Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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

Proposed topic ban - User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand

I'd like to propose a topic ban by MickMacNee (talk · contribs) in regards to actions by Betacommand (talk · contribs). It's apparent that Mick has a real animus toward Betacommand, as demonstrated by comments in the recently-archived massive thread about Betacommand and in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count, as well as all of its predecessor threads in various forums. I'm not saying that Mick's concerns are without basis, but his obvious animosity, forum-shopping, and refusal to heed the advice of others is disruptive. Betacommand is under close community scrutiny, and I don't think that Mick's particular close attention on Betacommand's contribs is required. I, and others (including Until 1==2 and AuburnPilot) have tried to discuss this with him (most recently here) but I'm afraid the advice is falling on deaf ears. Would appreciate the community's opinion on this. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support My patience has been exhausted, as has a lot of peoples I suspect at that MFD. It is clear that Mick is blinded when it comes to Beta. Perhaps a forced withdrawal will help. Woody ([[User talk:Woody|tal16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban on MickMacNee towards issues relating to Betacommand. In my past experience with Mick I have noticed 3 things: 1) He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack, 2) He will never stand down when he is sure he is right and 3) He has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that.

I think it is in the interest of the community to ask Mick to not deal with Betacommand. Other people who don't have an ax to grind can handle that situation. _{1 != 2} 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. --Conti|✉ 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - seems to always be around alleging conspiracy. —TreasuryTag—t | c 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not forum shopped. Please expand this claim if you want it to stand. And it is demonstrably clear that that an Mfd of that page was the next logical step (and only valid step), as identified by many other editors who followed the events surrounding that page. As for 1==2, 1) is wrong, please prove, 2) and you would? 3) Again wrong, please prove. Yes, other people are dealing with the larger situation (you will note I had no hand in the initiation or voting on that solution), so please demonstrate what you hope to achieve going forward by this action? (bar plain censorship of legitimate actions such as commenting at an Mfd) MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

proof for 1 and 3(your behavior on this page), and proof for 2. _{1 != 2} 16:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please show exactly where "I perceive people who disaree with me as a personal attack". Please show an exact diff where I accuse someone of a personal attack without justification. A link to an entire page is frankly insufficient if you want to make such claims, and shows this issue for what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I am tired of arguing with you, I never get anywhere because you don't seem to take anyone else's opinion into account. I will let others decide if my links are enough or not. _{1 != 2} 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. It's really annoying and part of the reason why we're discussing a topic ban. Maxim_(talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You want the truth then? 1==2 and Kelly can't accept that an Mfd of a page owned by Beta is acceptable, despite numerous independant calls for one, so they come here, because they can't convince me that what happens at an Mfd in user space overrides what happens in wikispace, and they think they don't have to argue their point because my past history with Beta is enough for their views to count by default, because they can't reconcile the fact that the highlighted inconsistencies in their arguments go against the accepted principles of how wikipedia works. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would we resort to conspiracy and backended attacks when it is clear that the MfD is not going to have any effect? Pretty much nobody agrees with the MfD and it will be closed as Kept. No this is about the way you are presenting yourself, and it goes well beyond just the MfD a quick look at your talk page shows that this is about you going after Beta for anything you can find. _{1 != 2} 17:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As if you even know what the last issue was about (or would even take a side that doesn't support your current one). MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack"... I actually did follow the original discussion and I do know what it was about. It was about something unrelated, yet there you were going after beta. _{1 != 2} 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Beta cannot be wrong in two separate issues. Impossible. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support the topic ban as proposed above, Alex Muller 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT springs to mind. EJF (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but 21 keep voter in an Mfd does not override the stated wishes of 31 editors in wikispace, whether they were made a day ago, or in this case a few months ago. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked for more proof, "has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that" describes that last post of yours very well. _{1 != 2} 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

