Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive26

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

North Carolina Operation Account[edit]

This account was created by the NC vandal to make Sanbox edits. I request that he be unbanned.CCOTT, CCOTT 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. Why should we? --Golbez 00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The nick actually wasn't banned until you brought it to our attention, thanks. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Catholic priest stubs[edit]

User:Aloysius Patacsil has created a large number of stubs about ordinary Catholic priests in Hawaii. I suspect that they would not pass notability criteria but don't have time to list them all tonight. I thought I would note it here before I go to bed. Rmhermen 03:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing banned for one year[edit]

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (using whatever account or IP address) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. As adopted by the Arbitration Committee 10:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Kelly Martin (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing protected templates[edit]

The following protected templates need to be added to Category:Image copyright templates.

<noinclude>[[Category:Image copyright templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>

Also would it be possible to speedily rename Category:Image copyright tags so as to merge it into Category:Image copyright templates? I just created the category this evening when (I thought) that no other image copyright template category existed. Thanks! ~MDD4696 04:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

They have been added to Category:Image copyright tags, shortcut CAT:ICT, as that is the more usual terminology and the tags category was larger than templates category. Category:Deprecated image copyright tags has been created for those where uploading is no longer permitted, and Category:Non-free image copyright tags for other non-free situations. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Category:Image copyright templates has now been merged into Category:Image copyright tags. Two subcategories exist, Category:Deprecated image copyright tags and Category:Non-free image copyright tags. If anyone is remotely interested, we have about 300 tags in total. Physchim62 (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I just ran across a user page where the user states "I do not give the public permission to reproduce the information in this private userspace or any subfolders of this private userspace in any way shape or form."[1] I am a bit fuzzy on the specifics, but I was under the impression this was frowned upon, if not outright discouraged. Any comments? 151.199.90.103 06:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rob Church placed a warning on his talk page. This is not only discouraged but illegal, since it directly contravenes our GFDL license. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. User:Pioneer-12 was blocked for just this until he agreed to make his stuff available under GFDL ... that being the license you are agreeing to make your work available under when you click "submit"! You can give people the option to use it under other licenses as well, but if you want to play Wikipedia then what you put here is GFDL including user space - David Gerard 12:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I blanked the lot of the pages as cpvios. They should have been deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What is a sufficiently low resolution for an Album cover?[edit]

Album covers fall under fair use, if they are reasonably low resolution. User:Arniep tagged a 750x750 version of Image:MeettheBeatlesreissuecover.jpg, removing links to it, and instead diverting links to Image:Meet the Beatles.jpg. Now, I do not believe that a 750x750 scan of an old album cover is unreasonable. On the front page, we have a 430x421 image of a CD cover, now, this album is a vinyl so is obviously larger, but 750x750 is no way too high res. Another user even reuploaded a lower res version of the cover, removing the delete and hangon tags, only for them to be replaced again.

I'm asking for admins to look at this. I believe that Image:Meet the Beatles.jpg should be deleted, and the links to that file reverted to the original at Image:MeettheBeatlesreissuecover.jpg. The argument of orphaned fairuse is irrelevent in this case. I believe that claiming a 750x750 scan as overly high res is copyright paranoia, I also believe that even the new lower resolution of that image as it is now, is still better than the poor quality scan of Meet the Beatles.jpg. The thing has been on contested CSD for hours now, so could some admin please just come in and sort it out. - Hahnchen 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question in your title, there are no official guidelines as yet (AFAIK), but I use a rule of thumb of less than 100dpi at original size: by this account, the image is at a reasonable low resolution.
I have removed the speedy tag from Image:MeettheBeatlesreissuecover.jpg as it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I suggest that you take one or both images to WP:IFD and discuss the matter there. Physchim62 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from 167.206.78.2[edit]

This ip user has repeatedly vandalised pages since Dec 13, 2005, this ip needs to be blocked for the maximum time allowed. This ip's most recent vandalised page was Las Vegas, Nevada

The most recent edits are poosrly written, but not the kind of obvious vandalism previously comming from this IP. The one before that was a self-revert of vandalism. Before that is obvious blantent vandalism, but that is more than 24 hours ago and prior to the mosst recent warnings. I don't see a block here, but if anyone else does I won't object, there hs been enough vandalism that a block might have been warrenteds a day or two ago. DES (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Look at all the vandalism, some is bad edits but most are out rite vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=167.206.78.2

The "my contributions" link[edit]

The "my contributions" link doesn't gain bold when selected as with the other personal links "my watchlist", etc. I found a list of special pages for each user and it didn't include "my contributions". Jason Quinn 18:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Confirming reproducibility. I have filed bugzilla:4764 to notify the developers. It's really trivial though... — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect image license tagging[edit]

I just thought somebody may want to have a look at this. Australia boy (talk · contribs) has been uploading images taken from websites and tagging them with the wrong license templates. I first noticed this when he uploaded a bunch of images of Mexican Presidents and claimed them to be under the GFDL without any evidence, sometimes not even stating where he got the images from. I left a few notes in his talk page trying to explain him why he could not do that and asked him to change the tags to fair use. He apparently ignored me (he edited other articles after my message) so I decided to change the tags to {{PUI}} after a week. Recently, however, he's been tagging newer images with {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} with no evidence to support this claim. This time, at least, he's providing links to the source website.

Record of previous exchange is in his talk page and my talk page archive. Examples of recent offending images are Image:Add.jpg, Image:Brodaniel.jpg and Image:Keneally.jpg.

I'm quite sure that he's acting in good faith, but it would be nice if a third party could explain him the importance of proper license tagging and deal with the images he's already uploaded while at it.

Thanks in advance for any assistance. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If left them a note linking to the Wikipedia:Image use policy. If they continue there is precedent for a permanent ban I'm afraid. Secretlondon 20:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hamas Edit War[edit]

Severe edit war in progress, an anon. with a strong anti-Hamas POV seems to be the fuel. See Hamas. KrazyCaley 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The moment they step over the 3RR, report them to WP:AN3 for a block. Warn them first to take away the soft-admin 5th revert. -Splashtalk 22:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cooler heads[edit]

We have the makings of a wheel war, or atleast some uncool heads. Template:User freedom Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 22#Template:User freedom Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Template:User_freedom.--Tznkai 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My head is perfectly cool, thank you. I do however welcome broader input. Having once undeleted, i will not undelete this again any time soon, so no wheel war will result from my actions. I would argue that deletinmg things out-of-process does tend to spark conflict and not infrequently wheel wars, but then so does undeleting out-of-process deletions, as I did. Of course, i instantly reported my own action at WP:DRV which i think is the proper forum in such a case, and also mentioned it in the WP:TFD discussion on the above tempalte. If anyone thinks my actions or statemetns were improper, i would be happy to hear it and am open to considering views that differ from my own. DES (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
... I really wasn't attacking you, or even indicating you. I'm involved, you're involved, Marksweep is involved, and theres a potential for a lot of other people to get involved. We've already had a vote closing, a deletion, an undeletion, several modifications to a protected page, etc. This was never intended to be personal.--Tznkai 18:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I apologize for assuming that this was aimed particularly at me. You are correct, we have had all the above actions, and things that start that way have in the past caused wheel wars or other rancourous interactiosn, and i don't want another. Having some previosuly uninvolved people join the discussion could hardly hurt, and might help keep things calm. I repeat that I will not delete-war over this or anything. DES (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just renamed the silly bloody thing and changed the wording. It would probably be better off deleted, as it's advocating the abuse of template space. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Webcomics RfAr closed[edit]

The Webcomics RfAr has been closed. Aaron Brenneman is admonished to be respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy. While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent. Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was fantastically useful and will definitely attract experts back to Wikipedia instead of cursing its name - David Gerard 10:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that any expert who spends every waking hour watching the minutiae of Wikipolitics and weeping over Arbcom results is not really an expert worth having here. Nandesuka 12:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
...and it will be early to bed for all of you if you don't! Do you hear me? No, wait. That was kindergarten teachers. -Splashtalk 11:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this result is about as good as we could hope for in an ArbCom case which I said ought to be rejected. Dragonfiend, Aaron, Snowspinner and Tony are all people who attempt to do the best they can for Wikipedia and levying sanctions against them does not seem necessary. Aaron has graciously announced that he is intending to follow the ArbCom ruling in spirit, and even though it goes to arbitration, dispute resolution does not have to involve bans, probations and paroles when there are sensible people involved. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Well said. Nandesuka 12:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The waggy finger, wielded carefully, is the most powerful tool the committee possesses. We're now on notice that:

  • New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore a valuable resource. We should treat newcomers with kindness and patience — hostility or elitism often scare away potentially valuable contributors. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things. See Please do not bite the newcomers.

and (my favorites):

  • "Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." [2] The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although Wikipedia has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.
  • While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent.

