Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule

User:Peter McConaughey created Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule last week and declared that it's a Wikipedia guideline. The first version was completely absurd, so I changed the tag to "proposed" and cut out much of the nonsense. [1] Thus far, not a single editor has shown support for this as a guideline. Peter is now insisting that he can create Wikipedia guidelines without obtaining consensus [2] and has been telling other editors to follow his made-up guideline. [3] Ironically, he's been reverting my attempts to change the page back to a proposed guideline. I'd appreciate it if other admins could take a look. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is neither a guideline nor a proposed guideline - it's an essay. It is not seeking to gain a consensus of editors, nor does it have a widespread consensus that it is mostly the right thing to do. It's just a commentary. I've tagged it accordingly. Phil Sandifer 21:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In my interpretation this is a proposed guideline. Perhaps we should have started voting for it on its talk page just so it would be harder to harrass (move to userspace) a proposal that had begun voting. zen master T 18:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was the page's creator that didn't want it to be a proposed guideline [4]. It's more of a personal essay/guideline so user space seems more appropriate. That course of action seemed better than nominating it for deletion. If there turns out to be wide support for it as a Wikipedia guideline, let's move it back to Wikipedia namespace. How's that sound? Carbonite | Talk 18:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Though I think wikipedia's distinction between "guideline" instead of "policy" is exactly appropriate as it relates to Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule or any "personal essay/personal guideline", quoting from the {guideline} template: This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy. A proposed guideline is exactly an "essay" that only has the support of a handful of editors, it should be given the chance of garnering community support through prominent exposure, though do I assume correctly you would vote against it Carbonite? Maybe Peter wanted to refine it before proposing it as a guideline or some such. zen master T 18:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you take a look at the guidelines in Category:Wikipedia guidelines, you'll find Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:POINT, WP:CITE and WP:BITE, all very widely accepted. To me, the difference between an official policy and a guideline is that guidelines generally aren't enforced with punitive measures, while official policies might be. The "zero-revert" rule didn't have any acceptance as far as I could tell, certainly not to the point where "...many editors agree with in principle...". I put a "proposed" tag on the page, but Peter didn't wish to have it go through the porcess of becoming a guideline. Since I figured the page could still be useful in some way, I moved it to his user space, rather than nominating it for deletion.

There is the possibility that there was still refinement in progress, but before you reach that conclusion, take a look at the first version. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't look like a very serious guideline. I was also concerned that the guideline was being referred to [5] before other editors had even seen this "rule".

I think the best way to proceed here would be to refine the page in user space and gauge the level of acceptance. If it turns out that "...many editors agree with in principle...", a move back to Wikipedia namespace would be appropriate. If not, it can remain a personal guideline that any editor can choose to follow. Carbonite | Talk 19:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

How does a proposed guideline go about garnering acceptance other than by existing as a proposed guideline for a long while to measure community acceptance and solicit comments and suggestions for improvement? For comparison, I don't think WP:POINT was ever forced to move to an editor's user namespace, especially not a few days after it was written... zen master T 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Most guidelines are unwritten rules that turned into written ones. In the case of the "zero-revert rule", I can't say that I've heard of it as an unwritten rule. Making this a guideline is more akin to creating a rule from scratch rather than writing down what is already accepted. Please note that I attempted three times to add the "proposed" tag onto the page [6] [7] [8], but was reverted each time. After other admins chimed in Peter stated "Why don't we just remove the tag altogether? I have no interest in subjecting the limits that I impose on myself to the acceptance of the Cabal." [9]. Given that the "zero-revert rule" wasn't generally accepted and that there wasn't interest in making it a guideline, I felt a move to user space would be the best move. Carbonite | Talk 19:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you should give Peter the benefit of the doubt and allow significant time to pass to see if the Zero-revert rule garners community support. I think you are putting the cart before the horse, before something becomes a "guideline" it has to be a "proposed guideline". Just because initially it seems like it doesn't have much support doesn't mean it won't eventually. The proposed guideline template is exactly for signifying proposals that seek community refinement and suggestion prior to general acceptance. zen master T 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the three times [10] [11] [12] I tried to make it a "proposed guideline" by adding that template. Carbonite | Talk 19:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because there is a disagreement over whether it is a guideline or a proposed guideline doesn't mean it must be moved to userspace. I think Peter is (correctly) inferring WP:0RR from WP:1RR and NPOV (which does indeed make it a guideline). The inferred guideline is recommending instead of "reverting" or removing someone else's content that you don't like (when not obvious vandalism) we should give the benefit of the doubt and include the other content in addition to our own content to avoid the possibility of censoring information, which I think succinctly summarizes the advantage and essence of collaborative editing. zen master T 19:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're still misunderstanding or misreading what occurred. Let me recap, one last time (you can follow along with history :

- The first version was a mess.

- I changed the tag from "guideline" to "proposed guideline" [13]

- I did a major copyedit to make the page coherent [14], including removing language about using pizza as rewards. Without this rewrite, it almost certainly would have been a candidate for deletion.

- After the tag is reverted to "guideline", I again modify it to {{proposed}}. [15]

- The tag is again reverted to guideline and I once again change it [16] to {{proposed}} (this is thitd time I've attempted to make it a proposed guideline).

- I posted a notice [17] on WP:ANI requesting that other admins review this page.

- User:Lord Voldemort (an admin) changes the tag to "proposed" [18] (this is fourth time it's been tagged as a "proposed guideline".

- User:Snowspinner (an admin) removes the "proposed" tag [19].

- User:Radiant! (an admin) [20] adds a notice that the "zero-revert rule" is "''is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. There is no "zero-revert rule" on Wikipedia.

- Peter adds a self-made template [21] that states that "This page is not approved by the Cabal."

- On the "zero-revert rule" talk page [22], Peter states "Why don't we just remove the tag altogether? I have no interest in subjecting the limits that I impose on myself to the acceptance of the Cabal" and " don't consider this to be a proposal. It is a guideline that I follow. If the Cabal has a monopoly on what can be called a "guideline," then I will call it something else. The Cabal's official approval process doesn't interest me".

- I move the page to Peter's user space. [23]

OK, that's about all the info I can provide. I made every attempt to make this a proposed guideline. Other admins attempted to make this a proposed guideline. There was agreement that this was not a guideline yet. I'm not sure what else I can say. You may disagree the move, but I believe there was certainly justification. Carbonite | Talk 20:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A guideline that only a handful of editors follow is still a guideline for them. How is a disagreement over whether it is a guideline or a proposed guideline in any way justify moving it to someone's user namespace? Perhaps a compromise header can be worked out with the content at WP:0RR, something to the effect of "this is a new guideline that the entire community may not be aware of" or some such? Peter seems to have valid concerns with the wording of the {proposal} header, for example, guidelines don't require "consensus" -- voting for a guideline just signifies that editor agrees with the principles of the guideline and will try to follow them. zen master T 20:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• A page that only a handful of editors follow is not a Wikipedia guideline, should not masquerade as such, should be clearly tagged as 'essay', 'rejected' and/or 'historical', and most likely belongs in userspace. This has been pointed out several times before. Radiant_>|< 23:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:0RR is a new and not yet official guideline as most of the community is not yet aware of it, if a critical mass of editors end up following it hopefully one day it can be officialized. How can something possibly be labeled "rejected" if most community members are unaware of it? zen master T 23:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry?

I must begin this notice by declaring my bias in this. I am one of the disputing sides in this issue. The issue I wish to raise is the following: In recent days, the deletion process has witnessed two strange cases. The first occurred in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay rights in Iraq. User:Chooserr wished to see this deleted because of pov issues. He then posted this message on User:*drew's talk page: "You listed yourself as Roman Catholic so I thought I might bring this unencyclopedic total POV pushing article to your attention. It is currently up for deletion here." He left the same messages at the talk pages of Burwellian and Pitchka. Pitchka was the only one who voted. When I nominated Category:Pro-choice celebrities and Category:Pro-life celebrities for deletion, Pitchka immediately put notices of this on no less than 57 user talk pages. These users were selected as members of the Catholic or pro-life user categories. The first 30 or so of these users were told: "Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities The abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life." When I pointed out to him that I had nominated Category:Pro-choice celebrities for deletion as well, Pitchka told me: "Am I wrong? I don't think so. Most pro-abortion people don't want this information out. There are plenty of categories and articles that might no appear in an ordinary encyclopedia. This is not an ordinary encyclopedia. So it doesn't matter that you nominated both that is standard operating procedure for people who don't want the info out!" After this, he informed another 25 to 30 users of the ongoing cfd, with the deliberate intention to convince them to vote to keep the category. Of the 57 informed users, thirteen joined the vote (Chooserr, Anti-Anonymex2, Musical Linguist, Dominick, Jakes18, Elliskev, jgofborg, Avalon, Merovingian, Patsw, Eoghanacht, Getcrunk, Shanedidona), all voting to keep the article. In fact, the only keep voter that wasn't contacted was Pitchka, the person who contacted all the others. Technically speaking, these users are not meat puppets. These are all decent and appreciated contributors. However, it's safe to say that their joining the cfd was a result of a deliberate canvassing by Pitchka. Since Chooserr has done the same with an AfD, this behaviour cannot be viewed as isolated acts. This is a clear pattern to influence the outcome of votes. I am contacting the admins about this, because I believe that this case is important to the future of wikipedia. This pattern of behaviour does not just influence wikipedia's content (the decision to keep or delete articles and categories), it also involves wikipedia policy. I fear that wikipedia will be prone to AfD campaigning, that users who have an interest in seeing an article, category, template or stub kept or deleted will canvas a large amount of users, hoping that a sufficient percentage of those contacted will vote and steer the vote in the desired direction. This might open up wikipedia to a "dictatorship of numbers", where a fanatic group of individuals "conspire" ("To join or act together; combine") to influence the content of wikipedia to pander the (in this case religious) pov of the users involved. This would be a violation of several key tenets of wikipedia. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Update 1: two more keep votes on the cfd, of Hégésippe Cormier and Christopher Parham. Hégésippe Cormier was informed of this cfd by Pitchka, Christopher Parham was not. This means that of the 16 keep votes currently cast, 15 are from what I call "Pitchka's group" (consisting of the aforementioned users Pitchka, Chooserr, Anti-Anonymex2, AnnH, Dominick, Jakes18, Elliskev, jgofborg, Avalon, Merovingian, Patsw, Eoghanacht, Getcrunk and Shanedidona, and Hégésippe Cormier) and 1 is from a non-related user. Aecis ^praatpaal 10:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Update 2: User:Chooserr has today notified 6 users (Pitchka, Speculative catholic, GreatGatsby, Thomas Aquinas, Dominick and Jgofborg) of the AfD on Student LifeNet. Most of them had also been notified of the aforementioned cfd, afd (on gay rights in Iraq) or both. The users have one thing in common: they are categorized as Roman Catholic Wikipedians. So the behaviour to canvas carefully selected users hoping that their voting will influence the outcome of deletion votes continues, albeit not as seriously as Pitchka's 57 notices. Aecis ^praatpaal 19:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

while I don't approve of this sort of campaiging, this is one of the primary purposes of user categories. It's not really relevant why they found out about the vote, it's relevant if they are members of the Wikipedia community. I recognize most of the names you mention (indeed, 2 [Merovingian and Ann] are admins), and I would count them if they I were closing a vote. It's unfortunate (and as I say, I disapprove of this sort of thing), but it's no reason to discount their votes.--Sean|Black 01:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's perhaps no reason to discount their votes, but it is imo behaviour that needs to be monitored, to prevent it from getting out of control. Aecis ^praatpaal 01:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• A related and perhaps more troubling incident is the AfD vote for Gay rights in Iraq. The same users nominated the article and canvassed for votes. Several deletion votes resulted that accused the article of problems it never possessed. I doubt these editors read the piece. Other than these individuals, the consensus was to keep. Please read the discussion. I find this disturbing. Gay rights and abortion are contentious issues. I hope this doesn't grow to the point where editors on both sides form activist coalitions. Editors are supposed to base their decisions on enclopedic merit and site policy. In respecting these principles I often edit contrary to my personal politics. When I discovered these efforts to push a discussion - as an honest editor I feel my trust betrayed. Durova 01:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable. We cannot judge consensus if editors set out deliberately and maliciously to sabotage the process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• While I agree that it's unacceptable, similar behavior has been going on for over half a year and there no feasible way has been suggested for preventing it. If the people involved were acting reasonable and rational, an RFC on the subject would work. But vote stacking generally occurs on controversial issues that people feel strongly about emotionally, so talking it out has not been very constructive in the past. Radiant_>|< 21:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Radiant_>|< has a good point- if he, or anyone else, could develop a workable solution to the sort of activities which Aecis outlined above, he would be rich. The same problems happen in America, especially during presidential elections. ::shrug:: One would think that in an electronic medium, it would be easier to regulate ill behaviour... but not always.
  • → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_18#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics. — Jeandré, 2005-12-23t11:36z

User:Kmweber

I warned this user awhile back after he was blocked for being disruptive on afd and simultaneously violating WP:NPA,WP:POINT and a few other policies and guidelines by calling people "deletionist vandals". He's been at it again.[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30] and then vandalize my page in order to make me appear as though I have a bias against him.[31] You all can reblock if you want, but his ploy didn't work for him.karmafist 03:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That's Kurt from #wikipedia, isn't it? He got banned from #wikipedia a while ago for being a PITA, and is now allowed on precisely as long as he doesn't make a PITA of himself, and particularly not by evangelising for Objectivism. I understood he was better-behaved on the wiki itself, and am sadly unsurprised to find otherwise - David Gerard 17:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It is, Dave. He lied low for awhile to avert any attention from him, and then he resumed his "Crusade against Subjectivism, per the teachings of Ayn Rand". If someone wants to indef block him, I won't mind. Mentorship would be nice, but I don't think he'd accept it. karmafist 21:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked him for a month. This isn't the first time he's pulled this crap, but if he comes back and does it again, I'll block him for longer. Note that I did not revert his edits on AfR, but I did remove the vandalism comments, which are entirely inappropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A month isn't likely going to do anything, but it's not worth blocking back and forth over since at this point, he appears to be on the road to a permablock unless he accepts mentorship, which is unlikely in his state. I can almost guarantee you that he'll be a model Wikipedian if he starts editing again when he comes back, and then restart his "crusade against the deletionist vandals" once he thinks everyone's stopped noticing. I think the minimum for the next block is 6 months to a year unless you want to get wierd and give a strange "other" block. Indeffing is fine too. Kmweber in his current state is a hinderance to Wikipedia and should not be allowed to continue being a liability. karmafist 07:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering under what portion of the blocking policy you believe that a four month or indefinite block is an appropriate response to what this user has done? The only thing that I see this user has done that is even remotely close to a blockable offense is under the Disruption clause, from which I quote, "...repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month." It is my opinion that this action was wholly out of line; if there was consensus, then I could understand somewhat, but a fellow administrator removed your blocks and you re-applied them. I believe that a block of this kind should only be handed down by the ArbCom. This debate has been ongoing on WikiEN-l and has not been resolved. Regards, --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:IAR is our friend. I believe Zoe and Karmafist are doing what they think is best, and Kurt doesn't seem to get better no matter what you do, so I suppose maybe he'll realize we're not messing around. Sometimes it's just not necessary to arbitrate everything, we can use our common sense too. I trust the whole community, not just 7 high heads. Though I admit I do not read the WikiEN-l mailing list, it's way too messy :-/. Redwolf24 (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. If one were to go to the ArbCom with this case, they would probably ban him from commenting in deletion debates for a year or something, and I would not be surprised if, after that ban expired, he started doing the same thing again, like he has after his previous blocks for this behaviour. I don't read the mailing list either, though.--Sean|Black 08:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Bbatsell, sorry I didn't come back here sooner, I usually don't hang around AN/I unless I have to report something, unlike some other people that I have to report on below in a second.

Anyway, ultimately Kurt(Kmweber) figured he could game the system, and he lost. Calling people "Deletionist Vandals" breaks WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:WQT,WP:POINT,WP:BEANS and endangers our precariously fragile consensus system(although it's not policy/guideline yet, consensus votes should be on the subject in general, never those who are voting on them.) Kurt had been blocked for this twice before, tried to weasel his way out of it on IRC by thinking he could "debate the foolishness" of the people who disagreed with him, which seems like pretty much everybody, since he figured that anybody who didn't believe in objectivism, Ayn Rand or the Indianapolis Colts was obviously wrong, and shouldn't be listened to, which in itself breaks #4 of WP:Rules.

This time, he waited until the attention was off him, and then he mass voted on afd with his "Deletionist Vandal" epitet, and then gamed the system by vandalizing my user page to make me appear biased towards him in the hopes that I would take no action. It didn't work.

As you can see above, I blocked for 4 months, then Zoe blocked for one. However, Snowspinner (talk · contribs) reduced the block to a week[32]. 1 month is the bare minimum for what Kurt did, 1 week is unacceptable by any means. I indef blocked him afterward for that, especially since he was on IRC after the block was down to a week in a very arrogant tone, claiming the actions of me or the actions of anyone who disagreed with him were illegimate and since I didn't try to "reason with him", I must've been wrong, despite the fact I told him what I have just said here about a million times to him.

