking him/her to stop first, then, if that doesn't work, then we could ban him/her. Prodego talk 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I'm fairly certain that this would be an unacceptable use of sockpuppets, eh? Isn't that an acceptable reason for a ban? -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, perhaps. Can never hurt to leave a warning though. Prodego talk 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But, wouldn't that violate WP:DENY, to my understanding of WP:DENY? In anycase, she's been banned, so there's no need to warn anyone. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Zombiebaron. Zombieninja101 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. GlassCobra 21:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you GlassCobra. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I agree with blocking Bluemaven on this evidence. Now, about Zombieninja101 who just popped back for the first time in over a month, and hasn't made more than 4 total edits since April. Is there any reason not to block this account as a sockpuppet? GRBerry 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He is a fellow Uncyclopedian with whom I was disscussing this matter. I doubt that that qualifies as a sockpuppet. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I got a girlfriend in April, which meant little time for wikipedia, and never bothered to return as an active editer to this or any of my old wiki's after we broke up in August. Oh yeah and I lost my computer for the entire summer. You should note that I've been here over a year, and have fought over things that I doubt ZB's ever heard of, such as Madness Combat. Which I still wish would get an article, although that doesn't seem likely. Zombieninja101 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    a sock of a blocked or banned user does not need a warning. Once ID'd as a sock, they can be immediately blocked for block-evasion. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But again, warnings are never wrong. Prodego talk 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So we block them for sock/vandalism/whatever then slap their wrist when they don't comply? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends. Understand I have no problem with the block. However, the question is how reliably can you prove (remembering WP:AGF) that a user is sockpuppet. In this case I didn't see the link as strong enough to block without warning, and would personally give at least one (probably one in this case) before blocking. That said, I repeat: I have no problem with the block. Prodego talk 23:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, I said "Once ID'd as a sock,", I didn't say it was always easy, but sometimes it's ridiculously obvious. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; sometimes, they simply say "I'm a sock of so-and-so". Painfully easy to identify then. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Steward Elections

    Nominations are open.Geni 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism

    Hello, don't know if this has been mentioned before, you can see a type of vandalism which is hard to revert with firefox at User:Jackaranga/vandalism, if one day IE supports CSS properly it will be impossible for the average user to revert. The only way would be to use the ?title=xxx&action=edit method, which many users wouldn't know about. Jackaranga 02:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your cgi code frightens and confuses me! But seriously, you evil genius, you might want to mention this to the developers. -- Kendrick7talk 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of us who aren't programmers or web designers, and are quite curious about why we can't hit the edit button on that page, please explain what this is doing exactly. Thanks :) The Hybrid T/C 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's putting a big invisible box around the text (notice how the start of the text lines up with the edit tab). -- Kendrick7talk 04:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The technique's been around a while -- I remember encountering it when Willy on Wheels used it to cover up Special:Recentchanges with his signature image. It's not too hard to undo in Opera: just click the "user mode/author mode" toggle, and the CSS on the div is removed. There's probably also a Firefox extension to do the same thing. --Carnildo 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically he's made a div box which is see-though and covers the edit button. For an example of non-malicious div boxes see my userpage. James086Talk | Email 04:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, a big box, that makes sense. Thanks Kendrick7 and James086 :). Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 04:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    alt-shift-e solves that. βcommand 06:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I used accesskeys to get around it as well. Still, not a bad little trick. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    WP:3RR

    I have suggested merging 3RR into EW at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Merge. Mercury 03:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at Royal Burial Ground

    Two editors, User:Lonewolf BC and User:TharkunColl, are engaging in mild edit warring by removing cited material through reverts with either irrational summary, or no summary, and no discussion; this is after lengthy debate at Talk:Royal Burial Ground resulted in a narrow, but observable, consensus to insert that which the above two editors continually remove. This behaviour appears to be in bad faith, and is certainly disruptive. The page has now been protected twice, at my request. The actions of these tenditious editors needs some attention, please. --G2bambino 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough, but I'd say that the situation needs additional comment rather than just these two editors - it looks like everyone (G2bambino included) should step back and consider whether they're being a bit too overzealous about this issue. Surely it could be resolved with less sturm und drang than this. Isn't there a compromise position that could be reached -- something that accurately describes the royal family but doesn't distract from the point of the article? --TheOtherBob 03:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive, edit warring at Islamophobia

    This article really needs some more admin watchers to curb the POV war that is reoccuring there since the protection was rescinded. Kyaa the Catlord 03:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrative misconduct: Strawman sockpuppet of Durova/Jehochman?

    It's very difficult to believe that the nonsensical rant by User:70.152.214.190 in this since-archived ANI thread was intended to reflect poorly upon Jehochman, isn't it? It rather looks like an attempt to muddy and discredit the thread. I decided to learn who it was. All IP tracers agree in placing this IP in Orlando, Florida. Some are more detailed here than others. I was astonished to find that a google search for Jehochman's name (as advertised from his user page) and Orlando turned up today's date right away in the excerpted texts of all the highest links,[12] for a conference sponsored by an organization with which he has known connections which he or an associate may reasonably be imagined to be attending: [13] Imagine my surprise when I then searched for Durova, only to find the same connections.[14] In fact, both of them spoke back to back at another conference put on by this same organization only a few weeks ago.[15]

    Durova, Jehochman, per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Straw puppets, do either of you have any knowledge or idea of who might have contributed this post? 24.19.33.82 08:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=171161198"