Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

*If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Pokrajac (talk · contribs)

This user is reverting English-language naming of tennis player biographies and names despite being informed about Wikipedia policy concerning those names. The relevant diffs showing his or her edits are here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. This user's rather incivil posts to my discussion page can be found here. Tennis expert (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, all Serbs, (also Croats, Bosniaks...) in this encyclopedia are listed whit original names whit Serbian (Croatian) latin letters š, đ, č, ć, and ž. There is no reason that tennis players be exeption. If somebody want double standards, I can't "fight" against strog inequitably power. --Pockey (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New instances of this user's disruptive editing: 14, 15, 16. Tennis expert (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing illiterately. --Pockey (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edit #17. Tennis expert (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC) And #18 --HJensen, talk 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that if all of the appropriate redirects are available, it will be a matter of indifference to most of our readers which spelling holds the actual article. - Jmabel | Talk 15:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But that's not established Wikipedia policy. What we're talking about here is a user who has been informed of the policy, has a personal disagreement with it, and is disruptively editing based on those personal feelings. Tennis expert (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not only my disagreement. Everyone who knows what is correct spelling of Serbian names can not accept this so called policy. Have you consulted Serbian and Croatian speaking users when you decided to make double standards about tennis players? Almost all people whit those leters in this encyclopedia are listed correctly and some so called proficients of Serbo-Croatian language can't tell over night what we must do whit tennis players. I will always be high-class user of this Wikipedia, and i will always correcting illiterately names. --Pockey (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I can see now that User:Tennis expert have produced big number of edit wars all over Wikipedia, because he think he is a lecturer of Serbian and Czech languages. Similar situation we have on article Radek Štěpánek, where he can't be tolerate for standardised Czech language. --Pockey (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Same thing whit article Daniela Hantuchová. This user speaks Slovak as well! :) --Pockey (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

More disruptive edits by User:Pokrajac: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Tennis expert (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to give my full support for User:Pokrajac and other users with brain on the right place and with the feeling of the common sense. This so-called "policy" is nothing else than a silent consensus reached by several like-minded users of WPP Tennis, their "consensus" goes against the common sense and the Wikipedia precedence and general consensus policies. Their fresh ruthless policies should be changed and reverted back, otherwise we will have double standards here. - Darwinek (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my brain apparently being misplaced lately, for having no conception of common sense, and for imposing "fresh ruthless policies." By the way, why did you say in response to the arguments that Redux made on your discussion page "I see your points" if those arguments were full of double standards and represent a mere "silent consensus reached by several like-minded users of WPP Tennis"? I have noted with interest your reversion of three renames of tennis articles after your dialogue with Redux: 1, 2, 3. Tennis expert (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All should be moved back to their proper names. Several stubborn users can't stop the whole community and the common sense of decent Wikipedianz. - Darwinek (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you're calling me "stubborn." What have I done to deserve being called names? That's very un-administrator of you. Tennis expert (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but if you don't see a problem with calling user "disruptive" for correcting article titles and report him for that at WP:AN/I, it is sad. This is no more, no less than a content dispute and should be dealt with as such. There would be 500 threads each day here if everyone would be dropping in with similar "issues" as you do. --Darwinek (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This was the exact procedure that Redux said should be followed: make reports to this noticeboard. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should talk to him and direct your name calling (e.g., stubborn, brain in the wrong place, no common sense, ruthless, disruptive, lacking decency, double standards imposing) in his direction. Besides, I thought you were supposed to avoid this kind of thing. Tennis expert (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My civility parole ended two months ago, my record is clear now, therefore I say to you, "No comment, this discussion is completely useless. I quit." - Darwinek (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Darwinek - although he should be aware Tennis expert is not the party at fault here, I've established after a conversation with him that he was not part of the original disputes nor was he aware of them. The articles should not be moved, just as we don't rename places because poor Anglos (of which I am proudly one, by the way) can't read foreign characters, and in general we don't name biographies, we shouldn't be creating a culture of exceptionalism where one WikiProject decides to violate norms elsewhere in the encyclopaedia for no apparent reason but that some other organisation thinks it necessary to drop diacritics. Orderinchaos 10:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So, it will be the usual "respect for native culture" argument that should guide naming on the English wikipedia? Not English spelling. What is the point here? Everytime consensus is reached about moving names to their English spelling, some days goes and then some natives round of their friends and start reverting. Are we just going to accept that? Just because East Europeans are more sensitive to this issue than, say, Scandinavian? (ps: what on earth does "i will always correcting illiterately names"?).--HJensen, talk 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been a long-standing consensus, or at least practice, to use original spelling for names in languages which use the Čatin alphabet and don't have English names (this has nothing to do with things like Vienna, or Spain, or John Paul II - all of those do have actual English names). For whatever reason, it's sports article editors which occasionally start these renaming-to-diacriticless-version campaigns. The last time I followed this, it was hockey, this time it's tennis. There are three coherent arguments for dropping diacritics for tennis players that I have managed to discern, but they are all misguided:

• One claim is that diacritics make it hard for English speakers to find articles. This is a particularly bad argument, since we do have redirects.
• Another is that tennis players are registered with WTA or ATP by their "Anglicised" (i.e. simplified) spelling. Accepting this as a valid argument leads to ridiculous conclusions - a young tennis player who hasn't turned professional, would have his names spelled with diacritics, and when he goes professional we should move the article. Obviously a bad idea.
• The apparently strongest argument is that tennis players are most often referred to by the simplified spelling of their names in English language sources. While that may be true, it tells are more about the nature of those sources than about tennis players' names. Most sources for tennis players are newspapers, and newspapers tend to spell all non-English names without diacritics. OTOH, dictionaries and encyclopedias tend to use diacritics where appropriate. So in this case, "follow common usage" applied properly means "use diacritics".

The argument for using original spelling is really simple. There is nothing special about the names of sportspeople. There is no justification for using a different convention for tennis players, as opposed to writers or politicians or scientists. If we had a consensus to drop diacritics from all names, it would be entirely appropriate to do so for tennis players. But since UTF-8 titles were introduced by the developers because we wanted diacritics in titles, that sounds unlikely. Zocky | picture popups 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More disruptive behavior by Pokrajac here. This is on the Djokovic page hwere consensus for the English spelling has been reached after a long, long discussion. Now this user unilaterally acts against consensus. --HJensen, talk 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Zocky: (1) Why do you think the websites of both players' associations for professional tennis (the Women's Tennis Association and the Association of Tennis Professionals) omit diacritics? Neither are newspapers. Both are international organizations. What makes their usage unreliable but general purpose dictionaries and encyclopedias reliable for purposes of tennis biographies on English Wikipedia? (2) An amateur tennis player is unlikely to be sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. And even if he or she were, there's nothing wrong with changing the name of the article when it becomes appropriate to do so. Otherwise, Wikipedia would never include unmarried women lest they get married at some point in the future and agree to take their husband's name. (3) Why is the usage of the International Tennis Federation, the official international governing body of tennis, irrelevant? See, e.g., the biographies of "Novak Djokovic" and "Jelena Jankovic". (4) Why is the usage of the official website of the French Open (Roland Garros) irrelevant? For example, it uses "Djokovic," "Ivanovic," and "Jankovic". (5) Why is the usage of the official website of the Olympic Games irrelevant? See, e.g., names of "Nicolas Massu" and "Fernando Gonzalez". (6) Why is the usage of the International Tennis Hall of Fame irrelevant. See, e.g., the biography of "Martina Navratilova" (7) The reason that diacritics should not be used in tennis biographies on English Wikipedia is not because they are "special." Instead, diacritics are not used in the most reliable and official sources of English-language tennis information, from newspapers to websites to official tennis organizations, and THAT is why they should not be used on English Wikipedia.

What's really upsetting to me are edit summaries like "stop depressing Serbian language" by Pokrajac (Pockey) that demonize those of us who honestly and reasonably believe that diacritics should not be used in English-language Wikipedia tennis biographies when official tennis organizations do not use them. Tennis expert (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now reverted the user's edit on the Novak Djokovic article again, see here. And have, to make things crystal clear, made an entry on the Djokovic talk page explaining that for that particular article the user is acting against consensus. A consensus that involved numerous editors, and where proponents for using the Serbian spelling generally had better arguments than the kind of "using English spelling is sign of imperialism and disrespectful, etc." - arguments that the user in question here uses. Can this user just go on unnoticed with this behavior? Is this acceptable behavior on wikipedia? I would be happy to hear a clear answer from an admin on this. The admins here seem to be just (re-)starting a general diacritics discussion here, thereby avoiding an assessment of the actions of Pokrajac (talk · contribs) (which I thought was the whole purpose here). --HJensen, talk 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (Addition: One may also note that the user has engaged in canvassing, as evidenced here.)--HJensen, talk 06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Um noted, but (1)canvasing is a behavioral guideline not a policy and (2)this isn't exactly widespread solicitation with intent to 'disrupt' a well 'organized' conversation. More of noting a similar edit by another user and informing of a AN notice, not exactly a neutral message, but definitely not canvasing.--Samuel Pepys (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is definitely canvassing. The issue is whether it is disruptive. There I disgree with you again. The user explicitly states that s/he will use e-mail lists, so it is non-transparent, and also clearly partisan. So it fits into at least two categories defining "disruptive canvassing". --HJensen, talk 13:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hjensen, it's really simple - these are articles about those people, not articles about their registration with WTA or ATP. Their names don't change when they join. The whole thing is a non starter. I repeat, the fact that somebody is a tennis player has nothing to do with their name. If you can get Wikipedia to drop diacritics generally, you'll have a good argument to do so for tennis players. Until then, you're just wasting everybody's time. Zocky | picture popups 11:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so should I start a new ANI section on Pokrajac's behavior relating to the Djokovic article only? Like it or not, there is consensus in that article to use English spelling. Is that easier to cope with? (And my god; this is not about diacritics - it is about using the English spelling that can be verified by reliable sources. You are the one wasting everybody's time by digging up that argument as a scapegoat. So again: This is not about diacritics.) --HJensen, talk 13:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the argument is that these people have English names? That borders on ridiculous. We're talking about spelling, not names. Zocky | picture popups 14:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for unbanning by User:Iamandrewrice

Ban not lifted per strong consensus. Iamandrewrice and friends must appeal directly to ArbCom. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

From Jimbo's talk page, moved here as a more appropriate venue. George The Dragon (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I made an effort here but with the opposition and concerns raised by George The Dragon I'm reverting to back to my initial opposition to this. Sorry but this is exactly what I was afraid of. Can we instead discuss a time limit on the ban, to be reset whenever he is caught socking? EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already been waiting 6 months... :( I don't understand why I'm still being banned. I am on medication for my disorder now; if you were going to be at all fair, you would at least give me a trial. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing the indef ban with a six-month ban. Lifting the ban and just using a block wouldn't be appropriate as he could then use any other account, etc. If this user was capable of being more discrete and not going after exactly the same articles as usual, they could have been back editing by now and we'd not know the difference. However, I do feel that if this user's presence will attract others to disrupt the project, especially give the level of disruption we have seen before, we may have to take all steps necessary to protect the project. May I also suggest admins convers with admins in Simple English? I know it's not standard practice, but it may save hassle down the line George The Dragon (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely this is now a punishing ban, rather than a preventative one, since I'm now on medication? 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Let's see. 61 listed confirmed socks. 64 listed suspected socks. Threatening Wikipedia with "far worse disruption". I don't see how this is a person we want here. Your mental health problems are not our concern. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Threatening Wikipedia with "far worse disruption"" - That is taken out of context. I asked User:Yamla why my friends were labelled as sockpuppets of me, and he said that it meant we were all banned. However, I said that if this was so, their sockpuppet tags should be changed to reflect this, and he said that they would continue to be labelled as me because of the ease of distinguishing anyone who was involved as being banned. So then I said that my friends regarded it to mean that they werent banned, since I am the only one who is listed as banned, and that I advise Yamla to put them into the ban list, otherwise they could cause "far worse disruption", and then this was taken out of context when he wrote it down on wikipedia.

And I no-longer have any mental health problems since I'm treated.

And not all of those sockpuppets were me. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If they aren't you, why did the checkuser say they were from the same IP address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.delanoy (talk • contribs)

This has already been discussed. We all attend the same school; one of the other users stayed in my house for a time period while his mother was in a hospice; and some of the checkuser results said some of the accounts weren't linked to me, but they were grouped with me anyway according, to what I can only presume, as WP:DUCK. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it needs to be pointed out that he wasn't "banned for psychological illness", but banned for being a serious disruptive sock-puppeteer. I can remember spending 4 or 5 hours on a single checkuser case. I'm not passing any comment regarding unbanning, but just pointing to the damage and timewasting that occurred before - Alison ^❤ 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia that dealt with him a lot - he has been given a LOT of second chances. You can read his appeal to us a few months ago after his "cure" here. There have been several incidents at SE Wikipedia since then which have been attributed to him (can't remember how many were conclusively proved), but it included cross-wiki harassment of simple:User:Gwib, and a massive amount of sockpuppets. I (personally) strongly suspect him to be behind the massive creation of accounts with usernames attacking Gwib over the past two or three days - Gwib was an admin that dealt with him a lot. Benniguy/Iamandrewrice claims to know the person that did it, but it wasn't him - it just doesn't seem right at all. The "cure" seemed to happen overnight, but I didn't see much change in behaviour from what I could see. I believe that problems would recur. Our CheckUsers will probably be able to explain things a little better, I'll see if they have anything to add. Archer7 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever to assume that I am connected to the recent hash of accounts at Simple. If need be, I have a physical written letter from my doctor to show that I am certified of being cured of my disorder. And no it did not happen overnight; where are you getting that from? 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I created so many sockpuppets was because of the psychological problems my disorder caused me. And please remember Alison, not all those accounts were me. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathize with someone who claims they created disruptive sockpuppets because of a psychological illness. I did that myself last year.

There's a question of degree here. I didn't waste checkusers' time, I didn't wind up on the requests for arbitration page, I didn't badger Jimbo, I didn't create more than 100 sockpuppet accounts (I think there were seven or eight), and I didn't drag my friends into this. I'm not quite seeing on what basis Andrew should be reinstated. I am inclined to defer to Josh Gordon. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You refer to "Andrew" but, from early posts, that is actually the name of someone he knows IRL, and not him, incidentally. So the username is arguably against policy anyway George The Dragon (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did not create that many accounts. And it was not me who dragged my friends into it. It was actually some of my friends who impersonated my account which caused most of the original situation. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"So the username is arguably against policy anyway" If I was unbanned, I think its certainly evident that the name Iamandrewrice would not be suitable. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] Can I just comment to Eptalon. The question was not whether or not the accounts here were me (we already know they are). The question is whether or not the recent rash of accounts on Simple is the same as me. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. This is what happens when I try to assume good faith. Next time Jimbo's hypnotizing words about letting bygones be bygones and focus on the future gives me ideas please just block me until I snap out of it! EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're openly admiting the ban is now as a punishment for my past rather than as a prevention for the future. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

←No, we are protecting the project from an incredibly disruptive user who has cost the project a significant amount of wasted time and stress to fix the disruption. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's prevention. We don't trust you. It's entirely personal. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That is being bias, based on my past. I am completely different now that I have been cured of my disorder; suggesting otherwise would only be an incorrect thing to suggest, based on lack of understanding of my disorder. I am not asking for a full unban; simply a trial, with restrictions. If I mess up, then just re-block/ban me straight away; it's not hard. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

May I just point out, [2], that the checkuser has showed that I do not have a connection to the recent mass of account creations on simple wikipedia. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

NO WAY. One of the most prolific puppetmasters ever. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I predict you'll be unblocked at about the same time Wizards of the Coast lifts the tournament-ban on this card. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's probably about right. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is there a reason we are still allowing the IP address 78.149.186.121 to edit, since it is patently the IP of a banned user. We do not normally allow IPs of banned users to edit for any reason. Why is he an exception to this rule? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, blocked for 48 hours. I'm with Jpgordon--there's no place here for such an account. Blueboy96 00:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the victims of Iamandrewrice - I am not unbiassed. The problem here is that we have two possible scenarios that are indistinguishable a'priori:

1. Iamandrewrice is trying yet another trick to get back here and start being disruptive.
2. The story about mental illness and medication is true and someone who has suffered needs mend bridges.

The old Iamandrewrice was utterly untrustworthy and would be perfectly capable of claiming what is now being claimed in order to have another chance at disruption and to get attention once more. We have absolutely no way to tell the difference between these two situations other than by allowing Iamandrewrice to prove, through actions (not words), which of these is the case.

In case (1), unbanning this user would allow more (albeit exceedingly brief) disruptions since there would initially be dozens of people checking edit history and performing checkuser's. A step of even a tiniest bit out of line would result in a banning from which no recovery would ever be possible. Refusing to unban would have more or less the same result.

In case (2), unbanning would be the fair and caring thing to do - not unbanning would be cruel and heartless.

On balance, I'm inclined to WP:AGF and offer an extremely tightly monitored unbanning - wrapped with bands of steel and enforced with absolutely zero tolerance. We would need to nominate a arbitrator and to make it clear that rebanning would be instant, total and without any hope of appeal at any time in the future at any level or in any manner or circumstances.