And Redwolf24 is right here, the arbcom just would have made things worse here with the way arbcom proceedings work now. It would have taken 3 months and alot of headaches, all the while with Kurt continuing his attacks on those who don't agree with him, just to figure out what we just figured out here. Kurt's had his chance to respect others. He didn't learn. Now he's gone. karmafist 13:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've since had a discussion with Redwolf24 about Kmweber's history. I don't know the user in question, and didn't know too much about his history. I simply felt that the length of the block was not something that WP rules allow administrators to administer unilaterally (and I still don't, though I respect your decision). Redwolf alerted me to his past belligerence on IRC, which definitely shortens his leash. However, his communications on WikiEN-l have been nothing but courteous and seemingly intelligent, which is what led me to question the length of the block in the first place. Again, thanks for responding. Regards, --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Still NOT amused

Same bug is acting up. I log on, then the site says I have not. I log on as Martial Law, only something like "123.145.090.14" keeps comming up. This mess could lead not only myself to be falsely accused AS a sockpuppeteer, this could happen to someone else as well. Cookies are active, caches are cleaned out. What is it with this bug ?Martial Law 09:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC) :(

I thought I had stepped on it.Martial Law 10:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC) :)

Oh if anyone calls you a sock, just tell him to stop being silly. It doesn't make any difference if you're logged in or not, you're still allowed to edit the wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Most likely it's your browser's cache. After you log in, the browser is serving the page from its cache rather than fetching a new one from the server. That's why it doesn't look as if you've logged in. howcheng {chat} 20:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

DSM-IV-TR Copyright question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder There is a question being raised concerning whether the reproduction of DSM-IV-TR criteria on several articles without permission from the APA constitutes breach of copyright and whether the administration of Wikipedia could or should seek the relevant permissions or the removal of such text? Personally I should like to request the permissions be sought --82.195.137.125 19:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have responded to this at the relevant talk page, and suggested that relevant quotations are within the bounds of fair use. Other eyes may be welcome on that issue. Dragons flight 21:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed, original forwarded to permissions@wikipedia.org):

We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content.

I find this a LITTLE bit scary in it's wider implications --82.195.137.125 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]

Also completely wrong. Of course it fucking applies. Perhaps they could work with the National Gallery on this one - David Gerard 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[Better idea David could you see your way to making your case to them (I have already made mine)? Here is contact page http://appi.org/permissions.cfx and post any results here? (repeating on your talk page). "Inclined" is, to my mind, a word that is still open to negotiation --82.195.137.125 13:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]

I have forwarded the above discussion to wikien-l and foundation-l with "wtf?" attached - David Gerard 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[That sounds like a plan. Later, when I have time, I think I'll dig up exactly what constitutes "fair use" myself, and maybe take another crack at APA? It just doesn't seem right, not even sane, which for the APA is maybe NOT a good look --82.195.137.125 16:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]

Hate to be contrary here, but I think they have a strong case. Fair Use is built upon a number of factors, and I think we run afoul of all of them:

• Nature of use: Well, normally comment and criticism/educational would get us far here, but standard Wikipedia licensing is that we have to have things usable for commericial re-use elsewhere. Commercial reuse is a major strike against us.
• Extent of the use: Normally fair use is based upon only using a small or nonsubstantial part of the whole. If we are listing the DSM traits for any of the items listed, the individual parts are small, sure, but we have to add all our pages quoting from the DSM together and that becomes quite substantial reuse.
• How it effects the copyright owner's ability to profit, directly or indirectly: Same deal. Individual quotes in articles are no big deal, but add them all up and they could make a strong case that professionals may not pay for these big expensive books at all if they can just get the info online in an easy format from one place... even moreso if someone using the standard license repackages that information for that purpose... and don't think someone wouldn't try if they saw the opportunity.

In other words, I can't think of single fair use criteria that goes in our favor when the big picture is looked at, whereas in order to successfully argue free use we're supposed to at least one and probably two (preferably three) quite strongly. That's bad news. We ought to think about finding a way to paraphrase the symptoms or something and make it policy, especially since we asked for permission and got shot down. We no longer have good faith basis to use them. DreamGuy 16:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[Now, though I would not disagree entirely with the basis of your arguement (except in terms of "owners ability to profit" as these criteria are already freely available, WITH permission, on other static websites that are easily found, which at least allows of the possibility of linking, so that the effect on profit would be negligable to non-existant), I'd take a slightly different tack because "Fair Use" is effectively an 'exemption' from the need to have permission, which does not necessarily affect the copyright of the original in terms of reproduction. ie. What is deemed to be "fair use" here does not have to cover any reuse from here on, in the sense that if the site could also show "Fair Use" they would be covered, and, if not, then they wouldn't be. Which might mean that while the APA could go whistle on account of "fair use" reproduction might well be against the Wikipedia TOS. In which case, what needs to be determined is whether some exceptions to that TOS should be made and if so, in what form?

For example, one of the concerns of the APA that I can understand is that the material would be available here to be altered. It might be quite easy to append a small piece of script that allowed of "Fair Use" material, subject to Wikipedia approval, in such a way that made it exempt from alteration (though perhaps not from deletion or reversion?), so that it would be come like a painting, which can be hung, or taken down, but not altered. It would even be possible with the use of "include", "iframe" or similar to let the copyrightholder retain control of the content. In any such case the exemptions from Wikipedia TOS could be decided and further clarified specific to "fair use" text.

Here are a couple of links to "fair use" for anybody who might like to try and shed a little light of their own:

• http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
• http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm

In terms of paraphrasing, I am seeking further clarification of the position of the APA. I feel that in terms of integrity paraphrasing would be a very bad idea as it allows too great a scope for distortion, even, in a perverse sense, the greater the distortion, the less chance of copyright infringement. The is not only against the best interests of the APA but also against the common weel. So that, if it comes to the wire, personally I would prefer to see DSM-IV-TR materials linked or fed. --82.195.137.125 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]

I would find it difficult to believe that the other places online that have the DSM criteria listed are using it "WITH permission" of the copyright holders. since they explicitly say in their email that they don't want it online at all. Certainly there's a contradiction there. You do have a point on the paraphrasing being a much larger chance of distortion, but then I don't know if there's a legal way aroud it... other than getting permission, which they already turned down. DreamGuy 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[I picked up on this too "I would find it difficult to believe that the other places online that have the DSM criteria listed are using it "WITH permission" of the copyright holders. since they explicitly say in their email that they don't want it online at all.", it seems a contradiction to me too. The DSM-IV criteria for narcissistic personality disorder alone seems to appear on 298 seperate webpages accompanied by the word "permission" of which 98 are accompanied by the whole phrase "with permission" (offering plenty to link)...out of a total of 2,540 webpages on which the criteria would seem to appear. I think, so far, if it was my @ss on the line I would inclined towards "publish and be d@mned" because I have a feeling the APA would lose a test case, and, indeed, be loathe to bring one, but it isn't my @ss on the line.

Paraphrasing is something that could only be done with great care, after much discussion in each separate case, to avoid distortion, which would then, in itself, unless they are prepared to release guidlines, possibly be subject to APA approval anyway.

It will be interesting to see what answer, if any, they give on paraphrasing --82.195.137.125 20:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]

ApeAndPig (talk · contribs)

I've just blocked this charming fellow indefinitely as I believe he's EnviroKainKabongTheScion's latest account. Witness the same choice of topics, the same abusive edit summaries and talk page posts (including the trademark accusation that anyone who disagrees with him is an "Islamist" or an "Islamist wannabe"), and the general bad manners. Comments? —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work. Phil Sandifer 22:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Even if this person isn't Enviroknot (unlikely, but someone could with CheckUser access could see if the IP resolves to the University of Houston), it's unacceptable behavior.--Sean|Black 22:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. As Sean says, even if he's not Enviroknot, he was clearly up to no good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

He's in IRC right now, telling us what a sack of Muslim bastards we all are. And yes, his IP address resolves to a Roadrunner account in Houston. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 22:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it does seem to be Enviroknot. Unfortunately, Robchurch has unblocked the ApeAndPig account and unprotected the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My initial suspicions were correct. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

EnviroKainKabongTheScionAmouse seems incapable of realising that if he edits like a dickhead in a particular way, people will spot the edit pattern unerringly. It's like watching a retarded hamster headbutting its wheel - David Gerard 12:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite this users rantings I decided to investigate the block at his request and I see strong evidence that either it's an Enviro sock or that it's just another troll and possibly a sock of any of a dozen other malcontents who have been perm banned. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

An actual violation of WP:POINT, related to {{if}}

[33] had the effect of breaking a whole shitload of templates and articles. For an example, see Interstate 76 (east). --SPUI (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that {{qif}} is a better one to use - should the protected template not point to that rather than to the useless message to see WP:AUM, which has nothing about how to replace {{if}} with {{qif}}? --SPUI (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

{{if}} is a blight on Mediawiki. It's in the class of things one should not do just because one can. I predict all damage will be fixed in three hours, tops. See also the template's talk page - David Gerard 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I might be able to fix it myself if the useless message instead pointed to something explaining how to convert to {{qif}}. Anyway, I'll try to figure it out now. --SPUI (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:qif is bad too. Just in more use, so it's being saved for later execution. Phil Sandifer 19:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How about once a better if-then code is implemented? Anything prior to that is a gross violation of WP:POINT, more so than most things I see being called such. It would actually disrupt many pages. --SPUI (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point so much as removing something the devs asked not to be used that some people used anyway, because they decided they knew more about the database than the devs. Phil Sandifer 19:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your insightful response. I will print it out and use it to wipe my anus. --SPUI (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole thread, or just Snowspinner's posts? I mean, you wouldn't want to wipe yourself with your own posts. Or would you?.--Sean|Black 20:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

While I want to AGF about this, it would be really helpful if someone could point to a dev based discussion of the impact of meta-templates, the need to remove them, and when/if there might be alternatives. The most recent discussion on wikitech-l that I can find [34] complains about complicated syntax but certainly doesn't justify a destroy with extreme prejudice approach. I read AUM and its talk page and come away knowing that if you change a template used on thousands of pages then it can seriously lag the database by invalidating large portions of the cache, but that seems like a great reason to lock the widely used templates but not neccesarily a sufficient reason to destroy them. Where are the devs saying "destroy, destroy"? I would like to see that. Dragons flight 20:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The edit comments on Template:If say the place where it was discussed is #wikimedia-tech. --cesarb 20:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Note also "Please instead work at reducing the use of qif to reduce the harm." From Jamesday on the talk page of WP:AUM. Phil Sandifer 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have anything more detailed? One could read that as anywhere from: "We want you to work at removing every last usage of qif" to "Qif can be a nuisance, so don't use it except when it adds value to the encyclopedia". Also, it does little to clarify the point of whether all metatemplates should be conidered bad, or just those used on enough pages to lag the servers on update. If it is just the latter, could we make the problem go away by doing something as silly as creating a thousand different templates with conditional functions rather than one universal one? Conditional and meta-templates are useful, even if they aren't essential. But there are lots of things that the Mediawiki software can do that aren't essential. Surely if they devs wanted all metatemplates eliminated they could simply kill them in software. Since that hasn't happened (and in fact Aver has been expanding template functionality), it leads me to believe this is not a do-or-die situation. P.S. Can I assume you didn't save a copy of the #wikimedia-tech conversation? Dragons flight 21:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... *sputter*... Jamesday says, point blank, reduce the use of qif. How much more specific do you want this? Phil Sandifer 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How about specific enough to address whether using qif on say 1/2 of the pages it is used on now would be "reduced" enough not to cause a problem. I don't have a problem accepting that we can benefit the servers by using these things less, but I do object to the notion (which some people are propagating) that this necessarily implies we should not use them at all. Dragons flight 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Why on earth do you need to use them? There is no reason that these templates are needed. They make wiki coding far more difficult than it need be, and it's intended to be simple to understand. You can live without them. Wouldn't you prefer servers that work? [[Sam Korn]] 22:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, dude. Jamesday is Wikimedia's DBA. If he says "please stop using this awful thing kthx" he's probably not speaking out of his hat - David Gerard 12:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for not deprecating every template in Category:If Templates, and possibly Category:Boolean Templates? If there any particular reason why {{{else}}} is enabled in the first place? As a programmer, I wholeheartedly agree that these templates are non-essential eye candy, and actively a bad thing since they cause excessive server load (and not just each time when they're edited, either). But judging from people's reactions (such as the spurious claim that WP:AUM is not a guideline since it wasn't voted upon), gently asking those people to stop isn't going to have much of an effect. Radiant_>|< 21:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you mean, lets work to reduce their usage and find ways to make them unneccesary, then that is clearly a good thing in the spirit of AUM. If you mean, let's just disable them and let other people worry about the mess that makes, then no, let's not. At least not without a clear discussion with the devs showing that a radical culling is the necessary and only solution. Dragons flight 22:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Straw man. I was in no way suggesting that. I still would like to hear a good reason for using {{if}} that is not trumped by the server load it causes. SubstBot can easily get rid of a template if we want it to, without leaving a mess for other people. Radiant_>|< 22:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal to protect all high-risk templates. See Wikipedia:High-risk templates. --bainer (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Turan

85.98.37.166 is messing up the article Turan with non-verified and wrong information, mostly Pan-Turkist propaganda. -213.39.200.218 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User 85.98.37.166 is really pushing for a non-scientific pan-turkic propaganda. Tajik 00:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comparing the present version to those of other languages (like the German one: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan_%28Landschaft%29), this version (the English one) is REALLY messed up! -Tajik 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature

User:Stbalbach has twice now removed my comments from the Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature page, although I have warned him about removing other people's Talk page comments. I will not block him for repeated violation of this dictum, but I would appreciate it if someone else would do so if he repeats his inappropriate behavior. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

He's now done it again, and if I revert, it will violate 3RR. Could someone please help? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• You are not being very productive: calling his edits an "attempt at ownership", and going around deleting the template from talk pages. Leave your concerns about the template at Template talk:Maintained and please stop going after individual editors. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:38

I have stopped removing the egregious template from the Talk pages where it has been slapped around. I am only trying to let other, less familiar users, know they have the right to edit the page without having their edits approved by those who claim ownership of the article. I want my comments restored to the Tak page. Now. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Stbalbach violated the 3RR. Instead of blocking him, I rolled back his edit and left a note on his talk page. Zoe: please try to be more polite in your requests (I want my comments restored to the Tak page. Now.) -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. I have reworded my comments on the Talk page to try to make them less confrontational. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Brian. Probably a general note should be added to Template:Maintained. Please work things out on Template talk:Maintained -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a clarification to the template itself, which even User:Zoe and User:David Gerard seem to support. Is this acceptable now? Please change to Keep if you think it has a chance in some form, not necessarily this form. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:59

Classic Zoe running round thumping fists on table and stomping feet when she doesn't get her own way, rather than following or allowing due process to run its course at TfD. I want my comments restored to the Tak page. Now. Brilliant petulance and rudeness :D --84.68.109.124 13:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As opposed to anonymous sniping, which demonstrates loads of integrity. --Calton | Talk 13:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have as much integrity as the next man (or woman). The fact that I choose to edit this project "anonymously" is irrelevant. I choose not to register an account, which is my right, and, as your charming pages correctly state, gives me less anonymity than being a "registered user". Would you prefer the above comment came from some randomly chosen anonymous user name? How about I register as The Anonymous Sniper, would you prefer that "Calton"? --84.68.133.80 12:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Another BC/AD edit warrior

Caligulavator (talk · contribs) is a new account that's exclusively warring over BC/AD and professing (a bit suspiciously) total ignorance of the rules. See WP:AN/3RR#User:Caligulavator. -- SCZenz 03:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

AOL user. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to do a sock check on this user? I can't believe that a newly registered user would immediately find his way to BC/AD/BCE/CE related articles and start edit warring like this. This is completely out of character. This user account is particularly fishy because there currently is a debate on several pages (like WP:VPP, Wikipedia talk:Eras and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) on which dating system to use, after some back and forth edit/revert warring. Aecis ^praatpaal 14:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, because the user uses AOL, as Kelly just said. This means that the IP address is constantly changing, and the user is indistinguishable from the myriad others who use AOL. [[Sam Korn]] 14:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The frustrating thing about this is that, technically, the user didn't do anything but violate 3RR. Is there anything that could have been done other than going behind him and cleaning up his mess, then reverting until he went over the 3RR? Dealing with him required two users to revert, and a third to actually block him for 3RR, when his behavior was pretty clearly intended to be disruptive. Does anyone have any suggestions? -- SCZenz 17:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like BC/BCE warring is a new troll pastime. That's probably not grounds for shoot on sight though - David Gerard 13:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is either. Although, this guy was adding AD to 19xx at List of particle accelerators and creating misspelled articles with assertions of AD/BC "prevalence", which is even sillier than typical edit warring. I'd say it was almost borderline vandalism, for what that's worth. -- SCZenz 13:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Fortune Lounge Group article deleted

Hi

I would like to understand better why the Fortune Lounge Group article keeps on being deleted, as I have tried as much as possible to re-edit the article so that it is less promotional. It would be nice for the Group to feature in the Wiki and I do not mind re-editing the material once again, but I do not understand the grounds for deletion.

I see you have a number of online casinos and poker rooms listed in the Wikipedia and these articles have external links so if this is not ideally the factor for deletion - please could you give me some tips as to how we can feature in the wiki without breaking the editorial rules per se.

I'd really like some feedback and will await a timeous response.

