Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive148

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Purbo T[edit]

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

Its manual, it does not require approval. Account is fine. --Lemmey talk 16:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Needs further review, per a couple of sections above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban - User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand[edit]

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

Support My patience has been exhausted, as has a lot of peoples I suspect at that MFD. It is clear that Mick is blinded when it comes to Beta. Perhaps a forced withdrawal will help. Woody ([[User talk:Woody|tal16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Support a topic ban on MickMacNee towards issues relating to Betacommand. In my past experience with Mick I have noticed 3 things: 1) He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack, 2) He will never stand down when he is sure he is right and 3) He has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that.
I think it is in the interest of the community to ask Mick to not deal with Betacommand. Other people who don't have an ax to grind can handle that situation. 1 != 2 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Support a topic ban. --Conti| 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Support - seems to always be around alleging conspiracy. TreasuryTagt | c 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

proof for 1 and 3(your behavior on this page), and proof for 2. 1 != 2 16:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Please show exactly where "I perceive people who disaree with me as a personal attack". Please show an exact diff where I accuse someone of a personal attack without justification. A link to an entire page is frankly insufficient if you want to make such claims, and shows this issue for what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I am tired of arguing with you, I never get anywhere because you don't seem to take anyone else's opinion into account. I will let others decide if my links are enough or not. 1 != 2 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop wikilawyering. It's really annoying and part of the reason why we're discussing a topic ban. Maxim(talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You want the truth then? 1==2 and Kelly can't accept that an Mfd of a page owned by Beta is acceptable, despite numerous independant calls for one, so they come here, because they can't convince me that what happens at an Mfd in user space overrides what happens in wikispace, and they think they don't have to argue their point because my past history with Beta is enough for their views to count by default, because they can't reconcile the fact that the highlighted inconsistencies in their arguments go against the accepted principles of how wikipedia works. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would we resort to conspiracy and backended attacks when it is clear that the MfD is not going to have any effect? Pretty much nobody agrees with the MfD and it will be closed as Kept. No this is about the way you are presenting yourself, and it goes well beyond just the MfD a quick look at your talk page shows that this is about you going after Beta for anything you can find. 1 != 2 17:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
As if you even know what the last issue was about (or would even take a side that doesn't support your current one). MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack"... I actually did follow the original discussion and I do know what it was about. It was about something unrelated, yet there you were going after beta. 1 != 2 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, Beta cannot be wrong in two separate issues. Impossible. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Support the topic ban as proposed above, Alex Muller 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Support WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT springs to mind. EJF (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but 21 keep voter in an Mfd does not override the stated wishes of 31 editors in wikispace, whether they were made a day ago, or in this case a few months ago. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you asked for more proof, "has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that" describes that last post of yours very well. 1 != 2 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
God was this response ever ironic... Resolute 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
To 1==2, You are incessantly backflipping, one minute you think 21 keep votes is consensus, now you don't. It is obvious that the Mfd is not the place to discuss a previous wikispace arrangement, despite the fact you really want it to because the diversion and subversion suits the current agenda. You haven't got the balls or the integrity to take the issue to the correct venue. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I never said anything about the MfD not having consensus, it clearly does. "He will never stand down when he is sure he is right"... You are actually re-enacting each of the reasons I supported this topic ban. This is tragic. 1 != 2 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • yes, I fully support this proposal. We clearly have issues to sort out with Beta's behaviour but we aren't going to be able to do it in the background of constant harping on about previous events from MickMacNee. I personally feel that this is a sanction that should be used more frequently to take the heat out of other disputes that are fuelled by personal animus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - A definite need for this. asenine say what? 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've blocked MickMacNee for 24 hours for incivility, provocation and personal attacks. I've, with a note, listed three examples of such in the last 2-3 hours on his talkpage. Maxim(talk) 17:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Extended to 48 hours for repeating the same behaviour on his talkpage. Maxim(talk) 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sceptre (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Just becaue he's sometimes right about Betacommand doesn't mean he's allowed to act the way he does. --Carnildo (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My point of view precisely. TreasuryTagt | c 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - (ec) There are definite issues regarding BetaCommand's behaviour. However, constantly prodding and poking involved parties and then attacking them when they reply is probably the worst way of going about resolving them. He is complaining about BC's incivility, and then goes around doing the same [and arguably worse] things himself. The words kettle, pot and black spring to mind! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 18:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - if there's any evidence to support it, a reciprocal ban would be appropriate... however every incident in which the two came to blows that I've experienced has been precipitated by MickMackNee. Happymelon 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I sympathize with some of Mack's views, but I think he has gotten so burnt out and frustrated on Beta related topics that he can't effectively contribute to discussion surrounding it. Maybe he is right in how upset he is with the community's actions on these issues, but simply acting upset time and time again over it in a incivil manner isn't helping his cause, only disrupting things. Gwynand | TalkContribs 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - MMN is entirely unable to stay civil in matters related to Betacommand. His participation in discussions almost always has the effect of inflaming the dispute and increasing the drama. However, given the combative attitude he often displays, I'm unsure how effective this will be in avoiding more drama and blocks. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with this, if anything, I imagine banning Mack on this will result in him just leaving the project, where, outside of a lot of this drama, he does good work. Of course, this is not to say that topic/ban or a block of incivility shouldn't happen if the community demands it. Gwynand | TalkContribs 18:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

