Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
This whole rant is a tissue of lies, but I believe that the accusation of murder, reference to a police cell and the call for a lifelong ban are all breaches of WP policy, requiring admin intervention, please. Note also the same users previous defamatory edits made using sock puppets. Andy Mabbett 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as if Lewisskinner needs some education and possible support dealing with a Wikistalker, not banning. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear confused; I'm Andy Mabbett, not "Lewisskinner". Andy Mabbett 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone appears confused. You linked to Lewisskinner's post and objected to it. --Masamage♫ 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the accusation of murder here. --Haemo 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took it, and I may be wrong, as 'killing' the participation of a wikieditor, not of outright removing the pulse of a living human. ThuranX 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that's how it seemed tome also. DGG 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the cited diff. "He has already murdered another wikiuser". Andy Mabbett 11:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as literally accusing anyone of murder, given that he specifically couched in the context of an analogy. --Haemo 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, let me identify myself as lewisskinner, using an IP here, and only here to defend myself (having been blocked, see beow). Of course, feel free to block this IP too after posting.
Secondly, why Pigsonthewing, did you not think to notify me of yet another AN/I complaint made against myself by yourself? (from the top of this page - "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting"). But congrats in finally getting what you wanted!
Thirdly, the accusations of sockpuppetry are a) false, as explained, and b) Irrelevant in this particular incident. But hey, I expect to get that thrown in my face everytime Pigsonthewing has a dispute with me!
Fourthly, to defend the comment, it was a direct quote, as cited on my talk page. Twice
Finally, why does Pigsonthewing seem so averse to coming on to my talk page and requesting retraction of my comments? I can think of only one occasion in which he's ever posted on my talk page, and that was in response to user:Adambro gallant but ultimately (and always destined to be) futile attempt at mediation at User_talk:Lewisskinner/Archive_May_2007#Regarding_User:Pigsonthewing. Why will you not sort these problems out in private Pigsonthewing? Why must you always go to admins? It only wastes their time, our time which we could be spending editing articles rather than screaming each other down and trading insults, and other user's time who have to come here having been dragged in by the insults. I'd have retracted/reworded the comment if you'd asked! 91.105.170.205 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it acceptable for a user to evade a block in this manner? Andy Mabbett 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(info) I blocked Lewis for 48 hrs yesterday for this; the murder comment, in or out of context, was uncivil and inappropriate. If this is felt to be inappropriately harsh feel free to unblock (he's got an unblock request up now). I did not see it as an analogy; if Lewis meant it that way, he should communicate in a manner less prone to interpretation as accusations of physical violence. Neither threats nor acusations of that should ever be taken lightly. Georgewilliamherbert 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett is currently involved in another dispute on this page [1]. Is he involved in any other ones? -- Kleinzach 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to imply anything positive or negative about this editor, but maybe some history would be helpful.
Note that the above, unsigned lie was posted from the same IP-block as the above, block-evading edit. The only other edit by the user in this case was to vandalise an article I have previously edited. Andy Mabbett 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this intended to be another false accusation of sockpuppetry against me Pigsonthewing? If so, please stop, it's getting tiresome. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read both your "explanation" and the comments on it by the user who carried out the checkuser: "If that's the case, then, looking at the edit pattern, I find the confluence of interests and writing style remarkable and likely to break new ground in the study of coincidence. Or perhaps not" ([2]) and "On balance, my considered opinion as an experienced checkuser remains to suggest to Lewis "come off it" and to point out that Wikipedia is incredibly tolerant, but we're not actually stupid" ([3]). Andy Mabbett 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One user's word against another is not credible evidence Pigsonthewing. It is an opinion, which I refuted, and offered an explanation against. Please this vendetta has gone too far now. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the lie? How is the second part relevant? Where was the vandalism?
Lewis, it is not credible for you to expect that an IP address in a block from which you have sockpuppeted extensively in the past to come here and edit like that and for us not to conclude that it's you. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Threat of physical violence against Abu badali
I missed this when it happened, but it strikes me as rather serious. User:TechnoFaye threatened to physically assault User:Abu_badali with a baseball bat: [4]. I think this should be taken very seriously. —Chowbok☠ 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for a month. If someone thinks it is not enough please feel free to change the duration. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indef would be entirely justified. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with these situations is the underlying causes of vented frustration. In that spirit, perhaps an admin should look into Abu Badali's actions as well? I'm not addressing the offer to brain him, TF's words are violent and stupid, and he needs a good long cool off, but did the actions of abu badali incite him through continuing escalations? and if so, shouldn't that be addressed as well? ThuranX 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is why i stopped right there. Abu badali is already at the ArbCom for the moment. Whatever the case is, personal attacks especially threat of violence got no justification. An indef would have been too harsh as the climate surrounding the ArbCom case is hot and maybe that what added to TechnoFaye's behaviour which was unacceptable but i don't believe it merits an indef. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Penwhale. I have no problem unblocking the account in order to give the owner the opportunity to participate at the ArbCom case. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. User:TechnoFaye is functionally autistic. She is ordinarily a very good contributor and a perfectly decent person in my eyes.
2. There is an open ArbCom case against User:Abu badali for widespread wikistalking, targeting the contributions of individual editors who have disagreed with him, and other misbehaviors.
3. User:Chowbok is hardly an innocent bystander, simply "bringing threats of violence to the attention of administrators." This editor has been accused of some of the same activities as Abu badali in the past and has an open [[5]], although note that he's nowhere near the level of Abu badali. TheQuandry 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input TheQuandry.
Well, the point is that making exceptions is not the best option. The policy is quite clear: Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored. I've had a look at her contribs before i executed the block and found out that she is a good contibutor. As usual, i perfom a block log check for double checking. Alors là i found out that she got involved in two cases of uncivility. So this was her 3rd one. 1 month block is not 48h but it is not 6 months as well. If it wasn't because she is a good contributor the block would have been much longer of course.
I am aware of the ArbCom case and she is free to participate on it as i explained above. It is not an exception but a necessary thing. Her input there is essential to the case. Abu Badali is having his case there but does that justify TechnoFaye's personal attack involving physical threat? She could have just expressed her distress in a civil way instead of doing what she's done.
As for if Chowbok is innoccent or not, i consider that an irrelevant issue as anyone could have reported the incident. Maybe he's involved in causing her distress but that should be dealt w/ at other venues or here in a dedicated "Chowbok causing TechnoFaye's distress" thread. Not to defend him but i just found out this: Chowbok, good work. Do not let this RfC dissuade you fron continuing. --Jimbo Wales 14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, a likely bad-faith report of a two-weeks-stale incident should be given all the consideration it deserves (that is to say, none at all). --Random832 12:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if we all really understand how policy is implemented . There is no question about blocks are meant to be preventive rather than punitive but the This part of the policy answers that question of prevention/punition. Please read the link again and tell me if i was wrong and see whether the user has been blocked for engaging in that behaviour before as the second point states. This has been the third infraction by TechnoFaye.
I of course understand that Chowbok got something to do w/ this but has he violated any policy? If we are going to characterize this report as being a bad faithed one than almost all reports in this page would fall in that category. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging for non-free logos (formerly: Betacommand appears to be at it again
Betacommand appears to be at it again; this time their target (at the rate of several edits per minute) is all images which they perceive to be logos lacking a "fair use" rationale for use in the articles about the companies that the logo represents.
Now I'm not a Wikimedia Foundation copyright lawyer, but this seems to me to be a pretty safe "fair use", and I would expect that most companies would actually LIKE the use of their logos to decorate their articles. If this is true, then someone needs to rein in Betacommand. If not, then I think we need to either:
have someone draft a boilerplate fair use rational that covers this exact case, or
tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use.
If the issue is that the images do not contain the fair-use rationale, then the burden is on the uploaders to fix the situation. The images are not embedded in articles, they are resources that are linked to as needed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you bring this here first as opposed to Betacommand's talk page? --Iamunknown 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I wanted advice and guidance before taking action. Atlant 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that is the problem Boiler plate templates are not fair use rational. if people would actualy follow policy and take the time to write a one or two sentence explaining what the image is and why we need it the problem would be solved. as it is images need valid FU rational and templates dont do that. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand is acting quite correctly in this case. We require individual rationales for all fair use images, not a boilerplate one. Its not a matter of whether the companies would like us to use their images, its a matter of Wikipedia's policy on unfree content. We only allow copyright content in a very narrow range of circumstances. In particular, images must be free not only for Wikipedia to use but also for anyone else to use for any purpose. If this is not that case, a valid individual fair use rationale must be provided. Images are unlikely to be fair use if merely being used to decorate an article. Betacommand has approval to tag all images that do not contain a fair use rationale, either by himself or using his Bot account. If they are not added before 7 days after the uploader has been notified by the Bot, they will be deleted. WJBscribe 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Betacommand is doing the necessary this time. -- FayssalF 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. This is needed and necessary work. -- ChrisO 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) While the edit rate is a little high (4-5 edits/min) but not quite bot speeds, FU images need a fair use rationale and a source. He isn't quite saying they aren't fair use, just it isn't explained how they are fair use to fully meet Wikipedia fair use criteria. Commenting them out in the artices can help as well to encourage readers to add the info after thinking: "Where did the image go? I better do what th tag says." As opposed to just seeing a redlink for an image after a few days "Where did the image go? I better upload it again." Mr.Z-man 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first step in dispute resolution is to....contact the user involved. Swatjester 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is that many images were uploaded at a time before it was made clear by Jimbo and/or Wikipedia policy that a justification beyond the template was needed. Rather than tagging at bot-like speeds, it would be better if someone could go through individually to check fair use images. If there is no justification but a good one could be made, then write it. If the image violates fair use policy, nominate it for deletion. Crotalus horridus 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bots are for large scale operations like this. Atlant wants someone to either draft a boilerplate (not a good idea, rationales should be written on a case by case basis) or "tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use." The latter is obvious: if nobody has written a rationale for using a non-free picture, then fair use cannot be justified. We have had these images on-site for years now in such cases, and nobody has bothered to justify their use. Time to get rid of them. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bots are impersonal and rarely even describe the problem adequately. I've had at least one bot that never really gave me specific pointers in a peer review, just a general dump list of what needed to be done period. And in that list, I actually fulfilled 75% of the list. Even if you added a human element, we'd still have problems. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wondered why people, instead of tagging en-masse and causing problems, don't simply create the fair use rationale. --badlydrawnjefftalk 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly something unclear here, not so much about the policy but about what people think the consensus about its interpretation is. Do we believe that the practice of routinely having a logo image on each company etc. article is justifiable? In that case, a single type of valid fair use rationale could be devised that would apply to all these images in pretty much the same way (and the demand of having it written out individually in each case would be not much more than an enforced symbolic bowing down to policy but of little practical value, and we could really just as well have that standard rationale templated.) Or do people think that logos should be used on company articles only in special cases, for instance where the design of the logo was of particular encyclopedic interest? In that case individual rationales would be crucial but, first and foremost, 98% of all existing logos would have to be deleted. This is a real question. What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? I honestly don't know. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a fair use rationale takes time and thought, tagging random logos with a no rationale tag cuts out the latter requisite. The greater concern is to make sure that logo usage complies with Wikipedia:Logos. In my experience, simply deleting an image is unlikely to deter anyone from uploading a poorly sourced duplicate. So why not create a blanket rationale for the majority of cases? Asking individual contributors to cobble together a rationale that complies with policy as well as copyright law ignores the fact that the majority of users are not too well familiar with either. If we assume a janitorial role with image uploads, then lets address our own concerns. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anetode. If WP:LOGO is appropriate then I don't understand the problem against a boilerplate FU rationale specifically for those logos (I thought there used to be a pulldown choice for uploading logos, which was implied FU, before they rearranged all that stuff). If we want to be more hardass about refusing FU images (an idea that I sympathize with) then the problem is WP:LOGO, which would need to be redone with the result of getting rid of almost all of the logos in the encyclopedia. I don't see the need for a handcrafted FU rationale message for each logo given that the actual usage is about the same in almost all cases. This particular bot operation looks ill-advised. I'd add that backlogs of stuff like this get large precisely because of the thought required to handle them correctly. Stuff that can be crunched through mindlessly usually gets taken care of quickly, either by hand or with software. So bots are usually the wrong way to deal with a backlog unless there's consensus to abandon hope of dealing with the backlog properly. 75.62.6.237 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's even worse. You could have left messages on linking articles' talk pages very easily, asking that the relevant images be tagged in accordance with the latest policy whim, and not cluttering main article namespace history. Instead, you simply commented each image out of each article, which is disruptive and at the very least vigilante justice, if not one step short of outright vandalism. VT hawkeyetalk to me 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand, that's amazing. I counted up to 7 edits a minute for hours on end. I wish I could do a neat trick like that without a bot. Nardman1 06:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not inappropriate to use something like AWB, or just old-fashioned tabbed browsing, to speed up the laborious process of mowing through fair-use images. It's a simple thing: if a page has no rationale and needs it, tag it with the appropriate tag and notify the uploader. It cannot be our job to write a rationale, which would require us to examine the image's use in every article in search of the critical commentary required by Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. That job has to fall to the uploader. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can be your job. It's not like only one person can come up with a fair use rationale. To not do due dilligence - check the image to see if it's appropriate, and then fill in the gaps if it is - is poor editing, and using an automated tool to go through the images - thus assuring there's no actual human review - is insulting to editors working on these articles and images. --badlydrawnjefftalk 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to take the time to make sure that poorly sourced or poorly justified images can remain in Wikipedia, you can find them in the same place I do. I don't view it as my job to search for critical commentary, especially when it isn't even there over 95% of the time. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I don't see the harm in asking the original uploader to finish the work they started. If we fix all of the problems, none of our other good image-uploading editors will learn the proper way to do it, and we'll have more problems to fix. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree w/ you. I am one of the worst uploaders and i never complained to Betacommand about his frequent warnings on my talk page. I've just started to know how to do it. Thanks Beta. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VT hawkeye before calling someone a vandal why not read the Policy I was enforcing. leaving notes on talkpages doesnt get the job done. Commenting out the image and notifing the up-loader get a lot better feedback and results. as for Nardman1's issues its not a bot but a tool like AWB that I have written for FU image review. if anyone would like the code Ill give it to them as soon as I debug my most recent code change. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the policy, thanks. I'm disagreeing with your method of enforcement. Common courtesy (not to mention common sense) appears to be rapidly disappearing from WP, and this didn't help. VT hawkeyetalk to me 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
maybe if uploaders did what they were supposed to do, per policy and copyright law this wouldnt need done. but because users are lazy/dont know policy it needs done. this is the best method of getting results. if you think just placeing a template or notice does it your sadly mistaken we have articles that havent had sources tagged since 2005. since this is a legal issue i thought a more direct action is needed. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you actually reviewed the images and tried to fix the problem instead of tagging 7 images a minute following numerous concerns about similar edits, this wouldn't be an issue. --badlydrawnjefftalk 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hay jeff before making comments why not double check your facts. I dont tag 7 Images a minute, most of the edits are removing them from the mainspace and notifying the uploader. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hay beta i did double check. If you're simply removing/tagging/notifying at a high rate without any real consideration, you're not really doing people a service. We allow fair use here, so if there's a fair use image being used that lacks a rationale, see if you can create one before tagging and removing. That's hard to do when you're making near-bot-speed edits. --badlydrawnjefftalk 16:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am, for someone not involved with either the image and related pages it would take 20-30 minutes to figure out where and why its needed. on the other hand someone who is familiar with the issue can do it in 2 minutes. also having only one person doing this would take years to review, on the flip side we remind users that FU images need rationale's and then they take care of that for all of the images they've uploaded. now jeff tell me what makes more sense one user checking and adding FU rationale to 360,000 images or having the community do it? Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes more sense? Getting a bunch of people together to actually review the images as opposed to tagging them willy-nilly, undoubtedly. We are here to improve the content, after all. --badlydrawnjefftalk 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with betacommand here. Simply tagging the images, and hoping that someday, it will eventually get fixed per m:Eventualism is inappropriate in this case. This is a legal issue; we need fair use justifications, not just tagging it as being copyrighted. Leaving ourselves exposed to this sort of problem can potentially have serious impact on the project. Betacommand's actions are putting teeth into it. We might not like the teeth (even I don't like seeing some fair use images removed for lacking rationale) but it does have the effect of encouraging people to do it right in the first place. --Durin 17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's extreme copyright paranoia, not a legal issue, and has no legitimate long-term, short-term, or any term impact on the project, let's stop fooling ourselves here. Secondly, no one's saying "simply tag the images," I'm saying actually review the images and attempt to fix the problem rather than throwing our hands up and insulting editors along the way. Make an effort, y'know? --badlydrawnjefftalk 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Betacommand just ripping through pages is not much short of vandalism. It is no wonder that hard working page/subject editors are giving up posting in droves when someone is ripping through their work. If you are that concerned about fair use rationales for something which are obviously sporting logos, then why no add the rationales yourself rather than wrecking the pages. How to wreck an online community in one easy lesson. If people get genuine pleasure in their self imposed task of correcting other people's image 'errors' at a rather alarming rate(each to their own), then why not be constructive and source the rationales. I for one know my subject, but not the in depth workings of Wikipedia and am not remotely interested. Instead of wiping images, why not form, for example, a sports logo rationale those of us who write about our chosen sport. A sports logo is a sports logo. Hammer1980 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If doing this work is vandalism, then I suggest you have WP:CSD#Images.2Fmedia criteria 6 removed from that page as a blatant case of vandalism. --Durin 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may as well be in a foreign language to me mate. Hence the reason instead of ripping pages to shreds, how about putting in these rationales instead. A sports logo on a page is not likely to be targeted for copyright violation on Wikipedia when just being on this project increases awareness of the clubs/organizations concerned. It 'is' paranoia. Hammer1980 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
de-indent You consider it extreme paranoia. Myself and others do not. There are droves of lawyers whose sole purpose in professional life is to go after people who violate copyright of their clients. I'm not terribly interested in running afoul of these people. We've tried for *years* to get people to appropriately tag their images without effect. If such an effort actually yielded results, hey I'd be all for it. That's one of the joys of Wikipedia; group effort. But, the group effort has categorically failed in this instance. We're long past the time when we should sit around and wish for it to happen with our hopes dashed. This is a legal situation even if you don't want to feel it's a potentially dangerous one. The right thing to do is to make this situation go away. Since group effort isn't working, deleting is a way of fixing it that will actually work. If you are offended by this, then by all means *please* form a group of people to go after these images that are tagged and fix them. But, I'll virtually guarantee you nobody will want to do the work. That's why this tack needs to be taken. --Durin 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it merely postpones the issue and pisses people off, not to mention actively harms the quality of the project and the product we're providing. If our paranoia is so great that we somehow think that a possible (not even probable) DMCA request is going to be leapfrogged for a lawsuit on a site that's been high-profile for over a year, I'm not sure what to say. --badlydrawnjefftalk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was being tongue in cheek. I've learned my lesson on civility from my recent failed rfa so I was just trying to use a little humor. You might want to fix your script a little, it's leaving comments in image page code indicating that you are BetacommandBot (when it lists the pages the image has been removed from). Nardman1 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Jeff is so all-fired desperate to keep these images, why doesn't he round up a bunch of people to perform the review which he seems to think would be so simple and quick?
Put your time and effort where your mouth is, Jeff.
—Phil | Talk 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do it where I see it, quite honestly, which isn't entirely often because I don't generally work with images. I also know that our extreme paranoia on copyright isn't nearly as urgent as about a hundred other things. More to the point - if there are people who actually see image patrolling as a valid use of their time, there's an effective way to do it that improves the project, and a lackadaisical approach that only stirs up more ill will for no good reason. If we can promote the former, we're better off. --badlydrawnjefftalk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was really taken aback by the thoughtless way Betacommand stuck two boilerplate messages on my talk page yesterday, and then ignored me when I left a response on his own talk page. He should learn some manners. I also agree with Jeff that Betacommand would be better employed providing fair use rationale. RupertMillard (Talk) 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a bit puzzled with this debate, and I'll repeat my question from above which nobody has answered: What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? If people think a valid rationale could be found for the great bulk of these routine logo-in-infobox usages, that's one thing; if people think it couldn't, then we shouldn't be talking about uploaders writing rationales or not, we should be talking about preventing uploaders from writing wrong rationales. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a template that just needs filling in on my talkpage for a good example of a simple FU rationale. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty simple:
No free or public domain versionis available.
The image is of lower resolution than the original logo (any copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute their product or image in any way.
The image has future historical significance, and is a more appropriate choice than any other image available.
The logo is only being used for informational purposes.
