Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Kelly block review

Request a block review

Moved from WP:ANI - thread over 50k - D.M.N. (talk)

Only you can prevent forest fires. Smokey slaps everyone with his shovel.

I just got off a block (my first) by Kylu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The background is, while doing the same image patrolling, cleanup, and moving I have been doing for months, I ran across multiple uploads by Ryulong (talk · contribs) that had WP:NFCC problems, the main one being that they didn't specify the copyright holder of the work per WP:NFCC#10a. I started flagging them to be fixed, but shortly after got a message from Ryulong telling me to stop and that (s)he would fix them because the talk page messages were annoying. I initially offered to consolidate all templates into a single message (as a matter of fact, I did exactly that earlier today after reviewing uploads for AreJay (talk · contribs) - this is my normal practice, I have done the same thing with images by SDC, Endlessdan, SlimVirgin, and others). In response, Ryulong protected his/her talk page (presumably so they could not receive any questions about image uploads.) I got a message from Kylu shortly thereafter from telling me to stop reviewing Ryulong's uploads. After I got that message, I stopped flagging Ryulong's images for copyright problems, to allow Ryulong time to fix them, and only was tagging for non-controversial housekeeping stuff - in fact, I was tagging non-free images that inappropriately high-res images in the image history with {{non-free reduced}} (which doesn't affect the current version) and I was fixing redirect links in the fair use rationales. I was nonetheless blocked. Kelly ^hi! 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You continued to edit after the request to stop, without a comment (see your contribs). Either:
   1. the New Messages bar was ignored (always a bad idea), or,
   2. there was some server-side technical difficulty that prevented you from seeing it, which is my AGF assumption, and therefore the block was to give you the opportunity to review the conversation, or,
   3. you were using the tool in an automated fashion, such as with an autoclicker, which would qualify as botting without prior permission. (This is the not-so-AGF assumption)
2. These edits were focused on one specific individual, Ryulong, instead of simply looking at all new uploads. Please see your contribs during this time frame: they were all dedicated to the images being worked on by one individual, and until he protected his talkpage, left notices there also.

Now, granted I also disagree with his protecting his talkpage, I left him a note about it elsewhere and he agreed that I could remove the protection. There's only one method of preventing a user from editing multiple pages, however. This being a collaborative project, discussion is a vital step in preventing conflicts and would've prevented this block. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is there's no rule saying Kelly had to listen to you, given that Kelly wasn't doing anything wrong in tagging the images. You can't block people just because they don't listen to your advice. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you were not blocking because of the activity directly. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm confused here - if you notice a pattern of problem uploads by a particular user, you are nonetheless not allowed to review that user's uploads? This has never been a problem before (well, I guess it kind of was a problem with SlimVirgin (talk · contribs).) Kelly ^hi! 04:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It was deemed of concern at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali. Daniel (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What was the ultimate result of that? Is reviewing a user's logs not allowed? Kelly ^hi! 05:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, never mind - found the arb case.[1]

7) An editor whose image's licensing or fair-use status is questioned is expected to address the matter promptly and civilly, recognizing that adhering to Wikipedia policy in this area is essential for both ethical and often legal reasons. Disagreeing with the concerns raised and/or requesting a third opinion are often legitimate, but personal attacks on the user raising the question are never appropriate.

9) Where the validity of non-free images is disputed, and especially when these are tagged for speedy deletion, it is important that the uploader be notified of this.

Kelly ^hi! 05:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)From first glance, this feels like an overly harsh application of WP:DTTR (an essay). Since this has come up numerous times, with many editors, I think we really need a policy instead of an essay regulating something that is apparently blockable. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Bad block, though it has me confused.. Kylu seems to indicate that he's using the block because you were not seeing the "you have new messages" bar? I guess there was no malicious intent by Kylu, and he was using the block as a technical attention grabber? -- Ned Scott 04:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Partly to make sure that the conversation was read and partly to block illegitimate botting, were that the case, though I'm happy to see that this doesn't seem to have been the case. I'm not a "he", by the way. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not using a bot, I was using Howcheng's script...so penis vandals get 4 warnings before blocking, but I get none? Kelly ^hi! 04:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't use a block as an attention grabber like this unless it was something really important. I do understand Kelly's annoyance, but at least the block log does note that the block was only for a technical matter, and not for behavior. Forgive and forget time, maybe? -- Ned Scott 04:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to drop it if Kylu put an entry in my block log to say the block was an error - I've asked on her talkpage. Kelly ^hi! 04:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely inadequate. Kelly ^hi! 05:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't know how else to say this, but this just as frustrating as fuck. On the one hand, I have people have thanking me for applying copyright experience and participating in Featured Article reviews. So when I attempt to consistently apply WP:NFCC, no matter how polite I attempt to be, everything is fine until I look at an admin's image uploads, then I get threatened with blocking and accused of stalking and personal agendas. I got threatened with blocking for looking at SlimVirgin's uploads the other day, and now I actually got blocked for looking at Ryulong's uploads. Just what the hell is going on? Kelly ^hi! 05:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I use the same method when I do my image and template runs, usually they are small enough a person does not mind. My suggestion would be to do a run through a person's entire upload record, and then post 1 note to their talk page listing all the images that need fixing. I agree that if a person has 1 or 2 mistagged images, odds are they have more, but many people strongly dislike templates (despite the fact we have them for a reason). MBisanz ^talk 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

