Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive374

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Disruption, incivility, sockpuppetry[edit]

Resolved: anonblocked 131.125.114.0/23 --slakrtalk / 08:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor has used a multitude of IP addresses to push forward his agendas, specifically regarding Foo Fighters article and any articles relating to this band. His actions border on WP:OWN and his attitude is, for the most part, aggressive, belligerent, uncooperative and uncivil. Many of his edits go against consensus reached on article talk pages. I've had some unpleasant interaction with this user and it seems as if he moves on to a new IP account (within the same basic range) when messages start being left on his Talk Pages pertaining to his edits or his behavior. User has yet to establish a permanent account with a User Name, thus making the standard warnings useless. - eo (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

incivility on edit summaries

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

other

The attitude displayed in these edit summaries carry over to discussions on article Talk Pages, specifically ones pertaining to Foo Fighters. User's most recent IP addresses are repeatedly removing a musical genre from Foo Fighters-related articles even tho discussion and consensus was made for its inclusion (these are just the most recent): [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]... etc., etc., etc..... on and on and on.

Since it doesn't look like there's any other good contribs from that range (131.125.114.0/23) I went ahead and blocked it for 2 weeks. since he was hitting other pages and there were lots of good contribs from other anons to the pages. Any admin is free to reduce/increase it as needed. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 08:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin assistance - fairly lame attempt at outing[edit]

Hi. Can I ask an admin to deal appropriately with 70.4.91.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I suppose we're in a minor dispute over the IP's addition of inappropriate external links to Robert Gallo. As part of the dispute, the IP made this edit, which I assume is an attempt to "out" my real-world identity via edit summary. Since the ID is incorrect, I haven't bothered to delete it or request oversight, but this is clearly a fairly bad-faith tactic. Could I ask an outside admin to intervene here? MastCell Talk 07:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned, but I wouldn't oppose a block from someone else. MBisanz talk 07:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
IP hasn't edited since. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help with correct placement of an RfC on Collective punishment[edit]

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collective_punishment&curid=5762998&diff=193451707&oldid=193450832:

I have created an RfC as I believe the presence of the Israel/Palestine section is detrimental to the article and encouraging edit warring, preventing the article's improvement. I wasn't sure whether it should be listed as RFC-Politics or some other category though. If anyone knows the correct category for such a request for comment, your help would be appreciated. Thanks. M1rth (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks in place to me - the politics category seems appropriate. If problems ensue, feel free to take the next step in dispute resolution, or come back here and ask for assistance. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay out (as much as possible beyond playing devil's advocate regarding some sources) of the content dispute, since I don't think the content really improves the page at all. Thanks for the assistance! M1rth (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Maxim's undiscussed unblock of User:Mikkalai[edit]

Last night, I blocked User:Mikkalai for 12 hours for this attack, calling it an "egregious and unnecessary" reference to physical assault in my edit summary. (Block log.) The resulting discussion is above, in the midst of a wider thread on Mikkalai being tempermental yesterday. There was some endorsement of the block and some disagreement. User:Maxim unblocked him four hours later. He did not discuss on AN/I and he made no post to me. (Mikka had made no apology in asking to be unblocked, complaining about wikilawyering instead.[44])

I'm starting a new thread because I don't want to rehash the details of Mikkalai's initial posts. Rather, I'd like comment on unblocking without discussion with the blocking administrator. The relevant bit from Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Administrators should not unblock users blocked in good faith by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." Pretty clear language. I went to great pains to stress I blocked as an uninvolved editor, and to unpack my reasoning that it was preventative. You might disagree with the block, but it was obviously not done in bad faith. More troubling, when I suggested Maxim ought to have discussed with me, he said he could "care less" about the blocking (invoking IAR, naturally).[45] Well, sorry, if an admin doesn't care about the blocking policy, he or she shouldn't be enacting blocks and unblocks. Aside from being personally annoyed, I find the attitude a very poor one. If Maxim had looked, he'd have found I was immediately active and willing to discuss. At a minimum, going to the AN/I thread was necessary.