God was this response ever ironic... Resolute 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To 1==2, You are incessantly backflipping, one minute you think 21 keep votes is consensus, now you don't. It is obvious that the Mfd is not the place to discuss a previous wikispace arrangement, despite the fact you really want it to because the diversion and subversion suits the current agenda. You haven't got the balls or the integrity to take the issue to the correct venue. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about the MfD not having consensus, it clearly does. "He will never stand down when he is sure he is right"... You are actually re-enacting each of the reasons I supported this topic ban. This is tragic. _{1 != 2} 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• yes, I fully support this proposal. We clearly have issues to sort out with Beta's behaviour but we aren't going to be able to do it in the background of constant harping on about previous events from MickMacNee. I personally feel that this is a sanction that should be used more frequently to take the heat out of other disputes that are fuelled by personal animus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - A definite need for this. asenine ^{say what?} 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I've blocked MickMacNee for 24 hours for incivility, provocation and personal attacks. I've, with a note, listed three examples of such in the last 2-3 hours on his talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 17:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Extended to 48 hours for repeating the same behaviour on his talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sceptre ^(talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Just becaue he's sometimes right about Betacommand doesn't mean he's allowed to act the way he does. --Carnildo (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• My point of view precisely. —TreasuryTag—t | c 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - (ec) There are definite issues regarding BetaCommand's behaviour. However, constantly prodding and poking involved parties and then attacking them when they reply is probably the worst way of going about resolving them. He is complaining about BC's incivility, and then goes around doing the same [and arguably worse] things himself. The words kettle, pot and black spring to mind! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:06, May 25, 2008 (UTC)
• Support - if there's any evidence to support it, a reciprocal ban would be appropriate... however every incident in which the two came to blows that I've experienced has been precipitated by MickMackNee. Happy‑melon 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I sympathize with some of Mack's views, but I think he has gotten so burnt out and frustrated on Beta related topics that he can't effectively contribute to discussion surrounding it. Maybe he is right in how upset he is with the community's actions on these issues, but simply acting upset time and time again over it in a incivil manner isn't helping his cause, only disrupting things. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - MMN is entirely unable to stay civil in matters related to Betacommand. His participation in discussions almost always has the effect of inflaming the dispute and increasing the drama. However, given the combative attitude he often displays, I'm unsure how effective this will be in avoiding more drama and blocks. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this, if anything, I imagine banning Mack on this will result in him just leaving the project, where, outside of a lot of this drama, he does good work. Of course, this is not to say that topic/ban or a block of incivility shouldn't happen if the community demands it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that barring any sudden influx of contrary opinions that it has been decided that MickMackNee is banned from topics related to Betacommand due to past behavior. _{1 != 2} 18:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose MickMacNee has been a much needed balance to the "BetaCommand Can Do No Wrong Cabal". - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"1) He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack, 2) He will never stand down when he is sure he is right and 3) He has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that" would apply at least as well to Betacommand. If MickMacNee has become burnt out because of the ongoing problems with BC, then perhaps those who have done so much to defend BC from criticism should examine their consciences. DuncanHill (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that Betacommand needs attention, I don't think what Mick brings is "balance". _{1 != 2} 19:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The protection of his talk page just looks vindictive, in my opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support unprotecting his talk page and making some kind of transclusion so his comments there can be seen here. Kelly ^hi! 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To be completely frank I think that unprotecting his talk page will lead to him saying something that will get him in more trouble, see [1]. Give a guy enough rope... But I don't oppose the unprotection because he may surprise me and act appropriately. _{1 != 2} 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I am by no means a member of the "BetaCommand Can Do No Wrong Cabal" (as Allstarecho put it), but MickMackNee's actions are bordering on harassment. It's time we force a separation between these two editors. - auburnpilot talk 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support The way MMN is making his points has been more than unhelpful, and his argumentative behavior only make it harder for everyone to take seriously the other "BC opponents". -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Especially after the latest 48 hour block. Will also support a reciprocal ban, if needed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The 34 comments Mick made on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count were excessive and, IMO, badgering. Couple that with the 30+ comments that he made about BC on this page the other day, and it's clear he just can't stop at this point. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. About time too. MMN's hounding of Betacommand, pushing BC beyond human endurance and then shouting loudly when BC snaps has been some of the worst behaviour I've seen on Wikipedia. MMN's trolling and similar behaviour toward anyone who speaks up for BC or takes issue with him (MMN) is also appaling. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This has been a long time coming. naerii - talk 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think this is an appropriate restriction. MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have no problem with this proposed topic-ban. MickMacNee has gone far beyond the bounds of acceptable decorum and is simply inflaming an already inflammable situation. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Whilst I also get irritated by the number of people who bring up complaints regarding Betacommand and his bots, I am absolutely against the principle of silencing them by topic banning. Topic banning a complainant is not going to encourage anyone else with a legitimate (or even nor so legitimate - but something that can be resolved) issue with BC to use the admin boards as resolution process, and may permit BC to believe that they can continue in the contentious style as they have previously. Betacommand has serious issues regarding his communication skills with both the use of his bots and his reaction to criticism of them. If we wish to reduce the number and variety of complainants in respect of BC I suggest that BC is the party that needs to be actioned. If MickMacNee has violated WP policy/guidelines then pursue that avenue, but lets not sanction the malcontent for simply bringing up the issue. If exasperation and irritation were the basis of considering sanction then Betacommand would not now be editing WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, Betacommand has already been sanctioned. --Conti|✉ 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am aware of that. However, my point is that removing the critic is not the way to deal with the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If this were a case of somebody "simply bringing up the issue," that would be perfectly fine, but Mick has taken his opposition to Beta to a level that can only be described as stalking and harassment. Mick doesn't just bring up the issue, but badgers Beta and anyone else who disagrees with his (Mick's) stance on the issue. Civil discourse is fantastic; Mick's obsession is not. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: This has been a long time coming; there are enough issues dealing with Betacommand already; MMN doesn't help things and has a tendency to make things a lot worse. I feel that taking him out of the picture will help the overall situation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This situation needs to deescalate, and Beta has enough critics to keep him sober. I'm not convinced MMN's presence here helps, and I'm quite certain it hinders. --Haemo (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose BC has been out of control forever and if he'd displayed half a lick of sense or self control over the past year the reaction to him wouldn't be so extreme. He's slipped the noose more times than he deserves and there needs to be critics on him and challenging his supporters. I'm looking forward to seeing if sanctions on BC actually stick. Wiggy! (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Mick made several excellent points during the previous discussion and although he could have presented them better, he was more civil than Betacommand. Why do Betacommand supporters single Mick out, while failing to acknowledge Betacommand's misconduct and communication problems? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mild support. MickMacNee's frequent and relentless criticisms of Betacommand often seem to hold back productive discussion. Yes, Betacommand has earned the criticism in many ways, but MickMacNee has the tendency to keep hounding Betacommand about something long after the point has been made. Mick has been quite adept at finding problems, but now we all know about the problems and need to find solutions. That said, it will be a shame if a topic ban is successfully applied to MickMacNee but Betacommand's sanctions fail to stick, just because Betacommand has more friends in high places than MickMacNee. So it is very important that community consensus works both ways. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. When the way in which a user expresses his very very good points, and the frequency with which he expresses them, begins to annoy people more than the original problem he was attempting to solve, then the "solution" has become a separate, yet equally vexatious, problem. Mick has been asked repeatedly to slow down, to cool off, to disengage, and to back away from Betacommand--in fact, he's been asked, begged, cajoled, warned, and threatened (and topic-banned once before, IIRC)--and yet he persists in the behaviors the community has requested to end. A topic-ban would allow the Beta conversations to continue with a little less heat and a little more light, and would free Mick up to contribute to the encyclopedia--which is the whole point of this endeavor, after all. I find myself in agreement with Mick more than otherwise, but if he can't moderate his own modes of expression (and regrettably, that seems to be the case) then a topic ban will have to serve the same purpose. Sorry, Mick. Well, I was regretful, until I read this; now all I am is curious, as to why people insist on shooting themselves in the feet. Jeebus. Gladys J Cortez 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. User's contributions in regard to this area have become unhelpful to the point of disruption. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support, Mick left us no other choice. Whenever I see him posting here or to ANI, I know it will be about Betacommand or bots in general. He had been disuptive in this topic for the last half year. Several blocks din't help, so another measure needs to be taken. Topic ban is the kind of restriction that allows the user to concentrate on contributing to encyclopedia, instead of harassing Betacommand. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per all above. Note that Mick is on a 48-hour ban for incivility and might not be back here to respond for a while. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, fails to address the cause of the disruption, which is the behaviour of BC - all of the behaviours criticized in Mick are directly comparable to behaviours of BC, which certain editors and admins have been enabling and even encouraging for a long time. Smacks of "shoot the messenger", and may have a "chilling effect" on other editors seeking to raise concerns about the behaviour of prominent editors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• He's been over-the-top sometimes. However, BC's behavior is an ongoing problem that has yet to be solved. Someone pointing this out isn't a bad thing, and Mick (sometimes) makes valid points. Friday (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose This is a blatant attempt to silence someone who has done possibly more than anyone else to bring Betacommand's misbehaviour and bad conduct to the attention of the community. The fact that some people are even talking about bans for him clearly proves this. Jtrainor (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Whenever an issue regarding Betacommand crops up, Mick has to throw in his two cents. We all understand that he doesn't like BC, but his dislike is rather extreme and often crosses the boundary of WP:NPA. Horologium (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose While I agree he can be excessive in his commentary, he performs a useful role in keeping the thing honest and I really don't feel censorship is the answer here, especially given Betacommand's woeful standard of conduct and a certain very loud section of the community's willingness to let him away with anything on principle. Orderinchaos 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: Can admins issue topic bans?