That covers 99% of any logos we have. Furthermore, most other sites on the internet aren't fair use retarded, so many popular logos could use a variation of "This image is used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is." If, instead of tagging, bot users would simply replace the text with this rationale for most logos, we'd probably be in better shape, but they still need to be reviewed. --badlydrawnjefftalk 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff that rationale covers exactly zero percent of the images. per policy you have to state why you have to have the image on every page you want to use it on. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary page break
I don't even really care that Betacommand didn't/can't/won't provide the rationales on his own. My issue is with deletion from linking articles being the FIRST STEP he took. It would have been significantly more polite and courteous to leave a note on the articles' talk pages with a rationale request and, say, a 7-day warning, which would have caught the attention of watching editors just as effectively, but without disrupting the main articles for readers and casual editors. Are we trying to prove a point, or are we trying to write a usable encyclopedia? VT hawkeyetalk to me 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I aggree, I spent about 20 minutes fixing all the links to pages that his bot deleted images from in a flash, and placed rationales on the images. ≈ Maurauth(nemesis) 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, VT. Frankly, I do consider the damage Betacommand is doing to articles to be vandalism, and informed him so on his talk page. While properly tagging images is something that is important, the methods he is using to "enforce" these rules are bordering on disruption to prove a point. There certantly is a better way than to vandalize dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, but Betacommand refuses to consider them. His talk about "if only people would follow the rules" as a defense is particularaly hilarious given his own history, and that he was already slapped by an admin yesterday for deliberately tagging images with improper tags. Resolute 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to agree. Fair Use, even though it is a vital, robust part of U.S. copyright law, which governs Wikipedia, is under systematic attack on Wikipedia by anti-fair-use zealots. This is not a good development, and unfortunately, it has the result of diminishing the quality of Wikipedia in order to promote a rather radical agenda. --MCB 01:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Im improving the quality. wikipedia is the FREE encyclopedia having images that violate copyright law hurts use a lot. if even one of these copyright holders sued the foundation, it is very likely wikipedia would shut down forever, as the Foundation probably doesn't have the financial support to fight such a legal battle and then pay the court ordered fines. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Radical agenda"? Absolutely not. here Some Wikipedias do not allow fair use at all. Fair use is a slippery slope; after a while, the project will be completely dependent on it. When you look under the article's name, you see a little bit of text. This text reads "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I agree with Betacommand; With fair use images, Wikipedia is not free. It may be a necessary evil that we must endure, but we need to stop sitting on the fence and decide one road or the other. Sean William 01:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it is not your intentions that are being questioned, it is your methods. You are unnecessaraly disrupting dozens of articles in the process of conducting your latest crusade. Resolute 02:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
disruptions are not always a bad thing. I have gotten a lot of support from numerous admins and even one ex-B'crat for that Im doing and how im doing it. if the images in question were not so screwed up I wouldnt have to do what im doing. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you are also being questioned but several admins and numerous users (some rightly, some wrongly) for your tactics. In your arrogance, you simply refuse to listen to anyone, or consider alternatives, and that is the true problem here, imo. You are still behaving like a rogue admin. Resolute 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not refuse to listen, I have considered the alternatives, show me a method that has a better result ratio, I would gladly use it. as for the complaints, I have yet to see any validity to them. they are mainly either complaints against our FU policy or from people who dont understand it. how is enforcing policy rogue? if inforceing policy is rogue then 99.9% of our admins are rogue. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 02:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalizing articles is rogue. I have already seen two suggestions offered: contact relevent wikiprojects when blocks of images with missing info is found, or place notifications on the talk pages of articles that such images have been tagged for lacking the necessary info. Show me that you have tried these methods. Show me what you have tried. And stop hiding behind "I'm just enforcing policy". The fact that you need to constantly trot this line out as an attempt to sidestep your vandalism pretty much shows me that you have no legitimate defense for your actions. Policy says FU images need proper tags, thats fine. Policy says that newer images without a valid claim can be deleted in 48 hours, and older ones in seven days. Fine. Enforce this, tag the images. But your actions to disrupt articles themselves are what concerns me. Until you show me the policy that states vandalism is a valid method for enforcing policy, your defense is quite empty. Resolute 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) so your calling User:OrphanBot a vandal too? Because I choose to comment out images and make the fact that the image is about to be deleted clear? someone sees the image disappear they say "where did it go?" they check the history find out that it was commented out, they then can ignore it or fix the image. Yes I personally havent attempted other methods (why re-invent the wheel?), that is because I adopted orphabot's method. one that is very effective and has been in operation for a long time (1+ years). and calling me a vandal is very low brow. as for Identifying wikiprojects that is a very illogical action, I would have to check to see what projects each page every image is used in, make sure that project is still active and then find the right subpage to leave the note on. (a lot of work for very little reward). Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Orphanbot removes images that have already been tagged as lacking source/FU claim so an admin can delete the image - i.e.: once the 2day/7day time limit has expired. It does not remove those images as part of tagging them. You have adopted OrphanBot's activities, but have changed the order to suit your power trip.
Also, I did not state check for a wikiproject for every image, but for when you identify a block of images that belong to an easily definable group. ie.: sports logos. When you come across a bunch of NHL team logos, as you did yesterday, you could very easily find the relevent project, in this case WP:HOCKEY, and mention it. I sourced about 50 NHL logos yesterday after being made aware of the issue. One message on that project's talk page could have accomplished the same function, saving yours, mine and a lot of other people's time.
However, a more reasonable alternative, IMO, is for you to post a message on the talk page of an article with an affected image rather than removing the image itself. This accomplishes the same goal: note of a problem appears in the watchlist of anyone watching the article without the vandalism of the article itself. If nobody takes care of the problem once the 2 days/7 days expire, then the image gets deleted. That is policy. Disrupting articles is not. Resolute 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resolute, I'd like to get something straight here. Removing no-rationale fair use images from an article is not, by any definition, vandalism. You might disagree with how it's being done, and if you do, you have every right to state your opinion. But continuing to call it "vandalism" is a personal attack, and will be treated as such. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 03:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then call it disruption. Makes no difference to me. From my point of view, removing valid images - especially those that were uploaded well before the current rules were put in place - before their 48 hour/7 day time period is up over what is often an easily fixable problem does not add to the project. The point is, Betacommander's actions are overboard and unnecessary, and he has shown a complete lack of interest in considering alternative ways to accomplish his goal. At any rate, I've said my peace. I can only hope that at some point, he will learn that policy and the community can co-exist. Resolute 03:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that Betacommand is simply implementing policy (regardless of whether we agree with it or not), I do find the “commenting out” approach unnecessarily disruptive and inappropriate. With images being placed in an article by different editors over a long period of time and these editors working on a great many articles, all of which are being steadily changed by other editors, it is not necessarily easily and automatically noticeable that an image has been “tagged” for review prior to removal – unless an individual editor has practically memorized the article and its images and their placement. Even if this does happen to be the case (and within the brief time to act and not altogether after the fact), that editor has to act on his or her suspicions of a missing image by scanning through the history to verify that suspicion and determine what image “disappeared”, and then check to see if the uploading editor (the only one being notified) remains active (and isn’t on a wikibreak, vacation, etc.); if not, then the editor – assuming they are familiar with the whole upload and justification process (which few are) – has to try to find a certifiably free image (however one does that) to replace the it (and finding the original image was almost certainly a hard enough and time-consuming task in the first place) – or else try to determine the fair-use rationale for an image whose source and status is unknown to them – all while the timer runs ever closer to zero … and other images in the same or other of the articles they’ve worked on “disappear” into the “commented out” void.
Frankly, there really should be a better way than “commenting out”. I can think of at least two options of which either – or both – would be preferable. First, instead of just notifying the uploader, also post the notice on the article’s talk page. Second, instead of “disappearing” the image, give it a red frame or some other marking that makes it immediately apparent to all and sundry that the image is “at risk”. That would at least give the editors watching the page a head’s up and the maximum time to try to remedy the situation. Askari Mark(Talk) 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he should have used something like this: {{speedy-image-c}}.
This file may be deleted at any time. What betacommand's doing so far has been very counterproductive. Many uploaders have not editted wikipedia for a while and it's unlikely that they'll get around to add the rationale. Not commenting out the image in the main article namespace, which betacommand should have done, is a lot more useful because it at least gives editors who view the page a chance to add the rationale themselves. Again nobody is arguing about the legality of his motive, but his method at approaching this. I hope betacommand changes his massive taggings and start listening to the community because what he's been doing is not helping the project at all. Blueshirts 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many uploaders have not editted wikipedia for a while and it's unlikely that they'll get around to add the rationale.. I'd say what if copyright holders come here before those many uploaders to sue the foundation? Please, think about it both ways and see which thing is more important. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not getting it. The tag still targets the images for speedy deletion within seven days if nothing is done. What's different from betacommand's approach is that at least editors who view the page will have a chance to add the rationale, instead of having the images disappear from the article with a great number of their uploaders already missing. Blueshirts 05:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but i've got what you say as i've understood the whole mess since Atlant's started this thread. Betacommand is doing the job nicely and accurately. He notifies uploaders everytime he does so. He notified me today before i went to fix my pic at its roots before fixing what you are talking about above. It wasn't a big deal.
Think about something being straightforward: Tagging → commenting out → notifying uploader → Uploader fixes it.
Think about this now: Tagging → picture removed automatically after 7 days → no picture anymore.
The thing that doesn't make sense is if uploaders would be already missing than who would fix them? Uploaders are notified. If they are still here they have to fix it. If they are off than no one can do that job in their places because other users know nothing about the components? In brief, if the pic is tagged and the uploader is off, it will have 0 chances to survive.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
No administrative intervention warranted. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I am coming here reluctantly, as I certainly would not like to have to reprimand a user of such stature, but there have been many recent problems with this user that I have noticed. Raul654 has recently been discussion with other users here the problems he has with the Today's featured article (TFA) requests process. I have certain problems with what he is suggesting (and certainly think that it is not within reason) but that is not why I am coming here.
We have been having good quality discussion recently about how the process is not working and how it should be fixed. Raul asserts that the idea of requesting dates is not good because he is getting too many complaints from people who do not get what they request for a TFA. Fine, whatever. But my problem is that the discussion on his part has not been civil and he constantly bashes any ideas or proposals of him stepping down as the sole TFA selector (which other users think would be a good start to fixing the problem). But this still is not the reason I am here.
I'm not sure when, but very recently, Raul deleted two templates which go on talk pages of TFA requested articles: {{Main Page request}}[6]; {{Mainpage date requested}}[7]. Now, he gave no notice of deleting these, no edit summaries as to why he did so, and had removed the template from every page it was on without discussion. Now, he certainly knew what was going on at TFA requests and certainly there would be some disagreement with the deletion of these templates, so I come here to report that Raul has exceeded his duties and thinks that his position places him higher than everyone else in the community. I urge this entire situation to be looked into further, and, again, it was not my wish to come here and complain, but I felt it was my duty because of a wrong doing to everyone here. └Jared┘┌t┐ 22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jared has taken it upon himself to cause as much trouble for me as possible. (And has publicly said so: "I'll have to figure out the solution to the obvious problem of having only one person as FA coordinator myself."). The templates were discussed here, where everyone who commented on the matter expressed great dislike for them. Furthermore, as anyone who looks at the templates can see, they serve (literally) no useful value except to direct people to the requests page to vote for their article (which is prohibited by the directions on that page). Jared above claimed I gave no notice of deletion - this too is false. Basically, this is Jared's attempt to stir up trouble for me. Raul654 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, actually Raul, I must be missing something, but why do we even have a featured article director? I'm sure there is some reason for it, but I've just never seen it. Thanks ahead of time :) —— Eagle101Need help? 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because when we switched from an all-text main page to the 4-pane view, some form of decision making was needed to allocate limited main page FA space. After 6 months of me doing it all by myself, a troll tried a breaching experiment and challenged my informal authority. A poll was taken, and (by near unanimous margins) I was given the title of featured article director. I also set up the FA criteria, FAC and FAR pages, set their policies, 'etc. In short - I more or less set up the whole show and since then, I give order to the process. Raul654 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting how my next statement in that first diff there (supposed to be bashing me) was "If you would still like to help work out a solution, feel free to contact me." Seriously, I do not want to cause him any trouble; it's too much trouble for me (and I have a lot of homework I could be doing right now, but I am choosing to ensure that this problem is righted). Anyway, I don't feel it was appropriate for Raul to just delete the template because there were adequate reasons not to delete it. It also didn't formally go through the process for deleting. Templates shouldn't just be removed from pages at a person's will. Overall, I don't think Raul was in the right to delete this and I would just like comment on this. I repeat that I am not looking for him to get into trouble, I would just like to right an obvious wrong. └Jared┘┌t┐ 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm ok, I can go with that. :) If the community is some how unable to figure this out on its own and it requires one person, fine. Though honestly I do think at this stage, the community is mature enough to think about maintaining the main page itself, but I won't go there :) As far as the templates, if you feel process was violated , we have deletion review for a reason :) —— Eagle101Need help? 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking of going to DRV, but I quickly realized that my issue was more about the ideas behind the deletion than the deletion of the actual template. Plus, it would be too much work to revert all the edits he made to fully remove the templates from all the pages. Again, I don't think this is just a deletion issue; I think it is an abuse-of-power issue on a small but growing scale. └Jared┘┌t┐ 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I understand this correctly... You're forgoing doing your homework because you feel Raul654 is being a dick by deleting a template on article talk pages that says that a specific date is being requested for a featured article to be on the main page? Exactly why is this a big deal that requires administrator attention? Grandmasterka 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue, if you've been following it, is not straightforward at all. It all, however, stems from the fact the Raul is in a position where he has been given the sole rights to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure an article appears on TFA each day. The latest problem was, yes, the deletion of these templates. But certainly there have been other problems, including a poor attitude, a lack of ambition to work with others to fix problems that may (or may not) exist, among other things. I really am not sure myself what I'm looking for here because I certainly don't think he should be blocked or desysopped or anything else. I just want to have other administrators assess the situation because I think his actions are going unchecked. (And FYI, the homework reference was for effect. Haha.) └Jared┘┌t┐ 22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest that if "the community" wants to have some sort of conversation about how long the "Featured Article director" appointment lasts, this isn't the right venue for it. It's not clear to me what admin action is needed here. Jkelly 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the comment "If you would still like to help work out a solution, feel free to contact me." is a clear statement by Jared that he wants to take over from Raul, and given the manner in which this is being pursued, Jared replacing Raul is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Nickt 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I certainly don't want the position. It is too high stress and time consuming for me. I do, however, think it is worth the time to think of a logical solution. Please dismiss this whole thread if you don't believe there is anything an admin can do to fix the situation. If you can fix it, please do. If it is an unfixable situation, though, I we can leave this issue be right here. └Jared┘┌t┐ 23:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken. Raul654 does a superb job keeping that whole thing organized. It's a potential problem any time someone's article doesn't get promoted, or doesn't get promoted when they want, or if it doesn't end up on the main page at the right time or at all. All that can reasonably be expected is that he handles it gracefully any time there is a bone of contention. It might be wise for him to have an interim coordinator ready in the interest of cross training, but that is nothing that belongs on this page. --Spike Wilbury 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that too many interests are at stake to solve Main Page problems individually by consensus--everyone just argues fervently for their favorite article. There are two possible solutions: employ a rigid system, which is the solution for pictures (they appear in the order they were featured), or have a director. Since we've never had any kind of consensus about what the rigid system would be if there were one, we're left with Raul. It's imperfect, since people bug Raul constantly and he gets (understandably) grouchy about that, but it's the best compromise we've got so far, and Raul stands in the way of total chaos. Chick Bowen 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the discussions were going fine on the various talk pages in question. The deletion of the templates could have been done at TfD, but there are arguments for db-author and WP:IAR in Raul's favour. Not too much to discuss here. More input at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests would be more helpful. Carcharoth 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Raul654. Oh, wait, that wasn't the question ws it? Oh, no, I see it was. Endorse, then. And also endorse application of the Wikitrout to Jared if he continues this silliness. It ain't broke, and even if it was, this would not be the place to fix it. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there definitely are some problems, but I am definitely not trying to solve them here. That's what the talk pages are for. What I was trying to do here was right a wrong whereby Raul deleted something with little to no community support, knowing darn well there were active objections two sections below. That's what's really irking me here. I just think he thinks he's able to do whatever he wants in regards to the FA/TFA process, and I think he's sadly mistaken. Sure he was ratified as TFA coordinator, but that was a long time ago, had a limited group voting, and frankly, times have changed since then. I was just hoping that someone here could have some sense to talk to him admin-to-admin, telling him that he has overstepped his limits because apparently he doesn't think he has any, or at least that's the impression I get from him. And once again, I not, have never, nor will ever wish to become the TFA dictator; the whole idea of doing so would be against what I've been fighting for for the last couple days. └Jared┘┌t┐ 10:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
or a similar venue was a catch-all for any place but here. Jared has very controversial ideas that would radically affect a component of Wikipedia that has become fundamental: the whole featured content scheme. My point was that discussion of those ideas should take place somewhere where there is a lot of room for long debates, strawpolls, etc. nadav 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any real issue here. Jayjg (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I. Nothing here requires administrative intervention. If Jared wants the templates undeleted, he can go to Deletion review, but I'm afraid that would be an exercise in futility. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User possibly tried to put Wikipedia in trouble with MPAA
User Kirbytime(talk·contribs·block log) has put a secret HD-DVD encryption key that the MPAA has been trying to erase from the web (see news article) and has also pursued legal action in order to prevent publication of the key. This is a bad faith edit, meant to put Wikipedia in legal problems. For example from the news site:
DMCA take down notices have been issued to sites like Spooky Action at a Distance and Digg.
The Digg users who published them have even had their accounts closed by mods.
This user's edit and the diff (including my news link, if possible) should be deleted and made inaccessible to protect Wikipedia from any possible legal trouble. By the way this is the same user who last week wrote the words "fuck you" in a hidden comment and edit-warred with admins who rightfully tried to remove it. Last week he got blocked for 3RR, abuse, disruptive editing and his block expired today. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. I see, we are safe then. thanks. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted it as "silly keyspam nonsense", which indeed it is. It's pretty close to WP:POINT - Alison☺ 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
kirbytime indef blocked
I'm done with him. I don't care whether the key is on Wikipedia or not, but he is just trolling by inserting it in his userspace as a comment. It may be acceptable fair use in the article, it's not fair use in his userspace. I've blocked Kirbytime indefinitely; I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia anymore, if he ever was. If another admin wants to undo the block, I won't scream about it, but unless there is a clear sign of an intent to turn this behavior around, I think it would be ill-advised. ··coelacan 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me, good call. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's posted an extremely pleasant unblock request. [8]. I don't really understand this whole situation with the key itself; however, it's quite clear to me that Kirbytime posted this as an act of trolling. I will not object to this block given Kirbytime's history of disruption. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. We have got to learn the difference between people who are here to help, and people who are not. The former, when they misbehave, get all manner of opportunities to reform, and rightly so. It is too bad we fritter away so much goodwill and energy by extending the same to the second group. Hesperian 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the block log, I endorse the block. He should have been gone a long time ago. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And note the subsequent (not very) veiled threat to sockpuppet. I should say that Kirbytime has just given his block the strongest possible endorsement. Hesperian 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.[9] As long as it's agreed this is a community ban, any puppets can be blocked and reverted on sight. ··coelacan 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disgree with indef block. The code is certainly not supposed to add anything to encyclopedia but it is not vandalism either. First of all, it is his own userpage. Our contributions to our own userpages are not supposed to be of encyclopedic value in the first place. Having said that, addition of the code on that page was quite unnecessary. BUT it doesn't deserve an indef block. For just adding a hidden message to personal website. It is true that Kibri have had some blocks over "request" for some sex related pics which I don't approve but I think he has stoped that (or please prove me wrong).
I suggest for an indef block, his case should be submitted to Arbcom. --Aminz 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody WP:OWNs any pages on Wikipedia, including the userpages connected with their accounts. Userpages are not required to be encyclopedic content they way articles are, but they are to facilitate work on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Myspace, as the saying goes. And trolling on one's userpage is definitely blockable. 75.62.6.237 05:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of encyclopedic content or not; but a question of copyright infringement. It may be fair use in the article, and there are reasonable arguments that it is allowable in the article under WP:NFCC. But that explicitly does not extend to userspace. ··coelacan 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does fair use have to do with this? --ElKevbo 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but Ctrl-F for "I consider it blatant trolling" below, as I believe the block stands on Kirby's intent, regardless of the exact legality. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coelacan, I still don't see how a copyright infringment can justify indef-block. It is too harsh. Indef-blocking of a user means that the user doesn't satisfy even the lower standards expected from a user. --Aminz 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the result of an extended pattern of behavior, not just this single issue. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agree Kirbytime obviously wansn't indef blocked for the MPAA copyright issue. He was blocked because of a whole series of problems. Neither Wikipedia, nor any decent human being, should ever tolerate pedophiles. The FBI keeps files on people who try to search pictures of child pornography... --ProtectWomen 08:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with an indefinite block as well. — MichaelLinnear 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we didn't block the user just for pasting the code; there were plenty of other blocks issued in the past feew weeks for causing disruption, including asking for NSFW images at articles, including Child pornography. I feel like we gave this user way too many chances. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zscout370(edit conflict), Kirbitime was asking for addition of pictures but as far as I am aware he has stoped it for awhile (please correct me otherwise). I think it is best to be addressed through RfCs and ArbCom. On the surface, issuing an indef block for some hidden addition to a personal userpage really seems unjustified.--Aminz 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer if I unblocked and reblocked indefinitely for threatening to sockpuppet? Because he's done that already now. ··coelacan 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of case is a waste of time at RFC and a waste of ArbCom's time. Once a troll, always a troll. Editors that take actions like this are not welcome to continue editing here. --Spike Wilbury 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coelacan, it is his objection to "indef-block" for adding something to personal userpage. I think we are moving too fast. --Aminz 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MichaelLinnear, this is not a vote. Please explain your objection. ··coelacan 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of discussion, as you may be able to convince another admin: if the block were reduced, when would we be free from his trolling? When would the games stop? Do you have reason to believe that he's going to improve his behavior? I don't mean to pick a fight or anything; if there's answers to these questions that I and others are overlooking, someone should put them on the table. ··coelacan 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I conclude that a more appropriate reason for blocking is "exhausting the community's patience"? —Kyриx 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list User's faults. Please note that I agree that Kirbitime's instance on porn image was disruptive but did he continue this? I think he stopped it (please correct me otherwise) --Aminz 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking to me or Coelacan? —Kyриx 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To you actually :) --Aminz 04:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never expressed an opinion supporting or opposing the block. The above was just a conclusion drawn from observation. So I don't quite get your request. —Kyриx 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that :P I misunderstood your comment. --Aminz 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, do you really want me to make a list of his diffs? I'll have to probably split it into 3 columns to prevent the page from getting lengthy. Here's one group diff though: edit-warring with admins. You should support better users of Wikipedia. Realize that you will be helped more if you have good users working with you; at the least not anyone who edit wars with admins, requests child porn, writes the words "Fuck you" in a hidden comment, gives a link to Piss Christ and so on. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say that kirbi satisfies the highest standards but that he doesn't fail the lowest ones. Some of these edits may not be justified but may be explained. Aside from these you don't have a good editting record either Matt. --Aminz 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with high or low standards of editing, and everything to do with incessant trolling behavior. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We all realize that indefinite doesn't mean infinite right? John Reaves(talk) 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hoped to make that clear at the beginning of this section; if another admin honestly thinks he's going to shape up, they can reverse the block. For what it's worth, he's now saying he copied the number there through a sort of misunderstanding.[10] You'll have to read his talk page. But I think the threats of sockpuppetry speak well enough for his intent here. ··coelacan 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider unblocking if I could take Kirbytime's protestations of innocence seriously. But his history makes me unable to believe him. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John Reaves, i think indefinite means infinite. It means that the user fails the minimal standards. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mean infinite. It mean an undefined period of time, i.e. it could eventually be reversed. John Reaves(talk) 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think in practice it means the same thing. --Aminz 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I've seen indefinite blocks overturned. —Kyриx 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heimstern, indef block seems too harsh. Some of the previous blocks were related to asking on the talk pages for porn pictures which was bad but as far as I am aware the user has stoped that to best of my knowledge. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with indef. Too much trolling. - Merzbow 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support this long due indef block. This is one of the strongest trolls I've ever seen. The longer you keep this user in, the more trouble he will create for users and admins (edit-wars with admins) and the more you'll keep wondering why he wasnt blocked before.--Matt57(talk•contribs) 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are far from an impartial party in this. — MichaelLinnear 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For whoever says this is copyright infringement, this is not; it might be a violation of the DMCA, but you cannot copyright a 128-bit number. At best, it qualifies as a trade secret, which means that once released to the public like it is now, it is no longer controllable legally. The DMCA is the only law that applies here, most likely. "Fair use" is irrelevant, from what I know. —Dark•Shikari[T] 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The (bad) idea is that it's a circumvention tool and thus subject to the DMCA. I agree that it's daft and that fair use has nothing to do with it. --ElKevbo 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I will not express an opinion on the block, I would suggest that any block made should be specifically made for the user's incivility and attacks, not for posting a number which has been run in many major news sources such as Wired, Yahoo News, and so forth. —Dark•Shikari[T] 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The block should be applied because he deliberately makes edits like this to cause maximum chaos; his history is full of such behavior. - Merzbow 04:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it blatant trolling, the same as if he had written expletives in his html comments (as he did last time). The intended purpose is disruption, even if the action was not a violation of US law. It's WP:POINT either way, and he's given us enough of that. I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia so much as for a "game" inside an encyclopedia; I stand by my block. Again, other admins have the prerogative of reversing the block. I will not. ··coelacan 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merzbow, writing hidden stuff on his personal userpage doesn't harm wikipedia nor produce chaos; I assume he is blocked and he is free at home so he started playing with his userpage. The main problem is with the article not userpages (and even then hidden writings). User pages are not supposed to add anything to the wikipedia.