It's good to see those words given the imprimatur. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Aaron[edit]

I have unblocked User:Aaron. He was blocked by User:Howcheng for violating the 3RR, but he really didn't as his 4th revert cited was only an edit to his version (and thus not a revert). I hope this doesn't cause too much trouble. If you feel he needs to be blocked, then please discuss here (I won't unblock again so as not to block war, but I disagree with the block). — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As I explained on Aaron's talk page, it was more of a "neither side has been willing to engage in constructive discussion" kind of equal block. Aaron had done three full reverts and once re-inserted content that someone else had added but that he felt should be in there. Since he probably went offline and to bed, the effect of unblocking is negligible; I'm hoping just the fact that he was blocked even for a short time will sit him at the negotiating table. howcheng {chat} 07:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ban on Ciz extended[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has expanded its ban on Ciz:

If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia or its closely related articles, or makes any edit which relates to zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, or their talk pages, such changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly block Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK banned, and other remedies[edit]

Per the final decision in AndriyK:

  • AndriyK is banned for one month from Wikipedia for creating irreversible page moves.
  • Until by consensus he has agreed to a suitable and mutually agreed naming convention using the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict, AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest.
  • Should AndriyK move any page or change the content of any article to conform with his preferred usage before an agreement is reached as to a naming convention concerning historical Russian names and places he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year.
  • Moved pages which have become irreversible by [AndriyK] adding to the page history of the redirect page may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month--Tznkai 04:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism under my username[edit]

Could somebody provide some insight to how this edit could have occurred under my account? I've been a contributor for 2 years, so you'll have to trust it wasn't me. Is it possible that a previous edit was deleted/edit conflict? I'm on a private computer, so another user could not have done this. Is this a bug in the software? Thanks --Jgritz 04:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • good strategy, except they tend to indef block compromised accounts, so you're in ban city either way--152.163.100.200 05:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Two years of edits is a good strategy so I can write "retard" on a page? I'm not a vandal, I want to know what caused this, so I'm not embarrassed again. --Jgritz 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You've at least changed your password since the edit, right? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Changed password. Still is very strange - now I'm being pestered by Zehboi.
Do you use your account on a shared computer at all, if so is it possible you've left it for a few minutes and someone else has used it? --pgk(talk) 07:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a private machine, nobody else uses it. I'm thinking it's maybe a something like a edit conflict/database locking issue, because I can remember reverting about 3 items of vandalism by the user - that's how I got to Hip Forums - it's not something I'd really look at otherwise.. --Jgritz 08:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that's what it is. I didn't see any deleted edits in history that would account for it, so it might be some weird bug that occurred: maybe you performed your revert at the exact moment that someone else did some vandalism, or the vandalism you were trying to revert somehow got assigned to your username. Do you use AOL? If so, perhaps you shared a proxy IP with someone? Either way, looks to be some sort of database bug. --Deathphoenix 21:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure but I think I read something like this happening before, posted on here it was at least a month or two ago so that incident would have to be somewhere deep in the archives. I'll take a look and post back if I find something. I should also point out that it was determined to be some kind of bug if memory serves me rightly KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've had this happen to me before too. I think it's some kind of bug when more than one person tries to revert. It's a bit off if you ask me. I know I was surprised to see what I had just re-entered into an article. I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's good to note that it really wasn't you though. And after you have built a record, we are more willing to trust that it was some bug and not someone trying to be sneaky. ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in Zeq case[edit]

Zeq (talk · contribs) and Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Palestinian exodus and 1948 Arab-Israeli War until the conclusion of their arbitration case. The pages are no longer protectd, so they need to be watched. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Dmcdevit·t 05:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq actually just edited one of the articles and then reverted himself. I have them both on my WLs now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of 69.46.139.69[edit]

This IP was "Blocked for being another sockpuppet in the harassment and threats against User:Bumpusmills1" until Feb 9. Helpdesk-l received an email suggesting this IP was a gateway for an ISP and causing collateral damage. Since the notes I've seen about the harassment seemed rather severe, I'd be concerned about unblocking the IP even with the extraneous editors who may currently be blocked. Thoughts? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It belongs to Crawford Communications/NPO.net. If it is an ISP gateway we can't block it imo. Secretlondon 21:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A question about AOL autoblocks (copied from User_talk:Curps)[edit]

I know that when you want to block an entire AOL range you sometimes use commands like 'blocked User:64.23.132.13/22 with an expirey time of...' to take out the entire range for 15 minutes,
the question is, could you use the same method to clear AOL autoblocks? as in 'unblocked User:64.23.132.13/22'? Or even better,
how about 'blocked User:64.23.132.13/22 with an expirey time of 0 minutes',
then just do the same thing for each of the three major AOL ranges, 64.x.x.x, 152.x.x.x, and 205.x.x.x, maybe add it as a daily function for your bot, to clear any autoblocks that might pile up during the course of the day?--64.12.117.5 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested unblock of Bonaparte[edit]

As a member of the AMA, I am appearing on behalf of Bonaparte (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been blocked indefinately for "malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet." While this block was justified, he has since recanted his poor behavior, seen the light and is sincerely eager to rejoin the community and edit in an appropriate and civil manner.

As an example of the kind of editor that he has been and is eager to be again, he has made some excellent contributions to Wikipedia in some very obscure areas that most users know nothing about. He is not your typical useless troll; he has actually contributed something to our community.

  • He has expressed regret for trolling and is willing to apologise and never use sockpuppets to troll ever again.
  • In a similar cases, where a user was using *many more sockpuppets than Bonaparte and was doing the same thing as Bonaparte with them, he got blocked for 48 hour whereas Bonaparte was blocked indefinitely and has already served more than 48 hours for fewer sockpuppets.

This user has been reformed and he is formally requesting that he be unblocked and given a final chance to prove that to you. Thank you for your time.Gator (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not be overly concerned at his return. However, I would demand that he undertakes not to attempt mediation, whether formal or informal. I would also like to see him submit to a period of mentorship. I am not sure as to the specifics of the case, so I don't know whether I'm being too lenient. I am sure, however, that I'm not being too harsh. [[Sam Korn]] 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more than reasonable. I am sure he would not object.Gator (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He got banned indefinitely only on the 11th Jan 06. However I can't see any explanation on his talk page or elsewhere. All we have is "malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet". He got banned earlier for repeated attacks on Node over the Romanian/Moldovan dispute. He clearly has a history of edit warring but this is a controversial and heated issue. The fact that he's made useful contributions isn't in doubt. I'd like to know what the details of the "botnet" were before we unblock. This probably wants to go formal - we may want to stop him editing articles on Moldova for example. Secretlondon 16:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I will speak up for Bonaparte here; I think he is not malicious, he is just very passionate about his subject. The closer he gets to Moldavian nationalism, the more worked up he gets. I would offer to act as mentor but I know next to nothing about his chosen subject areas and don't speak Romanian, so that would be hard since many exchanges are in Romanian. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've asked the blocking admin to comment here. There are comments on the admin's page that Bonaparte has been problematic on ro.wikipedia too. I don't think we should unblock until we get more info - one problem with admin blocks like this is that we don't have enough info - unlike blocks from the arbitration committee. Secretlondon 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Bonaparte was trolling as hell all this time on Moldovan wiki and continues to this day. It was on account of his sock puppets that Wikipedia lost one of its most precious contributors, User:Mikkalai. It is worth pointing out that running a sock puppet farm is just a fraction of Bonaparte's offenses. He will be more careful when vote rigging in the future and will post from different computers, so you won't catch him again. If the troll sneaks back, more valuable contributors will leave. People who have commented on the issue so far seems to have had very little experience with this archtroll. --Ghirla | talk 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It was Ronline that made Mikka consider to leave, but in the end, Mikka did not leave Wiki. He' still around, tho not as much as before. --Candide, or Optimism 06:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If it weren't for User:Node ue and the Moldovan conflict, Bonaparte would have been a normal contributor, as would I have been. But it's not a perfect world. --Candide, or Optimism 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, you will comment on your interactions with Bonapatte when your own case reaches ArbCom. There you and Bonny will have to explain your concerted homophobic attacks against Node. If things don't go his way, Bonaparte already promised to us that "Anittas and me will come and turn all them to dust. Let them disappear from there...". --Ghirla | talk 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive64#Sockpuppetry_by_Bonaparte_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_page_moves_.E2.80.A2_block_user_.E2.80.A2_block_log.29 pretty much says it all about Bonaparte (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). If he is unblocked, it would be a piece of cake to make a case to have him banned by ArbCom in view of the evidence. The only problem with unblocking him is a giant waste of time that ArbCom will take from us and arbitrators and another giant waste of time to deal with his trolling in the meanwhile. --Irpen 18:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

From reading over the information here, I'd want a lot more evidence of reform and a lot more time with no disruption. What this sounds like is a disruptive user who when sanctioned is loudly promising to be good next time. That's not very convincing and we should be careful unbanning and wasting everyone's time. - Taxman Talk 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all the above. I am just saying that I think the whole stupid escalation was not malice, much of the blocking was done by Mikka and even Mikka's friends have said that he did not exactly improve things, which is a shame because Mikka is a good guy and this made him look bad. I don't think Bonaparte is a saint, but I do think that he has trouble with strong opinions, and I think he has at least some justification for feeling aggrieved since nine of the blocks were by an admin with whom he was engaged in a content dispute; my problem is that I don't honestly believe in his ability to stay calm if provoked, and some people deliverately provoke him because they know this. I do not know if he was placed on probation before and violated it, I do know that the reason he wants to come back is not just to fight the same battles, it is that he is actually interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia. Which is not to say that, if unblocked, he won't get straight back into a fight. Feel free to ignore me, I am notoriously naive. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair summary. Certain people take advantage of their ability to provoke Bonaparte, and also me, and then when we react, we pay. The provokers never pay, because some admins are simply blind. --Candide, or Optimism 06:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As a Romanian-speaking Wikipedian who knew Bonaparte rather well, both on Wikipedia and through email contacts, I must say that I would be very very doubtful of his desire to reform. Bonaparte holds very ultranationalistic beliefs, and has been known to use any means to advance them. That being personal attacks, either logged in or anonymously, the abovementioned botnet, revert wars, trolling, etc. I don't believe he does it maliciously, that's who he is, and these things don't change easily if at all.