While I certainly agree that Betacommand needs attention, I don't think what Mick brings is "balance". 1 != 2 19:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The protection of his talk page just looks vindictive, in my opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would support unprotecting his talk page and making some kind of transclusion so his comments there can be seen here. Kelly hi! 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
To be completely frank I think that unprotecting his talk page will lead to him saying something that will get him in more trouble, see [1]. Give a guy enough rope... But I don't oppose the unprotection because he may surprise me and act appropriately. 1 != 2 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I am by no means a member of the "BetaCommand Can Do No Wrong Cabal" (as Allstarecho put it), but MickMackNee's actions are bordering on harassment. It's time we force a separation between these two editors. - auburnpilot talk 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The way MMN is making his points has been more than unhelpful, and his argumentative behavior only make it harder for everyone to take seriously the other "BC opponents". -- lucasbfr talk 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Especially after the latest 48 hour block. Will also support a reciprocal ban, if needed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The 34 comments Mick made on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count were excessive and, IMO, badgering. Couple that with the 30+ comments that he made about BC on this page the other day, and it's clear he just can't stop at this point. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. About time too. MMN's hounding of Betacommand, pushing BC beyond human endurance and then shouting loudly when BC snaps has been some of the worst behaviour I've seen on Wikipedia. MMN's trolling and similar behaviour toward anyone who speaks up for BC or takes issue with him (MMN) is also appaling. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This has been a long time coming. naerii - talk 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is an appropriate restriction. MBisanz talk 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with this proposed topic-ban. MickMacNee has gone far beyond the bounds of acceptable decorum and is simply inflaming an already inflammable situation. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose Whilst I also get irritated by the number of people who bring up complaints regarding Betacommand and his bots, I am absolutely against the principle of silencing them by topic banning. Topic banning a complainant is not going to encourage anyone else with a legitimate (or even nor so legitimate - but something that can be resolved) issue with BC to use the admin boards as resolution process, and may permit BC to believe that they can continue in the contentious style as they have previously. Betacommand has serious issues regarding his communication skills with both the use of his bots and his reaction to criticism of them. If we wish to reduce the number and variety of complainants in respect of BC I suggest that BC is the party that needs to be actioned. If MickMacNee has violated WP policy/guidelines then pursue that avenue, but lets not sanction the malcontent for simply bringing up the issue. If exasperation and irritation were the basis of considering sanction then Betacommand would not now be editing WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, Betacommand has already been sanctioned. --Conti| 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am aware of that. However, my point is that removing the critic is not the way to deal with the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
        • If this were a case of somebody "simply bringing up the issue," that would be perfectly fine, but Mick has taken his opposition to Beta to a level that can only be described as stalking and harassment. Mick doesn't just bring up the issue, but badgers Beta and anyone else who disagrees with his (Mick's) stance on the issue. Civil discourse is fantastic; Mick's obsession is not. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: This has been a long time coming; there are enough issues dealing with Betacommand already; MMN doesn't help things and has a tendency to make things a lot worse. I feel that taking him out of the picture will help the overall situation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This situation needs to deescalate, and Beta has enough critics to keep him sober. I'm not convinced MMN's presence here helps, and I'm quite certain it hinders. --Haemo (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose BC has been out of control forever and if he'd displayed half a lick of sense or self control over the past year the reaction to him wouldn't be so extreme. He's slipped the noose more times than he deserves and there needs to be critics on him and challenging his supporters. I'm looking forward to seeing if sanctions on BC actually stick. Wiggy! (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mick made several excellent points during the previous discussion and although he could have presented them better, he was more civil than Betacommand. Why do Betacommand supporters single Mick out, while failing to acknowledge Betacommand's misconduct and communication problems? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Mild support. MickMacNee's frequent and relentless criticisms of Betacommand often seem to hold back productive discussion. Yes, Betacommand has earned the criticism in many ways, but MickMacNee has the tendency to keep hounding Betacommand about something long after the point has been made. Mick has been quite adept at finding problems, but now we all know about the problems and need to find solutions. That said, it will be a shame if a topic ban is successfully applied to MickMacNee but Betacommand's sanctions fail to stick, just because Betacommand has more friends in high places than MickMacNee. So it is very important that community consensus works both ways. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. When the way in which a user expresses his very very good points, and the frequency with which he expresses them, begins to annoy people more than the original problem he was attempting to solve, then the "solution" has become a separate, yet equally vexatious, problem. Mick has been asked repeatedly to slow down, to cool off, to disengage, and to back away from Betacommand--in fact, he's been asked, begged, cajoled, warned, and threatened (and topic-banned once before, IIRC)--and yet he persists in the behaviors the community has requested to end. A topic-ban would allow the Beta conversations to continue with a little less heat and a little more light, and would free Mick up to contribute to the encyclopedia--which is the whole point of this endeavor, after all. I find myself in agreement with Mick more than otherwise, but if he can't moderate his own modes of expression (and regrettably, that seems to be the case) then a topic ban will have to serve the same purpose. Sorry, Mick. Well, I was regretful, until I read this; now all I am is curious, as to why people insist on shooting themselves in the feet. Jeebus. Gladys J Cortez 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. User's contributions in regard to this area have become unhelpful to the point of disruption. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support, Mick left us no other choice. Whenever I see him posting here or to ANI, I know it will be about Betacommand or bots in general. He had been disuptive in this topic for the last half year. Several blocks din't help, so another measure needs to be taken. Topic ban is the kind of restriction that allows the user to concentrate on contributing to encyclopedia, instead of harassing Betacommand. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, per all above. Note that Mick is on a 48-hour ban for incivility and might not be back here to respond for a while. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, fails to address the cause of the disruption, which is the behaviour of BC - all of the behaviours criticized in Mick are directly comparable to behaviours of BC, which certain editors and admins have been enabling and even encouraging for a long time. Smacks of "shoot the messenger", and may have a "chilling effect" on other editors seeking to raise concerns about the behaviour of prominent editors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • He's been over-the-top sometimes. However, BC's behavior is an ongoing problem that has yet to be solved. Someone pointing this out isn't a bad thing, and Mick (sometimes) makes valid points. Friday (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose This is a blatant attempt to silence someone who has done possibly more than anyone else to bring Betacommand's misbehaviour and bad conduct to the attention of the community. The fact that some people are even talking about bans for him clearly proves this. Jtrainor (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Whenever an issue regarding Betacommand crops up, Mick has to throw in his two cents. We all understand that he doesn't like BC, but his dislike is rather extreme and often crosses the boundary of WP:NPA. Horologium (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I agree he can be excessive in his commentary, he performs a useful role in keeping the thing honest and I really don't feel censorship is the answer here, especially given Betacommand's woeful standard of conduct and a certain very loud section of the community's willingness to let him away with anything on principle. Orderinchaos 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: Can admins issue topic bans?[edit]

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

Administrators acting alone can't issue topic bans unless an arbitration remedy allows them to (eg. the remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia), but the support of community consensus can. See the bottom section of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Editing restrictions only states that ArbCom can issue topic bans, and at the bottom is tacked on a list of non-ArbCom restrictions. There is no explanation there of the authority under which Admins can impose restrictions. Have the dispute resolution procedures been followed? -- 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Without commenting on this specific case, and responding solely to this "point of order," it's been done before. The community is able to completely ban a user from the project, should consensus emerge to do so; it stands to reason that lighter but similar remedies fall within that remit and will sometimes be preferred. If need be, treat the partial ban as a community declaration of a final line that will trigger a ban or block with teeth if crossed. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you'd really like to see it in black and white, Wikipedia:Banning policy contains some relevant text. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Exact wording re topic ban of User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand[edit]

I propose:

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

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

I would propose a caveat; that MickMacNee may contact an admin in instances of policy violations against themselves where the above wording might otherwise restrict their ability to bring such notice. If it is to be a topic ban, let it be a topic ban and not a shooting gallery for any individual(s) with a score to settle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's needed. If something's bad enough, another user will take it up. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I second LHVU's suggestion; as rspeer noted above he has been good as spotting problems, not so good as helping to solve them though. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Dreadful. Should at the very least add "Nothing in this sanction is to be taken as in any way implying that BC's behaviour is acceptable, nor may it be taken as in any way dismissing the substance of Mick's (or any other editor's) concerns about BC's behaviour", as well as adding LHvU's suggestion. DuncanHill (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If we're to do this, a caveat to the caveat: one of the topic ban's functions is to try to wean MMN off from closely watching BC's every move to find small errors and blow them up. The topic ban will work less well if he can keep doing this by reporting every small error to a passing admin. Thus I would add that he only make such reports where the perceived error impacts directly upon him (ie, his image uploads or articles where he has made significant contributions). Although actually I agree with Stifle: if it's serious, others will notice. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree; I specified that it would be for policy violations against himself relating to BC, not policy violations by BC generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, agree it should only apply to stuff directly affecting him. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This proviso sounds good to me. Kelly hi! 17:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The wording is fine. If Beta needs attention then he will get it, we don't need Mick to point it out to us. 1 != 2 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I am going to have to be blunt; if, during this topic ban, MickMacNee get BC related related harassment from anyone, then he should be able to contact an admin without fear of the consequences and without anyone needing to dog MMN's contribution history. As much as MMN is judged oversensitive about BC's actions, there is also an element within BC's supporters that are more intolerant of BC related criticism than may be considered as being appropriate. I should love to AGF to all parties in this recent series of events, but I am unable to do so for a small minority under certain circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this topic ban notice going to be on MMN's talk page? If so, then it should also prohibit other users from discussing BC or BC-related issues on MMN's talk page. MMN should also be allowed to contact an admin if he notices uncivil comments about himself re:BC elsewhere on wikipedia. ~PescoSo saywe all 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

