Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive12

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents: March 16, 2005 - March 23, 2005

Block for vandalism[edit]

I'm not sure whether to put this here or at wp:vip but I've opted for here as its not strictly in progress. (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been vandalising various pages, their talk page is full of requests to stop, including two warnings today that they will be blocked if they continue. Their most recent edit was to fill the suffix article with rubbish about ninjas and "property of ultimate!!" [1] after the most recent warning on their talk page. Please could an admin carry out the block. Their pattern seems to be to edit a spree every 2-3 days so 24hours may not be as effective as 3/4 days. Thryduulf 22:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done - blocked them for a week. Noel (talk) 22:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I did as well. Well, he's definitely blocked, then. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Help, please, at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh[edit]

A User:Rovoam, apparently as a result of a content dispute (which I think has boiled over into arbitration) is replacing the entire contents fo the talk page with his preferred version of the article. Needless to say, this is both a misuse of the talk page and hopelessly confusing (i.e., you think you're going to a talk page....but it looks just like an article). I have a self-imposed one-revert rule that I try not to violate even in a case like this, which I see as borderline vandalism. I also, as a mediator, have tried to help both users in this dispute, and don't want to appear biased. Will someone give this a look and take whatever action is appropriate? Don't go vigilante if you can help it--I haven't yet posted a warning to Rovoam's talk page, and I imagine a warning should be posted before anything more drastic than a revert. Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems like fairly clear-cut vandalism to me, so I've reverted the page and given him a polite warning not to continue. — Dan | Talk 23:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Dan, I've given a warning also. I appreciate the second opinion. Jwrosenzweig 23:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For belligerence, vandalism of various other unrelated pages (including user and talk pages), and writing "I will destroy you" on my talk page, I've blocked this person and (talk · contribs) (apparently his IP address) for a week. — Dan | Talk 00:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just to update anyone interested, Rovoam has returned multiple times over the last hour or so -- Dan and I have been blocking and reverting at a slow and steady pace. At this point, there are a few range blocks that Dan has applied (I'm not savvy enough to apply them, and therefore I avoided doing so) after it was clear that Rovoam could pull a new IP number at relatively high speed. A calm appears to be settling in now, but I'd anticipate another firestorm tomorrow at this time when the range blocks expire. Jwrosenzweig 00:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rovoam's real account should be blocked indefinitely. He's descended into belligerent vandalism, using Netzero dialups and open proxies to vandalize articles, talk pages and user pages. This should go into the arbitration evidence for good measure. I think the range blocks may be too long however. 24 hours is too long to block huge chunks of NetZero's IP space. Rhobite 01:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Please consider that Rovoam is a party in an ongoing arbcom case and should be permitted to provide evidence in his defense, so try not to block him totally if avoidable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This morning I removed the Rovoam block for now and reset the longest of the two blocks on 66.whatever ranges to expire about the same time as the other one--around 1300 GMT. See User:Tony Sidaway/Admin log. I think we should adopt a firefighting posture with respect to Rovoam; arbcom will deal with him in due course and I don't think we should pre-empt that unless he starts to pose more than a very minor threat to a localized part of the Wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I personally vow never to get into protection or blocking wars, so I won't fight you on this Tony, but I don't think that someone before the ArbCom has the right to spam Wikipedia with his version of an article as a result. As I recall, he was vandalizing your userpage, and the pages of others, as well as multiple talk pages and articles. That's not acceptable, regardless of how "localized" the articles may be, and it's not "minor" in my book. I agree that Rovoam has the right to a defense, but at some point the line must be drawn. But since it was your userpage and not mine being targeted, I'll assume you know more about this situation than I do. Jwrosenzweig 23:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I also would never get into a sysop war. I released the one week block but would not again unblock that user in the current situation. My attitude to this kind of vandalism is that it's not likely to escalate, and frankly I can live with a user page covered in maps of Nagorno-Karabakh for a few days if that makes Rovoam feel more comfortable. Rovoam's actions now are a reaction, obviously an overreaction, to my protecting of "The Wrong Version" on at least two occasions and an earlier instance in which I removed from WP:AN/3RR a good faith 3RR report he had made because the span of the timestamps was well outside 24 hours. The fact that I show up a couple of weeks later basically writing Tabib's evidence for him has made Rovoam understandably upset. There are two sides to every story. Rovoam's behavior has not been pristine, but I could probably have been a little more tactful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

It appears someone has found a bug in our software. They put in # redirect [[]] and this redirects to Goatse WITHOUT the redirect flag appearing. See Main Page/Main page for an example. - 01:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a known problem; see bug #850 and bug 999. silsor 01:56, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive11#New vandal MO. Noel (talk) 02:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wyss (talk · contribs):

Reported by:  BRIAN0918  01:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • At least four current editors on the talk page support other versions, in substance, two not commenting, and Wyss reverts the edits, claiming that his version is the "consensus, NPoV". -- BRIAN0918  01:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A warning would be much, much better than a block in this case. Wyss is a good editor with an excellent knowledge of history. To drive him off by rudeness would be a tragedy. -Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I can only find 3 striaght revets. You could argue for a complex revert but since there does not appear to be an attempt to game the 3RR I don't really accept that argumentGeni 13:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Everyking reverted [2], claiming the link which I had just added was "irrelevant" (the article talks about her Orange Bowl performance and the booing, so how is a video clip of her performance and the booing irrelevant???). I think this is in violation of the arbitration ruling against him. -- BRIAN0918  01:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The final arbcom ruling did not cover partial revets. Guess what catogry this falls intoGeni 13:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copy-paste move[edit]

User: performed a copy-paste move from Walter H. G. Lewin to Walter Lewin so the history of the page was not retained. Is it possible to have this fixed? Thanks! --Umofomia 08:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. In case anyone wants to know why there isn't a restore in the delete log, I figured I'd just revert to the last version with content in the old history since it was identical. - RedWordSmith 08:47, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate it. --Umofomia 09:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


This User seems to be planning on using Wikipedia for his own purposes. See his User page, with the red links there. An anon who also edits his User page has tried creating a couple of articles, First Session and First Week, which had no content and have been speedy deleted. I've asked him what he's planning on doing with his page, but he hasn't responded to me yet. RickK 08:55, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:[edit] (talk · contributions)

This user is creating a huge list of tiny articles about just about every tax code law every written. Do we really want articles on every law on the books? RickK 09:14, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Edit wars looming[edit]

I would like to inform my fellow admins that I am on the brink of getting involved in edit wars on Gene Ray and Time Cube. See also talk pages of these articles. Although I am disgusted with myself to touch articles about this kind of, ehm, knowledge at all, I am even more disgusted with the behavior of my opponent who has tried for more than a year to inject his outrageous ideas into these articles. Kindly file an arbitration case against me, block me indefinitely, accuse me of an incurable bias towards clarity and scientific thinking, or do whatever seems appropriate. Thanks. Kosebamse 11:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if an edit war breaks out, I would probably apply protection to the pages (I'm big on this now, because of all the hassles you get with 3RR blocking - "yes it was a complex revert, no it was an edit", etc, etc.). If an edit war starts (seems to be merely simmering at the moment), do let us know. Noel (talk) 14:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New page move vandal - Nutz[edit]

Nutz (talk · contribs) has moved loads of pages - gonna start work on sorting them out now. violet/riga (t) 12:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Am a little distracted at the moment and could do with some help. violet/riga (t) 12:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All done now. The user had posted on VFD a while back and so was exempt from the 1% rule. violet/riga (t) 13:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm. I expect our 1% breakwater against page-move-vandals (do I smell a TLA in the making?) won't hold too long. I hope the developers are working on something better (IIRC from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Min edit count, the consensus was to start with page-move logging and rollback, and if that's not enough, we'll discuss a page-move rate-limit for newer users). Noel (talk) 14:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone[edit]

I would like to know if a moderator could block User:Trey Stone for vandalism, personal attacks, and aggressive reverts. I understand that these behaviors are strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. His editing practices are very abusive and aggressive, making me feel uncomfortable about editing here. The following are from the past couple of days alone. I did not look into his editing history covering the period before he started personally attacking me. WebLuis 14:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Creating inappropriate redirects (vandalism?)