But I already do' consolidate all templates into a single message - I do this with all users whose images I review, and I told Ryulong in advance that I would do this. I pointed this out and gave examples above. Kelly ^hi! 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean more like 1 edit saying:

Image 1 has X, Y, and Z wrong

Image 2 has X, T, and Z wrong

Image 3 has G, H, and Y wrong

and so on. MBisanz ^talk 06:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine - I deserved to get blocked. Somebody else enforce the non-free content criteria. Kelly ^hi! 06:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I asked you to stop and slow down and I would review my own image uploads, which I was doing, except the orange bar and my talk page being flooded by those template messages was detracting from my attempts at fixing things on my own. I've been here for two years, and I'm well aware of how things should be tagged, deleted, undeleted, etc. After you simply seemed to ignore my requests, as well as tag images that I had fixed due to your initial messages, and the constant posts to my talk page, I protected it so I could get some work done. Now, every image I've uploaded that was non-free I've looked over and made sure it mentioned everything necessary, and deleted over-sized versions that had smaller resolutions uploaded, etc. The Abu badali decision has always been cited in situations like this, but I was aware of the issue, went about fixing it. In the short period of time you were blocked, I fixed everything I thought needed fixing. I even found a copyright violation on the Commons.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That might have been relevant save for the fact that I was blocked after I stopped posting to your talk page or flagging "your" images with disputed fair use tags. Kelly ^hi! 06:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You stoped both of those after I protected my page because you did not heed my request and during the reverting and editing I had to do to review every image I personally uploaded.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• In my view, double standards are being applied here. I had some problems with Kelly's work in the past (on other image issues), but in general Kelly does do good work with images. It is worrying that Kelly only ran into problems when pointing out image issues with SlimVirgin and Ryulong . It seems there are different standards for some people compared to other users. Not sure whether it is an "admin" or "vested users" situation, but in my view SlimVirgin and Ryulong should not have been so defensive. If a bot had dropped off those messages, what would their reaction have been? I agree Kelly should consolidate messages before dropping them off, not before, but the block by Kylu and the page protection by Ryulong were both poor judgment. Page protection isn't meant to be used to "turn off the orange bar", and blocks are not meant to "grab attention" unless it is clear there is a problem. In my view, this needed to be discussed, with patience and waiting for replies, not with blocks that are saying "stop and discuss first". Messages on a talk page, no matter how annoying, are not something to block people for. Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's a bot, they usually don't come about 12 at a time. And if it is a bot, most of the time I don't care about the images in question and I remove the messages from my talk page (in the beginning of Betacommandbot's run, I just opted out for him).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. You haven't commented on your protection of your own talk page. Given that both Kyllu and me have said that this was not appropriate in this case, I take it you agree with that part of things? Do you have anything to say about how Kelly's work normally meets with no problems, but if the work runs into people who (a) get upset and (b) have people watching out for them, then there are problems? Either Kelly needs to change the way she does things, or some people think different rules apply for them. Or both. Which is it? Carcharoth (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It was an impetuous move such that my page would not be inundated by "This image has an improper fair use rationale" or "This image needs old revisions deleted" or "This image is up for IFD" messages while I was actively editing the site.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would phrase the question differently: If an editor discovers that another editor has uploaded/tagged a series of images incorrectly, is it permissible to check all of their uploads, and in what time period does the uploader have to self-check their images before all of them are tagged? IMO once I see one incorrect images, all of that editor's uploads should be checked and tagged as needed. I don't think message bars are damaging and AFAIK, there is no policy that says "you may only notify X times per hour" or "you must respect a person's wishes not to be notified of tags". Maybe we need to re-write our tagging guidelines to discourage notification if so many people object? MBisanz ^talk 07:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines or not, am I the only one who thinks that posting a dozen or so messages one after another to a single editor is disruptive? It would drive me crazy! I don't mind a bot doing it (although even BCB rarely did it this way, even on a big run) but another editor? It's harrassment. And going through one established editor's contributions looking for faults is also harrassment in and of itself. Then telling the editor to stop and having them ignore you? That could easily be taken as proof of harrassment. No, we don't need a change in guidelines here, we just need people to use commonsense and to remember to not template the regulars with such gusto. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If a user is found to have uploaded a images under faulty rationales, going through them all to check for compliance is really, really not "harrassment". Neıl 龱 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