I'm having trouble finding mention that the creation of a topic ban is something which Administrators should do. At the top of this page is stated Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure editors should follow where possible. Assorted Administrator instructions do not mention topic bans except as enforcement of ArbCom decisions. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators acting alone can't issue topic bans unless an arbitration remedy allows them to (eg. the remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia), but the support of community consensus can. See the bottom section of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions only states that ArbCom can issue topic bans, and at the bottom is tacked on a list of non-ArbCom restrictions. There is no explanation there of the authority under which Admins can impose restrictions. Have the dispute resolution procedures been followed? -- 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on this specific case, and responding solely to this "point of order," it's been done before. The community is able to completely ban a user from the project, should consensus emerge to do so; it stands to reason that lighter but similar remedies fall within that remit and will sometimes be preferred. If need be, treat the partial ban as a community declaration of a final line that will trigger a ban or block with teeth if crossed. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you'd really like to see it in black and white, Wikipedia:Banning policy contains some relevant text. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It would seem entirely bizarre, and even a bit irrational, if admins can impose a full prohibition from the wiki without expiration (an indef block) but cannot impose a prohibition from a single area of the wiki (a topic ban). Just a thought. Vassyana (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as one is not attacking content pages or deleting people's comments , I don't see that any of us has a right to silence him in the discussion space . Our decision ( which , judging from some of the content on this page , is not assured ) that BetacommandBot performs in a perfectly reasonable fashion does not void the opposition's right to expression . As long as the language is not abusive or threatening or specifically engineered for the suppression of others' expression , I don't think that we ought to have any right to limit a person's posts on talk pages . --Frank.trampe (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Exact wording re topic ban of User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand

I propose:

MickMacNee shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Betacommand, on any page in Wikipedia. Should MickMacNee do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar and various other cases. Daniel (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would propose a caveat; that MickMacNee may contact an admin in instances of policy violations against themselves where the above wording might otherwise restrict their ability to bring such notice. If it is to be a topic ban, let it be a topic ban and not a shooting gallery for any individual(s) with a score to settle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's needed. If something's bad enough, another user will take it up. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I second LHVU's suggestion; as rspeer noted above he has been good as spotting problems, not so good as helping to solve them though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dreadful. Should at the very least add "Nothing in this sanction is to be taken as in any way implying that BC's behaviour is acceptable, nor may it be taken as in any way dismissing the substance of Mick's (or any other editor's) concerns about BC's behaviour", as well as adding LHvU's suggestion. DuncanHill (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're to do this, a caveat to the caveat: one of the topic ban's functions is to try to wean MMN off from closely watching BC's every move to find small errors and blow them up. The topic ban will work less well if he can keep doing this by reporting every small error to a passing admin. Thus I would add that he only make such reports where the perceived error impacts directly upon him (ie, his image uploads or articles where he has made significant contributions). Although actually I agree with Stifle: if it's serious, others will notice. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I specified that it would be for policy violations against himself relating to BC, not policy violations by BC generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agree it should only apply to stuff directly affecting him. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This proviso sounds good to me. Kelly ^hi! 17:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The wording is fine. If Beta needs attention then he will get it, we don't need Mick to point it out to us. _{1 != 2} 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I am going to have to be blunt; if, during this topic ban, MickMacNee get BC related related harassment from anyone, then he should be able to contact an admin without fear of the consequences and without anyone needing to dog MMN's contribution history. As much as MMN is judged oversensitive about BC's actions, there is also an element within BC's supporters that are more intolerant of BC related criticism than may be considered as being appropriate. I should love to AGF to all parties in this recent series of events, but I am unable to do so for a small minority under certain circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this topic ban notice going to be on MMN's talk page? If so, then it should also prohibit other users from discussing BC or BC-related issues on MMN's talk page. MMN should also be allowed to contact an admin if he notices uncivil comments about himself re:BC elsewhere on wikipedia. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent cuz I can't keep track of how many ":"s to type) LHvU, your bluntness is apparently falling on a yet-blunter object, to wit: my head today, because I still feel the need to ask this question: does this caveat also cover baiting from BC himself? IIRC most offenses on BC's part have been in response to things started by MMN, but in this conflict, as you said, I've seen so little good faith on all sides as to send AGF flying squarely out the window, and necessitating an explicit wording for even the most common-sense notions. Mick should have recourse if Beta chooses to interact with him. Mick may be irritating, but he's irritating about legitimate concerns, and we shouldn't lose sight of that as we attempt to influence his future behavior. Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 21:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It goes without saying that, when MMN is topic-banned from the whole BC subject, anybody - anybody - who uses that ban to taunt MMN will be subject to sanctions to protect Wikipedia from such behaviour. The topic ban is not an endorsement of either side and is certainly not a weapon for anyone to use against anyone else. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not planning on putting common sense on the shelf. This is a measure to diffuse the situation, and if someone tries to twist that to a contrary end then that can be dealt with as we always do. _{1 != 2} 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Gladys j cortez) By, or on behalf of, BC. I suspect that it is the latter parties that need reminding - since BC is already on a civility parole and even a civil appearance on MMN's would raise eyebrows. In reply to Redvers and Until, it is not the appropriate response to any taunting, which is assumed, but that the editor concerned may bring it to an admins attention without violating the terms of the topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. So barring any objection I am going to post to Mick's page "MickMacNee shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Betacommand, on any page in Wikipedia. Should MickMacNee do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week." as well as add "If you feel you are being taunted, baited, or otherwise placed in a position where such sanctions would create an unreasonable position, you can make a report of the situation to an admin you trust and let that admin handle the situation without being in violation of the terms of this ban". _{1 != 2} 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this meets my concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Was a limit suggested? I don't like open-ended bans, as sometimes just a period of quiet is all that is needed. Open-ended stuff can get dragged up years later, even when some of the people are no longer around. It also wastes time when people insist years later that an appeal is needed to overturn the stale topic ban. The length can still be appealed of course, but not setting a length is sometimes just being lazy on the part of those imposing the topic ban (this would apply to whatever topic ban was imposed on Betacommand as well - I was just leaving when that started, and was mildly surprised to come back and find a consensus had been reached). Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that a limit seems to be needed, for any remedy of this nature. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we can continue this discussion to determine any duration. I agree leaving it forever is not productive. _{1 != 2} 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Duration