HOWEVER: IMHO - if Iamandrewrice is telling the truth - I think it would be wise for (s)he (I never did find out his/her true gender) to think very carefully about this. If this new story is true - then medication may take time to settle down - it hasn't been that long since we last saw awful behavior. There is no such thing as an instant and perfect cure for these kinds of mental problem. What happens if you miss a pill? What if the dosage isn't quite right yet? You should find out what your doctor advises? Rmember that you'll NEVER have any hope whatever of getting another last-last-chance. If you have a "slip" then no amount of pleading that this was a one-off medication-malfunction would convince even the most soft-hearted admin. So, it might be wise to follow the advice that I and others have given you via eMail and wait a few more months before taking advantage of any last-ever Wiki-reprieve. Editing Wikipedia is something we can all manage without doing - there are other things to do - other places to be - and it might just be more healthy to stay away for a while longer and come back when you KNOW you'll do it right.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you support a time limit on the ban so that he is banned for 6 more months, to be reset everytime he is caught socking? In 6 months we can then reconsider the matter and work out a set of restrictions including a condition that he can be rebanned without the usual tiresome and slow paperwork. This would give the medication time to work. Those who were actually affected by his disruption should be able to veto an unbanning if they don't feel safe letting him back here. This would be in the spirit of what Jimbo wrote on his talk page and caused me to consider an unbanning. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) simple:User:Creol has just confirmed that the creation of massive socks over on the Simple English Wikipedia was indeed simple:User:IuseRosary (one of his friends) and User:Benniguy (which is Iamandrewrice after a rename). The link to the page is here. Both of them used a total of nearly 100 sockpuppets to create usernames that were personal attacks to both simple:User:Gwib and myself on the Simple English Wikipedia. This has only strengthened my resolve to have him not unblocked. His continued disruption on the Simple English Wikipedia, even after an indefinite block should point to a decline of his unblock. He is a seriously disruptive user who loves to create sockpuppets, and we have had to add a ton of regexes to the Username blacklist over on the Simple English Wikipedia because of the scale of the amount of sockpuppets that were created over there. Some of the sockpuppets, however, were not linked to them at all, but the majority of them pointed directly to some of the addresses in both IuseRosary and Benniguy's ranges. Cheers, Razorflame 02:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point. Checkuser results could not confirm seven of 48 proxy checks were tied to IPs which were either used by the named accounts (IuseRosary - unblocked account) or self-identified (Benniguy/IamAndrewRice - blocked account) because the proxies used did not provide direct information (CU isn't a magic wand). Edit patterns (mainly names choses as this is primarily a username creation abuse issue) and targets of the abuse from the unidentified proxies matches those of the indentified proxies. The Checkuser list has been informed further on the matter. Creol (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No the checkusers have not shown any such thing on simple wikipedia, razorflame. Both Eptalon and Creol have stated this now.

They did say that a couple of proxies that I used crossed over with a couple of proxies used by some of them, but that is obviously going to be so, since the proxies are different each time, and of course there are going to be at least some picked at random which share similar IP strings.

The checkuser finishes with this summary:

"Benniguy - 10 self-identified proxies, 5 unconfirmed"

So we are talking about the 10 proxies I used (constructively, and you can ask AmericanEagle about that) and I openly said who I was, and then 5 unconfirmed proxies which people think might have something to do with me. I am sorry but that is a ridiculous assumption to make, and no one has made it but you Razorflame.

And why here [3] is someone called "PetraSchelm" suggesting I have been making pro-pedophile accounts?? And that I have apparently confirmed these by email? For a start, I am 16, so I don't understand how I could have a pro-pedophile account, and secondly, I've never even heard of any of the users. However, I just noticed something. I think the user first encountered me at User talk:Jimbo Wales, where there was both my thread, and some pedophile one (which he was on). He would have seen me there. However, I am unsure as to why he is suggesting those accounts are mine; perhaps they have something to do with him? Their editing patterns all seem to revolve quite finely around pedophilia... but then again, I forgot, my word can't be trusted on anything, so I guess they must be mine.

I would somewhat support a 6 month ban, but I'm still worried, because by the end of it, people are still going to be bringing up the same issues and refusing to let them go, so those that are holding a grudge are still not going to let me be unbanned. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It was established back in January by Creol himself I believe that Iamandrewrice and IuseRosary are two different people. Since there is no checkuser evidence to prove any connection with the accounts created on Simple recently I fail to see how this debate belongs here to begin with. Is this a new trend? This thread was created to see what opposition there would be to an unbanning or reworking of the community ban. There is substantial opposition to an unbanning but there appears to be some willingness among those affected bu his past disruption to consider a time limit and agreement on what should happen then. Do you have any actual proof of Iamandrewrice creating these accounts or is it simply an example of blaming the usual suspect and then taking it here for additional drama? Sorry for being blunt but this is derailing this debate the same way it derailed the debate on Jimbo's talk page. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual proof such as him self-identifying as using two specific proxies to answer a question by User:American Eagle (both self-identified in the message and he states right above that he did this) and that the proxies show the underlying IP address; one of which was used to create 10 accounts using other proxies and the other created 25? Yep, got it. How about another IP he has admitted to which was used to revert the removal of a disruptive RfA (created by IuseRosary no less) and then vote on it? Got that proof also. Edit patterns and the fact that before he showed up we had virtually zero traffic from this IP range and now we get literly hundreds of edits each week from through proxies (the range has been soft-blocked for months) just helps round out the picture of the sitution, but direct ties between the vandalism and him do exist. I did state that they are two seperate people, but given their activities and personal statements as being friends, there is little doubt to me that they are working in conjuction playing their little game. Creol (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay and I assume that you have e-mailed our resident Iamandrewrice expert Alison about this? If this is true then he isn't on any medication (I notice from the WR thread about him that he was on meds some 2 months ago also...). I would still like to note that this thread is not about his behaviour on your wiki and that detailed discussion about this should take place on your own wiki. This thread is a community discussion about his ban here which was not imposed on him due to any behaviour outside this wiki. He is banned for what he did here and although your evidence can establish character it should not be the main focus of this debate. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Checkuser list was informed of the basic underlying information of his proxy use (so all en: CU's are aware) and Allison as a complete listing of the data confirming everything I stated listed. As he is indef blocked on our wiki (and we don't realy differenciate between indef and banned) there is little for us to discuss on this matter (until his next unblock attempt). His character is what is important here; he is requesting to be unbanned because he has changed due to changes in a pyschological condition. His actions show this to be a false statement. For the most part, I am simply clarifying and correcting points made by him and others about the situation. IaAR stated "10 proxies (that I used constructively...)". This is blatantly false. Two of those were used constructively and yes he has admitted they were him. Unfortunately the other 8 were used to cause disruption and are tied directly to the two he claims. Creol (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. His character is very much the subject of this debate and the use of proxies to evade what I can only assume is a far wider and longer lasting set of rangeblocks than we would ever get away with certainly isn't good news. If those have been used here also we can close this ban discussion without the need for any more discussion about the duration of his ban here. I notice he stopped editing here after the debate below this morning. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As for Iamandrewrice posting here I urge you to stop doing that. You are evading your ban and aggrevating people. None of that is helpful nor is the continuation of your constant debating. Let others do this for you in accordance with our banning policy. This is a community debate and you are not welcome to participate in that onwiki per your ban. You are not helping. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would comment that by arguing here Iamandrewrice is demonstrating that the statement that the medication is controlling whatever condition they are suffering from is perhaps not as valid as they might declare; perhaps not as disruptive as previously, but still prepared to violate WP policy by both block evading and by forum shopping. I see no acknowledgement that their actions are contrary to WP policy, but rather a distinct campaign in having the validity of their actions accepted. As I remember, this was the basic premise of the banned account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with EconomicsGuy and LessHeard. Here's my proposal. If he wants to be unbanned, he has to go to his one username, he remains 'banned' on a technical level but he can converse from his talk page. For now, he uses that talkpage to converse with us. Later, if he uses {{helpme}} to indicate positive edits on some articles for a short period (I'd suggest a month) that do not indicate any potential arguments, I can live with unblocking him then (and only on the one account). From there, I would suggest he get a second account (publicize it) for his use on public computers (which would be blocked along with his main if abused even once), and if another user abuses on his computer, he's proven that his computer is compromised and not worth allowing. I think this would work towards a middle ground where editors aren't allowed back into article space but are allowed to be productive if they wish to be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is with the epidemic of people trying to get sockmasters unbanned lately? Jtrainor (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I find this diff particularly disturbing; the phraseology, threats and general nature don't indicate a user who wants to participate constructively. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For a start, we are dealing with now, after IM on medication, and secondly, that account wasn't mine anyway. There were two main users originally, but we all got bundled together among with many others into one big list of sockpuppets of "me". Do a checkuser - I never even logged on to that account. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at the rest of the account contributions, I realize that account was mine. But anyway, as I said, that was left during the original series of events, and this whole thing is about unbanning me due to me now being treated for my disorder. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Motion to amend the ban and close

Per the above discussion, the evidence of continued disruptive behaviour on Simple and this evasion of his ban after being told again not to I propose the following amendment to the ban:

Though community banned, Iamandrewrice and friends must appeal the ban directly to ArbCom.

I don't see the need for any paper work here. The evidence speaks for itself and this was the very very last chance for an appeal. This effectively makes this a community imposed ArbCom ban. I know he will retaliate but we will just need to deal with that and there is still the possibility of informing his ISP. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?? I was told to go to my user page to talk, by Ricky81682 above, so i havn't done anything wrong. I am NOT a pedophile. And I am not the one behind those accounts on simple, as Eptalon originally stated. The girl behind them is Natasha Supple Turnham, the sister of User:IuseRosary on Simple Wikipedia. I have not done anything I was not instructed to do. (I am editing here now however, in response to what you just said, since you seem to be jumping to conclusions). 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit here. Why the hell is that so hard to understand. You are 16 - don't you have anything better to do than this? EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just did what I was told to do! And you reverted it! Why??

Oh, hang on, let me get this straight, I'm 16, but I'm a pedophile. Hmmm... yeah, sounds just about right. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did. I was then told to go to the talk page of Iamandrewrice and talk to you from there, which I did. EconomicsGuy then goes and reverts what I did there, and tells me I have not done as asked, and the ban should now not be lifted. I don't understand. I just did what I was asked to do. And can you make up your mind. This is currently the 5th time you have switched your views on my unbanning. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did... Double take. Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did... Boggle. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ow, yeah, you were told to stop posting on the AN, so you did... Yet we see this post. Eh? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the statement is perfectly correct, as it is in the past tense. Rather than trying to pick me up (incorrectly) on my grammar, it might be more useful if you read the meaning of the discussion, which is that I was told to go do write something (at the talk page of Iamandrewrice), and when I did, I was told off for it. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are still banned. You have no standing to post here. You know that, you articulate your knowledge of that, yet you still post here and expect any other result than a continuance of your siteban? Strong support for continued siteban. Good grief. Next time, hang out for six months without socking and present your case at your own user talk page. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have already said, I did stop posting here, and I went to my old talk page (which is allowed, remember) as instructed by another user. At this point (even though I was doing nothing wrong), another user then told me off for going and writing something on my old talk page, even though I was supposed to, as instructed by another admin. Anyway, that is when I came back here. If that was not allowed, then perhaps the admins should have decided amongst themselves whether they wanted me to write on that page or not.

I have been accused of being a pedophile, even though I am 16

I have been accused of making hundreds of sockpuppets at Simple Wikipedia, even though the checkuser showed they were nothing to do with me

I have been told off for going and doing something another admin told me to do.

I'm sorry, but I'm certainly not doing anything unreasonable here. If you don't want me to post on the AN, fine, but at least tell me one thing, not a multitude of different things from different admins who tell me off for doing what the other one told me to do. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite ban, such as the one you have been given, means you, as a human being, are not allowed to post on EN:WP ever again. So if you really want to appeal, do it via email to the Arbcom. George The Dragon (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I stopped. As I have already said, I then went to my old talk page (as I was both instructed and allowed to do), and did what I was asked to.

So far, no one has commented on what Ricky81682 said. What he suggested seems like a workable suggestion, and it allows you to ensure I'm not a harm to the community at any time

89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't stopped, and each time you continue to post here in violation of that ban, and in full knowledge that you aren't supposed to post here, makes that grave you're digging for yourself a little deeper. Take some serious advice: quit while you're behind. Durova^Charge! 17:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've spent some time examining and re-reading the checkuser evidence, both from our own wiki and from seWP (thanks, Creol) and have to say that I am strongly opposed to unbanning at this time. Given that he's been socking up to three weeks ago and given his behaviour over on sewiki, unbanning would definitely not be in the interests of this project - Alison ^❤ 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That was a constructive account, and anyway, it brings nothing new to the table than we already have - everyone already knew about that account.

And anyway, if there was a time limit on my ban, and it was reset everytime I sockpuppeted, there would actually be some inspiration for me not to make any other accounts, but the way it is, I'm "indefinitely banned", meaning that people are in effect saying I am never allowed back anyway, so you're saying that my only means of ever editing is through sockpuppets. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm deeply opposed to all bans for reasons I've stated repeatedly at other places, this conversation has go on way too effing long. Here's what you do, 1 go get a new account, 2 refrain from editing any of the same pages or topics you used to edit, 3 change your behavior to prevent any suspicion. 4 rise in prominence and notability from within. 5 hatch an evil scheme of revenge, and finally either 6a build some super useful bot that wikipedia 'can not live without' and proceed to act like a dick under diplomatic immunity (known here as the betacommand rule) or 6b keep your agenda secret slowly changing the pedia to shape your will. Why I remember one such user, but perhaps I shouldn't go there... --Lemmey talk 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's how I handle this: as of now you get my standard offer--refrain from evading the ban for six months (plus a couple of other obvious things: please don't bash Wikipedia offsite and please promise to refrain from the behavior that led to your ban in the first place). If you do those things then six months from today I will support your return. There's a twist, though: from this moment forward until your legitimate return, each post you make in violation your siteban adds one week to the time frame. So if you respond to this post, that's six months plus one week from the moment you respond. You could add a seventh month just by posting four more times. And if you waited four weeks and posted once more, that would reset the clock to seven months plus one week from the date of that post. This is why we call the block indefinite: it could end whenever the community believes that you can adapt to site standards, but as you demonstrate otherwise the duration lengthens of its own accord. I express this numerically because it's easy to communicate, but a lot of people go by a similar basic rationale. Durova^Charge! 18:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like "unban me or I'll sock anyway". And from what I can see, you're still socking right now on sewiki, and using the "sister/brother vandal" excuse. *sigh* - Alison ^❤ 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the user PetraSchelm on SE Wikipedia was an impersonator of en:User:PetraSchelm. This was the user that was claiming that Iamandrewrice/Benniguy was creating pro-paedophilia accounts. I don't believe there was any connection between him and the pro-paedophilia accounts. Archer7 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support the proposal re ArbCom appeal per Alison. How much more time do we need to waste on this? --Rodhullandemu 18:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support and I resent the fact that my proposal at to how this user should conduct themself has become an excuse to post here that they will no longer be posting here. Again, use your talkpage, {{helpme}} and go to Arbcom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support If this is the evidence of someone who is in control of their condition... plus, there are Featured Articles with a smaller word count than this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I'm a user on Simple and have seen the damage and then never-ending stress and wasted time brought about by his sockpuppets. This debate needs to come to an end. FusionMix 11:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It's Benniguy. I know I'm not allowed to edit, but I find this very important. I would like to look into the Right to vanish. The reason for this, is that I have not only been receiving several abusive emails regarding my disorder, I have also received a phonecall yesterday (well, my dad did), in which someone said that I had been "abusing profiles on the net", and that they would "go to the police". I find this a very serious, and disturbing matter now. I know that for me editing here again, my ban will be reset with another week added on, but I think that this neeeds to be brought up. I know it is not usual practise for a banned user to activate the right to vanish, but I think this is an extreme circumstance, which has now moved onto off-wikipedia harrassment, and is involving my family and home, which is not acceptable. In addition to this, it is unnacceptable that people are receiving my personal details, such as phone number, in order to do this.

Please note, the user who telephoned my house has obviously broken a privacy policy, and as according to [here], should immediately be banned. My parents are considering contacting the police about the issue, as they consider it harrassment. Additionarlly, since I have not caused a "disruption" in that sense of the term on wikipedia for several months, the claims the person is making are incorrect anyway. My father reports to me that the voice who spoke on the phone was a middle-aged male, with a "rough" English accent. The first possible user that springs to mind on this matter is <user name redacted. Gross personal attack> who lives in England, right near my town, and is male, and who used to persistantly view my myspace page, meaning they would have access to lots of information about me, and took a strong dislike to me. Obviously, I do not know for definite who it is, and I could be completely wrong, but please remember that whoever the user is, they have committed a serious offence here.

I have also received a third email today, which mentions both my sexual orientation and wikipedia - someone is obviously giving out my email address. I think that activating the right to vanish may be a possible solution to all of this, and I strongly hope others will consider it for my sake, as even I, as a banned user, still require some kind of protection in a case like this, surely?