←Not in isolation, no. But coupled with a dozen templates on your talk page that don't stop even after a request, then, yeah, harassment is what it looks and feels like (regardless of whether it actually is). ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that the usual tagging scripts (such as Twinkle) often do the notification automatically and apparently can't always be stopped from doing it. So you're left with the choice of either annoying the other user, or having significantly more work doing the tagging by hand. The obvious solution would be to make sure that the scripts get configured in such a way that notifications can be switched off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have found that continuing editing while the "new message bar" is displayed solves the problem - since it is the same as not being online while someone sends a message. When I have finished whatever I am doing I can then reviw my talkpage, and once in a while there is more than one message - just like when I log on off an evening. If whatever you are doing is not so important as to read your latest message, which can be the case, then it is merely a niusance to respond and find another message soon after. If you are doing something else that requires your undivided attention, ignore the message bar. It doesn't flash any brighter or more often if there is more than one message. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "...ignore the message bar. It doesn't flash any brighter or more often if there is more than one message." - LOL! That is very true. I sometimes do that as well, though admittedly I would stop to think whether it might be urgent (if I had just done something that might be controversial), but, in general, the thing that brings someone a cropper is the thing that they thought was uncontroversial and "obvious". Most people (me included) don't have that self-restraint though. It is like "MUST CLICK ORANGE BAR... MUST CLICK ORANGE BAR". Once you have developed the self-control to ignore a ringing phone, or a beeping e-mail alert, or whatever, and finish what you are doing first, it can be quite refreshing and liberating. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly related issue

User:MBisanz and User:Ryulong tag-teamed me to block me to get me away from editing an article that where I questioned the source (I was blocked by MBisanz for putting a tag on an article requesting a fact check)[2]. Ryulong's assertion that his talk page is being flooded by anything after he hounded me on my talk page is a good laugh--he couldn't stop posting on mine after I asked him to stop, so it's do as he says, not as he does, which is typical Wikipedia behavior established/new editors: you'll be bashed over the head with policy, but don't try quoting it to an established user and don't template them, they're somebody, not anybody.. You can't win this one, once you've questioned an article or edit by Ryulong, Kelly, you're too new here, and they're going to let you know it. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] If you complain, you'll just bring a whole lot more established editors to harangue you out of editing Wikipedia. Yes, copyvios are a serious issue on Wikipedia, but serious editing is not what anyone is wanted to do.--Blechnic (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I now just edit crap and argue for and against deletions instead of doing technical editing in my area and no one bothers me. --Blechnic (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Your addition here is just an ad hominem attack.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are some serious allegations, and I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand. Someone care to analyze the evidence? Jtrainor (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I agree. I apologise for inserting the "off-topic" section header, and have changed it to "possibly related". In fact, it should be a separate section, probably, but I'll keep out of it now, as my initial edit and now my apology means it would be best for someone else to look into this. Apologies again for trying to keep the issues separate without looking into the allegations by Blechnic. Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It does appear as though in the examples Belchnic gives, Ryulong was doing exactly the same thing Kelly was blocked for, namely, continually adding messages to talk pages despite the recipient indicating the message had been received. This is pretty hypocritical. Neıl 龱 09:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(after ec x2)I've spent ten minutes looking at this. First off, the edits in question are all back in May, so I would have hoped that Blechnic would have got over it by now. Second, Blechnic doesn't seem to be the easiest person to get along with, managing to rub-up the wrong way several people he's been in contact with and fond from the start of writing long, bold-text rants about how unfair things are here and especially how named admins are clearly abusive. That said, Ryūlóng didn't help matters by reverting his talk page to try to get the message across, but others agreed with the action at the time and the page ended up protected to stop the rant being reinserted. My recommendation would be for Blechnic to drop this, as he's on a hiding to nowhere in pursuing it and taking it further may lead to in-depth investigation of his editing which might not be to his advantage. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Stop talking about this or we will investigate you" - do we really need to resort to threats? The removal of Blechnic's rant is not the issue, rather Ryulong's repeated addition of the same or similar messages. I would also point out May wasn't that long ago. Neıl 龱 09:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Stop talking about this or we will investigate you" - no, not really. More, if he does pursue this, the behaviour of both will be looked into and he (Blechnic) isn't pristine white. He is, of course, entitled to take this further. I just doubt it is a good idea, on grounds of drama if nothing else. As I say, Ryulong doesn't come out of this too well either, but I can see fault on both sides. And it was a month ago, since when Blechnic has been editing happily, so this is a bit of "picking at a scab". But your mileage may vary, of course :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue in question is a month old and is not the exact same thing.