Regards Lil

PS- Please could you reply >>email removed<< instead of the email address given above, as this is an urgent matter. Thanks

• WP:DRV is the place to ask this. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Just got his message today. WP:BITE springs to mind in this case. lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the email address to save you from spam. 86.133.53.111 16:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Locke Cole

Locke Cole is again censoring my talk page comments; this time on my own talk page, having previously been blocked for multiple reverts of that page. Andy Mabbett 10:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Appologies; my mistake. Andy Mabbett 12:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• You need to look a little closer at that diff. In advance: it's okay, I forgive you. —Locke Cole 10:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like he was trying to fix a sentence that was missing its ending to me. If you think think it should say something else, you can always change it of course, but I don't think reverting it is useful here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the particular edit I was inserting was removed here by Pigsonthewing. I thought it was an accident (cut and paste instead of copy and paste), so I placed it back in. —Locke Cole 12:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Censorship, no. Putting words in your mouth, perhaps. Morwen - Talk 12:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Consistent with the terms of his probation, I have blocked User:Pigsonthewing for 12 hours for failing to assume good faith and for making a personal attack in the edit summary to this edit. In addition to being rude, it is untrue, since to censor means to remove parts of a comment that are unacceptable to the censor, and Locke was restoring text that he thought Andy had accidentally removed (at least, such is my presumption). Since before he did this, Andy's comment was a sentence fragment, and since the words Locke put back were the exact words that were there earlier, and since the edit where Andy removed them involved a change to another part of the page, I think Locke's belief was understandable. Nandesuka 12:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka, OTOH, POTW was reverting himself and apologizing (in the next edit summary) at the very moment you blocked him. This suggests a genuine over-hasty assumption on his part, which there is also something understandable about. No, I'm not saying Locke would do such a thing, not at all, but it seems to me it wouldn't be wrong in this case to extend a good-faith assumption to Andy. Bishonen | talk 12:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies are good. I've lifted the block. Nandesuka 13:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Another prime example of too much power in the hands of too few, most of whom have twitchy fingers. Thank god they don't have real guns. Another sad day for Wikipedia. --84.68.109.124 13:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I had twitchy fingers once, but I drank a big tall glass of salty water and it cleared right up. Nandesuka 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid you were mis-diagnosed. You obviously had a severe case of itchy fingers. Everybody knows that the only remedy for twitchy fingers is a small short glass of un-salty water. Please go and consume one straight away, before it's too late and you block somebody else too hastily. --84.68.142.97 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies are good.: Indeed; and I'm due quite a few... Andy Mabbett 14:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka, I'm not sure that "failing to assume good faith" and personal attacks are actually justifiable reasons to cite for blocking Pigsonthewing per the Probation. Probation actually means that a user can be banned from a specific article if they edit disruptively there, and if they violate that ban, then a block is justified. The decision of the ArbCom was limited to placing Pigsonthewing on Probation and a one revert per week per article limit, there was no personal attack injunction included in the final decision of the ArbCom, nor anything about "Failing to assume good faith". I am not saying that you cannot block Pigsonthewing for being disruptive, but I don't think you can cite the Probation or the ArbCom decision unless he violates an article ban that he is currently under. Further, the edit summary in the diff you cited for the block read: "rv anotehr example of Locke Cole cesnoring my comments, this time on my own talk page". I disagree that this is a personal attack, it is more an allegation of censorship that a personal attack, though ironic, given Pigsonthewings propensity to delete the comments of others on his Talk page. The block however was not warranted, and I am glad you chose to remove it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right -- I misread the probation page and misunderstood the terms. Andy: I am sorry for blocking you. Nandesuka 22:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we all need to be circumspect in our treatment of Andy Mabbett. It doesn't help when we block him for trivial reasons; it's important to draw the line appropriately. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The purpose of applying the cattleprod should be loving Skinnerian education to teach him that fouling the floor is painful and that he shouldn't do it. Always keep this in mind - David Gerard 12:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Peter McConaughey - Take 3

I've already posted two notices (here and here) about the behavior of Peter McConaughey (talk · contribs), who now appears to be Wikistalking me. The latest incident is a series of personal attacks [35] on RfD in response to two redirect nominated by User:Extreme Unction. I removed the personal attacks once, but Peter re-added it.

I also attempted to end whatever vendetta he has against me on his talk page, but Peter accused me of threatening him. If this harassment were happening to another user, I would have instituted a short block at this point for disruption. As the harassment is aimed at me, I'm not going to initiate any admininstrative actions. I've considered an RfC, but I'd like to avoid the circus that it's become. I'm asking for assistance from any admin to get him off my back. I'd be quite happy not to interact wth him, but Peter is making that extremely difficult. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: My attempt to end this ordeal have been met with Peter diagnosing me with Antisocial personality disorder [36] and condescendingly informing me that help is available. Carbonite | Talk 17:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Can this troll simply be ignored? android79 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's unlikely. He's editing several articles I've edited for quite some time, but I'd be willing to take a break from those for a while. The main problem is that he's following my contributions and commenting on my actions. For example, I blocked User:Jpgordon for three hours for some personal attack. It wasn't a major issue and thus the block was rather short. Jpgordon actually told me that the block was a "good call" because he was pretty angry at the time he made the commments. Peter then started commenting on Jpgordon's talk page, apparently trying to convince him that my actions were unjust. In short, I can attempt to avoid him, but I believe his behavior still needs to be addressed. Carbonite | Talk 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In that case, RfC may be a circus, but it may be the best/only course of action here. android79 17:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe you're correct. I'm going to work to avoid any contact with Peter and hope that he'll lose interest in me. Hopefully that works, because I'd like to avoid the hassle of an RfC. I also have some small hope that Peter will go on to become to a good contributor here. Not exactly a shining start for him, but I've seen bigger turnarounds. I appreciate your comments, though. Carbonite | Talk 17:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite, take a look at the contribs and you'll see it's not you, it's more ... uh, general. I think you'd get plenty of interesting comments on an RFC, though I do realize it's a hassle. Alternative: ignore and wait a bit, because it looks to me like materials for goiing directly to an RFAR for trolling/disruption are collecting briskly as we speak. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...if the issues are more widespread than just me, perhaps I will consider drafting up an RfC. I'm going to ignore as much as possible, but I would like to nip this in the bud if other users are also being affected. Carbonite | Talk 19:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I realise he might be a troll, just out to wreak havoc, but I assume good faith and have tried to reason with him. I am not too sure how effective I will be, but it is worth a shot. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort; you handled that very diplomatically. Carbonite | Talk 19:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that anyone's effort have been successful as Peter is now accusing me [37] of administrative abuse at RfD for userfying his "zero-revert rule" page (see here) and an "anti-cabal" template (User:Peter_McConaughey/Self-rule). Other than an RfC, I don't see many options, but I'd be open to suggestions. Carbonite | Talk 20:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose we move the contents of "Zero-revert rule" back to Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule and from there we work on a compromise header somewhere between {guideline}, {selfrule}, and {proposal} that is acceptable to all parties? zen master T 20:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree. If it is a proposed guideline (we'll figure out what that means later), I'd say move it back to the Wikipedia namespace and discuss there. We'll establish what consensus is. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. Given the insistence by Peter and zen-master that the move was inappropriate, I'm actually quiet surprised they didn't just move it back. However, I would like to request that it have the {{proposed}} tag. I attempted to add this to the proposal numerous time, but was reverted each time. Carbonite | Talk 20:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

They couldn't move it back on top of the redirect without deleting it. android79 20:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Duh. Good point. Anyway, like I said, as long as it's marked as "proposed", I don't have any issue with it moving back to Wikipedia space. Carbonite | Talk 20:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what Android79 said, an admin is going to have to be the one to move it back if we want to properly preserve history, can one of you do that? Regular users really should be able to move things back. We can discuss {proposed} vs {guideline} or {selfrule} after it is moved back... zen master T 20:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll move it back myself if it's agreed that it will use {{proposed}} for the near future. It's already been established that it's not a guideline yet and the {selfrule} template isn't really appropriate outside of user space. Carbonite | Talk 20:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can hold a guideline/proposed guideline as some sort of move back hostage Carbonite, let's discuss the header disagreement after the content is back where it belongs. Also, can an admin also move back Peter's {selfrule} template too (if people have a problem with that template please discuss on its talk page or go the normal nominate for deletion process if you really don't like it)? zen master T 20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have left Mr McConaughey a short note from the Cabal to cool it or risk being blocked as disruptive - David Gerard 12:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure else to describe Peter's latest comment [38] towards me "I've got an alternate merge proposal. How about User:Carbonite & Wikipedia:Troll?" other than as a personal attack. I'm afraid than an RfC may be inevitable at this point. Carbonite | Talk 19:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Has he ever made a good edit, anywhere? I'm this >< close to blocking him indefinitely as a complete and utter troll - David Gerard 13:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy777

On December 10th, I blocked the IP of 68.40.168.173 for a month. It's a sock of BigDaddy777. Well today I got a message from him here. How? Is it because the last block hadn't expired when I put the month on? I know. Stupid question. But I've only been doing blocks for a short time (though I've been an admin since June). Let me know. Meanwhile, I'm going to make his block for 3 months. I'm tired of renewing it and it's definitely a static IP. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

IP blocks will sometimes expire when the autoblocker enacts a block against a blocked username. Ie, if my username is blocked, and I attempt to edit during that block, the autoblocker will also automatically block my IP for 24 hours. Unfortunately, there's a less than useful feature of the Wikimedia software that if multiple blocks are placed on a user, the block expiring the soonest retires all other blocks. So if I attempt to edit with my username, the autoblocker will kick in on my IP, and if my IP happens to have previously been blocked, that block will end up getting expired when the autoblocker block expires. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood. I appreciate the help. I blocked the IP for 3 months this time. it's most definitely static. Only BD777 has ever used it. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, in case you haven't seen it, the website he posted threatens anti-Wikipedia legal action - is he really going to sue, or is this just an intimidation website? --TML1988 01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Intimidation. You can't sue a foundation (or if you do, you'll lose more money than you'll gain). --Deathphoenix 02:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is that, out of curiosity? Is there somewhere handy(and by handy I mean, on Wikipedia) I can read up on that further?Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

IIRC that website has been mentioned on yahoo and a few other places. I'm pretty certain it's legit. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Foundations frequently don't have much in the way of assets. If you were to sue the Wikimedia foundation for every penny it's worth, and somehow managed to win, you'd find yourself the owner of 150 or so slightly-used webservers. Even new, you wouldn't be able to sell those servers for enough to pay your lawyer. --Carnildo 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but why does Wikimedia Foundation own servers at all... why does so much of the fundraising go to buying these rapidly depreciating assets? If I recall, IBM offers virtual Linux servers on their mainframes (easily configurable and expandable), or perhaps Google could even host all of Wikipedia within GoogleBase. It would be nice if most of the fundraising went to software development and day-to-day system administration. There are considerable deficiencies in the Mediawiki software and failing to address them in a timely and ongoing and rapidly adaptable manner is the biggest problem facing Wikipedia. -- Curps 08:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockcheck request

Leongmig23 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) recently blanked Trinity Repertory Company, an article I am the main contributor of [39]. Given that this username is similar to Leonig Mig, and we recently had a spate of Leonig Mig impersonators [40], and I have been involved Administratively with the Karmafist/Pigsonthewing/Leonig Mig/Scottfisher controversy, this seems like it might have been a focused attack rather than random vandalism, so if someone with Checkuser woulnd't mind seeing if the user has any relation to the previous Leonig Mig impersonator, I would be obliged. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Leongmig32 (talk · contribs) is editing from a rather interesting location which I will not identify further. I don't believe any of the other Leonig Mig family of editors have used this address or any other address at this organization. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, thanks for your reply. Would you be so kind as to note if there is any connection between Leongmig32 and Karmafist, Pigsonthewing, Leonig Mig himself, or Scottfisher? Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence of a connection based on CheckUser evidence between Leongmig32 and any other editor. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. What is it about the location that the user is editing from that makes it interesting? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be telling. - David Gerard 13:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the location, I was asking why she chose to describe it as interesting. Was it interesting because it correllates to someone particular? Or was it interesting because it said the user was coming from an ISP based on Mars? Was it interesting because it was blinking in bright colors? That's all. If sharing that would violate privacy, by all means don't. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Thesaunterer

Could someone take Thesaunterer (talk · contribs) in hand and explain to him/her why calling Fabian Basabe a liar in his article is not an acceptable edit? 216.234.130.130 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And now User:Dan100 has reverted my deletions of the slander twice now without comment, and is not responding to my requests that he stop. You know, editing as I do like this, it becomes a very interesting lesson in editing as an anon. You see how little anons are considered as valid editors, when regular users just arbitrarily revert valid edits submitted by anons without so much as a discussion or an explanation. Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Zoe, try dropping a quick note to the editor reverting -- User:Dan100 was happy to stop reverting, he just didn't realize what your short edit summary meant and thought it was vandalism since so much of the article was being removed. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I did drop him a note, but it wasn't sufficient. He has, however, reverted his change. I appreciate his having done so. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

The article obviously needs cleanup but User:Thesaunterer has backed up his edits with links to the articles in Newsday and the Chicago Tribune. Blanking published incidents rather than addressing them on the talk page should not be the norm. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Those citations weren't in the article when the content was removed, he has since added them as requested. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice little lesson for you there Zoe (and all fellow "admins") - WP:AGF when it comes to anon edits, and read the full context before acting hastily :D --84.68.133.80 12:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

More anonymous sniping. No, this is not a lesson for me, as unsourced accusations are what got us into trouble with the Seigenthaler mess. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

User:Jguk at Wikipedia:Eras

Has deleted a reference to the article "Common Era" twice (so far today). This probably violates the spirit of the Arbitration decision that prevents him from deleting CE. The reference is essential to the ongoing discussion. William Allen Simpson 23:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Diff? Regardless, I'd like to hear Jguk's side on this. El_C 06:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, should have added them at the time it was hot and easy to see at the top of the history:

1. the Common Era article is a particularly poor one - it seems, at present, to have descended into an "add your argument below" mentality at present - and an Arbitrator just removed all the refs!!!
2. rv - let's keep NPOV/POV out of this. it cuts both ways and last time the BC v BCE issue was discuss it just descended into a silly barrage on NPOV arguments, let's not let this happen here

--William Allen Simpson 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll drop Jguk a note since he may not be aware of this notice. Regards, El_C 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom said to not change CE to AD or BCE to BC. Nothing else. What William Allen Simpson outlines above doesn't fall within that restriction so I am as free (or unfree) to make other adjustments as any other editor. I'll explain my reasoning for the edits below:

There have been longstanding problems over at the Common Era article with people adding text to the article without citing references that has later been proven to be outright wrong, and with people removing the references that are there because they support statements that they disagree with. In the last fortnight we have had people adding "arguments" both for and against using Common Era designation in the article without showing that anyone quotable has ever made that argument, and one editor coming in, promoting arguments for (without making references), and deleting all the references that were currently there. In short, the article at present is entirely unreliable and needs a thorough referencing up from top to bottom (without even re-reading it now I can think of at least half a dozen significant claims in the article that are probably just plain wrong). In short, the article is at a stage where it should come with a very strong health warning, rather than being recommmended as a good read!

I'm quite happy to work with anyone who is dedicated to referencing up the whole article to make sure it is accurate - but at present it seems to have fallen into the hands of those unwilling even to cite references to what they are adding (with one exception, but even then he has not yet been able to cite references to back up any key claims, just side issues, which is useful, just not as useful as backing up the key claims).

I certainly believe the NPOV/POV claims, which in the past we have had on both sides of the argument, are left well alone. We're not going to get anywhere with them. Any debate can give rise to NPOV/POV issues (if X disagrees with Y, X thinks Y is POV, Y thinks X is POV, both have points of view, but that doesn't mean WP:NPOV is in issue). It was also inappropriate to make reference to NPOV/POV on one of the many proposal on the Wikipedia:Eras page. None of the many other proposals had any reasoning in their short statement form, why should one proposal stand out as having this (very decisive) reasoning?

I'll add that I'm not really sure if this is the forum for this discussion. The same questions could quite easily have been asked on my talkpage (where they may have gotten an earlier reply - certainly I'd have been aware of them much earlier), jguk 07:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sock attack

Ropo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has launched a sock attack. See Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Ropo for details. Now all blocked, as far as I can tell. Radiant_>|< 02:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unsure if Daveyonwoodland (talk · contribs) is legit or not (has ~40 reasonable edits, but was tagged by Ropo as one of his socks). Radiant_>|< 02:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Scratch that, it's another sock. Ropo seems to be running from a plethora of IPs, judging that the autoblocker got half a dozen hits on my block. Please advise. Radiant_>|< 02:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What bothers me is that he announced he was going to do it on the Village Pump (policy) page and then went unchecked for 15 minutes on it. I finally blocked him when I noticed that someone had hit the Kerry article. We need more anti-vandal tools/help. Just no question about it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Kelly says the guy's an AOLer. Can someone contact the AOL admins to have him kicked? Radiant_>|< 03:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Like they are going to reply... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have this fantasy that one day Wikipedia will be so successful that we can force AOL to ditch their proxy system... Oh, to dream... Dragons flight 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I have this fantasy that this sort of problem is going to get worse and worse until it is obvious to all that the experiment of allowing unregistered editors is unworkable...damn, that's no dream. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed, we probably should prohibit all edits from unregistered and new accounts from AOL (verifying the account by email would release the "new" flag). Sad, but we have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in open community. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Tim Starling has said he is happy to block AOL in its entirety for short times if someone runs a serious attack from it, and never mind it's 22% of the net. Mind you, an attack of such a size would attract the ire of even AOL abuse - David Gerard 12:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Paeris, Doggy style and Image:Dggst.jpg

Paeris (talk · contribs) started editing Wikipedia earlier today, by uploading an image (Image:Dggst.jpg). It was deleted at first, and then uploaded again by Paeris. Paeris has added the image to the article Doggy style. Needless to say, it has caused controversy. Another image was added later, or similiar content, but deleted twice. Paeris has also in the short time at Wikipedia caused some problems with other articles, including Seattle, Washington and Boris Lyatoshynsky. He has also made personal attacks, calling User:Irpen a "racist" [41]. Paeris, despite being new, knows quite a bit about the Autofellatio image issues, and seemingly believes that as a result it is ok to add a photo of "doggy style" without any problems. The image has been added five times since first being reverted - Three by Paeris (he stopped after a warning of WP:3RR), and two by User:Mistress Selina Kyle. The image is listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, as Paeris claimed that it is a government image (unlikely, as it is of pornographic nature).