coelacan, I am not saying he satisfies the highest standards but that indef-block(i.e. failing the lowest standards) seems harsh to me. But that's only me. --Aminz 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this "failing the lowest standards" stuff is. An indef block represents my appraisal that the net effect of Kirbytime is more trolling than benefit, and that he's exhausted the patience of too many other editors. How many times has he been on ANI in the last month? How much time have we wasted running around this guy? I'm hoping that when this thread is archived, the answer will be "no more". ··coelacan 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the edits he made adding the key, for what it's worth. Might also be worth noting Kirbytime's reasoning for inserting it (I have my doubts - the key was inserted with ":" after each two numbers. This was done presumably to circumvent the blacklist, because I can't think of any time I've seen the key formatted like that...) Ral315» 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's formatted like that on a couple of websites. — MichaelLinnear 04:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I have a problem with the block. My only interaction with Kirbytime was the ANI thread where he claimed to be confused about what kind of images constituted child pornography. If someone can demonstrate that he's made recent positive contributions to the encyclopedia, I'd reconsider, but this user seems like a determined, long-term troll to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am personally aware, the user had stopped that. --Aminz 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because he was blocked for it. So he moved on to other things, like revert warring and html comment games. ··coelacan 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of "html comment games". Would you please explain it. Thanks --Aminz 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"HTML games" refer to the user putting thing in <!--hidden comments-->. John Reaves(talk) 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One example is this edit. You can't see them just looking at the page, but they show up when you edit. Phony Saint 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This editor appears to be an unrepentant troll. I was around for his requests for child porn. While he finally gave up that effort he didn't do so quickly. I see some editors here saying he wasn't that bad but I don't see anyone pointing to positive contributions to offset his disruption. On the whole, I think Wikipedia is better off without this user's involvement. ·:·Will Beback·:· 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those who want to review Kirbytime's recent ANI history can see archives 240, 239, 230, 227, 221, 221. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. We don't have to put up with this nonsense from obvious trolls.--Jersey Devil 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
an indefinite ban is excessive for vandalizing your own talk pages imho, if he is to be blocked indefinitely it should be done by the arbcom Bleh999 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This block doesn't make sense as the key is out in the open in the Wikipedia article on the subject and Jimbo Wales has said there is no problem with posting the key to Wikipedia. The indef block for this non-"offense" is totally improper. That said, I am unaware of his past history, just that this latest offense doesn't appear to be an actual "offense." --Abnn 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I unblock and reblock for threatening sockpuppetry, instead? Would that make things clearer? ··coelacan 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't actually threaten sockpuppetry from what I read, rather he suggested being unfairly banned drives some to do so, I doubt he would admit he was going to sockpuppet and thus expose his intentions Bleh999 05:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can read "It's almost like you guys are asking me to sockpuppet" any other way than "I will sockpuppet". ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment as I don't know. In all honesty, I can't knowledgeable oppose or support a indefban based on an analysis of his overall behavior as I am not familiar enough with him and this territory. --Abnn 05:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, he has been helpful in the past: I first met him and encouraged him to help us out on WP:PNT, where we needed people who could read arabic script at the time. He did handle a few cases. But I understand the sentiment behind his indef-block due to his behavior since then and I don't oppose it. Grandmasterka 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the block, the editor has been warned several times. (If one considers previous blocks warnings, which I do). block logAnynobody 05:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirbytime now threatens "revenge".[11] I don't have enough AGF kool-aid in my cupboard to continue entertaining the possibility of unblocking. Later, ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hos is that athreat of revenge? ViridaeTalk 06:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Threat or not, it crossed the line into trolling... again. I have now protected his talk page. Hesperian 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those that don't know, it is a quote from the Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare: [12]. --Abnn 06:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it was a quote, but it doesn't appear to be a threat - the context of it says that even more. ViridaeTalk 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Kirbytime had contributed for a year without major problems - I recall him being at some times reasonable and at others contentious and not really standing out in this respect - but recently has for whatever reason gone totally rogue. I was amazed to see him resume edit warring to push a completely ridiculous image (since deleted) immediately after coming off a 24hr block for…well, edit-warring, and having only minutes earlier assured others (sort of) that he wasn't going to immediately resume edit-warring after his block expired.
Re his latest behavior, this explanation strains credulity, and who knows what we should make of this Shakespearean reference? ("And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?") Besides the vague hints of a threat, this continues his very odd line of am-I-Muslim-Jewish-or-atheist identity trolling which like too many of his recent contributions seems designed to draw others into pointless discussions.
Were this block infinite and irrevocable, I suppose I might oppose it, but indefinite is a different matter: he is and should be free to petition for an unblock at some point in the future (say, a couple months from now) if and when he's regained his senses and is prepared to admit to his missteps instead of pretending he doesn't understand why the community is pushing back. In the meantime, I counsel Kirbytime to step away from Wikipedia for a bit and not make the situation any worse by sockpuppeting; see User:DavidYork71 for a user who dealt with this situation exactly the wrong way, and a result has probably blown his chances to come back.Proabivouac 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the above statement... He's been okay in the past and we should leave the door open a crack barring further problems. Maybe one problem of his led to another and he let himself snowball out of control... Just a thought. Grandmasterka 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My patience with Kirbytime is certainly exhausted, though my patience is pretty exhaustible these days. I would think that if he asks nicely after a month or so away form the project, to regain his perspective, we would be quite likely to let him back in, but right now he's looking like a time-sink with no obvious payback for the project. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I didn't know that too many editors are following Kirbi's edits... :D --Aminz 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His name pops up rather too often. I have left a note on his Talk. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the key is that the consensus over at the controversy article talk page seems to indicate that it should only be presented in the article and nowhere else (that's the primary reason it was added to the spam blacklist-- it was being spammed). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirby deserves a long break (i'd say something like 6 months) to review their behaviour and understand that wikipedia is not a game. Instead of editing the encyclopedia we end up having long discussions that we could have avoided. But indef is surely a harsh block. At least they've contributed plenty of stuff. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. We have had trolling, desruptive and pointy cases much more worse than that but people are still present in the project, probably because they changed their behaviour. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. In brief, if there is someone i totally agree w/ in this thread is Proabivouac. Excellent analysis and synthesis. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be considerable support for unblocking at some point in the future if Kirbytime doesn't sockpuppet. So, do we leave the indef on and let him ask after X months, or do we reduce the block now to X months? ··coelacan 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer reducing it to 6 months. As i said above, it is too harsh compared w/ many other cases. I don't want to bring names but that is the middle ground i believe. In case of sockpuppetry it will become an indef if not a ban. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"too harsh" ? This user was requesting samples of child pornography for Christs sake. Kirbytime not only doesn't belong on Wikipedia- he probably belongs in jail. At the very least, he ought to be under some kind of internet equivalent to Megan's law. Too bad we don't have a way to enforce something like that.
FayssalF, you are implying that other users have done worse things than Kirby- if you can name one action worse than trolling for pictures of child porn, please tell me. I'd really like to know.--ProtectWomen 08:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like following structured process when dealing w/ such issues. This is my method as an admin. It could satisfy many people as it could bother many others.
Let us be fair and avoid being emotional. We are not a real-life law enforcement body to put people on jail. We do block and ban users from Wikipedia. That is all we can do.
Let's avoid being subjective. As far as the child porno case in concerned, my memory tells me that this issue was considered closed and he got punished and blocked for 48h though it should have been at least a month or that he could have been indef blocked at that time. Since then, he hasn't brought that child porno subject again. So why are we bringing it again and again?
Now, we are talking about his general and overall behaviour. Is is a troll? Yes in many occasions he showed signs of being one. Has he made points? Yes in many occasions. Many have done the same and worse in overall. So i believe now when i say it is too harsh it certainly makes sense and therefore there's no need to bring names because i consider their cases as closed as well until further notice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, many have not "done the same and worse overall". Anyone who has is permanently blocked. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for indefinite block. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indefinite block. Kirbytime is an intelligent, productive, and generous member of the Wikipedia community. He's been badly wikistalked by an editor who repeats specious allegations of Holocaust denial, and who appears to be obsessed with Kirby's ethnicity/nationality/religion; much of what has been described as Kirby's incivility has been an understandable reaction to this stalker. Kirbytime does have a rather provocative style of talkpage interaction. I don't mean this as a euphemism for incivility; he rarely engages in personal attacks. I mean that he'll take some admirably principled position on something (that denial of history can take forms other than Holocaust denial, say, or that Wikipedia should not engage in self-censorship even when the topic is taboo), and then make his case through tireless talk-page dialectics, often peppered with reductios ad absurdum. These latter are a great gift to his enemies, who can then run to other pages and "accurately" quote Kirbytime in such a way as to willfully misrepresent him. There's something schoolboyish about Kirbytime, no doubt about it, but he's the smart-aleck and the class clown, not the bully – and he's no troll. If he's blocked indefinitely, I will miss his puckish intelligence, and the community will miss his contributions.--G-Dett 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - This user should have been gone after the child porn pictures debacle. Instead, Kirbytime was allowed to troll repeatedly with several more blocks until the final (long overdue) indef block. Kudos to coelacan for stepping up todo the right thing --ProtectWomen 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. Finally, someone gets out the troll spray. I support coelacan's block - as she said earlier, the net effect of Kirbytime was more harm than good. That's justification for a block if I ever saw one. ♠PMC♠ 23:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly supportcoelacan's bold action. Guy said it best; Kirby is a timesink and his contributions here are not valuable enough to outweigh the community's time that he wastes. Indef is the way to go here. Perhaps it could be lifted in the future if Kirby demonstrates that he understands the apropriate way to behave, but I don't see any reason to just slap an arbitrary time limit on this block and hope he gets a clue in that time period.--Isotope23 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse either an indefinite block (that's subject to review down the road) or a lengthy set block. Kirbytime's disruptions more than offset his positive contributions. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I am not going to reduce the block. If Kirbytime gets it together in two months, six would be too long. At the moment he is quite adamant that he's done nothing wrong. I agree with Proabivouac, "if and when he's regained his senses and is prepared to admit to his missteps instead of pretending he doesn't understand why the community is pushing back", he can be unblocked. He currently shows no sign that this will happen within six months. I say, let him petition when he's ready. This is my opinion, though, and not intended as "I've reviewed my block and found it correct". ··coelacan 10:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at some of his edits as far back as January, the indef ban is actually long overdue, and I'm disappointed this hasn't been done sooner. Support indefblock/ban.--Wizardman 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His today's edits at his talk page (i.e. Shakespeare quote) shows no signs of improvement and therefore i support an indef block. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what about...
User:Matt57? This post and similar ones derive from stalking Kirbytime, and in some cases it seems Kirby trolled to see if someone (always Matt) would notice it. While I myself can 'monitor' troublesome users at times, Matt's cross the 'stalking' line because he is obviously "hunting" Kirby. Besides, Matt57 is an obvious tendentious editor (anti-Islam direction), which is detrimental to the community. I don't know all of the details as well as others may as I have relatively few dealings with this editor (and they have been unsatisfactory), but I definitely think that doing something about Matt57 is a good idea at this point. Any ideas? The Behnam 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Matt57's actions are relevant in this incident, unless Matt57 is directly inciting Kirbytime to troll. It seems to be the other way around, from what you say. Phony Saint 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I definitely think Kirbytime needed a big block awhile back during the porn images thing. I'm just suggesting where things should move next. You know, when you have two problems it is good to get rid of both of them instead of just one. The Behnam 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Matt57 is really a problem editor, his name would be appearing here in relation to other editors and incidents, and not just with Kirbytime. — MichaelLinnear 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Behnam, what did I do wrong? If someone asks for Child Porn, does it mean I stalked a person if I reported this to admins, or reverted their disruptive edits (for which Kirby was blocked 1 week ago)? Perhaps you think that Chris Hansen is also a potential stalker of Kirbytime. No sorry, and I do have my eye on yours edits ([13]) like we all do on everyone else's. Please keep your accusations of stalking or disruptive edits to yourself. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Matt57 had been inciting Kirby to do what he's done but that is irrelevant. We cannot prevent/punish people basing on assumptions. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Faysal, no I didnt "incite" anyone here. I'm not responsible for Kirbytime's actions of asking for Child porn, wiki linking of Piss Christ, edit warring with admins and all that stuff. Good god. No thanks, I havent done anything wrong except go after him, revert his disruptive edits, report him for trolling and all that. The admins made a mistake to let this vicious troll wreck havoc here. The big question I wonder is: How much damage do you let a troll do before he gets blocked? As for the block time, this user should be blocked for atleast 6-9 months regardless of their request to unblock. I doubt he will change though so he's likely to get blocked again, but then again, all you need is good judgement to see that this user is not here on this website for anything good. He does his work on the Reference desks to cleanse himself of the guilt or to use it as an excuse or 'proof' of his good intentions. Then he goes and interwikis to Piss Christ or edit wars with admins. This is trolling par excellence, as a user said above - pretty obvious. Its simply amazing how much time of the admins this person has wasted.--Matt57(talk•contribs) 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We just said the same thing Matt. I said it briefier than you. I haven't said you did it. "Maybe" means "suppose" in that sentence. I think you thought i was talking about assumption related to Kirby. No i was talking about the assumptions re you "inciting" him. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it shocking that KirbyTime is blocked. He was such a resonable editor. In anycase, was there ever an RfC filed? Is there any compilation of evidence (edits) the KirbyTime has been trolling? Has KirbyTime been allowed to respond to these arguments?
It seems to me the block has come out of nowehere. Can someone clarify this. Thanks.Bless sins 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you read the above thread, and Kirbytime's talk page, you will find the answers to all your questions. ··coelacan 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of now User_talk:Kirbytime is blank. Can you be more specific as to what messages on the talk you are talking about. Also, is there anything offensive KirbyTime did outside his/her talkpage? If yes, has list of those offensive acts been compiled?Bless sins 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page?
If Kirbytime is indefinitely blocked, how is it that he is still able to edit his talk page? Just curious. ---Cathal 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All blocked users can edit their talk pages. Otherwise {{unblock}} wouldn't have a point. -Wafulz 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even to the point of creating large blocks of hidden text [[14]] which seems to contain vulgar messages intended for other editors and administrators? ---Cathal 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In cases of disruption the talk page can be locked, SqueakBox 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And he's not quite at that point yet. He's storing an old version of his user page in that hidden comment (probably because he's afraid we're going to delete his user page outright, which would be unnecessary). The old version of the user page had an expletive in it, which Kirbytime promptly removed with the next edit. Quite possibly a mistake, and in any case not a big deal. ··coelacan 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of speech
I admit that i don't understand what the recent link added to Freedom of speech is actually linking to, but it appears to me that linking from an article to a user's talk page — User:Advocates For Free Speech — is, at the least, unusual. Someone want to take a look? (And if possible, explain what the h... this is???) thanks, Richard Myers 10:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In his defense(?), I did find "The virus in the sandbox" section of his page interesting in a "can anyone really be that stupid" way. --MediaMangler 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was still being nonsensical (reverting block notices etc.), so page blanked and protected. Review welcome. Daniel 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put his talk page back up. It doesn't seem to do any harm and may stop him from creating another sock for the same thing. It's protected now anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the victim of the majority of workforall.net's abuse I just want to say that it's fine by me if the comments / propaganda are reinstated. As User:A. B. mentioned, it might prevent future re-creation of the same thing. The discussion at User_talk:Bully-Buster-007 might also be a useful record of the events that transpired. I leave this up to your better judgement. (Requestion 17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hallo. I am mediator1, and I am in the business of mediating in conflicts and disputes. I was contacted by The Work and Wealth For All staff to make an ultimate proposal to come to a reasonable concensus in this escalating conflict [User:Requestion] versus [User:Bully-Buster-007] case ( see: [15]. Both parties now seem to agree that the present way of handling this conflict is leading nowhere. Let us interrupt the escalating madness, and use our energy to positive contribution of WP quality. Both parties have reasonable arguments which can lead to sensable conclusions as to the appropriateness of external links.
User Requestion is kindly invited to reflect well before declining this ultimate offer. Alternatively WFFA staff is also willing to accept arbitration in this case. WFFA staff asks the bans and blockings and blacklistings to lifted during the debate considering :
blockings and blacklisting should be preventive not punitive, and WFFA assured to have no intention add any links.
blocking was illegitimate as the administrator being spamfighter himself was party in the conflict.
uninvited neutral users have already requested (local) lift of the ban on several cases
so far no other motivation for the qualification "Spam" was provided other than the mere number of contributions
WFFA staff tell me that incident about the parrot WAS true, and is worth investigating.
Before getting too fixated on Requestion, note that the workforall spammer was repeatedly warned and blocked by multiple administrators and experienced editors. Here's a list of those that I'm aware of:
Additionally, there are five more editors commenting unfavorably on this page above. Contrary to the workforall accusation that this was done by some cabal of spam-fighters, the preponderance of these people are not normally involved in spam cleanup as Requestion and myself are. There has been clear consensus that workforall's behaviour on Wikipedia was wholly inappropriate and that this person persisted in spamming and harassment despite the community's best efforts to stop it. Now it appears that a mediator[16][17][18] is presenting the Wikipedia community the "opportunity" to "mediate" which links it should have to accept in contravention of its editorial standards.
It's more accurate to view Requestion not as the source of workforall's problems but rather the most visible editor in the Wikipedia community's efforts to deal with the workforall problem.
I leave it for the more technically-minded of the community to evaluate the problem of workforall's Phallic Fire Phoenix of Doom[19] in our Sandbox. In the meantime, workforall may wish to consider updating their anti-virus software.--A. B.(talk) 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MDS International / MDS America conflict bothering Wikipedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Both articles and talk pages have been semi-protected for 2 weeks. Talk has been archived and some rules put on the talk pages. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. We've been here before. I know it has much to do w/ WP:COI but the latest developments have gone beyond that. Believe me, i consider this case the most difficult one i've handeled so far and that's why i need help. This is the situation in brief:
Both MDS America employees (User:Bhimaji, User:WizardOfWor, maybe User:Macrhino as well though i am not sure, but of course many IPs hailing from Stuart, Florida where the company is located. Also User:72.19.4.235claimed once that he is the CEO of MDS America who already got an article called Kirk Kirkpatrick) and MDS Intl User:Jeanclauduc aka User:83.206.63.250 (claiming he is the CEO of MDS Intl) ones have been editing in wikipedia and they have been edit warring of course and in many occasions personal attacks and uncivility have been noticed.
On The account User:Fabrice10 has been created on May 2nd. His first edit was at the AfD page claiming he is the son of User:Jeanclauduc and that he is still a shareholder of MDS Intl while cooperating w/ MDS America. What we can get from that is that the alleged father and son are engaged in a family business conflict as well!!!
I've tried to mediate between the two sides as you can get from the ANI link above (because User:Jeanclauduc speaks French but poor English) but he stopped cooperating after i asked him a few questions for clarification but he never contacted me again.
On May 15th, User:83.206.63.250 has personally attacked and threatened User:Fabrice10 to divulge personal info about their family affairs. In fact he has already done it in French. As a result User:Kuru blocked him for 31 hours. His alleged son Fabrice10 has just divulged on my talk page some info about him which i've just removed.
