Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive60

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

Noticeboard archives

Peter McConaughey[edit]

Just blocked for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks after warning, after seeing this edit. Can anyone work out any possible way to bring Mr McConaughey back to the land of the living? - David Gerard 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, it's not really necessary to put it like that. We have to bee civil too, ya know. I have been trying to urge Peter to exercise civility. I don't know what else can be done. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think David was just making a play on words. But you can block him for incivility if you really want :-) --Ryan Delaney talk 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I obviously missed the "play" of it. Maybe I missed something. Oh well... --LV (Dark Mark) 22:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I was attempting to euphemise "batshit crazy troll", but anyway. By the way, has Mr McConaughey made any good edits at all, anywhere? - David Gerard 11:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How about "chiroptera-poop mentally challenged troglodyte"? Radiant_>|< 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... I count about 10-20 good edits to articles other than conspiracy theory, 9/11, American terrorism, and related talk pages. I wasn't going in to look at all of those since the idea of POV there is too great to make any sense in a short check like that. Hmmm... an idea. BRB. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Where are they..? I'm sure there must be a few good edits in amongst the user's total edit count of 579, but I don't see any off hand. The proportions have some interest in themselves: only 119 of them are to article space, 123 to user talk alone. What stood out for me were PM's recent exchanges with two notably unflappable and polite editors, JRM and MONGO, on non-existent or nonsense issues, seemingly purely with the goal of somehow, by hook or by crook, needling those users into annoyance. (Unsuccessfully; well done, guys.) A lot of good-faith assumption has already been spent on this user, and has fallen on stony ground. I'm thinking RFAR rather than RFC, sooner rather than later, though perhaps not quite yet. Meanwhile, I advise only the coolest, most laid-back of us to try any interaction (me, I would be the very last). Mind that blood pressure. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, here are the ones that I found. Caveat: I wasn't going near any of the talk pages, the POV pages (like American terrorism or conspiracy theory), or the Wikipedia namespace. [1] [2] [3] [4] (Maybe)[5] (Maybe too)[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] So, all in all, maybe 25-30 possible "good" edits. However, for every one good edit, there are a couple of edits, maybe not so good. I'm just sayin' is all. Phew... good thing I don't do this for a living, but it might come in handy if an RfAr is ever filed. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In my interpretation Peter has been a very worthwhile contributor to wikipedia. Peter fundamentally grasps the concepts of true consensus and collaborative editing and I have a learned a lot from his WP:0RR guideline. I can give Carbonite the benefit of the doubt if he claims otherwise but I think it was reasonable for Peter to conclude Carbonite was trying to damage the acceptance of WP:0RR, first by moving it to Peter's userspace over a header dispute, then after that mistake was corrected and the guideline was moved back, Carbonite proposed a merge of it to a fundmanetally different and perhaps less effective guideline. However, Carbonite continues to maintain the two guidelines are similar which apparently is easy to do as he fails to even acknowledge the evidence to the contrary. I ask all of Peter's detractors to please assure me they are not attempting to stack the deck against him to ease future discrediting of WP:0RR or any other guideline or proposal he might have? Please give Peter the benefit of the doubt and avoid statements such as the above "batshit crazy troll" that are out of line for an admin and portray him and his contributions way too negatively. The list of "few beneficial edits" above is likewise way too negative. zen master T 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Way too negative? Take a look at his contribs and find any more productive edits and diffs. I was trying to do PM a favor by pointing out he wasn't just disruptive. Remember also, I was only going through his main namespace edits in areas specified above. And some of my diffs are being generous by calling them productive. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have a tendency to disagree with Zen-master ;-) , but here I fully agree. I also appreciate Carbonite's openly stated attempt to group all <3RR on one page, but I can understand disagreement about it and coming from the 0RR page his actions may look a bit self serving and lacking openness. Apart of that, for an as yet unidentified reason some administrators seem not to understand Peter (see also the discussion with Voldemort on my talk page User_talk:Harald88#A & B's discussion and Wikipedia management)... perhaps Texans and Dutch speak the same language? (I'm Dutch). Also, most of his edits and proposals that I saw on Conspiracy Theory were definitely good, helping to move in the direction of similar but already featured articles. BTW what did David Gerhard mean with "batshit crazy troll"? I did not understand that, thanks! Harald88 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh and see also Mongo's comment on Peter's Talk page User_talk:Peter_McConaughey#Howdy
What you have above is all about "portrayal", you aren't letting the evidence speak for itself. Creating a small list of "productive" edits by an editor already labeled negatively can have the effect of getting people to further unquestioningly accept your negative portrayal -- though I can give you the benefit of the doubt if you assure me that isn't your intention. Regardless, please let the evidence speak for itself and refrain from excessive or multi-layered portrayals. In my interpretation Peter's response to Carbonite's actions was completely reasonable (I give the benefit of the doubt to both parties, miscommunication and misunderstanding can happen). Please simply list any other edits of Peter's you interpret to violate any wikipedia policy, and how? zen master T 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Someone and someone else asked if he had made any good edits anywhere. I, trying not to condemn PM without looking at the edits, compiled a list of edits that show he has actually made some productive edits. Now I am beginning to think you do not assume good faith on my part. My list has absolutely nothing to do with Carbonite or their history together... notice I stayed away from the 0RR and highly POV pages. If you really want, when an RfC or an RfAr are filed (which is very possible, it seems) you will have a list of "bad" diffs. I was just creating a list of "good" diffs. If you can find any other diffs that might fit into a "good and productive" category, please feel free to list them yourself below. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
You did/do seem to support the notion Peter has only made "some" or a "few" good edits? That is a negative portrayal and I believe it is completely inaccurate. Perhaps Bishonen and David Gerard are the ones that may have portrayed PM excessively negatively, perhaps inadvertently. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, I interpret the possibility of a hastily made portrayal being excessively negative, perhaps inadvertently, and perhaps even within the motivation of finding "some good" edits. Focusing on some "good edits" of an already negatively portrayed editor can have the effect of switching around the burden of proof, which would be wrong and seems to have almost happened in this case. The actual burden of proof is on PM's detractors to give evidence of any violations, right? zen master T 22:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Evidence of violations is plentiful on these pages. They're looking for evidence of good edits by Peter. Radiant_>|< 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been following this page quite closely and seen no evidence of any "violations" by PM. Suggesting people look for a few "good edits" by Peter is a negative portrayal which I currently assume was an inadvertent mistake on your part? Please discontinue that either way. zen master T 23:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You apparently haven't been following it all that closely, considering you are unaware that the suggestion that people look for good edits by Peter is actually a serious request by David Gerard, rather than an inadvertent mistake by me. Radiant_>|< 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • As I said above, requesting editors to look for "good" edits by an editor is needlessly prejudicial as it portrays them negatively, though, because I give you and/or David Gerard the benefit of the doubt that it was inadvertent I will simply ask you to refrain from doing that in the future. zen master T 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
And I am not even sure why you are arguing with what I did. I was trying to help Peter here. There was a question of whether or not PM had made any good edits anywhere. I, looking for ways to not have him blocked outright, came up with a list of productive edits. That way, no one can say that he has never made a useful edit. I am trying to help Peter, and you are fighting me on it. Why? There are people looking to ban him indefinitely, and I am trying to persuade them to be nice and give him a shot. Did you even read my first comment in this section? I was trying to act in PM's defense. Yet you have already prejudged me as being anti-Peter. Please, continue to assume good faith on my part as I try to save Peter from being banned for good. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand you claim you want to "help" Peter and I can give you the benefit of the doubt. However, what I am telling you is your "help" or someone else's question that you responded to actually has had the effect of an excessive and very unfairly negative portrayal of Peter. The notion that Peter has only made a few good edits is completely inaccurate and taints a fair consideration. What further concerns me is now you seem to be hinting that Peter should be banned for good, that is also completely incorrect. Where did you get the notion Peter should be "blocked indefinitely" from, it seems you are definitely against him now? This page only contains a negative fluff portrayal of Peter, the only evidence presented here involves Peter's supposed "name calling". However, in my interpretation Peter's comparison of Carbonite to a troll made sense given the abusive and stifling actions Carbonite committed, though I give both parties the benefit of the doubt that tensions flare and mistakes happen. But it is starting to seem reasonable a small group of editors are systematically trying to portray Peter negatively because they really don't like his WP:0RR or other posts for some fundamental reason. zen master T 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Please listen to me... First, I never said those were Peter's only good edits. I just wasn't going near the aforementioned areas. I was just showing that he was able to make productive edits. You fault me for trying to show Peter in a good light? Second, I never once said Peter deserved to be banned for good. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said there are "people looking to ban him indefinitely, and I am trying to persuade them to be nice and give him a shot." What is so wrong with me trying to be on PM's side here? You want to be the only one? Third, let me say it again, this has nothing to do with Carbonite. Do you get it? Did you read what the first thing I wrote here was? Did you read any of this? See ya, Zen. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Lord Voldemort, you seem to have accepted as a given that Peter should be "blocked indefinitely" and I think that is a completely inaccurate portrayal given the evidence presented. You say "there are people looking to ban him indefinitely" but where did anyone directly state that (innuendo doesn't count)? I am not "faulting" you for anything as I can give you the benefit of the doubt, I am merely only pointing out what you claim to be "help" has actually had the effect of an excessively negative and unfair portrayal. It is true that it was David Gerard not you that was the one who asked the leading question above: "By the way, has Mr McConaughey made any good edits at all, anywhere?" which should be obvious to see was meant prejudicially, perhaps inadvertently, as David's preceeding sentence contains the phrase "batshit crazy troll"... zen master T 19:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So apparently the answer is no, you haven't been reading what I've been writing? Let me say this one last time, as clear as possible... I was trying to help User:Peter McConaughey from being indefinitely banned, by showing that he has made useful edits, and is not just a "batshit crazy troll". There are people looking to ban him indefinitely (You asked for evidence, here's your diff), and I was trying to stop them by showing PM has been useful. And in fact, I wasn't even responding to David Gerard's question, I was responding to Bishonen's question and comment, "Where are they..? I'm sure there must be a few good edits in amongst the user's total edit count of 579, but I don't see any off hand." If you continue to assert that I am against Peter, which I never have been (show me the diffs for evidence of me being anything other than civil or helpful towards Peter), I will not discuss this matter with you further. Your continued lack of good faith on my part leads me to believe that you just want to argue, and don't care what has actually been written. Please, before you respond, make sure you read this entire comment. Thank you, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I've always given you the benefit of the doubt that you are not directly against Peter, but I separately can't ignore the overall excessively negative and unfair portrayal on this page. Your citation of David Gerard's suggestion of blocking Peter indefinitely is precisely my other point, where has David or anyone actually presented actual evidence and made a case against Peter (again innuendo doesn't count)? It seems you've been following all the various Peter sections on this page quite closely? The Carbonite "troll" comment is small potatoes and was reasonable given Carbonite's actions that were interpreted as being stifling and I've seen no evidence of Peter "wikistaling" him, if anything an opposite case could be made. The entire concept of "search for any good edits" by a negatively portrayed user further stacks the deck against them, perhaps you have inadvertantly fallen victim to that, though I can also give David Gerard the benefit of the doubt as cases and arguments made hastily can have, perhaps inadvertent, prejudicial results. zen master T 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Listen... buddy... if you have a problem with David Gerard, take it up with him. Quit debating with me. I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth (here, and now seemingly on Peter's page). Why do you keep bringing Carbonite up? I will not argue with someone if you won't even listen. I won't argue with someone who seemingly cannot see that I am trying to save PM, not ban him. This is silliness. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps what you claim is my "not listening" to you is instead us simply disagreeing over whether looking for "good" edits is actually "helpful" or not in this case? I maintain that seeking "good" edits has the perhaps inadvertent effect of unfairly reinforcing a negative portrayal and characterization. I bring Carbonite up because the supposed "personal attack" by Peter against him is the only actual "evidence" on this page, but as I explained above I think that was completely understandable given the situation. What else, if anything, makes you think the case against Peter is so strong that redeeming edits must be found to "save" him? I do take issue with David Gerard's apparently hastily made portrayal that also lacks evidence, but I can give him the benefit of the doubt and need not follow it up with him if he refrains from repeating the same, perhaps inadvertent, mistake. zen master T 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Listen carefully, I don't really give a crap about how Peter is being portrayed here. I don't give a crap the history between Carbonite and Peter. I don't give a crap if you can't or won't understand me. I DO give a crap about possible good users getting banned.
You ask, "What else, if anything, makes you think the case against Peter is so strong that redeeming edits must be found to "save" him?" My answer: Someone said they were close to banning him! Honestly, at this point, I don't give a crap what the case against him is. Someone was close to banning him, so I thought I'd help him not get banned. If someone says, "Hey, I'm going to ban this editor unless someone can show he or she is useful", I am going to see if I can show them as useful. I provided quality diffs that show PM as something other than a troll (Again, I don't give a crap if this label was justified, that is not what I am arguing here. If you want to have that conversation, we can do that later, for now, please focus on this.)
I don't know if you are arguing just to argue, but this time I really am done with you. You fail to assume good faith, you put words in my mouth, you don't seem to want people to try and help, this case is seemingly hopeless. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
So you unquestioningly accepted David Gerard at his word that the case against Peter was so strong that redeeming edits must be found to save him, and, you dutifully took it upon yourself to spend a significant amount of time searching for only that without considering the possibility there is no case, and, you have repeatedly made a point of insisting: 1) you have nothing to do with Carbonite, 2) or David Gerard, 3) and you are not duplicitously against Peter? Ok, I can still give you the benefit of the doubt. Going forward, if you really want to "save" Peter, as you claim, then be aware that focusing on "redeeming" edits to "save" him can, perhaps inadvertently, reinforce an unfairly negative portrayal, which is exactly what almost happened in this case in my interpretation. The case against Peter is actually slim to none, no where near having to search for redeeming edits to "save" him. zen master T 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So the apparent, perhaps inadvertent, effort to portray Peter as needing to be "saved" and the effort by other editors to "save" him has fizzled out as quickly as it started? zen master T 16:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I am just done with you. He's still being watched closely. Don't worry. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You claim above you are trying to "save" Peter, why would he need watching? zen master T 02:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm... that is some delicious looking bait you got there. Look, I'm not convinvced either way, so better to be safe than sorry. Possible trolls get watched. Simple as that. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It would additionally be inaccurate to portray Peter as a "possible troll", please discontinue your efforts to "save" him, they are way beyond counter productive. Those who would errantly and duplicitously portray people as "disruptive" or "trolls" get watched likewise. zen master T 15:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion after a few repeated instances of nonsense from this user on the World Islamic Front discussion page. The nonsense is accompanied with a supposedly authoritative chart that he only later in the discussion admitted was of his own creation. I haven't looked at his other edits but my sense on this page is that he is, as another editor noted above, needling people to try to pick fights over non-issues. It reminded me of another user, who coincidentally stopped editing a couple weeks before Peter M started editing. It looks like at least two of Peter M's obsessions are the same as Zephram's were -- terrorism and the Declaration of Independence. When I voiced my suspicions, his response was telling -- very much in the style of Zephram's writing. I may just be paranoid, and I don't want to make accusations, but I wanted to at least voice my suspicions honestly here where someone could look up IP addresses if necessary.-csloat 22:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter's image actually clears up confusion in my interpretation. Please cite individual examples of Peter's supposed "nonsense"? zen master T 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I did - it's all over Talk:World Islamic Front and of course that article's edit history. This all started when he insisted on the existence of an "International Front for Jihad against Zionists and Crusaders" that is different from the "World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," or "World Islamic Front," i.e. al-Qaeda. Peter, or Zeph, argues that there is a larger group with the former title that is different from the group with the latter title (somehow the Arabic words for the two different fronts are exactly the same, but he assures us that they should be translated differently in context). He then created a chart - gif linked above - to justify this bizarre interpretation, making the further bizarre and nonsensical claim that there are Jews and Christians who are part of the "International Front...." He continues to play bizarre semantic games like this. Other recent irrelevant comments about my sex life and further comments in his edit summary seeming to call out Jews and Muslims in an inflammatory manner provide more evidence to me confirming my suspicion that he may be User:Zephram Stark.--csloat 00:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I briefly looked at the history of that article earlier and saw nothing but a vigorous content disagreement, not "nonsense". I believe you misinterpret Peter, I read this checkin comment as advocacy for harmony between muslims and jews. zen master T 00:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL, it's a call for harmony, yes, but the question is who are the Muslims and Jews? I believe he refers to myself and Random Element, neither of whom identified ourselves in terms of religious affiliation in this discussion. I believe he refers to a previous discussion between myself and Mr. Stark and I believe the only reason to call attention to our religious affiliation is to be incendiary. I think it's interesting that you ignore most of my specific examples above and simply focus on this one -- his link to the graphic and his arguments on that page are literally nonsensical. They do not make sense. I've explained this above. Finally, his comments about my sex life, on an issue totally unrelated, is reminiscent of Mr. Stark. Ah well, I guess if there were no Zephram Stark, someone had to (re)invent him....--csloat 01:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps Peter is referring to Muslims and Jews getting along generally? I interpreted his "sex life" comment to be hyperbole, as in "why do you keep insinuating Peter is someone else, you must care a great deal and/or miss who ever 'Zeph' is"? Peter's chart conveys the fact, that many people in the West are perhaps unaware of, that many Jews and Christians are actually against Zionism for various reasons, he estimates 35-40% of Jews for example. I do think Peter's chart is a tad misleading in that anyone not against Zionism isn't necessarily for it. zen master T 02:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your generous readings of his posts, but you misunderstand my comments. His "Jews and Muslims" comment clearly referred to the "edit war" he was directly commenting on in that edit summary; not some abstract sentiment about Middle East peace prospects. My point is not that I am offended by these comments; I'm not; my point is that they are distressingly similar to the kinds of comments made by a known sock puppeteer who stopped posting right before Peter McC started editing wikipedia, coincidentally the same articles, picking fights with the same people that Zephram was in fights with. I'm commenting on a very similar writing style. I think it is very appropriate for such a user to be watched carefully.
As for Peter's chart, "a tad misleading" is a ludicrous understatement. The chart was first presented as some kind of authoritative map of an organized "Front" that he claimed actually existed. He later admitted he made up the chart but he continued to defend the nonsensical claim that such a Front existed. The chart does not convey the fact that some Jews and Christians oppose zionism; it conveys the false claim that there is a significant number of Jews and Christians who have declared "jihad" against it. That claim is utter nonsense.--csloat 03:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Peter's point is simple really, many have proposed and perpetuated an "us" vs "them" mentality, and using that "logic", anyone that is against Zionism, to any degree, can be labeled a "jihadist", even 35-40% of Jews and Christians. Peter's chart exists to show the illogic of binary thinking. zen master T 05:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense... if you're drunk. Seriously, that has nothing to do with anything he said or anything he was arguing against. I'm sure he can explain this better himself, but your claim about us v. them, which I agree with, has nothing to do with the discussion on that page. Peter was claiming that there was an actual group identifying itself as the IFJAZC (he actually called it that at one point) that encompassed non-Zionist Jews and Christians -- a claim that is demonstrably false. You are doing mental gymnastics to defend his position as a "simple point" about either/or thinking. It's a sporting gesture on your part, but the facts do not support your interpretation. --csloat 11:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why did Peter include George Bush's statement that frames the world in "no neutral ground" and "good vs evil" terms if he wasn't trying to make a point about the problem known as tunnel vision or binary thinking? This binary thinking, that Bush perpetuated, had allowed the real powers that be to hide the existence of attrocities and war crimes from us the people, but not any longer. zen master T 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