Again, I appologize for already breaking my ban, but as I said, this is quite a serious issue, and I did not know where else to go. 78.146.171.173 (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the hundreds of sockpuppets and personal attacks on SEWP committed recently not disrupting Wikipedia for "several months". --Gwib (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• Post-close comment here, to anon editor in particular and others in general. If you are being stalked and harassed off-wiki and you are getting phone calls and threats, then Wikipedia is not the place to report this in the hope of obtaining justice; the local police department is. Personally, I've found that to be quite effective, and recommend you do the same. Making vague accusations on-wiki is unproductive in the extreme and may actually work against you, so don't do it - Alison ^❤ 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Don't jump to conclusions about who the calls/e-mails are coming from either. --Gwib (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! - Alison ^❤ 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep a close eye on User:Lemmey

A note was posted at Portal talk:Current events#User Lemmey , its more appropriate here. Gosh I sure hope I'm learning. --Lemmey talk 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this area, but I'm fairly sure you're misinterpreting the policy - the setting the context simply refers to the introduction to a piece. For example, on yesterday's entry the context being set for the opening of the first entry is

• 2008 Sichuan earthquake:

Just that. Nothing to do with the context in the sentence. The policy states nothing about removing wikilinks in the text on the subject, regardless of whether they're on the context or not. The wikilinks are fine being included. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yesterdays entry is fine, I'm talking about links on todays crane collapse and Kentucky murder stories that had links to crane and convenience store. The policy is listed under context on Wikipedia:How the Current events page works --Lemmey talk 01:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point -- I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood what the context is in the policy. It's not talking about the context of the sentence, it's talking about the context of the entry -- as it calls it, the context string -- which is the introduction to each individual piece. Not all of them have it. On the example the policy page gives, it's this bit:

• Saskatchewan general election, 2003: The NDP government of Lorne Calvert is returned to power with a majority government.

It has nothing to do with the context of the sentence itself. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, I followed it. Either address the edits I made or don't but please refrain from repeating yourself when your not exactly saying anything at all. You're just giving me non relevant examples of the introduction. I'm not talking about the introduction, I'm talking about the rest of the sentence. Current Events is over linked and as a result of the ITN trail it acts as a sole nesting bed for ITN candidates. Events may only exist for a short while before posing to the main page, with little or no review from other users. As such the links in current events will be links posted on the main page. There is no reason for the article convenience store to appear in a blurb for a article on a double murder / suicide. --Lemmey talk 01:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I addressed the edits in my first response: the links should be included, according to the policy you're citing, but I'm not going to revert as I don't want to involve myself in what is a borderline edit war and is based on a poorly-worded piece of policy. I agree that convenience store is too trivial to need mentioning, but a link to location is entirely relevent.

The policy states:

• It is customary, if possible, to indicate the context for a story at the start of the line.

It does not mention anything about removing wikilinks in the blurb for the story.

I can't explain it any better than I have in the previous two replies, but I'm certain you've misunderstood the point the policy is making... Could someone more eloquent than me try and explain the point I'm trying to make? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Lemmey blocked

I have blocked Lemmey (talk · contribs) for one week given a pattern (with history, first edit was February, blocked almost 48 hours later) of very uncivil, editwar-like, pointy (very pointy...and just to prove a point), offensive, disruptive, offtopic, pointless and POV comments across the board. Having been warned several occasions (by more than one user, and on 3RR), it is clear that he is not willing to tone down his behavior and act civilly with other editors. I am open to comment on this block.

I have specifically not blocked LemmeyBOT (talk · contribs), as it has been doing good work in and of itself as far as I can tell. As long as the bot's edits remain bot-related only, I am planning to leave this unblocked.

Finally, I also open the discussion of a topic ban for this user. His primary point of conflict seems to be around the ITN entries. Given his heated statements and oftentimes offensive comments, I believe a 3-6 month enforced break from ITN might help him calm down.^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection for the execution of the block, although I am uncertain what 7 days will achieve that 3 wouldn't, given the diffs provided. I would suggest, however, that the discussion regarding a topic ban should be held until the effect of this block is known. If the block provides the impetus for Lemmey to generally re-appraise their relationship to WP positively then the topic ban might be superfluous (and its existence when the block expires counter productive). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And now for something from the clear blue... Lemmey is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, and continues to abuse multiple accounts. I've known this for some time, but intentionally neglected to bring it to light because of the good work they've been doing, but it appears that Lemmey's been sliding back into disruption. Lemmey is a pretty transparent reincarnation of Mitrebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I indefinitely blocked in February for running a vandalbot against a new user, who apparently became so shellshocked that they've rarely edited since. Immediately, he came back with several disruptive sockpuppets, which earned a lockdown of their user talk page. I first noticed Lemmey, who started editing as soon as Mitrebox's unblocks got declined, when they began inserting themselves into conversations about me in a snide manner and referencing Mitrebox's block; they also edit the same topics (cf. the results of Betacommand's tool). Here's the ace though: Lemmey's IP address is 68.209.2.187 - this is not particularly private as he logs on to Wikimedia IRC channels without a hostmask - and he's used it in the past to evade blocks and is still logging out to avoid scrutiny of their main account(s) with edits such as these. (Apologies for the dense run-on comment, but I need sleep. :]) east.718 at 23:29, May 31, 2008

Vandal bot you say? And why is Lemmey Bot not blocked? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well... support upping block to indef, per East718's evidence. Kudos also to East for staying quiet about Lemmey's past while they were contributing positively; as this account did eventually slip into old habits I would suggest, however, that the next sock is tagged before it gets the opportunity to go sour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose. OTOH, it would have been more above board to have the original MitreBox account request an unblock instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above info, I would endorse an indefinite block. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• About bloody time, endorse current block, care not about indefinite block, do it if the evidence is there, but either way, it'll be nice to not have his stench steaming up WT:ITN for a while. (OMG COMMAS) But also, additional kudos to east718; redemption is available for all, and there's no reason to bump a good editor simply because they used to be a bad editor on another account. But, if they then become a bad editor, it just bodes the worse for them and lessens future chances. I suggest that, if the link is proven, that any future accounts be exposed immediately. --Golbez (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

While I frequently get sick of Lemmey's comments, i feel that what you've said here isn't really fair. As a "regular" at ITN, I disagree with him more often than not, but despite his acerbic and sarcastic commentary, he does help get stuff done, if you avoid taking his bait. Since he apparently does good work in other areas as well, I would suggest a mid-length topic ban from ITN instead of a full block. As long as his behaviour this time around is ok, I don't see the relevance of his previous actions. Random89 06:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was the rest of the community's duty to avoid taking the bait; I thought it was the individual's responsibility not to dangle it. Furthermore, the evidence is far more than simple acerbic editing; responding to a civil statement with "You might want to avoid gay people in California. They might compliment on your 'perrty mouth'" is good grounds for a civility block. --Golbez (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I too don't agree with a full block. He does help get things done. I cannot speak for any other page, but he is one of ITN's best contributors. I think what good he does outweighs the bad. A small topic-ban on ITN would be sufficient, as that seems to be where he gets into trouble. --PlasmaTwa2 06:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to endorse the view that Lemmey is more of a positive influence than a negative one. I strongly disagree with his more caustic comments, but most of what he says is harmless comic relief. When he crosses the line there are more than enough reasonable people to put him back in step with the rules for him to cause too much trouble. I can't speak to his other contributions or the socking allegations, but for what I've known of him he is a mostly harmless contributor to ITN/C that keeps things lively and helps make positive contributions when he gets around to them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the two previous posts. From my observation over the past week and half of the ITN trial format, I'm observed Lemney habitually veering into gratuitous personal digs, which some other users find funny. He may do much of the work over at ITN, but that appears to be largely a result of the fact that a miniscule amount of productive activity is going on at ITN, which in my opinion is the result that nobody wants to hang around and be insulted continuously. In my experience, the recent atmosphere at ITN and its subpages is the most poisonous I've seen since before the Reference Desk was cleaned up. Lemney is certainly not the only one contributing to that, but he a major and perhaps key component. It's hard to claim a single case unarguably qualifying under NPA, but I would prefer to not to drag this all the way through dispute resolution given the background. I had recently considered trying to arrange a consensus ban but, now that I'm aware of the background, I feel no qualms about pulling the trigger unilaterally. If anyone is interested in keeping him from being blocked for extended periods (assuming that the decision isn't for an indefinite block), a topic ban may be in order. - BanyanTree 00:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot

I don't know if the operator could use it or not while blocked but I didn't want to take the chance. I also have no idea what now happens to the bot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayup. Keegan^talk 07:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good block. I am also concerned, about the previously having run a vandalbot, and, presently being flagged so that it's contribs are hidden from recentchanges. However, the bot's edits thusfar have been normal and good. I suppose my concerns are, "If he's going back to his old ways on his main account, will this happen with the bot too?". This is compounded by the fact that the bot's edits are presently hidden from the RC. SQL^{Query me!} 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we should take away the bot flag... no harm in keeping it since it's blocked, but at the same time it's not doing any good (and he could abuse it by flooding his talk page, I guess...). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the block says indef, I presume it will be unblocked when the main account is. The bot was doing something useful; we should support users trying to turn around and make positive contributions. There is one issue I see with its operation that might need correcting. If there are other concerns, the task doesn't need to run fast and it could run without the bot flag so everyone can see what it's doing. Gimmetrow 01:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I couldn't know the conclusion of the Lemmey situation I indef'd while it was being resolved. If the operator is unblocked, with bot privileges intact, then they should request unblocking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Double standards for tennis players

Administrators, tell me please, is this game whit so called policy, where we have rule to abolish Serbian and Croatian latin letters for tennis players, but on the other side we have huge serie of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnik people (politicians, football, basketball players) whit correctly spelling letters š, đ, č, ć, and ž? Why is Wikipedia tolerating double standards? And why are tennis players special spice? (Novak Đoković to Novak Djoković; Jelena Janković - Jelena Jankovic) --Pockey (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, not the Serbian wikipedia. So English naming conventions apply (e.g., "Vienna" not "Wien"). And somebody has to start somewhere. (PS. It is "with" not "whit"). --HJensen, talk 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this something that project did on its own? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "double standard." See this on the tennis project discussion page, this on bureaucrat's Redux's talk page, and this on administrator Darwinek's talk page. See also this about Pockey's (Pokrajac's) disruptive edits on this very noticeboard. Tennis expert (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see this and this. Tennis expert (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair point. This whole discussion has not been an edifying one, and has rumbled on for a very long time. Most of the "consensus" proposals on this issue have been stacked one way or another by two diametrically opposed sides. I don't see why we can't have diacritics in titles, as no policy anywhere on en.wikipedia precludes them. Orderinchaos 08:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You've called my page moves "disruptive" and threatened to block me. Isn't calling me "disruptive," threatening a block, and saying that I'm burdening administrators a little premature? Tennis expert (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the prominence of earlier discussions on the tennis arena I had incorrectly assumed you were appraised of them and had adopted a radical (and arguably ethnocentric) point of view held by some within them. I have already apologised in two different places for that assumption and my earlier remarks - it is becoming clear that the fragmentation of this discussion between different groups, each of which is unaware of the goings on at the other, is more to blame for this mess than any one editor, and in questioning your 68 moves today, I adopted a tone which was unduly harsh. WP:CSB, while definitely not policy, has always been a consideration in my editing and it pains me to see it being violated in ways which don't assist either our coverage or our editors' understanding, and which remove or designify valid information. Orderinchaos 16:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this talk about "double standards"? Frankly, this has been explained to exhaustion on the relevant discussion, which was open for more than 8 days, with notes and links added to the talk pages of most, if not all, of the articles that were to be affected. It is not acceptable to attempt to restart this by ignoring the points made by opening new forums, with no mention to the previous discussion. To make a long story short: there is no such thing as a double standard; there is such a thing as the fact that on the English-language Wikipedia we adopt the preferred spelling in the English-speaking world as long as this exists and can be verified. In the case of tennis, it exists and can be verified by using the profiles in the official websites of tennis governing bodies, which adopt English as their working language. The same may not apply to other sports or modalities, in terms of verifiability of use throughout the English-speaking world, causing any article titles to default to the spelling used in the native language. That is why something may be done concerning a specific segment (in this case, tennis) and maybe not in others: verifiability of a widely used, preferred spelling in the English-speaking world that is different fromt he native one. What the people from any given native country think of the English spelling is not a relevant point and it has no barring on which spelling the English-language Wikipedia should be using. This has been noted in the discussion mentioned. "Real spelling" is a relative term, there are countless examples of people's names which are altered and "official" in different languages, the easiest to visulize would be the names of monarchs.
I am extremely disturbed at posts such as this. First and foremost because it is making a request for an administrator to undo page moves made in observation of consensus reached, based on guidelines and policy, on the ground of there being "no real consensus" among administrators. Not agreeing with consensus is not a valid reason to claim that it is not real; And even worse is quoting consensus among administrators as a validating criterion. There is no such thing. Administrators are not empowered to overturn community consensus by reaching a different consensus amongst themselves, nor are they empowered with "validating" community consensus by "sanctioning" it in a consensus amongst themselves. That the administrator in question even granted the requests, especially given the fact that he had communicated with me previously about the page moves in question and I had explained (yet again) the grounds in which the moves had been performed, is beyond comprehension and frankly, unacceptable.
The moves were implemented in accordance with our guidelines and policies and following a discussion where consensus was reached on that regard. There will be no reverting it based on claims that the consensus "wasn't real" because it is not respecting any given alphabet, national pride or similars. Making individual requests to administrators who happen to sympathize with any given position is unacceptable. Granting such requests, and especially on the basis of the requests made, is even more unacceptable. Redux (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Azhar University vandal

The Al-Azhar University vandal is back, pushing his POV and bogus sources again. The guy just doesn't get it. Arbitration is definitely warranted; please have a look at the article. He is now in an editing war with both me and another editor. Causteau (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The most recent edit by the ip (made 2 hours after the above report) seems to be satisfactory as regards the other editors concerns. However, a review of the previous edits and the ip's contribution history does tend to indicate a partisan bias in relation to Sunni and Shia Muslim viewpoints. Can this account be related to other (blocked?) accounts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think this anonymous user has been blocked yet. However, administrators should definitely consider doing so because this is a guy with an agenda, if I've ever seen one. Here are some random examples of his handiwork:

1)Inserting inflammatory POV material without bothering to support it with any reference(s).

2)Tacking on a bunch of unrelated, dummy references behind a slanderous POV phrase to lend an air of credibility to said POV phrase (see my analysis on how I know those sources are bogus here).

3)Mocking fellow editors.

4)Altering sourced material so that it reads differently but still looks sourced, and reverting subsequent edits other editors have made to those initial changes -- all with no explanation.

And that's just the half of it. There's more info on this user's shenanigans on the Al-Azhar University talk page. The guy has gotta be stopped now because he edits literally all the time and under a ton of different IPs. The longer we wait, the more time it will take to undo all of the damage he has done. Causteau (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been taking a look at this, and I'm not seeing vandalism. There's definitely edit-warring, a content dispute, and incivility and personal attacks around. There also appears to be some POV pushing and possible misinterpretation of sources, but of course that's always a tougher call to make. I recommend that everyone calm down, since it looks like there's incivility going from both sides, which always complicates the situation. --Elonka 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a more serious issue at hand here. Via the several IP addresses, this user has been engaging in edits on articles relating to terrorism that are quite startling. The latest examples are removing known terrorists from categories relating to terrorism. While this might seem like a simple POV issue at first glance, as a graduate student in counter terrorist studies and coming from a family with a law enforcement and military background, I will say with no exaggeration that this could be dangerous for anyone who interacts with this user. Even something as small as edits like that on Wikipedia are a legitimate security concern; this should not be a platform to promote extremist and/or violent agendas. I don't think it's something that should be left as a content dispute. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are problematic edits from the anon. However, just because someone may be pushing a POV on one set of articles, doesn't mean we should revert all their edits on all articles. For example, it's a common thing to see editors make vandalistic edits to history articles, but when they're editing videogame articles, they get very serious and thorough. If there are inappropriate edits being made to the terrorist articles, we can deal with them, and the accounts. But as far as the Al-Azhar University article, I am still not seeing vandalism. So the best bet is to focus on the most egregious edits by the anon, and do your best to assume good faith in some of the other topic areas. --Elonka 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're 100% correct, in fact i'm sure most disruptive editors at some point make good edits on non-controversial articles. My thing isn't so much Al Azhar at this point, it's what i've seen on other articles that I find disturbing. Look, this is a big deal. We're on the internet here; we don't know who this kid is or what else he's doing. It's one thing to try to posit a reasonable source disputing that a person is a terrorist; what this guy has done is beyond suspicious. Per WP:NLT I won't sit here and throw out threats, but this is something that warrants attention even outside Wikipedia (and may gain it whether we try or not). This is noteworthy enough to contact the FBI about, even seemingly small things like this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to contact the FBI, no one is stopping you. However, speaking as someone who has made FBI reports myself in the past (you may wish to Google my name and "Steganography"), I'm just not seeing a major problem here. We have an IP from Lebanon that is removing "terrorist" categories from a few pages, seems to have a bit of an anti-Shia bias, and has been a bit uncivil when challenged. But this kind of opinion could easily apply to countless non-terrorist individuals. People can be anti-Sunni or anti-Shia, and still be able to present their opinions in a civil and non-violent way. People can also have good faith disagreements about who is or isn't defined as a terrorist. Some of the edits by the anon I actually agree with, such as removing the "terrorist" category from biographies of living people where the sources are a bit thin. We shouldn't be putting that kind of a provocative category onto any biography, especially that of a living person, unless we have solid reliable sources that specifically call that person a "terrorist". As for the places where the anon is removing the category from biographies where we do have such sources, well, we put the category back, we warn the anon for blanking sourced information, and if they keep doing it, we block them. But that's still not something that I'd want to contact the FBI about. I'd be more inclined to write off the activities of this anon as "over-eager student" than "criminal". Now, if we have an anon who is making threats of violence, then that is something I'd be more concerned about. But just disagreeing on some content issues? Nah, we get that all the time. --Elonka 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A related SSP report has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn. --Elonka 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin input needed to close discussion.