• Kelly repeatedly placed image warning templates on my user talk due to the script being run to tag images. While I was planning on fixing every image, I asked Kelly to stop and I would do the work on my own (which is seen on User talk:Kelly). This was followed by continued tagging of images and my user talk, after which I protected my user talk. During this time, I asked Kylu for assistance with Kelly as I wanted to make sure I checked all of my images.
• With Blechnic, I was trying to contact the user, and he removed everything saying I was taunting or abusing editing priveleges. He continues to assume bad faith, and his resultant block was for disrupting an article featured in the DYK, which I subsequently re-referenced because everything I had added was questioned and attacked.

Now, how are these two situations in any way related other than the user talk page being edited (in two completely different ways)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Kelly places messages on your talk page. You do not want these messages. Kelly keeps putting them on there.

2) You place messages on Blechnic's talk page. Blechnic does not want these messages. You keep putting them on there.

When boiled down, the two situations are similar. The difference is you protected your page to prevent further messages, and then you asked Kylu to deal with Kelly, which she did by blocking her - one or the other of these was wholly unnecessary, I believe the block. What point was there in blocking Kelly for templating your talk page, particular given a) the templates were correct, and b) you'd already protected it to stop her communicating with you further? Rather than insisting on her stopping because you were "dealing with your images", you could have just as easily stopped and waited for Kelly to finish going through them, instead of getting Kylu to block her - did that even occur to you? Neıl 龱 10:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because I could go through things much faster without having to undo various edits after I had already fixed the fair use rationales on several images and before I could just go through my uploads myself and fix everything such that Kelly would not have to continually post the same message on my talk page? Given the rate, my page would have been flooded by the image templates, when protecting it (temporarily) so I could fix images in exactly an hour's time. Every fair use image I have uploaded is now tagged properly, has the copyright owners listed, and all that needed revisions deleted have had the revisions deleted. I asked Kelly to stop. Kelly didn't. Blechnic should really have moved on, but instead used this as an excuse to bring up a month's old resolved dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pedantry: By definition, if one party is still bringing a dispute up, it's not resolved. Neıl 龱 12:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was no problem for an entire month.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the block or whatnot, but I wonder if this doesn't really boil down to "don't use Howcheng's shortcut when going through someone's uploads and tagging bunches of them"? Its fine for one offs here and there, but its rather silly to be using it knowing you're going to spam the crap out of someone. I know Kelly's trying to be helpful, but there have been several times in the past few months that her actions have been seen as incredibly abrasive and she doesn't seem to have taken that in to account. Maybe we should give some thought to notifying established editors to review their images if someone comes across a few instead of plowing through their uploads and spamming them to death? Its not as if someone won't come across their images again later if they don't fix them all. I guess I just don't understand why people who do mostly image work always seem to have the attitude that people shouldn't get upset when they're being a pain cause "its necessary" - if those folks just thought for a minute, they could figure out a way to do it and not be a pain ;) Shell ^babelfish 10:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree there - it is always better, even with a new editor, to list all the problematic images in one message, together with what is wrong with them and what needs to be done. Neıl 龱 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, my response sounded a bit one sided there. Its just as important for folks who are getting image template messages to understand that the work does need to be done and much worse things could happen in your day than getting a spammy talk page. Shell ^babelfish 10:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a dozen or so messages in very quick succession, including ones sent after a request to stop. Much worse things could happen in your day, but in your Wikipedia day, this would be close to the top of the list. IMHO. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 11:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it makes little sense to continue after one has been politely asked to stop. Checking images may be a required task, but leaving a template message on someone's user page isn't. Shell ^babelfish 11:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not leave a note on user Foo's talk page saying, "Hi there, I'm spamming a jillion image template messages to User_talk:Foo/img_tmp. Please have a look at them when you have time, thanks!" Gwen Gale (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been flooded with image templates myself; look at my talk page archives. It's very annoying, but I grin and bear it; I don't start demanding that the people who do it be blocked. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a truly bad block by Kylu. Kylu, are you open for recall? I think you should seriously consider your status as an admin. Bstone (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly's comment that penis vandals get 4 warnings before blocking, but I get none? hits the nail on the head here. In that context, this block was unconscionable. Kelly was not disrupting the project in a manner that was visible to the public; she was being mildly annoying to another user (who happened to be an admin).

Worse yet, there was no final warning. If Kelly's templatized message had been "Ryulong eats his own farts", and this was reported to WP:AIV, the report would be declined. How messed up is that?

The message here is that we as a community are more concerned about stopping annoying template messages from appearing an admin talk pages than we are about the general public seeing vulgar and defamatory information on article pages. No wonder Wikipedia has such a bad public image.

Perhaps we have spent so long assuming that "penis vandals" are acting in good faith that we no longer care about good faith intention. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd hope that penis vandals would get zero warnings before a block. But that may just be me. shoy 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I love it when people scream "OMG RECALL!" when someone disagrees with someone else. What a world we live in. -Pilotguy contact tower 16:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not advocating recall. I just think the block was way out of process, and I endorse Kelly's request that an admin enact a procedural 1-second block against Kelly with a comment clearing her of wrongdoing, so that she has an effectively clear block log.