Finally, do note from the block log that the last time Mikka was blocked, Maxim also unblocked. I don't know what I've walked into here. Perhaps, as I sensed yesterday, Mikka has people willing to let him off when he breaches policy because he's a copious contributor. But Jimbo has made clear recently that you can't be a jerk just because you do good work. I think my block was perfectly defensible, and even if you disagree with it, discussion with me ought to have transpired before undoing it. Marskell (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh for heaven's sake. If you want to remonstrate with Mikka, send email and at least try to find out what the underlying basis of his state of anger is. A pound says he lost his rag with yet another bunch of POV-pushers on one of the ethnic feud infested articles he works so hard to keep sane. You won't help Mikka to get less stressed by blocking him, that's simply not going to help anyone other than the hordes of warriors that infest that corner of Wikipedia which is forever Eastern Europe. Better still, find more Russian speakers worthy of the mop and bucket, to share the burden. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy, I was trying to make clear that I specifically wanted comment on whether Maxim should have discussed the unblock. I very rarely block; maybe I'm missing something. Marskell (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above shows that blocking was controversial, and the discussion also shows that this was not an unblock without discussion. Honestly? I think blocking Mikka was understandable but a mistake. You may have failed to take into account that English is not his first language, and I think that reasoned discussion would have had the desired effect. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Marskell makes a good point that Maxim should have discussed the unblock - even if it's just a note on ANI "I agree with the above and unblocked due to it". He defended what he did on his user talk page with (referring to Wikipedia:Blocking policy "I couldn't care less for that page, I do what I believe helps the project. Your block certainly didn't."
Regardless of the appropriateness or not of the underlying block - That statement is a borderline declaration of wheel war, and is a real problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment on the English as a second language thing: I wouldn't consider someone able to use the wife beating example from Fallacy of many questions to have any problems with English. John Reaves 10:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with GWH. Unblocks, especially of blocks resulting from community discussion, should not be performed unilaterally. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion seemed to say a 12 hour block was entirely appropriate. Guy, I'm aware you disagreed, as Mikka is a "surly bastard" just like you so rank incivility and talking of throats getting cut is entirely appropriate, but put that aside - a block was placed, the consensus was broadly that a 12 hour block was suitable, and Maxim's response was effectively "I don't care about the blocking policy" ([46]) and to unblock. That's very, very poor. And Mikka's control of the English language is fine - certainly better than a lot of our purpotedly native-English-speaking admins. It would be just as irrelevant to point out that Maxim is also Russian. Reimposing the block at this point would only cause more drama, but hopefully Mikka will finally get the point that crude langauge, hysterical abuse and threatening to block those who disagree with you is not acceptable conduct on Wikipedia, particularly for an administrator. Neıl 10:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Mikka's use of English rhetoric suggests he understands the impact of his words just fine.
No, of course, we don't need to reimpose the block. I didn't reimpose it last night because I've never wheel warred and don't intend to start. What I'd like to see is just some acknowledgement that the actions were in fact wrong. Mikka made no admittance that his post was unacceptable, Maxim unblocked him anyway, and now Maxim's justification is "I'll do what I like."
We do make allowances in practice for good mainspace editors. We do not hand out free passes. Marskell (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The unblock was questionable. Failing to discuss was inappropriate. The hostile response shows a lack of policy knowledge. I urge Maxim to rectify this situation with an apology. Ronnotel (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This initially was not a case of "administrators can get away with anything", and I admonished the person who originally complained about Mikka to not jump to that conclusion. However, whatever the merits of the block, the fact that an administrator acting alone broke ranks and reversed a block that was widely if not universally supported would tend to encourage that thinking. That in turn causes wariness, resentment, and discontent with the process overall. I don't know what good an apology would do but if this is part of a pattern of mis-use of administrative tools, and it recurs, I suppose the recourse is arbcom. If the system is to have any integrity you can't let anybody practice incivility towards non-admins with impugnity simply because they have a support base among the admins that makes them untouchable. Wikidemo (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"you can't let anybody practice incivility towards non-admins with impugnity simply because they have a support base among the admins that makes them untouchable" - exactly right. (And for Wikidemo and I to agree on something, the situation must be desperate!) Neıl 13:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If (neil != rehash past) then (wikidemo = not rehash past) Wikidemo (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemo, are you suggesting that unblocking an established contributor needs to be "widely if not universally supported", but the original block need not be? — CharlotteWebb 14:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the other way around. In this case the original block was w.i.n.u.s., and the unblock was unilateral. I'm not an admin and it's not my place to prove the dangers of wheel-warring or say what the standards should be for blocks or unblocks, I'm just commenting on the message it sends out to people when an administrator gets an executive pass. I've come to respect that everyone has their own way of doing things and one cannot condemn everyone just because of one person's actions, but to the mass of non-administrative editors out there administrative incivility and an attitude of impunity, even from a few, taints the experience and encourages cynicism.Wikidemo (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And Charlotte, a difference too is that I was willing to talk about the block but Maxim doesn't appear willing to explain the unblock. Although we should probably wait til he logs back in again before commenting further. Marskell (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to address the block itself, but I think that the unblock certainly should have been discussed prior to execution - or at least when Maxim was queried on it. Refusal to discuss it is unacceptable in my book. - Philippe | Talk 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not automatically wrong to reverse an admin action without approval from that admin, regardless of what any project-space page says at the moment. However, in this case, it was a bad move. The next time this happens, let's block longer, and leave it in place. We do not have to "take the bad with the good", and that way of thinking should be discouraged. Friday (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No, but refusing to discuss the reversal is automatically wrong. Maxim has some 'splaining to do, at the very least. — Coren (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
He explained it- he did what he thought was right. There's nothing left to discuss on that front, since there was no serious consideration of reblocking - there's no ongoing problem to be solved. The ongoing problem we should figure out how to fix is Mikkalai's apparently frequently unacceptable behavior. If Maxim's unblocking is contributing to that problem, it's worth further consideration. Otherwise, I don't see that it is. Friday (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
His explanation was contrary to both policy and practice. That is worth further consideration, particularly with someone who appears to use the block tool frequently.[47] Issues with Mikkalai are indeed be worth looking into and are a larger problem. But we shouldn't ignore this one. Marskell (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I once discussed one of Maxim's blocks with him (on-wiki and via e-mail), asking if he would consider shortening an indefinite block or unblocking. My view was that though a block was needed, an indefinite block was too much. Maxim briefly responded to my questions about this, but nothing came of it. I didn't unblock, and the user in question is still (several months later) indefinitely blocked because, unlike Maxim, I don't invoke IAR when I think an unblock might be best for the project. The user in question edited a rather narrow range of articles, but he has e-mailed me occasionally with useful comments about incorrect information in Wikipedia articles on that topic, and I think he would be a useful contributor if unblocked, though there are other issues that complicate the matter. I have advised him to e-mail the unblock mailing list, because his talk page got protected, but my basic question here is why some people feel they can: (a) in one case block and refuse to unblock or shorten when another admin discusses it with them; and then (b) in another case unblock without discussion. Isn't that rather contradictory? Carcharoth (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    Yes. Unfortunately, the only recourse is ArbCom, as many admins won't listen to polite enjoinders to change their behaviour or reconsider their actions. Reconsidering an action could imply fallibility, let alone actually undoing it or apologising for it. Neıl 16:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
He does have a fairly extensive log, and perhaps there are other examples of either excessive severity or undiscussed unblocks. But I would say again that we need to wait for Maxim to log back in and comment (or not) before talking about any further mechanisms. Reconsidering an action implies thoughtfulness—fallibility is taken for granted amongst mortals :). Marskell (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, why is this discussion still ongoing?!? Does it serve any purpose except to make Maxim and/or Mikkalai feel really bad about what they have done? If they said they were sorry with a cherry ona top, would that be enough? Was Mikkalai rude. Unquestionably. Did Maxim unblock out of process. Maybe, maybe not. Would blocking either of them again serve any purpose? No. So what is this discussion intended to do except to inflame the situation? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This specific discussion is intended to clarify Maxim's unblock, questioned, on a quick count, by nine editors above. Marskell (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayron32, this has nothing to do with Mikkalai. Think of it has Marskell blocked Admin "X," in good faith, and without discussion, Maxim unblocked Admin "X," justifying his wheel-warring by stating that (paraphrase) he couldnt care less for the blocking policy, that he can do want he wants, even in administrative actions, if he feels it makes Wikipedia better. WP:IAR? states that this policy does not "mean every action is justifiable" and that "a rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." Right now we are challenging Maxim on how his wheel-warring made Wikipedia better. Also read the follow from IAR?: "Ignore all rules" is not an answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons." I would make an argument that the blocking policy is one of our stronger policies and admins should not disregard it when they are changing a good-faith block by a fellow admin ever. Just my two cents. – Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
To follow that - I have no concern either way about the original block or correctness of unblock. I'll leave those for others who paid more attention to the detailed circumstances. Maxim, in doing the unblock, has to take responsibility for having done it, and that includes the responsibility to avoid wheel warring. Failing to discuss beforehand is not unheard of, but bad form. Refusing to discuss after other than to justify it under IAR is into the behavior which has previously been sanctioned for wheel-warring. Maxim needs to explain what he was thinking (even though I suspect it was reasonable thoughts), and needs to not do that again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
To make it short - I unblocked Mikka because I found his explanation to be sufficient, and the block ceased to be preventative, and prevented Mikka from making a positive contributions. He has started at least one article after I unblocked him. Secondly, what's the point of {{unblock}} if a simple unblock of a little uncivil yet otherwise productive editor require a lot of meta-discussion? I personally prefer to write an article to commenting at ANI. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. I don't care for fine wording in the blocking policy, I've never actually throughly read that page. Finally, I want to address this atmosphere of kicking users around and making ridiculous statements. There's been half-a-score of editors showing up here to say my unblock was X or whatever; that's not needed. Go do something more constructive. Also, there's no need for threats to desysop me, block me, etc. over one unblock. And you're surprised that some users like Mikka are upset. I come home (about 20 hours since I logged off last night) to find that nice little present. That's not exactly pleasant, you know. Maxim(talk) 23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
All editors should act as a check on each other. Your actions were inappropriate- telling people not to discuss it is really useless. If you don't want to be criticized, don't make bad unblocks. For what it's worth, Mikkalai continues to run amok, behaving in ways generally unbecoming an editor, since the unblock. Fix your mistake please. Friday (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
How can Maxim fix what was/is not his mistake. This is a bit of a speck/log case and the treatment Mikkal;ai is receiving is just unbelievable. Well done, Maxim, I fully endorse your unbllock. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
People can discuss all they want, I'll respond if they so require of me, and I'll go back to the stuff I like doing. I'm a volunteer, so as you are. I haven't told people to not discuss this, I simply see this discussion as a waste of time, really. The block would have expired by now. And I believe this was a valid unblock. If you really want this "mistake" to be fixed, why don't you be bold and reblock mikka yourself? Maxim(talk) 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec'd x 3)Well said Maxim. Regardless of the merits of the block/unblock pointless "yeah, Maxim did a really bad thing" comments, simply echoing one after the other, helped this thread and Wikipedia not one jot - I see barely any useful input after the first few comments. Jumping on the "admin made a bad call kick him whilst I've got the backing of others" is unseemly and pointless. Pedro :  Chat  23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Mikka and myself have butted heads our fair share, but I agree with Maxim here. He did what he thought was right for the project, did not anticipate any problems with unblocking, and no harm came of it. That sounds like textbook boldness right there. It's considered polite to contact admins to perform an unblock, but chiefly when you're not sure of the context. --Haemo (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Maxim's comment here and those rushing to his side are demeaning to the people who took the time to try to deal with this matter. What's unseemly and pointless is the uncivil behavior, not our attempt to deal with it. This would not have been an issue if the administrators involved weren't defiant when confronted with their own missteps. Instead, Mikka just ratcheted up the uncivil rhetoric when called on it, and Maxim is laying down the gauntlet saying he will not follow policy on blocks and wheel wars if he does not feel like it. If someone is not interested in the finer points of being an administrator perhaps he should not be one. That's not a threat or anything else but rather a question on just how far the community should tolerate rulebreaking. Wikidemo (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Then hell why don't we just delete the first paragraph under WP:BLOCK#Unblocking? Then we can just allow Admins to unblock without talking with the blocking admin. I agree numerous posts about "that was a bad block" and "that was a bad unblock" are pretty stupid, but when an admin goes against a very straight-forward policy in making a pretty controversial unblock, I believe it is necessary to clarify where the community stands on this. I mean I am a new admin, so should I take this to believe that as long as I justify my actions with WP:IAR that I can freely wheel-war? I am not calling for a desysopping or block, but I would like clear consensus on whether the aforementioned actions are a precedent for future behavior. I know personally that I would never unblock without consulting the blocking admin, or at least letting the blocking admin know what I did and why I did it, unless it was pretty dang clear that it was a bad-faith block. User:Marskell has stated that the block was in good faith, and that s/he was very willing to discuss it, but there wasn't even a note given on his/her talk page explaining the reason behind the unblock. As stated earlier, this isn't only common courtesy, it is a very straightforward policy. And again, this has nothing to do with the original block, this is about how admins should act when unblocking a good faith block, something I (mistakenly?) thought was pretty straightforward in policy. – Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 01:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's worth reiterating that WP:BLOCK#Unblocking is policy. Corvus cornixtalk 03:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The basic question that started this thread has not been answered: why did the administrator not contact me or at least AN/I? Oh I see, 'cause he doesn't want to read the blocking policy. Maxim should not be making blocks and unblocks. His unresponsiveness and lack of policy knowledge make that clear. He has deleted comments about the subject on his talk page, just as Mikka deletes anything remotely critical. It looks like we have one admin that will cover another when he becomes uncivil, and both of them then try to evade scrutiny. So what to do? Marskell (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Make a note and if the pattern persists open an RfC, and if the pattern still persists, go to ArbCom. That is the generally accepted route. Part of the problem though is that ArbCom tends to let old stuff be forgotten, though you can still make those points at an RfC I think. There is a balance to be struck between bringing up old stuff and not. Mainly, I think, if they said at the time "I won't do it again", then even if they do it again a year later, the old incident can justifiably be mentioned. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That's so silly, Carcharoth, threating to take me to arbcom over one unblock. Sheesh. Maxim(talk) 12:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Not silly at all. In some Arbcom cases a history of wheel warring, including an administrator's unblocking against consensus and without communication to protect a disruptive editor who he was protecting, has been at issue in a decision to de-sysop (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence). That is exactly what is happening here[48]. In this case I see absolutely no contrition or acknowledgment that administrators have to follow policy when using administrative tools. I think it's hard to engender confidence or respect among the editors for the threat or actual use of administrative tools with administrators openly declaring that policy does not apply to them. If administrators suffer a loss of legitimacy everything becomes a free-for-all.Wikidemo (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Maxim, I was advising Marskell to drop the issue for now, but to keep this incident in mind if future similar incidents occur. If Marskell (or anyone else) is not satisfied with how things are handled in future, then some of the next steps in dispute resolution (failing a satisfactory dialogue between the admins and editors in question) would be a user request for comments and then arbcom. That is not a threat to you, but general advice that I would give to anyone. You can do exactly the same for me or any other editor if you are not happy with their actions (I would ask that you talk to me on my talk page first). It is called Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but most of that could be avoided if people would tak to each other and be prepared to sometimes admit they could have done things better, and apologise. Look at the swiftly resolved Georgewilliamherbet and Krimpet situation for an example of how a swift review and apology can avoid drama. Carcharoth (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User still not blocked, still violating policy[edit]

