Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive137

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Review of User:WordBomb ban.[edit]

This discussion started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion/Part 2#User:WordBomb but really needs a wider audience.

WordBomb has said, off-site, that he would like a second chance and is willing to refrain from engaging in the sort of "IP harvesting", etc tactics that he was originally banned for. Is the community willing to give him a second chance? —Random832 (contribs) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, and would in that case be up for allowing a second chance. Caveat's: I'm less and less involved and paying attention to en.wikipedia, I'm not an olde tyme valued contributor/admin (so my opinion carries negative weight). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What are his stated reasons for wanting to return? My inclination would be to say that if anybody's earned an unreviewable ban, it's been him, but if we really believe this "preventative, not punitive" thing, we should at least take a look at it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Another question: as he ever before promised to refrain from such tactics, been taken up on it, and then betrayed the community's trust? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
to my limited knowledge, he's never so much as hinted that he'd be up for anything other than dancing on the graves of wikipedia's ruling cabal. Other than, or course his day one request of sv on how to properly raise his concerns about the coi of another editor. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No chance. After what he put on antisocialmedia, plus all the socking, he wants us to let him back so he can continue to pursue his agenda? I am absolutely astounded that anybody in their right mind would even contemplate such a thing. He was banned for good cause, and his actions after he was banned proved beyond doubt that he is precisely the kind of person Wikipedia can do without. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban per Guy. Sceptre (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As I said previously, I don't care for either party to the furore over Naked Short Selling to be contributing. I also am aware that WordBomb has said offsite that they hold certain information that could embarrass Wikipedia - which is not the sort of potential blackmail I feel the project needs if there were any problem with the editors contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC) ps. I agree with Guy as regards to socking - isn't it a shame that not all sockmasters are treated with such severity?
    • He's said a lot of things, and I think people have also said a fair number of things about him. Possibly he should be limited to article space for a long term, and as Random832 said, certainly he'd have to agree to discontinue any attempts to investigate editors' IPs, etc. For that matter, a 6 month or longer limitation to article space might be a fair chance to show his good faith if he likes. It would have to be a bit novel, but if it resolved the conflict it could be worth the effort. Mackan79 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • While recognizing some potential problems involved, I support an unblock with editing restrictions similar as were applied in the Mantanmoreland arbitration. My first thought is to say he should be allowed to return only under a new account, but I think this raises the question of whether it's worthwhile to try to hide what is happening. On some consideration, I think the better option is probably to acknowledge that old disputes have to be resolved at some point. This wouldn't say that anything he's done has been right or wrong, but would start to treat him in a more normal fashion. One first step could be to unprotect his talk page and ask him to explain whether he's willing to contribute under editing restrictions, but if he is, then I think an unblock would be reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The way WordBomb has been demonized is beyond all reason. While it's questionable whether at this point he has any interest in participating in developing this encyclopedia, rather than simply trying to prove a point of some sort by getting unbanned, it's also unclear what purpose is served in maintaining the punitive ban. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The following is not a rhetorical question, so anyone who has an answer to it should please provide it: what harm could WordBomb do as an unblocked user that he can't do right now? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What, other than biasing content and pursuing his vendetta against SV and others you mean? Or are you suggesting that people who sockpuppet and engage in off-wiki attacks should be allowed back because they can't do much worse here? Guy (Help!) 07:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting nothing (hence my emphasis that it wasn't a rhetorical question); I'm trying to establish some context for my own benefit. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Evidence of reform would be good. A simple desire to come back should not be sufficient. How about letting him try to be productive on another Wikimedia project for a while? It is reasonable to have the length of a ban be related to total extent of disruption, and from what I have heard, that would justify a very long ban. Bans are not punitive but past disruption is our only predictor of future results, if there is no evidence of reform being entered here at all. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The original block itself was made in bad faith. WordBomb, a new user unfamiliar with the rules, had agreed to abide by rules once they were pointed out to him [1] but, the block was given anyway [2] and then the blocking admin protected his uerspage so he couldn't ask about it [3]. He has promised to obey the rules and the original block was inappropriate. So, unblock. Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This ban has been upheld by the community for a period of months. I find your accusation of bad faith on the part of the admin who blocked here to be quite unwarranted, and uncivil, in fact. Dmcdevit·t 03:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's only recently been understood the extent WordBomb attempted to follow the site's processes, by requesting a mediation, agreeing not to post further, and contacting multiple admins and arbitrators all before doing anything that would have justified a ban. Unfortunately, all of the explanations since then have given an incomplete view of these events. This is largely what I think warrants another look, whether or not we think the initial block itself was justified. Mackan79 (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (Note, I also find it funny that JzG is using the use of sockpuppets as a reason not to unblock. In case anyone doesn't know, JzG has admitted that he has several socks himself). Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not that I know of. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. I'm undecided on whether or not I favour giving WordBomb another chance, but it seems a little silly to suggest that Guy lacks the authority to criticize the use of ban-evading socks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban, there is potential there to have a good editor and should that not be the case there is nothing to stop the ban being reimposed. ViridaeTalk 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Even if the message WordBomb was trying to get across was largely right, the extremely disruptive way he conducted himself in doing so suggests that the chance of him becoming a productive member of the community seems pretty much nil. krimpet 03:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sometimes you've got to be a bit disruptive to accomplish a desirable end in the face of entrenched opposition. Or maybe Rosa Parks should have gone meekly to the back of the bus. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • WordBomb == Rosa Parks has got to be one of the wilder analogies I've ever seen here. o_O Seriously though, some of the tactics he's used have been rather shockingly underhanded (tricking folks into hitting his site-trackers, etc.), and his slew of sockpuppets has caused as much disruption to the project as the sockpuppeteer he was trying to expose. I don't foresee letting him back on the project ending well at all, especially once he runs into his first content dispute. Please, let's just put the chapter of the dueling short-selling warriors behind us, and get back to business. krimpet 08:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • We may like simply to leave WordBomb blocked and forget about it, but I think the way this dispute has gone on should show why this is misguided. As long as WordBomb is banned, we're making him an enemy of the project. He can still say, correctly, that he was blocked inappropriately by involved editors, and that he's been mistreated ever since. Of course we can respond that he did things since then that justify his block, but since we're doing our own thing rather than engaging with critics, it doesn't seem to work very well. What's the other option? Give him a chance and see if he's actually able to edit. If he's not, then no harm done, and in fact we can block him this time for a legitimate reason. If he does edit productively, then all the better, and Wikipedia has one more contributor and one less critic. It's one of many reasons why a presumption in favor of letting people edit makes sense, particularly in cases where Wikipedia has itself clearly dropped the ball. Mackan79 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Um, no, I think the original block was perfectly valid actually. Piling straight in with reports against an external opponent? Very clear evidence of an external battle brought to Wikipedia, an unambiguous "no thanks". The chances of WordBomb causing anything other then massive disruption are pretty remote; his actions while blocked reveal a character fundamentally unsuited to any collaborative environment. He'd be fine on Usenet, though. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure how you and Tony continue to talk as if the battle was one sided. You're assuming he couldn't edit productively, but it's an assumption, based on an intense and obvious dislike (not that you'd deny it). I think we all know WordBomb may edit productively, or he may not. My point is that we shouldn't presume, after a year and a half. Or if there are other conditions for returning, we should state them. I think Wikipedia would look better than it does under the current approach. Mackan79 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the block and ban should be reviewed independently by people who were not in any way involved in the controversy. Perhaps it would be a good idea for Wordbomb to email the Arbitration Committee to request a review. It is rather odd that a user was banned after a single block; however, I do not know the content of the edits that had to be oversighted. Sock puppetry is not uncommon when an inexperienced editor gets blocked. That issue is a red herring in my opinion. The question is, were the oversighted edits so egregious that this editor cannot be allowed to return? Jehochman Talk 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the case for continued banning rests less in the content of the oversighted edits - which I believe consisted of attempts to out Wikipedia users editing the affected articles, although I could be mistaken - and more in WordBombs despicable conduct since the ban, which included pseudonymously e-mailing various editors links to dummy websites that he controlled in an effort to mine their IPs. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I see. Perhaps Wordbomb was engaged in a misguided effort to gather evidence to prove that his content opponents were engaged in rampant COI editing, as now appears to have been the case. I think the situation requires a de novo review by impartial arbitrators. Our goal here is to clear the stink, not necessarily to ban or unban somebody. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are users who have been banned for the wrong reasons. This is not one of them. ~ Riana 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Per his talk page, User:Rlevse already emailed a request to Arbcom. Leave it to them. Given the amount of socking over the long period of time, and the need to oversight his comments, I'll trust the people who have probably are the most fully informed of the situation. If Arbcom rejects his application, then he can try here again, but we shouldn't encourage forum-shopping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You know, quite apart from the off-wiki attacks, if you look at the contributions of the WordBomb account it was obviously registered solely to further an off-wiki agenda. It is asserted above that this could be a good user. I disagree, and I certainly don't see any evidence to support the idea. This is an agenda-driven individual who is unscrupulous in how he pursues his agenda, including trying to blackmail an administrator, and deliberately violating the privacy of editors. I just don't see how any of WordBomb's observed behaviour, in any known venue, indicates someone who would be anything other than trouble. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No way in hell. After all the crap he's pulled, he's a poster-child for indefinite banning. Raul654 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think WordBomb's initial block was unjust. His subsequent behavior violated the standards of the site, but it must be considered in light of the behavior of his rival, who was much more insidiously manipulating our content and decision-making processes. Furthermore, it must be conceded that, had WB not violated our standards in his pursuit of his rival, we would not have corrected the Mantanmoreland problem, at least not until the damage had gone on for significantly longer. We're in a difficult position: WB was right and he went about it the wrong way, but he was never even given a chance to do things the right way; furthermore, had he not taken this wrong course, Wikipedia would be likely be left with the wrong outcome. Let's take the blame collectively: as a project, we massively failed to handle this whole conflict in anything remotely approaching an intelligent or productive manner (until quite recently). Let WordBomb edit if he wants to edit; the logic that Mantanmoreland will unable to cause further disruption due to all the eyes that are watching him works just as well when applied to WordBomb. Everyking (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I think that is the precise opposite of the real situation. WordBomb was so self-evidently abusive, and so obviously pursuing an external agenda in the most vicious and aggressive way possible, that his bringing the dispute here actively impeded any proper investigation of the other accounts. Had WordBomb never arrived, it is more than likely we'd have diagnosed and corrected any problem with other editors, and with massively less drama into the bargain. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You know, Mantanmoreland's first edit was to Naked short selling, to revert an edit that he mislabeled as "vandalism." Perhaps it's possible to be surprised what someone will do if they're not permanently blocked on their first day editing. Mackan79 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You mean this revert? The material removed was indeed unsuitable for Wikipedia, if not actual vandalism. "It is difficult to argue with a straight face that there are benefits for the market to be had by defrauding investors" is not suitable for Wikipedia and as that content had been added many times I think it's reasonable to describe it as vandalism. There purpose was to damage Wikipedia by inserting the most slanted propaganda. Mantanmoreland correctly removed it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Right, and you can read the version of the lead at that time and tell me if it was any better than what the IP added ("However, the extent to which this practice takes place has been widely exaggerated, and allegations of naked short-selling have historically been used as a scapegoat by pump-and-dump scam operators wishing to shift blame for the inevitable decline in manipulated stocks."). The point in any case is that Mantanmoreland said he was reverting vandalism, which it wasn't, and even that is shortly before he brought in two additional accounts to support his actions. If you're going to talk about early agenda pushing in this context, I think it's something you have to acknowledge. Mackan79 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I notice that you're not really addressing my point that your characterization of Mantanmoreland's first edit was far from accurate, but simply reiterating your claim. Mantanmoreland did not write the words you quote. However it's broadly in line with the SEC's own statements on the matter [4]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you've forgotten what I originally said, which you agreed was correct. If you want to disagree on substance, you'll have to say that Mantanmoreland did not push an agenda in his early days of editing, as for instance when he created the Tomstoner and Lastexit accounts. The question, anyway, is if someone who pushes an agenda in early edits is capable of becoming a reasonable editor, and unless we're playing games I think we all know this is the case. Mackan79 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of circumstances of his initial block, WordBomb's later behaviour says it all. No hope for his rebirth. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm torn here. I don't think either Mantanmoreland or WorldBomb should be editing. I don't see a relevant difference between the two accounts. But we clearly were unable as a community to reach consensus to show Mantanmoreland the door. I continue to believe that either both should be allowed to edit, or neither should be allowed to edit. I'd rather see neither editing than both. But the community won't go for the neither option, so I'm believing that we should allow both to edit under the same restrictions. GRBerry 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with GRBerry in what he says regarding Mantanmoreland. but I don't think we are likely to get any consensus here. George The Dragon (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The circumstances around his initial ban are questionable enough that, if we ignored his subsequent behavior, a good case could be made for reviewing his ban. But his behavior since then has positioned him as an antagonist toward Wikipedia and its editors. He has chosen to war against those whom he deems to have done him (or his employer) wrong, turning Wikipedia and related sites into a battleground. A review of WordBomb's ban must take this into account. I don't think his ban should be reversed until he does a few things: publicly commit to taking a collaborative and not adversarial approach to editing here; voluntarily accept the same editing restrictions as those that Arbcom imposed on Mantanmoreland; publicly acknowledge and apologize for his specific actions since his ban that have disrupted Wikipedia; and publicly apologize to individual editors whom he has attacked or whose personal information he has sought to discover by deceptive means. He needs to persuade the community not that the original ban was unjust, but that a ban reversal will not lead to the same bad behavior as before. alanyst /talk/ 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Uhhh, no. Some bans are meant to stick, and when one uses socks to cause disruption after their ban, that is a good indication it is that type. (1 == 2)Until 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In principle, forgiveness is a great virtue and bans & blocks are preventative, not punitive. But no case has been made to not expect further disruption of the kind already extensively engaged in. Until such a case is made, I'm unsure how one could justify this. WilyD 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How could that case be made? I find it hard to see how someone would be expected to show their ability to edit productively when they were blocked in less than a day. At the same time, his early agreement to stop posting on the topic, his attempt to pursue mediation, and his efforts to contact other administrators when he felt he was being treated unfairly would suggest that he could be a productive editor if he'd been given the chance. Mackan79 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no consensus that the original block and ban were at all unreasonable. Far from it. People who come to Wikipedia to defame others are not welcome. He did that and he admitted that doing so was his intent. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I can't imagine anywhere else a non-editor pointing out that someone was editing their own bio would be treated as cause for a permanent ban. These kinds of things concern the public, and should be taken as our responsibility to address. Of course, they also concern real life rivals in prominent disputes that have already been brought on Wikipedia. The problem here was that someone was blocked for raising this, even after agreeing not to, and with several hours passing in between. We're saying he didn't show that he could learn, but in fact he did, and then was blocked anyway. That's the problem. People still don't want to acknowledge this, but at some point I think it would smart just to do so and thereby sever ties with the whole affair. Mackan79 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of issues raised here which are being conflated. First, WordBomb's claims about Mantanmoreland appear likely to have been correct. Second, many believe, quite reasonably, that Mantanmoreland should have drawn a harsher penalty in the ArbCom case. However, these issues have little bearing on the question of whether WordBomb should be un-banned. The sole criterion for making that decision is whether an unban is likely to help or harm the encyclopedia. I have yet to see an editor come to Wikipedia for the express purpose of importing an external dispute or agenda and turn into a net plus to the encyclopedia, while I've seen countless examples of the damage such editors cause. Our goal here is not to fairly adjudicate an imported dispute involving WordBomb and Mantanmoreland, but to build a useful encyclopedia. I don't see an unblock contributing to that goal. MastCell Talk 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, several in the community decided to ban Mantanmoreland. A single (though there were more) dissenting editor was enough to determine "no consensus, ban overturned, no wheel war". I'd love to see the reaction that applying a similar principle in this case would get. Several comments above have said "the community has decided. consensus. enough.", but apparently not - at least not by the same principles as applied to Mantanmoreland. We wouldn't want differing standards, would we? Achromatic (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps because Mantanmoreland didn't abuse Wikipedia to pursue an external agenda, attack Wikipedia editors in good standing, try to blackmail an administrator, violate the privacy of others and so on. Just guessing here. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, actually he did some of those things. Relata refero (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's simply incorrect to say that "a single dissenting editor" would have been enough to anull the proposed ban of Mantanmoreland. Crucially, moreover, he has made many good edits and worked well with other editors for a period of some years now. If he's some kind of menace to Wikipedia, he's doing a good job of concealing it. WordBomb, on the other hand... --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Mantanmoreland should be banned, but I'm not sure WP:OTHERSTUFFISUNBANNED is a good unban rationale for WordBomb. I think at this point I'm against an unban, although I reserve the right to change my mind if WordBomb actually explains why he wants to be unbanned and what useful work he expects to accomplish. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not...never, no way. He can always create another account anyway...anyone can. This is pointy nonsense sponsored yet again by the WR gangsters.--MONGO 05:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If people want to say he can return under another account, that's fine with me. I think we should be more specific, though, and say the new account should not edit any of the articles restricted to Mantanmoreland. If this kind of thing worked out over time (or didn't), then it's also something we could reexamine in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think GRBerry best expressed my own opinion: either ban both WordBomb and Mantanmoreland, or none. And much as I dislike Wordbombs actions post blocking, let us take into account that A: He was possibly blocked unfairly (so much has been oversighted that it is really impossible to tell). B: he was blocked by an admin who, it has been claimed[5], had "massive COI". Also, I must say this in favour of WordBomb: he is now quite open about his sock-pupettering and other tactics. After reading the massive evidence in the Mantanmorland arb. com. case, I cannot say I feel I quite trust that Matanmorland has showed the same honesty. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It's indeed impossible to tell all of what happened, but here's what I've been able to find in terms of WordBomb's perspective of the early events: i.) He was blocked five hours after first agreeing not to post his claim further, and two hours after making the same concession again. No evidence has been presented that he went against this agreement. ii.) The two accounts who warned him before he was blocked were both operated by Mantanmoreland, as WordBomb was aware. iii.) He was blocked by an admin who'd been editing with Mantanmoreland on another article that day, and who said that his claim about Mantanmoreland was incorrect while protecting his talk page. iv.) WB next attempted to email two other admins (one arb) for assistance, telling them about another account he created to learn more about sockpuppetry protocol and presumably to pursue the mediation case he had started. v.) Only because those admins alerted SV and she blocked this new account did any communication with her continue. I agree, as I've said, that it's regrettable he then attempted to discern whether SV was reviewing the evidence that he sent her, but in context, I also don't think it is exactly surprising or supportive of the way some people have viewed his actions. Mackan79 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
When did WB attempt to "email two other admins (one arb) for assistance"? What evidence do you have that he e-mailed an arb? Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
WordBomb said on his blog, if not elsewhere, that he emailed Humus sapiens and you, before SV arrived to block his new account IPFrehley.[6] Is this contested? I can't see what IPFrehley posted or didn't since presumably it has been deleted or oversighted, but WB seemed to believe his emails were how SV became aware of the account. Mackan79 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another comment on the invalidity of WordBomb's original block. After researching the policies and the COI Noticeboard and other pages, it's very evident that the outing of editors is allowed in order to prove COI. This is what WordBomb was trying to do. If you'll check the COI Noticeboard, both the current page and the archives, you'll see a lot of outing going on. Again, WordBomb's original block was invalid and made in bad faith. Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd correct this in that it's been made clear that WordBomb initially inserted something into the article itself saying that Weiss was editing his own bio, which is of course against policy. The question is how far this really goes for a new user, when he then agreed twice not to post further on the subject well before he was blocked. The bad faith in all of it was most clearly Mantanmoreland's, who first used a sockpuppet to warm WordBomb,[7] and then came an hour after WB had already agreed to Mantanmoreland[8] and his sockpuppet[9] not to post further on the matter to request on trumped up claims that WordBomb be indefinitely blocked.[10] I think the interaction with SV at that point suffered from several problems, but clearly these actions from Mantanmoreland were the major issue. That said, I hope others will offer further thoughts on how to resolve this, whether it requires another thread or some other discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
feh. we like our double standards, and that's really all there is to it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