Failing that, I advocate that Kelly be allowed to put giant pictures of dicks on four pages of her choosing, without repercussion. After all, she's already been punished as if that's what she did... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I do certainly agree with that point. Suspensions if not desysoppings should be handed out for this. Now this is just too confusing. I have better work to do than this. -Pilotguy contact tower 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved

Warnings before final warnings? What's all this crap? I received one warning, and it was my final warning.[10] And, then Ryulong came along to antagonize and provoke me, which he succeeded in doing very well, and I am now under threat of being permanently banned from editing Wikipedia if I ever put another tag on an article. Don't tell me it's resolved and threaten me with, well, hell, you've already given me a one warning/final warning for being concerned that an article contained copyrighted matieral (what Kelly is trying to do), and then threatened I'll be banned if I tag another article incorrectly. That's right, for the sin of questioning the accuracy of an article I will be banned from the community forever. --Blechnic (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm a technical writer in tropical plant diseases, what I came to edit and would love to edit on Wikipedia, an area where Wikipedia is sorely deficient, but I can't safely do this, because I see what the original threat I leveled against the community is and remains: expertise. Now I just edit crap to pass the time while on remote watch. --Blechnic (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, oh, I just tagged some attack pages as candidates for speedy deletion, someone better ban me right away!!!! --Blechnic (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blechnic, if you want to edit articles on tropical plant diseases, you should be able to. I've left a note on your talk page offering advice and support if you need it. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No thanks, I'll just be banned for tagging something, since there are few facts, lots of speculation, and tons of misinformation in the few article son tropical agriculture en.Wiki has, and tags are a way of alerting both readers and other editors, and are a necessary editing tool that I am forbidden to use. --Blechnic (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You're not forbidden to use them. I can't speak for the precise situation as I am just about to run out the door and have no time to investigate, but I can say this is not "Wikipedia vs the user", it's a single case of over-reach of admin powers (i.e. it's not supposed to happen and is correctible if it is) and as long as you keep within our policies (most notably assuming good faith and not personally attacking on the pages you work on or with the users you deal with) neutral admins will be able to sort the situation out. (I'm not suggesting you have been in violation, it's more of a catch-all.) Orderinchaos 23:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I think if you get warned once that you will be blocked if you tag an article again, then get blocked, then get threatened with a permanent ban because you're pretty pissed off at getting blocked for tagging an article, then you are forbidden to use tags under the threat that you will be permanently banned from Wikipedia if you tag an article again. It's not better telling me that I was lied to before. Anyway, this is tiresome, fact is, Kelly did the forbidden: she tagged the page and/or article of a preferred editor, and, gods forbid, and admin. She will be hounded out or be under cloud of permanent banning threat should she attempt to act like an editor again. I'm sure that Ryolong, as an admin, should be thoroughly excused for not knowing and following the policies for his uploads, too. --Blechnic (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of admin tools?

This seems to be a pretty shocking abuse of admin tools. While there could be improvement to Kelly's methods, I think few would doubt that what Kelly is doing is a benefit to the project in helping out with image copyright issues. For an admin to page protect their talk page just so that they aren't "annoyed" by other editors good faith communication with them is crazy and completely contrary to the page protection policy. Kelly's edits were not vandalism and were not harassment. By taking the action of uploading any image, you are willfully submitting yourself to other editors reviewing your image and notifying you of problems. If you don't want to be bothered with any communication about images, don't upload anything. But seriously, if you know that someone is going through images and you're going to get some templates--How hard is it to just step away from the computer, get some coffee and then come back and delete them all from your talk page. What lasting damage to your talk page (or more importantly the project) was at risk by Kelly's notification that would warrant a page protection? And then the block....absolutely outrageous and completely out of the scope of the blocking policy. When admins are blocking editors in good standing for good faith and important work that benefits the project, we have some serious issues here. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this argument develop for about a day now, and I think I'm finally going to throw my two cents (sorry for the American centric idiom) into the fray. Granted this is all just my opinion, so I'm going to say that now and not after every statement I make below. I think nobody did anything that bad, and all three of you did something a little uncivil. Somehow these three little acts added up to the large dispute we have here. Now everyone is assuming that the situation is someone's falt. I think arguing who's fault it is is a little silly. It was the combination that caused the problem, not any one of the three editors involved.