At [49], I noted that User:Alex 8194 was conducting behavior he'd previously be blocked before, and making it worse. Admins in that section indicated they'd work with him to resolve the issues. Nobody worked with him to resolve the issues, and he still continues to conduct the violations, removing no rationale tags without providing a rationale, and doing it again on another image. Enough is enough. SOMEbody do something. All my warnings to him have fallen on deaf ears. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Those images no longer exist anymore, could you provide better diffs?. Rgoodermote  20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • An administrator can see the diffs. Look at the page history of the deleted images, and see his edits on those images today. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The user's contributions show he has stopped. This was way before user east told him off. But I do see edits from earlier today that indicate he has continued to add a copyvio image to Têtes à claques but when told off stopped. I also see he cleaned the deleted image tag from article Et Dieu créa Laflaque[50] though forgot to remove the image...will do that. and has even taken the hint that his Peter Griffin image is improper (he didn't re-add it) by asking at the talk page of the article. I do not think a block is necessary for this user. But a stern talking to. By the way, not admin Rgoodermote  21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Continual removal of missing rationale warnings after being warned several times on the issue is grounds for blocking. Removing warnings of any kind without fixing the problem noted by the warning is improper. He was warned multiple times. He's previously been blocked for copyright violation and had similar behavior leading to that block. He simply doesn't care. How many second chances does he get? Well, I'm content to give him one more...that he responds to east718's note on his talk page. If he continues to abuse our policies, he needs to be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Since my last message I delved deeper into the users talk page history. It appears he has been at this for a while. I would suggest a block at this point, but not an indef. I would say a couple months and an image ban. Rgoodermote  21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the original report and looking at the random edits the user has made. The user seems to be genuinely trying to help the project and not harming it. He may not understand copyrights and may be making wild potshots when it comes down to copyright and reasonings. What I believe should be done is to have the user banned from uploading and editing images in general. Rgoodermote  21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My original request was a block until such time as he promises to work within policy. East718 did it lighter, but with more or less the same wording and no block. Either way, the behavior has to stop. When a person is given multiple opportunities to get it right (he has), has been told several times he's doing it wrong (he has), has been blocked for the problems before (he has), continues to ignore warnings and conduct the same problematic edits (he has), at some point you have to say...ENOUGH! Whether incompetence or willful misbehavior, the effect after all of that is the same. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we are going in circles on this one. Let us start over. I endorse a 1 month block with a ban on image uploads and edits to images. Because I feel the user is trying to help but is unable to find his niche. Rgoodermote  —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think a one month block is excessive. Further, I'd like to see him respond to the "Copyright violations" thread at [51]. The length of the block is less important than his promise to abide by policy. The most I could see for this if he doesn't promise is a week. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If I could block him I would, I have tried to contact east but he is most likely offline. I don't know 1 month seems fine for violating copyright laws. But a week is reasonable to as long as he is forbidden from uploading and pretty much going near images again. Rgoodermote  22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, alex is offline and he will most likely not respond today. Rgoodermote  —Preceding comment was added at 22:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Less concerned about when he responds so long as he responds. There's no sense of urgency here in the sense that we've got to block him immediately. But, if he ignores the thread and continues on, then a block is appropriate even if he doesn't continue the violations. He can't just ignore this problem away. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well he can try, but I doubt it will ever work. This topic still unresolved admin intervention stilled required. Rgoodermote  22:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User still ignoring efforts to discuss this with him[edit]

Timeline:

  • At 20:37 UTC today, admin East718 left a message for Alex asking him to promise to stay away from editing images until an admin helped him with this. Alex continued to edit, ignoring the plea ([52][53], etc.)
  • At 20:45 UTC, user Rgoodermote informed Alex of this thread [54]. Alex continued to edit without responding to Rgoodermote or to this thread.
  • At 21:56 UTC I asked Alex to please respond to this [55]. Alex continued editing, ignoring the request. [56][57]
  • At 23:49 UTC, I more forcefully warned Alex to respond [58], noting it highly likely he'd be blocked if he did not. Alex continues editing, editing his userpage [59][60]

It's obvious at this point that Alex simply does not care about adhering to our policies or engaging in discussions related to his ongoing disobedience of our policies. He needs to be blocked. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, he finally responded. Deleted my requests at the same time, but meh. [61]. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Seems to have a real problem communicating and understanding some things. That seems to be the issue here, I think. It looks like wilful ignoring of policy, but I think it is gross failure to understand. At some point, the difference becomes meaningless. Suggest a thorough check of his uploads in the meantime. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've either fixed, deleted, or tagged all of their uploads. This user appears to be just a kid, and we can't really can't expect somebody like that to grasp an abstruse a topic as Wikipedia's image use and fair use policies, something which most established contributors have trouble with. They appear to be trying to help too, such as here, where a fair use rationale was written, but an incorrect tag was placed. I'll keep my eye on this user and help out wherever I can. east.718 at 02:33, February 23, 2008


  • So, what are you going to do ? When I was re-uploading deleted images, I wasn't ignoring warnings and the policy, I was just finding a way to prove that the image was copyrighted, I didn't really know if it was or not. And about the Image:ÉDCL.jpg, when I claimed that it was licensed under GFDL, I was just too busy and I would've explain the real licensing later and also when I deleted the warning tag, I just read it quickly and then I realised that the licensing has been changed by a Non-Free poster, I just thought that the problem was solved so I deleted the warning tag. As Rgoodermote said, I am trying to help the project not harming it. I am just too lazy to read the tutorial, but I think I will.