I recommend that doggy style be watched as there is likely to be some sort of full-scale edit war starting there in the near future. Hedley 02:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Doggy style has been temporarily protected for edit warring (involving multiple parties). Paeris has been warned for a 3RR violation. Radiant_>|< 02:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Govt. image — we wish! El_C 07:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

He claims to be "a US federal worker", whatever that means. Probably hogwash. Delete it post haste. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful photo! Let's keep it! --Anittas 09:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You may check also this one (Image:Node.png) Bonaparte talk 09:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would we want to do that, Bonaparte? It doesn't seem to be remotely relevant. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Bonaparte for 24 hours for his repeated personal attacks - David Gerard 12:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't a personal attack. --Anittas 18:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on Talk:Doggy style is leaning toward the removal of the image. I'm rather unwillingly involved in the debate now, but besides Paeris and Mistress Selina Kyle, no-one is actually saying it should stay. Wikipedia showing a photo of actual intercourse, as one user said, maybe oversteps the line a little bit. If another administrator wants to review the debate and make some sort of decision, it'd be great. Hedley 14:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I nominated the photo for being a Wikipedia Featured Photo! --Anittas 18:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of its content, it's pretty clearly a copyvio, and needs to go anyway. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

4.37.64.164 used for vandalism and posting ads

The IP address 4.37.64.164 has been used to vandalize at least one page, Kettering University, and to post advertisements to several others. Many of the ads have already been removed and I tried to remove the ones that were left and revert the vandalism. I think more forceful action would be appropriate. The morgawr 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture

I put Image:Lifebracelet.jpg under GNU these bracelets are made by multiple companies and no one holds a copyright to them, but Aolanonwannabe keeps putting it under unsourced. Can someone accurately explain the situation to him and remove the tag. Chooserr 06:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

He is in the right. The question is not whether the bracelet is copyrighted but whether the image that you posted is copyrighted. I could take a picture of an orange. The orange isn't copyrighted, but the picture would be. If you don't provide source information for the image, we have to assume that it is copyrighted. FreplySpang (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

At best, this picture would be tagged as "fair use". I think a possible solution would be to buy one of these bracelets and take a photo of it yourself. Since you took that photo, you are free to release it under {{GFDL}}, {{PD}}, or whatever you want. --Deathphoenix 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Korean speaking admins?

Do any admins speak (or more precisely write) Korean? It might be helpful in dealing with an apparently well meaning, but disruptive, user who has been modifying pages related to Korea and famous Korean people, but has shown no interest and quite possibly no ability to respond to complaints written in English. Dragons flight 06:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this will help, but maybe you (or someone else familiar with this user) should try posting to the Korean Village Pump. Perhaps ask if anyone on the Korean Wikipedia is a user or admin on English Wikipedia, and maybe they can help guide this user. --Deathphoenix 13:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you have the same user in mind that I do, but I wonder if the solution might be to write in Korean using Babelfish (keeping the sentences *very* simple and clear so that they are robust enough to survive auto-translation). Actually, my attitude towards "my" user is that if someone is confident enough in English to contribute to the English Wikipedia, they should at least be willing to respond in basic English. The willingness to try is (IMHO) more important than perfect English. Fourohfour 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea who you're talking about. Babelfish might help, it would certainly be quicker than asking for a ko-Wikipedian to come here and familiarise him(her?)self with the situation before posting to the user. --Deathphoenix 14:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd probably start at Category:User_ko. Guettarda 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

*smacks head* Why didn't I think of that? --Deathphoenix 15:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet more linkfarming

User:201.9.96.42's only edits from a quick pull through of a random sample and the names of articles edited appear to be nothing more than dropping links to pages on a website thegoldenyears.org about a movie star in question. Said pages are just lists of links to other site, full of advertising, and wholly unencyclopedic. Anybody with rollback want to go to town? DreamGuy 11:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• That town's already been gone to. I left a warning message; looks like a static IP, or at least not a dialup user. Thanks, DreamGuy. android79 12:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Punishment

I note that Admin Karmafist is again using blocks as a punishment. Andy Mabbett 12:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean the absolutely bog-standard practice of escalating block lengths to deal with repeat offenders? Especially an offender already under ArbCom probation for disruptive editing? You mean a standard admin action that was done just over a week ago and to which I've heard no serious objection? That one?

No, I mean using blocks as a punishment. Or is that now policy? Andy Mabbett 14:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What part of absolutely bog-standard practice of escalating block lengths to deal with repeat offenders was the most difficult for you? Too many syllables? --Calton | Talk 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you owe Karmafist an apology for an unfounded personal attack. --Calton | Talk 13:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If I'd made a persional attack, or said something unfounded, I might. I've done neither. Andy Mabbett 14:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You did both, so you should. --Calton | Talk 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure Andy will recognise his error and respond accordingly - David Gerard 13:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure; I realise that I was wrong in ever believing that admins had no special priviledges. Andy Mabbett 14:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the precise jargon, think of it as lovingly trying to teach the repeat offender that the behaviour in question is unacceptable - David Gerard 13:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict with all responses above)Andy, please stop going through Karmafist's logs. If users have a complaint against him, let them make it. Don't assume they do. Going through his logs and bringing up every criticism here is stalking and unacceptable. If Karmafist's actions affect you, by all means report it. This doesn't, so your reporting it here is not good enough. [[Sam Korn]] 13:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, shoot the messenger, and god forbid that an admin should be exposed as doing wrong. Your fallacious allegation of stalking is what is unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 14:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• While Karmafist could have worded his comment a bit more tactfully, he wasn't doing anything wrong. Please familiarize yourself with the ArbCom case on Zen-master for background information. Radiant_>|< 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the ArbCom case on Zen-master: Irrelevant. Andy Mabbett 14:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, what you should realise is that you are not the person to be "reporting" Karmafist's "abuse of power". Zen-master is capable of making the complaint himself if he wants to. You don't need to, and this just seems like you trying to find some way to attack Karmafist. Don't do it. [[Sam Korn]] 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

you are not the person to be "reporting" Karmafist's "abuse of power": I most certainly am. Andy Mabbett 14:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No. You are a user who has had long disputes with Karmafist in the past. You are not anything to do with this dispute. You are stalking Karmafist's logs in order to get him in trouble. This is wiki-stalking and is not allowed. I agree with Bishonen's message below. Take heed. [[Sam Korn]] 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You are stalking Karmafist's logs in order to get him in trouble.: that is a lie. Retract it. Andy Mabbett 10:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: blocks are preventative, not punitive. Obviously, the block was used in this case to prevent an edit war from continuing, an edit war that was being participated in by a frequent 3RR violator and the subject of an ArbCom case. This was not punishment. android79 14:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: blocks are preventative, not punitive: so you have. You need to tell Karmafist that, not me. And you should read the edit sumamry concerned; it's not the first time he's referred to "punishment" like that. Andy Mabbett 14:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What he chose to call it is irrelevant. It was a block intended to prevent further edit warring, and thus completely justified. android79 14:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said above, Karmafist should probably not have used the word "punishment", but his block was certainly in order, as indicated by the ArbCom case that apparently you haven't bothered to read. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your allegation that Karmafist regularly uses blocks as punishment? Radiant_>|< 14:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the fact that Karmafist calls his blocks punishment constitutes pretty good evidence that he uses them as such. Yes, this 'punishment' happens to be in keeping with policy, but there have also been plenty which weren't. It would be better for Karmafist if other admins would tell him, 'you are not allowed to block people for disagreeing with you in a content dispute', 'you are not allowed to block people for four months / indefinitely for calling you a "deletionist vandal"', 'you should not keep reblocking people after other admins have unblocked them', and 'blocks are never punishment - they are to be used only to stop an active problem/disruption'. No, Andy shouldn't be obsessing about this (despite having been on the receiving end of some of those outside-policy blocks), but the casual dismissal of these policy violations just encourages the ongoing practice of them. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Andy, please try to think of something better to do than cast a net for any and all lapses in perfect formulation in Karmafist's contributions, carry the miserable minnow you caught in triumph to this page, and erect a monument to it. How does that build the encyclopedia? Please don't disrupt the noticeboard with such pettiness. If you keep it up, I will act on your recent ArbCom probation: "Pigsonthewing is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." Bishonen | talk 16:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You have yet to offer any evidence for your allegation of harrasment against me. What good did that do WP? You offer me a choice of being censored; or censoring myself. There is no danger of the latter. Andy Mabbett 10:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

User:84.65.93.109

I have blocked User:84.65.93.109 for a week for repeated vandalism to Top Gear (directly reversing the sense of a sentence despite a specific inline warning in the article not to), despite previous warnings both on the talk page and in the articles' edit summaries not to do so. -- Arwel (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

RfCs against my humble self

proud Rajputs require your help in properly formatting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2). There also seems to be a "secret" Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann hanging in WP namespace that was never listed (and of which I was never informed). Is this proper, or should it be deleted? dab (ᛏ) 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• The latter has been deleted (uncertified after a long time). The former will likely end up the same since several of the allegations therein aren't backed up by any evidence. Radiant_>|< 15:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said, they still need to figure out how to use the template (I pointed them to it on Talk:Rajput though). I did block them, of course, for 15 and 30 minutes, respectively, which makes me guilty of "gross lenience and wanton enabling of trolls and fools" (for making the blocks so short) rather than of "gross abuse of privileges"  :) dab (ᛏ) 15:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Gives dab a cookie. Now, no more feeding the trolls you :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • guys, a little help on my "RfC"? I don't want to feed them, but they're happily chewing away at me. If they are trolls, block them, ok? If they are poor misguided users, teach them manners please :( these Hindutva people are a serious problem, you see, there's any number of them in India, and many of them have internet access. Am I expected to singlehandedly combat bigotry in India? dab (ᛏ) 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Section 47

I have not used this function before so tell me if I'm in the wrong place to bring this up. I nominated Section 47 for deletion on Sunday December 18. the article is about an imho non-notable Star Trek role playing game site that I can find no ranking of on Alexa and they have few members. The article seems for the most part to be a copyvio right from the site in question and they admit so themselves. There's been only two votes so far but that's not the problem. People from the site are tainting the commentary on the nomination and the nomination page looks confusing. Also, there's a call for people from the site to comment on this here:[42]. (I decided to check their site since the people commenting had next to no edit history on WP). I would appreciate an admin or moderator to look into this and again, forgive me if I'm in the wrong place for this request.--Kalsermar 15:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry. Whichever admin chooses the job of closing will apply their personal meatpuppet-filter. -Splash^talk 16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Splash, I'm sure it'll be sorted out.--Kalsermar 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Citadel (Military College)

A letter to the Wikipedia Help Desk indicates that much of the material and the photos at The Citadel (Military College) are copied from the citadel.edu website without permission. Patricia McArver, Vice President for Communications of the Citadel said, "The Citadel is usually generous with public information sources that wish to use information and images we own but we do expect someone to ask permission first". Can someone investigate this, please? thank you. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Most of the photos do appear to be taken from their website, but Googling several lines from each section of the article turned up only Wikipedia or its mirrors. Johnleemk | Talk 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you link to the letter in question? I'm from South Carolina, so I'd be willing to help coordinate with the Citadel. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The following images have been tagged with {{nosource}}, uploaders notified, and removed from the article:

1. Image:Cadetprayer.jpg
2. Image:Spiritrun.jpg
3. Image:Rainknobs.jpg
4. Image:Knobcheckin.jpg
5. Image:Colorguard.jpg
6. Image:El cid cadets.jpg
7. Image:Femalecadets.jpg
8. Image:Rugby.jpg
9. Image:PTsunset.jpg

Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fgleb (talk • contribs) Page moves

I blocked Fgleb (talk · contribs) for a rash of page-moved (for example, moving Global warming to Global warming (hoax). I only blocked him/her for an hour, because I had not looked veyr far into his/her contributions (the latest 50 appear to be all page moves). I am asking that other people look into this and suggest an appropriate block-length. Guettarda 17:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, User:Dragons flight had already blocked indefinitely, so I restored his block - Guettarda 18:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As had User:Adam Bishop two minutes before me. Dragons flight 18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This user's only prior edit was to vote Keep at WP:MFD. S/he was part of a cluster of four Keep votes by new users, one right after the next. As a result, I would like to ask that people keep an eye on the other three:

• Femglow (talk · contribs)
• Shlemnik (talk · contribs)
• Hoboman (talk · contribs)

Guettarda 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User Kp7 has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Kp7 has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 18:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not an error. Izehar (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A sleeper account, created in November then abandoned until today, gave it time to build up enough edits and time in existence to be able to move articles. Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Nope - only needs time. And not much of that - accounts are created really fast lately, particularly as anons can't create articles and are asked to make an account - David Gerard 11:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, leaving only the malevolent vandals (those who've spent time thinking about how to be evil) who we can ban summarily. Casual ones, who we have to try to nurture, cannot cause page move problems. It's a good weapon to have in our arsenal. Pcb21 Pete 12:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Another example of someone probably using compromised computers. This time, we have an educational establishment in Argentina, and another one in Indiana.

• 150.164.52.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • High Speed MiIk.Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • High Speed VandaI Bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Highspeed MilkMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • JClark88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Kp7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Lowspeed WaterMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Namklim. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • PMarin88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Very Fast Water Male (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 192.195.225.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Carlos Lopez de la Delgado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • CentrallyPlannedEconomy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • CrandGru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Dreamy224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • El William con Tires (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Got milk? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Hombre de Leche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jvyyl ba jurryf loves ROT13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • MilkDoesABodyGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Milly mon Meals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Pagemovesonweels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Puttyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Sissiliso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Sk8er894 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • The WiIIy o.n WheeIs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Thebrisk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • V2lsbHkgb24gV2hlZWxz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Vandalism on wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • WheeIs on the bus go WiIIy WiIIy WiIIy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Wheelman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Wikipedia is Democracy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • YeaahICan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Пенис на колесах (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All have been blocked indefinitely. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jason Gastrich

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) making personal attacks, claiming editors are biased because they are atheists, at User_talk:Jason_Gastrich#Warning and Talk:Faith_and_rationality. He has ignored two warnings from me to limit his comments to article content and has restored removed personal attacks, and made new ones. He's also taken to deleting the comments of others at Talk:Faith_and_rationality. FeloniousMonk 20:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Its beginning to look like merely posting this here has caused a more civilized approach by Mr. Gastrich. At any rate, although he hasn't bothered to acknowledge that he's made personal attacks, at least he's stopped them and stopped the edit warring he was indulging in. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what to say to this one, after viewing his talk page and it's history as well as the talk page for Faith and rationality and it's history I don't know what a proper response to this is and as such I don't feel comfortable blocking since blocking won't make it go away and might very easily cause an escalation, though I have no issue with it if another administrator feels that this warrants a block. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory and User:Zen-master

Could an admin please take a look at Conspiracy theory in regards to Zen-master (talk · contribs)'s probation [43]. I don't consider myself to be a neutral admin since I've edited the page recently and have an unrelated dispute with him. I think Zen-master's recent reverts and edits have been disruptive to the article and may be grounds to consider banning him from the article for a month or so. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite seems to be implying edits he disagrees with are "disruptive". What specific edits of mine violate any wikipedia policy or are applicable to probation? Since becoming aware of it I've been following the WP:0RR which encourages editors to include other people's content in addition to my own, instead of reverting which can stifle contribution and can inflame confrontation. zen master T 21:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring is still disruptive, even if you're avoiding simple reverts. Just in the past 10 hours, you've been reverted by three different editors. Carbonite | Talk 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to note here that the only reason why Zen wasn't already blocked from CT was because of a technicality. He was blocked for violating 3RR on December 12th and his probation was extended on December 14th. And the 3RR violation was on Conspiracy theory as was the violation on November 24th that caused him to be blocked. So this isn't new. It's just the latest chapter. And btw, zen is still reverting other people's edits. They are not strictly reverts but that have that effect. And he's doing it without discussion. I hope he is blocked from CT. Like I said, this isn't new behavior. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree I was "edit warring", the other side in the dispute is the only one that has been reverting the article recently and removing relevant info and clarity. I don't think it is unreasonable to strive for a superset introduction of all viewpoints and presentation methods until we work out a bipartite version on the talk page. My most recent edit cleaned up a ton of NPOV violations on its own. zen master T 22:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Woohookitty that this isn't even close to new behavior. Zen-master has been edit warring on "conspiracy theory" articles for nearly six months, including Conspiracy theory, AIDS conspiracy theories, Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, Wikipedia:Words to avoid and 9/11 conspiracy theories. He already been banned from editing the Race and intelligence article due to similar behavior. This widespread disruption is the reason his probation was expanded to all articles. Carbonite | Talk 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What "behavior" of mine actually violates any wikipedia policy? Are you citing any of either? All those articles have/had fundamental bias problems with them. I accept that the apparent majority disagrees with my interpretation but that is not justification for direct censorship, obfuscation, and mischaracterization. Also note, I am not "banned" from editing race and intelligence (which I consider to be a racist and racism inducing article), my edit restrictions probation originally was specific to race and intelligence but a small and highly coordinated group of editors have apparently conspired to expand the scope of my probation/edit restrictions to include all articles. Pay no attention to the people behind the curtain surrounding the Wikipedia. zen master T 22:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that it would have been more accurate to say that you were banned from editing Race and intelligence. Carbonite | Talk 22:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The page you refer to is an individual admin imposed "ban" of race and intelligence that expired on Nov 26. Though, if you read the entire thread there was and is controversy over that "ban" because of that fact the "banning" admin falled to include a rationale as to how adding the {npov} tag to a fundamentally disputed article could somehow be construed as a "disruption". The admin in question seems to have clearly violated the WP:Probation policy: "A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". zen master T 01:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert warring is silly. Revert warring over something as inane as a meta tag is *INCREDIBLY* silly. I don't know, maybe go write an encyclopedia? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 02:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So

Can a neutral admin look at this please and make a decision? Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very well. Considering that Zen-master's edits on Conspiracy theory have in the past week been reverted by a number of different users, including Willmcw, Tom Harrison, Harald88 and Carbonite, and on the talk page several people, including Cberlet and Sean Black, state disagreement with Zen-master's edits, I must conclude that his edits run against consensus, and that his repeatedly reverting to the version he prefers is disruptive. Thus, Zen-master is hereby banned from Conspiracy theory until January 1st. He is welcomed to propose any changes to the article on its talk page, and seek consensus from there. Radiant_>|< 13:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• The word "consensus" does not mean "majority". Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy was specifically designed to ensure the inclusion of all viewpoints, it is not being followed in conspiracy theory and other articles such as race and intelligence. If a small "majority" of editors revert additions to an article, rather than changes, that is perhaps a sign of censorship. To avoid the possibility of even inadvertent censorship editors should try to follow the Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule which frees editors from thinking in terms of "reverting" and does not have the effect of stifling contribution. The 0RR has the advantage of encouraging editors to be bold while at the same time being inclusive of other editors contributions. Articles should be a superset of all viewpoints and sources. Also, if a highly coordinated group of editors repeatedly revert additions or clarity improvements from an article, without making a competent argument for exclusion, then any censorship or obfuscation is increasingly obvious... zen master T 18:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a very nice rant, but does it have a point relevant to the issue at hand? Radiant_>|< 23:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, perhaps if you read it without pre-judging it to be a "rant" you would glean the relevant points, or are you trying to dismissively label it a rant? zen master T 23:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, like I asked I was wondering if you have a point and whether it's relevant to the issue at hand, because neither is obvious from the comments you just wrote. Radiant_>|< 23:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The issue at hand is apparent censorship and obfuscation. A small majority has labeled contributions they disagree with as "disruptive" instead of debating the merits of those contributions. They do not seem to value retaining all information and viewpoints but I can give them the benefit of the doubt if they assure me that is not their intention. zen master T 00:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, the issue at hand is that you have been banned from that page for disrupting it. Radiant_>|< 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter McConaughey

Just blocked for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks after warning, after seeing this edit. Can anyone work out any possible way to bring Mr McConaughey back to the land of the living? - David Gerard 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, it's not really necessary to put it like that. We have to bee civil too, ya know. I have been trying to urge Peter to exercise civility. I don't know what else can be done. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think David was just making a play on words. But you can block him for incivility if you really want :-) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I obviously missed the "play" of it. Maybe I missed something. Oh well... --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I was attempting to euphemise "batshit crazy troll", but anyway. By the way, has Mr McConaughey made any good edits at all, anywhere? - David Gerard 11:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• How about "chiroptera-poop mentally challenged troglodyte"? Radiant_>|< 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I count about 10-20 good edits to articles other than conspiracy theory, 9/11, American terrorism, and related talk pages. I wasn't going in to look at all of those since the idea of POV there is too great to make any sense in a short check like that. Hmmm... an idea. BRB. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are they..? I'm sure there must be a few good edits in amongst the user's total edit count of 579, but I don't see any off hand. The proportions have some interest in themselves: only 119 of them are to article space, 123 to user talk alone. What stood out for me were PM's recent exchanges with two notably unflappable and polite editors, JRM and MONGO, on non-existent or nonsense issues, seemingly purely with the goal of somehow, by hook or by crook, needling those users into annoyance. (Unsuccessfully; well done, guys.) A lot of good-faith assumption has already been spent on this user, and has fallen on stony ground. I'm thinking RFAR rather than RFC, sooner rather than later, though perhaps not quite yet. Meanwhile, I advise only the coolest, most laid-back of us to try any interaction (me, I would be the very last). Mind that blood pressure. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, here are the ones that I found. Caveat: I wasn't going near any of the talk pages, the POV pages (like American terrorism or conspiracy theory), or the Wikipedia namespace. [44] [45] [46] [47] (Maybe)[48] (Maybe too)[49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] So, all in all, maybe 25-30 possible "good" edits. However, for every one good edit, there are a couple of edits, maybe not so good. I'm just sayin' is all. Phew... good thing I don't do this for a living, but it might come in handy if an RfAr is ever filed. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In my interpretation Peter has been a very worthwhile contributor to wikipedia. Peter fundamentally grasps the concepts of true consensus and collaborative editing and I have a learned a lot from his WP:0RR guideline. I can give Carbonite the benefit of the doubt if he claims otherwise but I think it was reasonable for Peter to conclude Carbonite was trying to damage the acceptance of WP:0RR, first by moving it to Peter's userspace over a header dispute, then after that mistake was corrected and the guideline was moved back, Carbonite proposed a merge of it to a fundmanetally different and perhaps less effective guideline. However, Carbonite continues to maintain the two guidelines are similar which apparently is easy to do as he fails to even acknowledge the evidence to the contrary. I ask all of Peter's detractors to please assure me they are not attempting to stack the deck against him to ease future discrediting of WP:0RR or any other guideline or proposal he might have? Please give Peter the benefit of the doubt and avoid statements such as the above "batshit crazy troll" that are out of line for an admin and portray him and his contributions way too negatively. The list of "few beneficial edits" above is likewise way too negative. zen master T 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Way too negative? Take a look at his contribs and find any more productive edits and diffs. I was trying to do PM a favor by pointing out he wasn't just disruptive. Remember also, I was only going through his main namespace edits in areas specified above. And some of my diffs are being generous by calling them productive. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a tendency to disagree with Zen-master ;-) , but here I fully agree. I also appreciate Carbonite's openly stated attempt to group all <3RR on one page, but I can understand disagreement about it and coming from the 0RR page his actions may look a bit self serving and lacking openness. Apart of that, for an as yet unidentified reason some administrators seem not to understand Peter (see also the discussion with Voldemort on my talk page User_talk:Harald88#A & B's discussion and Wikipedia management)... perhaps Texans and Dutch speak the same language? (I'm Dutch). Also, most of his edits and proposals that I saw on Conspiracy Theory were definitely good, helping to move in the direction of similar but already featured articles. BTW what did David Gerhard mean with "batshit crazy troll"? I did not understand that, thanks! Harald88 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and see also Mongo's comment on Peter's Talk page User_talk:Peter_McConaughey#Howdy

What you have above is all about "portrayal", you aren't letting the evidence speak for itself. Creating a small list of "productive" edits by an editor already labeled negatively can have the effect of getting people to further unquestioningly accept your negative portrayal -- though I can give you the benefit of the doubt if you assure me that isn't your intention. Regardless, please let the evidence speak for itself and refrain from excessive or multi-layered portrayals. In my interpretation Peter's response to Carbonite's actions was completely reasonable (I give the benefit of the doubt to both parties, miscommunication and misunderstanding can happen). Please simply list any other edits of Peter's you interpret to violate any wikipedia policy, and how? zen master T 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Someone and someone else asked if he had made any good edits anywhere. I, trying not to condemn PM without looking at the edits, compiled a list of edits that show he has actually made some productive edits. Now I am beginning to think you do not assume good faith on my part. My list has absolutely nothing to do with Carbonite or their history together... notice I stayed away from the 0RR and highly POV pages. If you really want, when an RfC or an RfAr are filed (which is very possible, it seems) you will have a list of "bad" diffs. I was just creating a list of "good" diffs. If you can find any other diffs that might fit into a "good and productive" category, please feel free to list them yourself below. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You did/do seem to support the notion Peter has only made "some" or a "few" good edits? That is a negative portrayal and I believe it is completely inaccurate. Perhaps Bishonen and David Gerard are the ones that may have portrayed PM excessively negatively, perhaps inadvertently. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, I interpret the possibility of a hastily made portrayal being excessively negative, perhaps inadvertently, and perhaps even within the motivation of finding "some good" edits. Focusing on some "good edits" of an already negatively portrayed editor can have the effect of switching around the burden of proof, which would be wrong and seems to have almost happened in this case. The actual burden of proof is on PM's detractors to give evidence of any violations, right? zen master T 22:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Evidence of violations is plentiful on these pages. They're looking for evidence of good edits by Peter. Radiant_>|< 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've been following this page quite closely and seen no evidence of any "violations" by PM. Suggesting people look for a few "good edits" by Peter is a negative portrayal which I currently assume was an inadvertent mistake on your part? Please discontinue that either way. zen master T 23:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You apparently haven't been following it all that closely, considering you are unaware that the suggestion that people look for good edits by Peter is actually a serious request by David Gerard, rather than an inadvertent mistake by me. Radiant_>|< 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said above, requesting editors to look for "good" edits by an editor is needlessly prejudicial as it portrays them negatively, though, because I give you and/or David Gerard the benefit of the doubt that it was inadvertent I will simply ask you to refrain from doing that in the future. zen master T 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And I am not even sure why you are arguing with what I did. I was trying to help Peter here. There was a question of whether or not PM had made any good edits anywhere. I, looking for ways to not have him blocked outright, came up with a list of productive edits. That way, no one can say that he has never made a useful edit. I am trying to help Peter, and you are fighting me on it. Why? There are people looking to ban him indefinitely, and I am trying to persuade them to be nice and give him a shot. Did you even read my first comment in this section? I was trying to act in PM's defense. Yet you have already prejudged me as being anti-Peter. Please, continue to assume good faith on my part as I try to save Peter from being banned for good. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand you claim you want to "help" Peter and I can give you the benefit of the doubt. However, what I am telling you is your "help" or someone else's question that you responded to actually has had the effect of an excessive and very unfairly negative portrayal of Peter. The notion that Peter has only made a few good edits is completely inaccurate and taints a fair consideration. What further concerns me is now you seem to be hinting that Peter should be banned for good, that is also completely incorrect. Where did you get the notion Peter should be "blocked indefinitely" from, it seems you are definitely against him now? This page only contains a negative fluff portrayal of Peter, the only evidence presented here involves Peter's supposed "name calling". However, in my interpretation Peter's comparison of Carbonite to a troll made sense given the abusive and stifling actions Carbonite committed, though I give both parties the benefit of the doubt that tensions flare and mistakes happen. But it is starting to seem reasonable a small group of editors are systematically trying to portray Peter negatively because they really don't like his WP:0RR or other posts for some fundamental reason. zen master T 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please listen to me... First, I never said those were Peter's only good edits. I just wasn't going near the aforementioned areas. I was just showing that he was able to make productive edits. You fault me for trying to show Peter in a good light? Second, I never once said Peter deserved to be banned for good. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said there are "people looking to ban him indefinitely, and I am trying to persuade them to be nice and give him a shot." What is so wrong with me trying to be on PM's side here? You want to be the only one? Third, let me say it again, this has nothing to do with Carbonite. Do you get it? Did you read what the first thing I wrote here was? Did you read any of this? See ya, Zen. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Lord Voldemort, you seem to have accepted as a given that Peter should be "blocked indefinitely" and I think that is a completely inaccurate portrayal given the evidence presented. You say "there are people looking to ban him indefinitely" but where did anyone directly state that (innuendo doesn't count)? I am not "faulting" you for anything as I can give you the benefit of the doubt, I am merely only pointing out what you claim to be "help" has actually had the effect of an excessively negative and unfair portrayal. It is true that it was David Gerard not you that was the one who asked the leading question above: "By the way, has Mr McConaughey made any good edits at all, anywhere?" which should be obvious to see was meant prejudicially, perhaps inadvertently, as David's preceeding sentence contains the phrase "batshit crazy troll"... zen master T 19:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So apparently the answer is no, you haven't been reading what I've been writing? Let me say this one last time, as clear as possible... I was trying to help User:Peter McConaughey from being indefinitely banned, by showing that he has made useful edits, and is not just a "batshit crazy troll". There are people looking to ban him indefinitely (You asked for evidence, here's your diff), and I was trying to stop them by showing PM has been useful. And in fact, I wasn't even responding to David Gerard's question, I was responding to Bishonen's question and comment, "Where are they..? I'm sure there must be a few good edits in amongst the user's total edit count of 579, but I don't see any off hand." If you continue to assert that I am against Peter, which I never have been (show me the diffs for evidence of me being anything other than civil or helpful towards Peter), I will not discuss this matter with you further. Your continued lack of good faith on my part leads me to believe that you just want to argue, and don't care what has actually been written. Please, before you respond, make sure you read this entire comment. Thank you, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always given you the benefit of the doubt that you are not directly against Peter, but I separately can't ignore the overall excessively negative and unfair portrayal on this page. Your citation of David Gerard's suggestion of blocking Peter indefinitely is precisely my other point, where has David or anyone actually presented actual evidence and made a case against Peter (again innuendo doesn't count)? It seems you've been following all the various Peter sections on this page quite closely? The Carbonite "troll" comment is small potatoes and was reasonable given Carbonite's actions that were interpreted as being stifling and I've seen no evidence of Peter "wikistaling" him, if anything an opposite case could be made. The entire concept of "search for any good edits" by a negatively portrayed user further stacks the deck against them, perhaps you have inadvertantly fallen victim to that, though I can also give David Gerard the benefit of the doubt as cases and arguments made hastily can have, perhaps inadvertent, prejudicial results. zen master T 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen... buddy... if you have a problem with David Gerard, take it up with him. Quit debating with me. I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth (here, and now seemingly on Peter's page). Why do you keep bringing Carbonite up? I will not argue with someone if you won't even listen. I won't argue with someone who seemingly cannot see that I am trying to save PM, not ban him. This is silliness. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps what you claim is my "not listening" to you is instead us simply disagreeing over whether looking for "good" edits is actually "helpful" or not in this case? I maintain that seeking "good" edits has the perhaps inadvertent effect of unfairly reinforcing a negative portrayal and characterization. I bring Carbonite up because the supposed "personal attack" by Peter against him is the only actual "evidence" on this page, but as I explained above I think that was completely understandable given the situation. What else, if anything, makes you think the case against Peter is so strong that redeeming edits must be found to "save" him? I do take issue with David Gerard's apparently hastily made portrayal that also lacks evidence, but I can give him the benefit of the doubt and need not follow it up with him if he refrains from repeating the same, perhaps inadvertent, mistake. zen master T 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen carefully, I don't really give a crap about how Peter is being portrayed here. I don't give a crap the history between Carbonite and Peter. I don't give a crap if you can't or won't understand me. I DO give a crap about possible good users getting banned.

You ask, "What else, if anything, makes you think the case against Peter is so strong that redeeming edits must be found to "save" him?" My answer: Someone said they were close to banning him! Honestly, at this point, I don't give a crap what the case against him is. Someone was close to banning him, so I thought I'd help him not get banned. If someone says, "Hey, I'm going to ban this editor unless someone can show he or she is useful", I am going to see if I can show them as useful. I provided quality diffs that show PM as something other than a troll (Again, I don't give a crap if this label was justified, that is not what I am arguing here. If you want to have that conversation, we can do that later, for now, please focus on this.)

I don't know if you are arguing just to argue, but this time I really am done with you. You fail to assume good faith, you put words in my mouth, you don't seem to want people to try and help, this case is seemingly hopeless. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So you unquestioningly accepted David Gerard at his word that the case against Peter was so strong that redeeming edits must be found to save him, and, you dutifully took it upon yourself to spend a significant amount of time searching for only that without considering the possibility there is no case, and, you have repeatedly made a point of insisting: 1) you have nothing to do with Carbonite, 2) or David Gerard, 3) and you are not duplicitously against Peter? Ok, I can still give you the benefit of the doubt. Going forward, if you really want to "save" Peter, as you claim, then be aware that focusing on "redeeming" edits to "save" him can, perhaps inadvertently, reinforce an unfairly negative portrayal, which is exactly what almost happened in this case in my interpretation. The case against Peter is actually slim to none, no where near having to search for redeeming edits to "save" him. zen master T 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Willy on Proxies

Caught another one. Thanks to Hurricane111 for the spot.

• 203.166.99.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • GDFL Licensed Wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • *snore* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Nesting Willies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Pasteurized ******* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Sleeping Willies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Willy Eggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Highspeed WiIIy-o-n-WheeIs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Mike Romero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Nonfat MilkMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Phil Doroff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • HIGHSPEEDWILLYONWHEELS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Villiam das Vheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • WOWzers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood Arb Case

Just a note of forewarning -- C.f. both the URA page and this arb case, [71]. It looks like the usual suspects are getting into a argument over the placement/lack of BRACKETS. That is, is it 'Hong Kong, PRC' or 'Hong Kong, (PRC)'. Potential trouble spot there.

A clear breach of policies

Here's another page containing personal attacks and breaches of "AGF". Will any admin take action, or not? Andy Mabbett 11:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Point me to the personal attacks, please. Also, it should be noted that Pigsonthewing has attempted to "stir up trouble" again here and here. —Locke Cole 11:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Here and here. HTH. Andy Mabbett 11:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks, just a collection of information. Please provide a specific example and how it violates a policy. —Locke Cole 11:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How is the diff you provide a personal attack? —Locke Cole 11:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Without wanting to enter into the rights and wrongs of this long-running dispute, the reality is that this kind of personal hit list that labels other users as vandals, harassers, etc frequently causes offence, even though that may not be the intent. Personally, I never like to see them, and where they do exist, it is better not to add the labels. After all, you will probably remember why you put them there, and nobody else really needs to know. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll remove the labels and just hope I don't forget. :P —Locke Cole 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks are a matter for WP:RFC.Geni 12:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, if you look at what links to the page in question, you'll see nothing did prior to Pigsonthewing reporting this and attempting to stir up trouble. It would seem he is stalking my contribs to try and find things to report me for here. Can something be done regarding that? Thanks! —Locke Cole 12:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So what's your purpose in having him on your list of users "for easy tracking"? It seems to me that the pair of you need to leave each other alone, and get on with something constructive. --ajn (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have left him alone, and I have gotten on with other things more constructive. Look at my contribs and look at his before jumping to conclusions next time, okay? —Locke Cole 13:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So, again, why is he on your list of users "for easy tracking"? What was your purpose in putting him there? --ajn (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"For easy tracking" - instead of trying to remember these things, some of us like to write them down from time to time. —Locke Cole 13:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. Why do you consider it important to "track" him, specifically? --ajn (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Locke_Cole. —Locke Cole 13:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of all that. Why do you feel it necessary to "track" him, if you're going to leave him alone? The only reason I can think of is that if you spotted something you could report him for, you'd do it. If there's another reason, what is it? People don't keep lists of "users to watch" unless they are proposing to do something about those users' actions. Both you and he would be far better off if you just ignored each other (and this sort of thing doesn't help). --ajn (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between leaving people alone and ensuring they don't continue prior bad behavior. And I'll repeat what I've told you before: I have ignored him, he's free to go do whatever he likes. Instead he's chosen to come here repeatedly and attempt to stir up trouble. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to tell you. As for my pointing out the probation page to Linuxbeak, I was trying to keep his probation info all in one place (which was the whole point in Tony Sidaway creating the page). What, exactly, is the problem in doing THAT? —Locke Cole 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Precisely ajn. There also has to be more to 'stalking' than simply keeping track of what someone does and occasionally commenting on actions that are perceived as inapropriate. If that's 'stalking' then we've got thousands of stalkers on Wikipedia. Most of them being admins and vandal fighters. As defined by policy, stalking is limited to activities where edits are revoked or complaints lodged solely in an effort to harass the contributor with no consideration for the validity of their actions. Following someone around and reverting all their edits, even when those edits do not violate any Wikipolicy... that's stalking. It is also something which has gone on here and ought to stop. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Perceived? He's done it twice this week, once to me, and once to Karmafist above. It's stalking, and he's not even contributing to Wikipedia; just checking users to find "perceived" faults, then reporting them. And shock! I did nothing wrong, congratulations Pigsonthewing, you've wasted peoples time again! —Locke Cole 13:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet more false allegations and abuse. Will you never stop? Andy Mabbett 13:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I never started. —Locke Cole 13:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It is also something which has gone on here: For the sake of clarity, who has done that? Andy Mabbett 13:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Enough already. Please see below. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing banned from Administrators' noticeboard for one week

This is a notice that User:Pigsonthewing is banned from editing the Administrators' noticeboard and all subpages of said page, including WP:AN/I for a period of one week. Andy's RFAr has a clause which allows for any administrator to ban Andy from any page for good cause, and as such I have activated the probationary remedy. I have informed Andy of this ban and am asking that all administrators take notice. If Andy violates this ban, he may be blocked for 24 hours. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Another Place To Ban POTW from

POTW has been Wikistalking me again [72], if sees him doing it again, please do me a favor and block him. Pretty much all he's done after the arbcom case has been harrassing me, complaining on the Admin Boards, and causing revert wars at places like Jeremy Clarkson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). David Gerard is right, it's time that POTW was just indef blocked once and for all, as he contributes far fewer positive things in comparison to his vast amount of negative contributions. karmafist 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See what I mean? These edits came after I posted here. [73],[74]

He isn't contributing anything, he's just looking at paricular article histories and user contribs and swooping in to try and intimidate. As usual. Will someone please just follow David Gerard's advice and just stop his nonsense once and for all? I can start a straw poll if you'd like to see if there's a consensus for doing this so whoever does it can feel like they're not going too beyond Be Bold/WP:IAR. karmafist 14:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As much as I think that Andy is more of a pain than a help, I am strongly against having a straw poll for this. This is more of RfC material. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that Andy is abiding by the ban on him here. As he has abided by the bans on Jeremy Clarkson and Longbridge. Saying that he 'caused revert wars' there is a bit disingenuous given that the wars, in both those cases, involved Locke Cole following Andy to pages Locke Cole had never edited before and reverting Andy's changes. There's a term for that. I can cite more than a dozen examples of Locke Cole and you (prior to being banned) doing that. This doesn't qualify as "leaving him alone". Nor does repeatedly reporting him here, making gratuituous negative comments about him to others on a daily basis, et cetera. Yes, Andy is aggressive and disruptive. Yes, he makes negative comments. Yes he keeps track of edits and says 'look what HE did!'... all just like you and Locke Cole. If you want him to stop then step one is doing so yourselves. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Straw polls of this nature risk being just >this< far off hanging parties. And, BTW, WP:BOLD, otherwise known as Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, has to do with editing articles and has no force when it comes to interpreting policy or ArbCom decisions. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Filocht, if the past few months have taught me anything, it's that the important part of policies and guidelines are the intent, not the actual words there since they can be changed with a click of a button and there's no real way to change them without trying to force them through or dealing with endless talk pages and cajoling. karmafist 18:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Lapinmies

To quote KHM03's last statement at my talk page:

I became aware of this user after he left a somewhat aggressive message on Doc glasgow's talk page; I immediately noticed that the user may be engaged in other overly aggressive behavior, anti-Semitism, and vandalism. I'm not asking for any action, but I might suggest this user be watched a bit. Thanks...KHM03 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

He has made many unproductive edits recently enough, but he seems to have a long and productive history at Wikipedia. Can I get some outside opinions without having to bother with the RfC process? He's been here long enough and has enough edits that some of ye should recognize him. Redwolf24 (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Help with User:Gibraltarian requested

Gibraltarian was blocked indefinitely a few days ago. Since then, he's used a whole mess of IPs in the 212.120.129, 212.120.130 and 212.120.131 range. The articles he's been hitting are History of Gibraltar and Disputed status of Gibraltar. Could I have as many admins as possible add those pages to their watchlist? I'm trying to approach of blocking him per edit as opposed to range blocks. It's a dynamic IP. Hopefully he'll give up. I just blocked him from History of Gibraltar but he got a few edits in before I did. Any help would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Kurt

User:Kmweber has thoroughly gotten under Karmafist's skin. I've left a note for Karmafist.

Unfortunately, we can't block people just for being INCREDIBLY ANNOYING. The problem with Kurt is that he is of the school of "if you can't prove me wrong to my satisfaction, then it means I am right, and can continue to behave this way". Zephram Stark and zen-master are other examples. They are incredibly disruptive and annoying, and basically drive normal editors insane. Kurt got under Snowspinner's skin on #wikipedia and under Karmafist's skin on the wiki.

I've left a note for Karmafist, unblocked Kurt for now, and suggest admins keep a very close eye on him. Repeated 24-hour blocks for disruption may teach him empirically what behaviour works and what doesn't - David Gerard 16:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So you don't think it is necessary to dysysop Karmafist? Fred Bauder 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I submit that if you had Kmweber and Pigsonthewing stalking you, you'd blow your top too. I've asked Karmafist to please try to ignore Kurt's existence and leave him to others - and you can be sure many regulars of this page will be watching his every move - and I'm leaving a corresponding note for Kurt - David Gerard 16:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Could all interested monitors please see User talk:Kmweber. I've pointed out that my suggestion above to keep the blocks to 24 hours carries no more force than being a request, so to please cool it however possible - David Gerard 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What's going on with his block log? It looks like a bunch of blocks stacked on top of each other. I don't know what's going on here, so someone more familiar should probably fix it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There was apparently an interesting discovery made that it is possible to block a user using the lowercase version of their name (i.e. kmweber in this case) and for that block not to show up in the appropriate log because the logging mechanism forces the initial letter to UPPERCASE (i.e. Kmweber). So if you check the logs for all those admins, you'll probably find references to user:kmweber interleaved…try this for example. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And if the 1 week block Snowspinner imposed expires, doesn't the 1 month block Zoe imposed expire with it? Aecis ^praatpaal 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it already expired with his first 24 hour block, I think. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist has just blocked Kurt indefinitely [75]. Even if Kurt deserves to be blocked, it's been well established that Karmafist should not be the one to do so. I'm not going to unblock, but someone more familiar with the situation should take a look. Carbonite | Talk 17:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Not only should he (as someone directly involved in the situation) not be the admin to block it, but Kurt clearly doesn't deserve an indefinite block. --Deathphoenix 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• we should have a policy for blocking people for being incredibly annoying. not indefinitely, of course, but for a couple of days. So much time is lost to the project by random fools, and sometimes valuable editors. We need a clearer phrasing of the "disruption" clause, allowing admins to block users who evidently refuse to, or lack the intelligence (or English skills) to adhere to basic policy. dab (ᛏ) 17:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am shortening this block. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

David notes we can't block people for being incredibly annoying, but the question I would like an answer to is can people be blocked if they are clearly not here to contribute to the encylopaedia AND are incredibly annoying? (and I haven't looked at Kmweber's contributions to see whether he falls within this description, so I make no comment on him), jguk 18:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You can block people -- even indefinitely -- for being noncontributors, but not if anybody (with administrative rights, at least) objects to it. We've blocked quite a few people permanently for being total losers, and nobody seems to mind all that much. In this case, though, there are plenty of objectors to an indefinite block of Kmweber, and so nobody is entitled to block him permanently (except Jimbo and the Board, and they haven't gotten involved). Basically, Kmwember hasn't yet convinced all 700-odd administrators that his participation in Wikipedia is without value. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur, but I have to agree with David Gerard that desysoping Karmafist for making a hasty decision is a unwarranted. We have the power to overrule and Karmafist has been dealing with a lot of badgering for sure. Other admins have already blocked Weber for long periods of time...so at most, Karmafist is guilty of acting unilaterally. But if things keep up the way they are, the ban may end up permanent anyway at some point.--MONGO 19:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a more serious matter (than the fact that the block was indefinite) is that Karmafist blocked a user he was very involved with. David Gerard had already asked other admins to keep an eye on Kurt, so he (Kurt) was being closely monitored. I don't support desyoping Karmafist, but he does need to take a step back and let other admins impose any future blocks. Carbonite | Talk 19:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See my talk page. Karmafist is understandably extremely dispirited about the whole project at this stage, and at about 11 on an anger scale of 1 to 10. Kurt seems to do that to people, he certainly had that effect on me. Everything should look less worse tomorrow - David Gerard 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Andy and Kurt are extremely annoying people. That's not the point here, though. We can't keep, as an admin, someone who can't deal with annoying people in a reasonably responsible way. Karmafist has shown that he can't deal with annoying people with enough cool for us to continue to extend the trust of adminship to him. If he had been acting responsibly, he would have refused to use admin rights against him, or he would have taken a wikibreak. He did neither of these things. The private communications that several of us have had with him suggest that these problems will continue to recur for as long as he remains an admin. I don't think it's in the interests of the Wikipedia for him to remain as an admin; if this causes him to leave the Wiki entirely, that's too bad, but it will have been necessary.

I also agree that Kurt has completely earned his blocks and that we, as a community, should consider whether Kurt is someone we want to continue to be a participant in this project. But that in no way excuses Karmafist's excesses. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to see an editor be bombproof and have seen admin actions worse than Karmafist for much less provocation. I fully understand and agree that he shouldn't have tried to permaban Kurt, and he also shouldn't have blocked any editor he was directly involved with in any content dispute. I think that it is a rather severe punishment to desysop him unless their is evidence that he has done this in the past. Can we ask him to not use his admin tools for a couple of weeks and then monitor it after that?--MONGO 00:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I can't comment on WP:RFAR, I also agree that desysopping Karmafist at this stage is a little much. --Deathphoenix 22:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think all admins should remember that although it seems Karmafist's actions were a bit extreme, Kurt definitely had it coming. I am quoting him from the mailing list [76]:

Yes, I have been blocked twice before for the same behavior. I resumed it because, both times, after giving the

involved admins plenty of time to explain why my behavior was wrong, I got no answer; thus, I made the conclusion

that they had conceded defeat.

This guy just doesn't get it. I would suggest we chalk this one up to rightfully extreme frustration, correct Karmafist's mistake for him, and move on to dealing with Kurt. He's the real problem user here, I think. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

On User talk:Kmweber he says he'll try to play nice. I don't know what will happen, maybe by next week he'll be indefinitely blocked by community disgust. Though I hope not, but we'll see. In the meantime, I'd hope blocks will be loving and educational - David Gerard 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. As of right now (19:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)) there are no active blocks on User:Kmweber. Let's see how things go. Note that I won't be doing further unblocking - David Gerard 19:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I should note that when "being incredibly annoying" crosses the line into "being disruptive", it would be a plausible reason to block. For instance, someone who responds to every single comment on a talk page with a lengthy ten-line diatribe, is disrupting that talk page. Radiant_>|< 22:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If he makes one more comment about "deletionist vandalism", he's out of here. Zoe (216.234.130.130 01:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

Pigsonthewing

24 hours for disruptive obnoxiousness and his continued stalking campaign against Karmafist. I've also suggested to the AC an injunction confining him to his AC case pages and his user talk page - David Gerard 16:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What good would that do? I'd like him to at least be free to do some constructive editing, whether he choose to or not. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Find some evidence first that he has ever done constructive editing. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Snappy line, but pointless on its face. How could someone who hasn't ever done constructive editing possibly amass over 19,000 edits without being blocked? Not good enough? Well, here are some difflinks from the evidence against him in the ArbCom case... [77] [78] [79] [80] all of which look like constructive editing to me... and those were identified as some of his bad ones. :] If you still think there's some question here I could dig up a few dozen of the articles he started... --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of "not getting blocked"...Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The good it would do is having him not try to drive his opponents off the wiki. He appears to be under the impression that Usenet flamewar-style interaction is the way to go. Good actions don't make up for unacceptable ones - David Gerard 08:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ranting time

Whoa whoa whoa. Wait a minute. This just hit me not thirty seconds ago.

As much as I'm all for forgiving and reforming abusive users, there has got to be some type of line that we've got to draw. Andy is taking us for a ride with this crap. Look:

1. Refuses to acknowledge/participate in RfC regarding his disputed behavior
   • Including ignoring talk page notice not just once but twice
2. Refuses to acknowledge/participate in RFAr regarding his disputed behavior

Look. Anyone who refuses to abide by established and accepted Wikipedia policies (not guidelines, but policies) is not a martyr but a troll. If someone doesn't like the established policy, they have every right to contest it, but no right to hold them in contempt.

Andy frequently removes what he considers to be personal attacks on his user talk page. However, according to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which happens to be an official policy page...

If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, follow the dispute resolution process instead.

According to Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes (an official policy page)...

If the issue is decided by Arbitration, you will be expected to abide by the result.

And, my favorite (bold emphasis added by myself)...

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. ...Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies. For additional ideas, see Wikipedia:Negotiation.

Do I really need to go any further? Has my rant made any impact? If Andy is unwilling to go through with our established dispute resolution policies as well as hold the ArbCom in contempt, then why, pray tell, are we still debating about what to do with him? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And yet, since he was banned from this page he has abided by that ban.... despite you and several others taking the opportunity to "rant" and malign him extensively here while he is forbidden from responding. Gee... what possible reason could he have for complaining so much? What has he really done wrong since the ArbCom case? Make a couple of extra reverts after someone followed him around to block his edits? Complained (extensively) about that and the other ongoing viciousness against him? He has honored every single page ban placed on him. He has shown a willingness to apologize for mistakes while those attacking him have not (the one exception being Nandesuka apologizing for her most recent mistaken block). If he is so irredeemable and unwilling to follow the rules as you clain why does he apologize? Why does he abide by bans? Why does he accept blocks he could get around? And still the abuse continues. Anyone here ever read WP:NPA#A_misguided_notion: "Kicking_them_while_they_are_down"? Can anyone here actually claim to have been the subject of negative comments from Pigsonthewing without having first made such about him? Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe he wouldn't complain so much if he weren't constantly being insulted? Has anyone bothered to count up the number of times this guy has been blocked against policy with no apology forthcoming (again save Nandesuka's most recent)? Wouldn't you be ticked off under such circumstances? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose that all further discussion please move to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation or its accompanying Talk page, to prevent further forest fires appearing all over the wiki, and as Andy is allowed to comment there, but not here at the moment. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed ban

I propose that Pigsonthewing be banned from Karmafists User and Talk space, and all subpages, per the recent ArbCom ruling placing Andy on probation. Please see this for discussion, and I would welcome your input there. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has a history of taking advantage of loopholes in these and other restrictions, even while under injunction, to carry out the same activity without technically violating the rules. For example, he will stir up trouble on karmafist's talk page, and when karmafist tries to ignore him, Pigsonthewing forces the issue by repeating the same charges in public (such as on this page or the village pump). That makes it extremely difficult for any kind of peace to be kept, and I suggest we ban Pigsonthewing from stalking behavior, which behavior to be defined in the judgment of any uninvolved administrator. Demi ^T/_C 18:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I support that wholeheartedly. I suggest that motion be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation, and all future discussion be relocated there, so that we don't have forest fires cropping up all over the Wiki. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sock check

Can we get a sock check on User:RachelBrown as compared to User:Poetlister, who was blocked indefinitely by User:Mindspillage as a "suspected sock puppet of RachelBrown" with apparently no evidence of this, and indeed RachelBrown has not been banned so I query whether that is an automated ban anyway. This has happened in the middle of a request for mediation in relation to edit warring with another user which involved these 2 users and a 3rd user. The mediation was refused by the person who was requested to deal with it, thus meaning that a request for comment is in order. Due process has been disrupted by this block. I ask for a sock check to prove that these two are indeed the same person, as there seems to be circumstantial evidence that they could not be the same person and WP:POINT may apply in relation to this block. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We already got a sockcheck, which showed that they were likely to be the same user, which is the reason for the block. No mediation is taking place, nor is a request for comment taking place. Note that the main RachelBrown account is not blocked: only the likely sockpuppets being used to stack debates. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an evidence field in the {{sockpuppet}} template for a reason, please fill it in. If it has been proven by a sockcheck (aren't these supposed to be logged somewhere? If so you should link to it as evidence) then use the {{SockpuppetProven}} template instead, again with evidence. Thryduulf 01:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How has this been "proven"? You say "likely", but it was established elsewhere that the two are real-life friends... Are ALL edits from the same IP or just a few? It could just be that maybe some edits were made while round the same house, college, university or workplace.... --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'm not familiar with the technical evidence, but there has already been a suspicion of sock puppetry in relation to the RachelBrown account. She violated 3RR together with 81.153.41.72 (talk · contribs) at List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, but one of them said the IP address was not RachelBrown but her flatmate "Lisa." But if you look at the edit summaries, at one point RachelBrown says: "Why do these childish people keep deleting my edits?" [81] and less than an hour later "Lisa" reverts to RachelBrown's version with: "As i said, why do these childish people keep deleting my edits?" [82] RachelBrown, "Lisa", Poetlister, and one other than I know of, Londoneye (talk · contribs), all have the same "voice," make the same types of edits to the same articles, and now apparently there is technical evidence to link them to each other, and to Newport (talk · contribs) and Taxwoman (talk · contribs). The accounts add names to various List of Jewish xxx articles, but refuse to supply sources, and it has happened so much, it has become a problem. For example, Londoneye added Laurence Baxter to a list, saying he was Jewish. I couldn't find anything online about this, so I removed it and asked for a source. She wouldn't supply one and reinstated the name, saying in the edit summary that it was "obvious" from his Wikipedia article that he was a Jew. And it is obvious. The only problem (apart from the fact that we're not allowed to use WP articles as sole sources) is that Londoneye wrote the Wikipedia article on Baxter, also using no sources there. This is the the same behavior other editors have experienced with RachelBrown and Poetlister. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of thing supposed to work through solid evidence (like any other "conviction") rather than amateur personality-profiling and a bit of sheer guesswork, though? --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is, and Mindspillage wrote above that she blocked them based on the technical evidence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding SlimVirgin's evidence above, RachelBrown did not violate 3RR, her flatmate did who was not aware of Wikipedia rules at that time. She did make one edit under Rachel's account when Rachel had not logged out, see [83]. Regarding the four blocked users, these people are friends from the UK who have supported each other on some disputes or voted the same way on some vfds but otherwise have different interests. I think that is quite normal for close friends to want to support each other and should not merit a block. If it is considered not advisable for friends to support each other in disputes or vfds a warning should be placed on the relevant user pages before blocking. Arniep 04:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is this Arbitration Committee ruling? I was not aware of an Arbitration Committee action against Poetlister or anyone else. This seems most unusual. I wasn't aware that you could be permanently banned because of using sock puppets to try to influence an AFD, especially because AFDs are not "votes". I thought that such a case, if it was true, would warrant a warning only. Why a permanent ban in this case? There also seems to be quite a lot of evidence that they are not sock puppets. It seems extraordinarily odd to suggest that on 22 December 2005 Poetlister acted as a sock puppet for RachelBrown, when RachelBrown's last edit was 10 December 2005, and last regular one was 3 December 2005. Surely that is the antecedent of sock puppetry - as in, not theoretically possible to be true. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• You don't get permabanned for that, but your sockpuppets usually are. Note that there's generally no way to distinguish sockpuppets (duplicate accounts by the same person) from meatpuppets (getting your friends into Wikipedia for voting purposes only), and hence both can be blocked for that reason. It is not acceptable to get additional new accounts for voting, and whether they are self-made or made by your friends is irrelevant. Radiant_>|< 12:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. Accounts that act like a sockpuppet can be treated like one. --Deathphoenix 14:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

but the accounts were clearly not created for support or voting purposes only, they all have different interests and edit articles on different subjects. User:RachelBrown joined on April 14th, 2005, most of her edits are on Jewish related articles. User:Londoneye joined on Sept.28th, 2005, most of her edits are on London related articles. User:Taxwoman joined on Aug.9th, 2005, most of her edits are on fetish related articles. User:Poetlister joined on July 11th, 2005, most of her edits are literary subjects, although she has joined in editing Jewish pages since they began to be disrupted and nominated for deletion by User:Antidote in November, whose in now subject of an rfc at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote. I feel I am in some way responsible for this as I have asked 3 of these users to vote or comment on vfds, but I did not know that was against the rules. Arniep 20:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei and User:SchmuckyTheCat violating probation order

This discussion has been moved to [84].

The RfC discussion regarding this issue can be found [85] here.

Deletions and disruptions of Holodomor article sections by User:Kuban kazak

User:Kuban kazak has repeatedly deleted sections of the article. E.g. see [86], [87], [88]. He also removed quotes, references, and old photos. He then repeatedly posted his own text that lacks references and is factually wrong. E.g., see [89], where he wrote, "Although in 1918-1920 it /the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church/, along with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) was subject to many repressions". The former church wasn't created until 1921. Unfortunately, this disruptive behavior prevents normal work. Instead of improving the reference scope, there is a war to keep the article from disintegrating into a pile of personal comments and historical science fiction. Please help.--Andrew Alexander 04:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Enochlau

While it is unfortunate that it has to come to this, I feel compelled to point out that I was mildly shocked to discover moments ago that the above user was actually an admin. My experiences with him when it comes to content disputes in Talk:Chinese New Years greetings/Talk:Kung hei fat choi/Move Discussion which led to his attempt to what I deem as an abuse of the arbcom process above [90] (and which a fellow admin felt appears to be "an attempt to smear someone without having to follow the certification requirements at WP:RFC"), and his behavior in Talk:MTR/Move discussion, which led to quite a shocking exclaimation in [91] of "revert: yes i am an admin, check for yourself. you are the only who voted in favour. the consensus is definitely to NOT MOVE. DO NOT REVERT." leaves me wondering if he is capable of exercising restraint and displaying maturity and impartiality when he is involved in content disputes himself.

It appears from his self-nomation Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enochlau, that there is little evidence of his ability when it comes to resolving disputes. Rather, they have been centered on his factual contributions to wikipedia. I am of the impression that admins are here mainly to help mediate and carry out duties for this site. Not a badge awarded to massive content contributors alone. The above experiences with him leaves me wondering if he truly understood what being an admin is, and if he worthy of remaining as one.--Huaiwei 06:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Err. You really are making a fuss out of nothing. The result of the Requested Move was definitely a "no move". You were the only one to vote support. My comment was motivated by your misunderstanding of the Requested Move procedures. Once the discussion has been closed, you don't go and add it back to the talk page! I admit I should not have used capital letters, but I was quite surprised at why anyone would want to undo a standard administrative procedure. enochlau (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And as noted, this does not belong here. All of this discussion belongs on RfC. I will move it there when I get time this evening, otherwise you may do so yourself. enochlau (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Frivolous complaint, waste of noticeboard space. Enochlau is to be commended for not flaunting his adminship in the naming dispute on the article talk page. I note that Huaiwei brought up his assumption that enochlau therefore couldn't be an admin in a sarcastic manner ("enochlau, if you have just become an admin, let me know"); that Enochlau's "shocking exclamation" in response would fail to shock most readers, especially if put in the company of Huaiwei's own pugnacity and personal attacks on the article talk page; and that Huaiwei (scraping the bottom of the barrel) seeems to want to suggest above that there's something negatively noteworthy about an RFA candidate self-nominating. No, there isn't. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

His failure to state his adminsthip can either be interpreted as a case of "humility" in your books, or a case of "nonchalance" in mine. I think we have room for alternative views here, and no one should be in the position to chastise others for their "wastage of space" just because of these disagreements. You are free to speculate over the intentions behind my behavior. However, I would just like to remind, that as stated in WP:RFA, "Some people apply higher standards to self-nominations, while others view them more favorably as showing initiative and desire to serve the community." You choose to consider his move as showing initiative or what have you. I choose to see it as someone who considers himself worthy for adminship purely based on his efforts in adding content to wikipedia, and not based on his abilities in dispute resolution. You are entitled to your views, and so am I.--Huaiwei 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That section of WP:RFA is referencing applying higher standards to the vote to make someone an administrator, not their actions afterward. Self-nominated administrators who have successfully passed RFA are not held to a "higher standard" or put on "Administrative probation" or whatever you wish to call it. I haven't seen anything that Enochlau has done that is out of line; in fact, in everything I've seen, he's done exactly what's expected of him as an administrator. Your claim that it's a case of "nonchalance" (as though this is a bad thing) is ludicrous — where do you propose Enochlau inform you that he is an administrator? Had you bothered to spend less than 5 seconds checking whether he was an administrator, you would have seen that clearly stated in the first section of his user page. He isn't hiding it. Had Enochlau bragged about being an administrator, you likely would have filed a complaint about his lording it over you. What, exactly, is your complaint here? That he reverted your reversion of standard administrative fare? --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 16:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And true as you say, I was refering to the "higher standards" perculiar to the voting process, which I note as lacking in discussions over his ability to handle disputes, especially those he was personally involved in. If I may remind, I posted this complaint over his poor dispute management, and not over his failure to declare his adminship status. My illustration of my shock over his behavior when it came to light that he was actually an admin demonstrates my point. How do my failure in checking his position (and why should I do that, unless, perhaps, I am looking to be personal against him?) absolve him of his behavior? My complaint is well documented above (and below). You have every liberty to take 5 seconds or more to read it.--Huaiwei 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

For those who are interested, this discussion was continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei as suggested. enochlau (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The comment Bishohen quote underscores my point over the suitability of the above as an admin. "enochlau, if you have just become an admin, let me know", is precisely how I felt at that point, for I did not even realise he was one, for if he was, he certainly didnt give me the impression he was. Enochlau's dismissive attitude is certainly a cause for concern, and he appears to miss the point behind my complaint. I am concerned over his overall conduct, his inability to keep this cool when under stress, his inability in being inpartial when he is involved in a dispute (Such as requesting for a page protection in a dispute he is involved in when its purpose is debatable), and his apparant lack of initiative in helping to resolve disputes. These are qualities are deemed very important for every admin, and I see none of these qualities in him by his behavior thus far.

The opening paragraphs of this article clearly states, that "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both. Please try to discuss things with the admin before bringing the issue here." This is precisely why I am choosing to post it here. I am not demanding an RFC, for I dont think the misbehavior thus described has reached that magnitude. But I do see a need to remind, that a self-nominated admin is not immune from the same expectations applied to all admins, if not more.--Huaiwei 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A need to remind that a self-nominated admin is not immune from the same expectations...? Huaiwei, your original complaint wasn't well-considered, and your posts slide steeply into utter unreasonableness. A little well-meant advice: the smart thing would be to stop arguing. You're the subject of a recently opened RFC, and that's not a well-chosen time to make yourself a laughing-stock on the admins' noticeboard. A lot of people read it. Bishonen | talk 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

An RFC seemingly done more because its nominators cant decide for themselves which is the best way to win a content dispute rather then a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute is of little cause of concern to me. If I will be laughing stock, so be it. I time my comment based on what has just occured, independently from what others wish to do with me. I do wonder if your advise is well-intentioned anyhow, or it is more reflective of (or bears similarity to) collective bullying by a group of wikipedians from the same geographical area (or in some way or other related to it) against anyone who dared speak up against their continued persistance in introducing bias into wikipedia. If my comments are not "well-considered" or "slide steeply into utter unreasonableness", tells us why. They arent so simply because you say so.--Huaiwei 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If more than one person are starting to consider your comments ill-considered or unreasonable, perhaps you might like to take a step back and think about whether they could be right for once. Other people can be right, you know? enochlau (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be delighted to know that I am fully aware of the likelihood of others being correct. Your statement above somehow demonstrates to me your tendency in assuming that others are being stubborn, hardly a demonstration of assuming good faith. I would like to see how you could actually mediate when you cant do that, or fail to recognise the need for impartiality and to consciously rid oneself of prejudice when handling disputes (such as in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei)?.--Huaiwei 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley 14

William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Sea level rise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• Reverted to:

Revision as of 02:04, 20 December 2005

• Violation:

09:17, 21 December 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv to Vsmith, losing all SEW's changes. May have time to go back and see what they were)

• User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. Although AN/I states 3RR should not be reported here, it has been stated that such parole violations should be reported here. (SEWilco 06:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Supplied talk page comment does not cite nor request a source, merely states deletion of content and reference material and asks for changes; the changes which he just deleted. (SEWilco 06:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

"I've rm'd:

Over the last million years the sea level has changed by tens of meters many times, while many fewer variations of as much as 100 meters have taken place. Although during the past million years the sea level has generally been lower than it presently is, over geologic time scales the sea level has often been 100-200 meters higher than in recent times.

I don't think this belongs in the intro of the page as it stands. Maybe it belongs in the split up version as per DF's idea.

SEW: I don't know what you've done to improve the refs. But whatever you do will all be lost if you persist in pushing against what everyone else wants. I certainly don't have the patience to go checking through a pile of minor changes. How about listing whatever cleanup the refs need, that would actually be a useful service. William M. Connolley 09:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)."(diff)

• Um, is this part of SEW's edit war with WMC over citation styles? That seems to be the major change reverted, aside from the article content which WMC did describe in his talk page comment. I thought there had beem some sort of ceasefire on cites—was I mistaken? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco is still trying to nail WMC on absolutely anything he can come up with . WP:ANI is of course absolutely the place for this - David Gerard 08:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still trying to nail violators, yes. I happened to notice this one because someone added incorrect information (diff) to the article. I corrected (diff) the information and added citations, as required by WP:CITE and WP:V. As a major contributor to the article, I then also invited a peer review (review) to help further. Rather than also help improve the article, WMC deleted the changes because he doesn't have time to participate in Wikipedia. I don't see that listed as an acceptable reason for reversion. (SEWilco 14:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

• My two cents. I do not believe that it is violation of WMC's parole. His edit and the accompanying talk page note suggest that he deleted the paragraph out of a concern of the structure of the article. He did not express a desire to remove the content from public view; he just wanted to place it elsewhere. That does not need a reference in my opinion. enochlau (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • He also refers to his deletion of references. Look at the above violation diff for the deletion of 42 citations at the end of the diff because he doesn't "have the patience to go checking through a pile of minor changes". Apparently he owns the article and changes require his approval when he has time. (SEWilco 03:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC))
    • Um, it appears that WMC reverted the references back to inline citations, undoing SEW's conversion to footnotes. A brief glance at the diff would seem to suggest that no references were deleted outright; rather it that their style was changed. Correct me if I am mistaken. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes that looks like the case, another part of their constant battle with references. Did the ArbCom rule on citation format? If not, there's really nothing we can do... enochlau (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You are mistaken, TenOfAllTrades. The deleted citations contained more information than only a URL. Try to find a replacement for a 404 link with only the URL. As WP:CITE repeatedly states, full citations are needed. The style (numbered links) was the same, but additional citation content existed before the deletion. (SEWilco 19:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

The Arbcom closed the case see ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 WMC parole lifted, SEWilco placed on probation. SEWilco seems to have been blocked for something - although I haven't been able yet to determine just what. See his talk page. Vsmith 18:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Being a dick, whatever form the manifestation took - David Gerard 23:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems SEWilco created a new bot User:RefBot which was blocked by Curps as a precaution. Now the question: is this new bot an attempt to bypass the arbcom decision? 3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert citation styles on any articles.[92]. Vsmith 01:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Conditions are per person, not per username. Using a bot to do the edits is a ban evasion and eminently blockable upon - David Gerard 18:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet needs attention

Missionary is a sockpuppet of Retcon. This was recently proven, as outlined on the following page I created: User:Tommstein/Retcon-Missionary Sockpuppet Evidence. Shortly after I created that page, Retcon admitted to this fact Missionary's user page, although it has since been moved to the talk page. I have already slapped the Sockpuppet tag on Missionary's pages, but the SockpuppetProven tag seems more appropriate, seeing as only one of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Sock puppet#Tagging identified sock puppets is necessary and this case already meets two of the three (and we can make a request for arbitration if we want to go for the perfect trifecta). The problem is, the SockpuppetProven tag expands into text that reads, in part, "and has been blocked indefinitely." I asked on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppet about who to report this to in order for the sockpuppet to be blocked, and I was told that this was the place to bring it. Can someone please apply said block, both to rid ourselves of this pest and to legitimize the appropriate SockpuppetProven tag?

As a related question, I wish to ask, can anything be done about Retcon to convey to him that this isn't an OK thing that will just get the sockpuppets blocked and have no consequences for him as he creates another army of sockpuppets? We already have very strong suspicions about new sockpuppets, which I am trying to have verified by someone with CheckUser powers.Tommstein 11:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done a sockcheck and discovered that Retcon has a small army of socks; see my talk page for more details. I would like an uninvolved admin to look specifically at Tommstein vs. Tomnstein and IP Law Girl vs. IP law girl, as it appears to me that there's some impersonation involved here. The junior account in both cases should probably be blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone wanna volunteer? Whoever does, please don't find me to be impersonating Tomnstein, pretty please.Tommstein 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The Tommstein/Tomnstein case is pretty clear to me; it's the IP Law Girl/IP law girl case that is unclear. The senior account is the sock and has far fewer edits than the junior account, which is exactly backwards of the usual pattern for an impersonation. This suggests that this is not a normal impersonation; I tend to suspect that the first account is a meatpuppet, perhaps a relative or acquaintance of Retcon's, who forgot her password upon returning home and instead created a new account. (Of course, this is entirely supposition.) Kelly Martin (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Various anonymous IPs attacking Latex article

Resources:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latex&action=history
• Talk:Latex
  • Special:Contributions/208.176.61.219
    • User_talk:208.176.61.219
  • Special:Contributions/69.216.131.22
    • User_talk:69.216.131.22
  • Special:Contributions/68.159.82.23
    • User_talk:68.159.82.23
  • Special:Contributions/65.184.55.76
    • User_talk:65.184.55.76
  • Special:Contributions/199.248.185.2
    • User_talk:199.248.185.2

Anonymous IPs with no contributions previously keep appearing out of nowhere to remove the picture - As I said on Talk:Latex it seems very likely these are the same person. The other IPs have been warned before but they refuse to discuss and just keep deleting the image using different account/IP sockpuppet each time... I would have listed this on vandalism in progress but the problem is more complex than that - there are several different IPs being used and the vandal seems to know how to change theirs again and again --Mistress Selina Kyle 17:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder evading block

See User talk:Jesustoldme. The user claims to be Maoririder who "forgot his password." Maoririder is blocked until Dec 28. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take care of this. Thanks for letting me know! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

212.18.228.53 and 195.82.106.xxx

This guy has been blocked[93] by Woohookitty in the past for making personal attacks, vandalism, and edit warring. He operates under 212.18.228.XXX and 195.82.106.XXX ip addresses, which all originate at the same Amsterdam-based ISP. We are certain that it is the same person posting in all instances.[94] He is back again, and up to his usual behavior: rapid reverting and insulting edit summaries,[95] personal attacks,[96] and wikistalking.[97]0 Can someone do something about this? Thanks, Skinwalker 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Communism

Please check out User:Commtesting and the one edit to GWB. I think we may have a sock/copy cat. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and it looks like WisC has just confirmed that the "new user" part of semi-protection doesn't quite work yet. --Deathphoenix 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Indef. blocked by both me and Curps. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Brion has confirmed on wikitech-l that he made a typo :-) The semiprotection should work ok now - David Gerard 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

2005 New York City transit strike

• The anonymous user 205.188.116.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly making POV edits in the article, and personal attacks against other users. - Mike Rosoft 20:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dammit, it's an AOL IP address. From my understanding, blocking it won't help because AOL traffic goes through proxies that change every time? enochlau (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's correct...you have to block the range...not something to do without careful consideration, and should probably only be done for a hour or two.--MONGO 03:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • IIRC, AOLol blocks should last about 10-15 minutes, but even then, expect for the blocking admin to get emails of users getting nailed by autoblocks. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

More proxy vandals

This one is a little tricky since it's in a SBC range I believe to be dynamic. However, all the edits from this IP are program vandalism, so I'm going to block it anyhow.

• 68.122.239.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Commtesting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Wwwiiiccc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jake the Snake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • VAANDALTRON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Good Game (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • WIC wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Muevelocito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jarrodthesurfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • GALLIANS BACK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jingle on Bells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Golbez in Heels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kelly Martin (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Could somebody take care of these, please? Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

152.163.100.204

The anon just erased an entire article[98], not once but twice [99]

He also vandilized the following: [100] [101] This anon has been warned before (see User_talk:152.163.100.204), please block him. Travb 23:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't. This is an AOL IP. Just revert. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, you should use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for requests like this. -- SCZenz 23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Eve Plumb

Could someone please delete the edit in the history which contains her address and phone number? Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

Done. The history looks a bit strange but I have to leave the reversions in even if what they're reverting has gone, just in case they changed anything else at the same time as reverting an edit. -- Francs2000 00:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Francs. The idiot keeps coming back with various anons and logged in accounts. I've protected it for now, but he's apparently been doing this for months. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There are still some versions of the article, stored in the history, that contain that personal information. Should we wipe the page and start a new? Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

An admin can delete the article then go back and undelete all edits which do not contain the offending information. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

My first undeletion! I deleted the revisions with personal information. I would appreciate it if another admin could go look and make sure I didn't screw anything up. Hermione1980 16:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything looks good Hermione, good job. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems the delete/restore wiped the protection out and he re-added it. I deleted that revision - does it look right now, or did I leave some of the historical ones still in? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 02:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm on it now. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 02:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User RK

RK is currently under several restrictions for 12 months following Apr 7 2005, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies These restrictions include “RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of twelve months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the twelve-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators." Another restriction he is under is "RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for twelve months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the twelve month period shall be reset.".

He is fully aware of these limitations see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RK&diff=prev&oldid=12148085

Unfortunately, he has not kept to the terms of his RFA and has repeatedly violated them. I am asking for enforcement of the ArbCom decision an for them to take appropriate action, which based upon the Remedy would seem to be a 1 week ban and a resetting of his 12 months of restrictions. The following is evidence of his violations.

Violations of Revert limit:

• He violated the 3rr rule and got blocked for 24 hours. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive7#User:RK That is 4 reverts which is 3 more than what he is allowed.
• In the Tzadik article he has violates his 1rr limitation He has reverted to his version which is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&oldid=30128298

First revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&diff=31891268&oldid=30951309

2cd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&diff=31899916&oldid=31891623

• In the chabad article besides for the 3rr violation listed above, RK has a version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&oldid=29942559

1st revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31891037&oldid=31870263

2cd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31899609&oldid=31891606

3rd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31907630&oldid=31907508

4th revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31907906&oldid=31907778

Violations of his Personal attack parole:

• “Eliezer is a bald-faced liar, and his non-stop personal attacks leave me no choice but to request that he be banned for bad behaviour.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChabad_Lubavitch&diff=29941161&oldid=29940993 This was in response to my writing that he was using a sockpuppet to evade his limits on reverting. In his 3rr block above he and the ip address posting was found to be the same person.
• He has repeatedly accused me and other users of personal attacks when no personal attacks were made.

--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)--

User:RK blocked for parole violations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyking parole violation

Would someone look at [102] and decide if that counts as commentary on non-editorial actions, and if so block according to EK's parole? Thanks. Phil Sandifer 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no provision for a block that I recall, even if you accept that it's a personal attack (I would call it a bit of an impolite nudge intended to prod him into answering me, not quite a personal attack). Everyking 05:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

When paroles are announced without an enforcement, they are assumed to be enforcable by a 24 hour block. Phil Sandifer 05:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can assume that. Is that policy? If the ArbCom intended that they would need to say so. Everyking 06:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps I should make a request for clarification then. Phil Sandifer 06:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems more reasonable than taking it here and asking someone to block me, I'll grant you that much. Everyking 06:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. And Neutrality has now replied confirming that I was, in fact, right. I repeat, would someone please actually enforce this parole so that it provides some semblence of its intended purpose of relieving me of the constant harassment Everyking seems to feel it is his duty to subject me to? (A duty that he has, astonishingly, undertaken with even more zeal since the arbcom told him to stop) Phil Sandifer 06:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24 hours for violating the parole. If you repeatedly nudge the electric fence, you shouldn't be overly surprised when you get zapped. Ambi 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Lox

Lox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just marked a bunch of template talk pages with {{db|It's blank and not useful}}. Could an admin clean this up and then spank him? ^BlankVerse 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Brazil4Linux is violating his ban

User:Brazil4Linux is avoiding his one week ban through the use of sockpuppets. He was banned for using his sockpuppet User:Quackshot to avoid the 3RR. Now he is avoiding his ban with User:GroundZero. GroundZero is most likely a sockpuppet of User:Brazil4Linux because:

• Same distinct linguistical traits
• Contributes at the same time as Brazil4Linux did
• First edits were pages Brazil4Linux contributed on
• Same views as Brazil4Linuz in Talk:Ken Kutaragi
• Appeared as soon as Brazil4Linux and sockpuppet User:Quackshot were banned
• IP address coming from Brazil just like Brazil4Linux
• Same Internet Provider as Quackshot
• Vast knowledge of Wikipedia for a new user
  • Example: Joining in edit discussion, requesting users for comment and the use of edit summaries

Jedi6 02:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

(Not to be confused with the admin User:Ground Zero, who has a space in his username.) FreplySpang (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Another reason this user should be banned. It is too close to an existing one. Jedi6 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone help with GroundZero. He has really gotten bad on Talk:Ken Kutaragi and has made personal attacks on people. Jedi6 06:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Yuber (talk · contribs) and myself CltFn (talk · contribs) have both violated the 3RR rule in page Islam in the United States. We should therefore both be blocked according to Wikipedia policy.--CltFn 06:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Everyking and User:MarkGallagher

Everyking (talk · contribs) has agreed to a stricter period of parole over the next two(ish) days, in return for being unblocked. He has agreed to suffer a 48-hour block if he does not maintain absolute silence on the subject of Phil Sandifer. The agreement expires Christmas Day. Please see User:MarkGallagher/everyking for details. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

While I greatly appreciate the received two days of silence, I will admit to finding Everyking's continued treatment of his parole as an opportunity to play a great big game of Let's Make a Deal disheartening. Phil Sandifer 15:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible sock of User:JackSarfatti

Hi, I am concerned by recent edits of John Baez and Jack Sarfatti by 71.139.97.67 which suggest this may be a sock. Note tha the IP appears to correspond to dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net; apparently this anon is using a DSL line operated by Pac Bell in the San Francisco area. (Compare an email addy recently used by Sarfatti in recent UseNet posts). I have noticed a consistent pattern of WP:NPOV edits expressing views favored by Sarfatti from IP addies registered to this ISP. The recent edits to Jack Sarfatti mostly speak for themselves. The edit to John Carlos Baez repeats almost verbatim a mischaracterization (the alleged surpisingly candid comment) which has been made by Jack Sarfatti in an UseNet posting (sorry, don't have the link for that, but you can Google for it). AFAIK, User:JackSarfatti has been blocked indefinitely for misbehavior. The edits I have noticed so far seem to be non-NPOV, not vandalism, but I am concerned. (I reverted the changes to John Carlos Baez, but I leave it to others to try to keep Jack Sarfatti protected from partisan edits.) ---CH 09:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I\'m User:JackSarfatti under a new name

I\'m back and I just edited Jack Sarfatti to WoW under the sockpuppet User:Galzaga AKA JackSarfatti. I will continue using sockpuppets full stop. User:JackSarfatti signing on as JackLaesMyres 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Indef. blocked as per policy regarding sockpuppets by indefinitely banned users. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 15:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone do a checkuser on that account? From my experience, whenever a edit replaces all instances of ' with \' it's because of a misconfigured PHP cgi proxy (magic_quotes_gpc is enabled but the script is not unescaping). If so, it should be indefinitely blocked as an open proxy (before it causes more quote damage). --cesarb 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

advertisemsent of possibly controversial block / rollbacks

GourangaUK (talk · contribs) has shown extremely erratic behaviour on Hare Krishna and Gouranga. His edits are borderline to however, and I did consider rolling them back to be 3RR-exempt. He will argue a single point, which would make for a valid content dispute, and change ten other points. These articles were so far below par that I didn't expect anybody to be watching them, let along consider them in some sort finished or adequate. I do recognize now that this person is serious, and I am unsure how to address this. From his editing behaviour, the user is borderline to troll and/or vandal. From his talk behaviour, he is just extremely clueless in both WP matters, and the subject matter (non-ISKCON Hinduism). If his edits improve to at least correspond to the point he makes on talk, I will consider him bona fide, even if his demands for an ISKCON-only pov are still totally unacceptable. If he continues his erratic behaviour, I will think it admissible to issue short warning blocks. If you get to look into the case, please advise. dab (ᛏ) 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

IP

Can you tell me please the IP of user:ßonaparte? He vandalized my user page. -- Bonaparte talk 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that goes against Wikipedia:Privacy policy, but this user is certainly blockable as a Wikipedia:Doppelganger account an impersonator. --Deathphoenix 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte has listed the same request on AN as well, it is against the privacy policy and checkuser policy for the IP address to be revealed. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

user:ßonaparte has been blocked indefinitively for impersonation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I know but I need to find out from what area is the IP of user:ßonaparte! I guess I know who it is but I need proof. Bonaparte talk 19:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we will not supply that proof I'm afraid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Rtkat3

Rtkat3 (talk · contribs) has contacted me by e-mail indicating s/he has been inadvertently blocked, likely part of an AOL range block. This seems to have happened before to Rtkat3, reading their talk page. I'm unfamiliar with unblocking a specific user in these circumstances, so if someone more familiar with range blocks would look into this, I'm sure Rtkat3 would appreciate it. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a way to unblock Rtkat3 (talk · contribs) IP address. If it is an AOL IP, hpefully admins would have blocked only for short periods. You may want to advise the user to ask User:David Gerard if the block is not lifted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Dzonatas

This user violated the three revert rule today on Joan of Arc. He also created a fictitious artcle Forward-looking statement and three nonsense templates based on the fictitious article. He has been attempting to use the United States Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as a usage manual for copyediting medieval history. Durova 19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

He's reverted a fourth time. Durova 01:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

TV.com

Could somebody deal with the edit warriors and 3RR violators on TV.com? Thanks. Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

Another open proxy

Another one. This one shows the same badly written PHP proxy bug:

• 209.120.239.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Galzaga AKA JackSarfatti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jodew9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • K8Whitaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • DickWrighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And here's a second one, just because:

• 67.18.52.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • JackLaesMyres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Gobbiozi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kelly Martin (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Piecraft

Has blanked several pages after several of his articles got placed on AfD yesterday. Has also made numerous personal attacks, both to those warning him about the blanking (see his talk page) and to others on the talk pages of "his" articles. Due to his not taking any warnings in, I've gave him a final warning. If he blanks another page or makes another personal attack anytime soon, he should be blocked. He's had plenty of warnings. Hedley 03:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Piecraft was eventually blocked. Hedley 15:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert war at Islam in the United States

There's currently a revert war between two anons, 24.7.290.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.156.143.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at Islam in the United States. 70.156 claims on the talk page that 24.7 is actually blocked vandal Yuber. Kurt Weber 04:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page, and blocked the two IPs involved for 3RR violations. --bainer (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

and I have warned blocked vandal CltFn, that his behavior at the WP:3RR is totally unacceptable--172.142.133.250 04:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Wheel War

Can some uninvolved admin try some mediation here with regard to OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood (whether this is red or blue right now) see [103] and Wikipedia:Deletion review#OGTV2_-_From_Tha_Hood_to_Hollywood. I'm afraid it looks like 'Tony Sidaway vs WP:DRV' again. --Doc ^ask? 10:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

They insist on keeping a Snoop Dogg album deleted because of "process"? What the fucking fucker fuckery? I have undeleted again. This is too stupid to put up with - David Gerard 11:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine - and that's (hopefully) the end of that. There is plenty crap for those who like to delete stuff without worrying about this. I suppose the only reason to defend process is that it should (?) come to the right conclusion in the end (if it don't than it's broke) and without some form of process we end up with arbitrary decisions and wheel wars. But then, I suppose that argument doesn't hold up when process causes the wheel war in the first place. (I do sometimes think, we could save a lot of time if we deleted WP:DRV and redirected the page to User talk:Tony Sidaway - but now I am being a troll). Merry Christmas. --Doc ^ask? 11:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it did fail an AFD as a fraud of an album (maybe it's a bootleg?) but undeleting is probably best if we have an album cover... Redwolf24 (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The album is listed by HMV Japan and waa produced by Snoop Dogg. We do not delete articles about the works of Snoop Dogg, even bootlegs, without a very, very good reason. It doesn't matter what AfD says, it doesn't matter what DRV says, we're running a serious encyclopedia, not a chatroom, and we never let broken processes kill good content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it be so bad to leave good content inaccesible for a few days, while things got sorted out, rather than fighting a wheel war? If there was new information, than WP:DRV would've sorted this out without intervention. -- SCZenz 17:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Turns out that that particular bootleg was produced by Daddy V, who seems like some dude that sells mixtapes from the back of his van. Tony, I'm as tired as everyone else is of your campaign against WP:V. Pilatus 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Gojistomp - Repeated copyvios

Gojistomp has repeatedly posted copyrighted material to articles, despite warnings on his talk page. He added copyrighted content to Giant Monster Varan, Akki Kumo, and The Mysterians, and was subsequently warned for each. Recently he reposted copyrighted material to Giant Monster Varan, despite the article having been deleted the first time he posted it. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian again...

[104]
[105]
[106]

Here, Gibraltarian (as 212.120.225.93) says he attacks Ecemaml simply because "he is [a troll]". He doesn't even list any diffs to support his claim. He even calls Woohookitty "unworthy for adminship" (once again, not showing any "meat" to back up his claim). He even goes a step further in defacing Ecemaml's user page. I think he has just proved to us that he shows absolutely *no* respect whatsoever to whomever he disagrees with, and it's about time a *long* range block be implemented. --TML1988 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

SpongeBob Hoaxer

68.74.10.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user has a quite impressive history of adding completely bogus information to articles. He has been blocked repeatedly, but he's up to it again. Please block this user immediately to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. --Apostrophe 20:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)