Just for public notice, I blocked him for 24 hours for personal attacks, defacing user pages, 3RR, and possibly vandalism. – ClockworkSoul 15:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone has been evading his 24 hour block by using a "sockpuppet" called User:De-Chomskidize. Apparently this is nothing new. Upon going through his user contributions history earlier today, I found out that he has a long history of doing this. (A similar account was User:Chomskoid.) I don't see how it will be possible to reach a compromise with this editor if he can use sockpuppets every time he gets himself blocked and then continue to revert. If blocks do not moderate his behavior, what's the best alternative mechanism for dealing with editors like this? WebLuis 02:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:De-Chomskidize is still editing Talk:Roberto D'Aubuisson. I agree with WebLuis he is definitely Trey (from style and his history). --SqueakBox 04:32, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

After I'd made the section report, Trey Stone continued making unexplained reversions with a "sockpuppet" while blocked and personal attacks, now on the talk page. If he is not going to honor his block and the norms of civility on this website, he will be able to start turning all these articles into his personal property. WebLuis 05:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please stop feigning righteousness, especially on a website for god's sake. And if this user was blocked for revert warring, you should be too. (The Negotiator 05:30, 20 Mar 2005)

(Comments above made by User:The Negotiator) This user is the second sockpuppet of Trey Stone created in the past day. These sockpuppets enable this user to get out of adhering to the three revert rule. WebLuis 05:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's now a third sockpuppet, User:Delita Hyral, which is being used to violate the 3RR on Henry Kissinger. RadicalSubversiv E 10:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He's violating a number of out policies not to be disruptive, but out of single-minded righteousness. Perhaps we should simply block User:De-Chomskidize, User:The Negotiator, User:Chomskoid, and re-block User:Trey Stone? What's the policy regarding this? Should we push this up to Arbitration? – ClockworkSoul 15:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If "single-minded righteousness" is needed to remove the flagrant and unapologetic povulation from some of these articles, then so be it. J. Parker Stone 20:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind - I see it's already posted to them. – ClockworkSoul 15:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, this explains a lot; I've been having problems with User:De-Chomskidize, and now it becomes clear why. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked the "The Negotiator" sock indefinitely for vandalism, removing some talk page edits by User:WebLuis about Trey Stone and De-Chomskidize. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
AndyL's two week block of Trey Stone didn't take, so I've repeated it specifying 14 days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fake page vandalism[edit]


About a month ago, there was apparently a rash of fake page creation by some people at Cambridge. It was organized at [6]. We've now deleted most of the problem articles, but there's become a bit of a wrinkle. One of the vandals, User:David 5000, has a shared account, User:David 5000 vs. Dmn. User:Dmn admits to this account's existence on his userpage, and furthermore unblocked David 5000.

For added fun, another user in the vandal group, User:Plasmic Squonka! made edits to Daniel Nazarian. Investigation showed Daniel Nazarian to in fact be a Cambridge student (Along with the rest of this group). Also, to not be a German aristocrat, as far as anyone can tell. Troublingly, the article asserts that he is usually known as DM Nazarian. This is close enough to Dmn to raise eyebrows, if nothing else. That Dmn also unblocked his friend with whom he shares an account over vandalism there is non-trivial reason to think he was at least peripherally involved in is troublesome enough that I wanted to post it here to get some opinions on it. Snowspinner 16:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

It looks as though the article Daniel Nazarian had been deleted last year through VFD: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Daniel Nazarian. I'm not sure whether it was undeleted, recreated or simply was never properly deleted the first time around. olderwiser 16:29, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
There was a VfD in the history, though I didn't look at how it turned out. I nuked it as fake, and then thought better of it when I got confused and decided to just ask for help. So right now it's there, but it's a probable delete, I think. Snowspinner 16:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
For the record, half these users don't appear have any connection to the University of Cambridge at all. Dmn / Դմն 17:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was going to mention that - as far as I know, the only users from Cambridge are me and cjc83. David 5000 17:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I asked Dmn if he was Daniel M Nazarian on his talk page, and he replaced my usage of that name with "*********", so it's safe to assume he is in fact Daniel M Nazarian, and from the tone of his reply to me, it sounds like that article (Daniel Nazarian) of the same name was created by his friends to make fun of him. Suggest deleting as fake. Users involved in this game are:

It is possible that there are several other fake articles, and other users who have not been listed here. This should be investigated thoroughly. -- BRIAN0918  16:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It appears "DJ Hedley" created a page called Androcult and one other article, as yet unidentified: [7]Dmn / Դմն 17:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Article was Derek Wood. Hedley 23:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another game[edit]

There was also another vandalism game on that same forum, at [8]. This involved:

Further clarification[edit]

I finally figured out what happened at Daniel Nazarian (yes, I'm slow). The article was fake, was put up for VFD and consensus was to Delete, but it was never deleted. Then, User:Plasmic Squonka came along, found an article named after his friend User:Dmn, and added fake content to it. So, fake content added to a fake article. I've deleted it. -- BRIAN0918  17:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can I say that it might have been a good idea to inform me of this page on my talk page, or better still before creating it, attempt to communicate with me further. The unblocking of User:David 5000 was completely justified. I am his friend - the fact that I advertise our friendship and joint contributions on my userpage. Being his friend, he MSNed me about being blocked. I also received a message asking to comment on the RfC. I very rarely use my admin powers, so after reading the blocking policy thouroughly, I could find no reason whatsoever for blocking User:David 5000 (I am interested as to why Snowspinner felt this was neccessary before the user had even defeneded himself on RfC). I unblocked the user and urged him to defend himself on RfC (now that he could actually comment). I gave 3 reasons for unlocking him which are visible in the block log. I blanked my name on my talk page because I have a right to do see. I didn't do this secretly - I commented underneath that I had done this. The Daniel Nazarian article is what it is - a joke created by someone who knows me well (sadly I am no actor of merit). I will have a conversation about this in an hour or so in the dining hall. Dmn / Դմն 17:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What on earth do you mean, "find no reason whatsoever for blocking". This was a clear 'bad faith' addition of untrue material (i.e. the person knew it to be false), which corresponds exactly to the definition given in Wikipedia:Vandalism (excerpt here):
  • Silly vandalism - Users will sometimes create joke articles ...
  • Sneaky vandalism - Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation ...
And we're not dealing with a 14-year old here, but with someone who should have known better. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism explicitly says that people comitting vandalism may be blocked for "a maximum of one month" (although the top end of that period is reserved for persistent vandals).
Not that I think a continued block is needed in this case, the person seems to have gotten the message that their behaviour is completely unacceptable. But to say that the blocking was groundless is, well, groundless. Noel (talk) 19:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To be clear, I did do an indefinite block. My reasoning was this - it appeared that we had a combined attempt to vandalize, coordinated off-site, and that was going to require extensive fact checking. The first thing that seemed sensible to do is to make sure this doesn't continue, then to go back and look at it. In the course of looking at the situation, new information came up. Dmn had already unblocked by then, but I would have as well. But I think for the situation at the time, the block was a necessary preventative measure while a frankly complex situation got looked at. Snowspinner 19:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
This is fair enough for me. When I blocked David, i was going on his rather unhelpful reply to Brian and the vandalism. His explanations via e-mail and yours here are good enough for me - I will certainly not reblock. Snowspinner 17:27, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. I apologise again and can assure everyone that this will not occur again. David 5000 17:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Arb Comm should require User:Dmn to submit to another Request for Adminstratorship to determine whether he still has the confidence of the community to be an administrator. I would oppose it: unblocking your friends who are committing vandalism on the Wikipedia, college prank or not, is completely unacceptable in an administrator. He does not even seem the least contrite upon being caught. --BM 11:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Mikejm and User:Gadfium[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Mordechai Vanunu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Reported by: gadfium 23:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Mikejm and a couple of anon accounts, who may be the same user (one has a very similar editing history) have been constantly adding "alleged" to Israel's nuclear weapons, and making similar "weasel words" changes. The clear consensus on talk seems to be that such words are not needed. Mikejm just added his changes for the fourth time in 24 hours, and I just reverted for the 4th time (I forgot to check that it was more than 24 hours since my 3rd previous revert), so feel free to block us both.

See Mikejm's comments about me on the talk:Mordechai Vanunu page, and my comments to him on his talk page at [12], since he's removed them from the page.

I'd really like some uninvolved admin to step in and help sort something out in this article.-gadfium 23:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal You have provided no justification for your reverts nor contributed anything to the article other than to revert my edits. Your allegations of multiple accounts are false. You're trying to pin me on a technicality and now you violated the rule yourself.

See you tomorrow.

--Mikejm 02:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gadfium, Mike, I'm delighted to see you both making the effort to communicate here, but I fear that you're both involved in a rather sterile revert war. I would love to oblige by blocking you both for eighteen hours as of now (around 3am GMT) so that you can both try to work out alternative strategies, and perhaps reach an agreement on what belongs in the article and what does not. Please understand that I want to do this because I think you both sound like the kind of people who would use the period of the block wisely.