--Alex 8194 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, not reading the tutorial before you upload dozens of images because you're lazy is a really bad excuse. Don't think of it as optional anymore - you have to read the image tutorial and the copyright pages before you upload anymore images. And not responding to messages does seem like you're ignoring people from their end. Other users don't really have any way to know what you're doing unless you tell them, so if you don't tell them anything and keep uploading images, it does look like you were ignoring them. I would suggest responding to people's messages, even if it's just a quick "I'm working on this, thanks for the heads up". If you start a dialogue with some of the editor's who have been leaving you warnings and messages, you may get a much better understanding of Wikipedia than you have now. Natalie (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I still feel and even stronger now that this user should not be allowed to upload or edit images on Wikipedia. His ignoring us, his constant ignoring of warnings and suggestions. The user has shown that he wants to help but is not doing it very well anymore. But at this point I am willing to let it go. The user seems to have changed his mind and seems to be listening to us. Rgoodermote  17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But on that note he has uploaded more images and again..they seem to violate a few policies and I am pretty sure a few laws but I am not sure. [62]. Rgoodermote  18:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

His last upload was five minutes before he posted here, and he has not edited since. At the moment, I think we can wait and see what he does. Natalie (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I make his last upload at 16:28, 20 February 2008 (three days ago), and he has edited since but not uploaded since, unless I'm missing something? Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you're not missing anything. I just stupidly didn't look at the date when I saw that the timestamp for the last upload was earlier than his post here. My point was that he hasn't uploaded anymore images after contributing to this discussion, so a block would be premature at this point. Natalie (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I have a link for a tutorial ? --Alex 8194 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:TUTORIAL (don't know if there is one for images), but to be honest, I would avoid images for now, unless you are sure you know the different between free images and non-free images. Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

When I said I was too lazy to read the tutorial, I was just talking about image uploading and copyright policy, not the whole tutorial. --Alex 8194 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to to find the tutorial of image uploading. I got what I was looking for. Wikipedia:Image use policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 8194 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You can also ask questions about images in general at Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk (for example, if a part of the image use policy is unclear to you), and you can ask questions about specific images at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. You may also find the page on Wikipedia:Non-free content helpful. Natalie (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I noted those links in my talk page. --Alex 8194 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IP posting some personal information[edit]

Resolved: All edits oversighted --Chris 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this, but I'll post here and let the admins do whatever they want. This diff [63] has some seriously questionable information posted, regardless of real or otherwise; if I were an admin, I'd probably delete that version from the history. Just something that got my hackles raised up. Yngvarr 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, check the IP contribs, the same thing has been posted elsewhere. Yngvarr 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Which IP? That particular edit has already been oversighted. MER-C 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Zoinkies, sorry. Special:Contributions/189.157.132.83 Yngvarr 02:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Got him a couple hours ago and pinged a couple oversights about those edits. east.718 at 02:44, February 23, 2008
We should probably delete those particular revisions to avoid credit card fraud. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the revisions and have sent a request for oversight --Chris 03:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

john celona and Jkp212[edit]

This is a weird case, in that I suspect that two users who, by all appearances, hate each other may actually be one and the same. john celona (talk · contribs) and Jkp212 (talk · contribs) are two editors who seem to be on opposite extremes of the interpretation of WP:BLP; celona likes to include as much negative information as possible, while Jkp212 takes "do no harm" as literally as it's possible to do. I've dealt with both of them at Peter Yarrow and Frank LaGrotta; these incidents make up, for a both of them, a majority of their edits in the last several months. Neither one had edited since January 17 until two days ago, when celona came back and made a couple of edits to the LaGrotta article. Today, Jkp212 came back too. Now they're showing signs of wreaking their customary havoc at Larry Sinclair. This certainly wouldn't be conventional sock-puppetry, but it still look suspicious to me. What do others think? Is there any chance of a checkuser being granted on this basis? Or am I just suffering the lingering aftereffects of Archtransit paranoia? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: they've also both been involved in the conflict around Gene Krupa, which I haven't touched. It looks like either my bizarre sock hypothesis is correct, or there's some stalking going on (which would also explain the almost perfectly overlapping wikibreaks). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is one certain way of finding out if CU will take the case... From a very brief review I wonder if it is possible that Jkp212 is an alternate account of a regular contributor which is used chiefly to oppose the celona account - without consequences for the main account? In the absence of any CU or other evidence I suggest dealing with them as two edit warring accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think LessHeard's ideas are probably right. There is some background here that I would prefer to give off-wiki to any admin who gets heavily involved here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

THUGCHILDz[edit]

User:THUGCHILDz ignores again this consensus for wording Australian rules football, rugby league and cricket are all claimed to be the national sport by various people in national sport#list of countries' national sports and pushing cricket as most popular Australian sport but cricket is certainly not most popular Australian sport!!!! All you read in introduction of sport in New Zealand New Zealand's most popular sport is rugby union, the national sport but THUGCHILDz insists pushing cricket also most popular in New Zealand and inserting New Zealand in this list. THUGCHILDz likes cricket but pushing this sport in all corners!!!! He is a POV warrior against consensus of other editors and against evidence: may you stop his absurd edit warring?--PIO (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems he ignored a 3RR notice on his talk page (by AGK) on the 11th. Block warranted in my opinion. Rudget. 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Before you make an judgment, how about you look into the matter please?--THUGCHILDz 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
And sorry but I have to take this personally because this has gone way too far. And just to make it very clear for you. 4 Out of like 11 or more user's vote isn't and doesn't make a consensus. Also, people read into it before making judgment with prejudice. If you do take your sweet time to do that then you'll know that I haven't removed anything over the wordings but put accordingly to the refs. Nationally cricket does have the most popularity but on state to state basis it is different with AFL and RL being more popular in different states. And that's exactly what was put. That wasn't even what I had inserted first. There was a consensus and people came very close to an acceptable statement and All I had done is [modify] it a little bit accordingly to the ref. And No I'm not pushing cricket at all corners; all I did is edit it to what the sources had said. Citing a wikipedia article is irrelevant.--THUGCHILDz 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If he's broken 3RR then file a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Otherwise this is a content dispute, and should be resolved using the normal dispute resolution mechanism. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't broken 3RR, there are days between edits. This is a content dispute about exact wording of the entry, although THUGCHILDz is also adding an obviously irrelevant sport to the list, which should be removed. Black Kite 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what irrelevant sport am I adding? please read the consensus above and you'll know that the people aren't talking about me but PIO himself. Either he doesn't understand English very well or is just being ignorant--16:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by THUGCHILDz (talkcontribs)
The irrelevant sport (to the article) is Ice Cricket, with this edit. Black Kite 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I didn't add it, some else did]--THUGCHILDz 03:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at PIO's talk page and know that I tried to communicate with him over the issue but he didn't resolve the issue. Also you'll notice that he's in conflict with several other users. He's also made personal attacks against me several times on my talk page and the mediation and when I confronted him with it, he just ignored it. He equally made personal attacks and accusations against other users as well if look into it. I didn't go against the consensus. I AM part the consensus. All I did was correct something accordingly to what the source said.--THUGCHILDz 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What's a patience and I have patience very much.--PIO (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? That didn't make any sense.--THUGCHILDz 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
i dont know you guys. it seems like editing to blow off ssteam is a legitimate use of editing privileges t o me, and if its on his own talk page id ont see why it has to be huge case like this. Smith Jones (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll note that I've been mediating this dispute at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Australian rules football and referred the parties to this and the other noticeboards for edit warring complaints, since MedCab isn't a binding or enforcing form of dispute resolution. There are some issues with a couple of the pages involved in the dispute, that I've opined on at the case, but I'd like to leave any administrative action to an uninvolved admin. MBisanz talk 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Disturbing edit summaries by User:Dumrovii, possible sock case[edit]