WTF? Why are you trying to bait me? I agree with you about Bush, about binary thinking, and about war crimes, but that has nothing to do with this dispute! The problem is not that Peter is against binary thought but that he is making shit up. Which would not be so bad if he wasn't insisting it be on wikipedia! Do you really think wikipedia should start listing organizations that don't exist as legitimate organizations in order to score points against binary thinking?? Why are you doing back flips trying to defend this behavior?--csloat 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Peter is "making shit up" as you say to show the eventual result of binary thinking. I believe Peter created the image to show that the World Islamic Front and al-Qaeda are not the same thing. What specifically is he insisting must be in the wikipedia article that you believe is made up? I don't think Peter is saying an "organization" exists but it is a de facto coalition of anyone that is to even the slightest degree against "Zionists and Crusaders". It might be easier if you simply asked Peter for clarification. zen master T 06:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What part of "making shit up" was unclear to you? Can you point us to the part of Wikipedia verifiability policy where "making shit up" is approved of or tolerated?
You're being disruptive again -- and it appears to be for no larger reason than that you can. Stop it. --Calton | Talk 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Huh? I admit to being a bit confused by csloat and Peter's discussions here but how is that a "disruption"...? zen master T 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What part of "making shit up" was unclear to you? Can you point us to the part of Wikipedia verifiability policy where "making shit up" is approved of or tolerated? As for you being confused; well, quelle surprise. --Calton | Talk 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The entire part of "making shit up" is and was unclear to me. Peter may in fact be inferring things, I don't believe he is making things up out of thin air. zen master T 17:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL.... I did ask him for clarification, as you can see from the talk page on that article, and that is when he admitted he just made up the chart, and he continued to defend the existence of the organization until it was clear that he was full of shit about that too; then he invented a sock puppet -- a "terrorism expert" no less, but one who seems totally unfamiliar with standard literature in the field -- to try to push absurd arguments. I have no doubt any more that both these accounts belong to the same person who invented "Zephram Stark" for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia.--csloat 07:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I (obviously) don't know all the details of Peter's position, I just passed along my initial interpretations, I am sorry you have not found them to be helpful. zen master T 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User SqueakBox substitutes articles about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero with redirects[edit]

The user SqueakBox has substituted the articles Zapatero's years as an opposition leader, Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003, Zapatero and the 2004 General Election, Zapatero's foreign policy and Zapatero's domestic policy with redirects to the main article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero although those articles taken together contain far more information than that in the main article. He has not provided any explanation about his behavior.

The main article had to be protected last month by the administrator Katefan0 because SqueakBox started an edit war by introducing repeatedly spelling mistakes he recovered once they were removed by other users. The page was unprotected two weeks after being blocked. SqueakBox did not explain his behavior although he was invited to do so in that period.