People can listen to todays NotTheWikipediaWeekly ( the third bit of the sixth NotTheWikipediaWeekly), where "Wordbomb chats about the events surrounding his involvement in the wiki". Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment from someone who has been a fly on the wall throughout this whole issue. I'm not going to say which way I'm swaying but I do have an idea that could help. What about some sort of editor rehabilitation program? If an editor has been controversially banned and still wants to edit he/she could, if approved, do some, let's say, menial editing for around 500 edits. The editor could do minor fixes for a while like "wikignome" work and not edit any talk pages, policy pages, or any significant mainspace edits. This would be in line with the good faith culture of wikipedia and would truly gauge if an editor really wants to contribute to building an encylopedia which seems to be the main criterion for what can get an editor off the ban list. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(jumping in late). I can't believe what I just witnessed here. WordBomb was a newbie. He was banned by the wikipedia equivalent of a criminal judge. You can SEE it on wordbomb's page where that one individual used 3 different sockpuppets in order to silence the newbie, ban the newbie, and then cover his own criminal actions from being exposed.

If this was "real world" I would consider it a miscarriage of justice. Yes wordbomb did use socks himself, but he was merely trying to prove the administrator was a dishonest man, and that was proved beyond any reasonable doubt. (Sounds similar to the hero in the movie The Firm.) If this was real world, the imprisoned person would be freed, regardless of what crime he may have committed while in jail, since it has been shown the judge was a dishonest man.

Plus the original judgment was tainted by conflict-of-interest and conspiracy to coverup rule-breaking. In the real world the original punishment would and should be nullified. WordBomb should be released from "prison" and given one more chance to be a productive member of society. IMHO.

Continual copyrighted uploads by User:Tasos90[edit]


I'm not sure if this is the correct place but Tasos90 (talk · contribs) is not listening to talk page messages regarding this issue. As far as I can tell, not seeing the deleted edits, all of his uploads are copyvios and all but the last few have been deleted. He's had a final warning, is still repeating upload of the same image and has not responded to any messages. I think a copyright violation block is warranted here - Peripitus (Talk) 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given the user a final warning. Editor appears to have done nothing in the past 18 hours, so a block isn't warranted at this time but any further uploads of copyrighted images should result in a block.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is this such a bad thing? He's trying to help make things pretty around here and everyone is working to stop him. We should be encouraging new editors, not biting them away. See my discussion below for another admin who has similar bite problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lupin recent changes filter[edit]

Hi. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I was wondering if there are any users other than User:Lupin who make changes to Lupin's RC filter. I use it for reverting vandalism and I've noticed a few problems with it. For example, when using the rollback function, if the non-admin rollback isn't enabled, the rollback sometimes doesn't work even if a user has been granted the "admin" rollback (such as I). Also, when using the non admin rollback, the "save changes" button used to automatically be clicked, but currently I have to click it manually in order to save changes to the page. I've added these notices to Lupin's talk page, but he seems to be inactive, so I'd like to know if there's anyone else who can take care of these problems. Thanks.--Urban Rose 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lupin, although returning to edit on rare occasions, does take long breaks from Wikipedia it seems now. I also don't see many people who now use Lupin's tool, having instead turned to things like Huggle and the admin rollback, which can now be granted to anyone, albeit only on request. If you find that Lupin's tool is corrupting, and Lupin is more inactive than active, why not try a new tool? There is now plenty to choose from. Lradrama 08:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Get acquainted with pgkbot and his pals at #cvn-wp-en? It's Lupin's tool on steroids. - KrakatoaKatie 01:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Another set of eyes please[edit]


Pedro's had his sanity check, and it's best to move along.

I think I need a sanity check, as I'm not sure what I've done but I seem to have upset a couple of users.

The potted history. Ealing Broadway Platform 9, whilst at WP:AFD was tagged with {{db-author}}. On checking the history, only the author had made edits, with the exception of one reversion and some categorisation. Accordingly I deleted it under WP:CSD#G7 and closed the AFD. [11]. User:Colonel Warden approached me to advise a G7 was inappropriate [12] and I advised him why it had been G7'd [13]. To help out I userfied it, and advised the original author, so they could work on it [14]. Note the AFD consensus at that time was pretty much delete and this seemed a good move. The original author then recreated the article back in the main space [15] and so User:Wangi reopened the AFD [16]. I made a couple of comments as the AFD had been re-opened 1) Apologising to the new editor who created it, and questioning Colonel Wardens Keep logic [17] and 2) Questioning User:Firefly322s notability criteria [18].

Alas, it now goes down hill. User:Firefly322 promptly replied with an edit summary of "administrator abuse" [19]. I asked him to reconsider his suggestions on his talk page and at the AFD. This resulted in more inappropriate edit summaries [20] [21] for which I warned him (non-templated) [22]. Alas this then generated the following thread : User_talk:Colonel_Warden#Question_about_Administrator_Abuse which has now lead, after my statement in that thread that they should proove what "abuse" has taken place to User_talk:Pedro#Carrot_vs_Onion - the external link is basically an allegation of bullying. Now WP:RBI is not appropriate here, certainly not the B part. I need to know where exactly this moved from debate to attacks. I seem to have got two reasonably established editors wound up, over an AFD I have no interest in. Seriously, someone give me some pointers on where I went wrong here as it's a bit deflating, to say the least. Pedro :  Chat  14:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have done nothing 'wrong'. No suggestions other than to say, it's just Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
(e/c with Wassup) I'm sure I don't really qualify as neutral in the eyes of your two detractors, but Pedro, for your own info, I've looked through the dustup, and can't find one single thing you did wrong. As (I think) you told me once, not doing anything wrong is no guarantee that people aren't going to get mad at you. Some of the "delete" comments at the AfD were somewhat unkind (as seems to be the nature of Afd, and one reason I seldom go there), but none of them were made by you. --barneca (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
A valuable reminder Barneca! thankyou! It's water of the proverbial ducks back, I'd happily just rollback the last edit to my talk, but if I've actually made a mistake I'd sooner know about it for next time. Pedro :  Chat  15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm more amused than upset by the drama, as I said already. The moral of the little story that I sent you, was supposed to be that "everything's got a place in The Stew!". So, whether we see ourselves as carrots, onions or whatever, we should be relaxed about our differences. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The issues, my friend, is where you see yourself. Not me. Will you apologise for linking to an external site where the first lines are about bullying, with it's non-to-subtle implication?Pedro :  Chat  15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read the AfD, I've read the talk comments at Pedro, Colonel's talkpages, and Firefly's talk history (things were removed by him, perfectly acceptable). I see no wrongdoing or admin abuse of any kind. I also read the external link of Colonel Warden's differently than you Pedro. I don't believe it was meant as an "allegation of bullying", but more towards what Colonel has said here, a simple allegory. It's akin to the story about the 4 blind men describing an elephant. I'll find a link if you don't know that story. Basic point really is that sometimes we don't see eye to eye. When one of the editors is perceived to be abusive, it doesn't mean he/she is. Colonel told Firefly that. You have not been abusive. You have followed Wiki-guidelines perfectly. Abusive behavior would be more akin to blocking Firefly, which of course you've done nothing of that sort. You are entitled to comment at any AfD. Firefly knows this now. Firefly also knows that you cannot close any AfD that you've commented in. (And I'll recuse myself also for commenting here, as well because of a previous "run-in" with Firefly over an AfD that I did close that he disagreed with). I'm recommending a "let's all move along here" attitude. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Even better than an external link! We actually have an article about the blind men and the elephant...who knew? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I don’t seen any evidence of wrongdoing on Pedro’s part, either. —Travistalk 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