After I blocked User:Parable1991 for vandalism, User:Dumrovii reverted my message to Parable1991 with the edit summary "Removing threats of anthrax injection. User is reported". Before that, he reverted the vandalism warnings on that page with the summary "Removing sexual innuendo. User is reported". Obviously the edit summary is disturbing, but it is more disturbing that it is on another user's page. I think a block for User:Dumrovii is in order, along with a sock check. VegaDark (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Checkuser  Confirmed these accounts are coming from the same computer:
Dumrovii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Parable1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
So I'm porkin' this hooker, right and she keeps squealing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Going Down to Texas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Reginmund and Parable have a large number of seemingly good edits; the question is whether this is someone who just needs to blow off steam once in a while and can straighten up, or someone who is a long-term concern. Although, note that before the checkuser was run, both Reginmund and Parable1991 had been blocked for various forms of misbehavior. Thatcher 16:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Am I to understand that these other edits came about whilst the main account (Reginmund) was blocked for three months? It seems like the editor wasn't blowing off steam - more likely, he was blowing off the editing restrictions. Should his other accounts, listed above, be tagged as socks? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, check the timing for yourself. I try to present the checkuser evidence and leave the rest of the evaluation to others so I won't be accused of conflict of interest or abusing my powers by banning people on evidence only I can see. If Parable1991 was editing during Reginmund's blocks, that would be a case for strong action. Thatcher 16:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No, this posting by Parable1991 to my talk page pretty much made it clear that this user is socking and that they aren't likely to stop the personal attacks and bad edits, even with the stopgap measures presented by basic blocks. Can we just indef ban this fine young gentleman and get on with things? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Danger to user security from SSP report[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
- Report closed, editor concerned didn't seem upset. No admin tools used and I see the initiator of this report failed to address their concerns with the repoprts originator before bringing this here. Same 'ol, Same 'ol I guess but no admin action required. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

just clarifying that the issue was raised with the report's originator before this was brought here and that Abd has subsequently explained to me that they were concerned about an urgent need to delete the SSP. Since I did that independantly I guess we can move on but my apologies for mischaractising their actions. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


User:MBisanz, a new administrator, has filed a suspected sock puppet report on a user who apparently abandoned an account and began using a new one. (There is no overlap.) Unless there is abusive editing, detecting this (it's not difficult) and reporting it could be harassment and certainly could be harmful to a user who wishes to interfere with easy off-wiki identification by shifting to a new account. This report also, without cause, identifies the IP address of the user (because of edits made when not being logged-in and easily connectable with a little research). Because I don't want to add to the number of references which will directly name the account involved, I'm not linking to it directly; rather, see User talk:MBisanz, where I filed a warning and request, or Special:Contributions/MBisanz. All edits which identify the accounts involved (in the text or in the summary) should be immediately deleted, including my own, unless MBisanz -- or someone -- shows cause for filing an SSP report involving abusive editing or other reason for need-to-know. As far as I am concerned, all identified accounts could be considered as one, without SSP filing, for purposes of identifying abuse. But Mbisanz is apparently not active at this time, and possible off-wiki damage could occur at any time.--Abd (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just walked in the door. I had reasons of possible/potential abuse that I listed in the report, which others can review. No special tools like deleted contribs or checkuser were used in its creation though. I'll respond more there unless there is a consensus to discuss here. MBisanz talk 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well its been deleted, so if an admin wants to review it, they know where it is. Seems to be resolved though. MBisanz talk 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It's moot now, because the user showed up and acknowledged the account linkages. However, that SSP report should never have been filed. There is nothing in it rising to the level of sock puppet abuse justifying investigation. Definitely, if policy here is unclear, this should be discussed. Users should not troll for sock puppet identification unless there is suspected abuse. In this case, there was no simultaneous usage of accounts (other than some IP account overlap), and nothing alleged that the user couldn't have done with open socks or a single account, no dual voting, no back and forth between socks to create the appearance of support, only a page created by the first account and later (lapse of time) edited by the second. Apparently, Mbisanz thinks that changing accounts without putting up a notice is some kind of violation. He should be disabused of that notion before he wastes more time -- his and others -- chasing non-abusive "sock puppets."--Abd (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, I had concerns which led me to file the report, which can be review in the deleted report. And there was at least one (since reverted and no I won't link the diff) instance where there could've been an actual sock problem. MBisanz talk 19:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Template:Db-g1[edit]

Resolved

Move war on this template is disruptive. It creates many double redirects which not only wastes bot-time but also may cause the use of the template fail. -- Cat chi? 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call that a move war. I believe there was a move, one revert of that move (and the revert caused double redirects,) then a discussion, then re-doing the original move (which I believe fixed the double redirect situation; there don't seem to be any double redirects now.) Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Double redirects in speedy templates. I don't think any discussion here is necessary. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I care not what the consensus or the discussion is. All I ask is people discuss and reach an agreement first and then take action on such heavy use templates. -- Cat chi? 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Since only two editors were involved, wouldn't it have been more effective to just give them that message personally rather than posting here? I'm not aware of any other templates that have been moved repeatedly, so it doesn't seem like this is a huge problem. Natalie (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
These templates are so heavily used that they are also heavily discussed - the issue existed for a very short time, discussion should remain on the talk page for CSD as per Coppertwig; this thread should be closed.--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism[edit]

by this IP [65] working a whole range in order to vandalize a user's talk page [66]. As soon as he is blocked he adopts a new IP. JNW (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page has been protected. Moot point now? HalfShadow (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
One hopes so, though that IP range might bear watching. JNW (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Talk:Vector (spatial)[edit]

User:Firefly322 has been engaged in some disruptive editing at Talk:Vector (spatial). This includes personal attacks against me in a thread which may seem to be about improving the article, but is actually a referendum on the my own "intellectual qualifications" as an editor: see [67], [68], [69]. Firefly also persistently refactors his/her own talkpage comments after they have been replied to, and has deleted some responses to comments as well. (Just see the edit history at Talk:Vector (spatial).) At one point, I moved the entire thread to Firefly's talkpage, after he/she attacked me again despite repeated warning. Then he/she selectively reintroduced parts of the thread, but without any of my own replies. I am at wit's end, and don't know what to do with it. Please help. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Firefly is not the only one modifying talk page comments. You deleted a "personal attack" by Firefly322, which is why the first two "personal attack" links you give above are identical: one of them is a revert. You also admit to "moving" a thread. If Firefly322 wished to move the user's own comments back to where the user originally wished to post them, and to leave your own comments where you decided to put them, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The "personal attacks" quoted above don't look terribly bad, although no user should be commenting on other users in that way, in my opinion. ("When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." WP:NPA) I see a message from you, Silly rabbit, on Firefly322's talk page about personal attacks, but I don't see anything about how talk page messages shouldn't be refactored after being answered (which is probably not an absolute rule, anyway). I also see an edit where you moved a large amount of content on to the user's talk page, with no apparent explanation -- not even an edit summary. I would think that would be rather bewildering for the user.
Note that Wikipedia:No personal attacks says "Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all." Note also the section "removal of text" in that policy, which seems to suggest that you shouldn't have deleted Firefly332's personal attacks. That sort of thing often only contributes to escalation of the whole situation. Try to see the other user's point of view and to get along. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the outside view. I admit that I probably handled some things badly in the situation, but I found the whole issue to be so infuriating. I hope things have calmed down somewhat, and I see that the user has at least refactored out all of the personal attacks from the recently added text. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking my comments in a positive spirit. I'm glad to hear that the other user has refactored out the personal attacks! That's a very positive sign. I hope you'll find some way to extend an olive branch and that things will go well. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Ricky81682 and question of possible administrator abuse over files[edit]

The following two images were processed by that administrator Ricky81682 with no appropriate license assurances and the questioning tags were vandalized by him while he abuses other article images with fictitious concerns and failing to rectify his mistakes despite good faith discussion attempts. More interestingly, he adds fictitous licenses at images put in wiki by other users in those specific images. Than he goes and removes PUI tags while he puts same tags in other’s work to damage. See below:

Image:Image-TJC Logo.jpg • (cur) (last) 01:43, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) m (757 bytes) (Reverted edits by 71.184.9.231 (talk) to last version by Ricky81682) (undo) • (cur) (last) 01:32, 19 February 2008 71.184.9.231 (Talk) (1,134 bytes) (undo) • (cur) (last) 01:31, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) (757 bytes) (license) (undo)

India Sex.jpg 01:30, 19 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:India Sex.jpg • (cur) (last) 01:40, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) m (390 bytes) (Reverted edits by 71.184.9.231 (talk) to last version by Ricky81682) (undo) • (cur) (last) 01:30, 19 February 2008 71.184.9.231 (Talk) (768 bytes) (undo) • (cur) (last) 01:22, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) (390 bytes) (added license) (undo)

The same administrator Ricky81682 covered up the following vandalized sound file despite appropriate copyright tags at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CemalGursel1963.ogg. 14:15, 16 February 2008 Rettetast (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:CemalGursel1963.ogg" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD G12), was a blatant copyright infringement. using TW) 14:15, 16 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Cemal Gürsel‎ (Removing instance of image CemalGursel1963.ogg that has been speedily deleted per (CSD G12); using TW) He erased all goodfaith discussion attempts at the above sound page including all of its log files to prevent traceability and responsibility.