However (and I'm sorry to say, this is a bit of a killer) I cannot find any evidence that either of you has reverted more than three times in twenty-four hours.

Sorry, but in the circumstances I can't oblige.

I'm stil shocked by the amount of revert warring you're both engaging in, but I am sorry, I cannot do anything about it in the way of blocking either of you unless you provide the requisite evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs):

Reported by: 05:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


blocked for 24 hoursGeni 09:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've also protected the page. I'm sure the anonymous contributor can find another IP to use to discuss this on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on multiple template pages. He has recently returned, and his only edits have been to revert these templates with no end in sight. This is the second time he has violated 3RR on these pages, and this time he's done it on quite a few. He has shown no signs of stopping.

Itai (talk · contribs):

He has reverted all these in succession. Approximate times within the 24 hours span are on March 19 at 16:24 & 21:20 and on March 20 at 06:17 & 06:40.

Reported by: Netoholic @ 07:05, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)


  • Admins please note. I have not violated 3RR on any of these pages, though I have reverted a lot. They currently remain as his last version, and I request rollback be performed as well as a long block. I also ask that anyone who can co-sign an RFC contact me. I am unable because it requires two signatures, though the case is obvious. This user makes no productive edits, just reverts of these specific templates, and has shown no sign of stopping, even after a previous block. Please send a message. -- Netoholic @ 07:05, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
blocked for 24 hoursGeni 10:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Anthony DiPierro[edit]

User:Anthony DiPierro is deleting his comments from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 16. Is this sort of thing kosher? I thought archives were supposed to be preserved, not edited. --Calton | Talk 14:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He's also tagging everything as a minor change, and leaving no edit summary. I furthermore see that he's going all over, and removing his posts from many different talk pages. What gives? Noel (talk) 15:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The minor changes are a quirk of how he licenses - his minor changes are public domain, and so he uses minor change differently from most people. As for the rest, in this case, I'm inclined to give it a pass, because there's an arbcom ruling that's one vote away from passing that would remove his ability to edit any plages in the Wikipedia namespace, and it's currently unclear whether this limits talk pages. To this end, he's trying to remove opinions and votes that he can no longer meaningfully change his mind on. That said, I'd prefer he strike out instead of remove. Snowspinner 16:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. If he wants to strike out his votes, that's fine. But he's doing a lot more than that, he's removing entire comments from the record, e.g. this deletion. He's also removing timestamps from some comments, but leaving the comments - why, I can't imagine, unless he wants to make it harder to find where he added the comment in the history. Noel (talk) 16:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It gets better. He's now claiming that the Wikipedia's GFDL is invalid. (Hmm, someone better let the Wikimedia board in on this - they're comitting a massive copyright violation, if so.) Noel (talk) 16:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I never said the GFDL is invalid. What I said was that the GFDL is not being followed. I believe the board is already aware of this. anthony 警告 17:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Any and all edits you do are licenced under the GFDL, and there's a big bolded message notifying you of this in each edit screen. Once you've submitting, you can't delete things, whether they are votes or article edits. I think we should take a good look at this. Mgm|(talk) 16:53, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any rule against refactoring or deleting comments which you have made. Perhaps you should start an RfC to see if there is consensus for such a rule. anthony 警告 17:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He can delete them all he wants, but since his edits are covered by the GFDL (or possibly public domain), anybody can revert them. --Carnildo 21:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not wanting to get involved and not knowing the backstory but this all seems a bit daft to me. violet/riga (t) 17:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There has been a longstanding policy of maintaining history. We don't delete failed RFC's, for example. Not only is the removal of Anthony's comments making the replies of others nonsensical, but he's deleting his votes in polls, which will make future lookups of these historical articles meaningless, and people in the future will wonder how the votes were decided, if voters are allowed to remove their votes. RickK 23:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Longstanding policy? Isn't Wikipedia:Refactoring longstanding policy? anthony 警告 23:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Second sentence of Wikipedia:Refactoring: "The aim of refactoring Wikipedia talk pages is to make past discussions more accessible, readable and useful." Deleting your comments and votes accomplishes none of this. --Carnildo 00:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to get involved here, but jeez just clam down yo! Singjo Panraabi 00:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Um, what? Who are you telling to "clam down"? RickK 00:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, he meant clamming around. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Snort. RickK 07:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, dear. That was just awful. – ClockworkSoul 14:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neither the Universe nor the Clams do revolve around $ANYBODY. With each edit you make, ask yourself, is it in any way helpful for Wikipedia. If it isn't, don't bother making it. In my view, going around and changing archived votes clearly isn't helpful. dab () 15:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about ???' Singjo Panraabi 01:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think what he's trying to get at that you try and calm down. I find your comments extremely cultrally insensitive. I thought wikipedia was a family.. not a group of hate crimes. Ask your self rick, where is the love? Singjo is a person to! Wikiphreak 01:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTV)
Uh, what? I;m thoroughly confused. RickK 05:45, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

User: aka User: aka User:[edit]

Three revert rule violation on L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

As (talk · contribs):

As (talk · contribs):

Reported by: FOo 02:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • This appears to be a single anonymous user coming back from multiple IP addresses -- all three of the above IP addresses have nothing but edits to this article and its talk page. User is making very odd interpretations of NPOV in the talk page. --FOo 02:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Seems to have already been dealt with above, no? Noel (talk) 12:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Javascript-assisted vandalism[edit]

Take a look at User:Deletion log/monobook.js and tell me that we do have a way to forbid such semi-automated vandalism! The guy created some 30 nonsense articles within minutes before I blocked him indefinitely. Lupo 16:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a new trend among vandals, I also deleted a js file from a page move vandal
(from Deletion log)

  • 14:16, Mar 21, 2005 MacGyverMagic deleted User:Zwobot/monobook.js (made with intent to vandalize; content was: 'window.onload = vandalizefunction vandalize() {document.forms[0].wpNewTitle.value = document.forms[0].wpNewTitle.value + ' has a big willy';docume...')

-- Mgm|(talk) 20:55, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg[edit]