His attacks against the articles about Zapatero and against the users editing them have spread for a long time since May this year. Zapatancas 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume he was acting under the general tendency to merge information from small offshoot articles into main articles. That said, the main article is already generating length warnings - probably what needs to happen is some careful editing. I'll take a look at the articles later today and see if I can't identify some sections that are either overly hagiographic or just kind of excessive. Phil Sandifer 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Zapatancas has been harrassing me for months, using sockpuppets such as SquealingPig (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) who appeared within an hour of me having a dispute with Zapatancas, and then appeared again as SquealingPigAttacksAgain (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). I am getting sick and tired of being harrassed and insulted by this user, including as zapatancas endless false claims of vandalism against me and general insults. I don't see why I should have to tolerate this? SqueakBox 16:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

128.42.7.170 Talk Page[edit]

My own talk page has been protected from editing by anonymous IP's. This is a ridiculous abuse of administrator power as the talk page *belongs* to an anonymous IP. The administrators responsible for the protection were engaging in hazing of me because I am a n00b. I have made mistakes and admit it, but I followed Wikipedia policy when archiving my talk page (as seen in the records), and I have a right both to comment on my own talk page, and to respond to comments placed there. This blatant violation of authority is unnacceptable.

I suggest that "n00bs" will be treated much better if they don't come into this site with a chip on their shoulder and a major attitude problem. *Dan T.* 17:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Talk pages and user pages attatched to IP addresses are not consider to "belong" to the IP in the same way as registered users are considered to "own" their talkpages. (Even then, asserting a "right" to control it is a bit further than most people go - there is a general understanding over how they are edited, but this is quite different).
Ah the classic "You didn't know the ropes so we have a right to act like dicks" response. No sorry, wrong. Yes, I acted somewhat innappropriately. I am willing to take responsibility for my actions as such. This does not excuse the hazing I recieved.
Nor does it excuse you from the attitude problems you have shown in reaction to being (in your view) treated unkindly as a "newbie". No amount of wrongs make a right, and somebody at some point needs to show the maturity to break the cycle of rudeness. *Dan T.* 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I have apologized and come here to discuss it, instead of writing you a nasty message about your attitude on your talk page. I've come here, I'm ready to start working things out. Why the hell aren't the rest you coming to the table? You're still hazing the n00b.
In my case, I wasn't one of the people who did or said anything nasty to you in the first place; I'm just an outsider who stumbled on all of this arugment here, and added my own comments. I'm not the one you have a beef against. Anyway, you'll get much kinder treatment if you don't keep cursing and screaming, like you're still doing (with comments like "Why the hell..."). Given that some of your edits were vandalism, it's understandable that people weren't completely nice to you, but it's still possible to put it in the past by being cooperative and constructive, and not "hazing" the "oldbies" back. *Dan T.* 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hell is not a "curse word" unless you happen to live in the Bible belt or some such crap. It's an expression of frustration at the utter hazing frat boy culture of Wikipedia. I'm here looking for resolution if you're just going to mock and haze, please do so to some other n00b.
It isn't a curse word in Judaism. 220.233.48.200 09:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It is not yours. You do not have a right to control it. Shimgray | talk | 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I do have a right to edit it, and to respond to comments placed there, which is all I am asserting.
It does not currently seem to be protected. From the log:
01:23, December 27, 2005 Alkivar unprotected User talk:128.42.7.170 (unprotect) --GraemeL (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
And thanks to Alkivar for that, it still doesn't resolve the issue that it was protected in the first place.
It's been unprotected. I have no idea why it was protected, but since it was unprotected yesterday the only reason you are here today is to stir up trouble. The matter is resolved. Please go play somewhere else. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I come here to try and sort things out and this is the response I get? The matter is *NOT* resolved. Why was it protected? There is an abuse here that needs to be investigated. I am neither "playing" nor "stirring up trouble". Unlike you. I am here to resolve a serious matter.
I'm reading this and I'm like WTF. In my humble opinion, you're overreacting. But if you really want to know why it was protected, this is probably why. First edit, you vandalize Jimmy Wales. This does not give a very good impression. Editors here are very intolerant of vandals, and even less so of vandals that accuse editors of "hazing".
Fortunantely, you are not a common vandal, and you engage in discourse with other editors, particularly FireFox and Titoxd. First you go "What?" to Titoxd, and he points out your vandalous edit. Then you reply:
Calling it as I see it boss, sorry if your kilt is all messed up. I'll cease. I thought Wiki was open for any edits.
If I had been dealing with you, I would not have recieved a very favorable impression of this anonymous editor. Unfortantely, Titoxd didn't respond to your "smart" comment, but here is what the reply probably would have said.
The wiki is not open for any edits. We are here to make an encyclopedia, and the wiki is a means to that end. Vandalism is unacceptable. Don't do it again.
Now, from the following discourses, I can see where you got the impression that these people were hazing you. FireFox gives you another warning for the same infraction Titoxd had given you. It seems that they considered the infraction quite serious. You engage with a talk with FireFox, and the conversation goes like this:
Yeah so someone already told this to me... I'm just a dumb slashdotter trying out the Wikipedia. Didn't realize it was so territorial what with y'all peeing all over my carpet. Don't get your skirt out of whack, settle down, have a beer. We're just here from Slashdot to look around. Judging by the number of hilarious edits on the page in question... I'd say my comment ain't far off the mark.
What does rvs mean?
RVS is Revert S.... The S is whatever you want it to be.
How am I supposed to learn the ropes of Wikipedia if you won't even talk to me? Is this community really this unfriendly? I'm trying to open a dialog and you're just ignoring me... thats pretty rude.
Yes
FireFox is somewhat exasperated by your flippant attitude and your accusatory manner.
The next edit you make is not much better. It's an addition of "It is quite possible people are seeking to vandalize it. Be aware and prepared to respond. Only you can help prevent vandalism!'" to {{High-traffic}}. Curps reverts you, and you respond, in accord to your previous attitude and demeanor:
I come bearing edits yet you rebuke me and disregard them like I was a can of spam on a grocery shelf with a $99 price tag. What wantest thou from us, the lowly unwashed slashdotters. Tell us Great Pooba! Tell us that our edits might please thee!
Curps responds in a meaningful manner:
As discussed on my talk page, your edit to Jimmy Wales was clearcut vandalism as you have admitted, and likely not your first vandalism of Wikipedia. It was reasonable to interpret your further edits as vandalism and revert accordingly. Be aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule in the future and seek discussion and consensus if you wish to modify a commonly-used template.
And you respond:
:"Likely not my first vandalism of Wikipedia"? Where does this come from? There is no logic behind this line of reasoning. I just started editing today and you're all peeing on my carpet. It was not reasonable to interpret my further edits as vandalism. I specifically asked for pointers from those doing the reverting. Guess what? Y'all fucking ignored me. So I did what was reasonable, I tried again using different language. In the absence of helpful comments from y'all how else am I supposed to get it right. Y'all should be blocked for bad stewardship and negative attitudes. What the heck is this? A members only club? You guys treat n00bs worse than Slashdot does, and y'all should be blocked for failure to help out the new guy.
And add:
BTW, what are you, some European facist scum? This is America. Guilty until proven innocent, trial by jury of your peers.
Which you promptly revert. There are more responses:
Referring to Wikipedia newcomers as n00bs on a template which is visible from dozens of pages was reason enough for the 3 hour block, especially considering this was your fifth attempt to deface this template with "Leet" style nonsense. Under most conditions this would have earned you a 24-hour block, but since I saw some of your other edits were done in good faith, I chose a shorter block. Please keep in mind that this is not an online gaming chat board; terms like "n00b" and "0wn3d" are not welcome here, and trying to add them to official templates is clear vandalism.
You revert war on {{High-traffic}} several times, and at this point, all your good faith has been used up (as noted in the above comment).
Your edits continue, with several dubious edits that could have been construed as good faith if it hadn't been for previous vandalism, and some more clearcut vandalism to other users. You have a revert war on your own talk page, and eventually the admins get fed up and block the page.
Here is my verdict after this investigation: you are a Slashdot user that decided it would be funny to vandalize a Wikipedia change. When various other users reacted and told you to stop vandalizing, your attitude and flippant remarks prevented them from fully appreciating the "I'll cease." You offered early on.
You then went on to make some controversial edits (which could have been good or bad), and got reverted again, and by then, everyone was convinced you were a hard vandal. Then you got into an edit war on your talk page.
I have attempted to present the dialogues that led to these "injustices" in a neutral manner, and have come to the conclusion that if you had acted a little more humbly and a little less "smart-aleck," these people would have been more willing to help you "learn the ropes." Instead, you blew it with immediately controversial edits. Feel free to get a user account and seriously contribute to Wikipedia, but please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

repeat willful violations of image rules[edit]