Resolved

_TalkIslander 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin, have a look at Template_talk:Infobox_Television#Proposal:_Flags_should_no_longer_be_used_in_Television_Infoboxes.2C_per_WP:FLAG please Gnevin (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand: we need an admin to close this discussion and determin consensus - said admin should, if possible, be completely uninvolved in both Wikiproject Television and related matters, and the MoS Flag Guidlines. Thanks in advance. _TalkIslander 12:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Sarah777?

User:Sarah777 was blocked indefinitely for disruption (reverting a series of page merges which resulted from an AFD discussion). Following this, a series of discussions have taken place on her talk page, to find a remedy that would be acceptable to all parties and allow Sarah777 to edit again. The user has now accepted that there was a good reason for the block, and agreed not to continue with the disruptive behaviour she was blocked for. With that in mind, I suggest we unblock her.

Normally, of course, this conversation would take place on the talk page of the blocking admin (SirFozzie) but since there was a fair amount of discussion at WP:AN/I about this issue, I thought it would be better to bring this suggestion to everyone's attention. (I will of course notify SirFozzie of this thread). Waggers (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to endorse this, on the caveat of no more drama, please? :) Sarah has recognized her previous behavior was... less then stellar (I think she called it bolshie behavior on her page). So lesson learned, she has also stated that she was going to leave off editing the "(Year) In Ireland" articles, that caused this block, although I would definitely like to get her thoughts in an RfC on the whole thing down the road (articles on individual years, or if it would be better served to have them in decade long articles or century long articles.) So definitely, endorse an unblock with the caveats above, and hope that the community will give her another chance. SirFozzie (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was initially in favour of mentorship for Sarah, but as the thread progressed (with her continuing to argue the problems are with anyone but herself) I change3d completely to be in favour of a block. I'm all for redemption and forgiveness, but this is just too soon to even consider an unblock under any restrictions. My advice to Sarah would be to wait a while, have a think about her actions and then consider asking again in 3 months time. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I understand her reason for refusing to use the request-unblock template. I'm not gonna say yay or nay on this, because I am unsure, but is the community still OK with her not admitting what she did was edit warring? reviewing it, I'm not that nitpicky. She is de facto admitting to it. Reading everything on her talk, it seems like the only committment she is really making is that she won't be involved with those specific year articles. I thought we were looking for more than that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

She also said that she'd abide by the ArbCom ruling (not that she can really stop herself from being blocked... but hopefully it means that she'll not engage in the disruptive editing in the first place). I agree with some of the above sentiments that she doesn't seem to place the same wrongness on what she did that the community does. However, if the discussion on her talk page is truthful (and I'm willing to assume good faith, at least now), she seems to be saying that she will not disrupt, even if she doesn't agree. We can't necessarily change what people think, and agreeing to not be disruptive seems like all we can ask for. -- Natalya 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't she use the unblock template at her page? Wouldn't that be simplier? GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

She actually gives the reason that it will invite continued scrutiny of her that of course she is unable to defend because of being blocked. Thinking about that more, and giving the nature and scope of this block, that's actually not an untrue statement (despite saying above myself that I didnt understand it). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah should make the request though. It would be like asking for forgiveness & acknowledging mistakes. By other editors unblocking her (without her request)? it would be like other editors are admiting making a mistake. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be rubbing salt in the wound. WP:BLOCK doesn't require that an unblock request is made before a user is unblocked. Sarah777 has already admitted that she was edit warring and that this was "bolshie behaviour", which I think is as close to "I made a mistake, please forgive me" as we're going to get. Waggers (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to stop wasting time on this. Bad editors can't generally be reformed. Yet, we never seem to run out of editors who want to be that miracle worker who reforms them. She's already adequately demonstrated that she has a temperament which is incompatible with a collaborative project. Time to let this one go, folks. Friday (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I support unblocking Sarah. PS- she can call me an Anglo-American Nationalist anytime she wants (it doesn't bug me; actually humours me). PS- Although, that's not why she was blocked. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs provided in Can someone block Sarah777?, I found such monstrous comments as This is simply outrageous, In the meantime, someone is deleting all the articles again. Would someone please warn him to stop?, It isn't merging anyway because all content has not been preserved and lastly there's this inexcusable effort. [Yes, that was sarcasm.] Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not very convinced after looking through those. There's nothing there that would cause me to bat an eyelid, never mind issue a block. As for the mass reverting, while WP:BRD - one revert - would have been better, that's not typically indefinite block-worthy either, not on its own, and not in combination with the non-incivility and non-attacks. I would be happy enough to see Sarah777 unblocked. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, you don't have to answer. Have any of the admins or others taking part in the fate of Sarah777 ever been blocked? Jack forbes (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Some have, some haven't. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 14:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope those like Friday and any others who want to throw Sarah to the wolves are not one of those who have! Would'nt want to check their history and have to tell them they are not really reformed and it's "time to let this one go folks". Jack forbes (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As somebody with a lot of sympathy for Sarah's predicament I would suggest letting her ask for an unblock in her own time. A premature unblock would potentially be disastrous. When the time comes, I will support an unblock. I don't think that time has come yet. --John (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to see some more explicit concern for Wikipedia rather simply that individual acts were wrong. "I won't mass revert or remove AfD tags" isn't the same as "I understand and respect the rules and processes of the Wikipedia community". Sarah is much smarter than to not understand the difference between deletion and merging, or between vandalism and a content dispute, and yet she has consistently taken positions in this situation that indicate she doesn't. I'd like to see a solid commitment to thoroughly familiarising herself and complying with Wikipedia rules and standards. I'm also still a little disturbed by this comment. I won't oppose an unblock, but I think the community should demand impeccable behavior from her and not just focused apologies. - Revolving Bugbear 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Has she pledged to stop the personal attacks and the claims of pro-British POV in every article she edits? Corvus cornix_talk 16:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone is showing quite obvious signs of pro-British POV then surely it is far too restrictive to tell her not to mention it, whilst people like myself are accused of pro-nationalist POV! Seems to me it's fine to have her back with the provisio that she wears a straitjacket. Jack forbes (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that this short time after an indef-block is far too soon to be seriously considering reversing it, given Sarah's absurd insistence of a conspiracy, digging herself into a deeper hole during the last discussion, and asking what policy prohibits the deletion of AfD-tags. I strongly oppose any unblock at this stage unless it's to set an expiry time, minimum 3 months. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. This one was indefinite to stop Sarah just waiting it out, and instead to ensure she addresses the reason for the block. If she has done that, and it appears she has, there is no good reason to maintain it. Sarah has given her word to be civil, which I think we should accept it. The only concern I have is that what Sarah considers civil may not exactly equate to what the community expectation is. If that is the case, Sarah should be aware, now, of what the consequences would be. In short, I support an unblock, but would prefer there to be some discretely stated conditions with specific consequences for violation, rather than a general be nice or else... unblocking. Rockpocket 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the unblock, followed by an immediate discussion on the articles in question. I think Sarah777 might have achieved better results by being a little more restrained, but I also believe those who connected the AfD decision (one article) to a consensus on "let's roll up all the articles" decision (many many articles) as flawed and incorrect procedurally. As such, Sarah777 was only as guilty as the admins incorrectly interpreting that she was in breach of the AfD ruling, which she was not. Reverting so many articles, by itself, was an act of frustration, and I am still incredulous at this behaviour meriting of an indefinite block. --Bardcom (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on this discussion with Sarah777,[4] I do not support an unblock at this time. Her view of what is and isn't civil, does not seem in accordance with the rest of the community. --Elonka 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself new to all this, and I honestly can't believe some of these discussions, it reads like a courtmartial. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Jack forbes (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That is generally an issue between the State and individuals, and does not apply in a private context, which is where we are, and is therefore governed by the rules and conventions of the community. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</lawyer>

Don't see the point of opening this discussion in this manner. Besides the moral supports who as is normal turn up at these places for their friends, there was a rough "consensus" that Sarah should only be unblocked after some time and only with some restrictions. So, what restrictions are envisaged? Since the argument that restrictions aren't necessary hasn't really been made, if this is a widely held view, I would like to know what evidence is there that restrictions are no longer necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As a completely outside view, I agrew with Deacon here. Nothing has been presented to warrant an unblock. The editor in question is contentious, biased, and unwilling to change. Support indef block/ban of Sarah777. We've got much better things to do as editors than babysit this particular POV warrior. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are we still continuing the drama of Sarah777 with a third thread? There was strong consensus for a block, and all attempts at reform have failed. Sarah refuses to abide by the ArbCom ruling, refuses any sort of mentorship -- even though two administrators stepped up to the plate to help her, has not acknolwedged her faults -- although she said she would stay away from the xxx in Ireland articles, which does nothing to solve the root issue. I'm all for kiss-and-make up, but it's just too soon, and her lack of willingness to reform is point enough that the block should remain. seicer | talk | contribs 02:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't help but agree; I normally steer clear of participating in such dramas, but that doesn't mean I'm not aware of what's going on, and this vague commitment to improve doesn't convince me. I think sometimes we waste far too much time on contentious editors who are good in small ways but overall cause so much disruption that on balance their presence is not constructive. Nobody is irreplaceable in the long term, and we shouldn't be blinded by superficialities. The content could easily be provided by an less argumentative editor with more regard for policy and cooperation. End of. </rant> --Rodhullandemu 02:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I swear Rodhullandemu, in some of your posts it is like you're reading my mind. This certainly isn't the first occasion. To the matter at hand, I in summary agree with the last half dozen posts. I don't participate much these days because of work, but I'm still reading and have been following this as an uninvolved third party. The block should remain until their will be no further disruption. Sarah continues to insist that her articles (with continued sarcastic reference to WP:OWN) were deleted without her permission, when instead the whole bundle was merged into a cohesive collection. Additionally, she says that she doesn't consent to the arbitration decision. Well, that's not what arbitration is about. In legal terms (which we actually follow here quite well), arbitration is when there cannot be an agreed compromise through negotiations or mediation and a decision is required. Arbitration decisions are binding and are not subject to consent. Unblock when Sarah learns about collaboration. Keegan^talk 05:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the consensus seems to be against an unblock for now; thanks everyone for your input and sorry to those of you who feel I was wrong to bring this up again. What would be helpful is if we could agree under what circumstances (if any) she can be unblocked. Now might be too soon and there might be agreement for an unblock subject to certain conditions, but how long is long enough? What conditions? Or does this need to be an ArbCom decision? Waggers (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have become worried that over the last few months this page is becoming a star chamber and the above does not diminish my concerns. The emphasis should not be if there is a consensus to take the block off but if there is a consensus to continue with an indefinite block. I do not think that there is.

In the longer term there needs to be a formal system in place to deal with issues like this, preferably -- as natural justice demands (Audi alteram partem) -- with the discussion taking place on the talk page of the user id under discussion (similar to the way we deal with article RfCs), or at the very least a devils advocate on this page. -- but this is another issue for another time.

However in this case of user:Sarah777], I think that either she should be unblocked immediately or a fixed time limit should be imposed. Otherwise what is she to do? Poll every few weeks/months asking if the block can be removed? I do not think that that is either fair or reasonable. Personally I favour an immediate unblocking and during the following month a restriction whereby she can only revert once per week per article (with no use of the move tab). This will limit the disruption she can cause and give the community a chance to see if see has learnt to be less caustic on talk pages with other editors. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't want to overstate my case, because my experiences with Sarah are somewhat limited. However, my experiences with her have led me to the view that she is not here to help create a credible encyclopedia but rather to peddle her own simplistic black hat/white hat view of Anglo-Irish history. She appears to me to be very much in the "nationalist zealot" mould, and highly unlikely to reform in my opinion.

I personally don't need to see her indef banned altogether, but indef banning her from Anglo-Irish pages is unlikely to do the project much harm. Possibly she can be allowed to edit in other areas, and on talk pages related to Anglo-Irish topics where she could make suggestions. If she can manage to behave herself under those restrictions for a sufficient period of time, then I suppose she might eventually be given another chance, but quite frankly I have my doubts that she can ever become a net contributor on the topic in question. There's just too much animus there. Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Maybe it's just me. I don't understand the logic of what's going on here, so with respect, this post is not intended to offend, or to hurt Sarah777's chances for unblocking, or to point a finger at a particular admin or editor. Someone above equated this with a legal process and that Wikipedia is good at this. I disagree. I'll try to keep this short, and my intention is to ask people to really think about the process being used here, and to be fair.

• Sarah777 was blocked for being disruptive because she reverted a number of edits to articles being merged. The blocking admin stated that a consensus had been reached to merge the articles, and therefore Sarah777 should not have merged.

• There was no such consensus tested or formed.

Even if there was, an AfD about a single article should not be used to form/test consensus affecting other articles as it does not give all the interested editors the opportunity to comment, never mind realize that their article might be affected by an AfD on a completely different article.

• The original admin, SirFozzie, has stated that he is happy to open an RfC to ensure that a consensus is tested and formed for the merge.
• The point is that, having retrospectively examined Sarah777's reversions and the AfD, there is a question over whether the block for disruptive behaviour was justified in the first place. In the interests of fairness, keep this in mind.

• Many editors and admins have commented that Sarah777 has breached WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and made ad hominen attacks.

• This has nothing to do with a blocking decision for reverting articles. Any complaints not related to the article reversions are separate, and should therefore be dealt with separately. There are processes and procedures available to deal with this. I would fully endorse the usual and normal process of placing warnings for ad hominen attacks, and policy breaches such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF on any editors Talk page to mark the fact of specific incidents. It too easy to be vague. There is also the process of RfC on an editors behaviour where the discussions held here would be more appropriate. But this is not the correct place, and Sarah's alleged policy breaches should not form part of this unblocking decision.
• I used the term alleged above because there are no warnings on her Talk page.... Some editors have provided diffs on occasion, but if they truly wanted to take action, the first step is to issue a warning. Some editors provided diffs on incidents where they weren't even involved. It is not fair to trawl through an editors comments and hand-pick some incidents spread over some time to paint a particular picture. In a legal setting, this would be thrown out. If you truly have a problem, then issue a warning or open an RfC. Be fair.

• Finally, some editors have stated that an unblock should only occur if Sarah777 agrees to certain terms and conditions.

• In my opinon, there should be no requirement to ask Sarah777 to be civil, or to not participate in ad hominen attacks. We already have a perfectly working set of procedures and processes for this. If she breaches policy, issue a warning. If she gets enough warnings for the same behaviour, ask an admin to review and block if necessary. If she continues with disruptive behaviour, she gets more warnings, and the blocks get longer. With respect, if admins and editors alike followed this process, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If that is in fact the correct process and procedure, then the one here is invalid and unfair.

• This process no longer appears to be about the appropriateness of the block, or the length of the block for the incident in question. Instead we are talking about attitude and incivility. But processes and procedures exist for a reason. In the absence of warnings on her Talk page, I do not accept handpicked comments as evidence of inappropriate behavior - nor should you as it is not fair.

Apologies - I hoped it would be shorter. --Bardcom (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read her ArbCom restrictions and discussions relating to that? Or her continued incivility? Or consensus (as previously found elsewhere) towards the merge, although it may not have been explicit? seicer | talk | contribs 13:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the ArbCom restrictions and discussions - are you saying this block is related? Ans if so, why wasn't it stated when the block was made? Or are you merely trying to justify this block? I've already made the points about the continued incivility - have you read the points above about the correct procedure to follow, why you shouldn't handpick specific incidents to retrospectively make the point especially if you're an uninvolved editor, and to ask why there are no warnings on her Talk page (even today) for alleged incivility. Finally, please point to where the concensus was formed for the merge - your point about is may not have been explicit is exactly my point too. There was no consensus....and therefore the block of Sarah777 should never have taken place! --Bardcom (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason people are, to some extent, talking across each other is because the proximate cause for Sarah's block was the reversion disruption. However, in what can kindly be described a remarkable misjudgment, she did this at the same time a discussion was ongoing about the weight of Sarah's incivility and politicizing. So while the former, immediate concern has largely been resolved, the latter underlying concern remains.