For more information please refer to this case at WP:COI/N
Maybe i missed some facts/incidents but all i want is a community opinion. Blocking Jeanclauduc indef would not fix the problem as we have the COI stuff going on here w/ employees of a company are editing many related topics. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I want to personally thank FayssalF for having the patience and fortitude for dealing with this very complicated case. The file over at WP:COIN has been open for over a month now, and while some progress has been made in sorting out the COI issues, there is still much to be done. What has made this saga especially difficult for me, and perhaps has also tried the patience of other editors who have tried dealing with this, is the constant bickering and personal attacks that have continued to appear on the talk pages. Some of these attacks, namely those emanating from the presumed JC Ducasse, have grown especially viscious as of late. I hope other editors can suggest some sort of solution to this whole mess. nadav 12:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about soft-protecting the two articles and their talk pages? I've never seen talk pages protected before, but it would stop or at least heavily reduce the bickering there. Maybe merge MDS America into MVDDS dispute first as proposed? --Ronz 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That won't solve the problem radically. There a conflict of interests in play. I believe a RfC would be the best option for now. But let's wait for some feedbacks here and see. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz's solution could work. It would at least stop the barrage of anon IP's. Currently, there is little non-disputed material in MDS America: despite repeated pleadings from the regular editors, all the effort from the SPA's has been channelled either into the fighting, or else into technical discussions that are unsourced and probably don't belong in the article anyway. Kuru has been trying recently to direct the parties' attention towards improving the article rather than fighting, but this has been tried before and has not worked. I added citation needed tags for the material in MDS America some time ago, but nothing has been forthcoming. MVDDS dispute and MVDDS are basically the only articles for which there are secondary sources out there. Since the parties seem intent on using the talk pages as a battle ground despite our perpetual warnings, I am tempted to agree that talkpage semiprotection is the cure. nadav 06:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary is both inaccurate and insulting, nadav. I am not "intent on using the talk pages as a battle ground." I have been attempting to have a reasonable discussion on the topic matter. Any objective reading of the edit history will show that Jean Claude has been intent on battling on any talk page he can find.
Regarding your claim that the talk page contains too many "technical discussions that are unsourced and probably don't belong in the article anyway," I've been attempting to answer questions from un-involved editors about some of the technology. If a neutral editor is interested enough in the article to be asking questions of me, I feel that it is appropriate for me to spend my time helping them understand the technology. Hopefully this will allow them to edit the article as they feel appropriate from an NPOV.
Regarding the citation tags you mention: I should have noticed them sooner. The first one is for material that is actually in the MVDDS article. The second one is a request for a citation indicating that we don't buy our systems from Jean Claude's company, MDSi - I'll see if I can find a citation, but Jean Claude's edit history here should make it quite obvious that we don't have an ongoing business relationship with him. The third citation is in-progress - we're going to release the network diagram for an operational system.
Perhaps it's true that some people from MDSA are too easily trolled into responding to Jean Claude. Personally, I find it difficult to criticize somebody for responding to a threat to distribute pornographic pictures of their wife. The fact that Jean Claude is permitted to continue his diatribes on Wikipedia is the fundamental cause of the problem. It is challenging to have a civil and productive discussion when such insults are the most frequent diffs you see.
If you'll look at my own talk page, you'll note that at least one NPOV editor felt that my edits on the MDSA article were good. I'm not trying to brag, I just feel that I am being unfairly criticized by nadav. Bhimaji 13:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take his criticisms personally. It is a fair statement that both parties are involved in an edit war, but your own, personal responses have been level headed and patient. I'd like to try this one last attempt at ferreting out the actual conflict with the article, if there is one. I've proposed refactoring the talk page to remove all the off-topic crap - if there's no serious objections. If this fails and turns into a edit war/rant, then we can go nuclear. Kurutalk 13:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My citicism was definitely not directed at Bhimaji. His efforts throughout this saga have been made in good-faith. My words were an expression of general frustration with the situation. nadav 00:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your frustration is understandable. After the latest nonsense, and FayssalF's excellent bilingual reiteration of the rules and talk page archiving, I think this is getting closer to resolution. Kurutalk 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am Fabrice, I have been dealing with my father for years. Up to now, no one (MDSA or various editors) has ever insulted my father or criticized him in these talks. Whatever anyone is writing, JC Ducasse (JCD) will argue forever. Up to now everything he wrote is incorrect. Say black, he will say white; say white he will say black. The only way for cooling him down is to let him say anything he wants and no one should answer or comment what he say (at all). Eventually his comments could just be removed without bringing any comment.
We could argue with JCD forever, but has all his claims are not correct it will be a loss of time.
But just as an example, for arguing against the KU band broadband solution that I designed in 1996 and later improved with MDSA, JC Ducasse is mentioning in these talks a "patent" that he say having filed in 1985
But this is not a pattent and it has no relation with what we are alking about.
JC Ducasse is referring to the document available on MDSi Web site http://www.mds.fr/patent/patent.html
It is not a patent it is what is called an “enveloppe Soleau”. (i-DEPOTs ?) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enveloppe_Soleau http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/newsletter/6/html/EN/howToProtectYourInvention.html (in English)
The purpose of this "envellope" is just to show that the writer knew the process before any patent can be written.
The process for registering this "enveloppe" is the following : JCDucasse wrote 2 envelopes and sent them to the intellectual property (IP) office in 1987 (not 1985). Then the IP office keep one envelloppe and send the other one with a date stamp to JCD.
Then, if someone else patent the same process, the owner of the enveloppe can use the process for his personal usage (not commercial).
Once the enveloppe is OPEN (like on MDSi web site), then it became null. It has to be opened during a court case in front of a judge.
In addition, the Soleau Enveloppe of JCD is not mentioning any Internet or broadband at all. In 1987 the Internet was not popular enough for being known and mentioned by JCD.
The "envellope" is just describing the american MMDS process (70s) and is mentioning “ ANALOG TV broadcast (video and audio) using hyperfrequencies” (No satellite sharing, No digital, No internet, ....). It was demonstrated during Northpoint trial that such process couldn’t be patented.
In addition, MMDS was already existing before JCD wrote the Soleau enveloppe. By renaming the "enveloppe Soleau" into "Patent" JCD creates a confusion and is feeding the debates with incorrect information which are very difficult to control.
Sorry for this long message . --Fabrice10 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've semiprotected both articles for 2 weeks. DurovaCharge! 19:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the same to the talk pages and put some rules. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He's been warned about various incivility and 3RR-type behaviors in the recent past and has now advanced to disputing pretty much every source on the Talk page [24][25][26], then removing without consensus. Discussion has become lengthy, and I don't think further discussion will be productive as he removes the material regardless.
Other new, single-issue editors have joined in the deletion. Rodent came up clean in a recent SockPuppetry investigation, so I can't say with certainty these are him. [27][28]
Rodent has been on related campaigns of article reversion and harassment toward editors. The Angeles City article was protected for a while due to revert warring between RodentofDeath and Susanbryce(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) over references to slums, and references to Welfare organizations and human rights monitors.[29] Rodent's general campaign has been to remove anything perceived as unflattering.
I've considered mediation but I have trouble believing any good will come of it. Ditto RfC. I'm not sure where to go with this. What is recommended? / edgarde 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but I've been watching this particular case with some interest. From what I understand, the issue is essentially more of a POV dispute between two parties who, like it or not, have strong biases on the topic (take note of the lengthy discourse on Susanbryce's main user page). If you ask me, this isn't exactly a one-sided issue; both Rodentofdeath and Susanbryce have their fair share of conflicting issues and concerns that badly needs to be resolved. I'd also suggest that you leave a note at the Philippine regional noticeboard (talk page) so that other Filipino editors can also share their thoughts about this (some of the regulars are also admins, btw) and better explain why this could be a POV issue. And, yes, I think mediation is long overdue. --- Tito Pao 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Susanbryce may have dropped out by now. If I get a reply to the mediation suggestion I left on User talk:Susanbryce, I'd be pleased to see a mediation begin.
What I'm seeing now is RodentofDeath is the last one standing and has taken an obstreperous WP:OWNership of the page. I got involved fairly late, and am mostly in it for this one edit. / edgarde 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a longer version of this incident in WP:TAMBAY. / edgarde 04:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with comments by edgarde, what's happened is that RodentofDeath has pushed out neutral editors such as Phaedrus86 and from there has attempted to own the article. Addhoc 08:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started adding the content on welfare orgaizations in the Philippines and the Human Trafficking trade due to my experience in these aseas. Im not an educated person, and I made a lot of mistakes in what I posted. But with the help and guidence of more experienced Editors such as Phaedrus86 and Adhoc, the artilces have been well sourced, well written and a valuable addition. I have always abided by the advice of the more experienced Editors.
I feel im being stalked by RodentofDeath who has attacked and deleted most everything I have posted. Even a simple post that mentions charities is attacked and deleted.
I have requested more senior editors to engage and they have and I have abided by their guidence.
I have dropped off because im tired of the constant abuse RodentofDeath aims at me. With that said, ive mostly made the additions to Wikipedia that I wanted to and am basically happy with the current articles as they are. All im seeking now is to maintain those articles. Kind Regards, Susan Bryce.Susanbryce 15:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is wandering off-topic, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate Susanbryce's information in general, but where I've seen Bryce's contributions in other articles, they seem to be in good faith, and are often followed by disparaging comment from RodentofDeath (examples: interaction in Talk:Sex Tourism, Talk:Prostitution in the Philippines). Over time, Susanbryce seems to have developed a cautious and deferential approach to editing, whereas Rodent has been grinding his axe.
That said, the Bryce/Rodent conflict might be better served by a mediation. I'm right now more concerned about RodentofDeath's ownership issues. / edgarde 21:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your username and behaviour make it abundantly clear that this is a single-purpose account, almost certainly operated by an experienced editor, set up and operated for the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have blocked this account. A sample review did not turn up a single productive edit, and your edit warring over the closure of a frivolous merger proposal was the final straw.
The user admits he 1. created the accout to deliberately target User:Sparkzilla and has used the account for extended editwarring over trivial issues, such as the length of time a merge discussion was open, and not allowing such discussions to be closed. He has created a "heated issue" where there was none and has not made a single constructive edit to the pages.
Why, when there is a consensus to keep blocked (two admins and myself oppose this unblock) should a disruptive user such as this be unblocked? I would like more advice and opinions on this situation. Sparkzilla 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first step is usually to ask the person in question themselves. Any reason why you haven't spoken to Viridae first? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did merging a frigging article become so bureaucratic? If in doubt, an article remains un-merged. That having been said, if a user is being disruptive, block him for that (and of course, block him indefinitely IFF there is evidence his other account is still active and being advantageously used in the same foray). —freak(talk) 01:05, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Firstly I wasn't aware of the previous discussion. Secondly, per WP:SOCK a sockpuppet account may legitimately be used to deal with heated issues to stop them affecting the persons main account. Yes, there was edit warring, but the block reason is not in my opinion legitimate, because the sockpuppet was created under a legitimate policy quite obviously for the purposes of seperating normal issues from those which may erupt, as shown here. Yes, he has been edit warring (and issue I haven't really looked into very deeply, mainly because it wasn't denied) but as such he had both accounts blocked (block and autoblock) for 2-3 days - which is a fairly normal cool off time in the case of a first block for something like edit warring. I asked the user to email me with the name of his other account, and I have verified that the other account is not being used for the purpose of edit warring - or for that matter interaction on any of the articles/issues that the heatedissuepuppet account has been used for. Summing up I am now confidant that this is a legitimate use of a sockpuppet account (provided he doesn't continue to edit war with it) and time served is sufficient punishment/cooling off for the edit warring offence. ViridaeTalk 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the account is clearly labeled for what it is, and since you've confirmed that he's not making abusive use of multiple accounts, and since his disclosure to you makes it significantly less tempting for him to do so in the future, I'd say there's nothing left to see here, folks. —freak(talk) 02:25, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)
Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.
In other words sockpuppets can be used, in some cases, to protect a user's identity. This is not the case here. This editor is not using the account to protect himself from attack, but using it to attack. Sparkzilla 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When delving into a heated issue or one that may become heated it may be preferable to use an account such as this to stop disputes spilling into your other editing, and I believe this is what is happening here. It is unusual, sure but per that policy I believe it is allowed. ViridaeTalk 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think you have the right to unblock when two other admins and myself do not think the account should be unblocked. There is no consensus to unblock, so the account should stay blocked until such a consensus is reached. Sparkzilla 04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well for a start, I was (as previously stated) not aware of the other discussion, I merely answered an unblock request. Secondly the unblock occurred BEFORE this most recent discussion, in which several people have supported the user being blocked and at least one apart from myself have supported the unblocking. As such there is no way he could remain blocked untill consensus in this discussion was reached because this discussion didnt start untill after he was unblocked. Might I add that I unblocked him after careful consideration of WP:SOCK and the contributions from both accounts. Even if the consensus reached is for that account to be reblocked, as it was a good faith account - ie made in line with policy (or he believed so) autoblock should NOT be enabled, to allow him to edit from his other account in peace. ViridaeTalk 04:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of the content dispute, but I do not think that this is the proper use of a second account. They are not intended to allow an user to edit war and keep there original account clean. To me this is abusing a sockpuppet account because it gives the users an advantage over other users that must settle their disputes using our dispute resolution process. I have commented about this to Heatedissuepuppet and asked him not to use the account. FloNight 03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second FloNight's opinion and actions. Which is Heatedissuepuppet's main user account, by the way? Cla68 04:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He asked me not to reveal that, so I won't. You can either ask him yourself or ask for a checkuser - but given the nature of the account (ie an account to keep heated issues away from his main account) I am biding by his request for me to not reveal the other account name. ViridaeTalk 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's your mother's maiden name? —freak(talk) 04:16, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)
If you have a problem with using an account to keep heated issues away from the main account then you had better propose a change to policy on WP:VPP. If you don't like the use of an account like this in such a manner, I believe he has learnt his lesson - heated subjects occasionally bring editors into arguments which result in eit warring. They usually get blocked for a short amount of time to cool down - and since this is exactly what has happened in the long run (ie he was unblocked after 2-3 days) I believe that that time served is enough, provided he doesn't repeat the offence of edit warring. ViridaeTalk 04:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure I am not alone in thinking that it is very poor form to unblock a user without looking at the original dispute and user history first. Problems with this user are outlined here: User Talk:Heatedissuepuppet#User_behaviour
If the user has been involved in any previous edit conflict with me, and is using the account to hide that fact in these disputes, then I do not think that is a fair use of this puppet. If he has not been involved in any edit conflict with me before then perhaps the use of a puppet is reasonable. Could you confirm this?
I can accept that his primary account be unblocked, but I would like to ask that this user does not use the puppet account to try to deliberately target and disrupt any page on which I have posted in future. Sparkzilla 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by "target and disrupt" you mean "make any edits to", it would help to remember that you don't OWN your contributions, or any pages for that matter. That may need reminding, given the rather narrow scope of your edits.
As for confirming or denying that it is a user with whom you have previously interacted, a decision by Viridae (or a checkuser-er) to do that (and only that, for now) would probably benefit everyone involved. —freak(talk) 04:50, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)
My history makes it clear that I am happy to work with any editor that does not make frivolous and timewasting edits with the intent to disrupt. I don't really know much about the checkuser process -- can you help? Sparkzilla 04:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. On the other hand, it could just as easily get shot down as fishing expedition. —freak(talk) 05:01, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)
I think it is fair enough to say that if the user has already been in conflict with me that he has no need to use such a puppet. Perhaps Viridae could enlighten us? Note, I am not interested in finding out the user's main account. Sparkzilla 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the contributions of the main account back to july last year and see no evidence of interaction/dispute. ViridaeTalk 05:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In perusing his contributions, forgive me if I've overlooked an egregious violation, but I did not see where he has attacked anyone. I don't know his other identity, obviously, but it could be that account was registered under his real name, or could easily be traced to his real identity by anyone wishing to do so. As far as I can tell, nobody would have pegged him as an "alternate account" if he didn't volunteer that fact himself, specifically by choosing a name containing the word "puppet" (which, in itself, would severely limit the owner's temptation to use it for vote-stacking or tag team reversions, I would think!). If he had been doing anything untoward, I doubt he would have revealed himself to Viridae. —freak(talk) 04:16, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)
I second freak's comment - I can't find any evidence of a so-called attack. In fact user Heatedissuepuppet has been a model of civility, even during edits in which the same courtesy was not reciprocated. David Lyons 06:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A single-purpose account registered solely in order to argue on contentious articles, in fact mainly to pursue an agenda against a single publication and a single editor (Sparkzilla). I don't see that as one of the permitted uses of puppet accounts myself. It's not about containig contributions to a contentious area, it's about limiting the damage an edit war and transparent vendetta would do to his main account. Would have been nice to be consulted in some respect before my block was undone, too. Do we really need single purpose accounts that exist solely to pursue an agenda? Guy (Help!) 07:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"To pursue an agenda"... I have a perfectly good reason for that "agenda". Most people have a reason for getting involved in a specific article/conflict - may it be to counter off-site canvassing which is damaging an article, or the obvious bias of another editor - "to pursue an agenda" is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as there are good reasons for that agenda to be pursued. A legitimate use of a "heated issue puppet" will most likely end up being a SPA, with ONE agenda - but how is that not in accordance with the policy on the matter?
I have evidence that I think will satisfy most that Sparkzilla IS Mark Devlin (the owner of disputed company/magazine). My purpose has only been to make sure that Wikipedia is not used as a vehicle for promotion for his company/magazine, which it currently is, I'm afraid to say. As Viridae can vouch for, I have not previously been involved in any conflict with Sparkzilla, so calling it a "vendetta" is obviously untrue. I have only strived for the upholding of Wikipedia rules and for that purpose, I created an alternative account. I'm certain most will agree with me when I've posted about this problem at the WP:CoI noticeboard, and I'm also certain nobody will refer to any of my edits as disruptive. I do however understand that those who haven't looked into the conflict and just hear these allegations of "edit warring" might doubt my motives. That said, I'd also like to point out that any edit-warring from my side has been extremely small-scale and limited, and has practically always ended with me being reverted by sparkzilla one time too much, resulting in me letting it be. I've kept well within the boundaries of what's allowed on Wikipedia, and I've avoided resorting to any incivility, which David Lyons and others can vouch for (unfortunately, the same is not true of Sparkzilla, see my talk page, below the unblock request, for links). I will try and post on CoI today, but before that, I am prepared to share my evidence with anybody interested through e-mail.Heatedissuepuppet 08:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I'm not about to revert any of Sparkzilla's edits to the disputed articles (something I haven't done since 3 May, if I'm not mistaken - those who accuse me of "abusing" this account, please look into mine as well as Sparkzilla's edit histories), so don't worry, I'm not about to engage in any edit wars of any kind. I'm just gonna re-post my comments on the Nick Baker RfD (removed from there by Sparkzilla, without any support in actual policies/guidelines), and post a CoI later on today. Heatedissuepuppet 09:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty clear from the above statement that this editor is using his SPA as a way to to attack me. If he was really interested in improving articles he would find proper sources and not indulging in editwarring, trivial reverts and posting of poorly-sourced negative information. The addition of this threatened CoI proves that the editor is only interested in further harassment. I ask for the block to be reinstated. Sparkzilla 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are innocent of CoI, you don't have anything to worry about. If you indeed are innocent, I don't see why it would be harassment to have it investigated at the CoI noticeboard. Heatedissuepuppet 09:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using CoI as a way to influence content disputes is not allowed. CoI clearly states "attack the article, not the editor". You simply did not have good enough sources for inclusion. It is incredible that you are being allowed to continue your harassment, when you have made no positive contributions with this account at all. Sparkzilla 09:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to accuse me of "harassment", please provide "diff links" sustaining these allegations. Heatedissuepuppet 09:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are sock puppet with the single purpose of demonstrating that Sparkzilla has an undeclared conflict of interest. Could I politely suggest you present your evidence on the COI noticeboard instead of continuing this debate. Addhoc 09:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, what kind of a comment is that? That's exactly what I've suggested I will do, but I do not see why I shouldn't have the right to respond to unsustained accusations by Sparkzilla?Heatedissuepuppet 09:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is not a "sock puppet account with the single purpose of demonstrating Sparkzilla has an undeclared CoI", it's a sock puppet account with the single purpose of making sure Wikipedia isn't used as a vehicle for promotion. I did not originally strive to "demonstrate" that Sparkzilla had a CoI (even though I did ask him once, politely, if he were Mark Devlin or a close associate of his), but rather to deal with the problematic nature of the Metropolis/Crisscross articles. The way things have escalated (esp my indef block), I doubt that there's anything I can do about the situation but go to CoI. That's why my "single purpose" now is to demonstrate Sparkzilla's undeclared CoI. Heatedissuepuppet 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no involvement or interest in the dispute between Sparkzilla and Heatedissuepuppet. But I do believe that the use to which the Heatedissuepuppet identity has been put is clearly legitimate and within policy. In fact, it is explicitly within policy. I also find it somewhat disingenuous that Sparkzilla writes with such outrage about being attacked, given how hard he is working to have the block reimposed. It is clear to me that the attacking in this situation is at the very least mutual. FNMF 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does not give an user the right to a second account to edit war with another user and keep their main account clean. That is exactly what is happening here. FloNight 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do not know the full extent of my reasoning behind the decision to use an alternative account, so I think the categorization you just made is really unfair. If you saw my main account, you'd see I'm not afraid to "dirty" my talkpage with long-winded protests from disruptive users. One thing I am prepared to divulge about my reasoning, is that it is FRIGHTENINGLY easy to find out my real name if you know my main account. I've recently had problems because of this, but it is related to an incident I cannot describe further as it would reveal too much about my identity.
Finally, I think it's worth mentioning that I've had an account on Wikipedia for almost 2 years and this is the one and only time I've decided to use an alt. Heatedissuepuppet 11:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, if your real name is trivially identifiable and you'd rather it were not, then consider changing WP:RENAME or dropping it altogether. Second, if you want to use an alt in certain subject areas it's probably best if you don't start by being gratuitously contentious and pursuing a battle with another editor, because as FloNight (an arbitrator, in case you hadn't spotted) notes above, there is no right to use multiple accounts, and they are only permitted (in the sense of not being blocked on sight) where their use is not disruptive; avoiding scrutiny seems to be your main aim here and that is not listed in the permitted uses, nor is wikilawyering about the permitted uses a good way forward. This use has been seen by several people ad disruptive. It is expected that any user will have a balance of edits, not just pursuing an agenda. Accounts which do nothing but pursue an agenda tend to get kicked off, sooner or later, whether they are alternate or sole accounts. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note the sad irony of an editor who doesn't want his identity revealed, desperately trying to reveal that of another editor. BTW, what is Wikipedia policy regarding HIP's attempts to expose a user's identity? Sparkzilla
I'll note that I also see use of a secondary account for areas known to be in dispute to be explicitly authorized by Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts, provided the primary account does not edit in those areas. Viridae's actions of confirming the primary account to not be active in the same area(s) is correct action. So sockpuppetry is not a basis for a block here anymore. Edit warring itself is a separate problem, and I think (from comments here) that both Sparkzilla and Heateddissuepuppet are engaging in this type of problematic behavior, and I think either or both of them could end up with sanctions if they don't start working better together. GRBerry 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing or not?