Just wanted to note here that I have locked the userpage for User:Gateman1997 since he is willfully violating fairuse guidelines and image guidelines. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I counter that my page is being willfully vandalized by User:Jtkiefer because he has a less then accurate view of the fairuse rules and logo rules. Especially with regard to Mozilla Firefox who have licenced their logo for uses such as Wikipedia. I would ask any admin with half a brain to unlock my page at once.Gateman1997 19:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also please note this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gateman1997&action=history which shows his less then par attitude for an admin. Can someone direct me to the nominations for de-admin page?Gateman1997 19:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The fair-use rules on Wikipedia, which you refer to, state clearly that Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. HTH. Shimgray | talk | 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Then why does Wikipedia:Logos counter that?Gateman1997 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It doesn't, as far as I can tell. Note "Therefore, their use must also conform to Wikipedia's fair use guidelines." Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Jtkiefer, are you going to do the same to everyone that is using Template:User democrat? Jkelly 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have rasised the matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use. It seems to me that given the promotional tag, this use is reasonable. DES (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Can we get the block raised while this is under discussion. I'm reasonable and will refrain from readding it until the matter is resolved.Gateman1997 19:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • On that basis, I will lift the block. DES (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I'd also like to apologize I may have gone against WP:CIVIL at. I get very defensive when people edit my userpage.Gateman1997 19:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. I agree fair use tag is reasonable. Let's be sensible about this, the image is being used to promote firefox, it is small, it is a logo. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, however fair use only allows direct use on articles and even then only on certain articles that directly pertain to the topic. Unless Mozilla Foundation is willing to license the image under a compatible license or release it into the public domain our image guidelines state that we cannot even upload the images except in this case as fair use for articles. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Then our guildlines need to be changed because this is plain daft. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The policies make good sense, in the sense that we can use fairuse images on articles directly pertaining to the organization of the image but fairuse doesn't stretch any farther than that and userboxes are way beyond the scope of fairuse in the conventional sense. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for reference, here is Mozilla's (Firefox's owner) official logo policy. "You may make t-shirts, desktop wallpaper, or baseball caps with Mozilla logos on them, though only for yourself and your friends (meaning people from whom you don't receive anything of value in return). You can't put the Mozilla logo on anything that you produce commercially -- at least not without receiving Mozilla's permission. Of course, Mozilla owns and operates the Mozilla Store, which sells a wide range of CDs, Guidebooks, T-shirts, and products with Mozilla software and logos. That's how we make some of the money that keeps us around.There are two additional broad categories of things you can't do with Mozilla's logos. The first is to produce modified versions of them. A modified logo also would raise the possibility of consumer confusion, thus violating Mozilla's trademarks rights, too (remember the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing?). The second concerns high-resolution copies of Mozilla logos, which you cannot have or use. If you've a very good reason to seek an exception to the rule against having and using high-resolution copies of Mozilla logos please contact the Trademark and Licensing Team."Gateman1997 19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As you can see a userbox logo does not violate their logo policy and shouldn't violate ours either in this case as a low resolution image may be used for ANY non commercial purpose.Gateman1997 19:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The issue never was and never will be Mozilla policy, the issue is that even though they give up certain uses they aren't licensing it in a way we can use except for fair use which allows certain rights. If you want to change the way they license their images feel free to ask them to release it into the public domain but I doubt they'll say yes. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well then maybe it should be. I find it absurd that Mozilla has licensed this for us to use but we create a new rule that prevents us from using it?Gateman1997 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Also if this is the case perhaps a new licensing option is in order as fairuse is overly contrictive in this case if we are to follow your interpretation of it.Gateman1997 19:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also here is their FAQ specifically about using the Firefox logo on a website. "Can I put Firefox or Thunderbird banners on my website? Can I link to you? Thanks for your support :-) Of course you may. We have button programs for exactly this:
Also non commercial use is another issue since images should be able to be used if we ever get around to releasing a DVD version of Wikipedia but that isn't the main issue at the moment. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"We" as Wikipedia aren't using it. Individual wikipedians are. Mozilla is happy about it therefore we change our rules. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not as terms of the way we license our content Wikipedians and Wikipedia become one and the same once stuff gets posted up here. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
User namespace and article namespace are different. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Gateman, what Jtkiefer is trying to get that while the Firefox logo has been granted, by them, for use on our website, we still need to realize that their logo is their logo and they still have some rights for it. And, since it is a logo, it falls under the fair use rules that we have at WP:FUC. And, one of the fair use rules for images that was created was that fair use logos, icons or photos of anykind should not be used in templates and should not be used anywhere outside of the article space. While I think that the Firefox guys are glad that we love and support their browser, do understand that we are serious about copyright violations and try to follow and understand them next time. While this is not related to you Gateman, if you think other templates are violating the fair use rules, just change the icon and null edit every user page that you can. That will be a whole lot easier. Zach (Smack Back) 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Why are we serious about copyright violations? Spell it out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Because copyright violations could get Wikipedia sued just to name one reaason. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Because what Wikipedia is content, full of words, pictures and sounds. And, in order to keep the content for all, we need to make sure that we follow all relevant copyright laws that apply to us. If not, our goal of "making the Internet not suck" cannot happen. Also, copyvios can bring legal liability to Wikipedia and I know on a few occasions that Jimbo himself has not only blocked people for copyvios, he also single handedly change various ways that we deal with copyright violations and about no source images. Zach (Smack Back) 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Which certainly is not going to happen here is it seeing as they have given permission.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Firefox is one of few who said "here, use this." Many others have not done this for us, so that is why we have our policies. [[User:Zscout370|Zach] (Smack Back) 20:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
So we create a new cat of image - Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
True but why do we have to ignore the rights they've granted us with regard to it? If anything we need another version of fairuse for this then since it doesn't fit the fairuse guideline as that is too contrictive, yet it also doesn't meet PD either.Gateman1997 20:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
All we need to do Gateman is get a Firefox logo that is under the GFDL/CC/PD licenses and just use that as the icon only for that template. That is all we are asking for. For the Firefox article, we can still use the standard logo with no problems. Zach (Smack Back) 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The other, more appropriate, license here would be non-commercial-use-only. Unfortunately, we have an explicit "no non-commercial images" prohibition. [28]. You are, of course, welcome to go argue the toss with Jimbo, but it's his server... Shimgray | talk | 20:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
How sad. If that's the case Jimbo eventually intends to use Wikipedia for profit.Gateman1997 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
He doesn't own the servers. And he doesn't intend to use Wikipedia for profit. The GFDL allows commercial use. Wikipedia can be copied and reused by for profit organisations. That's why we don't allow non free licences. However commercial organisations are highly unlikely to use user pages. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That point aside, we still can't use not for commercial use images. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I also agree that non-commercial images should not be used anywhere on the Wiki. Zach (Smack Back) 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that licensing Wikipedia content as "non-commercial" produces a surprising amount of problems - it means, essentially, that producing hard-copy versions (a massive success story for de.wikipedia) becomes financially impossible. There are very good reasons for wanting everything to be commercially reusable, especially when you start considering the long-term goals of penetration into the third-world and other, mostly offline, areas. Shimgray | talk | 20:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Back to the heart of this however. I would like to point out that WP:FAIR is only a guideline... not policy. I think there needs to be alot more discussion before any users go around deleting images from users pages simply because that is their interpretation of a guideline or until it becomes policy.Gateman1997 01:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • While this is not policy, per say, if you scroll down, there is a list of agreed upon uses that are acceptable for FU images. This is what I have been pointing to this day: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)." So, all we want to do is limit the amount of FU images, and also limit on how they are used. If the picture is used for an article, fine, but if the FU, all it's doing is decorating a user page, has no need to be on Wikipedia servers. Zach (Smack Back) 01:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • A question then if I may. Please look at New England Patriots specifically the template and it's use of the Patriot's symbol. If you were to follow the strictest interpretation of the Fair Use guideline, would this not be a violation of the policy?Gateman1997 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that's fair because it relates to the article. Back on topic: even if it is guideline (not policy!) says that use outside of the encyclopediac (sp?) context is illegal, that gives you no right to abruptly change dozens of userpages without warning. This admin has abused his powers, if even with the right intentions, and should be blocked for some period of time. If you are going to make abrupt changes like this, tell us first. give us time to change it. And allow the average user to participate in interpreting the policy. This user broke pillar four (writer's rules of engagement) and five (no other firm rules) in pursuit of a nuance of pillar three (free content). Let's talk this over, not go about changing hundreds of pages without warning. Also:I don't know who deleted Image:MozillaFirefoxLogo.png, but somehow it is no longer part of the wiki. We have to go to Mozilla for this one; my copy has some sort of copy protection that keeps me from getting a good quality image. Even it was being (ab)used in userpages, there was no reason to irreversibly get rid of an image that could be used for encyclopediac purposes. I think we all lost our cool on this one.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Lots of Wikipedia mirrors sell ad space, and they copy User pages. Doesn't that make them commercial sites? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You deleted the image from the WikiProject Macintosh templates! An image that was voted, justly, as the project image! You'll never hear the end of this, Jtkiefer. The entire Wikiproject will be after you, and perhaps multiple WikiProjects (who knows how many logos you got rid of?). This is policy violation in that you did it suddenly without consulting anyone else. Action needs to be taken aginst this (ex?)admin.--HereToHelp (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I have to admit that is part of what is rubbing me the wrong way about this. Not only the questionable interpretation of policy but the unilateral action being taken by one or two users over a broad spectrum of pages, user or otherwise.Gateman1997 04:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • When legal concerns are involved, that is necessary and appropriate. For what it's worth, I agree with Jtkiefer's analysis of the relevant laws/policies, and oppose the proposed changing of the rules to allow this. Fair use is one of those things we need to be especially careful with, and this falls outside the bounds. We cannot use special-use licenses that the mozilla foundation would grant us because they would not transfer to (possibly commercial) project mirrors. Fair use is the only acceptable use of the relevant logo, and use on userpages falls outside that scope. There's no way around that, and if this argument holds, it is necessary to remove the image from user pages for legal/policy reasons, regardless of how many users would like otherwise. --Improv 06:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, true. But if this has to be enforced, give us a deadline to find or create new images to replace the fair use ones. To go around and delete images off hundreds of community pages is simply unacceptable. It's a violation of the trust that outside of typos userpages are the domain of the user. About the Firefox logo: wouldn't that be promoting firefox on the mirrors and thus acceptable? Regardless, I propose, as mentioned above, a deadline that is not immediate for the users to remove fair use images from their own pages and find substitues. Before hat happens, I also suggest that the entire community take part in this discussion to increase awareness of this major change and also give people a chance to fight it. Even if they (i.e. we) wind up losing, they'll (we'll) be much happier about it if they know why they have to change and have time to do it.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
        • If it is illegal or against policy, it would be inappropriate to give a deadline (especially in the illegal case). Userpages are generally considered domain of the user, but illegal things and things against policy are and always will be candidates for removal, without necessarily warnings or the like. The "entire community" cannot decide to ignore the law -- that is not open for debate. This is not a major change, it is applying existing rules. --Improv 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Re: Project mirrors... I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but how are copyright violations on mirrored pages a Wikipedia problem? If the images can be used fairly in the user namespace at en.wikipedia.org, but not at mirrored sites such as answers.com, why should that effect what the user namespace can do? It seems to me if the copyright holder wanted to sue someone, they would have to go after the servers that are using the content illegally, not Wikipedia. Is this interpretation wrong? It may be Wikipedia's content, but how is it Wikipedia's responsibility to make sure the content is used correctly even when it is copied off the site where they no longer have control over the content? PaulC/T+ 14:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Besides, everyone should have {{userpage}} on their userpage anyway.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • They would not be a Wikipedia problem, except we have decided that allowing (and keeping legally permissible) mirrors is an important thing to do, and there thus have for many years been mirrors. This is why we have never accepted content which is granted license specially to Wikipedia -- we have always treated such content as if there is no special license granted in the name of keeping our content as unencumbered as possible. Besides, HereToHelp, I don't have the userpage template on my userpage, and I don't think I'm missing much. --Improv 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying the mirrors themselves are a problem, I think it is a good idea to have the information on Wikipedia available to as large a user base as possible. But, the user space isn't exactly encyclopedic. The fact that the mirrors copy that information anyway shouldn't be a reason to prevent fair use images (when used correctly on the en.wikipedia.org domain) from being used-especially if there is no liability to the Wikipedia project. PaulC/T+ 15:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the userpage template is good to have, but I won't edit your page against your wishes for something trivial. I agree with the above user: even is we allow mirrors, there's no reason for userpage mirrors. Besides, (in the case of the firefox logo) it's still promoting Firefox, so that shouldn't be a problem. I'm not even sure that that should be fair use. --HereToHelp (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I seriously don't get why being eable to use unfree images on theyr userpage is such a huge deal to some people. This project is about creating a freely redistributable free licensed ensyclopedia. In exactly what way does allowing people to stuff theyr userpage full of unfree images benefit that goal? Use of unfree images should be kept to a minimum, and all recent policy changes with regards to images are moving in that direction, first getting rid of non-commercial and used with permission only images, then trying to get to grips with the mountain of untagged and unsourced images, and lastly putting the tourch to all fair use images that are not used in articles. Suddely allowing fair use on userpages just to acomodate users who would like to promote theyr favourite organisations and corporations seems like an odd direction to take the policy considering all the efforts that have been made so far to reduce our use of such images. If there is one place we defenently don't need to use unfree images it's on userpages. If the price for keeping the use of copyrighted material to a minimum is that a couple hundred users have to do without the logos of theyr favourite "causes" on theyr userpage then that's hardly a national tradegy. It doesn't limit theyr ability to anounce theyr POV to all who care to look, and it doesn't limit theyr abilities to participate in the comunity or contribute to the project, so I'm sure they will surive. Many of the other language Wikipedias get by just fine without allowing fair use at all after all. Remember we primarily here to make an esyclopedia, not promote web-browsers or political parties, that stuff is strictly secondary, so I see no reason to reshape copyright policy around what people would like to be eable to do on theyr userpage.</rant> --Sherool (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I think people are bent out of shape because userboxes are a LONG time thing. And suggesting replacing the images with PD etc images doesn't work in may cases because no PD equivalent exists or will exist. And frankly the reasoning behind keeping it all free is absurd. We're protecting people who copy Wikipedia as mirrors? Why?Gateman1997 21:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It does not even have to be PD, the image has to be under a fair license, which includes GFDL, Creative Commons. And, if that is not possible, then you can seek out Wikigraphic-designers (ahem) and they are willing to help you design a logo for the icon. Examples: with the Coke/Pepsi templates, all someone needs to do is take a picture of the soda cans or find an add that is older than 1934 (I think) and that should be no problem. Eagle Scouts: just find a picture of an bald eagle taken by the US Government. I managed to find photos of some gaming systems on the Wikimedia Commons, a huge depository of freely licensed images. And, the amount of templates that have FU images is very, very small and one just has to look at the Commons or Google to find a PD image. If Hedley was still around, I had a PD image he could have used for his Sealand template. As for "are we pretecting the mirrors," I do not think so, we are protecting ourselves. Most mirrors say that information came from us, so people will find us and tell us about the mirrors, so we could purge the history later on. Zach (Smack Back) 22:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I find your proposal intriguing. As a test create an icon/logo for the Oakland Athletics.Gateman1997 22:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
        • How's this. I stuck with the team colors, but I decided to change the script and also drop the small S next to the signature. What do you think? Zach (Smack Back) 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (from my talk page)
          • It could work. Might need a little more old english for the "A" or the return of the "s". Right now I think it's a little TOO generic.Gateman1997 23:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I intentially did not use the old English font because that would have looked like the A's logo. I tried to bring some elements, such as the gold border on the white lettering and the green background, but it could work for the meantime. Zach (Smack Back) 23:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Bobblewik[edit]