In addition, Bardcom, I would invite you to peruse the entire history of Sarah's talk page. There has been many, many warnings about incivility and disruptive behaviour (I have given a good many myself) on the lead up to her previous blocks. Instead of heeding them, though, Sarah sees them as an opportunity to debate the issue (which usually leads to an accusation that the admin involved is editing from a pro-Anglo-American agenda.) This I believe is the crux of the problem: despite all these warnings and short blocks, we don't seem to be making progress. So, while I don't support keeping Sarah blocked indefinitely, I do feel than any unblock needs to have defined boundaries, and defined restrictions for exceeding them. Because is Sarah is cut loose with a general "don't be uncivil" mandate, I guarantee you we will be back here again in weeks or months, and next time the odds of her being unblocked will be much longer. Rockpocket 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket, thank you for the response. I admit I haven't had time to peruse the entire history of Sarah's Talk page - there's a lot of it. But I'm looking at her current page (which more than spans this period in question, and more besides) and I can't find a single warning, etc. Can I be cheeky and ask for a diff?  :-) --Bardcom (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to be cheeky right back, but take a look at her block history:

• "Attempting to harass other users: Derogatory comments after extensive warnings" (28 Feb 08)
• "Gross incivility" (23 Feb 08)
• "Attempting to harass other users: Multiple violations of civility on User Talk:Alison and User talk:Ioeth" (25 Jan 08)
• "Disruption: 3RR; POV pushing; tendentious editing" (22 Dec 07)

That seems to me like it ought to be a sufficient warning. - Revolving Bugbear 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the time to go through the history and document them at the moment, Bardom, but I can do that later if you like. Having a look at the current pages a few things jump out at me, though:

• Camillus: Hi - I can understand your reaction to the anon remark, but please try not to bring in the old Rangers/Celtic stuff into the debate...Just a friendly word, which you can heed or not, as you see fit :)
• Sarah:I've zero interest in either Celtic or Rangers; just the irony of the demonisation of Zenit by the British media...

• Deacon of Pndapetzim: Sarah, I sympathize with the fact you are frustrated with certain elements of wikipedia. I in the past have had similar frustrations. But English football's small problem with racism and the bigger Hiberno-Scottish problem with sectarianism have absolutely no bearing on Zenit
• Sarah: If certain people conditioned by a lifetime of living the Anglo-American paradigm choose to interpret elimination of British pov as anti-Britishness rather than anti-pov and support for WP:NPOV then all I can do is try to educate them...Your downplaying of British racism signals to me that you are not really able to adopt a neutral position in this case

• John:Why would you add an old AfD tag to an article rather than to its talk page, and why would you mention vandalism in the summary? Let me know if you need any help or advice; I'd hate to see you getting blocked for incivility again, but it definitely looks like you're heading in that direction. Please take this as a friendly comment rather than a threat.
• Sarah I refuse to treat each article in isolation when they are linked to the same British/Irish dispute with much the same British pov-pushers pushers of British pov involved in each case.

• John: Sarah, please stop digging yourself deeper at AN/I. At least consider that you may be wrong. If nothing else, just step away from the computer for a few minutes. Note that I have never blocked you and have no plans to. But if you continue to flout policy like this, it's likely that someone else will.
• Myself: Arguing the toss is not going to get you anywhere except blocked, and then restricted from pages that you would rather not be restricted from.
• Lar: So don't do that again or you may well be blocked to prevent disruption to the project. Walk away, find another way to contribute.

These were all in the days leading up to her block. These are warnings. They many not be stop or I will block warnings (and that is because experienced admins are generally aware when those sort of blunt statements are counter-productive), but they nevertheless advise Sarah to stop editing in a problematic manner. Her response, in general, does not address her contribution to the specific incident at all, but instead turns it into a British POV issue. Rockpocket 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi RocketPockEt, sincere thanks for going to all that trouble. The block history shows that Sarah777 avoided a block from 28th Feb until this most recent incident. Not bad, considering the number of edits Sarah777 made during that period (irony). But it's the warnings I'm most interested in. You state that the blunt "stop or I will block" warnings can be counter-productive - but how else can an editor know or realize that they've been warned?? Advising someone to behave differently is not the same as warning someone to behave differently. The examples you picked have lots of great examples of behaviour that should have been warned (even now, some of it is very cringeworthy) - but not one warning. Hopefully I've made my point - those "with power" must be (seen to be) fair, and in my opinion this blocking did not follow procedure and was not fair. --Bardcom (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason for this is because we don't want to treat editors like children, who only respond to punishment. Sarah needs to realize that those sorts of comments are not cool. When people bring a concern to your page (or in her case, when many people bring the same concern to her page) you shouldn't just ignore it unless it is accompanied by the threat of a large stick. This is what Sarah does (she quite openly stated that she wanted people to explicitly note whether they were admins or not, presumably so she knew who to ignore and who not to ignore). So, I disagree that admins need to explictly state "do that again and I will block you". When you do that it is often perceived as a threat, and threats tend to alienate people and aggravate the situation. The last three comments I quote (from John, myself and Lar) all make clear what would happen if Sarah didn't start to listen to the community. They are clear warnings and it is equally clear that Sarah didn't heed them. My preference now is to ensure there is a system that Sarah will heed so she can edit again. Rockpocket 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock has said what I was going to say. Prematurely unblocking her before a framework is in place to protect her will do her no favors at all. I'm heartened that she says she will not edit-war or continue to be uncivil, but personally I am looking for demonstrable evidence that she has learned from what has happened rather than a mere statement of intent. We are heading in the right direction but we are not there yet. Maybe we should use the way Vintagekits was rehabilitated as a model for how to proceed? --John (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, I hold my hands up and acknowledge that there's a lot of people trying to help Sarah777. I'd just like to see the existing processes and procedures followed first, and a separation between different incidents or complaints. --Bardcom (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I did an extensive investigation of Sarah's behavior a couple months ago (multiple threads, starting around here[5], then search on "elonka" or "civil" to find the others). I was particularly looking into her claims that the civility rules were being misapplied in her case. After I spent hours looking through diffs, my realization was that she had received multiple warnings from multiple admins, but she just wasn't hearing them. Her general mode of operation is to take immediate offense to anything that anyone else says to her, but when she throws abuse back, she does not see that as a problem. It was my opinion then that I was actually surprised that she hadn't been blocked more often. She was definitely in one of the classic "revolving door" modes of Wikipedia: In other words, we have certain users who are disruptive, we block them, they wait out the block, they disrupt again, we block again, they wait out the block, they disrupt again, we block them again, they wait it out again, etc. But they never actually acknowledge that they understood what they did wrong, nor do they promise that they are going to do better. That is why I support an indefinite block at this time, because despite multiple people explaining things at Sarah777's talkpage, despite multiple Administrator threads which she is obviously reading, she still refuses to acknowledge that she was ever uncivil, while at the same time she still continues to accuse other people of being uncivil towards her. This kind of double standard behavior is extremely disruptive. If Sarah777 can ever acknowledge this discrepancy in terms of how she defines civility, and promise to be civil as defined by the Wikipedia community, then I might be willing to support an unblock. But until then, no, she should be kept out of the community. We've already spent enough time trying to convince the unconvinceable. It's time to just move on. --Elonka 20:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"she still refuses to acknowledge that she was ever uncivil," When I asked her to apologise to me she did so. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she said "OK Philip; in your case and in your case only it appears I was utterly totally and abysmally wrong in both cases". She's capable of being very nice and has apologized to me on occasion too. I would still question whether this shows real understanding of how off-putting her continual accusations of bias can be. Being rude across the board then issuing the occasional apology and carrying on as before has been her modus operandi thus far. To unblock I would be looking not for contrition (hell, she offered to say a Hail Mary for me the last time she was apologizing for some false allegation she made, and me an atheist!) but for genuine evidence of growth and learning. So far, I do not see this, though if it happens I promise to be the first to acknowledge it. This is to protect her, not to punish her. --John (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaty Weenies is Bsrboy - advice requested

This CU result has confirmed that Meaty Weenies (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the indefinitely blocked (or banned?) user Bsrboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), as well as the fact that he has at least twice logged out to vandalize. That's the bad side. On the other hand he has done rather a lot of useful work on articles like Plymouth (history) and Ivybridge (history).

I'd appreciate some advice as to where the balance between these two sides of this teenager's presence here should lie. Do we just block him and lose any future useful contributions? Any comments appreciated. I'll let the user know of this discussion.  —SMALLJIM  12:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef means indef. Why should anyone get special treatment? Jtrainor (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the consensus here, then I'd have no problem with that. It's just that it's clear that he's not completely evil and perhaps we shouldn't use a sledgehammer when a gavel might do the job better.  —SMALLJIM  13:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I had no experience with the old account, but I noticed the new one a week or two ago. He acts just like a kid. Such editors are not useful to the project and should be shown the door. I'd idly wondered where he'd gotten his "gaming the system" experience, and I guess now we know. Friday (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Operating good-hand/bad-hand accounts is one of the more destructive things that an editor can do here, and even this 'good' account has engaged in more than its fair share of borderline trolling. (Seriously, he was adding multiple copies of massively oversized images to the sandbox a couple days ago, as well as edit warring to keep a (low-res, large sized) goatse there. Had I been watching more closely at the time, this discussion would never have taken place.)

Given that he earned his last indef block for engaging in logged-out vandalism while maintaining a good-hand account, where is the evidence that this individual has learned anything? He took it upon himself to create a new account, and he used it for exactly the same childish behaviour that earned his first block. How many additional second chances are required for us to see a pattern? If he is a younger contributor, perhaps he can be invited to return in a couple of years — after he has a chance to mature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• He was the cause of a recent /16 rangeblock, and I've seen rather too much of his goatse in various places recently, while this account has been active. I've only now connected the two. I support a block unless there is an immediate convincing undertaking about his future conduct. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I had no other choice. Please view this from my persceptive. My account as bsbroy has been blocked indefinately from editing and emailing. Its talk page has also been permenantly protected. I had two or three choices: Continue to contribute as an IP address (my IP range wasn't blocked); create a new account and continue to contribute; wait for a year or more and request unblock as an IP. At the moment I am deeply involved in improving the article on Plymouth to good article. If I was blocked I would not be able to continue my contributions. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is that you're back and editing. I think the issue is that you're back...and apparently doing the same thing that got your last account blocked. Some good work doesn't justify other repeated vandalism. Where does the need to vandalize fall into your list of choices? --Onorem♠Dil 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If I had such a list it would fall under my list of "fun things to do" choices, but because the list of choices would be insanely long I haven't made one. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this user being allowed to contribute here? They're a sock of an indef blocked user. Whatever activities they may or may not be involved in at this time are irrelevant, because the fact that they are editing in the first place is a violation of policy. Indefinite means just that: unless someone important agrees to let you off the hook, you are permabanned and may not evade your block in any way. Jtrainor (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you rather I didn't answer Onorem's question? Stupid question = stupid answer. 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely. He'd been acting like a 12-year-old with this account too, so it's no real loss. Friday (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec - you beat me to it!) I was going to say to MW that that was exactly the sort of immature response I had hoped I wouldn't hear from him. He can ask to come back when he can convince the WP community that he understands what he's done wrong and is able to behave maturely all the time.  —SMALLJIM  16:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what I've done wrong and I always have. Why have you blocked me to prevent me from discussing the matter? Maybe if the administratos at Wikipedia discussed things with users to ensure that they won't do it again these problems wouldn't arrise. Instead you blocked me? What is this achieving? To stop me from vandalising? I doubt it. Please let me engage in a discussion. 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the email I (Meaty Weenies) sent to Friday: "He'd been acting like a 12-year-old with this account too, so it's no real loss." It's no real loss? This makes me extremely angry. Since I've been on Wikipedia I have brought Ivybridge up to B class; created the assessment process of WikiProject Devon; assessed nearly 200 articles as part of WikiProject Devon; brought Ivybridge Communty College up to Start class; welcomed 30 new users to Wikipedia; reverted tonnes of vandalism; warned users who vandalise; reported persistent users who vandalise Wikipedia (all of my reports were successful); remained civil and helpful especially to AtheWeatherman; Starting to bring Plymouth up to GA class; semi protected the Inbetweeners to prevent persistant IP vandalism; Brought the Inbetweeners up to Start class; and received two barnstars. What do you think the chances are that I'd continue these contribution, if I wasn't blocked. Oh well it doesn't matter, because "it's no realy loss."

Yours sincerly, a very angry and upset bsrboy.

I also forget to mention my userboxes. I feel that Friday has targeted me, because of my age. By the way Friday your essay on ageism sickens me. 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not how old you are that lead me to the block. It's how old you act. Friday (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion how old do I act? What is your age-acting minimum on Wikipedia? 25+? By the way do you still believe that "it's no real loss."? 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I will just say that I am very grateful to Meaty Weenies for his work on Plymouth, and related articles. I also find some of the age-related comments by some editors offensive, particularly considering just how spectacularly crap Wikipedia is at controlling disruptive behaviour from certain admins and others of all ages. We do tolerate disruption from some editors because they contribute well in certain other areas, as anyone familiar with this board will well know. I do not feel that this situation has been at all well managed. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if anyone disagrees with the block and wants to undo it, go ahead. But, it'll be your job to watch him if you do. Before anyone considers this, take a look at his talk page. What led me to notice him was his "Tee hee hee, look at me, I said penis!" type contributions. This is an attention-seeker who spams shock site images around various places. I have no interest in enabling problem editors by subscribing to the notion that "We'll put up with trollish behavior because you mix in a few useful edits in there too." Friday (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't call me names, you are violating WP:SPADE. All I've ever wanted from the start of my block on bsrboy was to have a second chance. I have never been given one, so I have had to hop from one account to the other. As a result I have missbehaved, becuae no one was checking up on me. If you want I can remove all innapropriate stuff from my userpage (I didn't have any on bsrboy or the vandal warrior). And feel free to do a checkuser on me whenever you want. With this new system in place it will allow me to continue my good contributions, but because of the checkuers and trust and whereabouts that I am a vandal I will not be vandalising Wikipedia. Therefore 100% good work from me. Please, a second chance is all that I ask. And still, Friday, do you believe that "it's no real loss."? 86.29.138.45 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already seen how you use second chances. This one little edit tells me everything I need to know about your intentions here. And this is not an isolated incident. Friday (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely here. No one has ever seen how I use second chances, because I've never been given one. That wasn't a second chance. What I'm on about is the chance for administrators to allow me to edit again with my history known and with acceptance. The other question still remains: "it's no real loss."? And also why in my reason for being blocked does it say "sock of a banned editor. has also been acting juvenile with this account too." acting juvenile? Please stop being so ageist Friday. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) User:Meaty Weenies was your second chance. I've been watching your contributions on and off since Bsrboy was blocked - many of the articles you've edited are on my watchlist. When my suspicions as to who you are were confirmed I started this discussion instead of just blocking you as I could have done. I hoped you would be able to convince us that your "good" side could win against your desire to vandalize. But you've totally failed at that - no contrition at all. Your contributions to this page were your third chance. I don't fully agree with Friday that "it's no real loss", but as he also said: it's not how old you are, it's how old you act.  —SMALLJIM  17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaty Weenies isn't my second chance. I think I know what you're trying to get at, but I had User:The Vandal Warrior as my second account, therefore Meaty Weenies is my third anyway. I want a second chance with people knowing who I am. No one gave me a second chance i.e an administator didn't say "here you go, I'm giving you a second chance with this account". Please can you explain how I've failed at showing you my good side would win over the bad side and what does contrition mean? (I hope Friday comes along to answer my question "it's no real loss", as he appears to be avoiding it). 86.29.130.202 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when we say that your good side needs to win over your bad side, we don't mean that it is sufficient for you to have more constructive edits than destructive ones. We mean that you shouldn't make any deliberately damaging or disruptive edits. I note that you clearly understood that what you were doing was wrong – you went to the trouble of logging out for most of your vandalism – yet you went ahead and did it anyway. We expect all of our editors to show sufficient maturity that they don't ever deface any of the pages on this project, and that they will endeavour to make all of their edits helpful even in the absence of constant monitoring and supervision.

Given that your conduct as Meaty Weenies (and IP) would probably get you blocked or banned even without taking into account your previous behaviour, why do you believe that you should immediately receive a third chance, or that it would be helpful to your case for your new account to be an acknowledged sock?