I believe he will be a lot of trouble again if he comes back. I would like to see a written statement on his talk page promising to not do revert wars, no personal attacks, no multiple accounts, and be constructive on talk pages before even considering that. And I would support an indefinite block the first time he violates any of these. Bonaparte is one of those users who are a drain of energy and puts strain on others editors. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: His abysmal performance as a member of the Mediation Cabal might be something to toss into the mix of things to weigh and consider. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As the blocking administrator I have been asked to comment so I will briefly comment here. I blocked Bonaparte for being blatantly disruptive, being repeatedly rude towards other editors, edit warring relentlessly, using a number of sockpuppets to violate policy (especially 3RR), also for running a malicious bot net which is grounds for an immediate ban. I am opposed to any unblocking of him until a clear and concise case can be made that he will not continue his previous behavior even if that means him staying away from certain categories of articles and certain users. If he were allowed to continue now I feel that he would continue to edit war on articles, be incivil and this would just give him a chance to do a better job in the future of hiding his edit warring and bot nets. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Much as I like Bonaparte, it's hard to argue. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Let him in guys. He is not much worst then the user Node ue. But I did not see him getting blocked. In any case I think he has learned his lesson. Plus he DID make good contributions too. It's not like he is a troll or something.Constantzeanu 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not clear at all whether he learned his lesson. It is unfair to compare Bonaparte with User:Node ue. Node ue is a 16 year old kid who has a lot more common sense than Bonaparte and who got verbally abused in many ways by Bonaparte. I sympathize with Constantzeanu who is Romanian, like Bonaparte, but I don't find his arguments convinsing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey folks. I'm not sure if I should be divulging this, but I was corresponding with Bonaparte via email on & off during the past two months or so, and in one of his last emails some days before he was blocked he indicated that he desired to leave Wikipedia because, according to him:1) he had more pressing matters to attend to 2) he had already accomplished a lot of what he aimed to achieve 3) he never intended to be a contributor over the long haul. I will email him again & inquire about this some more. Besides the emails he sent me, which indicated clearly that he planned on leaving the English Wiki, does anyone have a shred of evidence that Bonaparte wants to return/be unblocked? Alexander 007 22:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Last I heard he was off to complete his PhD. Silly thing is he's been unfailingly polite in dealings with me, so he can do it if he tries. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Bonaparte's Ph. D. but voting four times (with socks) to disrupt an RfA, trolling there in full-throttle and turning and RfA of an unquestionably worthy and decent editor into a circus (with the help of a couple of buddies) and, ultimately, through gullible unsuspecting Bcrat achieving the goal to make the RfA a failure is enough, it seems to me. If others think they need to see more reasons, read above one more time. --Irpen 00:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have talked to Bonaparte in e-mail correspondence, and he has been very polite, moderate and overall a nice person to talk to. For this reason, I don't think Bonaparte would be a danger to the project if he is unblocked. I support his unblocking. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 00:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that Bonaparte is quite capable of good edits. He can be very rational and polite when he wants to be, and I wouldn't be opposed to his return, but if he comes back, we'd have to ensure that "he wants to be" all the time. He has a history of trolling and harrassment, and has been warned more times than many of us can count without taking our shoes and socks off. As someone else mentioned above, if he went up before ArbCom tomorrow it'd be a dead cert ban even without Jtkiefer's evidence. If Bonaparte returns, I don't think the rules can apply to him anymore. He knows what he's doing, and following procedure — dispute resolution, warnings, etc. — just gives him extra opportunity for trolling. If he returns, he's on permanent probation. He's wasted the time of too many editors. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

After he used sock accounts on two RFA's: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juro...my answer is no way.--MONGO 02:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with an unblock here. If he has repented and will not be disruptive again then he should be allowed to resume editing Wikipedia and I counsel my fellow editors to grant him some space to do so, while not relaxing vigilance against possible recidivism. We only block editors if they are a net detriment to Wikipedia. If Bonaparte will not be such a detriment then he should not be blocked. This goes for any editor who has been blocked or banned in the past. Blocking and banning are preventive, not pre-emptive or punitive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any unblocking of Bonaparte. It's a very bad idea with no real benefit to the community. Bonaparte has a long history of supporting troublesome and abusive editors and created a large number sockpuppets, not just a few, and knowingly used them to rig votes among other things. All while he chose to participate as a mediator in resolving disputes, most of which were very poorly executed and likely done in just as bad faith as his sockpuppetry. His actions are by definition acts of bad faith and significantly abused the community's goodwill. Claims that he "is willing to apologize and never use sockpuppets to troll ever again" raise new questions. What will he use sockpuppets then for, if not trolling? An apology and promise is woefully insufficient for the community to again trust someone who so knowingly and repeatedly betrayed that trust for months already. Unblocking Bonaparte now is a slap in face to every good faith contributor whose vote or contributions were discounted due to Bonaparte's bad faith acts. FeloniousMonk 17:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Christians - especially monks - are supposed to be willing to forget and give people a second chance. I'm guessing that after your wrong usage of your tools on me, you are different kind of monk. --Candide, or Optimism 17:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't be rude. [[Sam Korn]] 17:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Anittas (aka Candide, or Optimism) was one of Bonaparte's pet projects. He was always there to excuse this sort of trolling. That's one reason I oppose unblocking him. FeloniousMonk 17:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You are trolling right now and you accuse others of trolling? If you're not familiar with the situation, why speak out? And I was Bonaparte's pet project? What exactly does that mean? As far as I know, I joined Wiki a few months earlier than he did. --Candide, or Optimism 17:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Bonaparte only seems to have problems with Romanian-related articles and mediation, how about we unblock him with the promise that if he edits any Romanian-related articles, he will just be blocked again? Talrias (t | e | c) 18:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

His problems go beyond just "Romanian-related articles and mediation." For example he also cast RFA votes with socks. For a full accounting, see: [3], [4], and [5]. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's just do a community probation on him. Prohibit him from editing anything related to Romania, including articles, talk pages and discussing contributors from Romania. Block him for 24 hours if he breaks it once, 48 if he breaks it twice, 1 week third time, and so on. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Bad idea, just like your serial unblocking of Marsden forcing Jimbo to step in. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
"Block him for 24 hours if he breaks it once, 48 if he breaks it twice, 1 week third time, and so on..." What overwhelming need is there that requires the community to risk going through that much disruption and extra effort on someone who has already sufficiently proven his contempt for the project's aims to earn a indefinite block that had very wide support [6]? Please explain that to us. FeloniousMonk 18:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not explaining anything to you until you remove your personal attacks first. I came to discuss this sensibly and I was most surprised to see your previous comment. I would like to discuss this, but only in a civil manner. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I've made no personal attacks. I've merely said that that your doggedness in repeatedly unblocking shortening the block of Marsden required Jimbo's intervention to correct [7]. That unblocking shortening the block of Marsden was a poor idea was apparent to Jimbo, it seems. FeloniousMonk 18:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, I find your comments to be utterly irrelevant to this discussion. They were also incorrect - as shown by you having to correct them. I also initiated a request for comments specifically about this issue, as you well know as I told you on your talk page. You did not comment on this RFC. Since you did not participate, I believe that your comments here about me are bordering on disruption. I believe you are attacking the person presenting a suggestion, rather than constructively criticising the suggestion itself. I would like you to apologise and withdraw your comments. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As one who was once actually nominated for Adminship by Bonaparte once, I can say that for a while, my impression of him was that as a user, he could be both constructive, active and kind, as long as he wasn't provoked (or dealt with provocative subjects). He also seemed to have good relations with many Wiki contributors (and not just Romanians). When provoked he would indeed react in an objectionable way, but as time went by, he seemed to learn that there was some subjects he should avoid in order to not damage the Romanian cause unwillingly (Anittas for one gave him some advice of this kind).
However, the sockpuppetry activity on multiple RfAs was far more disturbing, and gives me second thought about speaking in favor of having him unblocked. If he could be placed under some sort of probation in which he would be closely watched, and banned for any kind of offense, An unblock might work in a positive wat, but I don't know if he himself would accept such a deal. Anclation 18:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
His extensive history of being blocked before his sockpuppetry and running a botnet would indicate otherwise [8]. Temporary blocks didn't make much of an impression on him it seems. FeloniousMonk 18:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