people, I'm this far from starting a deletion war over it. please weigh in and keep me from doing something stupid. No matter how desperately Autofellatio needs "encyclopedic" illustration, this image is beginning to hold WP hostage: categorize it under similar instances where our open policies makes us indulgent to the point of utter stupidity. New users are greeted by porn on their talk pages. Schools will shun away from using WP. In some countries, people could even get into legal trouble over this image (yes, this is bordering on real-life harassment). It's serious, ok? This has got to stop. On the technical side, it would be useful to have a software feature that doesn't monitor a particular page, but the addition of a link to a particular page, to any page, so that we could react more quickly to linking to problematic images (I know it's not the only problematic image we have, but it's the worst case by a long long long way). Should I appeal to Jimbo or the board to finally rid us of this scourge? Am I getting worked up over a trifle? dab () 16:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I do see your point: the very fact that the trolls find this image so attractive suggests that the presence of the image itself may have more "con" aspects than it does "pro" aspects. The informational value of the image is questionable at best (one short sentence can describe what it illustrates), and I know at least one newcomer who was greeted by that image on their talk page and decided never to return because of it. Yes, I understand that this image has survived at least two recent votes for deletion, but I think we should put some real thought into considering the practical over the principle. – ClockworkSoul 16:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • (via edit conflict) I rather suspect the double-redirections to this image have been made precisely to get this reaction. Probably the best thing to do would be to beg the developers for a sockpuppet check, just in case whoever it is wasn't careful enough. (That said, I've been in favor of deleting the image from the start, and the idea of it showing up on new users' talk pages is the most upsetting one I've come across since I started editting here.) —Korath (Talk) 16:29, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am very unhappy to have that image on my computer, and strongly support the speedy deletion of this image. I am very angry that people have been allowing this to happen more than once without deleting the image, or protecting users from this psychopath. I feel very violated. --SqueakBox 16:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) This image is almost certainly illegal in Honduras, where it is now stuck on my hard disc, as well as anywhere if under age people get exposed to it such as legit users under 18, of which there are (and should be) many. When will wikipedia wake up, and statrt seriously combatting the trolls? --SqueakBox 16:42, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, copyright issues were never answered. The image has no source material. The image is not encyclopedic, but is clearly from a porn site. The image is a source of vandalism. The image is not even regularly in use on the page it is supposed to be in use on. Delete away. The fact that Wikipedia is not censored for minors does not mean every bit of sexually explicit trash needs to be kept. It means that the sexual explicitness isn't the reason we delete. In this case, the reason we delete is the searing stupidity. Snowspinner 16:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I deleted it once. It was re-uploaded within a day. VfD on grounds of copyvio issues, was even, I think 9:9. There is good reason to suspect copyvio, as the same actor was found posing in thumbnails (see Talk:Autofellatio/Image_polls_and_discussions#Image_poll). Jimbo wanted it gone, but wants the community to resolve the issue (see Talk:Autofellatio/Image_polls_and_discussions#Thus_spoke_Jimbo). Imho, the issues of copyvio and inappropriateness should be kept separate (but they do add up, of course). If we want this image gone, we'd have to replace it with the drawing on commons and protect. It will still be uploaded under other names, for some time, which we'd have to delete on sight. I do feel it is inappropriate for an admin to do this unilaterally. It will still be questionable for admins acting as a group, and I would want to put the case on VP or RfC. It seems abundantly clear to me that this image is harmful, however, that I'm willing to remove it as part of regular mop&bucket duty, at least until there is some satisfactory compromise (there is no reason that it should be online by default while its case is under consideration. In my view, it should be deleted by default unless we have a strong (non sockpuppety) consensus to keep it in some form; btw, that's pretty much what Jimbo said, too [14]). dab () 17:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I completely sympathize with you. At present, the image is not "officially" used in any articles, and Jimbo is on record against using it. Any usage of the image in Wikipedia is apt to be vandalism, and maintaining the image simply facilitates vandalism. It should be removed forthwith. The last attempt to delete it via IFD on March 12 was summarily removed from WP:IFD before the vote was complete on the grounds that the image had been twice nominated before, even though those votes were quite sparse. Nobody seemed to protest this action. I think one might be able to get a two-thirds consensus to delete it, if nobody interfered with the vote and it were sufficiently publicized. But that would take time, and you would have to deal with people voting stupidly to keep it on the grounds that it had "survived" IFD already twice, and that removing it is "censorship", etc. Perhaps you should just appeal to Jimbo for a decision on this one. Or else just delete it and hope you are one of the super-administrators whose common sense will be blessed retroactively. --BM 17:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is at least one admin, User:Tony Sidaway, who is in favour of keeping it ("it's just a guy sucking his dick"; see exchange on my talk page. peace to Tony, he does seem to sincerely think the image is legitimate; he also announced his capability to resolve the copyright issues [15]...). Acting unilaterally would just mean entering a deletion/protection war. I am hoping for some consensus at least among admins. If we can agree that we'd want community consensus (the famous 80%) in favour of the image before we keep it, I'll happily delete away. "Cabal" accusations will then sound more hollow, since it will be evident that we are acting in good faith, out of the desire to protect users, and that we're open to a consensus in favour of the image, should the community really, really want to keep it. dab () 17:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't spend a great deal of time over at images and media for deletion, and now I wish that I did so I could have seen the VfD earlier (it survived the vote with a 9:9 tie way back in January). I suspect that others feel the same, judging by the strong reaction it has provoked. Now that the image has received a bit of publicity (for better or worse), and a few people have had the opportunity to give the idea some thought, maybe we can get more than 18 people to vote on it? I move that we reopen the VfD. – ClockworkSoul 18:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great. This was inevitable. First people fought hard to get the picture off the article page, and voting was done and the apparent decision was to make it a link from the article page instead of directly on the page. And now people want the picture taken down altogether. There were many people who voted to keep the image on the page, and even if we didn't win that vote, doesn't give anybody the right to say that the image should be removed altogether. Do we delete articles that are the subjects of repeated vandalism? No. RickK 20:20, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • I initially didn't have a problem with the image existing on Wikipedia, but now, with copyright issues, and the fact it's only used for vandalism, I'd rather see it replaced with the drawing. It still illustrates the article, and in my opinion it's a lot less offensive. Hence, I've never seen it (edit: the drawing) used to commit vandalism. Mgm|(talk) 20:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • there is a difference of (a) being vandalised and (b) being used for vandalism. Obviously we don't delete articles that are vandalised. And honestly, I don't think people would be driven off WP for being redirected to shock site from their talk page. Many would be disgusted, however, by being redirected to an actual shock site. The difference between having articles on offensive content, and actually hosting offensive content is immense. I do not know of any precedent of a similarly offensive image being hosted on WP, so I wish people would stop pretending that it should be considered an image like any other, that deleting it would put us on the slippery slope of censorship, etc. etc.; I know the image is not "orphaned". It's linked to from it's article. It's still used for vandalism primarily, and I cringe at the thought of any new user being greeted by this image. dab () 20:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This image seems to be a unique troll magnet, with no discernible benefits or use, and many questions about its validity, quality, and availability. I don't see any reasonable argument for keeping this specific image. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I am rarely an advocate for removing an image based on contect, but there are exceptions, and indeed precedents (goatse). One could argue that the goatse man image is encyclopedic, because it shows that one can stretch his anus with two hands, but common sense tells us otherwise. This image is hardly clinical, and it offers little value to compensate for its trollworthiness. – ClockworkSoul 21:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The image is now listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Snowspinner 20:57, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy for an image to be deleted if it's a copyvio, a crap image, or not used in an article. But I'm concerned about deleting an image because it's used for vandalism. We had plenty of vandalism before this image was uploaded. If we delete this photo becasue trolls like it, the trolls will either go back to the erect penis photo, the clitoris photo, or some other photo. Deleting the image wont get rid of the vandals. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, and perhaps not. But they will be using a better class of photgraph if they do. - Nunh-huh 21:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Theresa - you're right that an image should not be removed just because it's used for vandalism, if it has some other worth. This image, however, is pretty much used exclusively for vandalism. After all, what's so complicated about that particular act isn't already conveyed both in textual description and by the other drawing? This image is not exactly clinical in its nature, it adds nothing to Wikipedia (nothing we want, at least), and is clearly a copyvio. The reasons for deleting it are plentiful, the reasons for keeping it are scarce: exactly the reasons that "goatse man" isn't keep here. – ClockworkSoul 22:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But it's not used solely for vandalism. It's linked to from the Autofellatio page because of people who didn't want it embedded in the page. This is the inevitable consequence of removing the picture from that page -- once it's only linked to, it can be much more easily deleted. RickK 23:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
No, not solely, but nearly so. In a nutshell, what's so complicated about that particular act isn't already conveyed both in textual description and by the other drawing? How is this act so difficult to imagine that it really needs to have that copyvio'ed image? The text and illustration are more than adequate. – ClockworkSoul 01:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What's so complicated about it? The fact that it's anatomically possible. --Carnildo 03:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've heard this argument, and I cannot agree that this is valid reason to have the image here. Reductio ad absurdum: If "proof of possibility" is a valid reason for hosting an image, then we should also host "goatse man" (to prove that its possible to spread one's anus that wide), hard-core anal fisting images (for the same reason), extreme pedophilia images (for reasons better left unsaid), and worse. That makes no sense. – ClockworkSoul 04:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
what makes an image porn? any image with sexual content (and then some) may be considered porn, but what makes it "usable" as porn (and as shock image) are the colours and the resolution. Any residual encyclopedic worth of the image would still be present if it was reduced to say, 200x100 pixels and grayscale. I suggested reducing the size, and was turned down. This convinced me that people insisting we keep this image do so entirely for its pornographic "value". RickK, if you insist this image is useful, because it proves the anatomical feasability of the act (it's not like such proof is easily obtained from the external links already!), is there any reason you support it being in fleshy colours and nearly desktop size?? (Tony Sidaway: "the bigger the better": no comment) dab () 06:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pabix, who orginally mis-posted the image onto VfD, has relocated the vote over to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#March_22. – ClockworkSoul 06:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Invalid VFD[edit]