I suggest 2 months as a duration to start with, we can re-apply the ban if it is needed again after that. I don't think leaving the topic ban in place forever is the best idea. Any other opinions? _{1 != 2} 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Two months sounds fine. I looked up the Betacommand one and saw that it says "These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate." That doesn't seem entirely right to me, but I'm not really prepared to start that up again. Betacommand is perfectly capable of appealing at the right time himself, though I must admit that limits of blocks, bans and suchlike are rather arbitrary. There is a well-known civility restriction of a year, and other lengths of various bans and blocks seem rather arbitrary as well. I just normally like to see a specific length mentioned if at all possible. Makes thing simpler at the other end. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification - of course Betacommand can appeal the restrictions himself, the wording simply says that the community has to agree, and until they do, they stay in place. Nothing in that wording states that he's banned from appealing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite, have the dispute resolution procedures been followed? -- SEWilco (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, for who? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Two months is a funny period, the block templated tariffs go from one to three months and - since one month might be considered too short - I would suggest three months. Again, the period is not written in stone and MMN would be free to appeal a lifting within that time frame. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that three months would be a sensible duration - two seems too short and four too long - hopefully after that MMN will have improved and we won't have to be back here discussing extending it. Of course he could appeal it, although I don't think it would be a good idea to appeal within at least the next few weeks (as consensus is unlikely to change in a short timeframe). I'm glad that we reached consensus for a topic ban without too much mudslinging and drama. I like Until's wording too. As two days have passed without objection to the duration, can we assume there is consensus for that also? naerii - talk 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Three months sounds good to me. _{1 != 2} 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully by then the community will have assumed a more productive approach towards Betacommand's excesses and MMN's commentary will not be necessary. I have seen some positive signs in that direction in recent weeks. Orderinchaos 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Acts of Union 1707

A couple of users are engaging in original research by using quotes from English MPs to support the statement that there were "many concerns that England was using the Union to dominate Scotland". This conclusion is not supported by any references that are given - the argument is synthesising material and coming to a conclusion itself. This is, of course, orignal research, and I thus placed a tag on the section. However, this tag is keep being removed. Can someone please have a look at this and deal with the people involved? 213.131.125.34 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

there are also cited references to some standard histories to that effect, so I see no reason to exclude accurate contemporary quotations. DGG (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, that's not the point. The point is that those quotations are being used to infer a further statement that is not supported by any other source given. This is original research. It has stopped now anyway: the tag has remained. 88.107.18.5 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pokrajac (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assistance required 2

Resolved

 – Conversation being continued in later thread: #Al-Azhar University vandal --Elonka 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There's this one really persistent anonymous vandal on the Al-Azhar University page. He keeps trying to insert a potentially inflammatory phrase into the article, but for the longest wouldn't even bother providing a source to back it up. Another wiki editor promptly reverted his first edit. But he was right back at it, so I started removing that unsourced statement myself, and explained to him that he would have to provide a reference for it if he intended to reinsert it. He came back with what he claimed were five legitimate references. I looked into each one of these sources, and not one of them supported his statement. I explained to him on the talk page in some detail why none of his sources were relevant and why his edit was therefore inadmissible. To make a long story short, he has been trying to salvage a slightly modified version of that same assertion, but he's still trying to back it up with those same irrelevant sources. We've been in an editing war since. The guy doesn't even bother justifying his edits anymore and has gotten pretty belligerent ("you're pushing it"; "get a life", that sort of thing). As I write, his bogus unsourced edit still stands. Can someone please have a look? Causteau (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked this one out and all I will say is that you shouldn't believe the registered user simply because they have an account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.44 (talk • contribs) 19:26, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