His sockpuppetry alone does not mandate an indefinite block. I actually feel that his persistent edit warring, personal attacks, and hamhanded attempts at mediation have been far more damaging to the community. While it is undeniable that he has made significant contributions to Wikipedia, it is questionable in my mind whether his readmittance to Wikipedia will do more good than harm. If he agrees to stop pursing the "Romanian cause" while on Wikipedia, an unblock contingent on supervised probation would seem reasonable. Absent such an agreement, I feel no strong desire to unblock him. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just like unblocking User:MARMOT this will only server to exert stress on good contributors. I have no idea how many people MARMOT harassed (aka vandalising wikipedia by using their ips) and scared away. MARMOT was able to evade blocks as if they never happened since he could tell wikipedia servers which IP he wanted to pose as. See User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report for the marmot incident report. People will be less hesitant to use sockpuppets and vandal bots if they face serious consequences. Sweet talk of "ex"-malicious users dont warrant my or yout attention. I oppose the unblocking of any user blocked indefinately unless it was an automated block. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why MARMOT's failure to reform should mean that no indefinitely blocked user ever can. [[Sam Korn]] 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte has been notorious for his returning to various sorts of malicious activities every time after his promise to be good next time. He got the idea that this tactics work and he needs finally to be taught a lesson. I see no better lesson than a block for several months, at least, so that he knows that his behavior brings some real consequences rather than the counter having been reset every time he promises to be good next time. The main goal of the punishment in any society is to serve a deterrent from the potential malaise. There is no reason to believe that Bonaparte will reform only because he promised to. Only after he feels the consequences (that is forced to wait a long time) he may loose the desire to resume his trolling. After his unblock, he needs to me vigorously watched and still I think that unblocking him is a bad idea although I see, in view of the prevailing sentiment here, that sooner a later he will be unblocked. --Irpen 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as Bonaprte's advocate here, I have quietly watched the discussion and was impressed with the dialogue. I understand the hesistancy, but formally move that he be unblocked, be carefully watched by multiple users and that a zero tolernace policy be adopted, whereby his indefinite block will be replaced if he reverts to his old behavior. Thank you again for your time and thoughts on this matter.Gator (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I will repeat what I wrote above, and specifically note I am against unblocking at this time. It's not that hard to edit constructively and follow the rules and anyone that has repeatedly shown they are unable to do that and is willing to disrupt wikipedia is a net loss to the project even if they make some good contributions. I don't see the value in wasting so much time having several users babysit a known problem. - Taxman Talk 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Just like Mikkalai, I never received apologies for having been blocked when I tried to fend off Bonny's socks from vandalizing an article, although that block violated both WP:BP and WP:3RR. But when I see the tolerance demonstrated here towards all the trolls and POV pushers who are allowed to roam freely on Wikipedia, awaiting their reform to become good and productive editors, it makes me think about reconsidering my own membership in this Wikipedia. --Ghirla | talk 16:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking this person is absolutely out of question. there was quite a profound amount of his disruption of wikipedia. If he wants to start afresh, he very well register a new account. Reinstating him after all his trolling would mean to endorse his behavior. mikka (t) 00:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC) As for the mentioned "good relations with other wikipedians", I suggest you to read this article VERY carefully (and many other useful pages there). Bonaparte perfected his ass-kissing strategy. As for his supposedly useful contributions, they constitute about 3% of all his edits. mikka (t) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OpenInfo[edit]

Eliezer warned me to explain my alert. He blocked me without reading my explanation on the talk page and never gave me the chance to elaborate the reason for my alert. His excuse for warning me contradicts the realities on the article and talk pages (please compare). Furthermore, Eliezer & OpenInfo both keep deleting my and others' edits to the article that would make it conform to Wiki's npov policy. How am I supposed to resolve this problem when these two men neither allow anyone to edit the article in a good faith effort to remove their anti-Messianic biases nor allow several of us editors to express our concerns via alerts? Eliezer deliberately set me up for failure. He reverts the article and talk pages to appear the way OpenInfo wants and then warns "both" of us - i.e. me. I complied to his warning only to be blocked. Meanwhile, OpenInfo hardly gave me the chance to tag the article and put my explanation on the talk page without constantly disturbing my edits and tags (Look at the timeline to see how fast he was working). I warned him to stop per Wiki's vandalism procedure and he deleted my warnings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't deleting my warnings considered vandalism? Shouldn't Eliezer have taken action against OpenInfo for this?KnessetP.R.Guy 19:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The above user was reported on WP:AIV here. I don't believe it's a case of blatant vandalism, but this user definitely needs might need some action placed against him. The block log suggests that this user was originally indef blocked for making legal threats, but was unblocked after some agreement was reached. I'm going to contact the folks who know more about this and see what they say. --Deathphoenix 20:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the posting by KnessetP.R.Guy on WP:AIV, there has been 3rr violations on that page by both users, and I have placed a warning on the talk page and KnessetP.R.Guy's talk page reminding them of the rules, which was violated again and therefore KnessetP.R.Guy was blocked for 24 hours. Regarding the edits by OpenInfo I do not see them as vandalism. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Its a political dispute - these almost never count as vandalism. Secretlondon 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The origina block by me was due to [9] where he hinted that nobody was anonymous on the internet and the actions of a person on a forum could be corresponded to the same person here and was attacking NathanZook hostily at best and was making a threat at worst thus my block. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The original block was removed, however I would like to point out that the statement quoted as the reason to block was written by NathanZook not OpenInfo see [10] (and NathanZook later wrote on his talk page that he thought that OpenInfo was someone else [11]). --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How to permanently remove a libelous vandalism[edit]

Do we administrators have the power to revert and permanently erase an obviously libelous and vandalism edit, of the "Mrs Soandso commits indecent acts with dead frogs" category? A similar comment about a teacher was inserted into the article about her hometown. It was deleted but remains visible in the page history. Is there a way to delete the two edits even from the page history? I looked through the "how to" guide for adminstrators but did not see an answer. thanks alteripse 02:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete and selectively undelete. Check all the little boxes aside from the revisions that contain the libellous edits. Hermione1980 02:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You'd have to delete the entire page, and then manually check off the versions you'd like to keep. I think it does cause problems, if someone is editing the page while your doing it. Also doesn't it violate the GFDL agreement? I think it's only done in extreme cases where there is personal info posted in the edit sunmmary and the such. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (Edit conflict: In short what she said :-D)

There is someone's real name there with a more serious accusation than the example I gave. alteripse 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There was an insertion of personal information into an article recently that I fixed in this manner. Not wanting to delete any edits except the offending one, I had to click on 522 boxes. There has got to be a better way. I know we don't do this very often, but it is painfully manual work. -Will Beback 04:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
And I suspect we're going to have to do it more often, as outing people seems to be all the rage. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Look in the archives of WP:AN or WP:AN/I, or ask Brian0918- there's a way to automatically check all boxes in Firefox. If I remember, I'll post it here later today. Ral315 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this sort of delete-undelete has to be done at the moment. There should be little or no problem with the GFDL, and in any case much less than for a libel suit. There is a wiki-rumour that an easier method of selectively deleting edits from the history is being developed, but it hasn't arrived yet. Physchim62 (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
As long as no content from the deleted revison is left there shouldn't be any GFDL issue, if there is a simple reversion following the bad content best to delete that too to avoid a confusing page history.
BTW is it actually illegal to make a known libel statement availible or is it just illegal to write one? Plugwash 12:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
In the UK it is illegal to publish (ie, make available, even unknowingly) a libellous statement; I believe that Florida law is somewhat kinder on the publisher. Physchim62 (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If an administrator must selectively delete revisions from an article with a ton of edits (1000+), and no developer is at hand, a faster way than checking all the thousands of boxes is to do a "history unmerge" like this:

  1. Delete all revisions
  2. Selectively undelete the libellous revisions.
  3. Move the libellous revisions to an arbitrary title.
  4. Delete the libellous revisions.
  5. Undelete the article.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Or, put this as a Firefox bookmark:
javascript:for (i=0; i<document.forms.length; i++) { for (j=0; j<document.forms[i].elements.length; j++) { f= document.forms[i].elements[j]; if (f.type == 'checkbox') f.checked= true; } } void 0
And just click the bookmark as needed- it will check all the boxes. Ral315 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

New pages by article space[edit]

Just in case anyone has missed it when it was announced on Village Pump (technical) several months ago, this is a very useful vandalism fighting feature:

  1. Special:Newpages/namespace=User
  2. Special:Newpages/namespace=User_talk
  3. Special:Newpages/namespace=Wikipedia

Et cetera.

We have a vandal tonight creating new pages which not in the main article space, therefore none of them would show up under the usual Special:Newpages. Antandrus (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be really useful if this was selectable with a menu like in Special:Contributions, for consistency. -- Curps 03:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio backlog[edit]

The Copyright Violation Page has backed up with weeks worth of copyvios! Could someone please help eliminate the backlog? Roy Al Blue 02:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Batzarro[edit]

Batzarro (talk · contribs) was blocked for shock-image vandalism (by three separate admins). He claims it was an accident and has repeatedly asked to be unblocked. See his talk page for details. There is an apparent Ashida Kim connection and the vandalism was identical to Ashida-Kim-related vandalism that was committed earlier (and again later) by anonymous IPs to various pages (including Ashida Kim and, disturbingly, Jamie Lynn Spears, who is a minor and most of whose fans are minors). If anyone wants to take a look and review, go ahead. -- Curps 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Batzarro here-I am a fan of Ashida Kim Ninjor 06:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Ninjor permablocked for being a block evading sock. The only thing I've seen from Batzarro so far is spreading hate culture from other accounts, so I'm not inclined to oppose his ban. Radiant_>|< 09:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your help is needed modrators...[edit]

If you can help me out, i'm having a little bit of a problem with someone about an article called RuneScape. Now you probably don't have a clue what Runescape is, but I feel your superior knowledge of Wikipedia is needed to help diffuse this situation.