It goes without saying that, when MMN is topic-banned from the whole BC subject, anybody - anybody - who uses that ban to taunt MMN will be subject to sanctions to protect Wikipedia from such behaviour. The topic ban is not an endorsement of either side and is certainly not a weapon for anyone to use against anyone else. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
We are not planning on putting common sense on the shelf. This is a measure to diffuse the situation, and if someone tries to twist that to a contrary end then that can be dealt with as we always do. 1 != 2 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(reply to Gladys j cortez) By, or on behalf of, BC. I suspect that it is the latter parties that need reminding - since BC is already on a civility parole and even a civil appearance on MMN's would raise eyebrows. In reply to Redvers and Until, it is not the appropriate response to any taunting, which is assumed, but that the editor concerned may bring it to an admins attention without violating the terms of the topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay that makes sense. So barring any objection I am going to post to Mick's page "MickMacNee shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Betacommand, on any page in Wikipedia. Should MickMacNee do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week." as well as add "If you feel you are being taunted, baited, or otherwise placed in a position where such sanctions would create an unreasonable position, you can make a report of the situation to an admin you trust and let that admin handle the situation without being in violation of the terms of this ban". 1 != 2 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, this meets my concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Was a limit suggested? I don't like open-ended bans, as sometimes just a period of quiet is all that is needed. Open-ended stuff can get dragged up years later, even when some of the people are no longer around. It also wastes time when people insist years later that an appeal is needed to overturn the stale topic ban. The length can still be appealed of course, but not setting a length is sometimes just being lazy on the part of those imposing the topic ban (this would apply to whatever topic ban was imposed on Betacommand as well - I was just leaving when that started, and was mildly surprised to come back and find a consensus had been reached). Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree that a limit seems to be needed, for any remedy of this nature. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well we can continue this discussion to determine any duration. I agree leaving it forever is not productive. 1 != 2 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Duration[edit]

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

Two months sounds fine. I looked up the Betacommand one and saw that it says "These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate." That doesn't seem entirely right to me, but I'm not really prepared to start that up again. Betacommand is perfectly capable of appealing at the right time himself, though I must admit that limits of blocks, bans and suchlike are rather arbitrary. There is a well-known civility restriction of a year, and other lengths of various bans and blocks seem rather arbitrary as well. I just normally like to see a specific length mentioned if at all possible. Makes thing simpler at the other end. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as a point of clarification - of course Betacommand can appeal the restrictions himself, the wording simply says that the community has to agree, and until they do, they stay in place. Nothing in that wording states that he's banned from appealing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite, have the dispute resolution procedures been followed? -- SEWilco (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, for who? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Two months is a funny period, the block templated tariffs go from one to three months and - since one month might be considered too short - I would suggest three months. Again, the period is not written in stone and MMN would be free to appeal a lifting within that time frame. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that three months would be a sensible duration - two seems too short and four too long - hopefully after that MMN will have improved and we won't have to be back here discussing extending it. Of course he could appeal it, although I don't think it would be a good idea to appeal within at least the next few weeks (as consensus is unlikely to change in a short timeframe). I'm glad that we reached consensus for a topic ban without too much mudslinging and drama. I like Until's wording too. As two days have passed without objection to the duration, can we assume there is consensus for that also? naerii - talk 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Three months sounds good to me. 1 != 2 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully by then the community will have assumed a more productive approach towards Betacommand's excesses and MMN's commentary will not be necessary. I have seen some positive signs in that direction in recent weeks. Orderinchaos 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user using anon to evade block[edit]

Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely for evading a prior block [2] He has been edit-warring for some time on the Ayn Rand article and talk pages using anon IPs. Currently, he seems to be using a static IP: [3][4][5], so I believe that we may be able to indefinitely block that with minimum effect on other innocent users of that IP. Idag (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ran (film)[edit]

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

Thank you[edit]

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

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

Undeletion request[edit]

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

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

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

Request For Deletion of Article Criticism Of Christianity[edit]

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

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

Acts of Union 1707[edit]

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

there are also cited references to some standard histories to that effect, so I see no reason to exclude accurate contemporary quotations. DGG (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Erm, that's not the point. The point is that those quotations are being used to infer a further statement that is not supported by any other source given. This is original research. It has stopped now anyway: the tag has remained. 88.107.18.5 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson talk page archives - BLP violations[edit]

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

Perhaps you could "sanitize" the archive pages, then one of us admins could delete the earlier revisions to remove the offending comments. Any other ideas from admins? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, english isnt my first language, could you clarify what your suggesting by "Sanitize" the archives, sorry i cant understand. Please dont take offense Jayron ;-) --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he means to just remove the BLP violations from the archives (as in, blank them, replace them with "((BLP vio removed))", or whatever), and then leave a note here so the pages can be deleted and selectively restored (removing the vios from the page history). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
My watery friend has it correct there. Just go through the archives, remove the BLP vios (with a note explaining you have done so) and then an admin such as myself, or someone else, can go through and remove the old versions from the history, so they are no longer accessable to the general public. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, i understand, sorry for being a retard, ill get to it and show you my handy work when done. I just have to read through all those archives lol. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ive done 3 archives, it takes a long time to read each one, when i have finshed all 18 ill bring all links to Jayron, cheers. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The FritzpollBot[edit]

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

This issue has been addressed specifically by the Bot Approvals Group here ->Wikipedia talk:BAG#FritzpollBot --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
And yet several users (myself not included) wanted to continue to discuss the issue, and that is why I opened the thread. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. The scope of this is big enough that the community in general should be involved, not just BAG. --Rory096 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It has also just appeared as a notice in the header of the watchlist. I assume everyone gets these. It would be better to centralize discussion at the village pump link provided, since people are being herded that direction. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Link for anyone using external editors. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It might actually be better to create a new place to discuss it (perhaps its own page), as a simple VP section is going to get rather unwieldy and difficult to edit. --Rory096 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Invite everyone to a tea party, don't be surprised when the girls get noisy. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Would help to let editors and wikiprojects dealing with settlements and geography know, too - I handle most of the geographic articles for my state, for example, and would be concerned if the bot started creating articles we couldn't fill. Also, what sources are being used for the information, will it create a massive cleanup task for wikiprojects? Orderinchaos 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate User talk page protection[edit]

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

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

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

That would be pretty awkward.

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

Thank you.

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

It appears that the account is only participating in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 (as ip accounts are not permitted to participate). I don't know if this is a full "return" to contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd request again after June 5th (ending date for DHMO's RfA). Rudget (Help?) 13:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What I get out of this is that sowing the seeds of discord is OK (and being able to hide after doing so is even better). It seems like a drive-by shooting ... ah, but maybe I'm bitter. •Jim62sch•dissera! 16:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

An administrator is needed to edit the sidebar[edit]

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

It will take an administrator to make the change.