okay, sanity check done. Thanks all, particularly Keeper's perspective. Marking resolved. Pedro :  Chat  15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me share some further thoughts on the issue after reading this thread. Pedro may well be within the letter of wikipedia "law". Nevertheless, I believe the majority of reasonable editors would agree that using administator tools on an article and then subsequently joining in that article's AfD can easily create the appearance of something untoward. I can now see that all along I have really been taking issue with the appearance of power of which Pedro and his friends (see Pedro's talk page where a friend states that he should be a beauraucrat) seeminly imbue his role. For the Administator role is supposed to be, according to guidelines, Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    I would say that "most reasonable editors" would actually disagree with that assertion that Pedro did something inappropriate, either as an editor or as an admin. I, and many admins, regularly contribute to AfDs that have been previously deleted, protected, or otherwise administratively affected. The only guideline for admins in this sense is to not close the debate, Firefly, which Pedro clearly and precisely stated, in more than one place, that he would not do. Time to let it go. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    Certainly Pedro and/or his fans have in fact been cultivating an appearance of power as administator. There's evidence for that. And that seems to go against the guideline: Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    You're absolutely right, Firefly. Being an admin is no big deal. Misusing admin tools is a big deal though, and accusing an admin wrongfully of misusing them is, traditionally a big deal too. You've mislabelled Pedro. He did nothing wrong, either as an admin or as an editor. Any editor can tag something for speedy deletion. Any admin can delete once tagged if merited. Pedro did. Then he undeleted. Then he contributed to the AfD. No big deal. He has not abused any admin tool, and the fact that you are trying to make a mountain out of this, against good advice from Pedro, myself, and Colonel Warden (on his talkpage), is quite telling. Please let it go. You are the only one trying to make a big deal out of this, and it's quite tiring. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    Outside press coverage says that the rise of the deletionists is threatening the hitherto peaceful growth of the world's most popular information source.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9 is an excellent example of deletionist activity. Given the existence of outside press coverage, a deletionist debate like Ealing Broadway Platform 9 is quite objectively a big deal. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Firefly, now you're just deflecting. If you'd like to have a meta-conversation about deletionism/inclusionism, there are much better forums. Try village pump. I'm done with this here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Why? BEcause he's got you beat? Are you another deletionist who needs to be removed? Give me some time and you'll have a complaint here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that this deserves a response, but I'm not a deletionist. I've tried on more than one occasion to help Firefly. Complain away. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Franz, Duke of Bavaria[edit]

Resolved: Nothing here of interest to administrators. We're janitors, not police. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In Franz, Duke of Bavaria I have taken the time to look into the matter.

The fact is that the article person is named "Prinz" but styled "Herzog". I provided a reference/source for that, which user Charles undid with the edit remark:

"Noel is acquainted with The Duke; I imagine he knows what is or isn't right. Wikipedia isn't a source, whether it's German or not. German Wikipedia is notorious for incorrect royal titles and names."

As far as I know, we rely on sources on Wikipedia and not our trust or distrust in the knowledge of users. However, I am certainly open for help in understanding the rules better. --Law Lord (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Law Lord used another Wikipedia article as a source initially (which itself doesn't substantiate why it chooses "Prinz von Bayern" as The Duke's surname) and then a source from 1971. I quoted an author of books on royalty who had information from The Duke himself that his surname was legally changed in 1997. I find the user's comments on my talk page and here (Exactly what is the problem here with my remarks?) about my edit summaries to be wholly and thoroughly ridiculous. Charles 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, for instance the fact that you referred to somebody called "Noel", which I have no way of knowing who is. As for your comments, I would not at all call them "wholly and thoroughly ridiculous". Merely offensive and rude. --Law Lord (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Noel McFerran, aka User:Mcferran. You can think they are rude all they want by this is certainly not an AN/I matter. Explain though, if you want, things like de:Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, Prince of Wales and de:Eugenie Mountbatten-Windsor, Princess of York, among others, then tell me German Wikipedia is good as a source for names. Charles 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
My source was a book, which is the source at deWiki. Your source is a post on Usenet. Wonder which is the most reliable. Certainly, if this is your reaction to fellow users telling you that they consider your writings offensive, I foresee no change in your behavior. --Law Lord (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

<-Either way, a content dispute, not an item of interest to administrators. To Talk:Franz, Duke of Bavaria or other similar venues with both of you (he says, carefully not taking sides). ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not posting because of the disputed content but because of the incivility of the user. Since he obviously has no intention of being civil, I agree that nothing more can be done. --Law Lord (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any incivility. I just see someone disagreeing with you. And no matter what people here would like to think, disagreeing, even strongly disagreeing, even loudly and clearly strongly disagreeing, is not and can never be incivility. Discuss the issue at hand somewhere more appropriate or stop editing on the subject entirely. Those are the two options. Administrators cannot help you here. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, thank you for closing this. Charles 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hilarious! You'd know for sure if I wasn't being civil ;) Then wasn't one of those times. Charles 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The user in question thought discussion should be done by offensive revision remarks. Sad really. --Law Lord (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)[edit]

This user has been caught inserting false information into article so all of it's contribs should be inspected thoroughly. I've already reported it to WP:AIV and am considering filing an abuse report.--Urban Rose 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one of its edits can still be rolled back. Enigma msg 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted all of it's edits that appeared to be false info, but I'm afraid that some of its edits may have appeared legitimate and editors may have edited since them and not reverted them.--Urban Rose 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Gladys j cortez claims that this IP is used by a "date change" vandal that targets Arthur (TV series) and other articles.--Urban Rose 23:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm reasonably certain (just going by the tone of its quacks) that this is yetanother incarnation of my beloved vandal, who goes around changing dates, funding info, numbers and other subtle info. Strikethru b/c I'm a little concerned, now that I've had the chance to run my favorite ip2location tool [23], that this might be a copycat and not the real deal. (For the thinking behind those suspicions, see [24] this; doesn't geolocate to any of my usual suspects, and it's a different ISP. Which is not to say that the vandal in question might not be visiting Auntie Beulah in NYC, or something--it's just different.) So...this may be an instance of two separate ducks with highly similar quacking. Regardless, changing info is Just Not On, and we need to prevent it whenever possible by blocking those who have shown a propensity for it. Gladys J Cortez 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete my images..! (Please)[edit]

Resolved: Images deleted.

Hello could someone please delete the following two images as they were uploaded by me when I first began here and should have been uploaded to Commons, or more likely not at all:

  • Image:Jeremy and giraffe.JPG
  • Image:DSC07339.JPG

Kind regards, ZoofanNZ (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Tagged G7, author requests deletion. Tan | 39 01:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. :) SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


Just so you all know, I've created a new template, {{UAA}}, along the same line as {{AIV}}. As it's probably not quite comprehensive yet, please feel free to tweak it as needed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! Herostratus (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's really helpful. This will help immensely in dealing with the many situations on UAA where neither blocking nor ignoring are the right idea. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Searching problem[edit]

I don't know where to get this to the attention of a developer, but someone here will surely know how.

When a red link is made, eg. Arbitrary page name, with spaces in it, and it is clicked, the page editing screen comes up. When the search button is clicked, it will search "Arbitrary_page_name" (with underscores) instead of just "Arbitrary page name", which is disruptive to the search results. Give it a try for yourself. -Oreo Priest talk 09:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No it searches for Arbitrary page name, with no uderscores, underscores are just there in the URL, as spaces cna't be. What would be great is a search that searches for each word induvidually, rather than the phrase as a whole.--Phoenix-wiki 10:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, actually, it really does search with the underscores. When you remove them from the search box and search again, the mediawiki search results alone are much more useful. When you change the search engine to Google for example, you get NO results until you manually remove the underscores. Seriously, try it yourself. -Oreo Priest talk 10:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison links: Underscores / No underscores. If you feel there's a problem here, file a bug report. MER-C 11:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reported. -Oreo Priest talk 12:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot generated links[edit]

Tam Dalyell has a number of bot generated links. To my mind the bot should generate {{:cite web}} links rather than http://www links. - Kittybrewster 11:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Total edits: 1395
  • Mainspace: 163 (~10%)
  • Talk: 43
  • User: 617 (~45%)
  • User talk: 548 (~40%)
  • Wikipedia: 13

This user seems to have a massive problem with contributing constructive content to the encyclopedia. The last 50 edits to the mainspace for this user date back over a month, yet the user made a total of 600 edits in this period. Most of this users' edits is designing userpages for similar-minded individuals, creating guest books and secret page mazes, and other like behaviour. Such behaviour also includes these kind of comments to administrators.

From the precedent sent with Blow of Light and Gp75motorsports, I propose the following restriction:

ElisaEXPLOSiON is banned from editing the user space of any user, for a period of six months. Furthermore, ElisaEXPLOSiON is cautioned to keep the majority of correspondance on user talk pages directly related to improving encyclopedic content. Users are prohibited from posting material on behalf of this user, where it would breach the aforementioned conditions. These restrictions are enforcable by blocks, starting at 24 hours and proceeding upwards at administrators' discretion. This restriction applies to the person, not the account.