Basically, the problem is that there are way too many links. Before now, there were about 30 links, and they all got cleaned out, but now about 20 have come back and I had a suggestion. My idea was to only have the top-5 websites which are universally agreed as the best and most-used websites. However, There is one person who is objecting to me, who thinks the idea is wrong. This person i feel may be bias, as he has his own runescape site. A few people are agreeing with me, but he stills feels he is right, and feels he's correct. Could you please have a look and hopefully do something please? J.J.Sagnella 07:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Link:[12]

  • Thank you! The problem has been solved! J.J.Sagnella 18:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Article created as Category[edit]

This maybe isn't the best place to post, but Category:Music Video Codes is an article wrongly created by a new user as a category. It needs moving between namespaces, is this possible? I've listed it at Cats For Renaming too. UkPaolo/talk 20:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Paulo Fontaine (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Paulo Fontaine (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is apparently part of a sock farm. The pattern is, a series of edits which may or may not be accurate, sometimes with minor nonsense slipstreamed, and then some complete bollocks added to a number of articles (e.g. [13]). The real problem is that it's necessary to double-check every single edit to verify it, which is a total waste of time. I blocked for 1 week, others may think it should be longer or shorter, please feel free to adjust as I am new to this game. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 08:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh FFS. This is completely out of hand. All of them have edits interleaved around Barbara Osgood (talk · contribs), and the majority of the good edits are done witht hat account, but someone is clearly taking the piss. I am going to indef block the lot of them, block Osgood for 24h as apparently the main account (although Fontaine could be) and ask for a Checkuser on them all. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Kelly Martin[edit]

Protecting a voting page after an election is over is clearly justified, but can someone explain to me the rationale behind protecting a Talk page? The one that I can find is that there's a discussion that someone wants to stifle, and of course that can't be it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

On a slightly related subject, why has this page just been created? It seems to be a way of getting round the protection of this one. It seems rather disruptive to me, but I don't want to delete because I haven't been following all of this, so I'm not absolutely sure that I'd be doing the right thing. I note it has already been deleted previously, and that this creation is in fact a re-creation. Can someone look into this? AnnH (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Both instances are pretty lame. Someone added a comment about Kelly's new function as a Clerk (see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks), and other people have been removing that comment on grounds that, what, the election is closed and the RFC archived? While I hardly agree with those comments, I do believe we it is very inappropriate to remove anyone's comments from any talk page (given that WP:RPA is already controversial). Also, it's inappropriate to state that since something is in the past, it may no longer be discussed. I've undone both protections and restored the comments people made. People, this is getting out of hand. Kelly's new function allows her to read and summarize comments on arbitration pages, and make remarks to the ArbCom. Well, guess what? So can you. Big friggin' deal. Radiant_>|< 13:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The page Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin/Protected was created by User:Dschor in a clear attempt to 'game the system'. The original RfC was closed and archived by clear consensus. Material was then added to that RfC regarding Arbcom's decision to creat a clerk's office. The material was removed as irrelevant (comments on Arbcom go to Arbcom - not on a continual gripe sheet on one individual user - or are we saying once an RfC is filed it is an eternal place for personal grips and silly vendettas?). Dschor and others edit warred, until the page was protected by someone. He then cut and paste this, in violation of GFDL. There is a long history of his trolling and and incivility, for which he has already been warned by JamesF and others. I have blocked him for 6 hours for disruption. --Doc ask? 13:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is why I protected them, I don't think there should be a receptacle for people to bitch about someone ad infinitum which is exactly what these pages are turning into. The RfC was archived by clear consensus it's over, time to move on, Kelly withdrew from the election long before the election which is now itself over was over, it's over, time to move on. No one is saying they can't discuss this, they shouldn't be discussing it there. Finally, Radiant, as I mentioned on your talk page, you should at least do the courtesy of attempting to contact me before changing admin decisions I've made. Therein lies the foundation of wheel warring. --Wgfinley 13:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No comments on this, except to say that I've removed a couple of inappropriate uses of "bold" by different individuals because I think it gives the impression of shouting and encourages more of the same. Please do restore if you think this was inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is really no such thing as "archiving an RFC", as I pointed out on that RFC talk page. There are RFCs on which discussion has died out, but one cannot state "hey, we must now stop discussing this". Yes, people should move on. No, removing their comments will not magically cause them to move on or drop the issue (in fact, more like the opposite). Radiant_>|< 13:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    There was broad consensus to end that RfC and move on. One more time, no one is saying they can't comment, that's not the appropriate place for it. --Wgfinley 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: Please do not protect the pages in question, and please allow these people to say whatever they want to say on them without interference. Obviously some people feel that they have something important that they have to say, so letting them say it is probably the best thing. Taking away their forums will just cause them to look for increasingly inappropriate places to say them, and reinforce their sense of disenfrachisement, to boot. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Perhaps, but I've always felt that open-ended RfCs are unfair tot he subject. If RfCs are going to do any good, they will do it in the first week so. After that, they are just an open sore. Kelly, I realise you can cope with this, but a less thick-skinned editor could find this intollerable and leave. For the sake of the subject of the RfC, there should come a point where we say 'move on' - and hush those who will not. --Doc ask? 14:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      Exactly what I was thinking Doc, thanks for putting it better than I could. This is what I was talking about regarding "receptacles for bitching about a user". --Wgfinley 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I do agree we need a better RFC procedure (suggestions please?). However, at a certain point when the discussion becomes redundant, most people stop watching an RFC page, and so (in most cases) does its subject. At that point, any remarks by long-term gripers will only be read by other long-term gripers. While that's not particularly helpful, there's hardly a point in forbidding it. Radiant_>|< 14:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
        • There may a point. Not everyone will be able to handle the thought of people posting negative stuff about them on the open internet for all to see, and it going unanswered (particularly if they edit in their own name). I'd suggest that RfCs ought to be closed as a matter of form after 3 weeks or so. If the conduct problem is ongoing, then another can be filed. If not, then the thing will be well stale by then. I think the problem here is not that Kelly's RfC was closed - it is that an exception was made in closing it. If we had an agreed policy of closing after x weeks, then no-one would be arguing. --Doc ask? 14:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
          It makes sense to protect them as soon as they are no longer linked to the main page or "archived" although that doesn't mean much. A reasonable approach to when to remove would be that if either if no comments have been made for three weeks or there is consensus to close. As Doc has said, there wouldn't be a problem if we did that consistantly.
          However, as I never unwatch any RfC I have participated in, I see that comments do trickle in. Not just from hard-core disenfranchised, it's often "normal" but infrequent editors. When the page is protected that should be given a link to some sort of forum. Any suggestions as to where?
          brenneman(t)(c) 14:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with KM's suggestion and reasoning here. This looks like a purely procedural way of curtailing a discussion, and it's not even good procedure, at that. Which isn't to say it's a very useful discussion to have. Alai 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of protecting talk pages like this. As long as nobody is mucking about with the vote, and nobody is engaging in personal attacks, then there's no problem. It is possible to reaise legitimate concerns without doing so. If people are attacking the candidates or making accusations of dishonest behavior then they should be bloody well blocked for a long time, of course, but that doesn't require page protection. A bat about the nose should be enough to bring the miscreants to their senses, I should think. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be wisest for people with gripes with Kelly to actually tell them to her in her face, on her very own talk page! At least there she can fairly respond to them. Kim Bruning 15:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The gripes in question, were not about Kelly, they were about Arbcom's decision. Are we saying any gripes at all can be added to an RfC - for an indef period of time? --Doc ask? 15:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
While the gripes seem rather petty, I don't agree with the idea of protecting a talk page because the election is over - conversations of RFA talk pages sometime continue well after the RFA closes. Guettarda 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This was an exceptionally dirty arbitration campaign. There are those who care not for Wikipedia one bit, would love to use the campaign as a lever to divide Wikipedia. Some people who should have known better have said, or have tolerated, some vile, indefensible things said about some of the candidates. Now is the time to remember that you might be able to get away with the during an election, but the election is over and it's time to stop rubbishing the candidates. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we ignore these last several attempts to make this more personal that it is and concentrate on moving towards a solution: a consistant approach to closing off pages in a manner that doesn't feel like stifling dissent? - brenneman(t)(c) 16:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this as "personalising". I'm just saying we don't need to go around protecting. If some people are rubbishing the candidates then that is the problem to be dealt with. Warn them, warn them again, and if they still don't get the message just block them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Should this even really be thought of as an RfC? I mean, I know that technically it is, but it actually was a vote, not an attempt at conflict resolution, and the voting is long since over. As such, I don't think you should have any qualms about protecting the page. Anyone who has continuing beefs with Kelly is free to use her talk page or file an honest RfC or RfA, but there is nothing that can be added to this particular page that will further any constructive debate on any subject whatsoever. ---Aaron 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


I havn't been following the issue on the vote page, but I have been part of the issue on the RFC. First off, the RFC was closed by its participants and wide community consensus, overidding any proccess already in place. Why? Because they felt that anything further was beating a dead horse, and disrupting the wikipedia. (This is an important, I'll be coming back to it). Later, after the clerk's office was opened, some people decided to use the RFC as a vehical to complain about Kelly Martin and the Arbitration Commitee. This clearly served NO constructive purpose, was and is disruptive, and is irrellivant to the matter at hand. (The RfC was on her conduct in relation to userboxes). It was then later moved after several editors, myself (I got blocked for 3RR on this for the record), Doc and Dalbury consistantly removed the comments because of their irrellivance and disruptive nature. I protected and quickly unprotected the article. Then Dschor moved the talk page, causing utter choas which I tried to fix (creating a bit of a mess along the way).