He also continuously interferes in bad-faith with an obtrusive and predatory manner with the following files:

Image:ArmyGames.jpg clearly indicated “From his family album and personal collection” and it is also a government photo declared heritage. There should be no problem there. Making fair use claims does not negate against public domain. It seems extra but does not make abuse by an administrator OK.

Image:WithACadet.jpg indicates the same “From his family album and personal collection” as to the ownership of the copyright and further fair use statements are provided, which do not again negate against the image legitimacy.

Perhaps the absurdity of the abusive admin interaction becomes most obvious at the Image:Harb&istiklalmedal.JPG and all of its history with appropriate tags. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leblebi (talkcontribs)

As for the bottom three: The images he is tagging as "possibly unfree" have no verifiable information as to their source, and there was the suspicously migrating arguments as to why the images are free. He is under no requirement to simply take someone's word for it that he's the copyright holder of an image if he feels that is unlikely, and he has pursued the appropriate action by posting to PUI and seeking community input. You have pursued inappropriate action by edit warring to remove the tags from the images. I'd suggest that you stop this and simply stick to civil and good faith discussion on WP:PUI, or on the talk pages of those who have reverted you until you understand what their concerns are. And with regards to the TJC logo, the fair use rationale was in line with policy, so he rightly removed the disputed tag placed on it. And as for the india image, the placement of a tag of improper fair use claim was utterly inappropriate as it was a creative commons licensed image, so again, Ricky very rightfully removed it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, as I noted at Talk:Cemal_Gürsel#WP:ANI, I was concerned about the license being changed at Image:InErzurum.jpg from GFDL to PD. While both are free, those are different licenses. Looking at the section at WP:PUI, I commented that removing part of the original uploader's source information at Image:WithACadet.jpg and then changing it from the GFDL given by the uploader to now a public domain is unusual, and should be reverted. As I noted at WP:ANI before, we have had a number of anonymous users who seem intent on keeping those image here, based on some suspicious copyright theory that I honestly cannot understand. Also, I had nothing to do with Image:CemalGursel1963.ogg (other admins can confirm the deleted edits). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and the best to all this is it was User:Rettetast who added the PUI notices at Image:ArmyGames.jpg, Image:WithACadet.jpg, and Image:Harb&istiklalmedal.JPG, not me. I've just been trying to keep the notices on the pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Marko sk (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: Issue deferred to AIV. AGK (contact) 02:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody take a look at the history of this user and block him? He was warned on his talk page about vandalism. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mario, but the Princess is in another castle HalfShadow (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Wikipedia is a nice labyrinth. I guess I will bookmark that page. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to re-protect this page[edit]

Resolved

Too many anons vandalzing ANI, it's time to re-protect. Corvus cornixtalk 04:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. I see the IPs are each blocked, but there are presumably more - any thoughts on a possible remedy? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
actually, 206.230.26.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) only got a warning. Corvus cornixtalk 04:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
A few real world addresses, two or three friends and baseball bats? HalfShadow (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Krimpet semiprotected it literally seconds before your post, Corvus. Rdfox 76 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing 4 IPs that blanked the page and their talk pages are red links.. - ALLSTAR echo 04:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do they need warnings? Corvus cornixtalk 04:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Warning 'em would be the equivalent of pissing into a strong wind; they're just throwaway IPs anyway... HalfShadow (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Not a warning but a "hey, you've been blocked blah blah blah" notice... - ALLSTAR echo 04:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah. Like I said: they're throwaways. I've seen some IPs used that actually had some legit edits. HalfShadow (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadly nightshade[edit]

Have a bit of an edit war breaking out between anon IPs. Article is currently under probation as it's related to Homeopathy (see homeopathy probation). Justin chat 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:RFC? Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Threw both IPs into the bing. Let's see which of the regular accounts in this area takes a 31-hour wikibreak now. east.718 at 05:11, February 24, 2008 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Shankbone image deletion[edit]

Resolved

Somone needs to close this Shankbone image deletion ASAP. Not sure what's up with it being nommed here when it's hosted at Commons. - ALLSTAR echo 04:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gone. east.718 at 05:13, February 24, 2008 05:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

David Archuleta[edit]

Resolved

Ouch. David Archuleta got copy and paste moved to David Archuleta (singer) and the edit history of both articles are now a mess. Could somebody please fix this? Corvus cornixtalk 05:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. east.718 at 05:10, February 24, 2008
Awesome. Thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Intervention required?[edit]

Would the edits to the Special relativity article need any such further intervention than a full protect? Please advise. — E talk 05:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't clocked it, but I'm fairly certain there is a 3RR issue in that history, on both sides. MBisanz talk 06:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Malamockq, User:Asams10, and Deletion of comments on discussion board.[edit]

User:Malamockq has been deleting comments from myself and other users on the the talk page for XM8. Please note the following: [70], [71], [72]. He has also been adding inappropriate content in the form of original research: [73], [74], [75], and this one where he deletes somebody elses comment (maybe his own sock puppet) and adds his comment: [76]. He is warned here: [77], and here: [78], [79], and [80], but refused to heed the warnings. I'd like him to stop removing others comments and I'd like the Talk page reverted so his original research and forum-style discussions are gone IAW WP:forum. --Asams10 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Malamockq for 31 hours for incivility (review welcome). I saw no point in warning or commenting on their disruptive editing, given the attitude/responses previously. As regards the talkpages, I suggest finding consensus over what should and shouldn't remain and edit accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this block. I don't see any evidence of incivility from M; I could point you at several clear examples from Asams10. A complains about M removing comments but somehow omits to mention that he too has been removing comments. The complaints about OR, in that they refers to talk not articles, appear unmerited. M should be unblocked. Both M and A should be admonished for petulance over the talk page deletions. William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, since the edit that cut it for me was the one posted to your talkpage, particularly the last sentence. I thought that that post was typical of most of the exchanges by this editor, no discussion regarding replacing a question that appears to have been answered previously, speculation, and a lack of civility. For the record I have also requested the views of User:Stephan Schulz, who Malamockq mentions as being familiar with the situation. If his view coincides with that expressed by you then I am content for the block to be undone - unless you feel it appropriate to undo now (proceeding as if it were a regular unblock request). As for Asams10's possible edit warring, if someone wants to post a few diffs then an admin may review them and comment/action as appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, In that case I'm going to unblock M, since it looks like S is out at the moment William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC). Too late. Its expired. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination)[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination) is a second time AFD nomination that is getting an extremely high amount of meatpuppetry. I would not mention now, except that I can't keep up with tagging the spa's every time one comes along. I also cannot find the site on the internet where this might be advertised. In any case, he may be notable, but it would be nice of a) an administrator could lock down the page to new accounts, or b) an administrator could evaluate the notability, and close the AFD. It's probably worth noting that the google search seems to be malfunctioning and not coming up with enough hits for him (can't figure out why). The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been deleted. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not MEATpuppetry, look at the writing style, it's SOCKpuppetry. I'd wager it's the subject of the article, in fact, given the accolades heaped upon the subject in each keep vote. Should a Checkuser and block be done? ThuranX (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The article, and then its talk page, was recreated in various forms throughout today, and has now been salted. Black Kite 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswegoScientizzle 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • You will now be pleased to note that it has gone to deletion review, and the circus has come back to town. --Haemo (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for posting the link. Some of them have been arguing with me on my talk page about it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Prodego and unblock-en-l[edit]

{

Resolved: Simple mistake, easily explained, apology offered.