Hello all. Image:Autofellatio.jpg was listed on VFD, and I believe it is invalid. Nevermind that it's on VfD instead of IfD, the image in question has graced IfD with its presence about 4 times in the last month or two. I've talked with RickK and he concurs that this VfD should be deleted (see here and here). Could anyone not involved with the autofellatio shenanigans do the honors? Thanks, TIMBO (T A L K) 05:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this because you believe it shouldn't be up for deletion again, or because it's sinking like a stone on VfD? silsor 06:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Good point, but I'm not surprised it's sinking like a stone. VfD is a notorious bastion of deletionists, and I think it's much easier to click on an image of something sexual out of context, be surprised, and then parrot that it has no encyclopedic content. I doubt any of them took the time to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Autofellatio. Plus I think it's quite a bad precedent to set to allow people to forum shop until they get the result they want on a vote. TIMBO (T A L K) 06:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see the image deleted, but we would best be served by going about it the right way. – ClockworkSoul 06:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: Pabix, who orginally mis-posted the image onto VfD, has relocated the vote over to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#March_22. – ClockworkSoul 06:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not sinking like a stone, but whether it is or is not, the listing is invalid, and an admin who isn't as deeply involved in the discussion as I am, should delete it from VfD. RickK 06:42, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I do not have any articles on sex acts on my watchlist, and I missed every one of the preceding IfDs. True, I could patrol IfD more frequently, but I don't care too much about useless but non-disruptive images hanging around on WP. I am obviously involved, but as I perceive it involved as an admin from the start (I don't care in the least about what is and what isn't on the autofellatio article). Now, removing this vote would be censorship. I want this case well-advertised now, hopefully resulting in a verdict truly reflecting Wikipedians' views. Also, my question as to why this image has to be so large, and in colour, has still gone unanswered. As for VfD being a "bastion of deletionist", I beg permission to snort dismissively. As for "parroting" that the image is unencyclopedic, why the condescension? Maybe it is, in fact, unencyclopedic, and people are not so much parroting as expressing their disgust that these "shenanigans" have gone on for too long now? The damage is even spreading to other Wikipedias, now. People from fr: have complained about being redirected to the image. If you care about autofellatio so much, upload a gfdled, unobtrusive (say, 200x100 pixels) image already, and let's discuss that. dab () 09:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If the image should be on Wikipedia at all, it should certainly be of as high a technical quality as possible. As I remarked on IfD, I think it would be a grave error to permit the activities of vandals to determine what is and what is not going to be used to illustrate Wikipedia articles. If this image is deleted, some other sexual image will be used by the same vandals and then I hope we won't see the same people pushing for the deletion of *that* image. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the image should be deleted. There were two sparse votes on IFD, and the third attempt was stopped short by someone, on the grounds that there had previously been two votes. The current vote on VfD should perhaps be moved somewhere else, but the vote should continue, and it should be in a place which people can find. This is a ugly, noxious, image that should not be on the Wikipedia. People have the right to put these images up on their own walls. But Wikipedia is our house, and I don't want it on our walls. --BM 11:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re "invalid": it passed IfD on 19 Jan (with a tie). When was the second IfD vote (I couldn't find a link to it)? The third one obviously doesn't count, since it was removed prematurely. If we have a policy on how much time must pass between votes, I couldn't find it, either. Surely it is admissible to reconsider an image that passed with a 9:9 tie after two months, during which it proved a troll magnet, a vandal tool, and caused considerable distress to numerous readers and editors. dab () 12:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I only looked at one of the two votes, plus the aborted one that started on March 12. I took the claim that there had been previously been two, which was in one of the IFD votes, at face value. But I don't know for a fact that there was more than one IFD vote before March 12. RickK claimed that there have been four, but he may be counting the RFC on whether the image should be inline versus linked in Autofellatio, the two claimed IFD votes, plus the aborted IFD vote. It may be that there has only been one completed IFD vote, the 19 Jan one. I regret if I have erroneously propagated the idea that there was more than one completed IFD vote. --BM 13:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, this *is* the fourth time the image has been listed on IfD. Enough is enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would like to look at these previous IFD votes. Can you provide history links? --BM 15:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The image has been listed on Ifd on the following occasions:
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, but one of those three times was the Mar 12 vote that was removed from IFD by someone before the vote was concluded, and one of the four is the current vote. Hopefully, two "previous" times won't turn into four "previous" times in people's minds, and influence their votes. The previous times there was not a consensus. More than two months have passed since the last completed vote. Hopefully, there will be a consensus this time. --BM 17:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Quibbles aside, four times is more than enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That depends on your POV. Some people might say that "enough" is the number of times it takes to get a consensus to delete the image. --BM 17:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's an unreasonable point of view, and certainly against the spirit of having votes on deletion. There is a general consensus that overzealous attempts to delete content are to be avoided. Now I don't know about you, but in my opinion four IfD listings since January, not to mention the failed attempts to list it as a copyvio and at least two occasions when the image has simply been deleted, plus at least one occasion when it was overwritten by a completely different image, and one when it was replaced by a much poorer quality image, is arguably overzealous in the extreme, and moreover suggests to me that there are some people who will stop at nothing to destroy this image, consensus be damned. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One of the salient features of consensus is that, among intelligent informed people, consensus can shift as more information is provided and as conditions change. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 19 Jan: 9:9 tie, no consensus.
  • 12 Feb: ? interrupted [ User:Samboy replaced the IfD tag with "speedy deletion" on Feb 13. User:Quadell removed the vote (after one day!) [16] at 6:7 for deletion, and morphed it into an "expanded" version on Talk:Autofellatio on Feb 14 (where the topic was about inlining or linking, not about deletion. User:Limeheadnyc removed the speedy tag, without re-applying the IfD tag on Feb 14.]
  • 12 Mar: vote removed by User:Quadell. [17]
  • 22 Mar: pending
Thus, there was one vote that was carried to conclusion, with a 50%:50% tie. 50% of the people there (most of them with Autofellatio on their watchlists, mind you) got their way 100%. No compromise. Two subsequent votes were cut short, by someone who had voted keep in the first vote. Why am I not surprised that these people don't want to go through another vote? "Enough is enough", after one (not four) inconclusive vote, two months ago? give. me. a. break. This line of arguing has nothing to do with consensus. There never was a consensus on this image, so why should it be off the agenda??? Suggestions for compromise were ignored, and now that it appears the community wants to get rid of the image (I know, it will spend six more days on IfD. plenty of time to round up the trolls on IRC, isn't it), it's suddenly all unfair that the majority should get their way? I'm sorry, but this attitude really annoys me, now, let me get a wikibreak and come back in a friendlier mood.... dab () 18:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Suggestions for compromise were ignored" is flat false. Please withdraw your calumny. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
ah, yeah, let me rephrase: suggestions for compromise were labelled degradation and vandalism. dab () 07:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On your main point, you seem to be saying that people are complaining that the "majority" is "getting its way." Well that simply isn't true. The majority always was against that picture, and I have no problem with that. What I have complained about is the following:
  • Four listings on IfD in about ten weeks;
  • 'Two flat no-consensus deletions of the photograph;
  • Numerous unsupported claims that the image is a copyright violation.
  • At least one no-consensus replacement of the photograph by a completely different image;
  • One act of vandalism whereby the image quality was deliberately degraded;
Listing an image for deletion is one thing, but this kind of campaigning to destroy an image is certainly not consensual in any way, it's sheer bullying. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, Tony, I don't think you can really complain about four listings. The first listing was in January before most people were even aware of the issue. The second and third listings were removed before most people had a chance to vote by somebody who apparently wanted to keep the image. The second was turned into an RfC vote to make the image inline or link to it, and the third was just deleted A number of people, including me, voted "inline" but said the image should be deleted. Deletion was not presented as an option. Two months later, more reasons are becoming apparent for deleting it -- namely that it facilitates vandalism to have the image in the Wikipedia. As if more reasons are needed! It is really only had one previous listing on IFD. So, now the people who would like to have the image deleted are getting another chance to vote for its deletion. If there is a consensus to delete it, which will require two-thirds vote, it will be deleted. A large number of people working with you on the Wikipedia say they find this image disgusting and an embarassment to them, and want to see it gone, not to mention more practical arguments. When I was a freshmen at college, one of my four room-mates covered the walls of our room with pictures that he had clipped out of Penthouse. None of the rest of us wanted them there, but whenever we took them down, he would put them back up again, complaining about our censorship and prudery. Eventually, the R.A. heard about it, and told him to knock it off. The point was that it wasn't censorship. All of us were fairly liberal and would have defended the right of people to publish, sell (or buy) Penthouse Magazine. We just didn't want the pictures on the walls of OUR room. Wikipedia is our common project, and a lot us don't want images like this on the walls. --BM 00:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BM, I think it's grossly unfair to dismiss Quadell, who works very hard on all aspects of Wikipedia images and does much of the maintenance work, as "somebody who apparently wanted to keep the image." The implication seems to be that he did something underhand in resisting these repeated attempts to destroy a perfectly good image for which no consensus existed to delete.
Secondly you claim, oddly, that "it facilitates vandalism to have the image in the Wikipedia.". This is nonsense. There is nothing special about this image that makes it easier to vandalize. Remove this one and the vandal can start on other sexual images.
You say: A large number of people working with you on the Wikipedia say they find this image disgusting and an embarassment to them, and want to see it gone. I have no problem with this. However I have enumerated a lot of instances in which individuals have unilaterally deleted, replaced or just vandalized the image without any consensus.
Finally, I have never cried censorship, nor am I opposed to censorship; if the image is IfD'd it's IfD'd and it's gone, no complaints from me. Do I have to keep repeating that I object to the disgusting and unprededented campaign by individuals to destroy the picture, irrespective of any consensus? It is in this context that the four listings on IfD occurred. It is this, not some blocke sucking his penis or some silly children going around vandalizing, that disgraces Wikipedia in my opinion. Enough is enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk
Another point worth checking is, I think, the timing of the end of at least of one of the IfD listings. I believe someone replaced the image with an entirely different image, which rendered the IfD listing moot.
A note to dab: please keep this civil. You say: "I know, it will spend six more days on IfD. plenty of time to round up the trolls on IRC, isn't it" This amounts to yet another accusation of intent to fix votes (following on from that attack on Quadell). Yet I have shown that consistently it is individuals who want rid of the image who have attempted all manner of ruses: listing it on IfD a ridiculous number of times in the space of ten weeks, outright deleting the image, replacing it with another image, and even brazen vandalism, replacing the image by a severely degraded version of the same picture. These are events that I can enumerate in detail on request. You cannot support your insinuation with one iota of evidence--indeed the opposite is the case. I have in fact given the URL for voting to people who told me they would vote to delete. That I have to point this out is the true disgrace, for yet again a totally false and extremely damaging accusation has been made, and you probably didn't even think of it as a personal attack, let alone a grave and utterly unworthy one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
the image was repeatedly deleted by various people who couldn't conceive anyone in their right mind would want it on Wikipedia. Who, like Jimbo, did not even consider it a borderline case. I spend an hour digging up evidence of what happened to the "four" IfD's you insist the image has survived. Maybe in one instance, it was nobody's fault the image was removed, since things were quite hectic. That doesn't change the fact that the image survived one IfD so far, barely. All your comments of "individuals" "campaigning" and "vandalizing" fly in the face of the many clear votes against this image by good editors on IfD. If you cannot acknowledge that there are issues with this image, there is no point in discussing further. dab () 07:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This totally misrepresents Jimbo's position on the picture. He never claimed it was deletable per se, but only that he thought it should be linked to instead of being on the Autofellatio page. He has never claimed that he thinks there shouldn't be a picture of autofellatio on Wikipedia. RickK 07:22, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
huh? I never said that myself. The drawing is fine. I don't know how you interpret "totally inappropriate for Wikipedia, not even a borderline case", but to me it seems like a pretty straightforward statement. dab () 07:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're claiming that Jimbo advocates deleting the photograph. That is not correct. He advocates linking to it from the article page. RickK 07:33, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I'm claiming that the admins who speedied the image had opinions similar to Jimbo's, who didn't delete the image because he doesn't want to rule WP by fiat, bless him, but who certainly expressed that he thinks it shouldn't be here, yes. He didn't "advocate linking to it", you are the one misrepresenting things now, he voted for linking it, just like me and a dozen other people who want to delete it, because that was the bloody poll option, it was not a VfD, it was a vote on the Autofellatio article, where there were choices between lesser and greater evils. I am really disappointed at how this is handled. I am not enjoying this at all, but if I hadn't made a stand, you would have told people that there were "four votes already" and hushed it all up. You were calling "Invalid IfD" at first, and now that it transpired that it is not, in fact, invalid at all, you are trying to accuse me of mischaracterizations? That's ironic, and sad. dab () 09:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales: This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline.. That is the edit summary that Jimbo put on his comment regarding this image. What part of that do people not understand? He has so far trusted the consensus to do the right thing, and so far the consensus has been slow to fulfill his expectations. However, unless there a flood of Keep votes comes out of nowhere, perhaps we are finally living up to Jimbo's trust. --BM 13:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Iraq Liberation Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