I have no qualms with people messaging KM on her talk page, filing a new (albiet silly) RfC, or doing any number of other things. But no, people don't have a right to say what they want, where they want, when the want. We have rules, policies, guidelines, all of which are there to protect the project. This was, is, and will continue to be a disruptive action until it is stopped. Protection seemed to be the easiest action at hand. Barring that, I'll go with Tony's suggestion.--Tznkai 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following this closely enough to have picked up on the fact that the arbcom election page was just one venue in a larger attack. And it does sound to me like you're describing a personalized attack. Now I'm not Kelly's mom, either, but I'm not aware of any legitimate issues with her conduct on Wikipedia. This does seem indeed to be a personal attack of unprecedented ferocity upon a Wikipedian in good standing, and shouldn't be tolerated. Like I said, if they keep it up, block them good and hard. We don't want Wikipedia to host that kind of trash, because it's en encyclopedia. If they want a hate group, let them bugger off to Wikipedia Review where they'll find a welcome audience. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I tend to avoid the term "personal attack" because of the baggage and silly rubrics involved. However it does involve a person, vitrol, and disruption, so draw your own conclusions--Tznkai 17:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, if people want to consider this a personal attack, they should note that it would be an attack on the present ArbCom, not on Kelly. Of course, calling it a personal attack or denying existing issues won't make the situation any less controversial. Time to move on, both sides. Radiant_>|< 18:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you followed it around you would see this is a broad case of a couple of people deciding to wage their little war on various pages - the Clerk page (which is where their criticisms belong), Kelly's RfC talk page and Kelly's Arbcom vote talk page. What is taking place is a multi-prongd attack, similar to the "Stalin" userbox that is seeking to rattle sabrres and get people agitated. At it's core it is to cause disruption. Trying to get people to move on is exactly what I was trying to do by protecting that page so that a couple of the prongs, those that had absolutely nothing to do with her RfC or Arbcom candidacy, were shut down. I wasn't trying to curb anyone's right to complain, I was trying to keep it civil and where it belonged. Now, if we're going to throw WP:CIVIL out the window and just let people make their attacks or allegations on whatever page they see fit then, by all means, let's get on with it because that is exactly what doing nothing and allowing them to post anywhere they want is doing. I'm going to take Tony's recommendation although I would have preferred the softer approach which was protecting the page and directing people to the proper avenues for their complaints.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Kelly or what she wants, this has to do with precedent on how we handle stuff like this. Do we do nothing and allow RfCs and elections to go on ad infinitum and allow people to cast large attack campaigns across various pages? I believe this would drive many decent people out of the project should they ever have the misfortune of being the subject of an RfC or running for election. Or do we keep them contained to where they belong thus allowing people their dissent, just not wherever they want it and with a modicum of decorum? --Wgfinley 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • "Large attack campaigns across various pages" are grounds for censure and RFC, and failing that, RFAr on the users who perform them. They are not grounds for protecting talk pages or reverting user debate, in large part on the grounds that that doesn't actually help. Radiant_>|< 08:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, as you might recall, they are grounds for redirecting all to a single page, oh fighter of forestfires. :-) Kim Bruning 11:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well we all know what an RfC would look like--that would be pouring gasoline on the flames. Maybe it's time for an arbitration case on the miscreants in this case, though honestly I think I'd rather treat it as petty disruption. There are legitimate concerns about the arbitration committee elections and subsequent events and these must be talked out, but people who say stuff like "It's a crock of shit and it stinks", "shithouse", "underhand procedure" and the like aren't really voicing reasonable concern, they're rabble-rousing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sprotected[edit]

Philwelch just edited this template to remove the box, without discussion such a change. The template is currently protected, so I am unable to revert this change. More to the point, the template is protected to prevent vandalism and edit warring, not to limit access to administrators.

When confronted with complaints about his action on the Talk page, he responded by calling me obstructionist and an edit warrior, refusing to speak to me on those grounds. Please, could someone revert the template to the form that was agreed upon previously? -- Ec5618 02:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually think the box around it was a good idea, it kept it separate from the article. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 02:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Given the amount of opposition to the change on here and the talk page, I've reverted for now while we discuss the changes and come to a consensus. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Also reading Philwelch's talk page, his responce as a admin to Ec5618's request was quite uncivil. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 02:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this editor admits on the template talk page that he would have "reverted my changes in seconds", I guess protection succeeded in preventing edit warring. Although, as I recall, Template talk:Sprotected is in Category:Permanently protected, which is the same category as the Main Page, so if this editor is right, we need to fix our categorization. As a related issue, I have chosen to disengage from this dispute, but the editor so far refuses to leave me alone about it. This is my last word on the subject, and if another admin wants to revert me I won't interfere. There's enough work to do on this encyclopedia that doesn't have anyone standing in the way. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I recall running into Philwelch on Talk:George W. Bush#Unique sprotection boiler, on which I argued in favour of using the standard template. Philwelsh stated that he disliked using the standard template, because it is too visible, and it was pointed out to him that he should take that up at Template talk:sprotected. The standard template was then decided upon, by the majority. It seems he has now done decided to 'fix' the template, simply because he disagrees with its appearance on the George W. Bush article, and I get the feeling he somehow developed a grudge against me. Note that I don't believe I have ever run into this editor before or since, so I'm not sure what this apparent enmity is based on. I don't agree with the fact that he almost immediately asked me to 'leave him alone', and refused to discuss the matter. And I'm not sure what to make of this whole mess, though I already feel that this user does not deserve the power he wields. -- Ec5618 02:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even recognize you from Talk:George W. Bush. I don't have a grudge against you; I have no opinion of you as a person. I only request that you refrain from contacting me or speculating about my motives and character with regard to this issue. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You nearly bit my head off, immediately calling me names. I'm glad I did nothing to offend you, though I am now even more puzzled by your behaviour. And as for asking me to never contact you, I'll ask you to stop being such an ass. I don't like using such language, but what are you doing? I did nothing to offend you, I merely asked you to abide by consensus, and policy.
Have you considered giving up your Admin rights? You seem to have difficulty relating to others, and to refrain from abusing your power. -- Ec5618 03:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ec5618 so far as to wonder what kind of admin says "Please do not contact me again" rather than deal with the real issue at stake. As I said recently here, admins need more transparency and accountability, not less. Superm401 - Talk 03:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Before this goes any further, might I suggest you two have a nice cup of tea and a sit down? --LV (Dark Mark) 03:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, my last comment was untactful.
As for tea, I have had little contact with this editor, and know nothing about him. I have been asked, without cause, never to contact this editor again, and his talk page suggests such is not an uncommon request for him to make. He has stated that he wants nothing more to do with this issue. I honestly have nothing nice to say about this editor. The first time we met, I observed him making a personal attack, the second time I was the recipient of same. What could I possibly compliment this editor on? -- Ec5618 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. Compliment him on his sense of humour (i.e. his edit at 23:58, 27 January 2006 ) or his nice hair (on his talk page). I'm sure if you actually looked, you could find something. It takes two people to argue, ya know. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Refrain from abusing my power? I made a constructive edit to a permanently protected template. If that's abusive, than so are these edits (hint: that's the page history of the Main Page). Ec5618 didn't like that edit, and got another admin to revert. I disengaged from the issue. Where's the abuse? As for asking him not to contact me, that was taken far out of context. First off, he said, "Had I been able, I would have reverted in seconds". Anyone who's willing to revert a good-faith edit in "seconds" has serious edit warring tendencies—I know, because that's how I used to be. I commented on those sensibilities and disengaged from the discussion (albeit, I admit, in an unnecessarily cryptic and tactless way) and never made a further comment on the talk page. After that, I read his comment on my talk page. Having already decided to leave the dispute, I reply by reiterating my distaste for the issue and request that he not contact me. Once I see that he got the message, I archived the discussion as I do whenever I close a discussion. (You might notice that I archive often, because I like a blank talk page.) Anyway, Ec5618 didn't get the hint, so I archive again.