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

First, there doesn't appear to be consensus to do this. Second, I could be wrong, but I don't know that we (as in admins; not being sysadmins) can do this, technically. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I just missed it, but was this advertised anywhere? I would think a discussion about moving the search bar from its current location, where I believe it is located on all other projects, would need a wider audience. - auburnpilot talk 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If the change gathers consensus then it can be done in MediaWiki:Common.js, but I wasn't aware that a consensus had been reached. Happymelon 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Rereading the discussion it is abundantly clear to me that the only consensus is no consensus :D Happymelon 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required 2[edit]

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

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

I've checked this one out and all I will say is that you shouldn't believe the registered user simply because they have an account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.44 (talkcontribs) 19:26, May 30, 2008
There's an old saying... something about glass houses... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment The Hand That Feeds You and for exposing user 195.189.142.44. I've just re-edited the Al-Azhar University page. The vandal is bound to return, and I want him to know that he can't just post any 'ol thing with a bunch of unrelated sources, insult fellow editors, and get away with it just because Al-Azhar is a small page that not many editors visit. I forgot to mention that there were edits to the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa by yet another anonymous IP that bear a striking resemblance to this user's handiwork. I suspect it's the same person because the edits are virtually identical and because he also edited the Al-Azhar University page during the same period under this other IP. Causteau (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This thread is being continued at #Al-Azhar University vandal. --Elonka 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:198.99.32.5[edit]

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

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

MascotGuy[edit]

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

Good luck with that. -Pilotguy contact tower 03:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
MascotGuy isn't a vandal. He's just an autistic boy with nothing better to do than try and improve our articles in ways that end up doing more harm than good. The two situations are nothing alike.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Read the essay "E pluribus unum" in my sig links to. With Grawp, it's a damned-if-ya-do-damned-if-ya-don't thing. MascotGuy, on the other hand, is autistic and is more likely than not trying to be helpful by editing his own sock list. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 05:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakko Sivonen[edit]

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

I am not an admin, but I think we should give him a second chance. Just make sure he knows that any further edit warring will be dealt with quickly and decisively. J.delanoygabsanalyze 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I might suggest that required adoption be in order, but that a 2nd chance be allowed. Bstone (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined just to let him back. He seems honestly abashed by his bad behavior, and perhaps is properly rehabilitated. It will be pretty obvious if he acts up again. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The Bible tells us to forgive and forget. I'm not an administrator, but I say we should perhaps give him a second chance, but we do need to keep a very close eye on his actions. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's his clean block log from the Finnish WP: [6] (three blocks in 2006, can't tell why, but it hardly matters now). I think a second chance is in order. Darkspots (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've unblocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Jpgordon may have forgotten to actually unblock, but I've done it.[7] - auburnpilot talk 02:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
As a procedural note for those here who don't read Finnish, the block log on fiwiki reads "personal attacks", "personal attack, again" and "for repeated personal attacks". No idea about the circumstances beyond that. Oh, and I added "&uselang=en" to the link. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would forgive and forget, if Jaakko hadn't been evading his block the entire year ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) He gave a convincing argument on his talk page, where he said "I have been civil and constructive in my edits in the Finnish Wikipedia" However, from looking at his IPs, I see edit summaries as recent as last month saying, "Reverting total bullshit. Finnish Karelians are Finns and it is offensive and wrong to talk of "slow integration". No one calls them "Livvi"., It wasn't "given"... It had been part of Finland continuosly for over a 100 years in 1917. Learn history., and Learn English too." Looking further back I see comments such as Your motive seems to be Swedish Nationalism. This makes me believe that Jaako still has the same battleground mentality that he was originally blocked for. Indeed, roughly half a day before he was unblocked I find him saying "I care deeply of the Karelian people, as you are our closest relatives ethnically, but it insults me that by your false claims you are trying to strike a wedge inside the Finnish people." At User talk:88.114.235.214, he says "I think I have more credibility than you do - at least I cite real sources while you edit war without them." If I had read his argument on his talk page without knowing all of this, I would indeed be convinced as well, but because I know he has been evading his block, edit warring on Karelians among many other pages, and still being incivil (all of these were the reasons he was originally blocked), I have to disagree with his unblocking. Khoikhoi 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Unblock Request[edit]

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

Hi,

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

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

I've asked the user for further information on their talk page and we'll deal with it there. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And, having got the information (see User talk:59.145.89.17), I've declined the unblock. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with decline, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive133#Seeking_Community_ban_of_Dot_Com_Infoway_company_Adsense_marketing_and_Spamming. --Hu12 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea how to do this...[edit]

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

You can change the message by editing Template:Watchlist-notice. --ais523 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, excellent - cheers for the pointer Fritzpoll (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism" wrongly attributed to me[edit]

Resolved

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

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


The IP address's user talk, here [15]. When I log in, the warnings are gone but it's tiring to have to log in every time. Khilsati (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your internet service provider (Telkom South Africa) apparently uses a rotating IP pool. Your computer will be on a different IP very regularly (likely every time you disconnect from the internet you will be on a new IP the next time). You will see messages, warnings, et cetera that were generated for whoever has had that IP previously. Only by logging in can you avoid the warnings. GRBerry 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
When you log in, there is a box beneath your login and password that says "Remember me". If you check that box, you should be logged in every time you come to Wikipedia. Just be sure not to stay logged in at public computers. Corvus cornixtalk 17:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, basically what's happening is that your ISP gives one IP address to more than one person. Then when other people who previously used the IP address you are using vandalise, the warnings get sent to you by mistake. Apart from logging in, there isn't much that can be done about this; when people aren't logged in IP is the best way we have to try to send messages like vandalism warnings to people. --ais523 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


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

AutoWikiBrowser Backlog[edit]

Resolved

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

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

Al-Azhar University vandal[edit]

This is a continuation of the (archived) thread
from #Assistance required 2
Elonka 04:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The most recent edit by the ip (made 2 hours after the above report) seems to be satisfactory as regards the other editors concerns. However, a review of the previous edits and the ip's contribution history does tend to indicate a partisan bias in relation to Sunni and Shia Muslim viewpoints. Can this account be related to other (blocked?) accounts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't think this anonymous user has been blocked yet. However, administrators should definitely consider doing so because this is a guy with an agenda, if I've ever seen one. Here are some random examples of his handiwork:
1)Inserting inflammatory POV material without bothering to support it with any reference(s).
2)Tacking on a bunch of unrelated, dummy references behind a slanderous POV phrase to lend an air of credibility to said POV phrase (see my analysis on how I know those sources are bogus here).
3)Mocking fellow editors.
4)Altering sourced material so that it reads differently but still looks sourced, and reverting subsequent edits other editors have made to those initial changes -- all with no explanation.
And that's just the half of it. There's more info on this user's shenanigans on the Al-Azhar University talk page. The guy has gotta be stopped now because he edits literally all the time and under a ton of different IPs. The longer we wait, the more time it will take to undo all of the damage he has done. Causteau (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been taking a look at this, and I'm not seeing vandalism. There's definitely edit-warring, a content dispute, and incivility and personal attacks around. There also appears to be some POV pushing and possible misinterpretation of sources, but of course that's always a tougher call to make. I recommend that everyone calm down, since it looks like there's incivility going from both sides, which always complicates the situation. --Elonka 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a more serious issue at hand here. Via the several IP addresses, this user has been engaging in edits on articles relating to terrorism that are quite startling. The latest examples are removing known terrorists from categories relating to terrorism. While this might seem like a simple POV issue at first glance, as a graduate student in counter terrorist studies and coming from a family with a law enforcement and military background, I will say with no exaggeration that this could be dangerous for anyone who interacts with this user. Even something as small as edits like that on Wikipedia are a legitimate security concern; this should not be a platform to promote extremist and/or violent agendas. I don't think it's something that should be left as a content dispute. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there are problematic edits from the anon. However, just because someone may be pushing a POV on one set of articles, doesn't mean we should revert all their edits on all articles. For example, it's a common thing to see editors make vandalistic edits to history articles, but when they're editing videogame articles, they get very serious and thorough. If there are inappropriate edits being made to the terrorist articles, we can deal with them, and the accounts. But as far as the Al-Azhar University article, I am still not seeing vandalism. So the best bet is to focus on the most egregious edits by the anon, and do your best to assume good faith in some of the other topic areas. --Elonka 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You're 100% correct, in fact i'm sure most disruptive editors at some point make good edits on non-controversial articles. My thing isn't so much Al Azhar at this point, it's what i've seen on other articles that I find disturbing. Look, this is a big deal. We're on the internet here; we don't know who this kid is or what else he's doing. It's one thing to try to posit a reasonable source disputing that a person is a terrorist; what this guy has done is beyond suspicious. Per WP:NLT I won't sit here and throw out threats, but this is something that warrants attention even outside Wikipedia (and may gain it whether we try or not). This is noteworthy enough to contact the FBI about, even seemingly small things like this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to contact the FBI, no one is stopping you. However, speaking as someone who has made FBI reports myself in the past (you may wish to Google my name and "Steganography"), I'm just not seeing a major problem here. We have an IP from Lebanon that is removing "terrorist" categories from a few pages, seems to have a bit of an anti-Shia bias, and has been a bit uncivil when challenged. But this kind of opinion could easily apply to countless non-terrorist individuals. People can be anti-Sunni or anti-Shia, and still be able to present their opinions in a civil and non-violent way. People can also have good faith disagreements about who is or isn't defined as a terrorist. Some of the edits by the anon I actually agree with, such as removing the "terrorist" category from biographies of living people where the sources are a bit thin. We shouldn't be putting that kind of a provocative category onto any biography, especially that of a living person, unless we have solid reliable sources that specifically call that person a "terrorist". As for the places where the anon is removing the category from biographies where we do have such sources, well, we put the category back, we warn the anon for blanking sourced information, and if they keep doing it, we block them. But that's still not something that I'd want to contact the FBI about. I'd be more inclined to write off the activities of this anon as "over-eager student" than "criminal". Now, if we have an anon who is making threats of violence, then that is something I'd be more concerned about. But just disagreeing on some content issues? Nah, we get that all the time. --Elonka 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A related SSP report has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn. --Elonka 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming some Wikipedia positions[edit]