There's an old saying... something about glass houses... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment The Hand That Feeds You and for exposing user 195.189.142.44. I've just re-edited the Al-Azhar University page. The vandal is bound to return, and I want him to know that he can't just post any 'ol thing with a bunch of unrelated sources, insult fellow editors, and get away with it just because Al-Azhar is a small page that not many editors visit. I forgot to mention that there were edits to the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa by yet another anonymous IP that bear a striking resemblance to this user's handiwork. I suspect it's the same person because the edits are virtually identical and because he also edited the Al-Azhar University page during the same period under this other IP. Causteau (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread is being continued at #Al-Azhar University vandal. --Elonka 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for unbanning by User:Iamandrewrice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I just point out, [3], that the checkuser has showed that I do not have a connection to the recent mass of account creations on simple wikipedia. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The checkuser finishes with this summary:

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

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

And why here [4] is someone called "PetraSchelm" suggesting I have been making pro-pedophile accounts?? And that I have apparently confirmed these by email? For a start, I am 16, so I don't understand how I could have a pro-pedophile account, and secondly, I've never even heard of any of the users. However, I just noticed something. I think the user first encountered me at User talk:Jimbo Wales, where there was both my thread, and some pedophile one (which he was on). He would have seen me there. However, I am unsure as to why he is suggesting those accounts are mine; perhaps they have something to do with him? Their editing patterns all seem to revolve quite finely around pedophilia... but then again, I forgot, my word can't be trusted on anything, so I guess they must be mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion to amend the ban and close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Jackson talk page archives - BLP violations

I left a message on the BLP noticeboard which got no reaction so im bringing it here instead. A number of the earlier MJ talk page archives have a lot of BLP violations. The more recent ones are clean thanx to a small army of editers that watch over them. Can some of the earlier ones be purged or something. They dont hold anything of any importance, half of it is a war over having the "King of Pop" or "Wacko Jacko" in the lead, theres nothing of any importance there. Alternatively someone could read through all of the 18 archives removing the offending pieces but that is time consuming. Thoughts. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could "sanitize" the archive pages, then one of us admins could delete the earlier revisions to remove the offending comments. Any other ideas from admins? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, english isnt my first language, could you clarify what your suggesting by "Sanitize" the archives, sorry i cant understand. Please dont take offense Jayron ;-) --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means to just remove the BLP violations from the archives (as in, blank them, replace them with "((BLP vio removed))", or whatever), and then leave a note here so the pages can be deleted and selectively restored (removing the vios from the page history). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My watery friend has it correct there. Just go through the archives, remove the BLP vios (with a note explaining you have done so) and then an admin such as myself, or someone else, can go through and remove the old versions from the history, so they are no longer accessable to the general public. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, i understand, sorry for being a retard, ill get to it and show you my handy work when done. I just have to read through all those archives lol. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ive done 3 archives, it takes a long time to read each one, when i have finshed all 18 ill bring all links to Jayron, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A friendly word of warning; the MJ talk page is too big for a normal admin to remove content through deletion and selective restore. You will crash wikipedia if you try it. I know because I have done it. Please ask an oversight to handle this because they have the ability to do selective history deletion which doesn;t crash the wikipedia database. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep a close eye on User:Lemmey

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

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

• 2008 Sichuan earthquake:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The policy states:

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

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

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

User:Lemmey blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have blocked the bot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TTN and his buddies

User:TTN has made some edits that led to a revert war at List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball. See the history. User:Sesshomaru has enforced the changes with reverts, and is enlisting help with this. Here TTN explains that someone else will have to do the reverting for him. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Some pretty rough talk page discussion here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Before someone thinks of eagerly pushing the block button or running to arbcom, he may also want to read up on one of the many merge discussions at the various character lists and e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball, which have been going on since at least January. To ultimately merge the lists (which TTN obviously can't and won't perform himself per his restriction), they have to be decruftified first. Quite a few established editors have already expressed their support for trimming. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) Swing and a miss. Nothing wrong here. --Lemmey talk 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs further review, per a couple of sections above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Purbo T

This account popped up on my watchlist and appears to be an unapproved bot with almost 50,000 edits that has been active since April, 2007. I have little familiarity with the ins and outs of bot policy, so I'm here to pass the buck.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Its manual, it does not require approval. Account is fine. --Lemmey talk 16:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs further review, per a couple of sections above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Double standards for tennis players