Incidentally: contrition. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since bsrboy has been blocked from Wikipedia I initially gave up on hope for Wikipedia and was angry. I had lost the trust of fellow wikipedians and because it was an indef blocked I realised that I will never gain it back. After some time I began editing again. Not massively, just bits here and there. Sometimes I would let my anger of the block boil over, which lead to vandalism. Still whilst being Meaty Weenies I had to rebuild trust again, but this time I was even more angry and upset. I tried to get back at my treatment by trying to get as close as inserting 2MB of goatse to templates for today's featured articles. At the moment I feel like I've had enough and I just want to start a complete fresh of building trust and then being demolished again. I would like to be open about who I am and build proper trust with Wikipedia. As a result I will not feel the need to seek revenge against Wikipedia. Although if you do checkusers on my, I will assume it as good faith and common sense. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

← I think the indef block is a good call. Seraphim♥Whipp 19:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? 86.29.130.202 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have any respect for either the community or the encyclopedia. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And why hasn't the ip been blocked yet? Seraphim♥Whipp 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(twice edit conflicted)Way to comment on contributions not the contributor Seraphim Whip! I think his contributions at Plymouth and History of Plymouth do shew respect for the encyclopaedia, and his work for the Devon Wikiproject and his editor review shew respect for the community. There may well be problems with some of his edits, but to make such a sweepingly dismissive and derogatory statement about him as a person is just ignorant. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Seems a bit hypocritical to poke someone about commenting on the contributor whilst simultaneously implying they are ignorant! My comments are well justified. He certainly has no respect for the community since he has many times edited despite the fact that he has been indefinitely blocked thus showing no respect for community norms or wishes. He has no respect for the encyclopedia because he vandalises it! You could have just asked me to elaborate without being rude. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be more civil here... I have helped a user as seen on his talk page: User talk:AtheWeatherman and I am commited to make sure he fits in well here, because I respect him. I respect Wikipedia and you can't argue with that based on my actions. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My comment was directed at DuncanHill, who I hope will now see the basis of why I formed my opinion. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but keep it civil. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because, whether you were given a second (and third) chance or not, you took them. But, rather than (or possibly in addition to) using those chances to be a productive editor, you wasted them by vandalizing. It doesn't matter if you accept that you have had your second chance, the fact is you have and you blew it. I would suggest that you stay away for a year and then request an unblock. Maybe by then you will have matured enough to not take out you frustration with juvenile vandalism. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, this appears to be resolved, regardless of the subject continuing to try to argue his way out of the consequences of his actions. The IP should be blocked and the thread marked resolved. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)One problem, as I see it, is that he says he needs to have "another chance" because people didn't know who he was last time around. Reading between the lines, then, this is someone who will only behave when they feel that someone is looking over their shoulder. Another issue is that he says his vandalism is apparently an outlet for anger and resentment, partly due to being blocked in the past, but - whatever reason is cited - there is no sign of acceptance of responsibility for his own actions.

One possible solution would be for a mentor to oversee his edits, though given the history of IP vandalism, that would be very time-consuming. Another solution is, of course, a block. In this case (and at the risk of appearing to be ageist) a 6-12 month block (rather than indef) might be a good idea; this would give Bsrboy a chance to gain maturity and self-control. The usual caveats apply: non-admin, 2 pence, and so forth. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I most definately do, please don't make such assumptions about me. I respect all users who spend their free time to create encyclopedic articles without getting paid. Wikipedia is an amazing place and the fact that there is a website trying to improve human knowledge for free is what first interested me in getting involved in Wikipedia. I have respect for all the work that you have done to the community. I want to be unblocked, so that I can gain back the respect and trust of the Wikipedia community. (I've been edit conflicted 5 times for this!) 86.29.130.202 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, I have done some horrible stuff and I accept responsibility for all of it. I respect Wikipedia and its contributers and I want to continue my good work here. I would much rather I wasn't blocked. I can prove to you all that I am mature. Please give me this chance to edit. I'll do anything you want: mentoring; regular checkuser blocks; adoption programme. Anything! Please, I am dedicated to learn and be a better person, just let me have this chance. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. (I'm not an administrator)Just because someone is 12 (or acts like it) does not mean they cannot contribute to the encyclopedia. This user has written quite a lot of work around here, in fact. However, if their "childish" behaviour begins to become disruptive, this is not good for the encyclopedia. If disruptive/abusive sockpuppet users become unblocked, then they must use their chance wisely and should not do any vandalism. For now, I've put a sockpuppet tag on the user's page, but if anyone does not agree with this, they can remove it. This user has expressed that they actually want to help improve Wikipedia, but they should only be given the chance to if they do not commit disruptive actions or any blatant vandalism. Although I personally disagree with a lot of blocks, I'm going to leave it to the community to decide. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seraphim♥Whipp has advised me not to edit here as it is block evading, so I will allow the community to discuss this matter. If any major decissions are made or you need an answer then please notify me on my talk page. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we're done here. Thanks for all the comments. There's a clear consensus that he should remain blocked, and I think an indefinite block with the possibility of him making an application to be allowed back in about a year's time is appropriate.  —SMALLJIM  15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Update for anyone that had been following along. Bsrboy has now been unblocked. User talk:Bsrboy indicates per IRC discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 15:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Category:Copy to Wiktionary

CopyToWiktionaryBot has not been functioning for some time. The category includes articles tagged for transfer from at least as far back as May 10, here. (There may be older; I only looked at a couple.) I wrote to the bot's operator, User:Connel MacKenzie, about it on May 24th and got a prompt reply, but it wasn't really encouraging that the bot would be up and running again any time soon as there is evidently an issue with "false positives" in Special:Import. (Note: I am technologically pretty clueless. I am reporting it, but I don't know what he meant by it. :)) Currently there are 56 pages in the category. He suggested that an admin may be found on Wiktionary in the event of an emergency transfer; I don't know that there are any emergencies in this list, but am concerned that they are stacking up. Are there perhaps any admins here who also are admins on Wiktionary who might be able to help out with clearing this? Any other ideas? If not, I may wander over to find some AN noticeboard on Wiktionary and ask for ideas there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Try asking at Village Pump (technical), you should get better answers than at ANI --Enric Naval (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I might wind up giving it a shot, although I really have no clue what the problem with the bot might be or what technical alternatives there might be. Evidently Connel has been aware of it for some time. I am hoping to find an admin who works on both sites who might be able to figure out how to proceed. :) I'd be happy to import the articles to Wiktionary myself, but, alas, my adminship extends only here. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All right. I'm moving this on to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (more general than technical; not sure a technical response is what's needed. But, then, I really have no idea what is. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea how to do this...

I need to change the text appearing in everyone's watchlist about FritzpollBot to something like "There is a proposal to allow a bot to help human editors create stub articles for places not yet covered in Wikipedia, please comment here" with the wikilink already in the text. The Watchlist text doesn't represent the proposal, and people may judge it based on that first impression. No idea how to do that! Can someone do it for me? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You can change the message by editing Template:Watchlist-notice. --ais523 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent - cheers for the pointer Fritzpoll (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism" wrongly attributed to me

Resolved

Hello, I have gotten lots of messages saying I have been vandalising, but the articles concerned are about things I've never even heard of before! Are you sure you don't have an IP address mix-up? Apparently I have been blocked several times for edits I haven't made and I only hear of the blocks now! Please help me, the only changes I make at the moment are: correcting spelling and grammar errors, or obvious logical/chronological mistakes. Also, these messages disappear when I log on. I am the only user of this computer so nobody else on this IP could have done these changes. I'd appreciate any feedback, I am very confused. I am neither a vandal nor a spammer and I hate being called so. Thanks. Khilsati (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What account are you seeing that has the vandalism warnings? Corvus cornix_talk 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP address's user talk, here [6]. When I log in, the warnings are gone but it's tiring to have to log in every time. Khilsati (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your internet service provider (Telkom South Africa) apparently uses a rotating IP pool. Your computer will be on a different IP very regularly (likely every time you disconnect from the internet you will be on a new IP the next time). You will see messages, warnings, et cetera that were generated for whoever has had that IP previously. Only by logging in can you avoid the warnings. GRBerry 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When you log in, there is a box beneath your login and password that says "Remember me". If you check that box, you should be logged in every time you come to Wikipedia. Just be sure not to stay logged in at public computers. Corvus cornix_talk 17:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically what's happening is that your ISP gives one IP address to more than one person. Then when other people who previously used the IP address you are using vandalise, the warnings get sent to you by mistake. Apart from logging in, there isn't much that can be done about this; when people aren't logged in IP is the best way we have to try to send messages like vandalism warnings to people. --ais523 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kindness. I'll keep that in mind and make sure nobody I know ever vandalises this very valuable web site! Kenavo. Khilsati (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming some Wikipedia positions

Resolved

 – Proposal failed spectacularily. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a proposal here that would retitle positions like administrator and bureaucrat. Since this the administrator noticeboard, I thought it'd be a good idea to notify all of you. Please comment and discuss on the talk page. Thanks! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a mistake and contributed on the proposal page instead. Good faith error! No decimations! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you are a group account, it would be hard to kill one in ten of you! DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how often the meaning of 'decimate' is misinterpreted to mean 'annihilate' or similar. Exxolon (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprised, no; appalled, yes. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems Princeton considers 'annihilate' and 'decimate' to be synonyms.[7] - auburnpilot talk 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I pity tha uncultured foos. For the record, I was thinking of losing digits, in a cross-cultural Yakuza/Roman mashup kinda way. Never mind :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, the word you're looking for is sansdigititus. - auburnpilot talk 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

HM forgot to give Jimbo his proper title: Caesar! Or would that be Co-Caesar? Hmmm... --SimpleParadox 22:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hummm... then who is Brutus? DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp? J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he'd be Romulus, which gives an obvious parallel for a Remus. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So from now on instead of RfA, there'll be RfQ? And instead of AN, QN? ;) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was funny, until I realised it wasn't in the humour category. Then when I realised someone actually thought this was a good idea (rather than deliberately and exceptionally dorky), it becamse less funny. Neıl 龱 09:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy mama, that made my brain hurt. Bad freshman-Latin flashbacks to 1985--run for cover! Frankie say WTF?--Hide Yourself! Gladys J Cortez 10:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Time for another Larry Sanger joke. — CharlotteWebb 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser Backlog

Resolved

Hi there just thought that I would mention that there is a small backlog at AutoWikiBrowser approval page. ChristopherJames2008 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleared. - auburnpilot talk 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Amoruso

For slightly more that a month ago I requested a CU on Amoruso; Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amoruso, which resulted in that User:Thatcher found 3 confirmed socks, which were "likely also Amoruso". User:Moreschi then blocked the socks indef., and blocked Amoruso for two months. Well, everything was nice and quiet (relatively speaking) on the Israel/Palestine-WP-front...until a couple of days ago, when I received an email from Amoruso which I found extremely insulting. I went to his talk page, User talk:Amoruso, and find that he has written more in the same manner there. I did the stupid thing: answered him. (I do get upset when people call me I liar). And he accuses me of being behind the socks (FYI: I am in Scandinavia, Amoruso is, according to his User-page, in Jerusalem). Aaaaand he asks to get unblocked. Could some admin please take a look at his user-page, to review his unblock-request? Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice that the relevant messages are at section User_talk:Amoruso#Sockpuppets.3F and not at the bottom of the page. The message that got Huldra fired up is this one --Enric Naval (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable music by not notable musicians?

Question. When there's an article created about Artist X, a completely unknown 14 year old rapper from Denmark, it gets a {{db-band}} tag and will be speedy deleted within minutes. But when Artist X (or his friend) creates an article about his upcoming, not even recorded let alone released, debut album, there's no speedy tag to deal with it. The {{db-band}} tag specifically says it doesn't apply to albums, WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't do speedies, and the article isn't really spam either. Yet we're dealing with an unreleased album ("will probably be recorded in spring 2009") by a musician that is considered to be not notable and/or insignificant.

I come across these kind of 'releases' quite regularly and I simply don't know how to tag them. Should {{db-band}} perhaps be extended to include unreleased albums? Can a 'not notable' musician make 'notable' music? Or am I completely missing an obvious solution to this tagging problem?  Channel ®   23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place- try the village pump or a speedy deletion talk page. However, as someone who has done a lot of new page patrol, I find prod almost always works, and, otherwise, a quick, painless AfD (sometimes with a snowball close) works fine. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This comes up a lot. The most recent detailed discussion on WT:CSD is here; as you can see if you read it, there is really no good consensus for when an album could be speedied. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I'll go to CSD, read and ask.  Channel ®   23:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Worded just a little more exactly, there is very clear consensus that it does not fit the present criteria. There continues to be disagreement whether the criteria should be changed in this regard. DGG (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Move assistance

I would like to move a page to the location of a current redirect. There are also about a half dozen redirects that need to move along with the page. Could you please help me move McCormick Tribune Ice Rink to McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests like this generally go to WP:RM, in the future.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR should be changed

Please note before I continue. I do not disagree with or am complaing about this block. The block was fine but i think something regarding 3rr needs changing, i just used this block as an example.

OK, ive noticed this a lot recently. People think that as long as the dont actually go over the 3RR limit they have done nothing wrong, an example is this very fair block,Seen here. I submit that the title 3RR is very misleading and many new editers believe its arbitary and are therefore not breaking a rule (or so they believe). I suggest that the title should be simply called "Edit War", the 3RR idea is completely misleading to newbies. Do we honestly expect them to be able to find and understand the policy before they get blocked? They usually only read it after they've been blocked, hoping somehow to disprove an admin. I know how conservative wikipedia is regarding policy change but this is due a change. The title should reflect the crime. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It has. Disruptively Editing is what blocks should be issued for, if 3 reverts hasn't been reached. SirFozzie (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It just seems like a policy to catch anything 3RR doesnt cover, still 3RR needs changing, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree. WP:3RR serves as a sort of line in the sand, something that we can point both new and old editors to and say, "Look, we've agreed that this is the limit. Please stop." It's much easier for new users to understand that they can't revert more than three times in a day than it is for them to grasp what exactly constitutes an edit war (a nebulous concept at best, as illustrated by that unblock decline), and its presence serves as a failsafe to ensure that edit wars don't get too heated. And finally, while we do extend a little more leeway to newbies, they are ultimately responsible for their behavior. We don't allow them to make personal attacks or be uncivil simply because they haven't read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, nor do we leave their unsuitable articles alone simply because they haven't read WP:CSD. To put it simply, I don't see why WP:3RR should be any different. --jonny-mt 04:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The title lacks clarity and is misleading, thats my concern. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that blocks have been made for 3RR when the user has violated the spirit of the law rather than the letter, it's still the most descriptive term we have for it. More to the point, if your argument is with the title rather than its use, it seems that this could be better taken up on WT:3RR.... --jonny-mt 05:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the change. The three revert rule is pretty much what it says on the tin- you're allowed to make only three reverts. Perhaps it could be made clear that that policy is not the be-all and end-all of edit warring, but I think people realise that if they're edit warring and refusing to stop, they're going to find themselves blocked eventually, whether they make three reverts or not. In any case, this discussion would be better on the village pump or the 3RR talk page, as it does not require immediate admin attention. J Milburn (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Wikipedia:Edit war is also a policy; there was at one point a merge proposal, but I believe it was turned down amidst fears a merger would "de-tooth" one of the few no-nonsense policies we've managed to put together. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it would be a bad idea for use to word things to emphasise that you can be blocked even if you do not go over the count of 3. Too many people are, unfortunately, reading that very literally. the policy makes it very clear that is is not a license, but it would help decrease the wikilawyering around here if it were made much clearer. Very much clearer. As it, it seems to encourage playing games with the limit. DGG (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR already says that it's not a right to 3 reverts, it's an electric fence. Perhaps if that wording were made much clearer - I think the "not an entitlement" section should mention the electric fence line, and maybe make it clearer that there are other reasons you can be blocked even if you never cross the 3R line. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the {{uw-3rr}} warning template clearly states that editors can be blocked for edit-warring even if they don't exceed 3RR. In my experience, people who spend a lot of time arguing that they made 2.5 reverts instead of 3 are usually exactly the ones who Don't Get It, who will continue to edit-war after the block expires, who will game the system by reverting 4 times in 25 hours, and so forth. I sometimes try to leave a clear indication, along with {{uw-3rr}}, that editors can be blocked for edit-warring even if they don't violate the letter of 3RR. It's also useful to emphasize that 3RR applies to any reverts on a page, not just reverting the same material 3 times - I think this is a much bigger point of confusion for many editors who get caught violating it. MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Account Creator Group

Hi,

I recently made an "account creators" login that has now been approved, I have also registered on the accounts list. The issue is I have not been assigned to the "Account Creators" group as of yet, can someone rectify this please :) Prom3th3an (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the admin interface and you've been approved for [8]. You are now able to create accounts using that system; accountcreator (which puts users in the Account Creator group) is not a requirement, it just helps if you're going fast. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• thanks Prom3th3an (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just realised your not an admin, the idea of this notice board is to get admins attention, do not get to far ahead of yourself Dihydrogen Monoxide your not an admin yet and by the looks your current RFA isnt going to well. Can an admin please comment or rectify, thanks Prom3th3an (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC):::I'm pretty sure non-administrators are allowed to reply. --Tombomp (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Prom3th3an, I would try to help you, but instead I think I'll go look for someone who needs help and isn't acting like a snot about it. --barneca (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) How childish of me. --barneca (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I came across as a snot as it was not my intention, I am very direct sometimes and I do apologise :) Prom3th3an (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, was trying to be a snot, sorry. I don't know enough about that interface to help, but someone will likely come along soon who does. And, for the record, anyone can help anyone on this board; yuo certainly don't need to be an admin if you have something useful to say. And since DHMO was trying to help you, I was reacting to your tone; I generally save my snide comments for people who aren't trying to help. --barneca (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I should rephrase my initial response, its not that DHMO is not an admin that im re-requesting the group permission. Its just I have now hit my upper limit of rego's per day from a single IP. So now I need that group permission to work effectivly :) Prom3th3an (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've added you to the accountcreator group. And since Barneca's said everything that I would, I'll just leave it at that. --jonny-mt 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help and I again I do apologise for my stuffup Prom3th3an (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Huge backlog at CAT:CSD

Resolved

 – Much better now. Thanks —Travis^talk 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Any admins with a bit of extra time on their hands might want to hop over to CAT:CSD and help clear the backlog. Thanks —Travis^talk 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-rapid Grawp?

Liekwtf? I'm having a hard time understanding this. See the contribs of these two: [9] [10] In the span of a minute, you-know-who manages to move an extreme amount of pages. Moreover, given that my bot is now almost as fast as it can technically get (wpEditToken is prefetched every few minutes so it can POST the block form immediately) and blocks within seconds of detecting suspicious behavior, it means that he moves 20+ pages in, what, 5 seconds (or less)? How's that even possible? Isn't there some global throttle, even for autoconfirmed accounts? Makes me wonder why he now hits only talk pages mostly (like sets of archives) - is the throttle somewhat more lenient in that namespace? Again, liekwtf? Миша13 19:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I can think of one way but beans and all. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[ec] I can very, very easily perform several actions apparently at the same time by using tabbed browsing and access keys. It looks automated for a short burst, but is problematic for more than a few dozen edits at a time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't wonder how to do it technically - I could easily write a script that moves 10s of pages per second if only the software and bandwidth allowed for it - my question is, does our mediawiki allow such bursts? I surely remember a hard throttle for autoconfirmed being mentioned a while ago... Миша13 20:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you're expecting to get blocked anyway, it doesn't matter if you can't sustain the edit rate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a move throttle? Back in the day, Curps ran a bot that enforced one, much to SPUI's irritation IIRC. But I don't think we had one in the software itself. Are we now supposed to? Coz that would be A Good Thing. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Duh, IMO even one move per second would seriously compromise Grawp's efforts (without making it noticeable for legit users, even as fast as SPUI). Миша13 20:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

←And all pages are just as quickly moved back ;). Whether a stricter move throttle is enforced or not...the damage is always easily repaired. End of story.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and unless the throttle is set to three or four, the system generally won't catch them before the admins do. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

We are supposed to have a move throttle set at 8 moves in 60 seconds for autoconfirmed users, but if you check "move subpages if applicable", it moves all the subpages in a users userspace and counts them as one move. Now - let's get a consensus together so I can file a bug. I'd suggest a limit of 4 moves per minute for autoconfirmed users, giving admins and crats an exemption. Also, I'd suggest removing the "move subpages if applicable" check box. This could really limit these sort of attacks. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs)

Ryan's got it. A throttle exists (8 moves in 60s for autoconfirmed editors), but apparently the "move all subpages" checkbox allows you to move the subpages as a group regardless of the limit. Dragons flight (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is the lesser of the two evils - removing the checkbox or including the subpages in the throttle? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy

I'd say removing the checkbox to be honest, it would be pointless including it in the throttle anyway if we reduced it, which I still think we need to do regardless. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Restricting it to sysops would be better than removing it. I am curious how often it gets used legitimately to move archives and the like. Dragons flight (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When a bureaucrat renames a user, all the pages of the user are automatically moved to the new name. See for example [11]. This is fast, and likely at the maximum possible rate. Cenarium (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Must've neglected reading Signpost ops section and missed this new feature. Too lazy to check, but from Poet's comment above, I presume it works just as well when reverting the move? Even so, it leaves quite a messes to clean up after. How about give admins a checkbox to delete source redirects after move, eh? Миша13 20:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The API can suppress redirects, but API editing is not yet enabled on en.wiki. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Then IMO it should be added to the human interface - this would really make cleanup as easy as one click. And even without subpage moves, it'd be a useful feature. Миша13 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need Wikipedia:Page move reform, with two proposals (enable human use of the move-page-without-creating-redirect feature that admins nominally have but don't have a way to implement; and crank down the pagemove throttle a bit to some arbitrary level); and a bugzilla request to fix what is clearly a system bug (that moving all subpages counts as one move for the purposes of the pagemove throttle). Happy‑melon 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so long as admins don't leave that check box on all the time. Suppression of redirects when carrying out a move must only be done when cleaning up page move vandalism or sorting out problems with a page history. Might seem obvious, but given, ahem, recent misunderstandings over redirects, I thought it would be best to make this point. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Definitely a non-checked-by-default checkbox. Happy‑melon 21:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

but shouldnt it then be checked by default? the need to move the talk page occurs most of the time when one makes a move--the others are exceptions? DGG (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an ancient bug, and a pretty controversial one, see bugzilla:1062. Brion's comments were that it will "never, ever be implemented." --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Happy‑melon 21:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Allowing it for all users and only for admins are two very different things. I think Brion could be convinced to the limited version. Миша13 22:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could it not be implemented for users with rollback? It would seriously hamper vandal fighting if only admins could roll back large numbers of page moves at a time. Corvus cornix_talk 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the comments in the bugzilla thread; they do have a point: particulary when combined with the delete ability, it does have the potential to make things very difficult to find. anyone can still revert pagemove vandalism; it's just that admins can do it more efficiently, as usual. I expect the most Brion would be sold on would be a solution that still leaves a log entry. Having said that, surely it's possible to add an automatically-delete-the-redirect-straight-afterwards checkbox with javascript? Something in MediaWiki:Sysop.js?? Happy‑melon 07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interim, could someone recreate the work of Curps' bot? Namely, create a bot that will automatically block any user that moves more than (say) 3 distinct pages in a minute, place a message on their talk page informing them why they were blocked, and add them to a list for admins to review. Perhaps even auto-whitelist users with some arbitrary but high edit limit (say 2000 edits), and manually whitelist others as required; once whitelisted, the bot would let them move as many pages as they liked. In that environment, the "Grawp" vandals (come on, it isn't one person) would have a lot more trouble move-vandalising multiple pages. If the system can't or won't enforce this, it's certainly possible to do so via a bot. Neıl 龱 09:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Trolling, racist comments of User:Xasha

He attacks the other by racist comments and personal attacks.ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Might you be able to post some diffs? Bstone (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Claudiuline is most likely a sock of User:Bonaparte and he is really harassing me (just check his latest contributions).Xasha (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are racist and you prove it againClaudiuLine (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

This user, recently warned and then blocked for making offensive remarks against me, has resumed his attacks. Here, here, here, here, here and here he goads and prods me, insinuating dark motives on my part. Let me elaborate: I noted at Template:Romanian historical regions that certain regions were part of Romania in 1941-44, which in fact they were. Now, how exactly the template should be constructed is open to interpretation. What is, however, completely unacceptable is that Xasha, despite his recent block and warning, and despite my pointing out to him repeatedly that he is violating AGF, CIV and NPA, accuses me of "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" - the Nazi German invasion of the USSR, in which Romania's fascist wartime regime also took part. Obviously these are very serious, but also entirely baseless charges. I have asked Xasha to withdraw the charge, to comment on content rather than on the editor, to stop attempting to smear my good name, but all to no avail. It is not up to him to air his "impression" and "supposition" that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", but if I can't convince him of that through discussion, then it only remains to me to seek a more formal means of clearing my name. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of the section Racist comments is right, but there was a misprint. It is in fact, User:Biruitorul, under cover of extensive plain rhetorics who denies the existence of the Moldavian state, Moldavian language, Moldavian nation. Please, visit any of the talk pages related to Moldova edited by Biruitorul. For example[12] where open ethno-racist remarks are made by User:Biruitorul.--Moldopodo^talk 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, just note that your implications that I accused you of fascism or rehabilitation (?) are just the result of your gross failure to assume good faith. As for historical revisionism, your comment about Moldova's statality leaves no other interpretations.Xasha (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't obscure the issue, don't "interpret" my edits in sinister ways, and things will be fine. Again: unacceptable to say that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", a charge that very clearly implies I am trying to put fascism and Ion Antonescu in a favourable light. Or, if it doesn't imply that (which I'm sure it does), then the best solution is always silence - not coming up with your own "impressions" and "suppositions" regarding my motives. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was mistaken. It's not you who is trying to do it, it's the version of that template you created who does it. When a version edited by you is seriously flawed and biased, is my right to bring it to the community's attention.Xasha (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You show you're racist. That's all that counts here. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When will be Xasha blocked? ClaudiuLine (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A few minutes before you are... Please see WP:ANI#Arbitration enforcement on User:Xasha; both editors now blocked regarding this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also found Xasha to be... less than the ideal contributor. He's constantly revert warring (see here and here in just the past couple of days); when I asked him to copyedit instead of reverting, he decided to go this way (notice what the source actually says). And I've only been back to en.wiki for a couple of days. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have also found Gutza less than the ideal contributor and a neutral adminsitrator. For example just one of the obvious edits where a total absence of objectvity is shown by User:Gutza[13] The proper formulation is that the Moldavian and Romanian have the same literaru form (meaning for example that on Wikipedia it's the same grammar rules, vocabularyn etc, but still two different officially and internationally recognied names). I would suggest to make sure topics on Eastern Europe be mediated/administered only by truly neutral administrators, those who do not support a strongly contested POV.--Moldopodo^talk 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page blocked

Resolved

It says my talk page i protected to prevent me making disruptive edits. Can an admin undo this now I'm not blocked kthxbai.193.120.116.177 (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nipped this one before it spiralled out of control again. seicer | talk | contribs 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

user:SwirlBoy39 unban proposal

SwirlBoy39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bugman94 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) Banned per the 'no sysop willing to unblock' clause.

Community, I'd like to approach you with a proposal to lift the ban currently in place on Bugman94, which was established early in 2007. Bugman has been editing as SwirlBoy39 for a month or so now, and has been doing an excellent job (contributions, block log). I was approached by Bugman (neé SwirlBoy) on IRC around a week ago, who explained in full his previous history, and his strong desire to 'come clean' about his closet's skeletons (he's banned).

I noted that it was essential that he open himself up to the community, noting that he was banned, to which SwirlBoy agreed. I suggested that he allow me to propose that I mentor him, in exchange for having him unbanned from Wikipedia; a few days later, this proposal stands:

1. The ban on Bugman94 (note, I can't seem to find the discussion which lead to his ban anywhere; I am assuming the ban was indeed approved by the community) is lifted, and ergo SwirlBoy would be permitted to edit Wikipedia (rather than be blocked from editing as a banned contributor);
2. SwirlBoy is placed under community civility parole: any administrator may block him for up to one week if any of his edits are deemed to be incivil.
3. SwirlBoy is enrolled in mentorship (he has already agreed on IRC that I be his mentor) indefinitely; my intention, if this proposal is approved by the Community, is to continue this until, in my opinion, it is no longer required.
4. SwirlBoy agrees to use the account SwirlBoy39 (talk · contribs), and that account only, to facilitate full and open community scrutiny of his behaviour post-unbanning. As a matter of course, that would include not editing from the Bugman account.

SwirlBoy made some mistakes when he was banned over one year ago, but has certainly matured since then. He has a full and honest desire to contribute helpfully to the project, and I will do my best to guide him in his strivings to edit productively. The only thing required now is the Community's approval of this proposal.

Anthøny 21:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly okay with this. I've certainly checkusered and blocked a number of Bugman94 socks in the past, almost all of the abusive sockery was six or seven months ago. SwirlBoy39 contacted me himself off-wiki to express his contrition and explained some of the background to why it happened. Given that, I'm certainly willing to allow him to be mentored, especially by someone like Anthony whom I greatly respect. I'd also like to point out that a number of the sock accounts that were attributed to Bugman96 were likely not him, but checkuser evidence is stale now anyway. So yes, endorse unban - Alison ^❤ 23:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also endorse. Been behaving well on Simple WP, and I think he's proven himself well. AGF and unban. Al Tally ^talk 23:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember this guy... well, why'd he do it? -Pilotguy contact tower 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mixture of frustration, inexperience, and a lack of an experienced ear who would listen to him. I'll hopefully act as a experienced (sort of!) ear for him, and he's got 1/ a better outlook on the project; 2/ more experience + maturity; to serve him now. Things are looking up. Anthøny 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but have encountered SwirlBoy39 on many other wiki's and IRC. Here I see absolutely no vandalism or abuse at any time. He has worked very well on the test wiki where he was a staffer until the community there decided to revoke that access based on his socks. SwirlBoy39 is also very active on the Simple English Wikipedia and has done nothing wrong. Ultimately what was done as Bugman94 is over and I've seen a complete turn around in Swirlboy39. I endorse unbanning SwirlBoy39. Alexfusco⁵ 23:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse an unbanning, per the restrictions he agreed to. As an aside, that signature really hurts. Enigma ^message 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd endorse an unbanning: I've only seen good things from him, and mentoring is fine. Acalamari 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse an unbanning as he has done great work over on the Simple English Wikipedia. Nothing but good stuff has come from him over there. Cheers, Razorflame 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse unban, agree that his contribs on Simple are good. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 02:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Zap these please!

Resolved

 – Zapped. Other admins merely delete the main page - I deleted the entire globe... several times over. <evil laugh/> Bencherlite^Talk 23:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've marked for speedy deletion some images that I uploaded that I discovered violate copyrights.

They are listed at Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion

They've been up there for quite awhile, and it appears other items are getting deleted while these are being avoided for some reason.

Would someone mind zapping them please?

The Transhumanist    23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

All killed by Bencherlite, per {{resolved}} note above. Hope that satisfies your enquiry. Anthøny 23:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure no one objects

I was going to add Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain to ClueBot's AngryOptin list, but I just wanted to make sure no one thinks it will be a problem. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 01:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, don't know why I asked to do that, I guess it's because it's past my beddy-bye time. Cya tommorrow, and sorry for messing with all your watchlists... J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing Cluebot can't identify POV edits at those articles, else we'd have nothing to do. Fully support all three additions. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratification vote on {{C-Class}} started

Hi. The ratification vote to add {{C-Class}} to the assessment scale has started. The poll will run for two weeks, until 0300 UTC June 18, 2008, and you can find the poll here, where we ask for your comment.

On behalf of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

policy on deliberately divulging others' personal information

Resolved

Case of nothing to see here, move along... Orderinchaos 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• [Cross-posted from Jimbo's talk page]
• where is the policy on deliberately divulging others' personal information via email, in conversation with and about other Wikipedians? If there isn't a policy against it, there certainly should be. It... is disgusting. Potentially dangerous. Possibly illegal? I can't say. It is the lowest of the low...Imagine you have reason to want to hide your private info. Then imagine you and I become great and good friends, and you share that info with me privately. Then we have a falling out, and I email-spam everyone I know and say user:YourUsernameHere is really Phyllis Diller and lives at 123 Elm Street!! There should be on-wiki consequences, such as desysopping without need for process, and banning non-sysops from ever becoming a sysop anywhere on Wikipedia, Wikiquotes, Wikimedia, wiki-anything. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this by any chance related to this? If so, I don't think this is that great an idea due to wikidrama. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ecwithbelow Yes it is, already established on Jimbo's UserTalk :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is the appropriate policy page. How it applies to your exact scenario I am unsure. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to this scenario, since it only applies to posting personal information, not providing it to one other person as happened here. I don't believe that there is any policy that would apply to divulging personal information about other editors via e-mail, nor should there be, probably. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but it is the closest we have to a policy. MBisanz ^talk 05:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As Sarc... said, it doesn't apply to this situation because none of this happened on Wiki, per se. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NOr should there be? Really.. what kind of thinking is this??? Explain why there should be no policy. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is happening OFF-Wiki. As far as I know, things that happen off-wiki carry no real consequences (except for the fact that the RFA was seen in a new light) If I am wrong on this, let me know.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First, I think it's well-established that trying to regulate contributors' off-wiki activities is as undesirable as it is futile. Second, it's going to be very situational - it's impossible to say something like "disclosing another editor's identity via e-mail without that editor's consent is a policy violation," because it's very easy to imagine circumstances in which doing so would be appropriate and desirable (consider, for example, a novice editor who discovers that an editor is editing an article in which they have a serious and undeclared conflict of interest - does anybody think that that novice editor would be remiss in bringing this to the attention of a trusted experienced user for advice on how to proceed?). If I may quote Will Smith, "You're making a mountain out of a mole, Hil." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, it just started pouring out of nowhere. Enigma ^message 05:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." (Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment, see that policy page for context). Ling.Nut (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. The user whose information was disclosed has no interest in pursuing the matter, and had it not happened under the glare of a particularly off-the-rails RfA I seriously doubt anyone would have cared. The complainant is advised nicely to move on and find productive work to be getting on with. Orderinchaos 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Image:Ac.delphi1.jpg

Hi! I'm a sysop from Commons. This picture was first uploaded here, then transferred on Commons and deleted here. The author seems to be User:Adam Carr. Can one of you please check the original description? Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Original description (Adam Carr, April 15, 2004): completely blank. Quadell tagged it as {{GFDL}} January 26, 2005, with no explanation of what connection he might have to Carr and/or the photographer: the edit summary was merely "tagged". Finally on 21 September 2005 JesseW added a quote from Carr: "taken by me but never added to the Delphi article, which i was going to rewrite but never got round to it." (with this diff as evidence it was said by Carr). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to contact Adam directly to check the license. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely recall Quadell's 2005 image tagging activities, and the 'problem' of Adam Carr. In short, Adam did not buy into the need to tag images, and got quite testy with repeated requests made to him to tag his images. IIRC, he issued a blanket proclamation that any of his self-made photos were GFDL, hence Quadell's tagging. (However I don't have a diff supporting this assertion). Maybe he's calmed down by now; good luck with contacting him. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp account?

See here. Is that GRAWP? He just posted something big on the unblock template, it didn't crash my browser or anything but wouldn't recommend checking the diffs. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 09:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Grawp, but a Grawp-a-like, a wannabe :) One other account, already blocked now - Alison ^❤ 09:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A Grawp Groupie? Fab. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Charming Prom3th3an (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah it happened with WOW it is to be expected.Geni 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shamsheer abbas

Resolved

Shamsheer abbas (talk · contribs) The above user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images, despite warnings. I have issued them with a last warning, but there are a large number of (blatantly stolen) images awaiting deletion, as seen here. Could an admin with a few minutes please go through these, and keep an eye on the user for a little while (as his last upload was only minutes ago). I would do it myself, but I have to leave for a couple of hours now, and I would like someone else to make sure I've not made a mistake here. I have notified the user of this thread. J Milburn (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to speedy his entire contribution list to the image namespace. But would welcome other suggestions. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur that speedying all would be the best way to proceed. We should have limited patience with users who will not cooperate on this most basic of levels. We need copyvios much less than we need cleared images, if you see what I mean. The risk of a false positive speedy is less than a failure to remove a copyvio. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(My real-world commitment resolved itself quicker than expected.) Ok, thanks for the input, that was what I thought. I'll get deleting now. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted all of them, but now I have come across Shamsheer naqvi 14 (talk · contribs), an editor working on similar subjects. Though they have uploaded far fewer images, they all appear to be copyvios. I will delete them now. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All deleted and warned. Ok, I'm calling this resolved. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A new rule on Wikipedia?

Dear readers. I have been blocked by User:Neil without any justification, nor providing the means of appeal, following a request filed by user User:Biruitorul. When I asked the blocking admin to justify, no further explanation was given. A second admin, User:CIreland wrote on my talk page in a very aggressive manner "out of the question", but still did not give any explication, nor provided any diff. The third administrator User:AGK did provide a diff[14], although without any further explanation either. Now when you click on the diff and read the reason the third admin gave for blocking me (edits such as this are in violation of the basic levels of civility expected from Wikipedia editors) - it appears as some sort of misunderstanding, incoherence, irrelevance, to say the least. When I tried to edit my talk page yesterday, I could not do it, although the little message that appears as I log in says - I can edit my talk page (which was indeed the case until yesterday). So, I guess somebody also deprived me of the right to edit my talk page. As of this morning, time after which I was supposed to be unblocked, I was still blocked and unable to edit even my talk page. Please, take some time to look into this matter deeper if you can. Thank you very much in advance.--Moldopodo^talk 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For those interested, there's more info at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Moldopodo. --Onorem♠Dil 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockIP&ip=Moldopodo

repeatedly adding unblock requests is disruptive and abuse of the "unblock" template results in your talk page being protected (this is stated on the template itself). Additionaly three admins have reviewed and declined your request for un-block. That in itself shows that the block was already appropriately looked at. Valid block and appropriate protection used. --Hu12 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that editing your talk page is not a right. Please see WP:WINW. Soxred 93 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. I imagine being administrator is not a right either? Therefore it implies administrator having the privelege of taking and enforcing at the same time the decision, has in return certain obligations - the one of responsibility and giving proper account of her/his acts.--Moldopodo^talk 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - As a third party admin, I endorse the block. Moldopodo was uncivil and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Wikipedia user. There is no way those diffs provided in the unblock templates could be interpreted in any other fashion. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I did not block Moldopodo. Moldopodo was blocked by User:Moreschi ([15]). I did refuse one of Moldopodo's unblock requests, as he had clearly violated the terms of the Arbitration enforcement he is under. I did also protect Moldopodo's talk page, with an expiry date of 10:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC) - this was the exact time his block was due to, and did, expire. I protected his talk page as he was spamming unblock requests (something he also did the last time he was blocked, and for which his talk page was also protected back then). He knows exactly why he was blocked, and knows exactly why his talk page was protected. Neıl 龱 14:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• As an aside, I don't know if anyone noticed this bit of canvassing by Moldopodo on the French Wikipedia, calling for editors to come and participate in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 28#Template:Romanian_historical_regions. Neıl 龱 14:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Serious Cross wiki WP:CANVASSing.
  • Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • Project:Café de.wikipedia.org
  • Project:Разговори bg.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Александър bg.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Skycycle bg.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Stanislav bg.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Spiritia bg.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Borislav bg.wikipedia.org
  • Project:Bar/ it.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Joana it.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Sailko it.wikipedia.org
  • nl.wikipedia.org
  • fr.wikipedia.org
  • Project:De_kroeg pt.wikipedia.org.
  • User talk:Paul Pogonyshev ru.wikipedia.org
  • User talk:Wind Pogonyshev ru.wikipedia.org
  • User talk:Kalan ru.wikipedia.org
  • User talk:Lvova ru.wikipedia.org
  • User talk:Putnik ru.wikipedia.org
  • Википедия:Форум/Общий ru.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Ahonc uk.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Tomahiv uk.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:A1 uk.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Leon_II uk.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Rainman sr.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:BokicaK sr.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Михајло_Анђелковић sr.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Odder pl.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Beau pl.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Ludmiła_Pilecka pl.wikipedia.org
  • Project_talk:Przedstawicielstwo_dyplomatyczne pl.wikipedia.org

Ths is concerning--Hu12 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned. His polling message appears to me to be neutral, and arguably the renaming of a wikipedia is of cross-language interest. I think we conflate two issues by bringing his polling into this discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Warn before blocking. I looked on his talk page and I could not find the appropriate warnings at any level. Why was he blocked before warned? Bstone (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Warnings are not required. Al Tally ^talk 14:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Moldopodo and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Editors warned. Neıl 龱 14:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Plus, Molodopo doesn't have his facts right. Neil never blocked him, Moreschi did. Neil merely declined an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Endorse block. I would have blocked a repeat-offender like this User for a month or more. No sympathy here. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. User clearly is no stranger to blocks, I'd suggest waiting it out and take time to reflect upon your actions. 48 hours isn't that long (and some of it has already expired). Rudget (Help?) 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Consider extending per Hu12 diffs. Rudget (Help?) 15:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Mass multiple project WP:CANVASSing is inexcusably disruptive, and I would support such a sanction.--Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:CANVASS says Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. The message left by Moldopodo appears to me to be neutral in outlook -i.e. not on nthe face of it seeking to influence the outcome, so much as make as many people as possible aware of the discussion. Seems to me to be well within the bounds of WP:CANVASS. Let's not get carried away here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Mass multi-project disruptive campaigning (15 projects +) is clearly not withing the "certain conditions" intended by the guideline, nor does it justify excessive canvassing.--Hu12 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Moldopodo's unwise effort to canvass the French Wikipedians has not gone unremarked by them. Maintenant, il semble que nous soyons désormais tout juste assez bons pour recevoir son spam ahurissant (portant notamment sur le troll de renommage de la Wikipédia en langue roumaine), mais en langue anglaise. (I didn't know that 'spam' was a French word too). EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  "Now, it seems that we are good enough to get his staggering spam (including the trollish renaming of the Romanian language Wikipedia), but [only] in English". Neıl 龱 16:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Yup, google translate verifies this--Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - I was canvassed via email by Moldopodo to 1/ unblock him, 2/ summarily delete {{Romanian historical regions}}, 3/ votestack the discussion on renaming ro.wikipedia.org to mo-ro.wikipedia.org, and 4/ spread the word to other wikis about the template and meta discussion, but only to people who would agree with him. I have no particular interest in any of these, or the fate of this user. east.718 at 16:43, June 4, 2008

This is a gross lie, I can copy the message I sent you, I have never asked you to delete a template or whatsoever. You have received basicly the same message as the note cited below in English.

Copy of your message to East718: Wikipedia e-mail

My unjustified block

Dear administrator. Although using Wikipedia already for about ten months, I could not figure how to write an e-mail to an administrator (where to find the list), so I went on the main page and started checking the last edits, where I saw you. That is how you became my last recourse. I have been blocked without any justification, nor providing the means of appeal, following a request filed by an ethno-racist Romanian user, who keeps alterating the contents of Wikipedia to put through Greater Romania propaganda. When I asked the blocking admin to justify, no further explanation was given. A second admin wrote on my talk page in a very aggressive manner "out of the question", but still did not give any explication, nor provided any diff. The third administrator did provide a diff, although without any further explanation either. Now when you click on the diff and read the reason the third admin gave for blocking me - it appears as some sort of misunderstanding, incoherence, irrelevance, to say the least. When I tried to edit my talk page yesterday, I could not do it, although the little message that appears as I log in says - I can edit my talk page (which was indeed the case until yesterday). So, I guess somebody also deprived me of the right to edit my talk page. As of now, the time by which I should have been unblocked anyway, I am still blocked and unable to edit even my talk page. Please, take some time to look into this matter deeper if you can. Thank you very much in advance.

Also, please have a look

If you could spread this to interested users participating on English Wikipedia:

1. Discussion of Deletion of Template:Romanian historical regions[16]
2. Discussion of renaming ro.wikipedia.org into mo-ro.wikipedia.org[17]

Thank you in advance if you can repost the message where it belongs for interested users speaking English

Sincerely,

Moldopodo

• First of all "canvassing" was never discussed on the administrators' board in the request filed against me. An attentive user, moreover administrator, would clearly see the scope of the request, as well as the scope of this discussion, by simply reading one more time (if he has ever read it before) the logged request and following discussion was never mentioned. Now, if you do mention canvassing, let's talk about it. The one who started the canvassing was User:Biruitorul (in fact I did not even know this was posible before User:Xasha posted a note about this on the discussion related to the deletion of the template "Romnanian historical regions"). Here is the message User:Biruitorul posted on the ro.wikipedia.org[18] Stimaţi colegi, e serioasă treaba! Un moldovenist a propus schimbarea numelui ro.wp in mo-ro.wp. Vă rog să vă exprimaţi părerile acolo cât mai e timp, şi dacă tot o faceţi, să vă uitaţi şi la această propunere de-a lui. Vă mulţumesc frumos. Biruitorul 1 iunie 2008 17:06 (EEST)
  Translation in English Esteemed colleagues, a serious matter! A Moldovenist proposed changing the name of ro.wp into mo-ro.wp. I request you to express your opinions there as long as remains time, and if you do it, look also at this proposal of his. I thank you very much. 1 iunie 2008 17:06 (EEST)

Here is my message, which with minor changes (relating to language of Wikipedia project) was posted on different Wikpedias, only after I read the note of canvassing by User:Biruitorul. Please have a look
If you could spread this to interested users participating on English Wikipedia:

1. Discussion of Deletion of Template:Romanian historical regions[19]
2. Discussion of renaming ro.wikipedia.org into mo-ro.wikipedia.org[20]

Thank you in advance if you can repost the message where it belongs for interested users speaking English

Now, let's make it clear what is canvassing, or allowed cnavassing and what is not here. As per Wikipedia definition: Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. When you compare the contents of Biruitorul's and mine messages you see a huge difference. First Biruitorul refers to a user (myself), second - in the following terms: and proposal of his, third he clearly gives an indication how to vote by labelling me "Moldovenist", four - he urges users to do it quickly... Whereas all I do in my message is informing people of the discussion, period.--

Exact diff

I am sorry, but some of you failed to look into the matter again. None of those who "endorsed block" provided any argumentation, except saying, "the other one did just right" or "he is used ot it". I find such justification a rather primitive reasoning, not bringing any human input in the discussion. Otherwise we can appoint robots doing the same review. I repeat, there was no appropriate warning from a third party (User:Biruitorul's messge cannot be considered as a neutral objective warning for obvious reasons, as he was the one who filed the highly subjective POV request, absed on his sole explanation and interpretation). Secondly, the user/admin/whoever it was who blocked me in the first hand did not write something like "you are blocked for this and that, here are the diffs, here are the ways to appeal", which I find rather strange for an objective administrator, having such important privileges.

The sole diff[21] provided by the third admin User:AGK after two previous requests remained unanswered (or answered in a rude and aggressive manner - User:CIreland out of the question - which is unacceptable from a neutral adminsitrator) really does not make this block justified in any sense, please have a look at it and try to explain me how this diff merits a block.--Moldopodo^talk 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As a point of order - your block has expired, yes? What action would you like to see happen here? How should this be resolved? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So basically, even though multiple people have agreed with the block, you still arguing against it, pretty much on procedural terms only - lack of a formal warning and no diffs provided? Mr.Z-man 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing on both: procedural and merits (substantial). In fact it cannot even be called an argument, as in an argument there is at least a properly formulated accusation (opponent's opinion) with relevant evidence, justifyig the decision. Here none of these are present. That's wy I titled this section "New rule on Wikipeda?". If my responsibility was unjustly engaged, I want the responsibility of those who contributed to this to be engaged as well. That's the main purpose of the whole thing. If an administrator has a privilege to block someone - then first of all it's a responsibility for the adminisrator, since it's not a divine right where administrator has no account to give to anybody. The answer of administrators, which can be resumed to "it is because it is and because I decided so and don't you dare to ask me for more explanation" is not an answer which ensures that a person is engaging her/his responsibility by taking a decision with important consequences--Moldopodo^talk 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, in reviewing the block, the unblock requests and reviews, and the arbitration enforcement items, it looks like the block was justified based on incivility as seen here, specifically beginning an edit summary with "Adriatikus, your edits are rather wicked,...", which very specifically ascribes a bad faith motive to a named editor. Even if an editor is acting in bad faith (a point on which I do not speculate), responding in kind is just as unacceptable. Is a block of 48 hours too harsh for such an offense? Were it not involved in an arbitration case (of which you were aware), I might be inclined to say yes - but the fact of the matter is that you were warned that conduct related to that arbitration case was being scrutinized, and made an edit that appeared incivil anyway. It looks like a good block. As the block has expired, I would strongly recommend that you drop the matter and let it go; take it as a lesson learned (Be WP:CIVIL at all times), and move on with your life. I know you're quite upset, that much is obvious; unfortunately, I do not believe that you will find any satisfaction from continuing this thread. There does not appear to be consensus that the block was unjustified, and that is the only administrator action within the purview of this board. Not the answer you're looking for, I'm afraid, but that's my honest analysis. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha is Moldopodo

Ask checkuser to verify please. 61.145.163.228 (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Montessori School of Westfield‎

The article Montessori School of Westfield‎ has been attracting persistent vandalism from a number of users who appear to be sockpuppets of User:Heyj00, who has taken a dislike to the article. I have blocked indefinitely a number of users and an IP address. The article was semiprotected for a day but that did not seem to deter. I would appreciate any help in seeing if there is a IP from which these users are all being created and if we can block account creation from that IP. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Liz Wilde

I thought some additional admin eyes might be good on this article, which is currently in some turmoil. The article subject has created an account and is running into many of the usual new user pitfalls, in addition to COI concerns. She asked for help on one of her edit summaries, and I've reached out to her regarding an image she posted (which is up for speedy delete). Dppowell (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 24 hours and would welcome a review of that decision. Dppowell (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New activity by banned user Jvolkblum

I've come across a new account that appears to belong to this banned user. User:ConcertoNo.888, who has not yet edited, was created on June 3 at 09:18 (a few minutes before several already-blocked socks of Jvolkblum). A user by the same name has uploaded several images of New Rochelle (all with doubtful status) at Commons (see Commons contributions log). --Orlady (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

This failed RfA has been blanked.

That's not appropriate.

Please unblank it.

The Transhumanist    19:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To be a little crude, how does this need administrator intervention? Rudget (Help?) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rudget, the page is protected. Only an administrator (I assume) can unblank it. For the record, and I supported and will support the Rfa itself, I agree with The Transhumanist that the page should not be blanked. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was blanked, not deleted. You can see it in the page history. Nothing to see here though, however. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And technically it is not a "failed RfA", it is a withdrawn Request for adminship. And like Keeper76 said, it's in the history if you need anything. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the harm in having it blanked, especially as it is in the history (as noted). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, DHMO said he wanted it blanked so that the things the opposers said would not show up in Google searches. I think that we should honor his wishes. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Upload

I found this protected page very difficult and frustrating to use.

And there are complaints on its talk page that have not been addressed.

I would like to work on and improve the page. Would someone unprotect it please?

The Transhumanist    19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you outline your proposed changes in the talk page first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would trust Transhumanist to make changes, he's a coding/layout wiki-genius, longterm editor in good standing. I would support a reduction in protection to semi for a period of time for improvements to be made (your ideas would help this gather consensus though TTH, I agree). What do you want to change? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. There are some complaints posted on the talk page pointing out the problems, and nobody is doing anything about them. It is a simple matter of wiki-cleanup and copy-editing to make the page easier to understand. As the page is protected, nobody except admins can fix these problems.

If you'd unprotect the page, the community would fix the page. It would be a simple matter to monitor it while the improvements are taking place. The page probably shouldn't be protected in the first place - it isn't any more high-traffic than the Community Portal or Help - interactive wiki-editing has refined these high-traffic pages to a high-degree of quality. Even policy pages are unprotected to allow anybody to make grammatical improvements, etc.

If it can't be unprotected, even temporarily, then admin attention is needed on the page. The problems pointed out on the talk page should be fixed by someone.

The Transhumanist    19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)