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

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

I've made a mistake and contributed on the proposal page instead. Good faith error! No decimations! SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless you are a group account, it would be hard to kill one in ten of you! DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how often the meaning of 'decimate' is misinterpreted to mean 'annihilate' or similar. Exxolon (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Surprised, no; appalled, yes. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems Princeton considers 'annihilate' and 'decimate' to be synonyms.[16] - auburnpilot talk 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I pity tha uncultured foos. For the record, I was thinking of losing digits, in a cross-cultural Yakuza/Roman mashup kinda way. Never mind :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, the word you're looking for is sansdigititus. - auburnpilot talk 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
HM forgot to give Jimbo his proper title: Caesar! Or would that be Co-Caesar? Hmmm... --SimpleParadox 22:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hummm... then who is Brutus? DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Grawp? J.delanoygabsanalyze 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, he'd be Romulus, which gives an obvious parallel for a Remus. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
So from now on instead of RfA, there'll be RfQ? And instead of AN, QN? ;) Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought this was funny, until I realised it wasn't in the humour category. Then when I realised someone actually thought this was a good idea (rather than deliberately and exceptionally dorky), it becamse less funny. Neıl 09:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Holy mama, that made my brain hurt. Bad freshman-Latin flashbacks to 1985--run for cover! Frankie say WTF?--Hide Yourself! Gladys J Cortez 10:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Time for another Larry Sanger joke. — CharlotteWebb 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Account Creator Group[edit]

Hi,

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

I just checked the admin interface and you've been approved for [17]. You are now able to create accounts using that system; accountcreator (which puts users in the Account Creator group) is not a requirement, it just helps if you're going fast. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just realised your not an admin, the idea of this notice board is to get admins attention, do not get to far ahead of yourself Dihydrogen Monoxide your not an admin yet and by the looks your current RFA isnt going to well. Can an admin please comment or rectify, thanks Prom3th3an (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC):::I'm pretty sure non-administrators are allowed to reply. --Tombomp (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, Prom3th3an, I would try to help you, but instead I think I'll go look for someone who needs help and isn't acting like a snot about it. --barneca (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) How childish of me. --barneca (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Forgive me if I came across as a snot as it was not my intention, I am very direct sometimes and I do apologise :) Prom3th3an (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, was trying to be a snot, sorry. I don't know enough about that interface to help, but someone will likely come along soon who does. And, for the record, anyone can help anyone on this board; yuo certainly don't need to be an admin if you have something useful to say. And since DHMO was trying to help you, I was reacting to your tone; I generally save my snide comments for people who aren't trying to help. --barneca (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I should rephrase my initial response, its not that DHMO is not an admin that im re-requesting the group permission. Its just I have now hit my upper limit of rego's per day from a single IP. So now I need that group permission to work effectivly :) Prom3th3an (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough; I've added you to the accountcreator group. And since Barneca's said everything that I would, I'll just leave it at that. --jonny-mt 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help and I again I do apologise for my stuffup Prom3th3an (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Huge backlog at CAT:CSD[edit]

Resolved: Much better now. Thanks —Travistalk 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Request for unbanning by User:Iamandrewrice[edit]