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FritzpollBot

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) about the User:FritzpollBot, which would automatically generate over 1 millon more articles on settlements across the world. I suppose this may be a better place to continue discussion. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed specifically by the Bot Approvals Group here ->Wikipedia talk:BAG#FritzpollBot --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet several users (myself not included) wanted to continue to discuss the issue, and that is why I opened the thread. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The scope of this is big enough that the community in general should be involved, not just BAG. --Rory096 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It has also just appeared as a notice in the header of the watchlist. I assume everyone gets these. It would be better to centralize discussion at the village pump link provided, since people are being herded that direction. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Link for anyone using external editors. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It might actually be better to create a new place to discuss it (perhaps its own page), as a simple VP section is going to get rather unwieldy and difficult to edit. --Rory096 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite everyone to a tea party, don't be surprised when the girls get noisy. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Would help to let editors and wikiprojects dealing with settlements and geography know, too - I handle most of the geographic articles for my state, for example, and would be concerned if the bot started creating articles we couldn't fill. Also, what sources are being used for the information, will it create a massive cleanup task for wikiprojects? Orderinchaos 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Azhar University vandal

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

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

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

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

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

3)Mocking fellow editors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked user using anon to evade block

Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely for evading a prior block [5] He has been edit-warring for some time on the Ayn Rand article and talk pages using anon IPs. Currently, he seems to be using a static IP: [6][7][8], so I believe that we may be able to indefinitely block that with minimum effect on other innocent users of that IP. Idag (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ran (film)

I placed a semi-protect on this article, despite being today's featured article, because of a spat of vandalism from a variety of IP addresses. If a consensus is reached to remove the protection, please feel free to do so. Brianga (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Resolved

 – Rudget (Help?) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick thank you to the person who answered my question about Image Removed, that solved my problem. Many thanks Blueturtle01 (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Resolved

 – Restored. Rudget (Help?) 12:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please undelete Image:HarringtonNSW.jpg per this note on my talk page? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 12:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate User talk page protection

User:The undertow left the project. But now he's back, and has been using his account, participating at RfA. I was happy to see him active again, so I clicked on the "talk" portion of his sig to leave him a message, only to discover that his talk page was blanked and protected, while his user page was deleted and salted.

If a user is here, then other users should be able to contact him on his talk page.

Otherwise, users are faced with the choice of foregoing contact, or posting off-topic to wherever the user happens to be participating.

That would be pretty awkward.

Please unprotect User talk:The undertow while he is active in the project.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    12:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the account is only participating in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 (as ip accounts are not permitted to participate). I don't know if this is a full "return" to contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd request again after June 5th (ending date for DHMO's RfA). Rudget (Help?) 13:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What I get out of this is that sowing the seeds of discord is OK (and being able to hide after doing so is even better). It seems like a drive-by shooting ... ah, but maybe I'm bitter. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I unprotected the talk page since the account is no longer inactive. El_C 16:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Request For Deletion of Article Criticism Of Christianity

I wanted to bring this article to the attenion of the admins for not following NPOV rules. This article is very offensive to Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion and almost certainly a very speedy keep. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and includes articles upon encyclopedia merit and not individual sensitivities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

An administrator is needed to edit the sidebar

A consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move the search box directly beneath the puzzle globe.

It will take an administrator to make the change.

The Transhumanist    14:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First, there doesn't appear to be consensus to do this. Second, I could be wrong, but I don't know that we (as in admins; not being sysadmins) can do this, technically. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I just missed it, but was this advertised anywhere? I would think a discussion about moving the search bar from its current location, where I believe it is located on all other projects, would need a wider audience. - auburnpilot talk 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the change gathers consensus then it can be done in MediaWiki:Common.js, but I wasn't aware that a consensus had been reached. Happy‑melon 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Rereading the discussion it is abundantly clear to me that the only consensus is no consensus :D Happy‑melon 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakko Sivonen