• Kelly, It's all about the Ryulong's talk page. You were automatically (I assume with Twinkle) sending him a new message every 30 seconds, which more or less prevented him from doing anything else. Nevertheless, the tags on the images were valid, and going through one user's upload log is perfectly propper. In fact a rule preventing this would be quite silly if you think about it. I think the biggest problem is the use of automatic tools. A single the following images you uploaded have been tagged message would be a lot more polite.
• Ryulong, you have a week after the template is posted to fix the copyright issues. If you know you're getting hit with a lot of templates about copyright issues, just ignore them until they stop. The page protect seems a little excessive. I agree that Kelly should have slowed down when you asked her to, but she was under no obligation to do so.
• Kylu, was the block really necessary? If the issue was Ryulong's talk page then no. If the issue was the tagging of the images, then maybe. It still seems like more of an escalation that was really called for, but 30 minutes is pretty minimal and the log entry does not suggest Kelly was violating any policies or anything.

I think we admins need to be very careful not to appear to be using our tools to push Wikipedia in a particular direction. Whether it be in article space or WP space or even talk space. I'm not suggeesting that anyone did that, but appearances matter too.

My inclination would be to say that what's done is done. It's time to move on. I think we do need to have a discussion about image-tag-notification-template-spamming but it should be done in a broader context than in a discussion about these three editors. So I would say everyone should chill. Kelly, no the block might not have been the best way to go about it, but it worked, was minimal (as far as blocks go), and does not damage your reputation. Let it go. --Selket ^Talk 17:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I support Kylu's block. Kelly targeted me recently, going through every single image I'd ever uploaded, and tagging them liberally for deletion (including the ones that were clearly PD and/or had OTRS tags), or tagging them for a move to the Commons, though I asked him to make sure a local copy was kept. He started two AN/I threads about it, multiple threads on various deletion pages, on my talk page, on other people's talk pages, and on an ArbCom case. I had to ask him several times to stop posting on my talk page and to consolidate the discussion, to no avail. He then started pursuing me in other areas: he objected to a semi-protection I'd been involved in, and he "warned" me about the Israel-Palestine ArbCom ruling. Several admins warned him to stop, and he responded by becoming quite abusive toward them, and removed the warnings from his talk page with the edit summary "remove bogus threats." [11] I hope the block makes him reconsider his approach. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Will your comment add anything constructive to this discussion, when there is already animosity between you and Kelly? Best to stay clear of each other. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's important to point this out for the future. Kelly is one of the rudest and most aggressive users I've come across in a long time. S/he writes misleadingly about her actions, removes people's corrections of her claims from her talk page, removes admin warnings, and creates forest fires of discussion in order to (as I see it) almost harass whoever she's decided to focus on. This kind of attitude is particularly inappropriate while handling image issues, because people do get upset when images are questioned, especially when they're legitimate and have OTRS tags, so people doing this kind of work need to show a bit more tact than is usually needed. I'd suggest that Kelly focus on some other area of the project for a while, or perhaps someone who's experienced with images could act as a mentor. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait what? A fair number of the images you have uploaded, even those with the OTRS tag on them have issues... [12]. Viridae^Talk 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Quite why SlimVirgin is saying that the images are legitimate escapes me. There are genuine concerns about the images, confirmed by people other than Kelly. For SlimVirgin to say otherwise is disingenous. And from what I have seen, Kelly is already experienced enough to more than adequately deal with a wide range of image issues. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is rather worrisome that SlimVirgin continues to characterize the situation this way. I spent hours double checking each of the disputed images, then reverifying with an OTRS volunteer. Out of respect for SlimVirgin, who did not contest my report at the previous thread, I have until now refrained from reporting that many of her OTRS submissions had invalid rationales. Anyone who understands copyright and examines the set in detail could infer that these OTRS claims were dubious. Kelly was acting with due diligence in the interests of the site. I respectfully request that SlimVirgin address the problems with her own uploads, seek a mentor regarding copyright issues, and strikethrough these inappropriate aspersions. Kelly's communications could be better, but she is doing necessary work competently. Durova^Charge! 04:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion here looks fairly silly all around: Kelly was trying to do good, and managed to become a bit spammy in the process. Ryulong expressed a clear intent to resolve the problem(s) and that there was no need to continue to add many template notices, and requested they be be stopped. Kelly kept leaving notices. A wake-up-block was an appropriate result, not a punishment for Kelly's actions, but just to stop the probably unintentional unneeded spammy behavior. Kylu's block reason even indicated that this was the sort of block used to stop runaway automation. I could only suggest that a shorter block (10 minutes) would have been equally effective.... and that I see no need to have an exhaustive discussion here over the details. Kelly, Kylu, Ryulong, can we all just resolve to continue to try our best and drop this and move on? --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I retract this view. See way below. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"You were automatically (I assume with Twinkle) sending him a new message every 30 seconds, which more or less prevented him from doing anything else." How on earth do you come to this conclusion?!? A "You have new messages" banner at the top of the page does NOTHING to "prevent" someone doing anything on Wikipedia. It's an informative message, not a modal "needs response now" message. I the situation is farcical. Blocking a user for not "stopping reviewing someone's work"?!? Achromatic (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of what I'm pretty sure is many, many people here who stops editing to look at talk page messages as soon as they come in. In fact, admins are expected to stop and respond to talk messages, lest they be thought unresponsive or in case they have done something big-and-daft (which we have all done). The BRIGHT ORANGE BANNER is bright orange because we expect people to notice it - especially vandals and admins. There's really no excuse for sending a dozen template messages one after another, especially after it was requested to stop. I notice no apology from Kelly, who would get a similar shock if they ever did it to me, I'll tell you. It's harassment... or abuse of automated editing tools leading to harassment. Either is blockable. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Kelly shouldn't have spammed template after template on Ryulong's talk page, especially not after being told that Ryulong is working on the images already. But can we assume some good faith here and please stop calling this "harassment"? To me this looks more like a rather unlucky use of semi-automated tools, and I'd advise Kelly to notify a user only once if (s)he is going through someone's upload history in the future to find problem images. (While we're at it, I'd love it if the bots would do the same, but that doesn't seem to be as easy to program as it seems.) --Conti|✉ 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From WP:STALK