I just want to inject a little common sense here. Can we stop focussing on the legitimate vs. illegitimate use of an alternate account here? It seems like if this account is being disruptive, it's an illegitimate use and it should be blocked indefinitely. If the account is not being disruptive, then it seems like the use must be legitimate per the WP:SOCK policy. Yet, there has been very little examination here of whether Heatedissuepuppet's behavior is disruptive, or merely involved in a controversial issue. Can we focus on that a bit more? Mangojuicetalk 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, and I'll pre-emptively defend the action which JzG, in blocking me, characterized as "edit warring over the closure of a frivolous merger proposal [which] was the final straw". What actually happened? 2 votes against the merger, 1 saying "perhaps unnecessary", and 1 for. Sparkzilla, who opposed the merger, chose to call this a "clear consensus" and closed it after 4 days of silence. I strongly disagree that 2-1-1 is in any way a "clear consensus", and it vexed me that Sparkzilla had closed it prematurely - WP:MERGE states that at least 10 days of silence should be observed before closing a merger vote if there's no clear consensus (also, I was waiting for responses from other editors). What "disruptive action" did I then take? On the Crisscross talk page, I put strike code over Sparkzilla's "No merge" and posted "No consensus" below[31]. Next I replied to Sparkzilla's protest and removal of strike code (I did not put it back): [32],. On the Metropolis talkpage, I changed the tag Sparkzilla had put up to "No consensus"[33]. Sparkzilla and I reverted each other's edits twice each and then I was blocked indefinately by JzG.
Did I revert the removal of the Merger-tags on the actual articles? No. Did I attempt to "un-archive" Sparkzilla's archiving, or did I try and open a new merger proposal? No and no. I just wanted to point out that there hadn't been a clear consensus at the time of closing. Heatedissuepuppet 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "frivolous adding of notability tags to Metropolis and Crisscross articles" (as Sparkzilla refers to it on my talkpage), all the tags are gone now, who do you think removed them? A hint, it was one person and one alone. People posting similar tags on these pages have on the other hand been plentiful, for example User:Dekimasu[34] and User:SebastianHelm[35] (I'll post many more in the CoI tomorrow). Btw, who do you think is the most "disruptive"? An editor who posts quality-related tags on articles, or an editor who removes said tags, without posting on the talk page and without any attempt to address any of the problems the tag was there to draw attention to?Heatedissuepuppet 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responses that amount to 'But he's doing it too!' don't really cut it, I'm afraid. Despite your assertions, I feel that you would be behaving better and with more circumspection if you were using your regular account to do this. Using an alternate account so you can war with impunity is not within the spirit of the sockpuppetry policy as the arbcom and others generally interpret it. Whether Sparkzilla also is behaving inappropriately is irrelevant to the question of your behaviour here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "He's doing it too" is a pretty poor excuse, but look at my edit history, do you really think I've been disruptive? I may have reverted Sparkzilla a few times on a few different issues, but there was no single issue that went on for a long period, and it always ended with me being reverted by Sparkzilla, and me letting it be. As for the accusations of not "being within the spirit of the policy", enough already, it IS within policy, please read it. Sure, some have suggested it isn't, but others have suggested it is. Also, my motive has never been to "war with impunity", nor have I actually done that, and I'd very much appreciate if such allegations could be sustained with some evidence. Heatedissuepuppet 07:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like they blocked the wrong editor. Sparkzilla really needs to try a bit harder to get on with the sockpuppet. Grace Note 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfounded accusations
This matter should only be discussed directly with the arbitration committee by e-mail. Thatcher131 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
using Wikipedia as an advertising agency
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Outcome: User:Olivierdb has been blocked with an expiry time of indefinite as a Smelly trolling sock -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there could be a problem with advertising on Wikipedia. I noticed that a user MikeGogulski is using his userpage as a vehicle for advertising. This account is only a few weeks old. On his first day he started developing his user page with an army of userboxes. [36]. These userboxes contain his various skills and services and his personal website. He explained his userpage as follows
"...if you click one of those userbox soldiers on my talk page, a single click more will bring you to a site where I maintain a paid account and profile containing a vast array if personal and commercial information about myself, including a copy of my CV." diff [37]
By the user's own admission his goal is to spread commercial information about himself, and gain free advertising by maintaining this account and userpage. The profile he wanted to advertise [38] and his personal webpage [39]. These contain statements like "I can accept payments in USD, EUR and SKK via bank transfer to US or Slovak banks, PayPal, Moneybookers and e-gold." and similar. While this may not be a major case, if this type of behaviour goes unchecked Wikipedia will be flooded with personal userpages advertising every type of service imaginable not just translation. I know that wikipedia has a tough stance against advertising by companies but I'm not sure about individuals offering services, so I'm bringing this to the attention of administrators requiring some type of action to be taken.
This type of commercial exploitation of wikipedia is despicable in my opinion, as wikipedia is not an advertising agency for anyone to gain higher rank on google search. It seems that he is not here to write an encylopedia but for other reasons. It seems he is pretty successful already in advertising his talents and services, already rank 4th on google with a few weeks old account. [40]Olivierdb 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, I think you should give MikeGogulski the courtesy of letting him know you're discussing his userpage here. That would give him the opportunity to respond. --ElKevbo 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Olivierdb did not notify MikeGogulski of this conversation, I did. --ElKevbo 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that I can't find evidence of these links to his pages, I'm a bit confused about what action should be taken. EVula// talk // ☯ // 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link is in the "this user has a website" userbox Olivierdb 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) While the talk page diff might show some uncivility (I would need to read the whole conversation first, to see the context) I would hardly call a "This user has a website" userbox advertising. He seems to be a decent contributor, not what is usually seen by advertisers. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(After edit conflict) Indeed. Unless I've missed something, MikeGogulski has done nothing wrong. In fact, his user page is pretty toned-down and nondescript as far as these things go. There's nothing wrong with including links to one's own personal sites on one's user page. Mike has plenty of mainspace edits and it doesn't at all seem like his intent on Wikipedia is merely to promote himself. His "admission of commercial intent" that you linked looks like a defense against your accusation of sockpuppetry, not him announcing his plans to advertise himself on Wikipedia. You definitely should have raised your concerns with Mike before reporting this on the noticeboard, your accusations seem pretty groundless. -- mattb 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is not his userboxes, but the fact he uses his whole account (all his contributions) to advertise his real name, to gain hits from google to his service(translation). If this pratice spreads who out of all Jack Smiths et cetera gets to have the name and the userpage as advertising space? I titled this thread the way I did because also wanted to ask about the general issue of advertising on userpages and account names if it is permissible. My post wasn't about this one user but the issue in general. Olivierdb 15:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a pretty common practice (and it used to be the standard) to use your real name for your Wiki-Username (from Wikipedia:Username#Choosing_a_username: "The choice of username might be based on your real name or a familiar Internet nickname..."). Furthermore, all external links not within the "article" namespace are done with the nofollow tag (see [41]), so he won't actually gain much PageRank from that listing. I don't think there's a problem here. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please specifically link to where this editor has explicitly said that "his goal is to spread commercial information about himself, and gain free advertising by maintaining this account and userpage." I am not seeing that it in the information you have provided. --ElKevbo 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His user page seems unobjectionable to me. -- DS1953talk 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that at this point it is worth looking at the contributions of Olivierdb (talk·contribs) instead, in particular this edit. This noteboard section appears to be a bogus charge of advertising aimed at an editor who questioned whether Olivierdb was a single-purpose account created in order to disrupt discussion, by re-making controversial edits that were currently the subject of a lengthy talk page discussion (see Talk:Bratislava#Names). That this is the only editor in that discussion to have strayed from discussing the article onto the subject of other editors' names and user pages indicates that the sole purpose here is to disrupt, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. I suggest that we give our attentions to other matters. Uncle G 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defendant responds Thank you, ElKevbo, for notifying me of the accusation. Obviously my own words on the subject will speak less loudly than my actions, but I will state unequivocally that my work on Wikipedia is based on a genuine desire to improve, expand, and add articles in areas of interest to me, and where I feel that I can make valuable contributions to the project. The notion that I suddenly appeared with an "army of userboxes", and that this should somehow be taken as evidence of my ill intent, befuddles me. I've used wiki software in several professional engagements in the past, and was a long-time user of Wikipedia prior to starting my contributions here. This included using wikicode I found implemented here on internal company projects. I based my own userbox population primarily on User:MarkBA's user page, and it was MarkBA's contributions which formed a big part of my inspiration to become a registered editor. I choose to edit under my real name for purposes of open and honest attribution. That this has a knock-on effect of potentially increasing my market exposure as a translator is an inevitable consequence, not dependent on me placing a (permitted, small) link to my website on my user page. In agreement with mattb's position above, my motivation to point out my website link as part of the sockpuppetry argument was to provide evidence that my Wikipedia identity is identical with my real identity, with the thought it mind that it would be pretty ridiculous for some pseudonymous user to create a sockpuppet in his real name. I'm treating this as controversy for the sake of controversy and nothing more. By the way, User:Olivierdb, thank you for telling us that you're Hungarian by means of the Google link you pasted above; we'll take that into account in considering any apparently anti-Slovak POV in your edits. To your response that "My post wasn't about this one user but the issue in general", well, LOL. It seems to me you're here to start (or perhaps continue) a war, and to do so by sounding reasonable. MikeGogulski 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olivierdb(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is obviously a sockpuppet account and no newbie. He/she knows WP:ANI and his/her only edits have been disruptive reverts, not real contributions. As Mike pointed out above, the google links posted by Olivierdb suggest he/she is from Hungary. Olivierdb's POV is to change the names of Slovak cities into a non-Slovak version.[42] He/she abuses WP:ANI to accuse opponents in a POV dispute.[43] I might be wrong, but all three things also characterize the only known Hungarian sockpuppetmaster, banned VinceB(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). Olivierdb account was founded just three days after VinceB's last attempt to evade his ban using sockpuppets was stopped by administrators.[44] It may be all a coincidence and Olivierdb may be a sockpuppet of someone else. But even in that case, it seems to be a "bad hand" account, forbidden by WP:SOCK. Tankred 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the gross incivility and personal attacks against me above also violating WP:AGF. I find the comment regarding my alleged ethnicity "take that into account in considering any apparently anti-Slovak POV" bizarre to say the least. The same can be said about the "here to start a war" part. MikeGogulski also solicited comment on the talk page of Bratislava[45] urging other editors to defend him, the result of this is Tankred's comment above who is an active editor of Bratislava. I also think the actual advertising taking place is undeniable, indeed he admits it again now a second time above "That this has a knock-on effect of potentially increasing my market exposure as a translator is an inevitable consequence". This time he calls the advertising effect inevitable. The fact that his very first action as a wikipedia editor ever was to construct those userboxes suggests otherwise. I think advertising is a serious issue on wikipedia and when not done by companies but individuals is not taken seriously enough. With that said I accept if the consensus is that nothing really happened here, but I ask others to refrain from off topic personal attacks against me, especially if those were solicited by MikeGogulski. Olivierdb 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my time on WP I've noticed that it's always the sockpuppets who cry "AGF!" the loudest. Reviewing the activity and contributions of Olivierdb leaves little doubt that this is a sockpuppet account. Using a sock is bad enough, but using one to bring accusations here against a legitimate editor is especially reprehensible and should be dealt with accordingly. Doc Tropics 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please, Olivierdb, we're not idiots. New accounts don't file ANI complaints two days after creation. You are transparently a sockpuppet. Georgewilliamherbert 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My word, some wicked rouge admin appears to have blocked him. Mwuhahahahahaha!Guy (Help!) 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the complainant has been blocked, and I've seen nothing but support from the admins commenting here (thanks, all), I'm removing this page from my watchlist. I'll be happy to respond to anything further about the matter on my talk page. MikeGogulski 12:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:71.112.142.5, who has vandalized the Afro page as User:71.112.7.212 and User: 71.112.6.35 is once again vandalizing. This user has been the subject of a RfC, has been blocked several times, and now is using multiple IPs. They engage in disruptive editing and WP:Game the rules so they just slightly dance inside the system. They are continually reverted. A review of their most egregious behavior is found at User:71.112.7.212, but now that they are slipping in and out of IPs, they try to only troll selectively. I'd like to ask for the above IPs to be blocked from Afro or, at the very least, have some admins take note of their behavior and engage them. --David Shankbone 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been temporarily protected. The IPs you cite are Verizon DSL addresses. If we block his address today, it is very likely that he can force Verizon to assign him a different IP tomorrow by simply unplugging his DSL modem for a few minutes. The best answer is often to simply revert and ignore, report the IP addresses at intervention against vandalism or ask for page protection at requests for page protection. Thatcher131 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not vandalizing
At first sight, a few hours ago, this issue appeared to me like a report on a vandal and a request for blocking an IP. Nothing suspicious at all. It is just like an edit warring and we don't fix those kind of problems here. What i don't understand is why you're calling the IP/S vandals. They are doing the same thing you are doing. They do replace "your" pic by another everytime you do the same w/ User:Steve-o's which was uploaded very recently.
That said, i believe there is a conflict of interests in here. What i don't understand also is that you are saying that that user has been the subject of a RfC. Who is this user and when was that? I can think of 2 possibilities: User:Urthogie or User:Rbaish. The thing is that no one of those has been a subject of an RfC as far as i know and correct me if i am wrong. So who is the user you are referring to and how do you know s/he is the one?
To sort out this issue, why not use Image:LaurynHill.jpg? It is of a very good quality and encyclopedic because it reflects many things the article discusses. Can you explain please what is particlar about "your" picture Afro 2 by David Shankbone.jpg? Does the article talks about social activities like drinking related to Afro style? The article talks about the relationship between the style and some artistic activities except drinking. I strongly believe that the pic of that Afro style girl w/ a drink (some of it poured on her dress at the right side) and a napkin on the other was taken at the Tribeca Film Festival 2007. Am i wrong?
Please gently refrain from calling contributors vandals and trolls when they are not and discuss objectively the issue at nice photo! here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response
To answer:
We can't use the Lauryn Hill photo because the article neither talks about Lauryn Hill nor does WP:Fair allow us to use a photograph that is "fair use" when there is open media available.
What is particular about my photograph? It is a high-quality photograph of an Afro. What is the difference between what I am doing and what this one person is doing in the guise of three IPs? The difference is: I am not being reverted by anyone but this IP; the IP has been reverted by at least five/six other editors. I've been reverted by none. The photo depicts an afro; you raise questions that are harder to answer for your Lauryn Hill photo than they are for my photo. I chose to do a full body, but just as the article doesn't talk about an "afro and smiling" or an "afro and standing" a photo of an "afro with a drink" is just as benign.
This User was the subject of a sock puppet review here. Additionally, they have countlessly edit warred or disruptively edited Wikipedia. If you need a previous list of examples, you can find them here.
The user is both a vandal and a troll; I don't throw around those terms lightly, thank you. And I am not the only one who has called them out on it. Perhaps you should review their three different IPs and their histories, and how they are continually reverted for their edits than "gently" admonishing me for calling a spade a spade?
Fair enough. Good explanations and i apologize for my tone. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like things are cleared up (and the protection is only for 48 hours, to encourage a little more discussion) but I do want to note that the Lauryn Hill photo is free licensed under Creative Commons and isn't subject to Fair Use restrictions. I think it would be an excellent main photo for the afro article. KafzielTalk 03:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to insist that it is free licensed. Thanks for the reminder Kafziel. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this. I find this user very offensive. He has called me a "vandal" and so on many, many times. I have never vandalized and to anyone watching, you'll notice he never points to any piece of vandalism, he just claims I am a vandal. When any of his images anywhere on wiki are replaced he starts slinging names around. Today Im a "troll" and a "vandal" who has been subject to an RFC. And today he filed this report asking that I be blocked, because I replaced his photo with (IMO) a better one. I even asked him for discussion on the talk page at Afro. A real bad character. 71.112.142.5 04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why people leave Wikipedia
I have over 1,000 photographs on Wikipedia; one photo of an Afro really means little to me. But the IP above tried to replace it with someone wearing a wig -- and I wasn't even the editor who called them out on it. The IP, in all its incarnations, has found nobody to support them in their trolling and vandalizing. They have been reverted in 90% of their edits. One need only look at the histories and Talk pages (and, especially, talk page edit summaries since they delete most comments) to see. If others want to put up the Lauryn Hill on the Afro page, go for it. But a blurry photo of a kid wearing an afro wig? That's User:71.112.142.5, AKA User:71.112.7.212, AKA User: 71.112.6.35 (and, probably, soon User:71.112._.__ idea of a better photo. I'm not sure why a celebrity photo (and I have generated the most celebrity photos on Wikipedia) need replace a decent one of a good afro, but if others want to do so, I won't revert. But it's a shame that a troll and vandal would inspire a change--what's that say about the Wikipedia community? I'm nearing the end of my contributions on the site anyway; mainly for the "shoot the people who show dedication" attitude on here, that has caused many editors to leave. Thanks for the apology FayssalF, but in the end, I'm an accomplished editor and you rushed to the defense of an IP who only likes to toy with those who have strived to build a good encyclopedia. No wonder so many of us leave. I'll be going soon; I've given it a good bit of thought--it's ANIs like these, where others let the IPs get the upper hand instead of those of us with pretty big accomplishments, win out. Remember, the less we stick up for those with experience who have put countless hours and creativity into the site, the more you'll be stuck with people like this IP and less with people like me. I've given enough. I'll be finishing up some work on here, but my contributions will be limited and then cease. --David Shankbone 05:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following this particular controversy (I've been hip-deep in other disputes this week), but I didn't see any replies here, so I'll be the one to say to David that your contributions are appreciated and I hope you'll reconsider, because we'd be sorry to lose you. Newyorkbrad 13:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider that. We receive tons of complaints against IPs here and sometimes we do mistakes (i.e. blocking innocent people). Your report wasn't backed w/ diffs. So i wanted to know more about the issue. While investigating i found out a legit request for discussion at the article talkpage and that you insisted on the fact that he's a vandal instead of answering objectively. Now that you have provided the diffs i apologized for my tone though the issue as i pointed out (as well as Kafziel) is not limited in vandalism but edit warring. The IP could have been a registered account and at that point we'd not be talking about vandalism. This is how i see the situation. So, please reconsider your decision and if you want help at the article, we'll provide it for you. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is isn't a 'shoot the good contributors' attitude, its a fundamental philosophy that no persons worth more then another. The IP disagrees with you. Doesn't make him a vandal, he's a user with a legitimate, albeit different from yours, view on the subject. This sort of 'I'm better then people who are new or unregistered' is exactly what we don't need here. Either step back from that view and contribute to a wiki or go find a website with an elitist attitude toward others. -Mask? 22:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comtheo sockpuppets and John Moyer article recreations.
Hello. 2 days ago, there was an incident with a rather intrusive guy who replaced an article with his own multiple times. It was resolved for the moment, and is archived here. After that, the user created many sockpuppets and article about his hero with them, resulting in the users being blocked and the article being deleted and ultimately protected from re-creation. It went on and on, as administrators were able to delete the articles / block the users when they saw the article as candidate for speedy deletion. Today however, Comtheo is very fast. He removes the speedy template within a very short time period after they are set-up, so i decided to come here again. The current article is John Moyer: comedian by the current puppet ComtheoJR (talk·contribs). Some more info on recent articles and puppets is in the speedy deletion message, which i'll just re-post here:
Is there a more permanent way of drawing him off, instead of just deleting the article and blocking the user, forcing him to just register a new account and creating a new article with a slightly different name? ~ | twsx | talkcont | 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's forcing him to keep re-creating his vanity article. In fact, by now, it seems that he is wilfully ignorant rather than just clueless. It cannot posisbly have escaped his notice that we do not want his vanity spam, but when was the last time a Mormon took no for an answer? Guy (Help!) 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see bigotry and deragatory comments about particular religious groups are alive and well on Wikipedia. Maybe you can add that insight to the article about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I'm sure it will be appreciated since there's such impartiality and objectivity here. Tchoeme 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Formerly banned, but reinstated by Jimbo, user User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is carrying on in a questionable manner, edit-warring on Cherokee (which has required protection of that article), making what borders on legal threats (based on totally preposterous legal theories of his to the effect that Indian tribes can override the First Amendment and ban discussion about them if it goes in directions of which they disapprove), engaging in WP:POINT behavior (creating a category "Massacres by Mormons" with only one article in it because he dislikes a similar category regarding massacres by American Indians), accusing users critical of him of being sockpuppets, and so on. *Dan T.* 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note. He needs to take a chill pill or he's going to end up blocked again. However, Dan, please resist any temptation to bait him. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I interacted with this fellow a while back at Daniel Brandt. Neither of us had a great time, though in my opinion the exercise was largely memorable for this edit. I've not seen anything quite like it, either before or since. MoreschiTalk 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for recognizing this. Not all the trolls are from SCOX. I'll refrain from feeding any of them. :-)Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Willful or clueless? I vote 2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clueless. Someone placed a {{who}} and I thought it meant for someone to say who in the community said it, so I put it in. I assumed if it was wrong, someone would format, correct, or remove it. I'm glad everyone finds it so entertaining. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you're just not quite getting it, allow me to provide you some good, but unsolicited advice. You're not doing yourself any favors by threatening people, mentioning laws, or trying to muscle changes in past anyone. Anyone who spends 10 seconds trying to figure out if you're gonna be able to muscle changes past them is going to realize quite quickly that just a small, well placed, well written whine about you is going to send you back into indef blocked. You, not them, need to tread on eggshells. You're incredibly lucky that this particular whine isn't perfectly written. If the first commenter had stated "Merkey is back to his old gig - threatening wikipedians with lawsuits (diff), editing disruptively (diff), and sticking his nose where it don't belong (diff). Why did we unblock him, exactly? Were we short on POV pushers who like to threaten people?" then I suspect we'd be discussing this from the other side of your block log. I think you're just a tech guy who can't interact with people. You're going to have to learn if you want articles to read how you want them to read. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one has been subjected to any threats other than me by a large group of troll accounts, most of whom are affiliated with the Linux movement. I am saddened that disagreement with views about Wikiality offends folks. Many of the arguments esspoused by Brandt and others appear to be true about this particular community on the English Wikipedia, despite my best efforts to assume good faith on folks part. Time for a break. I will go ahead and write enhanced filters to the Wikigadugi project to strip out Native Articles into a separate dump so I can review and remove the false information contained in them about these fake "Wikipedia Indians". I may return to correct or add syllabary constructs from time to time. The English Wikipedia is like a slow motion train wreck I feel compelled to watch, but helpless to stop or advise. I fear things should just go on the way they have until the next train wreck. It's just too stressful and time wasting to attempt to make progress here. :-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, Jeff, you have no idea how hard you are making it not to reblock you. That post, plus your edit history and ban history, says the banhammer should come out again. Have you ever considered counting to ten before hitting Save? You are a smart man, a really smart man, how come you are so stupid? Guy (Help!) 21:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, this is part of my frustration. Please go look at your post and the threatening tone, "banhammer"? . I realize you mean well and are trying to help. I am a very smart man, but I am also a very old man, and things move a little fast for me here. I am sending out a press release Monday or Tuesday launching the Wolf Mountain Group. I will have the company address many of these issues when we get to the part about the Foundation and Wikipedia in General. I wish you guys the best and good luck. Hope to see many of you again. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those two accounts were both permablocked for sockpuppetry, personal attacks and vandalism.