Long story made short, I was less tactful than I could have been. I acknowledge that, and apologize. I do not feel that I have in any way misused my administrator privileges, nor do I feel that my request was unreasonable. If your idea of getting to know me is telling me you would have revert warred with me given the chance, then don't be surprised that I don't want to be your friend. If you continue to harass me—not only on my talk page but also on a public noticeboard—after I've already disengaged from the dispute, don't be surprised that you find a chilly response. That said, I'm willing to start over and set this behind me if Ec5618 is. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 06:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't just "disengage" here; we are a community. Breaking the lines of communication when you get annoyed is not acceptable. Superm401 - Talk 08:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
What should I have done, reverted the template back and kept arguing with someone who automatically leapt to impugning my motives and suitability for adminship? We'd be a healthier community if people walked away from unimportant disagreements instead of wasting everyone's time continuing disputes that only serve to piss people off. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 08:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there was no dispute when you left. All that had happened at that point was that
  1. you had edited a protected template without discussion, and without even refering to ongoing discussion on the Talk page. Arguably not the wisest thing to do.
  2. you had received feedback from several editors, suggesting they preferred the template be reverted.
  3. I suggested I would have reverted your edit. Understand that all I saw was an overzealous editor, making changes I knew were unpopular, to a protected template.
  4. you refused to yield to community opinion, and left your version standing as you left.
That's not a dispute, and that's not something you should walk away from before undoing what you'd done. It seems you despise simple reversion as much as I despise unilateral,unpopular and undiscussed edits, and in that context your actions were perhaps in good faith, if unpopular. Nevertheless, I'm honestly not comfortable with claiming to set this behind me; I know I will remember this. I am still shocked and appalled by your actions. -- Ec5618 12:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
ps. As for "where's the abuse": You should not have edited the template without discussion in the first place. But you really shouldn't have refused to change the template back when several editors disagreed with your edit. You made use of (abused) your powers as an admin to make changes, while another admin had to clean up after you, when you refused to. You forced me to ask for help in reverting the template, since you had refused to revert to its consensus agreed upon form.
Again, your admin powers do not give you the right to force your views onto a template. -- Ec5618 12:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware we had to ask permission before making edits on Wikipedia. I was also unaware that admins had an obligation to revert war against themselves on permanently protected pages just because regular editors were unable to. Clearly, Wikipedia policies have changed dramatically in the past 48 hours and I should re-read them. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of how things work is impressive. An alternative view is that, if you get reverted (possibly repeatedly) then you should 'ask permission' - you should talk it out. On full-protected pages, admins shouldn't really be making any changes without checking on talk first anyway. -Splashtalk 03:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do read Wikipedia:Protection policy, which reads: "Administrators must be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject. In all cases, administrators should first raise the issue on the relevant talk page." While I hate to point to policy, it seems policy is on my side.
This isn't necessarily about policy though, it's a least as much about decency and responsibility. -- Ec5618 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Admins don't have the ability to edit protected pages so they can edit them without consensus. Admins have the ability to edit protected pages so the pages get editted when there's consensus (and only then). Superm401 - Talk 07:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is reached when a page is edited to a version everyone is willing to accept. When temporary protection is applied, say, in the case of a revert war, then discussion before editing is prudent because that's exactly the issue that protection is intending to force. However, *permanent* protection, as applied to the Main Page and certain frequently-used templates (see Category:Permanently protected is different. Admins make small edits to the main page all the time, and if another admin doesn't like the edit, he changes it until consensus is reached. Essentially, it's the same wiki process, except anyone who's not an admin has to edit by proxy by recruiting an admin.

There was nothing on the talk page that I saw indicating that people were against removing the box, so I decided to be bold and remove it. People complained about it and eventually got an admin to revert me. I don't edit war so I left the issue alone.

Seriously people, there are more important things on Wikipedia to worry about. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 08:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverting oneself once does not constitute an edit war. And, for future reference, I'll quote policy again: "In all cases, administrators should first raise the issue on the relevant talk page." I've clearly shown that policy disagrees with you. How can you still maintain that you had every right tot do what you did? Do you believe it was a nice thing to do?
You now claim to have looked at the Talk page, prior to making your edits. Then you'll have noticed that the design of the box was clearly under discussion. Since any editor could have suggested removing that box, the simple fact that no editor had suggested removing the box, or seriously rewriting the template in the way you had, shows your edit wasn't a 'small edit'. As for expecting all other editors to edit via a human proxy, I can only say that you have perhaps forgotten what it's like to be a simple editor.
Yes, there are more important things on Wikipedia, but please stop ignoring problems in the hopes that they might magically go away. Please also observe civility and abide by consensus. -- Ec5618 11:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:GreekWarrior[edit]

This fellow seems to have a bee in his bonnet about non-Christians, specifically muslims and atheists. I've blocked him for gross hate speech in the past [14] but he keeps doing it. Sample of recent edits:

I think he's gone overboard. Out of his last dozen or so edits I find nothing acceptable. I'm contemplating a one month block. Comments? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some good content edits there, which is the only reason he shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. One month seems like a good way to go.--Sean Black 03:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say if some of his edits are helpful to the encyclopedia (which is what we are building here :-P) a month might be a little excessive. Granted comments like the ones shown have the potential to drive good users out. I'd say 2 weeks would be sufficient in the short term. If that still doesn't set him straight then I was wrong and this should be reviewed for a possible month ban. :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a shame that we don't have any users who can contribute from a Greek and/or Christian point of view without setting this kind of example for behaviour for newbies and scaring away unknown number of contributors. But, well, since we don't, we'd better hold on to this one. Jkelly 04:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
After further contemplation and a deeper review a month is starting to look more and more right...KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

He has already had good long blocks in the past but he's getting worse.

On his "good edits", frankly I got tired of seeing his hateful edits and I didn't see anything both good and recent. Has anyone else had any luck? If so please post a few diff links here so we can see what there is on the good side. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, upon closer inspection, I don't see much of anything good, aside from (maybe) Byzantine medicine.--Sean Black|Talk 04:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have a good trawl through his contributions. I'll explain why. This user has been extremely abusive towards muslims and now he's spreading the net wider and having a go at atheists. Maybe it'll be zoroastrians or rastas next week. On it's own, this kind of abuse to anybody would get him a lifetime ban from any decent web forum, and I think we're sending the wrong message if we say "oh but he did a good edit to the fluffy little bunny wabbits article six weeks ago so we should keep him. We all know it couldn't work like that because we'd have people coming along and doing just that so they get to vomit twelve hours worth of unspeakable bile out on Wikipedia once a month or so when their latest ban ends. And that's what seems to be happening here. If I find a single edit that isn't immediate revert-fodder in the past month, I'll list it here. Then I suggest that we discuss whether we want to retain this gentleman's services any longer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In the past month he has done good edits to, and largely been responsible for:

This is quite good work.

On the other hand he has gone out of his way to display extreme racism and religious bigotry. His list of article edits is extremely sparse and punctuated by vandalism of the most chauvinistic kind [15] [16]. My concern is that, in tolerating his activities for the sake of some content, we would probably alienate many, many good contributors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite ban on GreekWarrior[edit]

So, in view of my further research I've decided that it may be more appropriate to ban this fellow.

Points against a permanent ban:

  • Some good edits about mediterranean culture and history

Points for a permanent ban:

  • Frequent expressions racism and religious bigotry delivered in a manner clearly calculated to offend
  • Vandalism
  • Blanking an AfD
  • Does not respond to blocks by modifying his behavior. Just picks up where he left off. No sign of improvement.
  • When blocked for bigoted attacks, continued to use his talk page for such bigoted statements until this was protected.

Comments? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't examined the evidence myself but if that's the summary...allow me to say, succinct, and yet quietly convincing :) — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Though not an admin, I also agree. Still, he could be blocked for a month this time with a warning that it will be indefinite if he does not stop. He could also be banned from editing certain articles. -- Kjkolb 10:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've thought of banning from certain articles, but then what about his stuff on user talk pages? The reason I'm not giving links, by the way, is that you just have to look at the guy's edit history. Nearly all of his edits are bad and I want people discussing this to actually go take a look. Edit taken at random: [17]. He's really hopelessly bigoted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say I have come across this user before on www.cyprus-forum.com where he posted the same combination of anti-Islamic/anti-Turkish/Greek nationalism which earned him a ban (and this forum is run by Greek Cypriots). His edits were instantly recognisable to me and he acknowledged on his discussion page that he was that same person. I am shocked that some people are willing to dismiss edits such as "Why I enjoy murdering Turks" on the basis of his small number of innofensive edits. If Wikipedia is to remain credible, then people like this boy should be removed at the first instance. --A.Garnet 15:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

He does seem to have some kind of problem - no one can be so anti-social. Maybe he has the wrong idea about Wikipedia. I'd support giving him another chance and a last warning before a ban though. If he has any good faith, this is the test. He has made some useful contributions, that should be taken into account. Latinus 19:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I support an indefinite ban. If in a few years he wants to make the case that he has reformed we can consider it. In the mean time, I see no reason for the rest of us to have to put up with this kind of stuff. Tom Harrison Talk 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite ban is probably not good. I'm going to go with something that may give him a chance to rethink his attitude. This is going to be a long (six months) block and a promise:

Come back in six months time prepared to uphold "No personal attacks", "Civility", and "Neutral point of view" and you'll be accepted, without question, as a Wikipedian. Your personal beliefs are your own affair but while using Wikipedia resources you will treat all men and women at all times as your brothers and sisters. In return your right to edit free from molestation will be upheld.
Meditate on this and, if you have a change of heart meanwhile, email an administrator, citing these words and the preceding paragraph, and referring to WP:AN of January 28, and if you accept the terms of Wikipedia then you will be unblocked and welcomed. It is not you that we spurn, but your damaging behavior which has harmed Wikipedia.
This is not a punishment. We would do the same if someone acted towards you as you have acted towards other Wikipedians. We must take into account the need of us all to work together..

How about that? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd support it - less grave ethnic and religious slurs have earned users six month bans before (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark). As long as he's given the opportunity to have the ban ended early in case he decides to change his approach, then I see no unfairness. Latinus 22:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Going with this. I'm not seeing any serious dissent to a long block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

19:09, 29 January 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:85.108.6.87" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bloked GreekWarrior repeating "why I enjoy murdering Turks" attack)

Oh well.