TDC (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Christiaan 21:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • TDC has already been blocked once already for violating 3RR on this article. —Christiaan 21:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The diffs appear to be quite different. I noted the edit comments though and will have a look at the actual page. Refdoc 00:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How do you mean the diffs appear different? —Christiaan 00:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to present evidence for a 3RR you should give the diffs which show that the violating user has not actually added anything in. As it is, I have banned User:TDC for one week form editing as this was the second 3RR violation in short succession on the same set of pages. But I also not the anonymous revert which conveniently appeared when "your" turn came. I think you are sailing very close to the wind, USer:Christiaan... Refdoc 00:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what "give the diffs which show that the violating user has not actually added anything in" means. Also I think it's worth noting that TDC had already violated 3RR when this "convenient" edit appeared. It's irritating to be implicated, as I did not make it; and it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it was TDC's edit, simply to make it look like me. —Christiaan 22:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As remarked before, you cannot block someone for more than 24 hours under WP:3RR. I'll adjust the period of the block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, no argument. Refdoc 13:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cantus vandalism[edit]

Cantus is reverting once about every 25-26 hours on Augusto Pinochet and seems to have some issues that make it difficult for him to maintain NPOV standards when editing related articles on Chile, Pinochet, and Allende. I was working through that via voting and the usual means, but he has now moved to outright vandalism involving Pinochet:

I understand he is currently on parole. Perhaps he should not be permitted to edit articles related to Chile or at least Pinochet? Daniel Quinlan Daniel Quinlan 00:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


Violation of 3RR on Human shield action to Iraq

  1. 20:10
  2. 21:09
  3. 21:48
  4. 22:42

He has been warned multiple times re his persistent reverting on various pages. Blocked 24 hours for the moment, but I would like that other admins have a look at this user's contributions, please. I believe a longer block might be appropriate. Refdoc 01:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

we can't block someone for more than 24 hours for a 3RR violationGeni 11:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If his 3RR violations are as egregious as claimed, a few more blocks (not necessarily as long as 24 hours) as and when he violates in future, should deliver an unmistakable message. Much better than a very long block on an editor who may be a bit of an edit warrior but certainly no vandal. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it's somewhat out of line that this pair of violations seems to be coming down heavier on Christiaan than on TDC - look, not at the edits, but at the edit summaries. And bear in mind, a person who was there is likely to have strong opinions about these things. He's a good editor, willing to take on POV warriors in the past...and being called a "friend of satanSaddam" and having you edits called "bullshit" is provocation. Does not excuse a 3RR violation, but certainly comes into the realm of mitigating circumstances. Less than 24 hours is probably more in line here. Guettarda 14:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. I have been evenhanded or even somewhat heavier on TDC. If you have a look at his edits he is as persistent as TDC wrt whatever POV they are pushing - just on the other side. I have blocked both, TDC initially for a week, Christiaan for 24hrs as it was TDC's second occasion in short time, but Tony felt this was OTT. So be it. Christiaan though has his 24 hour block well deserved and I objetc to anyone shortening it for no good reason. Refdoc 14:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just want to reassure Refdoc, in case it's needed, that I think his handling of both cases has been fair. I only reduced the block on TDC because I don't think the reason cited can be used to justify the length of the block when made by an administrator. If TDC is being a major nuisance we should go to dispute resolution (RFC etc) and/or petition Arbcom; as administrators we don't really have authority for long blocks except in cases of persistent of egregious vandalism, sock puppetry or attacks that put an editor in danger. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that Refdoc's treatment of Christiaan was unfair...I was addressing the comment: I believe a longer block might be appropriate. Can you justify this situation? After all, he was tag-teamed in a revert war by someone who not only engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, but also said (on Christiaan's talk page): How does it feel to know that you were nothing more than a Shill for Saddam Hussein, and were lead around by your nose by his secret police? Does it feel good? I am going to laugh as I watch this article burn. TDC 03:20, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Calling for a longer block on Christiaan is offensive. The version he was reverting was badly written and terribly waffly. As an organiser of the Human Shields, Christiaan may have a POV, but he also has insight that is not available to the rest of us, since we only have CIA propanganda to work with. The article shouldn't reflect his POV, but I would give more credit to his version than one that is based merely on US policy. In a case like this there is no way of knowing the truth. This is one case in which we have no choice but to present both POVs. The line from the CIA/Pentagon is certainly no more trustworthy than that of the participants. Guettarda 16:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A longer block for either of these editors could only be called by an admin if they'd been disruptive to Wikipedia (vandalism, etc) or threatening. Anything else would be a result of an arbcom ruling. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have not read any of the articles discussed as I think this is completely irrelevant. I have blocked both on account of their 3RR violations and have alerted others to their blatant revert warring. I have no particular problems with Christiaan's politics, I probably would also more subscribe to his version of the truth than to TDC's judging from both users' talk and user pages. This does not though give to Christiaan and us an excuse to tolerate or conduct revert warring. I also apologise for misunderstanding the bit about length of blocks, I simply (mis)applied the vandalism rules onto 3RR blocks, instead of reading and thinking through the small print on 3RR blocks. I am a new admin and try to find my feet. This was my mistake and I acknowledge it. Hence I did not dispute Tony's change of length of TDC's block and do not ask - anymore - for Christiaan's block to become longer than 24 hours. Having said all this I do not think eitehr of the two editors behaviour should in any way be excused by being goaded/riled, I think both gave as good as they got. Christiaan certainly makes me think he was setting a trap for TDC and once safely trapped "shopped" him - see above. Refdoc 18:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean to make this 3RR violation and I would hope it's my first and last. If you look at my reverts you'll see I was reverting waffly edits that were not there to improve the article but to try and make a point. When you blocked me my revert was not the status quo, the status quo of which I was discussing with the other editor on the talk page, so my reverts can hardly be categorised as egregious (and I'm not particurlarly happy with Tony weighing in on this for various reasons either). I had already noted that I was open to a rewrite of the summary in question but that I hadn't yet seen a good one. It appears now that there is an alternative edit that I can live with, by another editor. Thanks for the words of support Guettarda.—Christiaan 23:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner's block of John-1107[edit]