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). These logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter. - emphasis mine. --Random832 (contribs) 18:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's the double standard issue, not the stalking issue (IMO). Some users are imune from regular notifications of things to fix, and informing them of those issues is reason for a block. Ryulong is one of those users, appearantly. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Absurdo ad reductum is rarely helpful. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To post more here would just spread the fire, but I gave some background on image reviewing, and replied to the "spamming" concerns, on my talk page here . Kelly ^hi! 20:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the self-justification for abusing automated editing tools (It's not my fault, it's just written that way!!) but this whole issue could have been stopped in advance if you'd heeded the request to stop posting repeated templates to a regular's talk page. If that meant manually reviewing the images (and I really don't want to know why, of all the methods of dividing up this backlog, you thought that by editor was a good idea) then that's what you should have done. You are responsible for every edit you make, even if it is automatically produced (by you). And I don't know where you get the "my critics bear grudges" thing from - having had no interaction with you before, I doubt I fall into that (sweeping) category. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is "YOU ARE ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIVITY ON YOUR ACCOUNT" and "DUMB SOFTWARE IS THE USERS PROBLEM; NOT MINE". If twinkle does something un-optimally and people yell at you saying "twinkle did it" doesn't get you off the hook. Either fix twinkle, find a way of using it that doesn't cause problems, demonstrate why nothing better is possible, or don't use it at all. In the general case of going through all images the multiple notices doesn't usually create a problem, but when you single out a user (also a fine thing to do by itself) the multi-notices might cause a problem, and when the user has acknowledged the problem and you continue to tag it *is* causing a problem and you need to stop. If you're unable to beg, barter, or build a better tool and you have to sit on your hands until the user has had reasonable time to resolve the issue... then tough cookies. Now that we're all aware and the blocks are all gone... time to move on yet? --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Redvers and Gmaxwell, nice to see that you noticed my statement that I always clean up the mess left by the script (that is, when I'm not blocked). I stated this numerous times and even provided evidence, but it's just repeatedly ignored. Nice. Kelly ^hi! 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a large difference between cleaning up mistakes and not making them in the first place. There's also a large difference between cleaning up mistakes and stopping making them after you have been requested to do so. You sent, regularly and regardless of the outcome, a dozen warnings to an active regular editor. These edits were your responsibility, and you were responsible for the short block you got for ignoring that responsibility. It really is now time to move on... but please don't abuse automated tools in future, or you will be blocked again, especially if you don't understand what the problem was in the first place. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hold your horses. I'm all for fixing Twinkle, but as long as it's not fixed, we simply cannot have image cleaners be forced to stop using it and waste a lot more time doing their valuable work, because of a minor annoyance it causes. Serial semi-automatic notifications are a frequent result of image cleanup, I've produced them too. Please be a bit more careful with block threats, because a block made on this basis will be undone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read ЯEDVEЯS message as a complaint about automated messages, but rather a complaint about continuing to flood a user with them after they acknowledged the issue and asked you to cut it out. Very different things... No one is forcing you to use twinkle, you know... I've probably diddled the copyright tags on more images than most pairs of users combined. But I wouldn't ever have had a problem with a user asking me to leave them be while they fix things, I would have just moved on to another set of images for the time being. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going in circles (probably because the thread has gotten so long). I won't repeat myself any further (think I'll unwatch this page for awhile, drop a note on my talk page if a response is needed.) But I'll just point to the beginning of the thread - I did stop when Kylu asked me to (though it was irrelevant because of the talkpage protection) and at the time I was blocked I was only fixing redirect links in rationales and other housekeeping, none of which required any user notifications. Kelly ^hi! 21:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me Kelly was acting wholly in good faith but wasn't aware that when a big batch of images uploaded by an established and trusted editor needs license work, this editor should be notified personally with a single message and plenty of warning (and any tagging can be safely put off for at least a few days, since there are always lots of other images in need of checking). The tools Kelly's been using automatically send out notifications which can't be turned off and she mistakenly, through lack of experience, decided it was more important to carry on tagging the images than heed the pleas from spammed, trustworthy editors. I don't think the block was needed, she had stopped and is a trusted editor, but at 30 minutes (and lifted before it was up), it's nothing either way. This is another lesson about the need to be so heedful when using automated tools. One small mistake by a good faith, knowledgeable and very helpful but relatively new (three months) editor can be multiplied into a big disruption, stirred up even more by not knowing straight off how to handle an understandable landslide she didn't mean to trigger. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, after Kelly's message above I reviewed the history a little more carefully. Kelly stopped spamming Ryulong but continued tagging images in a manner which appeared appropriate. At the point where Kylu blocked Kelly had not edited Ryulong's talk page for almost 20 minutes. With this new understanding I now believe the block was unneeded and inappropriate. I still think everyone was simply trying to do well, and that this is being overblown.. but I thought it would be unfair to not retract my initial opinion. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Trouts around