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

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

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

Well, I made an effort here but with the opposition and concerns raised by George The Dragon I'm reverting to back to my initial opposition to this. Sorry but this is exactly what I was afraid of. Can we instead discuss a time limit on the ban, to be reset whenever he is caught socking? EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've already been waiting 6 months... :( I don't understand why I'm still being banned. I am on medication for my disorder now; if you were going to be at all fair, you would at least give me a trial. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest replacing the indef ban with a six-month ban. Lifting the ban and just using a block wouldn't be appropriate as he could then use any other account, etc. If this user was capable of being more discrete and not going after exactly the same articles as usual, they could have been back editing by now and we'd not know the difference. However, I do feel that if this user's presence will attract others to disrupt the project, especially give the level of disruption we have seen before, we may have to take all steps necessary to protect the project. May I also suggest admins convers with admins in Simple English? I know it's not standard practice, but it may save hassle down the line George The Dragon (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely this is now a punishing ban, rather than a preventative one, since I'm now on medication? 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's see. 61 listed confirmed socks. 64 listed suspected socks. Threatening Wikipedia with "far worse disruption". I don't see how this is a person we want here. Your mental health problems are not our concern. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"Threatening Wikipedia with "far worse disruption"" - That is taken out of context. I asked User:Yamla why my friends were labelled as sockpuppets of me, and he said that it meant we were all banned. However, I said that if this was so, their sockpuppet tags should be changed to reflect this, and he said that they would continue to be labelled as me because of the ease of distinguishing anyone who was involved as being banned. So then I said that my friends regarded it to mean that they werent banned, since I am the only one who is listed as banned, and that I advise Yamla to put them into the ban list, otherwise they could cause "far worse disruption", and then this was taken out of context when he wrote it down on wikipedia.
And I no-longer have any mental health problems since I'm treated.
And not all of those sockpuppets were me. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If they aren't you, why did the checkuser say they were from the same IP address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.delanoy (talkcontribs)
This has already been discussed. We all attend the same school; one of the other users stayed in my house for a time period while his mother was in a hospice; and some of the checkuser results said some of the accounts weren't linked to me, but they were grouped with me anyway according, to what I can only presume, as WP:DUCK. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it needs to be pointed out that he wasn't "banned for psychological illness", but banned for being a serious disruptive sock-puppeteer. I can remember spending 4 or 5 hours on a single checkuser case. I'm not passing any comment regarding unbanning, but just pointing to the damage and timewasting that occurred before - Alison 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia that dealt with him a lot - he has been given a LOT of second chances. You can read his appeal to us a few months ago after his "cure" here. There have been several incidents at SE Wikipedia since then which have been attributed to him (can't remember how many were conclusively proved), but it included cross-wiki harassment of simple:User:Gwib, and a massive amount of sockpuppets. I (personally) strongly suspect him to be behind the massive creation of accounts with usernames attacking Gwib over the past two or three days - Gwib was an admin that dealt with him a lot. Benniguy/Iamandrewrice claims to know the person that did it, but it wasn't him - it just doesn't seem right at all. The "cure" seemed to happen overnight, but I didn't see much change in behaviour from what I could see. I believe that problems would recur. Our CheckUsers will probably be able to explain things a little better, I'll see if they have anything to add. Archer7 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence whatsoever to assume that I am connected to the recent hash of accounts at Simple. If need be, I have a physical written letter from my doctor to show that I am certified of being cured of my disorder. And no it did not happen overnight; where are you getting that from? 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I created so many sockpuppets was because of the psychological problems my disorder caused me. And please remember Alison, not all those accounts were me. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I can sympathize with someone who claims they created disruptive sockpuppets because of a psychological illness. I did that myself last year.
There's a question of degree here. I didn't waste checkusers' time, I didn't wind up on the requests for arbitration page, I didn't badger Jimbo, I didn't create more than 100 sockpuppet accounts (I think there were seven or eight), and I didn't drag my friends into this. I'm not quite seeing on what basis Andrew should be reinstated. I am inclined to defer to Josh Gordon. Shalom (HelloPeace) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You refer to "Andrew" but, from early posts, that is actually the name of someone he knows IRL, and not him, incidentally. So the username is arguably against policy anyway George The Dragon (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I did not create that many accounts. And it was not me who dragged my friends into it. It was actually some of my friends who impersonated my account which caused most of the original situation. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"So the username is arguably against policy anyway" If I was unbanned, I think its certainly evident that the name Iamandrewrice would not be suitable. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[18] Can I just comment to Eptalon. The question was not whether or not the accounts here were me (we already know they are). The question is whether or not the recent rash of accounts on Simple is the same as me. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry everyone. This is what happens when I try to assume good faith. Next time Jimbo's hypnotizing words about letting bygones be bygones and focus on the future gives me ideas please just block me until I snap out of it! EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. You're openly admiting the ban is now as a punishment for my past rather than as a prevention for the future. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