User:Snowspinner blocked User:John-1107 again today. This time, it was for one month, with a confusing reason of "Claiming non-existant judicial legitimacy". I don't see any cause for this, and Snowspinner has neither given any warning to this user nor sufficiently explained exactly what this block is regarding.

Can someone please look into this? Snowspinner has rejected my request for an explanation, maybe someone else will have better luck. If this user is such a problem, why can't Snowspinner file a RFC? One month blocks shouldn't be given lightly. -- Netoholic @ 02:57, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

RfCs are not an essential part of the blocking policy for disruption, which is the criteria employed. The edit in question involved making inaccurate statements about the rulings of the arbcom and several other groups. This is on top of two prior blocks for disruption, which seem to provide prior warning. And, contrary to Netoholic's account of things, I explained everything I'm saying here to him on his talk page when he asked. Curious. [18] is the edit I blocked for, incidentally, though his resistance to the idea of not adding copyvio material would have worked too. Snowspinner 03:02, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
You posted something on my talk page, but I wouldn't call it an explanation. -- Netoholic @ 03:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
The block seems fine to me. --Neutralitytalk 03:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
John-1107 is a problem user with a history of posting nonsense as fact. He has been doing so since November (beginning as an anonymous user with a focus on Halo). If he didn't seem so completely out of touch with reality, I'd consider him a vandal. -- Cyrius| 03:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware of his history, and can't sympathize too much, but a one month block for a confusing talk page post isn't appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 03:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Unfortunately, questionable blocks by Snowspinner are par for the course. Why does he have to do things like this? Why can't he come to deliberate here before acting? Being an admin isn't intended to make anyone a miniature dictator; it's janitorial work, and if the powers are going to be used aggressively rather than cautiously, they just shouldn't be used at all. Everyking 20:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the gist of Everyking's comments regarding the nature of the administrative role. There are very few policies under which an administrator is empowered to block an established user for a month. Which one was it in this case? Claiming non-existant judicial legitimacy doesn't call to mind any obvious policy that would support a one month block. --BM 01:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Cyrius' comment is most relevant here. The issue isn't Snowspinner's block, it's about John-1107's edits that led to his blocking. John-1107 does not appear to be able to edit Wikipedia in any positive way; Snowspinner has done both him and Wikipedia a favour. Protestations of "admin abuse" against Snowspinner would have more weight if the people he was "abusing" didn't so consistently turn out to be trolls, vandals, or people who end up being sanctioned by ArbCom. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What sort of things does John do that are so negative? He writes nonsense? What does that mean? He writes things that are patently absurd? He writes things that are POV? He writes things that have a basis in truth but are questionable in the details? I have no familiarity with him, but I do have enough familarity with Snowspinner that I can make a reasonable guess that he probably overreacted, and probably used provocative threats in lieu of honest discussion in dealing with him. Everyking 06:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He writes:
" Wikimedia Arbitration Bureaucratic Administrative Coordinator:
 John V - one of the leading members of the UNWFAACBAMA-LPTISDSCSEASF."
"Committee Arbitration Bureaucratic Coordination Adminship:
I became the first Wikimedia Arbitration Bureaucratic Administrative Coordinator 
of the Wikipedia:Committee of Wikipedians on March 19, 2005." 
 "On the orders of me and the Wikimedian Committee of Members' Advocates
 and Bureaucratic Administrators and Arbitration Committee" 
"Now that i have finally rose to power as the Committee's
first AC Bureaucratic Administrative Coordinator"
"In times of crisis, i will be granted emergency powers until the Martial
State of Emergency is over."

Basically he gave himself a made up title, and then tried to use that made up title to imply that he had authority. Now he certainly wouldn't fool any of us but he may well fool a newbie into thinking that Wikipedia is run by a bunch of nutters. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 07:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's what he was blocked for? He just sounds like a kid. I'd say ask him to remove the proclamation of authority or at least make it clear that it's a joke. A one month block for that is ridiculous. We can't expect total maturity out of everybody. Everyking 08:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Theresa, administrators do not have the authority to block other members, except under very specific circumstances that are spelled out in the policies. These are, briefly:
  1. short blocks for violation of the 3RR rule
  2. vandalism
  3. violations of various specific injunctions against specific users arising out of Arb Comm cases
  4. a few situations described in Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The only one of these that is at all generic is "disruption".
There is no policy that gives administrators the authority to block people who they think it would be a good idea to block. Even behaviour that would result in the ArbComm blocking or banning someone is not behaviour that administrators can act against as individul administrators. Individual administrators are not cops or enforcers, except in a very few cases. Now, someone giving himself a "made up title" is not a grounds for blocking BY AN ADMINISTRATOR. If the Arb Comm would like to block someone for this, then they have the authority from Jimbo to do so, the arbitrators being people who have been elected by the community specifically for that role. Individual administrators should not be blocking people. When people vote on administrators (unlike Arbitrator), they are looking at whether the prospective administrator can be trusted with the elevated privileges needed for custodial functions. Nobody elected Snowspinner, or any other administrator, to be a moderator who can unilaterally block people, except for a few very well dilineated reasons. Even individual arbitrators are just administrators the same as the others -- that is, janitors -- except when they operate as the Arbitration Committee. If all of this is too cumbersome, then somebody should say so, and we should change the policies and the messages around administrators' roles. For example, we should stop saying that administrators are just the "mop and bucket" brigade, because Snowspinner, for one, is obviously carrying more than a mop and bucket around. --BM 14:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the block seems fine to me too. if this sort of nonsense isn't disruption, I don't know what is. WP isn't a kids' hosting space. Assuming good faith is important, but we need to stop fooling around with every random kid who wants to waste our time. Fine, so administrators are janitors and doorkeepers. If you walked into an office building with a made-up uniform and started shouting orders, I am sure the security staff would show you the door, without first considering that you may just be a kid who wanted to have some fun. dab () 09:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The Number[edit]

User:The Number is repeatedly altering the comments of myself and another user on the RfC. Granted, I and others have moved or removed comments s/he posted, but that is only because they were in an inappropriate section and we never altered them in any way. I'm not asking anyone to block him, I'd just like an uninvolved admin to keep an eye on this and let us know when any one of us is stepping out of line when it comes to refactoring, deleting, etc. Thanks. Gamaliel 09:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Please see User:Nosrail/monobook.js, contributions, and his edit on Turkey. Looks like a vandal ready to strike. Should he be blocked? Mgm|(talk) 09:56, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Nosrail has posted an informative notice on his user page. -- Mgm|(talk) 11:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Can we do a preemptive block on anybody who creates one of these .js files? RickK 20:56, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

If we could find them, I think it's reasonable, but we should know what the .js file does first. Aren't some of them allowed for layout purposes, or should those all be css? Mgm|(talk) 11:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
A monobook.js file is necessary for doing simple things like adding a set of the navigation tabs to the bottom of the page. -- Cyrius| 01:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now don't overreact here! Private monobook.js's have lots of legitimate uses; in fact, I use mine to do extensive skin customizations including getting a section edit link for the lead section in Mozilla/Firefox, getting a toolbox with lots of useful shortcut links, and general page restructuring. But if I could find a way to redefine that submit function of the form in such a way that it couldn't be called from within an "onload" handler, now that would stop this technique cold (which has been used recently to perform vandalism, see #Javascript-assisted vandalism above) while still allowing useful and legitimate uses of that function. Lupo 13:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Aeropus I of Macedon[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Blocking policy (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Blocking policy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aeropus I of Macedon (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Raven42 10:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


blocked for 24 hours for now...Geni 11:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Mookore_2005 page move vandalism[edit]