Prodego released my private email address during a heated discussion for no apparent reason. This email was privy to the aforementioned mailing list members, but was made public, for no apparent reason. I am asking for administrative review because this email was privately disclosed to the aforementioned list. My email is private; but no longer. It uses my first name, and the domain I own. It is enough information to get my home address, phone number, and any other registrant information. Regardless of my feelings about the 'private' list, I see this as the worst type of personal attack. Why was my personal email, entrusted with this list, posted publicly? Is this a retaliation for publicly admonishing this list? the_undertow talk 12:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS? John Reaves 12:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe this complaint is because the_undertow is upset because there were complaints coming from an email received at unblock-en-l because a user was upset at being blocked with the summary "vandalism: teh sucks" (we're not here to have a laugh at the expense of users we block) - If there's a real issue here, why publicise it on a high traffic page? Ryan Postlethwaite 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't sidetrack this. I want to know if there was justification for posting my email address. (PS. The user was NEVER upset about the edit summary - that was an outright lie), and admissions are here, Ryan. This is a real issue, and I would appreciate if you would do your research instead of assume and throw this off topic. Your omnipresence here is appreciated only predicated on the fact that you actually do read your cursory reviews in their entirety. the_undertow talk 13:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This whole thing has gotten surreal. The concerns on the list were raised and the decision was made to contact you with the intent of voicing those minor concerns and has just spiraled completely out of control. The unblock list isn't a secret cabal nor are we sitting around complaining about you. And seriously, if you felt the email address was a major issue, you'd have deleted the edit, not come wave it around ANI. -Mask? 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would I delete the edits? The issue is not my privacy, it's the posting of my address. If I deleted the edits, it would be only available to the admins, who posted my address in the first place. This isn't surreal. It's quite real. Please make it clear that you are from the list as well, as that would help to clarify certain motives. the_undertow talk 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This complaint is without merit. It is perfectly plain from the context that Prodego was simply attempting to confirm that he'd sent the message to the right address, this is absolutely not a case of outing or abuse. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Is that how confirmation works? Should I post your home address to confirm that you received the Valentine's card I sent? The answer is no. Any person with any tact, or an IQ of at least 85 would ask, 'did you get the email I sent?' the_undertow talk 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • @Guy, it is pretty obvious, that Prodego indeed revealed The_undertow's private email address to the public. @AKMask Yes, the unblock list is indeed secret as there is a selected readership and no public archive. --Raphael1 14:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's private because we deal with sensitive subjects, people have a right not to have their IP, name, and email all linked together for anyone to see. Private != secret cabal. We aren't hiding up in the tree fort dangling a rope ladder just out of reach, we're just helping out users. -Mask? 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Haven's you just insinuated in your previous post, that publishing the email address isn't "a major issue"? What is it now? Do people have a right not to have their username and email linked together for anyone to see, or not? --Raphael1 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I did nothing of the sort, I said linking ip, email, names, and other information that frequently flows in is not something that should be available to every random person. You'd be surprised at the amount of phone numbers people provide for contact, for example. It's not any one piece of information, like an email address, but the totallity of whats provided. That said, I don't disagree that posting his email was a mistake, it was. But it was an honest one, i dont see any malicious intent, and this could have been handled quickly and quietly if the user in question wanted it to have been. -Mask? 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Raphael1 is just upset that he wasn't allowed subscription. John Reaves 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that your comment may constitute a personal attack or at the very least be incivil, and that it would be best to apologize and bring down the temperature of the discussion, no? M1rth (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you found ANI on your 7th day here and are already imparting your sage wisdom...John Reaves 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this right below my request for assistance creating a request for comment, above. Please remain WP:CIVIL. Thanks. M1rth (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think posting the e-mail address was a dumb mistake, not an attack, and the edit should be oversighted and Prodego should apologize. I also don't see why an admin in good standing should be denied subscription to unblock-en-l. What is the rationale there? If there is a problem with the way he does things, raise it on-wiki so it can be addressed. Blocking him from the list doesn't change his ability to unblock with "vandalism = teh sucks" edit summaries. If the purpose of restricting access is to protect private information, isn't it ironic that in the course of restricting access private information was divulged? Admins are trusted members, and we have already seen what happens when closed mailing lists with restrictive access requirements above and beyond being a trusted member of the community engage in activity that results in a dispute. Avruch T 16:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, a mistake. A simple one and probably not even obvious until pointed out. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the point is that there was a "consensus" reached on this list that a block summary which read "vandalism: Really teh suck" was inappropriate. It was taken to the_undertow's talk page where he was told of this consensus. He acknowledged his mistake and said he wouldn't do it again, while also voicing his objection to these mailing lists. One-by-one the members of the mailing list started flowing in. Prodego knowingly lied about the situation, stating the user was offended when, in fact, the user probably didn't even notice. The_undertow then attempted to join the list to read the thread and Prodego declined his request. It is at that point that Prodego posts the_undertow's email on his talk page. First, the email didn't bounce back to him, so it's good. Second, he could have simply stated that he sent the emails to the address used to register for the list. There was no reason to post his email. There's a reason our wikipedia email doesn't disclose our email addresses and a reason we have to use special formatting to post them. It was inappropriate and pointy. After the last bit of mailing list drama the_undertow dealt with, it's no wonder he fails to appreciate such consensuses... and it didn't help that they trickled in one after another, making false claims (not just Prodego, but SWATjester as well), which could be taken as personal attacks. That's the point. There should be apologies for the lies that were said and for the careless public posting of private information. How ironic that a list which serves to protect the privacy of blocked users releases the private information of our sites most trusted users. LaraLove 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I certainly did not knowingly lie, please read my response here, which begins "In response to the assertion...". I only became involved to help the undertow, who then wanted join a mailing list he said "sucks" and "is still bullshit". That is why the decision was made that he should not be subscribed, he clearly wasn't going to be helping at all. Read my response to the email issue below. Yes, it was a mistake to mention it, I was merely trying to make sure he got the email he requested I send him. Deleting it (leaving it visible to admins) makes it just as private as being a member of unblock-en-l would. Prodego talk 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm somewhat perplexed here. Nobody should be using an e-mail address on the unblock-en-l mailing list that they are unwilling to have posted all over Wikipedia and the rest of the internet. You're making your e-mail address (and potentially other information, such as IP address and any other information that can be determined from your e-mail address) available to people who have been blocked for editing. Nick (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if you respond directly by e-mail to those requesting unblock. That isn't what happened here. Avruch T 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly not. He only joined to read the thread. LaraLove 07:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So he joined the unblock-en-l mailing list but with an e-mail address that would never actually be used to deal with unblock requests ? Why not ask someone with access to forward the thread instead. I'd say, by signing up to the list, it's a fair assumption to make that you're going to use the e-mail address you signed up with to respond to unblock queries and consequently, there's no concern about that e-mail address being spread far and wide. Nick (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread is off track so let me be succinct. I was told the list is private and remains private because IP addresses are a concern. Why was my email posted? Why was it necessary? What was the point of posting my private information? Regardless of all assumptions made, the question remains, was there a good and justified reason that someone other than myself felt it necessary to post my personal information? the_undertow talk 11:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I apologize for revealing your email address, I just wanted to make sure you didn't have a seperate mailing list email, as many people do. I did this to make sure that when I sent the email you requested I forward to you, you would receive it. Since I was forwarding, Special:Emailuser would not have been convenient. I hadn't given a thought to that you may want to keep the email address private, note that by subscribing to a mailing list, your email will be visible to all list members, and all the users you reply to. Since unblock-en-l is (mostly) admin only, simply deleting this edit, which I have no objection to if you feel it is necessary, would provide the same level of anonymity as being a list member. If you have a problem, you could simply have done that, or requested oversight, rather then coming here. Prodego talk 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Froth[edit]