No, it's prevention. We don't trust you. It's entirely personal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That is being bias, based on my past. I am completely different now that I have been cured of my disorder; suggesting otherwise would only be an incorrect thing to suggest, based on lack of understanding of my disorder. I am not asking for a full unban; simply a trial, with restrictions. If I mess up, then just re-block/ban me straight away; it's not hard. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
May I just point out, [19], that the checkuser has showed that I do not have a connection to the recent mass of account creations on simple wikipedia. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I predict you'll be unblocked at about the same time Wizards of the Coast lifts the tournament-ban on this card. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That's probably about right. J.delanoygabsadds 00:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: Is there a reason we are still allowing the IP address 78.149.186.121 to edit, since it is patently the IP of a banned user. We do not normally allow IPs of banned users to edit for any reason. Why is he an exception to this rule? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, blocked for 48 hours. I'm with Jpgordon--there's no place here for such an account. Blueboy96 00:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I was one of the victims of Iamandrewrice - I am not unbiassed. The problem here is that we have two possible scenarios that are indistinguishable a'priori:
  1. Iamandrewrice is trying yet another trick to get back here and start being disruptive.
  2. The story about mental illness and medication is true and someone who has suffered needs mend bridges.
The old Iamandrewrice was utterly untrustworthy and would be perfectly capable of claiming what is now being claimed in order to have another chance at disruption and to get attention once more. We have absolutely no way to tell the difference between these two situations other than by allowing Iamandrewrice to prove, through actions (not words), which of these is the case.
In case (1), unbanning this user would allow more (albeit exceedingly brief) disruptions since there would initially be dozens of people checking edit history and performing checkuser's. A step of even a tiniest bit out of line would result in a banning from which no recovery would ever be possible. Refusing to unban would have more or less the same result.
In case (2), unbanning would be the fair and caring thing to do - not unbanning would be cruel and heartless.
On balance, I'm inclined to WP:AGF and offer an extremely tightly monitored unbanning - wrapped with bands of steel and enforced with absolutely zero tolerance. We would need to nominate a arbitrator and to make it clear that rebanning would be instant, total and without any hope of appeal at any time in the future at any level or in any manner or circumstances.
HOWEVER: IMHO - if Iamandrewrice is telling the truth - I think it would be wise for (s)he (I never did find out his/her true gender) to think very carefully about this. If this new story is true - then medication may take time to settle down - it hasn't been that long since we last saw awful behavior. There is no such thing as an instant and perfect cure for these kinds of mental problem. What happens if you miss a pill? What if the dosage isn't quite right yet? You should find out what your doctor advises? Rmember that you'll NEVER have any hope whatever of getting another last-last-chance. If you have a "slip" then no amount of pleading that this was a one-off medication-malfunction would convince even the most soft-hearted admin. So, it might be wise to follow the advice that I and others have given you via eMail and wait a few more months before taking advantage of any last-ever Wiki-reprieve. Editing Wikipedia is something we can all manage without doing - there are other things to do - other places to be - and it might just be more healthy to stay away for a while longer and come back when you KNOW you'll do it right.
SteveBaker (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you support a time limit on the ban so that he is banned for 6 more months, to be reset everytime he is caught socking? In 6 months we can then reconsider the matter and work out a set of restrictions including a condition that he can be rebanned without the usual tiresome and slow paperwork. This would give the medication time to work. Those who were actually affected by his disruption should be able to veto an unbanning if they don't feel safe letting him back here. This would be in the spirit of what Jimbo wrote on his talk page and caused me to consider an unbanning. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Just to clarify a point. Checkuser results could not confirm seven of 48 proxy checks were tied to IPs which were either used by the named accounts (IuseRosary - unblocked account) or self-identified (Benniguy/IamAndrewRice - blocked account) because the proxies used did not provide direct information (CU isn't a magic wand). Edit patterns (mainly names choses as this is primarily a username creation abuse issue) and targets of the abuse from the unidentified proxies matches those of the indentified proxies. The Checkuser list has been informed further on the matter. Creol (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No the checkusers have not shown any such thing on simple wikipedia, razorflame. Both Eptalon and Creol have stated this now.
They did say that a couple of proxies that I used crossed over with a couple of proxies used by some of them, but that is obviously going to be so, since the proxies are different each time, and of course there are going to be at least some picked at random which share similar IP strings.
The checkuser finishes with this summary:
"Benniguy - 10 self-identified proxies, 5 unconfirmed"
So we are talking about the 10 proxies I used (constructively, and you can ask AmericanEagle about that) and I openly said who I was, and then 5 unconfirmed proxies which people think might have something to do with me. I am sorry but that is a ridiculous assumption to make, and no one has made it but you Razorflame.
And why here [20] is someone called "PetraSchelm" suggesting I have been making pro-pedophile accounts?? And that I have apparently confirmed these by email? For a start, I am 16, so I don't understand how I could have a pro-pedophile account, and secondly, I've never even heard of any of the users. However, I just noticed something. I think the user first encountered me at User talk:Jimbo Wales, where there was both my thread, and some pedophile one (which he was on). He would have seen me there. However, I am unsure as to why he is suggesting those accounts are mine; perhaps they have something to do with him? Their editing patterns all seem to revolve quite finely around pedophilia... but then again, I forgot, my word can't be trusted on anything, so I guess they must be mine.
I would somewhat support a 6 month ban, but I'm still worried, because by the end of it, people are still going to be bringing up the same issues and refusing to let them go, so those that are holding a grudge are still not going to let me be unbanned. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It was established back in January by Creol himself I believe that Iamandrewrice and IuseRosary are two different people. Since there is no checkuser evidence to prove any connection with the accounts created on Simple recently I fail to see how this debate belongs here to begin with. Is this a new trend? This thread was created to see what opposition there would be to an unbanning or reworking of the community ban. There is substantial opposition to an unbanning but there appears to be some willingness among those affected bu his past disruption to consider a time limit and agreement on what should happen then. Do you have any actual proof of Iamandrewrice creating these accounts or is it simply an example of blaming the usual suspect and then taking it here for additional drama? Sorry for being blunt but this is derailing this debate the same way it derailed the debate on Jimbo's talk page. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Actual proof such as him self-identifying as using two specific proxies to answer a question by User:American Eagle (both self-identified in the message and he states right above that he did this) and that the proxies show the underlying IP address; one of which was used to create 10 accounts using other proxies and the other created 25? Yep, got it. How about another IP he has admitted to which was used to revert the removal of a disruptive RfA (created by IuseRosary no less) and then vote on it? Got that proof also. Edit patterns and the fact that before he showed up we had virtually zero traffic from this IP range and now we get literly hundreds of edits each week from through proxies (the range has been soft-blocked for months) just helps round out the picture of the sitution, but direct ties between the vandalism and him do exist. I did state that they are two seperate people, but given their activities and personal statements as being friends, there is little doubt to me that they are working in conjuction playing their little game. Creol (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay and I assume that you have e-mailed our resident Iamandrewrice expert Alison about this? If this is true then he isn't on any medication (I notice from the WR thread about him that he was on meds some 2 months ago also...). I would still like to note that this thread is not about his behaviour on your wiki and that detailed discussion about this should take place on your own wiki. This thread is a community discussion about his ban here which was not imposed on him due to any behaviour outside this wiki. He is banned for what he did here and although your evidence can establish character it should not be the main focus of this debate. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The Checkuser list was informed of the basic underlying information of his proxy use (so all en: CU's are aware) and Allison as a complete listing of the data confirming everything I stated listed. As he is indef blocked on our wiki (and we don't realy differenciate between indef and banned) there is little for us to discuss on this matter (until his next unblock attempt). His character is what is important here; he is requesting to be unbanned because he has changed due to changes in a pyschological condition. His actions show this to be a false statement. For the most part, I am simply clarifying and correcting points made by him and others about the situation. IaAR stated "10 proxies (that I used constructively...)". This is blatantly false. Two of those were used constructively and yes he has admitted they were him. Unfortunately the other 8 were used to cause disruption and are tied directly to the two he claims. Creol (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. His character is very much the subject of this debate and the use of proxies to evade what I can only assume is a far wider and longer lasting set of rangeblocks than we would ever get away with certainly isn't good news. If those have been used here also we can close this ban discussion without the need for any more discussion about the duration of his ban here. I notice he stopped editing here after the debate below this morning. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As for Iamandrewrice posting here I urge you to stop doing that. You are evading your ban and aggrevating people. None of that is helpful nor is the continuation of your constant debating. Let others do this for you in accordance with our banning policy. This is a community debate and you are not welcome to participate in that onwiki per your ban. You are not helping. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I would comment that by arguing here Iamandrewrice is demonstrating that the statement that the medication is controlling whatever condition they are suffering from is perhaps not as valid as they might declare; perhaps not as disruptive as previously, but still prepared to violate WP policy by both block evading and by forum shopping. I see no acknowledgement that their actions are contrary to WP policy, but rather a distinct campaign in having the validity of their actions accepted. As I remember, this was the basic premise of the banned account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with EconomicsGuy and LessHeard. Here's my proposal. If he wants to be unbanned, he has to go to his one username, he remains 'banned' on a technical level but he can converse from his talk page. For now, he uses that talkpage to converse with us. Later, if he uses {{helpme}} to indicate positive edits on some articles for a short period (I'd suggest a month) that do not indicate any potential arguments, I can live with unblocking him then (and only on the one account). From there, I would suggest he get a second account (publicize it) for his use on public computers (which would be blocked along with his main if abused even once), and if another user abuses on his computer, he's proven that his computer is compromised and not worth allowing. I think this would work towards a middle ground where editors aren't allowed back into article space but are allowed to be productive if they wish to be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Indeed. I find this diff particularly disturbing; the phraseology, threats and general nature don't indicate a user who wants to participate constructively. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk contribs)─╢ 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
For a start, we are dealing with now, after IM on medication, and secondly, that account wasn't mine anyway. There were two main users originally, but we all got bundled together among with many others into one big list of sockpuppets of "me". Do a checkuser - I never even logged on to that account. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look at the rest of the account contributions, I realize that account was mine. But anyway, as I said, that was left during the original series of events, and this whole thing is about unbanning me due to me now being treated for my disorder. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Motion to amend the ban and close[edit]