Last year, Jaakko Sivonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefblocked after 12 distinct blocks for edit warring and personal attacks. Earlier today, he apologized and asked to be unblocked, promising to behave constructively. Given his history, I couldn't unblock him in good conscience, so I left {{2nd chance}} to see if he really was willing. Well, he's proposed substantial improvements to Finnish parliamentary election, 1907, and I have to say that his proposals would make it a Good Article in waiting. I would therefore ask that we extend a little good faith and unblock him, with the proviso that this is indeed his last chance to behave properly. Thoughts? Blueboy96 22:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I think we should give him a second chance. Just make sure he knows that any further edit warring will be dealt with quickly and decisively. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest that required adoption be in order, but that a 2nd chance be allowed. Bstone (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined just to let him back. He seems honestly abashed by his bad behavior, and perhaps is properly rehabilitated. It will be pretty obvious if he acts up again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bible tells us to forgive and forget. I'm not an administrator, but I say we should perhaps give him a second chance, but we do need to keep a very close eye on his actions. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's his clean block log from the Finnish WP: [9] (three blocks in 2006, can't tell why, but it hardly matters now). I think a second chance is in order. Darkspots (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Jpgordon may have forgotten to actually unblock, but I've done it.[10] - auburnpilot talk 02:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As a procedural note for those here who don't read Finnish, the block log on fiwiki reads "personal attacks", "personal attack, again" and "for repeated personal attacks". No idea about the circumstances beyond that. Oh, and I added "&uselang=en" to the link. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would forgive and forget, if Jaakko hadn't been evading his block the entire year ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) He gave a convincing argument on his talk page, where he said "I have been civil and constructive in my edits in the Finnish Wikipedia" However, from looking at his IPs, I see edit summaries as recent as last month saying, "Reverting total bullshit. Finnish Karelians are Finns and it is offensive and wrong to talk of "slow integration". No one calls them "Livvi"., It wasn't "given"... It had been part of Finland continuosly for over a 100 years in 1917. Learn history., and Learn English too." Looking further back I see comments such as Your motive seems to be Swedish Nationalism. This makes me believe that Jaako still has the same battleground mentality that he was originally blocked for. Indeed, roughly half a day before he was unblocked I find him saying "I care deeply of the Karelian people, as you are our closest relatives ethnically, but it insults me that by your false claims you are trying to strike a wedge inside the Finnish people." At User talk:88.114.235.214, he says "I think I have more credibility than you do - at least I cite real sources while you edit war without them." If I had read his argument on his talk page without knowing all of this, I would indeed be convinced as well, but because I know he has been evading his block, edit warring on Karelians among many other pages, and still being incivil (all of these were the reasons he was originally blocked), I have to disagree with his unblocking. Khoikhoi 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• So if he acts up, it's easy enough to block him again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:198.99.32.5

Resolved

 – SharedIP added --Rodhullandemu 00:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:198.99.32.5 is fully protected so that only administrators can edit it. I'm not going to challenge that; I really don't care whether it is protected or not, but I do want to add the sharedip template to it; the IP belongs to MedStar Health. Can someone add the sharedip template to the userpage? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MascotGuy

I don't really know this troll, but looking at his edits here, I feel like he is looking for fame and he practically edits his own sock list, I would like the admins to stop this from happening and completely DENY his existence, delete that list and don't give him what he wants or he'll keep coming back, this also applies to other "Big" vandals like Grawp as well, vandals aren't born, wikipedia makes them and the policy of Revert, block, Ignore should be given a higher priority in cases like these rather than socking one...--Cometstyles 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. -Pilotguy contact tower 03:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MascotGuy isn't a vandal. He's just an autistic boy with nothing better to do than try and improve our articles in ways that end up doing more harm than good. The two situations are nothing alike.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the essay "E pluribus unum" in my sig links to. With Grawp, it's a damned-if-ya-do-damned-if-ya-don't thing. MascotGuy, on the other hand, is autistic and is more likely than not trying to be helpful by editing his own sock list. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 05:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin input needed to close discussion.

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

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

Unblock Request

Resolved

 – All done. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I am a member of Dot Com Infoway and its hard to find that my IP was blocked from any usage on the website due to spam. I accept the mistake and request your help on the procedure that I have to follow to remove the ban.

Chrisdru (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Chris Drum

I've asked the user for further information on their talk page and we'll deal with it there. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And, having got the information (see User talk:59.145.89.17), I've declined the unblock. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with decline, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive133#Seeking_Community_ban_of_Dot_Com_Infoway_company_Adsense_marketing_and_Spamming. --Hu12 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Sarah777?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on this discussion with Sarah777,[18] I do not support an unblock at this time. Her view of what is and isn't civil, does not seem in accordance with the rest of the community. --Elonka 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Meaty Weenies is Bsrboy - advice requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerly, a very angry and upset bsrboy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do about Category:Copy to Wiktionary

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

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

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

No idea how to do this...

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

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

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

"Vandalism" wrongly attributed to me

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

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

The IP address's user talk, here [19]. When I log in, the warnings are gone but it's tiring to have to log in every time. Khilsati (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Renaming some Wikipedia positions

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

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

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

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

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

Seems Princeton considers 'annihilate' and 'decimate' to be synonyms.[20] - auburnpilot talk 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

AutoWikiBrowser Backlog

Resolved

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

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

User:Amoruso

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

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

Notable music by not notable musicians?

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

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

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

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

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