Secfrance confessed on my talkpage to being a joint sockpuppet - though he insists that France a was his brother, and Secfrance is a joint accout for both of them.
Superman34241 seems to be flying under the radar here (for lack of a better figure of speech). All of his mainspace contribs are vandalism, but he has not received higher than a level 2 warning. He also has a threat (that he says is "a legal warning") on top of his talk page, warning others not to edit it. After LuigiManiac warned him for some vandlism, he replied with a uw-bv, and a very WP:OWN-ish message. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I lost count how many times user:Azerbaijani attacked me and used inappropriate language for discussion(and not only with regard to me but other users). Here new one [46]. He tries to push his opinion as the only truth. Before he twice told that I lied [[47]] on the question which turned to be right from my perspective - I proved the fact by submitting relevant document. Wiki community should pay attention to such users like user:Azerbaijani. He is on the Arbcom parole, yet he was blocked once for violating its desicion and still behave in inappropriate manner.--Dacy69 18:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never personally attacked this user. This is another false revenge report, one in a line of them. Note that in none of the diffs this user has ever posted was there ever a personal attack. Wikipedia's policies say that I am allowed to comment on a Users edits but not on the user himself. I have never commented on Dacy personally. He tried to lie about what a source was saying, and I called him out on it and eventually he admitted it and we all moved on. I was the one that asked him to bring up a source proving his point, and finally, after distorting the first one he brought up, he was able to bring a legitimate source up.
This user is not familiar with Wikipedia's policies of NPOV, OR, or PA. I have asked him several times to familiarize himself with Wikipedia's rules. I have even went as far as copy pasting the rules for him on talk pages, and that hasnt even worked.
I know of countless diff's I can bring up of user Dacy breaking Wikipedia's policies, and making false accusations and false reports.
Note that this is not the first time he has made such a false report: [48] (he asked for a check user on me without any justification whatsoever but rather a week argument, which was baseless) [49] (Another similar report of incivility against me...)
Its hilarious how he tries to use Wikipedia's rules against me when he isnt even familiar with them. He cannot prove that I have ever attacked him personally of ever been uncivil towards him. This is part of his (and other friends of his on Wikipedia's) bullying and smear tactics.
Dacy69 is also on Arbcom parole, and so far he has broken parole twice but not blocked for it (due to false revenge posts and reports by his friends).
This user and his friends are trying hard, really hard, to bully me around with such tactics. Notice how in his description he says attacked me and used inappropriate language for discussion(and not only with regard to me but other users) however, look at the diff's, A) nowhere is there an attack, and B)no where is there inappropriate language. This is a POV revenge attack, simple as that. I even predicted this would happen, as it has become a usual thing for me to have to deal with these days.Azerbaijani 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is global plot against him.--Dacy69 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a global one, but its pretty obvious whats going on, or is what you, Grandmaster, and Atabek doing just a coincidence (even though you guys work together on almost every article, make almost identical false accusations and reports, exchange reverts on articles, etc...). Also, this user thinks Wikipedia rules dont apply to him, and has made that clear several times, the lastest: [50] (He thinks Wikipedia undue-weight and NPOV dont apply to that article or him)Azerbaijani 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is harassing and threatening me about a totally non-wikipedia related matter, posting personal information, and not responding to requests to stop. Tmtoulouse 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support block for legal threats being made. Any oversights around? x42bn6TalkMess 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the block, I'm not an oversight though. --Wafulz 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think an oversight was needed for that. · AndonicOTalk 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grow a thicker skin, is about it. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt be editing these articles without one, SqueakBox 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should warn people that clicking on that link brings people to "boychat" website! Not impressed.--Vintagekits 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on that link will be hard to explain, i'm going to anotate the above link to protect editors. Hypnosadist 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the link my apologies for not warning people what the site contains, SqueakBox 17:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ymous (talk·contribs) is using Wikipedia for his own soap box, creating patently absurd articles and edit warring over them, then writing polemics about the liberal bias in Wikipedia on both his User page and his Talk page. Corvus cornix 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a content dispute over original research. What specific action would you like reviewed? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, perhaps the disruptive editing behavior of some of the editors. Perhaps I just want more eyes on the article? Or, perhaps we can just let the pigs run the farm. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More eyes on the article sounds just about right, SqueakBox 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the deal here. Every time I view this page it multiplies. First, there were 83 requests and now there are 96. I randomly clicked about a dozen and each one had a request template on the page. Is this being including in a template somewhere? - auburnpilottalk 21:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, some admins have enabled autoblock, and now it is causing extensive damage. --24.136.230.38 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Golbez unblocked the person and reblocked him without autoblock. Things should be (semi) back to normal now. --24.136.230.38 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone blocked the Wikimedia server, no wonder... --24.136.230.38 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Was it just jain yankee's block that was causing problems? I was also getting block messages for Ymous and one or two other editor names. --- RockMFR 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sdffsdf's block is still causing problems, too. --- RockMFR 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain just HOW the autoblock feature is triggering blocks on the wikimedia squid servers? Because it seems to me there are at least two things that would have to go very horribly wrong for that to happen. Any developers watching this discussion care to comment? --Random832 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody really knows what the hell is going on. The developers are aware, and I'm not really sure what they're doing right now to fix it. If you're autoblocked, PLEASE DO NOT ADD YOURSELF TO CAT:RFU. You're just adding to the backlog. Sean William 22:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to a bit of clarification on #wikimedia-tech, it seems that the aforementioned IP wasn't recognized as a squid; instead, MediaWiki thought that all edits were coming from that IP. Therefore, the autoblock affected that IP, and autoblocked each and every editor of Wikipedia. Sean William 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would a new autoblock on anyone cause the collateral damage again until this IP problem is fixed? Funpika 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is fixed. Just clear the autoblocks, if there are any left (which there shouldn't be any), and remove the templates from talk pages. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to look at block log. I just saw the block and the pending unblock templates there and assumed the IP was still blocked. Funpika 23:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Islamquest
Resolved
– Has been salted. ♠PMC♠ 23:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Sidaway (talk·contribs) (and later JzG (talk·contribs), seemingly to make a WP:POINT) have unilaterally page-blanked Wikipedia:Service awards, redirecting it to Wikipedia:Barnstars, despite the former already having survived a WP:MFD without much trouble, and the entire gist of that MfD being whether or not WP:SERVICE is redundant with WP:BARNSTAR (the consensus conclusion being that it is not). I think both of these experienced editors should know better by now than to randomly decide a page they don't care for shouldn't exist and just go make it so, especially when its talk page MfD tag indicates that there has already been a concluded debate about that idea. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Discussion ensuing at Wikipedia talk:Service awards; confident it will resolve itself there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Disclaimer: I was patrolling my 1200+ page watchlist for vandalism when I encountered this and reverted the page-blanking with an edit summary of "Rvv", not noticing at the time that the editor who did it isn't a newbie; that flub seems to have ticked some people off, but it wasn't intentional. I left comments on Sidaway's page that I recognize that he is not a vandalizing noob (and that I think he knows WP ways well enough that blanking that page was not appropriate). At any rate, the "Rvv" wasn't intended as an insult to Sidaway, it was simply a reflex action. Virtually every time I reload my watchlist there are a few new cases of (actual) vandalism to be dealt with; given the numbers, mistakes are bound to happen. My position is not that Sidaway is a vandal (which is why we're at WP:AN/I not WP:AIV), but that Wikipedia:Service awards isn't in a position to be removed because one (or two) users don't like it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot more than "one or two" users who dislike this page. There's a very large group. Sean William 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to MfD again, then. Last time there were a grand total (counting nominator) of three "delete" !votes that were not rescinded-by-author, and all three engendered rational objections that were never answered; they all amounted to "I don't like it" rationales. If you really hate it, MfD awaits. Maybe you can make a stronger case than was made last time. <shrug> NB: It should be noted that Sidaway was not objecting to the existence of the WP:SERVICE templates, which you seem to be, but rather thought that the separate page was a redundancy, so you are not actually making the same point or supporting his (I'm not making any particular statement here, other than, basically, "there are three, not two, points of view on this"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And on the plus side countering the I don't like it? Since most wikipedia policies like notability, verifiability, neutral point of view etc. don't apply to wikipedia space, exactly what arguments were you expecting? Delete lack of reliable sources ? --pgk 06:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CFD, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, etc. There are numerous delete/merge/rename criteria that apply to non-articles (some of them speedy even). None of them were raised here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So this list of valid (in your eyes) arguments doesn't actually exist anywhere but within deletion debates, and no doubt all could be written off as "I don't like it" arguments if it suited anyones particular purpose. What was the policy based reason for the page existing in the first place? Were the keep votes based in policy or were they just WP:ILIKEIT comments? --pgk 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection <> blanking. Redirection is just that: redirection. I am not clear as to why we need a fork of Wikipedia:Barnstars. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When content is 100% removed and the page redirected to another page that has none of that content, it is indeed blanking. WP:POINT gedanken experiment: See Johnny delete all of the content of Marilyn Manson and redirect that page to Satan (or John Denver for that matter); See Johnny get blocked or at least get half of his disruptive butt chewed off. (Feel free to remove the "Resolved" tag from the top of this thread if you feel that this topic needs further discussion in this particular venue rather than at Wikipedia talk:Service awards or my user talk page.)
There is no fork of WP:BARNSTAR; WP:SERVICE has no content in common with that page (other than, of course, basic words like "the", etc.), and never has. The two concepts are completely separate, though they could conceivably be merged (cf. {{Mergeto}}/{{Mergefrom}}). The discussion of this is extant in much greater detail at Wikipedia talk:Service awards (and, as already noted, at its MfD page from a few months ago; none of this is exactly new). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
personal attack during AfD debate on related discussion page
Hello, I just removed an edit on a talk page where John Spikowskilisted other wikipedians in bad faith (including me). That list definitely looks like some kind of pillory to me. As the person who initiated the AfD process for the PTgui article he should know (and follow) the AfD etiquette. Even if that "list" counted as something else than a personal list of people that just happen to have a different opinion (to put that in mild words) it doesn't belong to the talk page.
As documented on his user talk page (conflict of interest, vandalising, more vandalising and the above mentioned list) he has been warned several times in the last few hours by different persons to take part in the ongoing debate in such an uncivilised manner. He refuses to do so. The problem is that he doesn't accept other opinions than his own in a AfD debate inrtoduced by himself and keeps behaving very uncivilised. I need some assistance here, please. Einemnet 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to report that User:Einemnet (non-contributing editor) is removing my edits in discussions and TALK pages. I have asked him to stop and he continues with his abuse of other editors contributions. Can this user be ban for his actions? I see no other solution to making him stop. John Spikowski 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a warning on the Realg187 (talk·contribs) talk page, asking him to stop the attacks and contribute constructively or be blocked. If he continues, let me know or bring it back here. In the meantime, please disengage with him; it will make things go more smoothly. MastCellTalk 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This matter should be discussed privately by e-mailing the arbitration committee or any arbitrator. Please do not discuss it here further. Thatcher131 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is doing strange edits on Wikipedia. Adding protections templates to non-protected pages. He also nominated himself for adminship. Just a new user or a sock? -- Hdt83Chat 00:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More inclined to think this is a clueless newbie doing disruptive things - I'd let the usual uw- templates take care of it. x42bn6TalkMess 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has vandalised my user page and left personal comments on my talk page, but most concerningly, if you look at User:Chris C. Nichols he/she has left a comment stating that his/her cousin attends my university and he/she has instructed said person to 'kill' me. I take this quite seriously, if you could intervene I would be most grateful. The incident stems from me warning this user for vandalism and non-encyclopedic edits. Thanks a lot. --Will2710|Talk! 00:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked them as an obvious vandalism-only account. Krimpet (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. There is a problem with the Wikimedia servers and blocking that IP address blocks ALL addresses. See here. -- Hdt83Chat 01:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone kindly explain what "squid" means in this context? Thanks. Newyorkbrad 01:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There a way to add it to the list of IP's on the Block page? Also, any other IP's I need to worry about? ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 05:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Ego is now blocked indef due to more sockpuppetry. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego is the case. The account was blocked for 1 year prior to this. I've now extended the block to an indef block, due to 17 new sockpuppets. Open for review and possible reversal. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly endorse upping the ban to indefinite. His ban timer has already been reset once for sockpuppeteering, and he's openly declared that he's not stopping. Revert. Block. Ignore. Sean William 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17 is enough. We won't let them achieve a Wiki record! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be surprised if there is anyone who will contest this.Proabivouac 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason in my mind the community should not consider this user banned. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse. I just blocked another one of his socks who was trolling on Jpgordon's user talk and on WT:IAR. --Coredesat 03:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Billy, and old friend of mine. Endorse block. Daniel 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the prolific nature of the sockpuppetry, is a subpage at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, and/or an abuse report to his ISP, warranted? He tends to show up and argue the same points in the same tendentious way over and over, and it wastes editors' time to unknowingly deal with him in good faith, only to have the sock eventually blocked. His MO is pretty easily described and recognized: fringe POV-pushing from an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian/Austrian school perspective, worshipping at the altar of Milton Friedman, occasional ham-handed attempts to use "good cop-bad cop" accounts, etc. MastCellTalk 00:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:RBI is what should be applied.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is this new user, User:Michael Safyan, who seems to go around taking article titles as being {{POV-title}}. He is doing this to so many articles that it seems more disruptive/point-ish than a serious concern, have a look here at his contributions. He gives this "explanation". --Abnn 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete them. Editors can't go around POV-tagging every single article in a broad subject area, and especially without starting a discussion on the talk page. I'm going to go revert all of them without any relevant discussion on the talk page. --Haemo 02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "trolling." There was a link to an empty article, and I started filling it in. I began marking articles under the WikiProject Palestine and WikiProject Arab-Israeli Conflict with the "{{POV-title}}" marker to indicate that the subject matter is disputed. At the insistence of the above user, I have stopped. The above user also deleted the article I was editing, and I have left it alone. If the editors believe that these pages should not be marked, then I shall consent. Michael Safyan 03:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed at your talk page. It wasn't me who deleted that article. It has been deleted 2 times before in 2006 for the sake of accuracy. It is not for the editors to believe that these pages should not be marked, but it should you who should place an explanation at every talk page related to the one you are tagging according to the policy. I asked you to read the guide of common practice re POV tags but you haven't listened so i am referring you to it again. Here it is → Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate reporting but this is causing me some grief. Gwen Gale has repeatedly impugned my integrity, while I am trying to have a rational discussion. Here are the diffs:
LOL.. thanks for asking. I do not know. What am I supposed to do? Is uncivil behavior allowed on wikipedia or is it disruptive to the project?--Blue Tie 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Blue Tie, I guess nobody told you. Gwen owns that article so it would be best just to move on. It took me HUGE efforts just to remove the word "Friday" from the lead sentence. With over a million other articles, I wouldn't fight it. Cheers :) --Tom 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that is a good way for wikipedia to operate? I was under the impression it should be different. --Blue Tie 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the more insubstantial complaints I have seen appear on this noticeboard, which, might I remind you, exists for matters which require the attention of administrators.Proabivouac 04:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:MetsFan153 keeps adding current teams to Former teams list in MLB player infoboxes. While there is an ongoing debate about this, it is currently untrue. Now is is accusing me of vandalism, although I'm only keeping all the information correct so I don't see how it is. I've probably violated 3RR, but I'm trying to keep it all accurate and he is changing that.Chris Nelson 04:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Chrisjnelson after already seeing that all current teams on player infoboxs should be kept until a decision is reached, continues to delete them, after being told by myself and one other too stop, user has already been reported on the 3RR. User also has past instigations with other users, over like items.MetsFan153 04:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any admin, just answer me this: Should a list called "Former teams" include the current team, especially when the current team is already listed prominently earlier in the infobox. Listing a current team in a list called "Former teams" is 100% UNTRUE, which Metsfan seems to not realize. I have already expressed my opinion on the infobox debate (he and I happen to agree) but UNTIL the template is changed only former teams should be listed for the sake of presenting true information.Chris Nelson 04:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well since you can't get, "Leave it alone until a decision is reached", a player playing for a team in 2007, who was still with the team in 2006, that is a former team, past year, old roster, different year, different team. MetsFan153 04:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that while he is telling me to "leave it alone until a decision is reached" he has ADDED current teams to player articles over the past few days. God this is so immature.Chris Nelson 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look who's talking your the one who escalated this nonsense, and reading your thing with the Eagles roster, that was pretty immature too, how many edits did you make over one player. Probably double digits.MetsFan153 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this right: he should ignore it until consensus is reached, you should continue doing what you're doing on the assumption that you are right, and it's his fault for bringing your stupid bilateral content dispute to the admin noticeboard, yes? Guy (Help!) 11:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the issue at hand. ;-) Chris Nelson 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares, baseball sucks, college football is where it's at ;). Ok in all seriousness, this sounds like a content dispute to me, over whether "1998 Phillies" or whatever counts as a former team. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can honestly say "Former teams" was intended to include past years with the current organization. One organization is one organization, it is not a former team. He's twisting it, but his arguments are illogical unlike mine. There is only one logical route here.Chris Nelson 05:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That logical route being "This is a content dispute, and does not require admin attention, rather it should go through the dispute resolution process?" ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 05:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this edit and this edit, the Cat is appropriate and I restored. Admininstration, please involve above article to resolve and fix things. Lustead 04:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefblocked Juro(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) per this 3RR report: [56]. The editor has a long history of being blocked for various reasons from civility to edit warring to block evasion. I'm assuming from this that there is no need for Wikipedia to put up with this editor any longer. As I'm not too familiar with the editor's history, though, I've decided to post here for review. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 06:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the block log:[57] and this comment by the last sysop to block the user:
Bogdangiusca (Talk | contribs) unblocked Juro (contribs) (giving one more chance.)
Pretty much sum it up.
I'm curious though, why something like this shouldn't be on the WP:CN? Anynobody 07:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, I don't really believe in that noticeboard. I don't think it's really worked out. Feel free to mention it there, though. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 07:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSN is for those who want to get it done. WP:AN/I is where admins say they did it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. When editors report various incivilities here would it be appropriate to refer their issues there? It's practically empty, and ANI is anything but. Anynobody 07:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I'm also not at all sure if this user is community banned or not. I think it is likely, given the block log, that he has exhausted the community's patience, but I don't know. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 07:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point too, some people may feel the editor hasn't exhausted their patience.
I don't mean to give the idea that I'm second guessing your decision, after what Ryūlóng (竜龍) said this is the right place for it. I have just been wondering about ways to cut down on some of the unnecessary posts here. It sounds like user v user conflict issues should be over there. Anynobody 07:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There will be only 2 editors, whom feel Juro hasn't exhausted patience. Only because they agree on every questions, so their patience will never be exhausted. On the other side, there are 20+ users, whom have fed up with Juro's style, behave and edits in the previous years, many of them even left editing wikipedia. "Pop the question" on Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board, how Juro harassing all the Hungarian users for more than 2 years now. It would be the shame of Wikipedia, if this user would be unblocked again from indefinite ban. Because this is his second indefinite ban, and he absolutely deserved the first one. PS, Juro is a notorious puppetmaster also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Juro (13 on this cu), but I'm sure, another checkuser is needed, since Juro also a known and proved ban evader (5th block from top to bottom) [58]. Anyway, do you really thinking it need any discussion? a 6 times temporary (24,48,1 week), and so far twice (this is his second) indefinite blocked user worth any extra extra extra chances??? --195.56.230.195 10:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please, also place the tag "sockpuppeter" on Juro's userpage. His buddy (or sock?), user:Tankred continuosly deleting it [59], like if it would not be true and proven, and blocked for that. I also suggest a checkuser, but I'm not sure in it's succes, however. But Tankred is definietly acting like a meatpuppet for a long time now. --195.56.211.177 22:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iranica
Resolved
Spam filter prevents me from adding links to encyclopedia Iranica. I think Iranica was blacklisted by mistake or as a result of vandalism. Can someone please fix it? This is a message that I received:
The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.
You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the Spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to allow a particular link without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the Spam whitelist talk page.