Just blocked him and started cleaning up, but I'm currently at work, so any help would be appreciated - contributions-- Ferkelparade π 10:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just moved User:Humus sapiens + talk back and speedy-tagged the " is a vandal" redirects -- Davenbelle 10:59, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like everything is cleaned up now (except User:Sjakalle, there seems to have been some confusion as to who moved what where :P) - thanks to everyone who helped out! Ferkelparade π 11:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Everything cleaned up now. But I seem to be unable to find any edits on User:Lochaber and its talk page previous to the vandalmove. Mgm|(talk) 11:27, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's there now. This was probably caused by this bug. Noel (talk) 13:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request ban for link spammer[edit] Evidence: [19] [20] - Trampled 10:55, 22 Mar 2005

Looks like the IP isn't static. Blocked for 24 hours. Mgm|(talk) 11:30, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
the spammers would like your opinion on their marketing strategy: , ,
dab () 11:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Killian documents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 15:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


was blocked for 24 hours by User:GamalielGeni 13:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The user returned from that 24-hour block and resumed edit warring on Killian documents. User:Gamaliel blocked him for 48 hours for the second 3RR violation on the same article. [21] Actually, even his first revert would have supported this action. The arbitration ruling states: "In the event Rex071404 reverts any edit for any reason any administrator may impose a short ban (a hour to a day for first offenses and up to a week for repeat offenses)." In light of this and other violations, a new RfAr has been filed. JamesMLane 07:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aroberts (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Vamp:Willow 20:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Given that the first of these reverts was the first recorded edit of this username and it was only created today (apparently for this purpose) and that similar edits are recorded under IP address [22], it is reasonable to assume that they are the same person. --Vamp:Willow 20:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • He's permitted to perform up to three reverts on the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but there was the fourth as IP address, however events have now exceeded this ..
I would also draw your attention to the para in 3RR where it says The three-revert rule is not an entitlement ... It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours . This user has, basically, solely reverted this article (and London, with similar content) --Vamp:Willow 15:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24hours. As noted above, this ident has, with minor exceptions, solely been used to make this repeated and invalid edit on the England (and London) pages). --Vamp:Willow 15:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zen-master (talk · contribs):

Reported by: R. fiend 06:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Two real reverts, one complex revert and one major deletion + revert. And User R.fiend himself is sailing close to the wind. More reverts and both are off... I will put warnings on everyone's pages. Refdoc 13:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

already blocked for 12 hoursGeni 13:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how R. fiend's first edit can count as a revert. By my count, he has only reverted three times and thus should not have been blocked. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think R. fiend's block should be removed anyway as mine was only for 12 hours (which has since expired) and his was for 24 hours which is not equal. zen master T 05:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have pulled R. fiend's block. While I cannot aprove of R. fiend's actions they are not prohibited under the 3RR rule.Geni 10:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow! A user (Zen-master) asking for the block of the user who opposed him in an edit war to be lifted as he thought it was unfair! Give that person a gold star (plus one get-out-of-jail-free card). Noel (talk) 11:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Red Lake High School Massacre[edit]

With so many people moving these pages around, we now have a tangled mess. If you click on Talk:Red Lake High School Massacre, it takes you to the appropriate Talk page for the Massacre article, but if you click on "View article" for that page, it takes you to Red Lake High School. That page has a link on it to Red Lake High School massacre, and when you click on THAT page's Talk page it, takes you back to Talk:Red Lake High School Massacre. RickK 07:04, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to all be OK now. Perhaps you were getting problems with old page versions in your local browser cache, after someone did a move in the middle of your looking at things? Noel (talk) 12:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it was moving in the middle of my view. Seems okay now. RickK 21:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)


Nagorno-Karabakh (talk) is about to get real interesting again; see the new tack being taken by Coolcat (talk, contribs) there. Davenbelle 08:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

This page has been a problem before. In general with these cases, I find that protecting the page for a good while is a much less flamefest-inducing way of quieting thing down than blocking people (which seems to inevitably bring calls of "power-abusing admins", and which we can generally only apply for up to 24 hours anyway). At the moment, no action seems to be needed, though... Noel (talk) 13:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Requested_moves#March_23.2C_2005 StepanakertKhankendi; Capital of NKR; Armenian vs Azeri POV; Tabib just moved Xankandi to Khankendi today. Davenbelle 18:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Article Categories in User Space[edit]

The user Instantnood is preserving pages after losing edit wars. He is leaving the article categories in place which puts his "preservation" pages into the main wikipedia. He claims he won't stop until someone tells him to. This is clearly abusive, but it's not necessarily vandalism or 3rr, which gets attention fast. SchmuckyTheCat 22:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although the two articles appear to be in various categories, they aren't actually. Instantnood just uses a table to make it look the same. I don't see any problem with keeping personal copies of the articles. dbenbenn | talk 02:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah, that was not the case when he initially created them. I have no issue with him keeping the copies, but at first he was using the Categories to create alternate articles. SchmuckyTheCat 02:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that categories should be prohibited from user space. I changed them into tables because I have to avoid series of reverts by SchmuckyTheCat, who's been keeping an eye close. As long as it's settled, I will move them back to the categories. — Instantnood 07:45, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Um, it's explicitly NOT settled. No one said it was okay to use Categories in user space, merely that it was okay because you had NOT done so. Do so and I'll revert you myself just on general principle. --Calton | Talk 08:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And there wasn't any guideline saying it is not okay either. — Instantnood 08:23, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to add pages in a user namespace to general categories. If I see this, I will remove such categories. There are categories designed for user pages (at least there were once—I may not be up to date on this) but they are to categorise yourself as a user interested in a certain topic. Do not make copies of deleted or disputed articles in your userspace and have them in general categories.-gadfium 08:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is there any Wikipedia guideline or law explicitly stating this? The two articles in my userspace are Wikipedia-specific materials. — Instantnood 09:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
If there is no guideline or law now, we should definitely have one - and I think this discussion shows that there is pretty much unanimous consensus on this. There's nothing wrong in principle with keeping old revisions of articles in userspace, but a category entry in effect places these articles back in article space through the backdoor (because everyone browsing the category will be able to see those articles without any indication that they are not meant to be seen in article space). -- Ferkelparade π 09:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace seems to cover it adequately. —Korath (Talk) 09:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
It does tell how user page such as User:Username can be categorised, but not on articles (no matter preserved, testing or whatever purposes) stored in user space. — Instantnood 17:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Articles in userspace are user pages. --Carnildo 21:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. — Instantnood 03:08, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Abuse of userspace.

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 22:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments: A revert war in someone else's user space? Yup. It's abusive to put main wikipedia article categories into "preservation" pages he is keeping in his userspace. I reverted to get them out of the main wikipedia and he says he won't remove them. So, we 3rr'd.

I'll even self-nominate myself if it keeps him from linking his sore-loser pages out of the main Wikipedia.SchmuckyTheCat 22:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Editing someone else's userspace without permission is vandalismIMO, you should not edit someone else's user page without their permission, and changing it against their will smacks of vandalism. Reverting your user space is your own business. Even if the rest of SchmuckyTheCat's comments are true, that's beside the point. Guettarda 22:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That is not the case. As Wikipedia:Vandalism clearly states only insults and the like on user pages count as vanderlism.10:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(My comment changed in response to the above comment Guettarda)
  • Guettarda, this had to specifically spelled out for this user that putting userspace articles into the main wikipedia categories was not cool at all. This page changed to specifically say "not cool" Wikipedia:Categorization#User_namespace. I will have no problem removing userspace articles from main wiki categories and if an abusive user decides he still has a right to do that, I'd hope for backup from folks watching 3rr. SchmuckyTheCat 21:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • then what protects the main wikipedia from a user who has decided to put up alternative articles in his userspace? SchmuckyTheCat 22:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. It wasn't reverted for more than 3 times within 24 hours, and I am still waiting for, if there's any, a clear Wikipedia law or guideline on whether encyclopedic articles in user space can be categorised. — Instantnood 21:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought that "Users should not add their user pages to article namespace categories" (from Wikipedia:Categorization#User_namespace) was adequate. Noel (talk) 13:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)