I feel that otherwise this will never be resolved. In my opinion, such a restriction is better for improving the encyclopedia by channeling this users' enthusiasm towards the right places, than the alternatives of letting userspace-only editing continue or blocking this user completely.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have much more important things to worry about. Bstone (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I would endorse that restriction. Where this could develop to, we don't know, what else could happen, we don't know, but the outcome of this restriction, we do know. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal connection network and with that, in addition to the other precedents, I don't see a reason why not to. Rudget (review) 10:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
To ban from editing userspace is a bit strong but I support at least a partial restriction. --Tone 11:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: One of the reasons my talk page edit is so high (as I have explained on several different occasions) is because several other editors were engaged in an edit war for a lengthy period of time, and I was trying to somewhat mediate. In addition, the example used against me about the comment to User:Orderinchaos was completely justified, as seen by the evidence on his talk page and contribs. I understand that I need to make more edits to the mainspace; I'm sorry, and will try to hold up the Wikipedia standards. But seeing as I have not even had a warning, I believe I should be given a second chance. I also have reason to believe that User:Daniel is issuing a personal attack, based on evidence here. Why would he have even taken notice of me had I not reverted his edit? I may be wrong, it's just that I have never come in contact with this editor before, and all of a sudden he proposes to block me for six months. I understand the situation, as aformentioned, and I will to my best to work on the articles. Cheers, elisatalk. 12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
She was one of the main participants in the edit war itself, if that is mediating then OK. She is referring to the genre argument on Flyleaf Talk take a look and you will see she has done everything but mediate. I don't have an opinion about this matter, but she is lying about mediating. I do know she spends the vast majority of her time on Wikipedia using it as a social network. I would post the diffs but it is much easier to just look at her contributions, almost all of her edits are related to socializing. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. I was involved in that argument, yes, but I do seem to remember User:GlassCobra warning you about the same thing. I was also commended by him for being able to switch my stance and be the bigger man, shown here. And I have been mediating, go to Talk:Flyleaf for evidence. elisatalk. 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly agree that what she is doing is not "mediation", as she is hardly an independant third party. Daniel (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. 6 months is too long. I'm not going to get involved with this unless I have to, but I think the restriction should be more like 1 month, and if the problem still persists then it should escalate. The lack of warnings also justifies a shorter ban at the very least if not a second chance. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I could support one month as well, just because this user seems to fail to recognise what we're here to do and a correction of some form is required. It's also alarming to see this user is continuing the bad faithed accusations. Daniel (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Bad faith is demonstrated here, sir. I don't know if you have something against me or not, but including people who aren't even a part of this argument is unnecessary, to say the least. That user is a newcomer, constituting WP:BITE. That in itself is unacceptable. You accuse me of bad faith? Also, I was indeed part of the edit war, but was also recently commended by an admin, User:GlassCobra for my ability to overcome and try to settle differences, seen here. In addition, Dwrayosrfour, I believe I spent a great deal of time helping you understand Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken. elisatalk. 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In a general respect, I support this proposal, per the evidence submitted: the privilege of editors to edit their own userspace (and, by extension, that of others) is rather obviously not being used by Elisa appropriately here, and restrictions to prevent further non-constructive contributions are very much in order here. I'm somewhat in the middle ground with regards to the time span of the userspace ban proposed here—whilst I don't think 6 months is overly strict, I would not have any serious qualms with it being cut short. I do, however, think 1 month is rather short: ~30 days goes by quite quickly, and is probably not sufficient for any sort of rehabilitation to take place—rehabilitation which is necessary if disruption is to stop. To that end, I am leaning towards some figure more-or-less in between the two current proposals of 6 and 1 month(s), and thus I'd be happier with 4 months. Consensus on specifics is, however, less important than consensus on the issue (in this case, the proposal) itself. To reiterate that, I support this proposal. Anthøny 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly support a 1-month topic ban from userspace. This user contributes little content to either the mainspace or Wikispace. Perhaps if forced to look at these pieces of the project by a topic ban, she'll realize there are more constructive ways to spend her time than playing userspace games with her buddies. This isn't Facebook or Myspace. And if she keeps up with the bad-faith assumptions, I'd support a short block to stop those as well. Bellwether BC 16:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like just to make one observation related to Elisa's post on Orderinchaos' talk page. It was made following an incident when a user was canvassing multiple talk pages, and Orderinchaos removed the canvassed notes. If that section of his talk page is viewed, other comments similar to Elisa's can be seen. FusionMix 17:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • For the record (as a hitherto uninvolved user in this) I saw Elisa's response to my action on my talk page as fair comment - I disagreed with it, but it was in good faith, and I did take note of it when a future situation came up and avoided her talk page. Orderinchaos 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose and topic bans or such. We have much more important things to be focusing our time on. Bstone (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If kids are playing around in user space, please do not tell them to go running amok in article space instead. They may not be very competent. Delete the userspace crap if you feel it's excessive, and deal with any behavioral issues that come up, by all means. But trying to force them into article space will only lead to incompetent edits to pages that we actually care about. Please, think of the articles. Friday (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • We're surely better to at least try and coerce this user into mainspace hoping that she will be constructive, and then block if that turns out to be a complete disaster? cf. Blow of Light, it has worked in the past. Daniel (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We're not supposed to say this, but Friday is very likely correct. Moreschi (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • From what I've seen at Talk:Flyleaf, Elisa is a reasonable editor, who uses talk pages before making edits. I'm not enthused about this ban, I think it would be preferable to use suggest-a-bot to give some ideas about articles she could improve. PhilKnight (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Sure, we are allowed to have fun, a sense of community always helps; but the massive concentration of edits to the userspace is excessive and detract from the purpose of this website. Wikipedia should not be a social network, its main aim is to provide information, not to have fun. Although it may be enjoyable to talk to your friends and make a nice looking userpage, this does not help Wikipedia in any way whatsoever. I strongly suggest that Elisa focus more of her time doing other stuff (reverting vandalism etc.) and to refrain from editing userspace. If this cannot be achieved, I will support a topic ban. We have high tolerance of users who edit purely on the userpage, but that tolerance is disintegrating. You've been on Wikipedia for 2 or 3 months; that's more than enough time to start contributing. There's two long-term choices in this: you can go and leave, or you can stay and contribute to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not your personal chat room. —Dark talk 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Did I not just say I was going to start contributing to the mainspace...? elisatalk. 22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I will believe it when I see it. —Dark talk 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a request. Instead of you guys blocking her indef, could you let me adopt Elisa? RC-0722 247.5/1 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
User:ElisaEXPLOSiON has accepted User:RC-0722's adoption offer. RC-0722 247.5/1 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose a six month ban. That is way to long for something as minor as what she did ... a six month ban would almost guarantee that she wouldn't come back. Let's just assume good faith on this and look for improvement in the future now that RC-0722 has adopted the user. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 14:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose any long-term block - I prefer Malinaccier's approach elaborated above. This user does have their own issues and they need to be dealt with (I totally agree with Darkfalls's comments above), and the immediate matter regarding abusive socks does merit a block, but I would much rather see monitoring and escalating warnings than an outright block. A mitigating factor in my view is the relative youth of the user - people grow and change quickly at that age and I for one am more amenable to granting second chances to such users, unless they exhaust a series of them. However, the bad faith accusations, the attacks and the abuse of userspace have to stop. Orderinchaos 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppeteer[edit]

Checkuser  Confirmed sockpuppeteers of ElisaEXPLOSiON:

This takes userspace abuse to a whole new level, and the deception caused by using four accounts to interact with each other and others is an abuse of trust which is not compatable with editing here. The sockpuppets were also used for making gross personal attacks, and one was blocked for making threats. I have indefinitely blocked the one currently-unblocked sockpuppet (one was already blocked for this; not good, not good at all, and the other one for a usernameblock although it probably should have been a troll/NPA block per this and this) and blocked the main account for two months. I still support a topic ban (seen above) provided consensus here isn't to extend the main account's block to indefinite, something I'd also support.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking these over and it looks like it was actually her brother using these accounts, which is also what she said on her talk page. It would be ridiculous to block her for six months just because of what her brother did on her IP address. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 14:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
She's blocked for two months, and brothers a) don't make physical threats against users who their siblings are in disputes with, unless they've been told to by said sibling, which is just as bad as doing it herself, but I don't believe it was her "brother" anyways; b) don't call their sisters "sexy"; c) edit identical user talk pages to their siblings in a near-identical fashion using similar English and no edit summaries except for the title of the thread; d) know about the Five Pillars on their second edit. Daniel (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that whether it was herself or a user working in tandem is irrelevant per WP:MEAT - they're treated as basically the same situation. Daniel also makes some good points, although I'd argue (d) is possible as some people read for a long time before ever finding a reason to post. Orderinchaos 02:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Call for help[edit]

If you are good at image-related "stuff" and especially if you are active on Commons, OTRS could probably do with your help in the Permissions queue, which is perennially backlogged. I am told it's really simple, but I am not good on that stuff myself. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm good with image stuff, but I've never done OTRS before. I am willing to confirm my identity to the Foundation (or any other admin) if that matters. Try pinging Carcharoth (talk · contribs) as he seems to know his stuff. MBisanz talk 03:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP - a suggestion[edit]

WP:SSP is almost permanently backlogged, and some of the older cases down the bottom of the list have been languishing there for weeks. Although it's a relatively ignored backwater, there's a limit to what non-admins can do, as deleted contributions and blocks are frequently involved.