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: www.iranica.co
I dunno if it's the same problem but loads of required links for sources on pages that I edit have been blacklisted too. ≈ Maurauth(nemesis) 07:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regex error in spam blacklist, now fixed. See below. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is OK now. Thanks. Grandmaster 10:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request block for this user for homophobic personal attack on another user. JBAK88 (talk·contribs) has also disrupted in various ways including trolling and racism: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. Was previously blocked indefinitely as JBAK (talk·contribs) and Williamdevino (talk·contribs) for death threats, and given a one-month block as User:BOV1993. "88" in username is a far-right abbreviation for "Heil Hitler" - the user (who is openly a fan of far-right causes) has been asked to deny that this is what it means, but has refused to do so. Zaian 08:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to report this user, when I saw this post. I would like to add the following diff where the user added racist term ("kaffir") to article: [66] --Deon Steyn 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I make no representations about JBAK88, the use of "88" does not necessarily mean "Heil Hitler" to everyone. 8, 88, 888 are considered lucky numbers in Singapore. The 2008 Olympics Games will begin on August 8th because of the association of the number 8 with good luck.VK35 19:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough - it could also refer to a date of birth (but doesn't in this case). However, in JBAK's case, it quacks like a duck, and what's more, he's been offered the opportunity to dissociate himself from the far-right interpretation, and has declined to do so. This isn't only about the username though. The user's behaviour has been exceptionally bad over a long period. Zaian 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help
Can someone see this message here [67] and tell me what is going on - I seem to be banned from editing certian page, I have no idea why, it doesn't seem to be proper ban - somebody explain please. Giano 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spam filter went berserk for a few minutes, preventing links to legit sites like msnbc.msn.com and even time.com. Apparently, it was confusing ".co" with ".com". It seems to be OK now - the blacklist itself hasn't changed; maybe the devs were testing something. *** Crotalus *** 08:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try it now. I was getting spam errors for MSNBC links for a couple of minutes but then the problem went away. It must be a software bug of some kind, because the blacklist didn't change in that time period. *** Crotalus *** 08:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a regex error in an addition. Eagle 1010 has now fixed this, everythign should be back to normal. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is now fixed, in short another meta sysop screwed up some regex. Its not a problem now as I've fixed it and I am now cleaning up the mess made on m:Talk:Spam blacklist. I left the following message:
Done the link was never blacklisted, it was a mistake on m:User:Shizhao's part adding \jijija\.com to the spam blacklist, I have now modified that to \bjijija\.com, so this should not be a problem now. —— Eagle101Need help? 09:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IP spoofing Jerry Falwell / Baptist / Ministry spammer
Rants or spam are repeatedly being added to various Jerry Falwell / Baptist / Ministry articles by a vandal spoofing a series of IP addresses, and boasting about it here. See edit history of In Touch Ministries for example of recent identical vandal edits, all from different IPs, e.g.: 65.110.36.50 (open proxy), 72.20.2.30 (now blocked), and 74.228.91.7 (still unblocked). Several of his IPs have been identified on WP:OPP as open proxies. Those that haven't he's somehow still managing to spoof. Liberty University has been protected to stop repeat attacks. By the way, someone's nicked my edit / history etc. tabs from the top of each page, and not moved it to navigation. Can't we leave them where they were? Anyway, that vandal needs to be stopped. ... dave souza, talk 08:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell's going on around here? First we have the forced takeover and subsequent rogueness of several admin accounts, then all sorts of technical problems, from the nuclear IP block to the spam blacklist going crazy to the editing tabs going bye-bye (mine are just fine.) It appears we only have to put up with this nonsense until tomorrow, so semi-protect all relevant articles until then. Then again, maybe I'm too hopeful. Grandmasterka 08:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In breaking news, Jimbo has mandated that all articles be upgraded to full protection to prevent abuse, and Daniel Brandt has been granted sysop status to allow him to edit his own article... Guy (Help!) 09:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my tabs still haven't come back though they were working earlier today – so I can't semi-protect the relevant articles. I did some blocking last night, perhaps our hacker has done something to my account? Most of the info above was put on my talk page by Axlq who'd been removing many of the spam edits and did the WP:OPP searches. Time for walkies, hope someone can sort this out. .. dave souza, talk 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Emptying the cache seems to have sorted out the tabs, so much for paranoia. .. dave souza, talk 10:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To give credit where it's due, another admin User:BigDT posted 7 of this spammer's open proxies on WP:OPP and described the problem on WP:VPT#IP Spoofing vandal; I posted only 3 more, and only 1 of them (so far) was found to be an open proxy. You can probably find more by looking at the edit histories from each IP address and then look at the edit history of one of the abused articles; typically the vandal will vandalize the article from more than one IP. I think most are now listed on WP:OPP now. =Axlq 14:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks well attended to now. Just something else to watch for any repeats. .. dave souza, talk 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Griot - continued disruptive edits
Reporting continued disruptive edits by User Griot. User Griot accused various editors of sockpuppetry. Griot then used sockpuppetry and vandalized these editors. User Griot declared his exit from Wikipedia after editing conflicts with Ralph Nader article. User Griot then returned to Wikipedia and began more disruptive edits. Recommend WP admins block User Griot from articles that aggravate his COI issues. 76.166.123.129
Not agreeing or denying what the IP editor said, but I also had problems with Griot. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 13:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SWATjester. Yep, you, me and many others. His SPP, vandalism, disruptive edting is so apparent, it burns the corneas. 76.166.123.129 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That happens when a title is added to the page but not deleted. Should it exist? It does have references. If it should exist, there are also songs associated with the band that are on the protected titles page. ··coelacan 11:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An answer - I petitioned User:JzG to undelete it, and someone else ended up doing so, I think User:Friday. He may have forgotten/didn't realize that it was, at one point, listed in the protected files. --badlydrawnjefftalk 11:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though there is a a point being made with regards {{spoiler}} tags - Anthony DiPierro is removing them in bulk, with no edit summaries to support the action (see here). I'm going to plump for a hacked account being the cause (no actual edits for a few days, then a rampage of removal - Tiswas(t) 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you'd almost certainly be wrong. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which part? Or have I hit the double? - Tiswas(t) 11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries would be helpful. There's been a good deal of discussion on this, some on this page and/or in the recent archives of this page. To sum it up: it's a somewhat controversial action that has some degree of consensus, and it's not vandalism or a compromised account. It would probably have been a good idea to contact the user first on their talk page and ask what's up. ··coelacan 12:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad on that front - I misread the user page, thinking that the user was a sysop (and, by association, an admin). Leaping, before looking, and all that. - Tiswas(t) 14:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several people trying to delete Wikipedia's spoiler warnings in the RfC have taken to removing spoiler warnings in bulk. Some of them according to the spoiler warning guideline, others not. It disrupts the debate and the editing. The RfC is two days old, and there's been no announcement and very little informing about the attempt to make a sweeping Wikipedia-wide change. That is not "consensus," and that is definitely not grounds to act like their side has already won. A few of them are valid removals of superflous tags, and for that I thank the removers, but the matter should be kept in the RfC - it should not be taken to the streets, as it were, where there can be very little in the way of productive outcomes but a whole lot of edit wars and bad feeling. --Kizor 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:David Gerard is now using WP:AWB to delete spoiler warnings. From the fact that he has done so over 500 times in the last few hours and the list is growing every few seconds, I infer that he's doing so indiscriminately. Apparently, he's trying to remove the spoiler tag from every single plot summary on Wikipedia. This is either an unilateral action resulting from the recently started RfC in progress, or a way to bolster his attempt to destroy spoiler tags altogether. He has not discussed his decision to do this, and there is no consensus that would allow him to do so, and his involvement in the RfC means that he has a conflict of interest with making such a sweeping change. It'd do wonders for my blood pressure if someone was to explain why he is allowed to do that. --Kizor 23:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When a number of editors start making masses of edits of a certain kind, and the net effect is no ruffled feathers or very few, that's a pretty good empirical definition of consensus. There has been surprisingly little opposition to the edits, and those opposing them have been overwhelmed by those supporting them. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please review close of RFC
I have already discussed this with the closing admin on his talk page. He proposed I take my concerns here. I am not sure closing the RFC I filed on MONGO at this time is a good idea. I agree with Guy's motives for bringing the discussion to a close, and some headway was being made at a summary. But he has let the last word (on the discussion page) be MONGO's accusation that the whole RFC was "petty, vindictive and incivil". The summary says that "the complaint has no legs to stand on" "as complaints go this one has no legs", which seems to give MONGO's characterization tacit assent. It should be noted that neither MONGO nor I (who filed the RFC) have endorsed the motion to close. I am not comfortable closing an RFC with two editors (MONGO and I) this far apart and without moving the process further. If someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion could review the decision to close, I'd be grateful.--Thomas Basboll 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The close of the debate as I saw it was that MONGO, while continuing to resist the POV-pushers and conspiracy theorists, should be a little less abrupt while doing so. MONGO seemed to accept that, or at least undertake to give it serious thought. In as much as that was pretty much the stated aim of the RfC, I fail to see what Thomas is complaining about. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the stated aim of the RFC was attained, why did your summary characterize my complaint as having "no legs"?--Thomas Basboll 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody needs to tell Thomas "enough already." Aside from the RfC, see his arbcom filing agains MONGO -- declined, with one arbitrator going so far as to call it "frivolous."[69] Mr. Basboll's dogged pursuit of MONGO no longer serves any purpose and is becoming (has already become) disruptive to the project. Raymond Arritt 14:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I can see why Thomas is concerned. Whatever the merits of the close (it probably did need to be closed), closing with the comment "MONGO should please refrain from being overtly rude to vandals, POV-pushers and trolls, however richly they may deserve it", and it being closed by an admin who endorsed a view on the RfC which said (in part) "we should give [MONGO] a medal, a cigar, and our undying thanks", may be less than ideal from the point of view of neutrality.--Guinnog 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it closed. Frivolous and pointless pursuit and harassment of other editors should not be encouraged or rewarded. --Tbeatty 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they will keep at this as long as anyone will reply to them. Let them have the last word and move on. Tom HarrisonTalk 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hum...well...I've opened the MONGO complaint board which can be linked from my user page or simply by following this link.--MONGO 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advice would be appreciated - ridiculous ultimatum
I will agree to be the one to file the request for mediation, if
(3) you place the sum of $10,000 (US) in an escrow account of my attorney (this can be done anonymously, e.g., through another attorney), which will be returned to you if you abide strictly by the conditions you swear to in (1) and (2), but which will accrue to me if you do not.
I make the above offer in the spirit of compromise. If you truly want mediation, as you said you did at one time, I urge you to accept this offer.
I cut it down a bit, but that's the meat of the matter. I'm reading it as a "Put money on the line or I won't work with you". I think everyone can agree that those kinds of comments have no place here on wikipedia, but what can/should be done about it? Oh, a little bit of background, the two people involved here (and a few meatpuppets) have been in a dispute over an article for quite a while. To me it appears that both parties in the dispute is here simply to argue of the article and do nothing much more for the project. I've tried hard to stay out of the content discussion (due to my ignorance on the topic) but keep the article from boiling over into another "edit war."
I would appreciate some advice on how to proceed in light of the above comment and background. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO it looks like whilst the editor typed his comments he probably got himself more and more worked up, so by the time he got to point 3 he erupted a bit with a silly demand. (Happens to some of us!!) I note you've commented on his user page that you've bought this here, which is fair comment. Couldn't we just ask him to clarify if this is serious (unlikely) or (more likely) a heat of the moment statement and therefore ask him scratch it. It's patently unacceptable of course. Pedro | Chat 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've told Akliman to blank the escrow demand; it is highly disruptive. It's not quite a legal threat so I haven't blocked yet, but if it isn't removed, blocking may be necessary. The editor isn't active at this time, so wait it out. Hopefully when they come back they'll blank the edit and that will be that. ··coelacan 13:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Akliman has rescinded the escrow request. Nobody had to be blocked, thankfully. ··coelacan 14:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close an AFD that has descended into madness
Resolved
Hi, please could someone pop over to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pano2QTVR and close it how they see fit? It has descended into yet another PanoTools vs PanoTools NG argument and an anonymous editor fest. The sooner it is got rid of (either way) the better I think.-Localzuk(talk) 13:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever closes these, please note there are many SPA votes in there. (H) 13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should a banned user be allowed to post comments at checkuser? Should a banned user's comments be kept in a checkuser request out of concern to keep checkuser cases intact?
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. I removed the banned user's long diatribe against Bobblehead, a user in good standing, from the checkuser request per WP:BAN, but it was reinserted by another editor here. I have objected to the reinsertion of the banned user's edits at the checkuser request's talk page, noting that the banning policy allows removal of the edits and noting that the banned user is merely using checkuser as a soapbox. More comments on this issue are welcome. · jersykotalk 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Working with a few people who have been blocked for 3RR, SSP, and edit warring in the attempt to reduce conflict (it's easy to find these conflicts, just look at the 3RR, SSP, RFC pages), trying to hide the edits just encourages them to come back. Sometimes, freedom of speech is better than censorship (even if done under the reason of "banned user"). I remember a case that I tried to informally mediate where one party didn't come back after speaking his/her mind. A comment on the RFCU will likely become lost and forgotten. My guess about human psychology is that if the comment is reverted, expect 100 more to come. See User:rms125a@hotmail.com as a possible example of someone with 200+ socks.VK35 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, freedom of speech doesn't apply on Wikipedia. WP:BAN does. Your comment sounds eerily familiar to me, though . . . · jersykotalk 19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your memory is correct about being familiar. Same point was raised a few days ago at AN/I. [[70]]. After my comment, many other editors made edits regarding this matter. I think this raising this current matter in AN/I is giving it much more publicity than it deserves. I would have let the matter die except there is a need to respond to snipes against me. It's not unique as it happened before to which another editor jumped to my defence and characterised my behavior as "exemplary".VK35 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:UCS applies here to. If he's making a legitimate attempt to defend himself or present his view, let it slide. If he's being disruptive and trolling, yank it. Seriously, just think about things and the right decision becomes clear. This doesn't need an AN/I thread. -Mask? 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the situation: this is a banned user evading his ban, coming in under a new addition to his 20+ sock accounts, to make a false RFCU accusation against one of the editors who had provided evidence of his sockpuppetry. He shouldn't be able to present any view at all - he has been community banned. And the posts of a banned user should be removed and stay removed. It is a completely legitimate thing to have brought up on AN/I. Tvoz|talk 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, yes. Im retarded. Ignore me :) -Mask? 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has repeatedly remove the "Unreferenced" tag from Mothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the article had no sources cited). Then the user puts in
ISBN:0709302177 and there is no mention of this in the ISBN that was given. The user is also on general probation for disruptive behavior. Any thoughts on why this user does not want the article to cite any sources or have references? What can be done? Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu 15:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your objection to using the book as a reference? I'm not sure I understand. I do think asking Pigsonthewing (talk·contribs) about this on his talk page would have been a logical first step instead of coming here. --OnoremDil 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is no mention of anything to do with the article in the references that Pigsonthewing provided, atleast none that I have found. He has also reverted the article three times in a 24 hour period after being on probation for 3RR. Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A book about Mothers doesn't contain information that has anything to do with an article about Mothers?
I could be mistaken, but I believe the probation period is over now. I might be looking at the wrong page though. --OnoremDil 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have to buy the book to see it's references? That's not good enough. Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Books are verifiable...just not immediately, or can there be no reliable sources that don't come with links? I guess we should just remove the section from Wikipedia:Citing sources that explains how to cite books... --OnoremDil 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "put in" ISBN:0709302177, it was in the article before my edits of yesterday and today; in fact it's been there since June 2004. I note that you have ignored my comment about this issue on the article's talk page; but did post a sarcastic and unwarranted "welsome" message on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No false allegation here. You removed the "Unreferenced" tag three times. And what, we have to buy the book to see it's references? Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is acceptable Wikipedia sourcing to require someone to buy a book to see its references. Ken Arromdee 17:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could write to the editor who added the book to the reference list, and have him tell you something about it. It does seem fairly obscure. The book must exist, because it is found under that ISBN at amazon.co.uk and is currently available for sale. I couldn't find the book in any online library catalogs. You could ask for more sources to be added. EdJohnston 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I basicly did when I added the tag (that was removed) OK, the article is challenged per WP:VERIFY. There maybe a book out but one should not have to go out and buy a book that may or may not be a reliable source. A secondary source should be provided that can be checked online via a link. Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been a requirement that a source be online. Books by reputable publishers, by reputable authors, are acceptable sources. Corvus cornix 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your logic and solution Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu, but as a sign of good faith would you please refer to him as Andy Mabbett? It's antagonistic, unnecessary, and makes you look like a WP:DICK no matter how correct you are when you don't. Anynobody 05:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to report the same thing. I can't find any approval of such a bot. Was it even a discussion about this? -- lucasbfrtalk 15:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to be editing at human-like speeds rather than bot-like speeds, but they contibued after warnings (they were substing everything in sight). I've blocked for 24 hours. --ais523 15:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I thought merging was controversial, I'd like to discuss things first to know the oppinion of the community. But known POV pusher, user:cinik has cynically deleted the templates I put to Suicide[71][72] and Anna Halman[73]. Since I don't wish to engage in edit war, I ask to ban user:cinik edit both the article and restore the templates.
I have asked him to discuss at first, but he deleted my petition without edit summary, which is forbidden per se.[74]
The AfD discussion on Anna Halman closed with a Keep. The proposal to merge this article to Suicide makes no sense. The article itself could use some cleanup, but that's just normal editing activity. You complained about User:Cinik removing a message you left on his User Talk, but that's perfectly within the rules. I note in passing that on the Polish Wikipedia, that article seems to have been deleted (as observed by one with no knowledge of Polish, it's a red link). Since English WP is keeping it, I suggest there is no further issue here. EdJohnston 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put his latest target Steve Rizzono up for speedy, per G5. He is the only major editor of the article (through all his sockpuppets) SirFozzie 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has got me mad enough to spit. We keep getting admins closing this discussion who are deeply involved in it. User:JzG has closed it twice, despite having participated in the discussion all along. And several other admins have closed it, and other have opened it (I have done WP:IAR and reopened it) . Not to mention that none of this satifies speedy closure, except that there were previous discussions, all of which were improperly speedy closed. I must go, so I can't speak for long. Please look into to this ridiculous policy violation though. The Evil Spartan 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there are users reopening it who are heavily involved. Pots shouldn't run to mummy complaining that the kettle is black.--Docg 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I never heard about this thing before today. And I think this is ridiculous. Funny you calling me a pot, when you were the one involved doing the closure. Nice try. (Not to mention your WP:IAR arguments are wrong: I see tons of hits on google under "Qian Zhijun"). The Evil Spartan 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole ridiculous charade came about when an admin re-opened the deletion discussion and undeleted the article despite having already !voted to keep the article. I trust any complaint of yours will include this very pertinent fact. -- Nickt 17:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't know about that part. But the admin should have gone to DRV - not that it matters, though. The point is the second DRV, despite this evidence, was to bring back to AFD, and this was completely ignored. The Evil Spartan 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
God forbid we delete an article about a fat kid who was made into a widespread object of derision through absolutely no fault of his own. Thatcher131 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ick. Well, I hadn't known that part of the WP:BLP story. Maybe I should rescind. The Evil Spartan 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't get this, are you saying you hadn't actually read the discussions and the article this is about, yet it made you as mad as you described in your first comment in this thread? Thatcher's comment really isn't some big BLP secret OTRS kind of revelation... --JoanneB 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the previous AfD, particualrly the parts cut-off and existing only in the history, you will find significant arguments as to why BLP does not provide a reason to delte this article. Not everyone finds those argumets persuasive. But they really ought to be addressed, not ignored. The recent full-length DRV found, in effect, that thare was a xase to anawer and tha tthe prior AfD close had not done so, so a new AfD was started, wher the BLP arguments (and others) could be made and met, and perhaps a consensus would result. This new AfD was closed, aftre less than one hour, by an admin who claimed that the previous AfDs ( the ones overturned by DRV) had given the subject all the discussion time in needed. That is simply ignoring the DRV result. There had been a numbe rof other irregularities in the previuous AfD, and a good deal of heat in the Drv discussion. This shows that there is not a WP:SNOW situation here, so an early or IAR close of the AfD was IMO celarly inappropriate. Then when this new close was broght back to DRV, involved admisn "closed" the DRV discussion almost at once. This too is IMO highly inappropriate. DES(talk) 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no early close. The previous AfD ran for over seven days, the DRV had a weight-of-arguments balance for endorse and ran for over six days, the second AfD attracted a huge weight of deletes form some of the most experienced editors we have (including some of the OTRS crowd who rarely pitch in) and the only reason for the second DRV was the wilful and obstinate process wonkery of someone who I will swear blind does know better but chooses to be an ass anyway some of the time. Plus this thread is founded on a misrepresentation of the facts, as noted above. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The weight of numbers in the first DRV was clearly on the side of relisting. Judging the weight of arguments in inherently subjective, IMO (admittedly the opinion of an involved person) the weight of arguments, and in particular of valid, relevant, policy-based arguments on the first AfD was for keep, and on the first DRV was for relisting. The second AfD was closed in less than one hour, which is hardly time for a reasonable sample of people with legitimate views to see the page and express those views, so it can hardly be considered as a consensus, and it was in effect closed with the argument that the first AfD (with all its irregularities) was sufficient and there should be no second AfD the first DRV's closure to the contrary notwithstanding. The second DRV was started because this closure of the second AfD strikes several editors, including myself, as outrageous. What is the point of having a DRV discussion if the resulting AfD is to be closed again 1 hour after it opens? If people want to abolish or drastically change DRV let them create a consensus to do so. DES(talk) 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Neutral, uninvolved with this discussion, note) I've speedily closed the DRV due to it being an out-of-process listing. In the meantime, please feel free to join in on the AfD discussion. - jc37 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, which AFD discussion? The first and second nomination are closed already. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I. If there is an AFD discussion going on, why is the article still deleted? *** Crotalus *** 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted to another user, I was reading too many pages at once, and missed that it was already closed. I'll fix it momentarily. - jc37 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV discussion appears to be open again at the moment. DES(talk) 20:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to the discussion, but it is boggling to me how dismisive some of the attitudes of some of the editors have been on this DRV. Myself and several other wikipedians in good standing are of the opinion that the article should be kept, and I for one am more than willing to discuss the issue in a civilized manner and come to a consensus. While I definitely understand that it is frustrating to some of the editors who have already participated in two deletion debates on this topic, it is equally frustrating that the opinions and arguments of several wikipedians are being dismissed as "process-wonkery". Can we return to the DRV and keep the discussion relevant and civil? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... this DRV has been closed again, this time by User:Mbimmler. I am really hesitant to revert the closing as I don't want to get in a revert-war over this, but are people really this reluctant to even discuss it? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was obviously out-of-process as the user is non-admin and involved in the dispute, so I reverted it. This is getting ridiculous. Prolog 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the article is kept or deleted, in the end, is not all that important. What is important is that both sides get a fair hearing. Instead, there seems to be an insistence by some people that the "keep" arguments be dismissed out of hand. This is unacceptable. *** Crotalus *** 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi, according to Xoloz, ArbComm has blessed non-admins closing DRVs -> [75]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he's an admin or not is beside the point. What matters is that discussion was still going on, there was currently no consensus, and he closed it anyway. That's clearly not acceptable, nor respectful to the numerous good-faith editors who made arguments for the article to be kept. *** Crotalus *** 20:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the DRV, per all the policy arguments (and not the content ones) and relisted it at afd. ViridaeTalk 02:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have remarked on the aggressive editing of the Chicago project before on this page. Their bot has just included Juan Cole, who has no visible connection to Chicago at all. Please act; my last comment on the bot talk page has been ignored. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing here for administrator intervention. Talk to the bot's operator directly at User talk:SatyrTN if you don't like the bot's behavior. ··coelacan 00:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely another sock of Infomanager(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). Contribs show an immediate fixation on the PGNx article. Which was previously infested with puppets: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Infomanager. On the editors 4th edit they post content to their user page from the deleted article [76]. This is significant because it contains links to long deleted images which a new user would have no way of recovering the names for unless they could view the old deleted content (or had access to it having worked on it under a previous account). [77]. RFCU doesn't have a code for this and says to post here. They claim to have gotten the content for the article from another site, however the external site doesn't contain those links to those old images, they have their own image code.[78]--Crossmr 19:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article, Emirates Airline, and related articles, have been the frequent haunt of a serial miscreant, who has been deleting content and replacing it with large chunks of advertising text clearly culled from corporate sites - stuff about how luxurious the planes are and how opulent the airport lounges are, etc. He's persistent and prolific, and I've no doubt that we've missed a lot of the junk he's been adding. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure why you brought your question that, essentially, is asking what CambridgeBayWeather's intentions were, as opposed to asking CambridgeBayWeather at his or her talk page, but I can comment (as an involved editor who is active on that page) that multiple editors have repeatedly posted content directly from pages within http://www.dubaiairport.com/. Searching Google (within the domain) for unique phrases reveals that the copyrighted version comes from multiple pages. --Iamunknown 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the history. Then the copyright version which can be found here, here and here. You could have asked me about it. I just blocked the last IP for a week due to them reinserting it. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk) 20:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has been attacking editors (including myself) and creating attack pages. I don't feel comfortable blocking him (as I am an involved party) but can someone review this user's actions and take action? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reported him to WP:AIV after his recent set of attack articles/edits if that's any help. I'm not an admin obviously, but I figured any help here can't hurt. Wildthing61476 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks like this are more complex than simple vandalism, which is why I posted it here, but I guess either way works. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, the attacks made on my talk page, and yours ikiroid are of a threatening nature. Understandbaly this is a kid acting like a toughy on the internet, but death threats are something not to laughed off. Wildthing61476 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, if anything of the sort happens again I'll just ignore policy and indef the editor. Because the editor had made some constructive edits and I've only been an admin for two and a half days, I was uncomfortable making such a difficult block. Don't think I was going to let it blow over though. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy vio allegations with no immediate proof
Not sue how to move here. Phoenix Arts Centre has had an IP repeatedly either blanking or adding speedy delete tags. Finally they agreed to communicte on the articles talk page, and I have no issue now re: 3RR etc. The problem is that the anon asserts copyright violation but as it stands I can't see how they can offer any proof (after all if they turn up with it now who's to say which was first?). I have checked the homepage of the articles subject and find no vio at all. Here? Or direct me to another department please admin type people !!! HELP!!Pedro | Chat 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This collection of anon edits adds some really obviously ripped-off text. The Centre's website is a study on shocking unusability, but certainly some of the stuff added by that anon is straight from this page on the centre's website. Our current article is clearly highly derivative of that article, so I do think it's a copyvio. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the main body seems okay. Or shall we just RFD the whole article - it hardly seems that great as it stands I have to say and notability looks dodgy. Also - anyone want to comment on the 3RR thing, or am I now in breach myself ????