I'm unsure about this because the IP seems to be TurkTelekom, and I thought GreekWarrior was in the UK. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy? Latinus 19:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Kmac1036[edit]

I have blocked this user indefinitely because, in one month, he has no article edits and openly proclaims that he created the account "to stand up to the establishment". As is my custom I submit the block to review for possible alteration or removal. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

An email exchange. Kmac1036's words in full followed by my response:

Quoting Kmac1036 (email address suppressed: -Tony):

  • What is this all about? THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT NOT EDITING ARTICLES IN THE BLOCKING POLICY. What did I do that was so disruptive? Encourage discussion? This is an insult for some unknown reason. Do you have a specific problem or posting? You don't like my website or link? Other Wikipedians have posted far worse than I have and are STILL HERE! I please ask for a detailed reason!
    • In the month you've been editing under that name, you have not contributed to the encyclopedia by editing articles. Nor have you discussed any articles on the talk pages. You openly proclaim that your purpose in creating the account was "to challenge the establishment". Well the establishment welcomes people who want to create an encyclopedia. You evidently do not. This is not a chat forum, it's a working encyclopedia and if you're not interested in helping us to produce one then we don't want you.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You absolutely did the right thing.--Sean Black|Talk 21:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, its a good block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I should have checked here first. Glad to see you put it up for review, Tony. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly against this block. As the user points out, there is nothing in the BP about inactive accounts. While the 1st amendment doesn't apply to Wikipedia, blocking someone for "challenging the establishment" (dissent), reeks of censorship. I've unblocked, but if another admin re-blocks, I won't wheel war. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This can certainly meet the disruption point in the blocking policy, so saying it's not allowed by the blocking policy is incorrect. If he continues to disrupt he should be blocked again. He's been politely asked to stop disrupting and has chosen not too. And why is this so hard to understand that undoing admin actions in the first place is the problem and what starts wheel wars? The block was being discussed, so enter into the discussion instead of undoing the admin's action. Such a simple and obvious way to avoid wheel wars. But now you've unblocked, so you too carry the burden of watching the users actions. - Taxman Talk 15:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll carry on watching him. If he continues as he has done I'll block again. We don't carry passengers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a thought from someone who's not an admin: Kmac is kind of a willful clueless newbie. I'm not sure how to handle people like that, which is why I'm not an admin, but I suspect that someone who wasn't involved in the Wehatetech fiasco talk to him in private in hopes that he might turn out to be a useful contributor. I don't know if he can be convinced that TINC (he certainly didn't want to hear it from me or Zoe but maybe a disinterested party might be able to get through to him? Haikupoet 05:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
(I copied the two comments by Greg Asche and Haikupoet from WP:AN/I in the interests of keeping the discussion in one place.) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Political Hatchetjob[edit]

It appears to me that the page John_R._Leopold is a hatchetjob on that candidate. I am not familiar with the political issues, but the style suggests a nasty POV. Maybe you want to list this for deletion - I can't find a way to put a tag "delete as political" or "character assassination" Carrionluggage 05:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. I'm deleting this for now and I'll raise your concerns on Wikien-l as a matter of urgency. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Everything except the last paragraph seemed like a good article. Can we undelete and remove the last paragraph? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Seems sensible. I think the last para is a later addition so perhaps a selective undelet will work.
Thanks for commenting; I was worried about this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Šokci[edit]

I can't understand whats going on here, and have zero knowledge of the subject, but I think one or both sides are edit warring. Someone want to handle this, or should I just block them all and be done with it?--Tznkai 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a nationalist thing. Some Croatians think that Croatian is a separate language from Serbo-Croatian, while some Serbs think that Serbo-Croatian and Serbian are identical (I said "most" on the talkpage, but I haven't asked them all ;-)). Outsiders tend to consider them the same language but each view is a POV. The war is over whether to describe the people in Serbian and Croatian or in Serbo-Croatian only. I suggested putting all three, which would surely resolve the conflict. No one would be happy but at least each would be equally unhappy. I think that if you block one, you're going to have to block all, and it won't resolve the problem. Whether the problem can be resolved is a whole different issue!James James 01:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:-Inanna-, User:85.96.134.129, and User:Khoikhoi[edit]

I've blocked these three for 3RR violation on Albanians. If you look at the contributions for 85.96.134.129, you'll see that it edits the same pages as -Inanna-, and even edited her user page twice, proving its her. Khoikhoi says that he only reverted twice that day, but he shows up as editing 4 times today to me.--Shanel 02:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 unblocked Khoikhoi on the condition that he not revert Albanians for 24 hours and discuss the issue on the talk page.
81.213.100.174 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) might also be a sock of -Inanna-, and TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is also involved in this. Moe Epsilon has reverted their edits to that article.--Shanel 03:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
81.213.100.174 is definitely a sockpuppet of Inanna. I know this because I once said, "hasta la vista baby" to Inanna, and then I get this comment. Also, this anon uses the word "resource" a lot, just like Inanna.
TuzsuzDeliBekir is not involved, however. --Khoikhoi 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, another sock of Inanna is User:Altau. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

However, TuzsuzDeliBekir was blocked for violating the 3RR for 24 hours, and has recently being evading his block at 139.223.14.40 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) --Khoikhoi 18:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

<s>User:84.146.255.126</s>[edit]

Anonmoyzing proxy, probably anonymouse or some other german no-ip system--205.188.116.200 03:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • as I recall, wiki has a "block on sight" policy for open-proxies, so block away--205.188.116.200 03:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, jumped the gun, shows up under RIPE, nevermind then, not an open proxy--205.188.116.200 03:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not getting anything on a portscan. If it's a proxy, it's not a very open one. --Carnildo 04:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Trouble staying logged in[edit]

Got that bug again. Yes, the one that says you're a sockpuppet. I thought it was squashed long ago. What is going on ? Martial Law 09:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I sign as Martial Law, I get this mess:123.890.456.80. Others are getting it as well. Martial Law 09:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Found others are experiencing this as well. Martial Law 09:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Never heard of it. Why is the section title CAPITALIZED, though. I seem to be asking that a lot today (no intention to stop). El_C 10:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
See WP:BUG and bugzilla:1396:
"I may have a workaround for this user. I was unable to keep logged in for more than a few seconds today using Firefox 1.0.4. I noticed that my enWikiUserID and enWikiUserName cookies were both set to expire right away, as soon as I logged in. My enwiki_session cookie was set to expire when the browser is closed, as you'd expect.
"I removed the 3 cookies mentioned above, logged in again, and it seems to be working fine now. I had not noticed these problems using IE, only using Firefox.
"Perhaps this user could try deleting the three en.wikipedia.org cookies and logging in again?"
How this helps. -- Ec5618 16:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the assisstance. The danger concerning this bug is that someone else can accuse someone else of being a sock of yet someone else. That sort of thing can happen, and may have happened. Martial Law 20:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
User:El C,those are cool pixes of the modern art, you and the cat. I had one that used to lick my face as it was purring. Martial Law 20:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Again![edit]

I am being blocked again. Sometimes I am able to do editing but this message keeps showing up: Your IP address is 165.21.154.117. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Wgfinley.

The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Huaiwei". The reason given for Huaiwei's block is: "Continued edit warring after multiple bans".

My IP address changes frequently. Despite this problem, I can still do some editing but when this message appears, all my editing work is lost. Can a kind administrator solve this problem for me soon? --Siva1979Talk to me 09:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an autoblock. Unblocked. Notice that with some browsers you can recover your work simply by using the back button when you see the error message. --cesarb 13:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Notably Mozilla Firefox. I don't think IE does it. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image galleries[edit]

I've heard it said some times that creating an image gallery (i.e. a page containing a lot of images on a certain subject, and little else) is a violation of our "fair use" policy. Could someone please confirm or deny this? There are many users that have created image galleries in their userspace, and several of those are now on WP:MFD (of course, some of those galleries are about nudity, thus resparking the old argument "that's immoral" vs. "not censored", but that's beside the point as I'm talking about copyrihgt issues). Radiant_>|< 12:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Fair Use images cannot be used in userspace, period. --Doc ask? 15:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Image galleries per se aren't a breach of copyright, but those of fair use images probably are. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh just delete separate pages in userspace with fair use images. It's just a way of keeping the wiki free from unlicensed images and one step ahead.of the copyright lawyers. If the user has his gallery mixed in with other text on his userpage, explain the legal position and ask him to comply with the copyright policy or go find a webhost that will let him play around with other people's material like this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion gordian knot[edit]

We've been discussing the merits and suggesting changes to AFD for at least half a year now. So it's about time we stop talking and actually do something. The simplest variant to AFD would be to list all proposed deletions, and delete all that nobody objects to within several days. Since about 80% of AFD are obvious keeps or obvious deletes, we can accomplish the same with far less bureaucracy and negativity. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion does just that, and is intended to go for a test run very soon. Please join the discussion there. Note that this should solve the issues regarding deletion recently raised by Jimbo on the mailing list. Radiant_>|< 17:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like this. With the current system, I can skim the day's AfD page, and if it seems like there is a strong consensus, I don't have to vote at all. With your proposed system, someone checking AfD would need to read ever