It appears the User:Froth's account may have been compromised. This user had an elaborate user page until it was blanked on January 24th. This user appears to have been a contributer on the Reference Desk/Science for quite some time [81], but now his contributions are largely hoaxes. He also complained about deletion of a request for medical advice, claiming to be "a 54-year-old grandmother". It is my opinion that for a user who had a history of mature and beneficial edits who then suddenly blanked his user page and began adding nonsense, is most likely the result of a compromised account. He does have a committed identity hash which predates the alleged compromise of his account. I would like to request this user be blocked indefinitely until he can prove ownership of his account. (EhJJ)TALK 14:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...Seems a little far-fetched. I doubt a compromised account would work for just under a month by the same intruder. Most probably just Froth himself. Rudget. 14:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's me. See my comments back at WP:RD/S :D\=< (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Too bad. I was hoping that someone hijacked your account rather than that you have changed your ways. Well, in that case, I drop my request that you be blocked under the circumstance outlined above. I don't have a problem with you acting bold, as long as it's civil, and I'm not accusing you of the latter. Happy wikiediting! (EhJJ)TALK 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
He's editing for his own personal amusement rather than for the betterment of the project now. He's giving ridiculously stupid answers at the ref desk, apparently on purpose. This is a problem. Friday (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
He's explicitly stated that he's on "the light-current's fate train", which is a worrying comment. (For those not familiar with Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), he was a once-moderately-productive editor at the Ref Desks whose sense of humour and conduct started to grow more and more erratic back in late 2006. Light current was eventually banned after he started to engage in personal attacks, vandalism, and block-evading sockpuppetry; his sleeper socks have been popping up ever since.)
A block warranted then? Rudget. 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have doubts whether it would help. And right now, this situation is not an emergency, so we can move slowly and carefully. If he does something particularly egregious, a short block may be warranted to make clear the message of "Yes, we really do expect people to behave." The best thing would be someone talking him back into contributing constructively. Obviously this is easier said than done. Friday (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a go. Rudget. 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
(after double ec and hopefully not too late) A block isn't warranted. Froth has been very helpful at the reference desks. I too edit for my personal amusement. I don't think the comparison with Light current is legit (even if made by froth himself). Froth thinks he's a pirate, and is showing an anarchic DGAF attitude, but he rarely calls people names, doesn't play faux-naïve, doesn't abuse user pages, doesn't fill talk pages with time-wasting silliness for the lulz. Some guidance, yes, but a block will have the opposite effect. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I edit for my own amusement (and hopefully others'. Nothing wrong with that. Hopefully he will satisfy the bloke posting this to ANI more in future. It's all a matter of personal taste, to some extent, and what we feel like doing. Of course, if he turns truly evil, block. But I think the likelihood of that has been increased rather than lessened by this thread. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think his conduct so far warrants a block; I just thought that the comment was worrying, and that offering him some guidance now rather than later might be a good idea. I'd rather not get into a Light current-type situation where a sometimes-good editor goes off the rails/off his meds/off the deep end. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe LC and Froth are sharing the account? David D. (Talk) 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That was my assumption, I went through histories looking for shared tics but didn't see anything too blaring right off the bat, but I have them open and am parsing them, I noticed they both created their accounts in July of 2005, and though many many other people did as well, seems odd for the reference now. Dureo (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that is a coincidence, I meant sharing in the literal sense that LC could edit without suspicion if Froth gave him the password for his account. We have to remember that while LC has a bad side, there is a good side too, problem is that the former can never resist contributing. David D. (Talk) 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Light current has a 'signature' style that Froth (or the edits from Froth's account) doesn't seem to exhibit. As far as I can tell, Froth is just letting off steam; with time and guidance I hope and expect he'll back away from the edge. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not assume the account is not compromised, I have had Froth's name (which is in his emails) for a while now. Prodego talk 18:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement question[edit]

Question: When dealing with an ArbCom imposed ban, article restriction, or other sanction that is for a specific duration, i.e. 1 year, 6 months, whatever, does that duration reset with each violation of the remedy? For instance, if an editor is banned from an article for 1 year, but continues to edit it through obvious sockpuppets, after 1 year from the ban enactment does that ban lift, or is the ban extended to 1 year from the date of last infraction? It seems folly to basically say "no matter how bad you are, how much you violate the arbcom decisions during your ban period, after this magic date, you're allowed to come back."

Example: User X is banned from article foo for 6 months on January 1st. He violates the ban on February 1st, march 1st, april 1st, May 1st, June 1st, and June 15th. On July 1st is he allowed to return to the article? Or do his violations reset the start of the 6 month ban i.e., his ban would not expire until 6 months from June 15th? SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it (and I've recently seen an example), each infraction may reset the ban, although this could depend on the ArbCom ruling. So the six months could have been restarted in your example on 1st Jan, 1st Feb, etc. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The general practice is definitely to reset the sanction. Relata refero (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • From what I've seen, extending an ArbCom remedy based on violation happens only if there is an allowance for it in the remedy or if the Committee makes a further ruling. Avruch T 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Brad is probably going to come and answer this properly, but the reason we have enforcement in ArbCom remedies is so when a ban is violated, a block is issued. If it's just an article ban, then generally speaking, we don't restart the ban on a user and keep on blocking until they reach the end of the enforcement meaning the block length is extended to a longer period (e.g. 1 month, 1 year....). It's different if they're site banned, then we generally restart the ban every time they break it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so for an article ban, where the remedy does not specify that it resets on each violation, the general rule is that it does not reset? SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just go ahead and block for the duration that the enforcement section states - and it can't hurt to strongly caution him not to do it again. For what its worth, given the user has been banned from the page, all his edits to the page should be reverted on sight. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we have bothered to reset article or topic bans, since violations there are met with escalating blocks. In Swatjester's example, User X would have earned himself about 2 months cumulative block time for all those violations. I suppose we could reset the timer on page bans, as we do on general bans, but it has not previously been common to do so. Thatcher 03:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If a user is sockpuppeting and wholesale ignoring the ArbCom restrictions then go back to ArbCom. "You know what, we tried to give this user a chance to reform under editing sanctions and they just don't get it. Can we ban them please?" Or if they are continually disruptive without useful edits, just get some admins and community ban them. ArbCom sanctions are not meant be protection from community sanctions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm specifically referring to Derek Smart from the Derek Smart arbitration case. The remedies state that: Supreme Cmdr (Derek Smart) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV.

In the past several days, Derek Smart/Supreme Cmdr's socks have been editing the page, violating both Supreme Cmdr's 1 year ban, which expires next month, and violating the rule against editing the page. Supreme Cmdr/Smart's ban expires in 1 month, but he's obviously shown no contrition and continues to disrupt the page with various sockpuppets. So, my question was, despite all those violations, his ban just up and ends next month? Granted, the other remedy (against him using the article page) would continue indefinitely, but that does not address his sockpuppets, as well as his edits to user's talk pages who edit that page. The best solution here is to have his ban reset on violations. Can this be requested somewhere? SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Above its said that sitebans typically reset if violated, so it looks like this is a candidate for that outcome. Is this extension the sort that is worked out at WP:AE? Seems like it ought to be, with the outcome logged at the RfAR enforcement log. You could do it yourself, assuming you are otherwise uninvolved. Avruch T 05:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this thread but others have anticipated me. There is no general practice of resetting pagebans or editing restrictions after a violation, because they are usually enforced with escalating blocks instead, but I don't see any reason that an uninvolved administrator couldn't order a reset in an appropriate case, at least for serious or repeat violations. If you think this should become a more common practice, that should probably be raised on an enforcement talkpage or somewhere. In general, as most readers here probably already know, requests for attention to violation of arbitration remedies go to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement (WP:AE) in the first instance, and then can be brought to WP:RfAr if a change to the decision itself (e.g. strengthening a remedy) is needed. Incidentally, this is as good a place as any for a reminder that there is a chronic need for more admins to get involved at WP:AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. I made the request at WP:AE, since my involvement in the case nominally makes me unable to do an extension myself. SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Docu[edit]

Can I get an administrator to assist me with a situation regarding User:Docu? I came across the article for Lake of Gruyère while cleaning up a list of lakes. Back in April 2007, User:SomeHuman moved the article from Lac de la Gruyère (the French spelling) to Lake of Gruyère (the proper English spelling), correctly citing and explaining that English-language Wikipedia requires article name in English: the lake is by numerous sources called 'Lake of Gruyère' (though sometimes without accent grave). User Docu since reverted this move and is now in an edit war with me insisting to keep the French reference to the name rather than the properly translated English name. With that logic, User Docu could switch all the Lake articles to French names. Or the Spanish articles to "Lago de"... or the German articles to "See"...etc. With that logic, we could change all of the lakes of the United States in various language wikis from Lago or See or Lac to "Lake", correct? I hope someone can help me inform User Docu that his/her actions are incorrect (first by reverting the initial move months ago) and that, here on English wiki, we use the proper translated name of "Lake" not "Lac". Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The wiki guideline on naming conventions clearly explains why the usage of "Lake" over "Lac" is correct. Rarelibra (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The matter of the name of an article is a content dispute, which is a subject for dispute resolution, not for admins. But it appears you've been doing cut and paste moves, which violates the GFDL. And I don't see any evidence of you trying to resolve your dispute amicably on Docu's or the article's talk page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My move was to correct the original revert that Docu did when SomeHuman correctly moved the page. If you see User Docu's talk page, I have addressed it with him/her.
By such logic, that means we can change the names of US lakes to "Lake" in all of the language wikis, correct? Wiki guideline states to use English. It isn't content dispute - it is following wiki guideline. Rarelibra (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Your move violated the GFDL, violating the copyrights of the contributors of the article. I don't care if you move the article using the move button, but if you persist in cut and paste moves you'll be blocked from editing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, my apologies. After painstakingly combing through the list of lakes - I changed/moved many of the titles from incorrect names in Spanish, Italian, French, German, and even Dutch into the proper name in English. This was the only article that a user had already incorrectly reverted and redirected (even after a proper move was done back in April last year) - which was never addressed. Threaten me all you want - my actions were incorrect but the outcome should be correct, as it is backed up by wiki guidelines and naming conventions. Otherwise, let's go through and change all the names to "Lago de", "Lac du", "See", etc. Sorry, just calling it like I see it. Rarelibra (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually,