Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive596

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:F6Coloratura80 and their WP:DE and WP:BLANKING behavior[edit]

This user, who is unregistered, has been editing the article, Celine Dion for quite some time now. At first, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, but after they began revetting long-standing edits, and ignoring other users' requests to explain their edits, I became concerned that they were potentially endangering the article FA status. The user has been ignoring requests to engage in conversations about their edits on the article's talk page, as well as their own page. Despite this, they continue to add information that is either unneccessary or completely false in nature. The edits they create contain nearly all in-line citations, most from the same source, which makes it very difficult to verify. I am worried that their apparent WP:DE is hurting the article's status. Lastly, I am also concerned that this user may be the same exact one that was banned from editing about a month ago. Their actions are very, very similar in nature, and the way they interact with other users, makes me believe that it may be the same person. Nevertheless, I would greatly appreciate if something could be done to help. Thanks. BalticPat22Patrick 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It could be that they are new to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome template to their talk page. If disruption continues, let us know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad uploads by Rock&MetalFan[edit]

Resolved: 31 hours block. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite several warnings (in edit summaries as well), including a final warning, the user won't stop. Any administrator who can step in? Thanks. Nymf talk/contr. 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be completely ignoring cautions and continuing to upload pictures of living people that do not meet WP:NFC. I've given a preliminary 31 hour block, which hopefully will get his attention. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Incivility/racism[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing this. A Nobody is not going to be blocked and nothing else will come of this. ÷seresin 01:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Evening all.

We have here an editor, talking about the Article Rescue Squadron, referring to them as "you people".

We have here, another editor stating that this is "racist".

I don't know what the appropriate admin action is here (or if there is any), so it's all yours.   pablohablo. 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an issue for ANI and it doesn't appear to really be an issue for anything. If it keeps up, perhaps it's an issue for WP:WQA, but you don't need to take a bit of testy/insane dialogue all the way to ANI. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for your input.   pablohablo. 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Surely it's a violation of WP:NPA's "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Ryan4314 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
more lol-inducing. Describing people who don't like the ARSes as "racist"? :p. Ironholds (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well that's what I thought. I didn't think there were stringent entry requirements.   pablohablo. 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There has been somewhat of a urination contest going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the occult secret societies. I've been fussed at for making an off-hand joke well away from the main area of battle, and I've also told two of the main combatants, User:A Nobody (who apparently has a history of not being to civil) and User talk:Ryan4314 (much more civil) to take their dispute elsewhere. User:A Nobody has been particularly troublesome, and erases any comments on his user page with which he disagrees. I understand he's been the subject of an RFC before. I'm not sure this has risen to the level of an ANI yet, but some wiser heads might want to keep an eye on A Nobody and the AfD discussion, just to make sure things don't get out of hand. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A NobodyJack Merridew 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Didn't I see this in Tropic Thunder?
"What do you mean, 'you people'?"
"What do you mean, 'you people'?"
--Father Goose (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh; I'm gonna have to see that movie ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

GiacomoReturned, yet again[edit]

Sigh. Archiving the archive comments. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fellows, it's archived! Either remove the archive tags or just stop. Giano, you have what you want now, I do hope you are satisfied, now perhaps you can do your worst to that discussion page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh do hush! For your own sake. GiacomoReturned 15:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OK, I withdraw. As the once productive discussion on the proposed policy page has turned decidedly nasty (I really didn't cause that) I'm totally withdrawing from it. I think it could work, but I guess I just don't have enough time or energy to pursue it, especially when it's has been taken over by some people I have no real respect for and who would prefer it if half the contributors here were to stop editing. Very sad. Oh well, I'll find other areas to work on. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I couldn't have done something more for you. Obviously I would have really liked to, but I believe an admin needs to be fair to everyone, an attitude that probably cost me election to ArbCom last year. Maybe I'll go and be arbitrary, cliquish and popular. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Aham aren't you the man who does not think it incivil to call another editor a "cocksucker" [1]- when it comes to incivility you people don't know the meaning of the word.  Giano  15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You wouldn't have baited him now would you Giano? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I frustrate Giano a great deal by not rising to his bait.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wehalt, was overuled and the person concerned was blocked. Always baiting when you people are found to be in the wring isn't it?  Giano  15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another admin had a different view. Notably, I did considerably better in the ArbCom election than that admin, whose present contacts with ArbCom are--regrettable. I'm content. Got miles to go before I sleep, Giano, so I will leave you to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Meh, it's not your fault. I really tried hard to get some good discussion going on that incivility block page, and it was doing well till Giano showed up. As he's seen fit to camp there, and nobody can do anything about it, then I'm just not going to bother - I'm handing the reigns over to someone else to see if they can sort this out. I have clinical depression, so I'm not going to spend precious energy battling with him. I know a lot people think I'm baiting him, but that's just not the case. I was genuinely horrified at his blocking attack page, so I submitted it to MFD. If some thought the timing iffy, oh well. I did what I thought right. On the incivility block talk page I did make a suggestion that he should just go away from it, as he wasn't contributing anything and I still maintain this. I have to say that I'm just plain amazed that Giano is able to get away with the sheer audacity of calling others "priggish hypocrites", and make sexual jokes at their expense like he did on the talk page of that proposal. Frankly, I'm gobsmacked, and truly saddened by it. I've never met anyone so mean in all my time on Wikipedia, and that is definitely saying something! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • This is achieving nothing. Go take a break, you can go back to arguing later--Jac16888Talk 09:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • So if Giano changes the talk page, then will an admin do something about it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm de-archiving as I don't feel that this is resolved. I'm extremely concerned that Giano is going to derail the discussion and remove text from the talk page. I would like to know what can be done about this. And what of the edit war that resulted? He violated 3RR, is this not to be enforced? Surely this is disruptive? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, I'm sorry for the drama, but Giano has basically decided that as he was insulted by some others that he was going to cause as much upset on Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks as possible. As the discussion on how to start off the proposed text got so completely sidetracked, I moved it to its own thread (there was one suggestion which was to archive to stop the drama which Giano reverted several times). This is now being opposed, and Giano has stated that he is going to move it back after this was done almost 8 hours ago. He has also stated that he's not concerned about removing material due to this move, as he stated that "Whatever, if not restored shortly, I shall do it myself, and it would be a pity if anything were to be accidentally lost.". This is getting pretty disruptive, can I please have a review?

Also, he's currently attempting to bait me on my talk page. I'm not really interested in engaging with him directly, as I've stated a number of times, so I would appreciate someone telling him to desist from my talk page. Especially as he was quite willing to also do the same to me, I would have expected him to undertake the same behaviour he expects in others.

I would appreciate that this time the discussion not be archived until we can get a resolution, because this was done last time and the issues continue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, I think where baiting on talk pages is concerned you are the expert. I am happy to take your page off my watchlist. There - done! However, you are becoming monotonous and dull. You cannot exclude people because they don't happen to agree with you. It is a great pity, but one I fear you will have to learn yo live with. You attempted to force through a policy, based on a deebate largely centred on me (about which no one thought to inform me). Now I share my views with you and that debate, you are unhappy. That realy can't be helped.  Giano  08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
What about your statement where you said you were prepared to lose material from the talk page? Can you confirm that this is the case? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ta-Bu you are becoming over exited. I said it would be a pity [2] I am known to be Wikipedia's worst merger and mover - nothing more. If you or soemone else put my comments back into context it would be far safer, look how carefully you moved them in the first place. You are very clever at things like that - I am not.  Giano  08:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm feeling pretty calm, but thanks for asking. Your comments were not related to the previous discussion, and my move of them into their own thread actually still shows them in their full context. Any reasonable editor will be able to follow your concerns, which have nothing to do with starting off the policy text. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No, not at all, read the debate, if you are able, you will see your friend, Wehalt, was overuled and the person concerned was blocked. I rather leave baiting to others more expert than me. I merely mention the episode to show the hypocrisy surrounding the blocking for undenialble and true incivility. Now I am truly done here. Good luck in your future Wikipedia career.  Giano  15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
No, you moved comments on a wikipedia debate, without consultation of wisdom. You had no right to do that and were attempting to influence a debate that was not going the way you wanted it to. The page duscussed me at length, in my absence, and now you throw a mega-strop when I arrive and start to corect some of the conclusions drawn by slandering and defaming me. My name occurs 20 odd times before over a two week period before I edit it for the first time. Then when I do, you remove my edits to a corner out of context because they don't fit your view. You should be banned from the discussion for distortion.  Giano  08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, no. What happened here was that you started talking about something that was entirely irrelevant to the topic thread. Then FatherGoose set archived header and footer on this material, but you reverted it here, here, here and here, all because you want to continue the discussion. Now at least one editor commented and stated how confused they were about the discussion, mainly due to the poor use of indenting and the fact that the new discussion you forked has nothing to do with the original discussion. So to compromise, I moved your totally irrelevant comments into its own thread. I thought this was a pretty fair compromise, given that you were edit warring. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, I've tried to tell you this quite a few times now, but I had nothing to do with that conversation you are, justifiably, upset about. I'm not feeling "strops" (now that is an Australian word if ever I've heard one, have you ever visited?), all I'm really interested in is getting topics of conversation back on track again. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be using the incivility block talk page as a forum for your grievances - if you have an issue with the way that someone has treated you, try filing a case at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, as this is a more appropriate avenue for this sort of thing. Certainly it's less disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta Bu you really should disengage, your distortions in order to win your points are now becoming concerning. Anyone reading the dialogue as it was before vandalised by you could see a rationed arguement. You took exception to my metephor and idiom which you could not understand. That is now many people debate.You really have to learn to be a little more broad minded and tolerant. I hope you can acheive this. Now, I'm not coming back here to talk to you further because these threads here of yours are becoming disruptive in themselves. Adieu.  Giano  09:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's your right Giacomo, but you are mischaracterizing my actions. As I stated above, I'm not happy about the conversation where you were mentioned without being around, but I can't condone you disrupting the talk page. Evidently I'm not the only one, as Father Goose tried to archive the thread to stop the drama, GoodDay also tried to get an uninvolved admin involved and expressed a desire to collapse your part of the conversation, Doc Quintana has expressed some frustration as it's not easy to follow proceedings and obviously I would like it if you took your grievances elsewhere. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So we have a situation here where at least four editors are not happy with the the thread that Giano forked and a compromise was attempted. However, he is now saying that he's prepared to disrupt the policy discussion by readding the material and continuing his grievances. Why is this not an admin matter? Yes, I know it looks like a squabble, but surely the four editors I've noted above should be at least considered in this whole thing? Giano is the only one who wants to continue the conversation, but surely this is not the place for this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

fwiw, I think moving peoples comments at all (or archiving discussions, or using 'collapse' boxes etc.) is generally a bad idea - it gives (to me at least) the impression of a sort of unhelpful passive aggression that's just not very useful in actually moving forward and resolving discussions. A valid argument could be made, in my opinion, that it's not very 'civil' either (I get more annoyed by these things than by people saying nasty things about me (shock! it's true! not all see the beauty of this private muse!). On the other hand - I am aware of one groovy way to encourage folk to disengage and chill for a while ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
End of correspondence.png
LOL! I only use that for folks who have already expressed their opinion but have nothing more to add :-) In this situation, there has been a 3RR violation and a total derailment of several conversations all because one editor has been justifiably upset by the comments of some totally unrelated editors to the thread they were commenting on. I feel that something needs to be done here. Even if Giano is told not to readd the thread, that would be fine by me. But then, technically he should be blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Note that this isn't the best course of action, but I think it shows a clear indication of disruptive behaviour. The function of ANI is for reports of problems with disruption, so archiving without a clear resolution is not helpful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
nah... blocking's a terrible idea for a whole bunch of reasons, I reckon, and I think you can be confident at this point that you've expressed your thoughts on the matter well - so the best next step is probably to disengage yourself, and allow others to take action (or ignore the whole thing, and drink tea, as admin.s are occassionaly wont to do!) - either ways it'll all come out in the wash... Privatemusings (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)heading offline now, so it really is the end of my correspondance ;-) - good to see both you chaps around here, btw - even if you are getting on each other's tits ;-)
Well, I have to disagree. I really need some reassurance that Giano will not try to restore the thread and disrupt existing threads. That is all I'm looking for here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Why because it might have a chance of actually solving this? I just hope if I ever go off the deep end I'll be given 1012 chances to turn it around too.--Crossmr (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I am absolutely amazed at how much patience people show to Giano. Even when he disrupts and is completely rude (says things like "priggish hypocrisy", etc.) nothing is done. In fact, if anyone dares to complain or ask for assistance, admins close down the thread? Why?!? We wouldn't let someone like Nothughthomas do this, why should we let Giano? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it a good idea in the middle of a dispute with another user to nominate one of there userpages for deletion? User:Giano/The_spooky_"Curse_of_Giano" Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
If he is maintaining an attack page, sure. Why not? If you reported a vandal or a troll who maintained an attack page like this, what would you do about it? I mean, come on - even the people who are currently voting keep are basically saying that Giacomo should be banned for his incivility. Since when did we put up with this sort of mean spirited and hurtful behaviour? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to let such a drama monger continue to have editing privileges here? The sheer volume of controversy over this user should tell anyone all that is really needed to be known. I'm just waiting for some of his supporters and the supporters of other long term drama mongers to make public the WP:CONTRIBFORPOLICYVIOLATION cheat sheet so us plebs can finally keep score.--Crossmr (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thats not much of an attack page, its a simple reference to some of the blocks that he feels a bit grieved about, it looks pretty harmless to me. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, no, that's not the case here. He's basically saying that any admin who has the temerity to oppose him gets blocked. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So what is actually going on here? This editor has clearly been a huge drama, and is completely rude in every way. Yes, we all know of his brilliance in terms of architecture, but if he was abducted by aliens tomorrow and were to never return, would Wikipedia survive? Well, yes, it would. So why are people so concerned about upsetting him, when he is clearly not worried about doing this to others? Can anyone explain this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't, and like all great users who show up here on what seems like a weekly basis, I always support showing them the door indefinitely.--Crossmr (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Basically, any time someone reports Giano for civility, it results in a huge, week-long dramafest that never gets anything resolved, but creates a lot of bad faith and (usually) wheel-warring over blocks. Giano has enough friends and enemies that nothing ever gets consensus, so we just keep going round and round. Outside of him doing something bad enough for ArbCom to step in, which he seems smart enough to avoid, there's no way he's going to be blocked. So, at this point, people just shrug and go about their business, rather than step into the mire of drama that will ensue. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well that's fine, but I'm not having him hold Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks to ransom. He'll not be moving that thread. If no admin has the guts to step in to stop it, then I guess I'll need to ensure it doesn't happen myself. I'm not going to have such an important policy proposal derailed by one editor, no matter how brilliant at architectural articles he may be. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the thread with great hope, because I am no friend of Giano's and would not mourn overmuch at his wikideparture. Unhappily, I see nothing blockworthy or otherwise deserving of administrator intervention. Giano tends to crowd the edge, but he wasn't even close this time. Ah well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
What about the violation of 3RR? He's already shown he's willing to get into an edit war, and I fear he will do this to readd the thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It is likely any 3RR violation is stale. However, if you want to make an issue of it, go ahead and post the diffs. I am about to leave for the day so won't be dealing with it, but perhaps you can find someone willing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, forget about it. I'm not going to let him return that thread against general consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
OH dear, I thought this thread was closed before I went off to spend a morning in the real world, yet I come back not to harmony, but more strange behaviour by TBSDY (his AFDing a humourous user page - just ignore it). Now, would someone please restore my comments back into context as they were before TBSDY removed them. I tried last night, but then realised it was probably beyond my limited merging capabilities, whatever, I am prepared to have a go if no one more capable is prepared to try - please just don't all shout "Giano - you have lost something important" because it won't be deliberate - I assure you.  Giano  14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we've already established that this isn't to be done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • TSBDY, I am not going to tit-for-tat with you here any longer, we shall just see what happens in the next hour or so. I am too busy at present to try it myself as it wil requite all my powers of concentration. Hopefully, some clever person will try it for me. Now please don't reply, you are becoming tedious and I won't either.  Giano  14:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Please don't restore that thread to where it was before. You are honestly being disruptive to the policy page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and disruption on Talk:Sarah Palin[edit]

Rama - again[edit]

Resolved: Sanction enacted: Rama banned from using the di-replaceable fair use tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncmvocalist (talkcontribs) 16:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've noticed that despite ongoing discussion about Rama's behaviour and the misuse of the fair use dispute template that he continue to do add this tag to images.

I propose that we enact a ban on him using the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag as he clearly is not able to use if correctly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support this needs to end, post haste. It's gone on long enough and is highly disruptive. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Doing this on the heels of the RFC is not wise, and shows a tendentious will to defy the community on this matter. -- Atama 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support He is well aware of the lack of support for his particular interpretation of the NFCC policy. He is well entitled to have his opinion on it, and I appreciate that he has a different opinion, but rather than working to change existing policy from the inside, its clear he wants to enforce his own view on the policy from without, by forcing his view. It started with outright deletions, when it became clear that was causing a problem, he has shifted to tag-bombing such articles. NFCC-tagging and deletions is good work, and much needed, but Rama has breached into a side of the work that has little broad support, and it would be best if he disengaged. I would support his right to continue to argue for changes in the policy in discussion settings, but to act as if the policy supports his view, when it does not appear to, is clearly disruptive and he needs to slow down. --Jayron32 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per the comments already given. He is clearly acting against strong consensus in opposition to his interpretation. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, he knows that he is not backed-up by the community on this, and doing it after the RFC is ludicrous. -MBK004 06:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support (non-admin) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Tbsdy, what you are doing is harassment, intimidation and wikistalking. I will report further such behaviour.
Furthermore, you have given ample proof before that you are incapable of judging whether an image is replaceable or not, going as far as speedily removing a tag for an image claimed as Fair Use for an image for which a better version was available on Commons under a Free licence (of the very same image). We have Free replacement readily available, for instance File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg, an obvious crop of File:Mogador-2.jpg. Your attempts at proving the done to be impossible is just ridiculous, but how you persist in doing it after being pointed to particularly egregious consequences of your incompetence is blamable. It is outrageous that people make claims about images being impossible to replace without have first looked it up on Commons. Rama (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's really not. If you want to misuse a template even when you are in the midst of a user RFC on this sort of thing, expect others to start looking into what you are doing around this area. That's all I've done, and I noticed that you have continued to add in the tag, which was promptly removed by an entirely uninvolved editor who told you to take the image to FFD.
If you feel that you need to report me to someone, somewhere then please go ahead. I feel that my actions stand up to scrutiny, and if they don't then I will ensure that I take corrective action. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
1) You admit that you have been wikistalking
2) You forget to say that the tags that I have added have been vindicated. You are therefore reporting me for a perfectly appropriate use of the template. That constitutes harassment. Rama (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not wikistalking to keep an eye on a user whose edits have in the past proven problematic. From WP:HOUND: Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.xenotalk 14:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Second Xeno's interpretation above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Blaming TB by calling him a stalker is just plain low. You are drawing attention to yourself, of course people are going to watch. This is not admin behavior. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This is ridiculous. The point of the image is not that it's 'some guns on a French warship' - it's that particular model, used in the article on that particular model. Unless Rama is aware of a free version showing that model of ship's artillery, the odds are well against there being a free version, given the circumstances and all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You do realise that I provide such a file right above, do you ? Rama (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would support asking Rama to use FFD instead of the speedy queues (as I recommended to him earlier), because it leads to less drama. That said, I note that the actual cases he picks are at least arguable. In the case of the WWII warship guns cited above, yes, there are free US-Gov pictures of the ships in question, showing the guns fairly clearly [4] (though smaller than in that picture, but then again, the picture hardly reveals any non-trivial structural detail of them either, as far as I can make out). BTW, the replacement image shown by Rama at File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg, according to Mogador class destroyer, should be "138 mm (5.4 in) Mle 1934 guns" – that's not quite the required model, but not quite so different either; it's actually the successor model currently treated within the same article Canon de 138 mm Modèle 1929. Fut.Perf. 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
yes, the fair use image is of a Fantasque class destroyer, the predecessor of the Mogador. Not sure if there are significant differences between them, but they are not the exact same model. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
As I said, the two types of guns are currently treated in the same article, although the title ostensibly refers only to one of them, so both qualify as illustrations for that article. And we have free images of ships with the other, earlier type of gun too, albeit small ones. Fut.Perf. 11:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I see that he used again the speedy tag in that way during the RfC ("Outside view by Xeno" and "Outside view by Tbsdy lives" in his RfC). Since he insists in doing that, we'll (regretfully) have to force him to send instead the images to WP:FFD. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have never been requested to stop using this template. There have only been numerous attempts to (1) caracterise my use if the template as abusive, and to (2) cite my continuous use as a proof that I am a "ROUGE ADMIN" of some sort. However, as for (1), my use of the template has been vindicated in numerous occasions, while my detractors have repeatedly illustrated that they label some image "irreplaceable" while we do in fact have replacement readily available; and as for (2), since I have never been formally requested to refrain from using the template because of the process at hand, I fail to see what I am doing wrong.
Your position here amounts to saying that frivolous claims of misbehaviour are binding and sufficient to prevent people from contributing. Rama (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Rama, if you find fair uses that you believe are replaceable, please list them at WP:FFD where other users can double check your work. In cases where you are correct the image will be deleted anyway, and everybody wins. The point of doing this is that the community does not currently have faith in you getting the call right on every occasion and has accordingly asked you several times not to continue acting as you have been doing. If you listen to the community you will in time regain their trust, if you do not listen then it is only a matter of time until you get blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The community has done nothing of the sort. A small group of users have congregated in several instances, such as the present one, to form a so-called "consensus" which is limited in scope and time, informal, and directly contradicts the policy. The statements on which this limited congregation have "achieved consensus" have in numerous instances been reverted by other admins.
Of these limited congregations, some individuals have called on me to stop using templates over some particular incidents in which they were proven wrong. I do not consider that to constitute a request from "the community". The community is not appropriately represented by a handful of its less informed participants congregating outside of any proper process.
In the present state of affairs, I might renounce dealing with frivolous Fair Use claims, either in part or altogether. It must be noted, however, that this is the result of the pressure of a group of angry people who militate to gang-rape the policy on WP:NFC. There is "consensus" enough to circumvent the policy by harassing people who enforce it, but not enough to change the policy. There are numerous quotes to prove that this is not a problem specific to me:
  • "I've often wanted to remove that one (...), and I suspect I'd be reverted", SlimVirgin [5]
  • "I'll happily endure the machine gunning I'll get for doing it. I don't care." Hammersoft [6]
  • "Removed and watchlisted. (ESkog) Be prepared!!!! Damiens.rf " [7]
Wikipedia is supposedly "not a democracy"; in the present state of affairs, it is worse than this, it is the rule of the mob. Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If it is not the community who is asking you to moderate your approach, why has no one stepped forward to endorse your approach? –xenotalk 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Curious - Rama: if you had found a free replacement, why didn't you actually replace the image before tagging the one you felt was replaceable for deletion? –xenotalk 12:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I did not have to. The image was replaceable whether a Free replacement was or was not available at the time. It is explicitly specified that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." [8]. Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Nobody here has to do anything. I ask again: if you knew there was a free replacement, why didn't you replace it? –xenotalk 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel Rama's responses are indicative of the problems relating to their editing in these areas; faced with an overwhelming majority pointing out concerns and suggesting alternatives, Rama complains about the motives of one or two of the more vocal opponents of his actions. This is more troubling as they are an admin, whose major role is to enforce consensus - I suggest that they need to be able to recognise it first, and be able to abide by its conclusion. I see neither here.
    I also note xeno's excellent point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel that your answer amounts to "screw the policy if a local and temporary group can assemble and overwhelm a single admin attempting to enforce it". Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as Rama spends much of the time above blaming a WP:CABAL, rather than listening to what the community's telling him. I'd also suggest that further comments down the line of "a group of angry people who militate to gang-rape the policy" be considered as personal attacks and dealt with accordingly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Possible compromise: Rama can keep a subpage of images he feels are replaceable, preferrably, but not necessarily with a pointer to the free-replacement and other individuals who do work in NFCC can watch the page and ultimately place tags if they agree the image is replaceable. This will perhaps help Rama to align his beliefs about replaceability with those of the community. –xenotalk 14:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support My one and only encounter with him was quite annoying, and I am not at all surprised that others feel the same way. In view of his continuing behavior, this seems a good solution. RayTalk 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. His actions are extreme and seem to be a little POINTy; he must have know, for example, that picking on Holocaust images would be controversial, especially during a user RfC about this very issue. I support Xeno's idea of Rama keeping a subpage of images that he feels should be dealt with, then uninvolved editors can decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Sadly. I would hope that an admin would respond to the communities requests to stop, however since the response has been pretty much "I am right an you are wrong" I see little alternative. Fair use is not enforced by the fiat of an admin who is sure they are correct, it is enforced by consensus. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Chillum has actually said what I was thinking, so I'm not going to add to that. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Procedural request[edit]

Could whatever uninvolved administrator that reviews and acts on this thread also close and enact the results of the discussion over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama (which has been open almost 2 months). Any action taken here would probably be the same taken as a result of that RFC, so the closing of this thread should be comensurate with the closing of that RFC. Thanks! --Jayron32 16:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd opened a proposal to close the RfC/U on the talk but participants wanted more time...? Technically, this sanction proposal only addresses one of the issues raised in the RfC, so there's no need to wait for the results of this to close the RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that while this topic ban is related to the RFC, it is but one aspect of a larger issue. The RFC should continue or end on its own merit as should this motion here(imho). Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
As an uninvolved admin who's inclined to close;
  1. I'm going to wait for 24 h from the original post here to close
  2. If I close, I would note on the RFC but not close it directly; anyone else would be free to do so after the note.
Someone else is free to act sooner if you like. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Waiting 24 hours from the original post is a good idea. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Stifle and his rollback removal[edit]

Resolved: Rollback bit restored.

This user/admin had alleged that I rollbacked libelous material at Talk:Harvey Dorfman. Since the alleged rollback edit has since completly been deleted, I have no way of actually looking at what I may have done wrong, nor do I have a fair chance to defend myself among the broader community as a whole. I did recieve this message:

A recent rollback of yours restored libellous material to this page (it has now been deleted). This is a really serious issue. To encourage you to slow down when patrolling recent changes, I've removed the rollback right from your account. This is intended to be temporary and I intend to restore it in a few days. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jojhutton"

In order to encourage me to slow down (code for teaching me a lesson}, the admin removed my rollback. Seems couter productive to me, especially since I have made thousands of good rollback edits in the past year. This, I think, only helps the vandals in the end, since that means that there will be one less set of eyes on their vandalism.

The real question is, what was restored with my use of rollback, and how was it edited before before I rolled it back? I have no real way of knowing, nor will most anyone else now. I know that admins have the ability to look these things up, so I hope that this will be looked at.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the material should not have been restored; that being said, repeating what it is here defeats the purpose of the original suppression. It contained unsourced accusations of impropriety. –xenotalk 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't really have a lot to add to this; this admin-only link shows the rollback in question, accompanied by this template warning. I will defer to the consensus here (and hereby authorize any admin who feels that Jojhutton's rollback right should be restored to restore it without reference to me). Stifle (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a completely inappropriate and indefensible restoration by any standard, and hopefully temporary removal of rollback will encourage Jojhutton to look more carefully next time, as no one in their right mind would have restored it and issued a warning if they had. The previous editor had blanked the page by the way. What's more surprising is that the content had been there for six months. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Endorse Stifle's actions. It's rollback is easy and quick, hence the need for additional caution to ensure what is restored isn't material that was, in practice, courtesy blanked. MLauba (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Very difficult to defend myself against invisible evidence. Please look at how the page was blanked, was an edit summery used properly? I have no idea at this point, nor willl 95% of those who see this thraed, who aren't admins.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An edit summary was not used. However, when reverting blanked text, you should always look to see why. Per policy: "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article." The material that was removed was completely unsourced accusations of criminal impropriety. I suspect if you had read it, you would not have restored it. Accidents happen, but when you revert blanking you are responsible for the material that you restore. If you had been under the impression that blanking without edit summary was automatically vandalism, then reconsideration is a good idea. (Adding, from Wikipedia:Vandalism: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself..." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
When a one-shot IP zaps a large section of uncontroversial-looking text, that's usually vandalism. It's always good to check it first, though, before reverting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it usually is, but in this case, though, it clearly wasn't. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Since I can't see it, I have to take your word for it. :) One thing, though - If you blindly revert, you can see the results of the reversion, so there's really no good excuse for not taking note of what was deleted or restored. You can always fix a mistake by reverting yourself, or if it's not clearly vandalism but needs reverting, by reverting yourself and then reverting again but with an explanation in the edit summary. That may seem tedious, but it makes it less likely you'll end up here with an accusation of rollback abuse. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
After looking at this myself, I agree entirely with what Moonriddengirl's said here. I'm not sure if I'd personally have removed rollback for that one incident, but it was certainly a pretty egregious piece of vandalism to restore, and I guess it's worth learning the lesson. I'd certainly support restoring your rollback in a few days as Stifle initially stated. ~ mazca talk 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just use WP:TW instead.--Otterathome (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorse temporary removal of rollback. After a quick review of Jojhutton's reverts, I suggest that rollback is reinstated in the near future so that they can continue fighting vandalism. Also suggest that Jojhutton is provided the deleted content privately, to clarify the reason for removal. Otherwise the suspension may seem rather Kafkaesque. decltype (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Moonridden Girl also. But I don't think that anyone should be given the deleted content and I am going to email OTRS suggesting that it is oversighted. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Why email OTRS? Just email Special:Emailuser/Oversight if you think it qualifies. Make sure to give them diffs to the deleted revisions. –xenotalk 13:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I meant oversight, sorry. That's who I emailed. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I respect your judgment in this matter. decltype (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I support giving back rollback right now, instead of waiting for a few days. Jojhutton isn't a child, he doesn't need Wii privileges taken away for a week to make sure he learns his lesson. Unsubstantiated accusations against a living person are bad. Blanking text without an edit summary is bad. Blindly reverting it without reading what you're restoring is bad. Of the three, blanking text without a summary is least bad, by far. Moonriddengirl, above, nailed it, so any further discussion is unnecessary. I think it's safe to assume Jojhutton knows he made a mistake, and from the number of admins commenting, knows it was a fairly obvious and serious mistake. Let him learn from it.

    So, is this one of those "must have consensus" things, or is it one of those "any admin willing to overturn" things? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us are waiting for Jojhutton to change their line of argument from, "How can I defend myself against edits I can't see" to something including an undertaking to be more careful in the future. CIreland (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Quite patronising to remove his rollback to “encourage” him to be more careful. A polite reminder would have been sufficient. Heavy handed and condescending removal of R/B from a consistent vandal fighter for one slip-up. Leaky Caldron 14:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
He may be a wonderful vandal fighter, but I think the comments about this matter at the talk page reflect a clear misunderstanding of practice, here...something beyond one slip-up. He evidently was under the misimpression that any blanking without edit summary could and should be automatically reverted. Hopefully he will know better now (both based on policies above and Wikipedia:Rollback itself: "When using rollback to restore text to a page, ensure that the text restored does not violate Wikipedia policies."), but I would also like to see some indication that he does. We all make mistakes, but there's no harm in waiting for an "Oh, I get it" before restoring the status quo and marking the matter resolved. I'm also a bit concerned about his characterizing an expressly temporary removal of rollback as "being led to slaughter". I hope that he realizes that it is not an attack against him to make sure he is using the tool correctly, and his note that Stifle had "convienently erased" the evidence in first instance seems a bit out of accord with WP:AGF. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I won't restore without such an explicit indication, then; in any case, I see he hasn't edited since your clear summary above. Keep in mind he can't see the deleted content, and the rollback removal came out of the blue; there was no explanation first. I can certainly put myself in his shoes and understand him getting his back up. Permission removal is not a substitute for discussion. In fact, it can be an excellent way to make sure the other person is too offended to listen to what you're saying. This could have been handled better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'd have been a bit shocked, too. :) That said, I think it's a good thing that Stifle decided to engage him about it. If he had not, Jojhutton might not have realized it was his approach that was the problem rather than this particular set of circumstances. I don't think anybody is a bad guy here. There was just some clarification needed about the way blanking reversions work, and it really should be easy to settle at this point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Stifle already said that he is fine with another admin restoring it without further discussion, however I would also like to see some commitment to be more circumspect in future rollbacks. There is a setting (I believe it is the default?) that shows you the result of the rollback. You should take a quick peek to make sure you've done the right thing! –xenotalk 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The material that was rolled back was pretty serious, but I take it that this was an accident and not deliberate? I'm sure we've all hit the rollback link wrongly a few times as admins, it seems quite unfortunate that this one happened but it doesn't sound malicious to me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of malice, but of misuse; his talk page and comments above suggests that he has not understood how reverting blanked material works. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Per Tbsdy lives, plenty of admins occaisionally accidently rollback things they shouldn't, or block the person reporting vandalism instead of the vandal, or make all sorts of other mistakes. We don'r remove their tools, however obtuse their response. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A silly comparison. You're comparing apples to uranium, or apples to the early works of Raymond Carver. One set of tools we give to people who have a heartbeat and can demonstrate that they don't write "poopy" on the wall; the other takes 5000 edits of experience and a hell of a gauntlet to run. Tan | 39 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's silly of me to expect admins to treat non-admins with the same courtesy, understanding and patience with which they treat admins, you are quite right, and it's entirely proper that we extend greater forgiveness to misuse (accidental or not) of tools which have the real potential to cause lasting damage to the encyclopaedia and the community than we do to a one-off mistake that was easily corrected. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That is not the issue, as I can pretty much feel the collective wince of all admins when they saw the mistake that was made - a mistake that many of us could have easily made also. That's not the issue - the issue is that the mistake needs to be acknowledged before they get the tool back again. That's all! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Restore the R/B and continue the discussion with him away from here. That would be AGF - and not in glare of a public forum, which would have had the singular benefit of preventing Tan’s typical, wholly unconstructive, sideswiping generalisation of editors that carry out basic counter-vandalism. Leaky Caldron 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • These edits have now been oversighted as they contain potentially libelous, unsourced accusations of serious criminal acts - Alison 15:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Unless we're going to remove admin tools for one bad protection/block/deletion, Stifle's action was inappropriate in the extreme. As someone else said, Jojhutton isn't a child, and removal of the rollback bit shouldn't be treated as some kind of friggin' timeout or something. UnitAnode 15:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a misunderstanding that could have been resolved by discussion without the need for administrative action. I believe removing the rollback for what appears to be a first time mistake, that was done in good faith, was a little harsh. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm not sure why this particular situation is generating so much excitement, but Wikipedia:Rollback feature says, emphasis in original, " Misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by an administrator." It also says, "An administrator can grant (or revoke) rollback using their own judgment, via the interface at Special:UserRights." I wouldn't have immediately revoked rollback myself, but I don't think there was anything inappropriate in Stifle's action. There was clear misuse of the rollback feature, even if it was well-intended, and there evidently needed to be some clarification that blanking should not be blindly reverted, but reviewed, even without edit summary. This looks like a misunderstanding of the tool's usage, not an accident. Unlike adminship, rollback really is "no big deal" (and anyone who thinks adminship is no big deal has either never experienced the modern RfA or has a very thick skin). At this point, it seems like a simple "message received" is all that's needed for everybody to go on happily about their day. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a perfect example of why I refuse to have any of these gaudy bits; they're just treated as baubles to be handed out and taken away at the whim of any passing administrator who's having a bad hair day. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Rollback enables you to revert all the entries most recently made by one guy in an article. It's basically just a time-saver, i.e. you don't have to go back to the version just before and then edit it and save it. Just one click and those entries be reverted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Please don't take me for a fool; I know perfectly well what rollback is, and that it's a complete waste of time when compared to Twinkle. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I have sometimes taken you for a malcontent, but not a fool. What I was trying to explain is that rollback is useful, and is worth hanging onto by refraining from misusing it, while losing it is not the end of the world. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots
  • Unless Jojhutton has a history of misfeasance with regards to use of the rollback feature, the revocation of the right - even temporary - was a heavyhanded solution to a single error. The situation could have been handled in a much simpler and less dramatic fashion by making him aware of the error and encouraging him to be more deliberate with his use of the rollback feature in the future. I would support the immediate restoration of the access. Shereth 16:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I share the same view as Shereth on this matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Jojhutton, please be more careful with this incredibly valuable tool. Tan | 39 16:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. We need to accept that, from time to time, people will make mistakes. The material certainly should not have been restored, and certainly we can and should bring it to someone's attention when they re-introduce such a problem, but absent some history of malicious or careless misuse of a tool, immediately removing it with no warning seems excessive. One over-hasty response probably won't fix an over-hasty revert, but hopefully everyone's got that figured out by now. For the record, I emailed Jojhutton a (very truncated) summary of the revision's contents.Luna Santin (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Although I am grateful to get the rollback tool back, I feel that I have one more thing to say.
In the past few days I have recieved several personal e-mails from various admins on this site. Although the text of each e-mail was different, the idea of them all was the same. They all seemed to think that I should just admit that I made a mistake and apologize. One of the e-mails, although cordial in its wording, was threatening in its nature. Demanding that I admit I was wrong or else I may have difficulty in the future.
I have only one thing to say to those out there who want me to admit that I made a mistake. How can I acknowledge that I did anything wrong, when I can't even see it? This is not like most mistakes that some may make on wikipedia, where a user is shown a thread, and they can look at it, and see where they went wrong. No this is much different. This is more like someone telling me I did something wrong, then when I ask what I did, I'm told that they can't tell me, but trust us you were wrong. I wouldn't expect anyone in the world to admit to anything like this, especially in this manner, on or off wikipedia. I know that wikipedia isn't a court of law, but I am still a human being with the same feelings and emotions as anyone else.
Others have argued that I just reverted the page without looking at it. That I somehow blindly rolled back a page, just because I misunderstand how rollback works. This too is false, but it is impossible for me to defend against these particular accusations, since again, I can't see the thread.
I no longer feel that I can fairly justify what happened, so I have decided to take a different road and practice a form of Passive resistance.
This is why I have decided to silence myself for a full week. Mostly out of the content of many of the e-mails that I recieved, (which was like a punch in the stomach), and secondly out of the fact that many want me to admit to doing something wrong, that I can't even verify happened.
I am not doing this to be bitter. I am not bitter, although many may see this as so. Actually I feel really good about myself right now, but I am doing it to show how wrong it is to silence users who are somehow guilty, even when the evidence can't be seen.
I hope to be back in a week. I may come back with a vengence, or I may go out with a whimper. Either way, it is clear that I am not wanted at this time, so thanks for those who supported me, and see you all in a week.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow. You are taking this WAY too seriously. Enjoy your little crusade. Tan | 39 00:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:76.102.12.35[edit]

Resolved: per WP:F*CKYOU Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This IP has been busy tagging articles for speedy deletion but absolutely refuses to notify the original authors, despite being politely asked to do so numerous times.

Quote: "Yes. I have no desire to become a mentor/tutor/personal WP guide. Been there, done that, waaaay over it." [9]

Also revert vandalism without placing warnings (hardly ever). This is very uncooperative. One reply to a complaint was "well, though shit." Messages are deleted from the talkapge with "cleaning out the detrius".

This a) seems to imply that a former user has resorted to being an IP and more importantly that WP:BITE (which isn't policy, but consensus) is completely ignored.

(notified)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

76.102.12.35 does not strike me as an adherent of WP:Etiquette. The impression he gives is that he is very BITE-y. Jarkeld (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This user also has started tagging articles for AfD, listing them on the AfD page, but won't actually start the specific AfD pages - he leaves that for other editors to complete. Not the first time he's done this, either. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
IP editors can't create new pages, and therefore can't create the AFD pages. Woogee (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we know that, and so does s/he. But other people aren't this user's footsoldiers. Of course, the IP doesn't deem it necessary to dignify said footsoldiers' concerns with a comment here. Par for course... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The MO sounds vaguely familiar, as does the speech. Sound like anyone recently blocked? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry guys, while it is suggested that you notify the original author when CSD tagging, it is not policy. If they don't want to do it, and they've been advised that it would be nice if they did, then that's all there is to do about it. Nor do they have to respond to this thread if they don't want to. I don't see anything actionable here. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Beeblebrox. I generally find it counterproductive to respond to those who think I should do what they want as opposed to what is actually required. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin please ban me?[edit]

Resolved: User is getting the help they need, thanks to some clever javascript. –xenotalk 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin please ban me for 2 months? I need to get off Wikipedia, but it has become some sort of an addiction :( I'd appreciate a quick response, thank you. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCKME, we can't do this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Admins don't block people on request. Try Wikibreak Enforcer. Equazcion (talk) 23:52, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)
"typically". You could if you wanted. And if enough of us started doing it, the guideline would of course be rewritten to better describe (rather than prescribe) our actions. –xenotalk 23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Go for it, then. I can't really think of a reason to be against it yet. Equazcion (talk) 00:01, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I remember a similiar request a year or so back, I said no but another admin went ahead and did it for two weeks as they requested. A week later they requested an unblock saying they only meant one week, they were unblocked and it was pointed out that this is why we don't typically block on request. They didn't take it very well, thought they were being attacked, overreacted and now they're blocked indef, including a few sockpuppets.--Jac16888Talk 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yea, it's basically because of the administrative overheard. To be clear, I'm not going to do it - but I've seen admins who have in the past and no one really batted an eyelash. –xenotalk 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Aaa, crap. I'll try that, thanx. --JokerXtreme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

I never thought much of that part of WP:BLOCKING, and as it says "typically", I usually do it on request (see users talk page). However, in this case, it seems that merely logging out has solved the problem. Tan | 39 00:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks like they setup the wikibreak enforcer as suggested by Equazcion (talk · contribs). –xenotalk 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to interject here, the blocking tool is intended to prevent disruption to the project, not one's psyche. Using it to the latter effect just muddles things. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, if an unblock request is reasonable and done in good faith it may be approved. Why should a reasonable, good faith block request be declined?> RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is a simple way to avoid the scenario mentioned above where they try to back out of it later. Just give them the hardest possible block, no talk page+no email access=no unblock request. Done that way, I don't see any harm in it, although nobody would be required to fulfill such a request either. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow is deliberately baiting me[edit]

Resolved: HalfShadow warned and acknowledged. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Outright insults, [10], refactoring my comments [11][12], more snark [13].

Do something about this. I will tell you now, I will categorically not listen to 'just ignore it'--if I did the same things, I'd get blocked. You're admins, deal with the problem. → ROUX  04:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you stop reverting his posts while your at this?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Because at no point did I attack him. The reverse is not true. Once again, Coldplay: I'm sure you contribute to articles, but your contributions elsewhere are largely marked by being wholly ill-informed about the issue. Please stop. → ROUX  04:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And again[14] when I dropped the required AN/I notice on his talkpage. → ROUX  04:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Look. I don't want anymore trouble but the truth is, I've been watching this issue for a while now. Ever since (and even before) Malleus got blocked (again) I've been paying attention. I look down on those who drive away one of our best content creators on this whole site.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I beg your fucking pardon? Malleus shows up to do nothing but attack and harass me (and then, indeed, does it again with zero repercussions apart from a wholly-ignorable warning), and I'm the one who drove him off? You have less than no clue of what you're talking about there, kid. → ROUX  04:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Roux, you seem stressed...you might want to step back and take a 30 minute break or something. Just get away from the stress for a while, and you will feel better I'm sure. =) Ks0stm (TCG) 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Or, and I realise this may be a novel concept, how about you address the actual problem here? → ROUX  04:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Not an admin...but just step back and let them handle it...you're getting to stressed with this to keep control much longer it seems. Just go watch a thirty minute comedy on tv or something, and relax...you will feel better! Ks0stm (TCG) 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh so [I] have less than no clue of what [I'm] talking about there, kid? Give me a break. Your starting to act like a fool. Edit waring does'nt help your case either.[15].--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Good job, Coldplay. Insulting me just like the person you inexplicably believe I drove away? Good job. Now, could we please return to the actual issue at hand, which is HalfShadow's unacceptable behaviour? → ROUX  04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the subject of an AN/I complaint today about as superficial as this one, honestly. You're both baiting each other...WP:DICK accusations and templating and such. Either develop some thicker skin or disengage, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a template. If it's fine for newbies who we should be nicer to, it's fine for regulars. And that is hardly the point.. I have in fact not attacked or baited HalfShadow. The reverse is not true, so yet again I must say: familiarise yourself with the situation before commenting on it. → ROUX  04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the subject of an AN/I complaint today about as superficial as this one, honestly. You're both baiting each other...WP:DICK accusations and templating and such. Either develop some thicker skin or disengage, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

/facepalm Roux, you've only been back to editing, what, a couple of weeks and you've been to ANI how many times...? Just sayin' ... maybe there are people and venues you should avoid as if your life depended on it. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
By which you nicely show your ignorance of the situation and inability to read diffs. I had said nothing to HalfShadow. Not word one. Nothing. Nada. Zero. He showed up and started attacking and baiting me. Yet again, familiarise yourself with the situation before commenting on it.→ ROUX  04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Connotation and tone (literature), Roux. Ks0stm (TCG) 04:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Don't need to read diffs. The point is, maybe you should avoid contentious areas like WQA or ANI and stick to something a bit less stressful. Seriously. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Contentious areas have nothing to do with this. People attacking me out of nowhere (and yes you do need to read the diffs, that's the whole point of providing them) is the problem. Do us all a favour and address the actual problem for a change. I know, that's not in the Admin Handbook, but try breaking the mold. → ROUX  04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Roux, what problem do you wish addressed? Shadow made a light hearted comment after a post where you yourself said you were an idiot. Why is your sarcasm at WQA OK but someone else's take on it is not OK? Then you go to their talk page and issue a warning about a so-called personal attack and they don't take it seriously. You could have posted again about how uncivil it is to change idiot-edits because the idiots furrow their brows in a vain attempt to understand what happened [copyvio]. Instead you come back with a DTTR. What behaviour do you wish addressed here? Franamax (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Because making a comment about oneself is one thing. Someone showing up to dig in a bit further--someone who has left insults on my talkpage prior to this incident--is a very different animal. Far from 'not taking it seriously', he continued with insults, and indeed completely rewrote what I had written. Or has the policy against rewriting comments made by others changed recently? → ROUX  04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Just my 2 cents due to numerous past observations here, per WP:POINT... if the complainant continues to behave per such manner, it is possible that he/she might end up being the one getting BLOCKED instead. Also, the complainant might wanna read up on WP:Gray Area first before carrying on with his/her hounding, as HS has chosen to disengage from an escalating situation and you should take the hint. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hounding? What? He showed up in a thread in which he was previously wholly uninvolved solely to hound and harass me. What part of that is difficult to comprehend? → ROUX  04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(Both of which he appears to lack one way or the other) This is going nowhere. Roux obviously has a grivence (I'll give him that) but he's going about it the wrong way. Ever tried actually asking them to stop? Instead of creating several ANI threads?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact I did. But, y'know, you know all about this situation, so you should know that. → ROUX  04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh and your such a saint who's been wronged and now your out to get revenge, right? Like I told you before, two wrongs do not make a right.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
A lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous here, but [16] is way way inappropriate. Halfshadow had better refrain from that in the future. RxS (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
And HalfShadow, whatever your beef with Roux is, stop now. Your only causeing disruption. Move on.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

James dalton bell returns as IP sock[edit]

Please see here, thanks, and please block this obvious sock.— dαlus Contribs 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is indeed him, he's editing Jim Bell again and seems to be skirting right on the edge of WP:BLP. --NeilN talk to me 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm certain it's him alright. IP blocked for a week. —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Another one, 71.36.122.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), making same edits, using same edit summaries.— dαlus Contribs 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The edits themselves seem fairly minor. I should note that there are {{fact}} statements in there... these should be removed until a source can be found, per BLP guidelines. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Second IP also blocked. Both clearly related, in the same Qwest subnet even.DoRD (?) (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
On second look, scratch that. They both have the same Qwest hop #11 [17] [18] gateway, though. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And another: 97.120.244.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Woogee (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

unblock review User talk:Bibleopedia[edit]

Is it just me or is this user being jerked around a bit? I don't see any username violation in their original unblock request, unless we are to believe that "Bible Crusader" means they are officially on God's own payroll and are here to promote the Bible... Their only edit outside of their talk page was to create a user page that did in fact promote a website. They were blocked for that. Fine, I can get behind that, but then they get a block notice saying their username is the only reason for the block, and now apparently any other name they might choose is not good enough because the first name promoted a website. Beeblebrox (talk)

I think I was justified in declining "Bible Crusader", not because they're on God's payroll but because (to me at least) it just screams out they're here to push an agenda--Jac16888Talk 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This is really kinda weird. There are names that are way worse. This could easily lead to anyone w/ the name Mohammed, Jose, or Maria being disallowed... Go thru the names we have. "Headbomb" (terrorist?)... "Tide rolls" (pro Tsunami?)... "Hell in a Bucket" (Satanist?)...Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Jac, they really haven't even been given a chance to edit beyond his one page. Just give him a second chance, as there is no harm in trying. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was a bit out of line there. Crusaders do, however, annoy me. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not stopping him. I didn't block him and I haven't declined his following unblock requests. I saw him requesting an unblock with a name I felt was inappropriate so I declined the request. Change his name to his latest request and unblock him--Jac16888Talk 05:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I've unblocked them and told them to choose either of their last two requested names as their new name. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mardi Gras[edit]

As it's now the season this article and Mardi Gras in the United States have been getting quit a few ip vandals lately. Anyone willing to semi for a week or so to stop the IPs from having fun? We've been getting a few good Ip additions, but about 90 % have been vandalism and they are increasing by the day right now.. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been an edit to that page in like eight hours, and only two edits yesterday total. If the level of vandalism increases, consider reporting to WP:RFPP, but I'm going to have to decline for now. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 05:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You noticed I also linked Mardi Gras where 2 vandal edits were made 20 or 30 minutes ago which I just reverted before posting here the first time? Or that every hr or 2 all day we had a vandal or 2 show up? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I semi-protected Mardi Gras for 1 week after verifying an elevated level of IP vandalism over the last couple of days. I note that similar protection was applied last year. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, load off my mind. Back to work on article. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop the preemptive protections. This is turning into a common modus around here, and there was no consensus for doing it in the first place, let alone doing it all the time. Woogee (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There may not be a concensus written up as policy, but there a valid reason for occasionally doing it, keeps those of us who would rather be doing something productive(aka adding to article space), from having to revert IP vandals constantly on short term targets like a holiday party in NOLA.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There is also an entirely separate board specifically set up to handle these types of requests. In the future WP:RPP is the right place. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Occasionally, yes, but repeatedly, no. The discussion about protecting every single Super Bowl player was an excessive reaction, and it leads to the precedent of possibly preemptively protecting every article concerning the upcoming Olympics and all of the participating individuals. Woogee (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Actions such as this are entirely inappropriate when there is no ongoing vandalism, nor any vandalism at all in the five days prior to the protection. The reason for the protection is false, as well. Woogee (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I must've missed that discussion, I have no opinion on it. But after repeatedly reverting vandals for the last few days, with an ever increasing frequency, I felt it was appropriate to ask in this situation. Also, next time I will ask at WP:RPP, sorry, didn't realize there was a special place for this. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Semiprotection_of_BLP_articles_for_Super_Bowl_players. There was never a consensus to violate the protection policy, but it was implemented anyway. Woogee (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Probable IP sock puppetry, I'm involved in the article[edit]

This one's a bit complicated. I've been involved with Reargun (talk · contribs) in edits on David a while back, and Khirbet Qeiyafa more recently over an inscribed piece of pottery and an excavation and their implications for the historicity of the Bible. This is a live issue in real life and a disputed/contentious one, and I hope and think I've been trying to keep the articles NPOV and not coming out for one view or another. Reargun (in my opinion I emphasise) seems to have been edting to put emphasis on one pov (and also has some problems with English which hasn't helped his edits, so I've revert