Yeah, that sure is one sexy site. I particularly like the onload action - fresh from the late 90's!!! :)Pedro | Chat 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our current article is clearly highly derivative of that article, so I do think it's a copyvio - how does that work? Derivative works of copyright works are still copyrighted... and our article is, as you admitted, a derivative work of the website, yet its not a copyvio? --Iamunknown 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I wrote "I do think it's a copyvio". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IP asserts that they created the text but it was not used by the company (a school project). How can we resolve this ? The IP has only basically edited this article, here for more, yet seems reasonably adept at inserting images and sd tags but unsure of how to use talk pages etc. I really am not fussed - I found this on RC Patrol - but it does seem to need attention. Pedro | Chat 20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed wikipedia about this, i can provide a copy of the orginal site it was copied from, if you look at the history of teh page, you will see the orginal article was cut down because it was written as an advertisment, it was written like that because on a website you try to sell the company.
After reading your comments, I would once again, love to add that the website they currently have displayed is NOT my work, I have more talant than that.
That was just a bit of humour and I don't doubt you could do better. Why not rewrite the article rather than tagging / blanking ? If you are happy to do that under WP:GFDL then the problem is solved. Alternatively put it to WP:AFD. Pedro | Chat 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not going to rewrite the article because i'm pissed at the company for using it in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.140.194 (talk • contribs).
BTW, i have a new IP address, some loser put a block on my old one. He actually caused me 4 extra clicks to get a new IP. I'm still here for discussion though
IP dude - do you have a Ticket Number from your email to the email support? If so, I would be happy to conduct my own investigation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this article popping up in my Watchlist from when I categorized it way back when. I went back to the original version of the article and realized that it actually referred to a theatre in Leicester, and not the theatre in Hastings. The original article was overwritten. I have reverted back to the last version that referred to the original subject of the article. This does solve any copy-vio problems, but, of course, the AFD notice is a problem. Should it be reinstated, bearing in mind that it now refers to a different subject? Flowerpotmantalk|contribs 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave it and watch it I guess - to much has gone on there for one evening!Pedro | Chat 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem has been solved by Flowerpotman. Kindly don't use the IP switching to evade bans in the future. Pedro | Chat 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, yeah, so i'm just gonna sit on my arse and wait 3 hours when 4 clicks can get me back into the site and aid in sorting it all out.
OK so the article existed before the IP's edits. oldid, and the article was eventually contributed to by the IP. diff. I find it hard to see where any copyvio allegations can be raised, without a link to the alleged violation. Further, this guy needs to stay blocked. He's already being dealt with on OTRS, no need for him to continue block evading on wiki to prove a point. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 02:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User: Calton
Despite admins warnings and blocks, User Calton continues to litter articles with ugly and/or inappropriate templates, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, etc. Recommend block user from articles around which he can't seem to stop vandalizing, reverting and making uncivil remarks. 76.166.123.129 20:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Guy, don't think so. Pretty obvious Calton has repeatedly trashed articles and violated various WP alphabet. Suggest bringing in admins with a little diginity. Guy ignored the template that disputed article deletion. Any honorable admins who see the writing on the wall want to participate? If not, no reason for me to stick around. 76.166.123.129 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest shutting up about your dispute over the deletion of your article. I did not ignore it, but " notable enough" does not constitute grounds for challenging deletion. It wasn't. Feel free not to stick around, and do let me know if you need help with that. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to advise the anon -- who is almost certainly the owner/subject of the articles in question she's whinging about -- that she's had several MONTHS to make a credible assertion of notability (or even the slightest assertion in the case of the now-twice-deleted Seasons & a Muse, Inc.) and has failed to do so. Also, removing unambiguous speedy tags? Definitely a no-no. --Calton | Talk 11:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the best approach is to take this problem directly to the university computing center where this malicious user is known to operate and contact the administrative personnel there, using existing Wikipedia procedures for such contacts. Since other preventive measures have failed, use of these external contact procedures is justified by the very extensive sock and meat puppet recruitment tied to this person. Buddhipriya 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing and possible wikistalking
It seems that User:Vlad fedorov decided to "get even" with me after returning back after 3RR block. Today he started reverting all my edits (or deleting large segments of sourced text) in many articles that I edited recently. Please see:
[85] He reverts even such minor thing as a category.
[86] He inserts poorly supported defamatory statements to biography of a living person, although two other editors disagree
[87] He reverts previously protected version of article Boris Stomakhin that is currently under official mediation, see [88]
[89] Another deletion of well sourced text without discussion
He edits in a highly disruptive manner article GRU.
That is all he accomplished today. Honestly, I am very tired of that. Can anyone give me a piece of advice, please?Biophys 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What could I say? Look into Biophys contribs since 9th of May 22:47 when I was blocked. Biophys used this moment to revert all of my contributions and all of our agreements on the articles. So, if Biophys who wasn't stopped by anyone deleting all of mine contributions is not disruptive, then why my edits, returning back the hard work that I have done searching for reliable sources and contributing to the articles, are considered by Biophys as disruptive? Please also tell since what times adding contributions to Wikipedia by me is disruptive and deletion of sourced texts by Biophys is undisruptive? Calling your opponents editing disruptive, vandalous, etc. is very easy way to win the ordinary content dispute, right?
However, if User:Theresa Knott doesn't wish to look at the articles at the issue, let me show some diffs by Biophys while my blocking period.
diff Biophys deletion of sourced judgement of the most respective international organization - changing it to the local US nongovernmental organization judgement. Article Russia. See his comment:"(The statement by Gil-Robles is outdated (2004); the rating by Freedom House is recent (2007). But maybe this statement by FH should be moved to a different place? I am not sure.)".
diff deletion of text concerning the criticism of both the author and the book in Putin's Russia. See Bophys comment:"rv - please read talk page - this article is about the BOOK, not about Politkovskaya. There is a separate article about her. This text was simply cut and pasted from another WP article.)".
diff Deletion of absolutely sourced criticism on the conflict of interests in the organization. Article [Glasnost Defense Foundation]. See Biophys comment:"(irrelevant info removed, see talk page)". Self-explainable? Other editors - Mikkalai and Alex Bakharev found my information useful, but Master Biophys doesn't.
diff Deletion of the information about a case on which the whole book is founded. Article [Blowing up Russia: Terror from within]. See Biophys comment:"(remove not relevant information copied from another WP article)". Self-explainable?
diff Reinserting again extreme POV with violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Article List of political parties in Russia. Look into history of this article - Biophys does it systematically and doesn't want to compromise with other editors. See Biophys comment: "(rv - if you want to make NPOV version - please add more things supported by your sources, rather than deleting well referenced text (this may be considered as vandalism))".
diff Reinserting again the whole POV section full of allegations and moved by user QZXA2 to talk page for discussion. Article Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. See Biophys comment: "(rv - large-scale deletion of well sourced text without discussion. "Too POV" is not an argument. You can try to make small changes if they are justified and supported by alternative references.)" WP:OWN? Self-explainable.
diff Article Tambov Rebellion. See Biophys comment: "(Removing large segment of text copied from another article, which is completely unsourced. It creates duplications and makes the article unreadable; other edits)". Self-explainable?
diff. Article Anna Politkovskaya - deletion of all criticism section. Comment by Biophys:"(removing a few defamatory statements supported by a single unreliable source and a couple of outdated comments by non-notable people; minor editing. This article is already too long.)". Self-explainable? Any critcism of Biophys political POV - is defamatory in Wikipedia and should be deleted according to him. But if he inserts his extreme POV in the article with violation of WP:UNDUE he than typically says add your POV. But afterwards he begins his campaign about defamation and unreliable sources.
diff Again deletion of the information, that Biophys doesn't like. Again article Anna Politkovskaya and again the same comment:" (Two more non-notable opinions; Mayorov is a sportsmen)".
Yevgenia Albats. All claims of Biophys about defamation and poorly sourced statements are false. All that I described in the article is a well known thing in Russian internet. You may ask both Ellol, Irpen and Alex Bakharev in order to ascertain this. All the sources are provided to every sentence. Most of the sentences have two or more sources.
diff Reinsertion by Biophys of the category "Russian dissident" in the article of terrorist Akhmed Zakayev.
diff. Again editing the article to his POV while I am blocked. Comment of Biophys:"(more proper categorization and more consistent with sources. He is former political prisoner according to Amnesty International.)".
diff Reinserting unsourced POV category. Again. But this time Biophys doesn't provide explanations since there are no sources in support of his category.
Political repression of cyber-dissidents. Boris Stomakhin was sentenced by the court because in his publications he called to exterminate all Russians without any mercy and was calling to commit terrorist attacks on Russian civilians. Therefore he can't be described as a political blogger. Mr. Osama Bin Laden is not a dissident, or he is? Methods of repression are claimed to be stalking, bullying and psychological methods? Well there are no such information in source Biophys inserts - Bagryansky. And the creation of internet teams is described not in Bagryansky but by Saydykov article - and iit is just pure allegations without any evidence - but I left them.
diff Again revert to his lovely POV version. David Satter. Comment by Biophys:"(rv to 162.129.250.1 (Talk) at 03:59, 15 March 2007. Same text but better English.)".
diff Reinserting "victim of political repressions" category into terrorist article.
diff Article Internet brigades. Deletion of my tag. As for Biophys claims of deletion of his edits. It is he actually who deletes information that I insert. Just look at that latest diff.
As for wikistalking see the history of all the articles involved - I have edited them long ago. Biophys allegations of stalking are very old indeed and see my RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov where even my strong opponents like User:Piotrus acknowledge that there is no wikistalking.
Potential? I say it's a legal threat. Support block. x42bn6TalkMess 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely is a legal threat. Looking through the user's contribs, he/she seems to be canvassing admins for support in deleting the article. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S/he seems to be new to Wikipedia, and may not have been aware of our policies. I think that a warning or a clear explanation would probably be better than a block. I didn't do it myself (and mentioned the issue here instead) because from our conversation in that talk page I fear s/he wouldn't pay much attention to anything I say :-) Regards, Ev 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was a newbie error, it is too much to allow. The soapboxing, the incivility, the confrontational and disruptive editing etc. won't go away with experience. I say a block is justified. A legal threat is a legal threat. Period. AecisBrievenbus 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ev, I was impressed by your responses on the talkpage, but her(?) behaviour could hardly be excused by inexperience; threats of any kind are simply incompatible with our working environment and goals. A brief block and a very firm explanation of policy would seem to be appropriate. Doc Tropics 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what Doc has said: your behaviour on the talk page has been exemplary, Ev. You didn't let yourself get outshouted, you explained our policies and guidelines clearly, you remained civil and you never bit him/her. AecisBrievenbus 00:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; page protection helps a lot :-). To be honest, I simply don't like the idea that "everyone can edit": too much time & effort is lost because of incivility & plain disruption. And yet, since account creation doesn't include some "be civil and follow policy or be blocked" wording, I would feel uneasy about personally blocking new users that may not be aware yet of what Wikipedia really aims to be. In any case, since -luckly- I'm not the one making the decision, if you think a block would work better than a clear warning alone, I won't object: arguing with such emotionally-involved users is too often futile. - Regards, Ev 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request uninvolved admin to look at spamming situation
Hello. Can I ask an uninvolved admin to have a look at HIPAA Compliance Validation Services and perhaps have a word with User:LokiThread? S/he is continually adding promotional links to the article. In fact, this user created the article as a fork after being told not to keep inserting their links at HIPAA. They've continually de-tagged the article and reinserted the links ([90]), and apparently believe that I'm making up the provisions of WP:EL and WP:SPAM. I'm involved, so would appreciate input from an uninvolved user or admin. MastCellTalk 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the text seems to come from other websites verbatim as well... I put one link on the discussion page. --Cheers, Komdori 23:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that pickup - I missed that. We had a pretty persistent spammer from the Supremus Group (one of the copyrighted sites) some months back, so this may be a redux. HIPAA is a spam magnet. I should probably add some (sourced) content to the HIPAA article about how the regulations have led to a cottage industry of "HIPAA consultants" and their attendant spamming/promotional efforts... MastCellTalk 23:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images
The images on that page may be copyvio as well. Eventhough they are tagged PD, it states "proprietary image of autor". --Edokter (Talk) 23:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just noticed that. I asked LokiThread (talk·contribs) to explain on his talk page. Thanks much for all the extra eyes on the article... I don't think I'd have picked up the copyright issues. MastCellTalk 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please disable TWINKLE
As mentioned on WP:VPT, it's currently putting the word "undefined" in a bunch of places. Could someone please blank the source code or something until it's fixed? -Amarkovmoo! 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not exactly possible, even if we blanked it people would still use it until they purged their browsers. The best thing to do is to notify the developer of it, and have him fix it ASAP. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Kinda stinks, then, because Azatoth doesn't appear to be currently on. -Amarkovmoo! 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would still be somewhat effective, and it would be increasingly effective over time, right? —Centrx→talk • 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The caches will eventually refresh, which is why it updates automatically. We could blank it. Prodegotalk 01:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I guess so, I'll go blank them, I presume its the revert part only? If so I'll just blank that part with a note to the developer :) —— Eagle101Need help? 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Just note that this is not likely to have much of an effect for a few hours). —— Eagle101Need help? 01:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like User:Prodego made an edit, it might fix the problem. Prodego, I suggest reverting back to the May 3 version (we know it works). —— Eagle101Need help? 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, twinkle is not blanked, but the problem should be solved, I'll do some testing. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the May 6 version is correct code wise, it fixes a mistake in the May 3 version. Looks like it just takes an hour or so before the cache automatically clears, based on when AzaToth made the breaking edit. Prodegotalk 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, Twinkle fits well into my UI, and I'd be significantly less happy without it. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'll confirm that the existing version of twinkle is working correctly. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed Azatoth about it, so don't spam him anymore if anybody has. :-) Evilclown93 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't working. CSD is OK, though, for now. It's only rollback that's glitched. Evilclown93 02:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It will take a while for my revert to affect you, or you could manually clear your cache, which will fix it immediately. Prodegotalk 02:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kizor blocked
I've blocked User:Kizor for 24 hours for a mass reversion of David Gerard's removal of some of our stupider spoiler tags. The intent is simply to edit war, following and undoing every one of David's removals without thought. This is not an acceptable practice. Phil Sandifer 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... why was removing them in the first place, which any reasonable person should know would be disputed, any better? I mean, Kizor didn't even use AWB, while the original removals did. -Amarkovmoo! 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A block is heavy-handed in this case, especially since you seem involved in the debate. You should have asked an uninvolved admin. I suggest unblocking to facilitate discussion. --Spike Wilbury 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see a need for oversight. It was a BLP concern, to be sure (claim that subject was arrested for assault), with no real source, other than answers.com and the name of a TV episode, neither of which specifically refer to what part of the sourcing contains the actual reference. It's reverted, it needs to stay out, etc. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than this than first meets the eye. The IP failed to source edits. However, Frank Pais has previously reverted a valid reference to the Toronto Sun, specifically about the arrest. I'm going to reinsert THAT edit, and leave the IP's edit out. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was the source: " ^ Jonathan Jenkins. "Eatery 'stormed;' Diners terrorized as Zundel fans and anti-racists clash", The Toronto Sun, September 15, 2004, p. 36"...surely that meets BLP. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 03:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree with a block solely on that grounds, but the user's most recent edit is reporting an admin to AIV for a deletion someone else carried out. So in this particular case, the block is perfectly fine. -Amarkovmoo! 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen them throwing a barnstar randomly at a talk page of a controversial user whom they don't know i believe. Esperanza is not active anymore. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking long-term block for vandal account: User:Martonte
The editor uses this week-old account to create and recreate (after admin warning) hoax articles about a purportedly "popular" musical performer, presumably the editor himself, and his associates. The editor falsely claims the performer is affiliated with major record labels (in the first version of the article, Epic; in the second, Atlantic) and has released albums for which no records can be found. There are no Google hits and no AllMusic listing for this performer or the musical acts he claims membership in -- or, in cases where the acts actually exist, no record of his association with them.
User:Martonte inserts factually-inaccurate information into articles, presumably for the purpose of self-promotion, either inserting this non-existent or sub-notable "performer" into lists of musical acts or else falsely claiming for him current or former membership in real musical acts: [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99].
User:Martonte also ignores warnings against removing speedy tags and inserting factually-inaccurate information: [100], [101], [102]
As well, the editor uploads potentially unfree images with frivolous assertions about their sources and licensing/copyright status: "somewebsite," "don't know":
[103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]
I've given an indefinite block. See if he finally pays attention to his talk page. I'm willing to listen to a reasonable {{unblock}} (go go second chances), but I have a feeling that the user might not even respond. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stevanjak (talk·contribs) was modifying Bitola inscription. I suspect a problem based on his style of edits (e.g. changing the date to mismatch what is shown on other language versions of Wikipedia and internet sources), also claiming that there is no date visible on the inscription (which I doubt, since internet sources showing an image of the inscription seem to have markers in the general location of these numbers). He's also been known to blank the page previously or otherwise remove content improtant for the article.
He's not active now (although he is a recent editor), but I strongly consider his sources to be suspect. --Sigma 7 04:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Done the link was never blacklisted, it was a mistake on m:User:Shizhao's part adding \jijija\.com to the spam blacklist, I have now modified that to \bjijija\.com, so this should not be a problem now. —— Eagle101Need help? 09:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
![[77]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:PGNxMediaHorizontalLogo2.jpg){kind=link}
![[103]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kyle-massey-3.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[104]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:BeiBVHE051306-0194.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[105]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Sam_logo.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[106]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Picture_013.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[107]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:P56738R4PD0.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[108]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Trav_K.jpg&action=history){kind=link}