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

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

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

Why?? I was told to go to my user page to talk, by Ricky81682 above, so i havn't done anything wrong. I am NOT a pedophile. And I am not the one behind those accounts on simple, as Eptalon originally stated. The girl behind them is Natasha Supple Turnham, the sister of User:IuseRosary on Simple Wikipedia. I have not done anything I was not instructed to do. (I am editing here now however, in response to what you just said, since you seem to be jumping to conclusions). 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You are not allowed to edit here. Why the hell is that so hard to understand. You are 16 - don't you have anything better to do than this? EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I just did what I was told to do! And you reverted it! Why??
Oh, hang on, let me get this straight, I'm 16, but I'm a pedophile. Hmmm... yeah, sounds just about right. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did. I was then told to go to the talk page of Iamandrewrice and talk to you from there, which I did. EconomicsGuy then goes and reverts what I did there, and tells me I have not done as asked, and the ban should now not be lifted. I don't understand. I just did what I was asked to do. And can you make up your mind. This is currently the 5th time you have switched your views on my unbanning. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did... Double take. Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did... Boggle. DurovaCharge! 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ow, yeah, you were told to stop posting on the AN, so you did... Yet we see this post. Eh? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the statement is perfectly correct, as it is in the past tense. Rather than trying to pick me up (incorrectly) on my grammar, it might be more useful if you read the meaning of the discussion, which is that I was told to go do write something (at the talk page of Iamandrewrice), and when I did, I was told off for it. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You are still banned. You have no standing to post here. You know that, you articulate your knowledge of that, yet you still post here and expect any other result than a continuance of your siteban? Strong support for continued siteban. Good grief. Next time, hang out for six months without socking and present your case at your own user talk page. DurovaCharge! 17:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As I have already said, I did stop posting here, and I went to my old talk page (which is allowed, remember) as instructed by another user. At this point (even though I was doing nothing wrong), another user then told me off for going and writing something on my old talk page, even though I was supposed to, as instructed by another admin. Anyway, that is when I came back here. If that was not allowed, then perhaps the admins should have decided amongst themselves whether they wanted me to write on that page or not.
I have been accused of being a pedophile, even though I am 16
I have been accused of making hundreds of sockpuppets at Simple Wikipedia, even though the checkuser showed they were nothing to do with me
I have been told off for going and doing something another admin told me to do.
I'm sorry, but I'm certainly not doing anything unreasonable here. If you don't want me to post on the AN, fine, but at least tell me one thing, not a multitude of different things from different admins who tell me off for doing what the other one told me to do. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
An indefinite ban, such as the one you have been given, means you, as a human being, are not allowed to post on EN:WP ever again. So if you really want to appeal, do it via email to the Arbcom. George The Dragon (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I stopped. As I have already said, I then went to my old talk page (as I was both instructed and allowed to do), and did what I was asked to.
So far, no one has commented on what Ricky81682 said. What he suggested seems like a workable suggestion, and it allows you to ensure I'm not a harm to the community at any time
89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No you haven't stopped, and each time you continue to post here in violation of that ban, and in full knowledge that you aren't supposed to post here, makes that grave you're digging for yourself a little deeper. Take some serious advice: quit while you're behind. DurovaCharge! 17:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've spent some time examining and re-reading the checkuser evidence, both from our own wiki and from seWP (thanks, Creol) and have to say that I am strongly opposed to unbanning at this time. Given that he's been socking up to three weeks ago and given his behaviour over on sewiki, unbanning would definitely not be in the interests of this project - Alison 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That was a constructive account, and anyway, it brings nothing new to the table than we already have - everyone already knew about that account.
And anyway, if there was a time limit on my ban, and it was reset everytime I sockpuppeted, there would actually be some inspiration for me not to make any other accounts, but the way it is, I'm "indefinitely banned", meaning that people are in effect saying I am never allowed back anyway, so you're saying that my only means of ever editing is through sockpuppets. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
While I'm deeply opposed to all bans for reasons I've stated repeatedly at other places, this conversation has go on way too effing long. Here's what you do, 1 go get a new account, 2 refrain from editing any of the same pages or topics you used to edit, 3 change your behavior to prevent any suspicion. 4 rise in prominence and notability from within. 5 hatch an evil scheme of revenge, and finally either 6a build some super useful bot that wikipedia 'can not live without' and proceed to act like a dick under diplomatic immunity (known here as the betacommand rule) or 6b keep your agenda secret slowly changing the pedia to shape your will. Why I remember one such user, but perhaps I shouldn't go there... --Lemmey talk 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here's how I handle this: as of now you get my standard offer--refrain from evading the ban for six months (plus a couple of other obvious things: please don't bash Wikipedia offsite and please promise to refrain from the behavior that led to your ban in the first place). If you do those things then six months from today I will support your return. There's a twist, though: from this moment forward until your legitimate return, each post you make in violation your siteban adds one week to the time frame. So if you respond to this post, that's six months plus one week from the moment you respond. You could add a seventh month just by posting four more times. And if you waited four weeks and posted once more, that would reset the clock to seven months plus one week from the date of that post. This is why we call the block indefinite: it could end whenever the community believes that you can adapt to site standards, but as you demonstrate otherwise the duration lengthens of its own accord. I express this numerically because it's easy to communicate, but a lot of people go by a similar basic rationale. DurovaCharge! 18:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like "unban me or I'll sock anyway". And from what I can see, you're still socking right now on sewiki, and using the "sister/brother vandal" excuse. *sigh* - Alison 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that the user PetraSchelm on SE Wikipedia was an impersonator of en:User:PetraSchelm. This was the user that was claiming that Iamandrewrice/Benniguy was creating pro-paedophilia accounts. I don't believe there was any connection between him and the pro-paedophilia accounts. Archer7 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the proposal re ArbCom appeal per Alison. How much more time do we need to waste on this? --Rodhullandemu 18:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support and I resent the fact that my proposal at to how this user should conduct themself has become an excuse to post here that they will no longer be posting here. Again, use your talkpage, {{helpme}} and go to Arbcom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support If this is the evidence of someone who is in control of their condition... plus, there are Featured Articles with a smaller word count than this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, I'm a user on Simple and have seen the damage and then never-ending stress and wasted time brought about by his sockpuppets. This debate needs to come to an end. FusionMix 11:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. It's Benniguy. I know I'm not allowed to edit, but I find this very important. I would like to look into the Right to vanish. The reason for this, is that I have not only been receiving several abusive emails regarding my disorder, I have also received a phonecall yesterday (well, my dad did), in which someone said that I had been "abusing profiles on the net", and that they would "go to the police". I find this a very serious, and disturbing matter now. I know that for me editing here again, my ban will be reset with another week added on, but I think that this neeeds to be brought up. I know it is not usual practise for a banned user to activate the right to vanish, but I think this is an extreme circumstance, which has now moved onto off-wikipedia harrassment, and is involving my family and home, which is not acceptable. In addition to this, it is unnacceptable that people are receiving my personal details, such as phone number, in order to do this.
Please note, the user who telephoned my house has obviously broken a privacy policy, and as according to [here], should immediately be banned. My parents are considering contacting the police about the issue, as they consider it harrassment. Additionarlly, since I have not caused a "disruption" in that sense of the term on wikipedia for several months, the claims the person is making are incorrect anyway. My father reports to me that the voice who spoke on the phone was a middle-aged male, with a "rough" English accent. The first possible user that springs to mind on this matter is <user name redacted. Gross personal attack> who lives in England, right near my town, and is male, and who used to persistantly view my myspace page, meaning they would have access to lots of information about me, and took a strong dislike to me. Obviously, I do not know for definite who it is, and I could be completely wrong, but please remember that whoever the user is, they have committed a serious offence here.
I have also received a third email today, which mentions both my sexual orientation and wikipedia - someone is obviously giving out my email address. I think that activating the right to vanish may be a possible solution to all of this, and I strongly hope others will consider it for my sake, as even I, as a banned user, still require some kind of protection in a case like this, surely?
Again, I appologize for already breaking my ban, but as I said, this is quite a serious issue, and I did not know where else to go. 78.146.171.173 (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • Post-close comment here, to anon editor in particular and others in general. If you are being stalked and harassed off-wiki and you are getting phone calls and threats, then Wikipedia is not the place to report this in the hope of obtaining justice; the local police department is. Personally, I've found that to be quite effective, and recommend you do the same. Making vague accusations on-wiki is unproductive in the extreme and may actually work against you, so don't do it - Alison 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: Don't jump to conclusions about who the calls/e-mails are coming from either. --Gwib (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely! - Alison 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page blocked[edit]

Resolved

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

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

Zap these please![edit]

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

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

They are listed at Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion

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

Would someone mind zapping them please?

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

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

Admin input needed to close discussion.[edit]

Resolved

TalkIslander 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Ratification vote on {{C-Class}} started[edit]

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

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

Concerning Image:Ac.delphi1.jpg[edit]

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

Original description (Adam Carr, April 15, 2004): completely blank. Quadell tagged it as {{GFDL}} January 26, 2005, with no explanation of what connection he might have to Carr and/or the photographer: the edit summary was merely "tagged". Finally on 21 September 2005 JesseW added a quote from Carr: "taken by me but never added to the Delphi article, which i was going to rewrite but never got round to it." (with this diff as evidence it was said by Carr). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to contact Adam directly to check the license. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I vaguely recall Quadell's 2005 image tagging activities, and the 'problem' of Adam Carr. In short, Adam did not buy into the need to tag images, and got quite testy with repeated requests made to him to tag his images. IIRC, he issued a blanket proclamation that any of his self-made photos were GFDL, hence Quadell's tagging. (However I don't have a diff supporting this assertion). Maybe he's calmed down by now; good luck with contacting him. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp account?[edit]

See