I suggest that we change the running order. At present new cases are added to the top of the list - I suspect that this means that as admins look down the list, they tend to find ones they can knock on the head quite quickly, rather than going for the more difficult cases. The net result is that the more difficult cases get ignored, then pushed further and further down the page where they're even more likely to be even more ignored.

It's but the work of a few moments to change the order, and the instructions, but I thought I'd see if anyone had any views? The backlog is so large most of the time that's it can be pretty daunting to see how many outstanding cases there are. If we can clear off the backlog once and for all, with a bit of luck we should be able to keep it down to a manageable length in future. GBT/C 12:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems logical. It also can't harm if it doesn't work. I say go for it. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As somebody who works there frequently, I feel this proposal is not resolving the problem. I know to look at the old cases at the bottom. The solution to have more admins actually work on cases. Jehochman Talk 13:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
And a simple re-ordering would mean less eyes on it? Or the same number or more? If the latter, it's worth doing. Saying (in effect) "don't change this ignored page, but more people should work on it" will achieve nothing. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I posted on the SSP talk page, I agree with the proposal and I think more admins are needed at SSP. I posted a few times recently regarding the backlog, to no avail. Enigma msg 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I go there often, I once had it down to zero. This change will not solve the problem. The problem is too few admins interested in that topic. I wonder what many admins do--I rarely see them involved anywhere, we have well over 1000 of them. Only half a dozen or so patrol SSP.RlevseTalk 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The amount of truly active admins is lower than you might think (there are hundreds of admins that are either inactive or hardly active), and the active ones tend to focus on other areas, like AIV. Maybe they're more interesting than SSP. Some SSP cases involve a lot of work too, and maybe people don't feel like sitting down and spending a half hour on a case. Understandable. Enigma msg 16:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It would also help if people didn't take screamingly obvious sockpuppetry cases to SSP. Those should go to ANI for quick blocks. SSP should be for more complex cases - for instance when checkuser, for one reason or another, doesn't help, or decide whether a RFCU is justifed. Moreschi (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a big deal. I went through the obvious ones myself. Those aren't time-consuming and it's not like their presence is going to prevent an admin from handling SSP cases. Enigma msg 17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on a complex set of possible socks right now, and I must say that the permanent backlog is seriously disheartening. When an average editor sees something odd and looks through that list, he or she shouldn't get the sense that the dossier they present will have to look extra special or something in order to get attention from one of the couple of overworked admins there.
I think one solution is to make it perhaps a more structured process. No !voting, but perhaps some sort of time-bound discussion period. I don't like the thought much, I admit, but if the editors getting through RfA just aren't interested in that side of things, what choice do we have?
(Incidentally, I'd also like to say that between 0500 and 1100 UTC the response rate at AN3 is also really slow. Many days recently there's just been User:Stifle beavering away at it. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to do my best in the next week to prod admins that I know to work on this. SSP isn't my favorite place to work, but it's work that no one wants to do. If I ever do become an admin, I'm going to make it a focus simply because of the lack of attention it is paid. Enigma msg 03:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
At least now I see the backlog isn't quite as bad. 23 cases listed. Enigma msg 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and threats by a user[edit]

A user is threatening me and being incivil and has been incivil to others in the past. I thought this was a legal threat. Some people say only threatening to sue is a legal threat. Ok, but rather than do nothing, please talk with that person and inform them that threats are very anti-WP behavior.

From Barack Obama talk page.

As I'm sure you know, the user who insisted on the police union edit was banned because he was abusing Wikipedia with multiple sock puppets. As he has continued to do - but don't worry, he will be stopped again. Tvoz |talk 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See, Tvoz is falsely accusing me of being a sock and is issuing a legal threat to ban me. I am KVS. I am a citizen of India. Tvoz accused some American, Dirk Benedict, of being a sock. I am not American. I am NPOV and not for or against Obama. Here's proof of my citizenship. (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say that I am a sock. Then the other socks have advocated NPOV positions and they have been banned. Eventually enough people supported the NPOV, such as listing Obama's name as "Jr.". You see, Tvoz is POV pushing and threatening people with banning. Better yet, I am a citizen of India (see my IP). I suspect there are few people in my village that write about Barack Obama so where are the socks????? I am Kumar. I am user KVS.

The real story is that Tvoz is threatening anyone who writes neutral (and not just positive info) on the man. This needs to stop. Why not use your administrative clout and advise Tvoz that "please work together and do not threaten to ban a user or accuse them of being a sock. Making accusations because you don't agree with an edit may be a sign of bullying. Thank you." You can help make WP better buy asking someone to stop threatening. Don't say "dispute resolution" because that just fans the fire. A polite reminder is what is needed. (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I am KVS. KVSTamilNadu (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC) The above is my IP.

This is beginning to appear as bordering upon harassment; Tvoz (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a long time contributor to the encyclopedia, with whom you appear to be having a content dispute on Barak Obama. There are other avenues of dispute resolution, of which the administrators noticeboard is not one. There is nothing that admins can do - unless you can provide specific examples of policy violation - and it appears nothing admins want to do. Please pursue the appropriate course of dispute resolution, and not keep bringing this matter to WP:AN LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this IS harrassment. Tvoz is harrassing me by threatening to ban me because Tvoz doesn't agree with my NPOV edit. I thought it was a legal threat but some disagreed so I revised it to it being a threat. Read Tvoz's message. It is a threat. Please bring civility to Tvoz. I am KVS. As proof I am not a sock, here is my IP. There are few people here who know about WP as far as I know. (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I have no content dispute with Tvoz as LessHeardVanU states. I don't even know what Tvoz has edited. Tvoz just attacked me out of the blue sky. I am KVS. I am a citizen of India and neutral in American politics. (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. Tvoz |talk 00:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Tvoz is a long term, good faith contributor - also seconding LHvU's comments above. Orderinchaos 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Weird IP attack[edit]

Take a look at the history of WT:FICT for the last 30 minutes (approx 12:00 to 12:30 on April 5) (I just happened to be logged in to catch it). About 7 completely different IPs came in and made a bunch of nonsense edits (reverting the page to an archive page, or worse), and that's all those IPs have done in the last several minutes. I semi'd the page for a day because it is presently a very active discussion page, but I've never seen a coordinated "attack" before, particularly on a talk page. Any idea what may have happened? --MASEM 12:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess sockpuppets that are experienced at editing/vandalizing wikipedia judging by the redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion at CAT:EP[edit]

Can someone take a look at Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#Request_for_edit_by_an_administrator? It's a complete mess and I'm tempted just to delete the whole section and ask them to rewrite it from scratch, but I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Happymelon 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you do, in fact do that.
Are those articles ever coming off protection? Permanent protection is a disgrace. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Less of a disgrace than the years-long POV-pushing by LaRouche advocates, I suspect. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes, but if we can't deal with POV-pushers pushing LaRouche views how will we deal with the really organised guys pushing less batshit crazy POVs? Topic ban 'em all, friends and foes, and start afresh. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: image cut off in its prime

Image:Circumsized11.jpg - orphaned penis image with copyright problems. I recommend deleting the image or at least adding it to MediaWiki:Bad image list.--Urban Rose 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely orphaned (as in, not attached to any mainspace page), but I don't see the copyright problems. Could be deleted, I suppose, as unused? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd add it to the Bad image list. There's plenty more waiting for it. Rudget (review) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll clarify. I have no problem with it being added to the bad image list. It's a bad image. It was released to public domain though, that's all I meant by "copyright issues". I endorse it being sent to bad images...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...there seems to be a different uploader and name in the description field. Rudget (review) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Shy1520 (talk · contribs), instead of being renamed, seems to have created a new account, DanArmiger (talk · contribs) (check Shy's contribs). That explains the dual names. (Nevermind, the account was renamed from "Shy1520" to "DanArmiger", which still explains the dual names.) As for copyright issues, I'm not sure myself what they are, but the user who removed this image from Penis said there were some.--Urban Rose 19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, I've added it to MediaWiki:Bad image list for the time being. - auburnpilot talk 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Commons has hundreds of images of penises and various other body parts. Let's please keep the bad image list to things that are actually abused. Mr.Z-man 20:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"for the time being" was the key part of my addition of the image to the list. I agree with your comment, but this discussion was an advertisement for an available penis shot. - auburnpilot talk 01:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Can anyone tell me why Nuremburger_parteitag_des_nsdap and a similarly named page are turning up in CAT:CSD? Can't work it out... GBT/C 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a redirect. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Aaah. I think I've just been blinded by that flash of the obvious. How did I miss that exactly?! GBT/C 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
S.E.P. Field? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day returns[edit]

Given [25], it appears that (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Fredrick day (talk · contribs), per the editing tendencies described at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/April 2008#User:Fredrick_day Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also (talk · contribs) at [26]. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron nizamov96 (talk · contribs) and citing forums[edit]

I have just reverted a few of Ron nizamov96 (talk · contribs)'s edits, because [s]he was inserting links to a forum as a reference- something that another user warned them for in the past. Could someone else please look into this? It bothers me a little, but I really don't want to get involved in something like that right now. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cabal" Policy[edit]

Hi. This is a cross-posted courtesy notice to ask for opinions regarding User:Master of Puppets/Cabal policy. This is in response to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Great Cabal Debate and the discussion at WP:Requests for comment/Cabals. Your input would be appreciated to come to a consensus in a reasonably efficient manner. Thank you. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban a biased user[edit]


I demand that User:Ricky81682 be banned immediately. He refuses to listen when people have legitimate complaints at User_talk:Ricky81682#Something_to_think_about and User_talk:Ricky81682#Following_on_your_comments and on and on. Instead, he blocks users like User:Svetovid who have done nothing wrong (other than asking legitimate questions at User_talk:Svetovid#Blocked) and lets User:Nmate continue editing and insulting people freely.

Wikipedia should not continue to allow editors to respond for legitimate help by ignoring and threatening to block them, which he repeats again and again. Besides, all he seems to do all day is try to get images deleted. People are putting serious time and effort into helping this site and people like that should not be allowed to destroy it. We should NOT be allowing editors like him to focus on the destroying the encyclopedia while people like Svetovid are being driven off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost me at I demand that User:Ricky81682 be banned immediately. Please don't demand anything (human beings here, not automatons) and don't demand bannings - a very very serious step we do not lightly take. If you have an issue with this user, dispute resolution is third on the left down the hall. In that room, you will find plenty of options, none of which is "banning" a user on your say so. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
<tumbleweed blows across empty stage> LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Calling this resolved, because well, what else would we call it? Still waiting for the thread called "keeper". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, there is no way Ricky should be blocked, admins like any other user are voluntary editors and they can't be forced to attend all of the concerns presented to them, particular those concerning how the organize the conversations on their talk page, as a matter of fact I sense a bit of harrassment in your persistence. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Oh, how I wish someone had informed me about this. Either way, I guess I'm doing something right to create that sort of vitriol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Snowball clause in sock-case?[edit]

This seems such an open-and-shut case, it's absurd to go through the whole rigmarole. Is there a way around it? TreasuryTagtc 13:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not absurd - it's snowballed, but not the way you hoped. There's been no breach of policy, in my opinion, as there's no overlap or co-ordination between the accounts, and two accounts in and of itself is not against policy. I have concluded the same and archived the case accordingly. GBT/C 13:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I see - so I'm allowed to go register another account, blatantly the same as me, not acknowledge it, and perform crap edits with both of them? Surely common sense tells you that it's in the interests of Wikipedia not to allow this. TreasuryTagtc 13:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You can, if you like, but if the edits that you make with your new account are vandalism, disruptive, or sockpuppetry, you'll be blocked. If they're not, then you won't. In this instance the new account has made some crap edits, but was blocked for them. They're off the block now, and aren't making crap edits. The old account seems to not be editing, so it's most likely that they've simply moved from on to the other. There's no real reason for a block, plain and simple - the WP:SSP case can only ascertain whether they're the same user or not - in this instance they clearly are, but as there hasn't been any action that merits a block, there's no further action to be taken. GBT/C 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Nor is it in the interests of Wikipedia to block someone who has been blocked for an offense, come back off that block and hasn't carried out any blockable behaviour since. That's pretty much guaranteed to turn them against Wikipedia, in my view. GBT/C 13:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
They've both been blocked; Number 5 hasn't been back since the block, actually. Number 1 stopped editing as soon as he was blocked, then registered Number 5 and carried on doing exactly the same stuff. So, same user, blocked, registers another account, carries on (despite being warned as both accounts: [27], [28], [29]). He's not helping the project; why let him remain here? TreasuryTagtc 13:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Number 1 was blocked for 3 hours on 20th March. Number 5 wasn't created until 10 days later and had a 31 hour block on 4 April. GBT/C 13:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Let's just pretend for a second that they're the same user; there's only one account. There's a block in March. Then, he carries on. Then there's another block, a few days ago; he's just not edited since then. The fact that, after one block, he carried on, demonstrates poor faith, and I guarantee you that tomorrow or the next day, when he returns after his VERY RECENT second block, he'll carry on again. TreasuryTagtc 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that if he did, then any block would need to take into account the previous blocks from both accounts. A warning, therefore, would be a potentially suitable next point out that we know the same person is clearly behind both accounts, and to flag it for any admins looking to block in the future. Your thoughts? (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There's not much point me giving my thoughts, I'm not an admin. TreasuryTagtc 14:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that earlier IP was me. Why is there no point in you giving your views? You didn't like my original decisions, so I'm suggesting a middle way, and would welcome your views on that proposal. The public face of GBT/C 14:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You can do; I've given my views which is that neither account has drawn a connection between themselves as they ought to (just basic courtesy), heeded warnings or contributed anything of any value; I'm flummoxed as to why they're still here. That's all I have to say on the matter. Tag or warn or note or log all you want. TreasuryTagtc 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Re-submit for IfD; cross this bridge in the unlikely event that the IfD passes keep. TreasuryTagtc 14:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The uniformative image Image:Invasion_of_the_Bane.jpg was proposed for deletion as it didn't convey anything that could not be adequetly described with text, failing nfc#1, the image was deleted, the debate closed and the image reuploaded in a matter of hours LOG, this process seems slightly irregualar, is it a Wikipedia:CSD#G4, WP:IFD or Wikipedia:Deletion review? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's totally decorative (even I agree!); just IfD it again. I'll do so now. TreasuryTagtc 14:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Could someone run over to the AWB requests? There are requests there over 24 hours old. Thanks. ^_^ Celarnor Talk to me 16:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're in :D ! I cleared the list, apart from one who needs to cough up some more information. Happymelon 16:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


User:Electrobe has been going around changing many templates to suit his personal preference he has been asked to discuss these changed before he makes them but [30] and has had a Wikiquette raid against him due to his behaviour towards other users WP:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Electrobe, I undid his changes to the Template:Scottish First Ministers because he insterted the arms of the British government arms that are not used at all by the Scottish Government of which the First Minister is head or even by the British government in Scotland for that matter as they have different version, I tried discussing it on the talk page but he just wont accept that he is wrong --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that is a current on going discussion and so is all ready being dealth with. If any administrators feel complelled to join in the Wikietiquitte discussion please feel free to do so. regards. Electrobe (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a major failure in communication and in understanding of the BRD cycle. I've filed for page protection and warned Electrobe, who seems to be fairly clearly "in the wrong" as far as one can say such things. TreasuryTagtc 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages for indef users[edit]

I was under the impression we didn't delete the talk pages of indef blocked users, at least when their block is unrelated to vandalism or trolling. Blanking seems to be preferred, for some reason, but the page history often contains comments from other users, and more importantly, the reason why the user was blocked (such information should be available to all users, not just admins, nor is it ever guaranteed that deleted pages will be available for undeletion). Yet admins are constantly deleting these talk pages. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression that both the user and talk pages should remain intact for indef blocked registered users, especially if it is likely they will be able to return at some point from the block. Bstone (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur. I never delete indef pages/Talk pages. They may request an unblock and be granted. Also, it is important for other editors to see the reason for the block, as said above. -- Alexf42 09:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
These should be undeleted, they are an important record. Some editors improperly tag talk pages with {{temporary userpage}}, which lists them for deletion (and not even just the talk pages of indefinitely blocked users). Not sure if that is where some of the deletions are occurring or not though.--Doug.(talk contribs) 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The user and user talk pages of indef-blocked and/or inactive users are deleted all of the time, both as a general housekeeping measure and -- in the case of those with spammy/Google-bombing names -- to remove them from search-engine results; since they have no real value whatsoever, keeping them around is pointless in the extreme. So no, no one is "improperly" tagging dead user-talk pages, they're engaging in general housekeeping. --Calton | Talk 14:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I deleted quite a few which were in the Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, as per what was apparently a consensus for dealing with them that way, but I stopped after a few days because I was growing increasingly uneasy about it for the very reasons stated above by Ned Scott, Bstone, Alexf, and Doug. I support not deleting them. — Athaenara 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Postscript: There are certainly exceptions; many can be seen here (March 1) from User talk: Giantscrotum through User talk: ASharkAteYourMom. — Athaenara 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Unless the name is someone in itself a clear serious violation of policy itself (User:GeorgeBushIsAFlamingFaggot might be one such example) I think it would make sense to keep the user pages and user talk pages, so that in the event of a request for unblocking in the future all interested parties can easily find out the reasons for the block. In examples like the one above, I think just seeing the name on the page that has been deleted would probably be enough for an admin or anyone else to know why the page was deleted. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
They are deleted after at least one month of no activity to save space, along with to remove them from search-engine results and are not (at least they should not be) deleted if they have a sock tag on them, or have been to topic of an arbcom investigation and so on... the ones that get deleted are just your run of the mill vandalism-only accounts that serve no purpose remaining in userspace. Tiptoety talk 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
How does deleting these pages "save space"? —David Levy 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It may not be a lot of space, but the pages probably eventually get removed from the system memory. Also, in the event it is a name which is potentially reusable, it would save a new editor the effort of creating a generally longer name for the same purpose. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
1. To what "system memory" are you referring?
2. I don't understand your second point. Are you referring to usernames? Deleting a user's talk page doesn't enable the re-registration of the associated account name. —David Levy 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I recently had a case where the username itself was quite serious defamation of a living 15-year-old. I think in such cases it's a judgement call - if it's clearly a throwaway sockpuppet (one of many) of a user I think WP:DENY applies to some extent. In common or garden user blocked (ESPECIALLY if the user is long term or has some other significant history here) in a fashion which happens to be indefinite, they may mend their ways, come back in a year and decide they can be helpful - we have to allow for that possibility. Orderinchaos 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we're really talking about indef blocked accounts that are indef blocked because of the name. We're talking about users tagging indef blocked users and some non-indef blocked users with {{temporary userpage}} and whether the talk pages should be deleted. Related, but I don't think anyone is really questioning the deletion of pages in the kind of cases Orderinchaos is talking about, those seem like clear cases.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I have to agree with David, there is no benefit to deleting the talk page. The deletion after a month is for Userpages not User talkpages. No memory is recovered unless the developers actually decide to purge deleted pages, although theoretically possible, it just doesn't happen. Besides, Don't worry about performance! That's User:Tim Starling's problem, not ours.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no benefit to KEEPING the pages -- I've heard none other than vague handwringing -- deleting them is at least performing housekeeping. So what's the beef here? It's the established practice: if they get deleted, nothing wrong whatsoever with tagging them. Don't like it? Take it up with those actually doing the deleting. --Calton | Talk 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There are various benefits in keeping the user and talk pages of indefinitely blocked users. For one, there have been a number of instances in which indefinitely blocked users have returned, sometimes due to false positives and bad blocks. Moreover, keeping the page's edit history intact provides a public reference of the blocked user's contribs as well as of anyone else who commented on that page. It is frustrating for those of us who are not admins when we cannot see all the contribs of say a candidate running for adminship. Who's to say deleted contribs not being seen might sway voters one way or the other. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If they return, it is very easy to restore the page. I don't believe most people come back, after being indefinitely blocked for 30+ days when their user/utalk pages are deleted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It happens more often than you think. I've helped such users in the past. Also, having them deleted prevents the community from reviewing the past comments, often from being able to read their own comments, as well as learning why the user was even blocked in the first place. Blocking is a last resort, especially indef blocking. That means being extra careful when doing so, even if only a small minority come back. I've found multiple editors who've been indef blocked incorrectly, and were unblocked and apologized too. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I see value in being able to see as much of all of our contribs as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can say what seems to be common practice. Pages of indef blocked users are placed in CAT:TEMP. These pages are deleted after 30 days of inactivity on the page. Pages are entered into CAT:TEMP with various templates, including {{indefblocked}}. Pages relating to, or even mentioning sockpuppeteering are not, and should not be deleted, for obvious reasons. Again, there is no established process for this that I know of, but it seems to be the common practice. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So maybe the talk pages should go, I guess I'm not so sure now, though I can't say I understand why. But some pages are definitely being placed in that cat that are not indef blocked.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We had a problem before with a welcome template (I believe) that was placing pages in the category, but that has been resolved. Do you have a couple examples of which pages are in, but shouldn't be, that way we can get it fixed? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, no offense Calton, but I know you commonly tag userpages as spam and then add {{temporary userpage}} to their talk pages. Several admins have addressed this issue with you before, including me, but we apparently have a clear difference of opinion over the proper usage of {{temporary userpage}}. (See User_talk:Calton#Temporary_userpage.3F, User_talk:Calton#Template:temporary_userpage, User_talk:Calton#Tagging_user_pages_of_unblocked_users, User_talk:Calton#Template:temporary_userpage_2). If I notice these I review them. Some of these are in fact indef blocked and don't have an indef block tag, so the {{temporary userpage}} tag is valid. Others have never been blocked, let alone indef blocked. If you look at CAT:TEMP you'll probably find that many, if not most, usertalkpages are due to {{temporary userpage}} on the talk page - though I'm not saying they're all there due to Calton - I have no idea. Alternatively, [31] will give a good starting place if you go through the ones tagged as spam in particular (Calton puts the template in the edit summary so this is pretty easy). --Doug.(talk contribs) 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I liked to think people didn't inappropriately tag userpages into CAT:TEMP. I'd ask Calton to explain why he's placing the users into the category. If he said why in one of the above links, and I missed it, I apologize. This however seems to be a separate issue, that should be addressed to ensure that pages of not indef-blocked users are not added to the category. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it isn't the same issue that was raised above regarding deletion of blocked user's talk pages, though I initially thought they were the same as I understood that we deleted blocked user's user pages. Now that I see we do delete the talk pages as well this is clearly a separate matter. --Doug.(talk contribs) 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see why not to delete them. If they have a sockpuppet tag, they should be kept for categorization, but otherwise they just clutter up search results while providing no benefit. "Perhaps the user might want to request unblock." - The pages are not deleted immediately, the usual wait time is a month, after that, the pages aren't protected, they can still recreate them and request unblocking, or request on the mailing list. "How will the community discuss the unblocking?" - It takes an admin to unblock and I can't imagine that there would be that many non-admins who monitor CAT:RFU. Presumably the person who asks for community review could undelete it, or ask in the review request. "How will we learn why they were blocked in the first place?" - The block log entry and the user's contributions should explain it. Mr.Z-man 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The cluttering concern is really a non-issue. The reasons have been stated several times for why we shouldn't delete them. Talk pages of other users don't just contain their comments, but the comments from other users. This is why we say people don't WP:OWN their talk pages (while they are still free to manage them how they wish, so long as the edit history is in tact). Deleting them also prevents non-admins from being able to review these situations, which is a big red flag to why this is a bad idea. The situation that caught my attention had no reasonable explanation in the block log, and that is something that is very common. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you only read the first 2 sentences I wrote? "Deleting them also prevents non-admins from being able to review these situations, which is a big red flag to why this is a bad idea" - Only if you don't trust admins at all, in which case your problem can't be solved by keeping a bunch of pages around forever. Also, "'The cluttering concern is really a non-issue" - maybe according to you, to me it is an issue. "The situation that caught my attention had no reasonable explanation in the block log" - So instead of asking someone, you want to create a new policy? Mr.Z-man 17:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Z-man, I think the problem Ned is alluding to, at least in part, is that we do have a policy, or at least a guideline, that says that we don't delete talk pages - it gives only one exception, right to vanish, it doesn't say anything about indef blocks.--Doug.(talk contribs) 21:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that talk pages of indef blocked users is not a CSD, and that people are only doing it based on an assumption that doesn't have consensus, I would like to formalize our policy to specifically prevent these kinds of deletions (with the exception to "trophy" pages, etc). However, I'm not sure which policy would be the best to make this proposal. Any suggestions? -- Ned Scott 06:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete them all, they flood users contribs, page lists, What links here (including images) and have no value, and don't do the Wikipedia servers and bandwidth any favours. WP:DENY also applies. The only talk pages which need keeping are pages with significant history. Really, what is the chance of a 2 year old account that was just used for a spree of childish vandalism from returning? 0. But a guideline would be helpful.--Otterathome (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone start Wikipedia:Temporary Wikipedian userpages or a similar page please.--Otterathome (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Flood users contribs? Only for the users who've participated on those talk pages, and it normally makes things harder when those contribs are gone. They are of value, and load on the servers is painfully small. WP:DENY is an essay, and the logic there should only apply to trolls and vandals, not every indef blocked user. There's a very large number of indef blocked users who are not using their talk pages as trophy pages or to make a scene, but for one unfortunate reason or another, are not able to get along with the community. Those are the talk pages that we are most concerned about, and should not be deleted. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I recently started deleting user talk pages (about 2 days ago, see my deletions) that were in the Temporary Userpages category. Some are easily distinguishable to delete (for example unnecessarily created user pages with just {{indef}} on them) and I delete them accordingly. Otherwise, I usually wait three weeks or more, before I delete a talk page. I don't see why they would want to return, if they haven't done so after 21 days or more, after all most of these indef blocked users might have created new accounts anyway. I don't see why they can't be deleted, they are easy to recreate and if the user asks for an unblock, the reviewing administrator can always view the older page to see why that user in particular was blocked. I never delete userpages tagged with sockpuppet notices or that are necessary to linking etc.) Rudget (review) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Admins are not the only ones who should be able to review blocks and the related discussions. They are the only ones who can unblock, but normal editors are free to do leg work and then present their findings to a place like ANI for discussion. The discussions themselves are often of value (at least to those who participated in them), and while there could be some disagreement to their value, it's not the role of a single admin to make that judgement call (it's one of the reasons we have MFD). -- Ned Scott 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another frequently used template that categorises users in the temporary Wikipedian userpages category is Template:Uw-block3. The pages I have tagged with that template have had no significant history, but the template could be misused to delete user talk pages with significant history. Perhaps the temporary Wikipedian userpages category should be removed from that template? Graham87 12:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be removed? That tag is used for indef blocked users. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree, and what stops indef-blocked users who wish to come back from creating their usertalk page again? Tiptoety talk 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing, but incase you weren't paying attention, that's not the concern. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting proposal discussion at WT:CSD#Proposal for U4. -- Ned Scott 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal moved to WT:USERPAGE#Proposal to not delete talk pages for all indef users. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this userbox violate WP:SOAPBOX?[edit]