Lets all agree that no one handled this situation The Right Way©

• Kelly should've stopped tagging when Ryulong said he was fixing things
• Ryulong shouldn't have used his admin abilities in a dispute, even if it was to protect his page
• Kylu should've been a bit slower with the block button, given Kelly hadn't been warned a block was imminent.

Now like I said, I'd like to see something added to our blocking policy or our harassment policy about when notifications become harassment/blockable offenses, because right now this area feels very gray. MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Fix the script

In the interest of maybe doing something productive, as opposed to idealogical and procedural wrangling, I copied Howcheng's script to my user space and created a version that does not automatically save the warning to the user talk page (it generates the warning template and edit summary as normal, but leaves it up to the user to actually click the "Save page" button). User:Jaysweet/quickimgdeletenoautosave.js if anyone is interested... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And I've added a feature request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And it's implemented now. xenocidic (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility I mentioned to Kelly is that instead of auto-saving the warnings to the uploader's talk page, it could auto-save the warning to User:SCRIPT USER/Warnings for UPLOADER, and then after doing a batch of tagging (as is Kelly's MO), the warnings can be consolidated and copied into the uploader's talk page as a single message, rather than a dozen spams. To do this would require me to actually modify more than one line of code, so if there is interest in this, let me know. I'm not going to just pre-emptively do it unless there is interest. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To the end of making all scripts never notify and making tagging/deletions notifications 100% {{nobots}} compliant, I've asked BJweeks to code Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NotifyBot. MBisanz ^talk 06:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

According to the timeline I can construct:

• 2:34 UTC [13] Ryulong asks Kelly to stop; saying "I get it. Stop using Twinkle to notify me. I'll go through the images in question and add the copyright holder."

• 2:35 UTC [14] Kelly responds saying "I don't use Twinkle for image notification, normally.", which is true if he was using Howcheng's script.

• 2:42 UTC [15] Ryulong responds saying "Well, just list the images instead of using the silly template."

• 2:44 UTC [16] Kelly adds a message to Ryulong's page saying "I use Howcheng's script to tag images - after I'm finished going through your upload log, I'll come back and consolidate all the spammy templates into a single message."

• 2:45 UTC [17]

Ryulong adds "Well, I'm checking everything now (up to page 2). Some have copyright information, those that don't I'm adding them to."

• 2:46 UTC [18] Kelly tags an image at {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} and notifyies Ryulong

• 2:48 UTC [19] Ryulong adds the message "The one's you're doing I've already fixed. Check them D:"

• 2:48 UTC [20] Kelly notifies Ryulong for the last time pre-block of an image tag, continues tagging images with DFUI and FURD.

• 2:49 UTC [21] Ryulong protects his talk page.

• 2:53 UTC [22] Ryulong adds "Would you please slow down? I'll fix the ones that you've tagged and I'll go through my Upload logs on my own, thank you."

• 3:05 UTC [23] Kelly is blocked by Kylu

Now, from what I can tell at no point did Ryulong instruct Kelly to stop leaving him messages, and that he had stopped leaving messages long before the block occured, respecting Ryulong's request. So, it would appear that Kelly was blocked for tagging too many images.

Also, its rather distrubing that Ryulong disabled the unblock request [24] of someone hw was engaged in a dispute with. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhhggh, no, see the next edit of Ryulong's on the same page [25]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And that would be the mistake of using single change diffs. Still concerning he made the edit in the first place. MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good-faith effort to unblock, to me. Ryulong should have actually unblocked and then made that edit. A bit unfortunate, but no harm done. The longer term effects of this are harder to gauge, though. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's been established that the block was complete bullshit. Naerii - Talk 10:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you refactor that into more genteel terms, please? Durova^Charge! 21:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly's offered an olive branch, happily accepted. For us, at the least, the situation seems resolved. I sadly predict more drama by others regarding this situation, however. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 04:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)