I've blocked Bobblewik (talk · contribs) for 3 hours, for making rapid edits (in some cases up to 10 a minute) for a bot he does not yet have permission for. It is policy to block bots indefinitely until the bot owner explains himself satisfactorily, however since this is his main account I have only temporarily blocked it. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Bobblewik is using a bot. He's almost certainly using WP:AWB manually, which can enable a user to make several edits per minute. I'm not going to unblock right now, but I will if he states that he wasn't using a bot. Carbonite | Talk 20:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
AWB can in theory be used in conjunction with a bot but I'm not sure if that's the case here. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean "can in theory be used in conjunction with a bot" as all bot functionality in it is disabled. Martin 21:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I would argue that it is a bot (or it effectively is at least how he is using it). He is making edits at a phenomenal rate, as I mentioend above up to 10 a minute. I believe the AWB requires the running user to verify the edits themselves, I'm not sure exactly how this works but Bobblewik can't be taking more than a cursory glance if he is making one edit every 6 seconds. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think he's running a bot. He's been using AWB, which lets him edit stuff really quickly to get rid of unnecessary links. He's fighting the good fight! --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe he's doing something which is improving the encyclopedia (of course, this is up for debate at this very moment), but the fact remains that he hasn't got approval for the edits he is making through this automated system and he is making them incredibly quickly. Both are grounds for a block until the bot's owner explains himself satisfactorily per Wikipedia:Bots. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
AWB, which I am also using, is not a bot -- a user must manualy accepet every edit, and a user should (and I do) reveiw the effects of every bedit before approving. I might also add that at Wikipedia talk:Bots# Bot permission please? The majority of the comments were supportive, I think it might be argued that if this were considerd a bot permission has in effect been granted. DES (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I just tallied up support/oppose to get a rough idea of the consensus, and I make it 21 supports, 10 opposes. I don't consider that consensus for the bot to be used. Your point about accepting every edit is valid, but I have argued above that at the rate Bobblewik is making edits, he cannot be giving the articles more than a cursory glance. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If you bothered to follow the link in his edit summary you would read the first line "This is not a bot...", he does check every edit, the software makes this very easy. I am going to unblock him now, but ask not to carry on with this particular task until any controversy is cleared up, he is very reasonable and I have no doubt he will be more than happy to comply. Martin 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
All but 2 of the opposes are purely against a bot doing the task (I am one of those opposes). I therefore make that a clear consensus. Martin 21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The rules state that you cannot run a bot unless you have permission, AWP is not a bot and therefore he shouldn't be blocked no matter how fasts his edits are unless of course he is using a bot in conjunction with AWP which is a possibility but a remote one. I am going to unblock again. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean about a bot in conjuction with the software? Martin 21:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
In theory he could be using a bot to click the save bntton every 5 seconds to do it but I doubt that's the case here. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The bot proposal Bobblewik has drafted says he will carry on using the AWB in exactly the same fashion as he currently is, except under a different account and with a bot flag. That makes it pretty clear to me that not much will change when he decides to use the bot account he has asked for. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
He is requesting an automatic bot to do the task hence him saying "It is a huge slow task (for me anyway) and I would rather do something else.". At the moment it is not automatic, he checks every edit. Martin 21:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It is automatic, he just approves the changes suggested to him by the AWB. If this is not true, I would expect there to be an example where Bobblewik has rejected a suggested change by the AWB. If this is not the case, then for all intents and purposes, Bobblewik is running a bot. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The program shows him the changes he has made, he can then make any further changes he wants, or reject it altogether. It is of course impossible to show a time when he didnt make a change. Martin 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously it's impossible to show a diff of an edit he didn't make, but it is indeed possible for him to mention an article and hopefully the rough time AWB scanned that page, suggested edits, but Bobblewik decided were not appropriate. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Even before the existence of AWB, I became familiar with suggestions that I am a bot because of the speed of my edits. If you look on my talk page, you will see an old section titled 'Are you a bot?'. Other such questions are in various discussion pages and archives dating back some time. I am not now, nor have I ever been a bot, nor has any bot run on my behalf.
I am responsible for all the edits that I make. I am confident with what I do and if you look at my talk page, I try to explain myself in good faith. Naturally, somebody with a different editorial policy might interpret my edits as 'not checked properly'.
As far as rejecting AWB suggestions are concerned: yes I do reject some in accordance with the Manual of Style. All editors are flawed. As long as the number of good edits (whatever that means) exceed the bad edits, then that editor is improving wikipedia. I flatter myself that my good/bad ratio is much higher than 50%. Bobblewik 22:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell an anonymous editor asked if you were a bot because you were converting measurements from one standard to another. I fail to see how that's relevant to this discussion. Could you give an example of an AWB suggestion which you have rejected, please? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I quote AllyUnion:

Yes, as I mentioned above before to Martin (Bluemoose), that his tool at that speed would in effect qualify as a bot for anyone who uses it. Users who wish to use his tool beyond the recommended limit must apply for a separate account, and run any high speed edits under a bot flagged account.

Making 10 edits a minute like this needs a separate bot account, and as such, the block was valid. I'm not going to reinstate it, but I fully believe that this is a block-worthy offense. Ral315 (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, this may be right, but it is a technicality, the point is whether it is automatic or manual, clearly it is manual. The next question is whether the edits have community consensus, and as far as I can tell at the moment it does very much have consensus, although it may need to be opened up to debating, I dont feel strongly on the issue so I don't really want to get into details. Martin 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean it has consensus? The bot proposal currently has just over a 2:1 support:oppose ratio. 66% has never been considered consensus on Wikipedia. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As I said above, all but 2 (3 now Ral315 voted) opposes are against it being done automatically, and 29 support to 3 oppose (or 21 to 3 if you count the others as neutral) is a good consensus, but like I said, I dont feel that strongly on the issue. Martin 22:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It's hardly surprising that people are voicing opposition to it being done automatically because that's what the proposal is. Some people might expand on their beliefs on the opposition (like Ral315 did) while others might just reply to whether they think the bot proposal is a good idea. I don't think you should read any more than that into it. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
66% has never been considered consensus on Wikipedia. FWIW, Wikipedia:Consensus indicates that in some cases it is (although this admittedly something of a distortion of the meaning of consensus). For approval of a Bot only a "rough consensus" is needed, which is often interpreted as being about 66%. olderwiser 22:06, 29 December 2005
As someone who has expanded year articles, I am strongly opposed to unconditionally (or nearly-unconditionally) unwikifying years. Even if a consensus is reached to unlink a lot of years, the benefit of doing so on a mass-edit basis would be small compared to the possibility of making bad edits. Demi T/C 22:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Having been blocked for his campaign the user in question then opted to come on using an anonymous IP to continue the campaign. That I think is overstepping the line. I have blocked that IP and reverted the edits he was doing using it. Frankly Bobbywik's campaign is really annoying me at this stage. I see no evidence that he is taking any care to only remove unnecessary links and instead seems to removing all links but one irrespective of whether a particular other link may be necessary. So yes, Martin, I too oppose it and so do a lot of others I suspect. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 22:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please dont address these comments to me, I have repeatedly said I dont care that much about it, I just dont want people to think my software is a bot, plus I have felt obligated to point out obvious facts, maybe we should a centralised discussion on the issue ( of which I will take little part). Martin 22:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
p.s. what ip did you block, I would be disapointed to find out he carried on editting even after he was asked to stop. Martin 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have blocked his username as well for 24 hours for his date link campaign even though I don't think AWB should be classified as a block and that had nothing to do with the reinstatement of his block. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't particularly understand why Bobblewik is doing this, but Talrias was in the right here while we figure out things. However this seems like more of a triage unit, this conversation should be moved to WP:BR or WP:BOTS or where have you from here on. karmafist 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
No, it should be discussed here first, then we can decide whether we want a bot to do it. thanks Martin 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Though it's a bit late, I also agree that Talrias was in the right here. Get consensus first, then act. Bobblewik's answers on this page are hardly satisfactory, either. Ambi 00:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are refering to the edits at User:66.24.251.76 those were NOT made by Bobblewik, they were made by me. I was not trying to evade a block -- I had not been blocked. My login cookie apparently expired without my being aware -- as soon as I notice I logged back in. I might add that I have been using AWB for date link removal, but I have been significantly examing each such edit, in several cases I have restored a datge that AWB would have removed, in a number of other cases i have added birth/death category links, in yest others I have done minor manual cleanup edits. Whatever may be said of Bobblewik's edits, i deny that my edits are in any way those of a bot, and I do not feel the need for a bot flag to make them. Indeed I have previously made similar edits with similar levels of scrutiny on a purely manual basis. I also suggest you note the alphabetical list in my edits just befofre and after those of User:66.24.251.76 as evidence that these edits were mine. Perhaps ssuming that Bobblewik was evading a block (IMO an invalid block) does not quite squarte wiht WP:AGF. Did anyone ask Bobblewik if those edits were his? DES (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that the case? I find the fact that you have been doing exactly the same kind of edits that Bobblewik got a block for, when he was blocked, incredibly disruptive and not at all helpful. We're trying to resolve a situation here to come up with a consensus for how to act. If people carry on making edits which there is currently clear disapproval of, I personally find that inconsiderate and rude. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand that you and some others disapprove of these edits. They are exactly the same types of edits I have been making on this issue long before the AWB tool (not a bot) was created. I see no consensus against such edits -- indeed i belive that there is an exizting consensus, represented by the MOS page, in favor of them. I understand that soem people want to change that, but IMO they are a long way from gaining vonsensus for that change. When i have been using the AWB tool for date de-linking, i carefully examine every proposed change. I have on several occasions not accepted proposed changes, and i have fairly often added manul changes -- particualrly adding proper year-based categories. i have not been editing with the same speed that Bobblewik was using. I will, of course, stop such edits if a consensus to link years or not to unlink them developes -- tha has not happend yet and i will argue againsat it. I do not think year links add anything of value in the vast majority of cases, and they reduce the signal-to-noise ratio IMO. DES (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Complaining about and/or blocking editors that act in accordance with the Manual of Style is not productive. Some of the complaints are of the type a year must be linked in circumstanceA or a day of the week must be linked in circumstanceB. These are easy to turn into Manual of Style guidance. I am begging the complainers to make a proposal for change instead of criticising editors that follow the Manual of Style. Bobblewik 10:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Have you considered that perhaps the decision on when to link is best made by the people who are writing the article, rather than by instruction creep? Mark1 11:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes I have considered that. I do not want more constraints in the Manual of Style, it seems fine to me. But some editors complain about and block the acts of other editors and quote undocumented constraints as applicable. Some of the constraints quoted are specific and auditable. If such constraints are to be imposed on editors, then they should be documented in the Manual of Style. If editors stop complaining/blocking and stop asking for more constraints, then that is fine by me. Bobblewik 16:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Revealing personal information[edit]

DannyWilde (talk · contribs) has been revealing personal information about Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), in particular Antaeus's real name ([29], [30], [31]). Antaeus tells me that Danny's information is in fact wrong, but that's hardly the point. Users have the right to pseudonymity on Wikipedia, and I feel it is very inappropriate to expose others. I believe a block is in order, but would like a second opinion. Radiant_>|< 22:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is no better than what various users have been doing to Jimbo. I agree with a block. --King of All the Franks 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
He also used the edit summary "fuck off, feldspar.". block of 24 hours minimum. Martin 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
A block seems to be in order, if that's the only way to get his attention. I suspect that we will be accused of being part of the cabal, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I also agree with a block. Zach (Smack Back) 22:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering that in addition to the above, he had been making personal attacks and already had a vandal warning on his talk page as well, I've blocked for 48 hours. Radiant_>|< 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No. The information is straight off User:Daniel Brandt's page here http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html and quotes to Antaeus Feldspar's own blog. So all that he is doing is repeating Brandt, who in turn is repeating Feldspar. Quoting web pages shouldn't be bannable. Besides which, Antaeus is a hopeless stalker, and this was a way to try to combat this. Banning him is a green light to Antaeus to continue his abusive behaviour. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if anyone checks, they'll see fairly plainly that Antaeus's website doesn't mention his name, be it "Joseph Crowly III", "Smoggy Fancypants", "Dr. Blackula Rodriguez", or anything else.--Sean|Black 08:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet again I'll make my proposal regarding this sort of harassment: Anyone using Wikipedia to divulge another person's personal contact information without their consent thereby elicits a permanent ban. Posting the contact information of "enemies" serves no other purpose but to facilitate physical, real-world harassment and violence. There's a vast difference between online name-calling "harassment" and the sort of harassment that involves inviting thugs to abuse the "enemy" in person. --FOo 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle - intentionally revealing the personal contact information of editors who do not publicize their identity is a dangerous form of harassment which serves no useful purpose. However it's like blackmail, in that the victims may not wish to draw further attention to the posting by bringing a case. A formal proposal might adress that problem. I suggest that, aside from any formal policy, we as administrators should be vigilant about removing personal information quickly and even deleting it from the edit history. Editors shouldn't have to make a big noise in order to get personal info erased. -Willmcw 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Quoting web pages shouldn't be bannable." is a rather silly straw man. Your actions on Wikipedia can in some cases be bannable, and it doesn't matter if they come from some webpage. For instance, we will ban people spouting nazistic comments, but there are quite some webpages where they may have been quoting it from. Radiant_>|< 10:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am all for stopping stalking, but we have to make sure we are stopping the stalker, not the stalkee. Given what Antaeus has done to me, I am in no doubt who is the culprit in this case.

Oh, and his web page *DID* say his true name, as you can tell here [32]. He's just wiped it.

But the point of the matter is that this guy didn't start the revelation, Daniel Brandt did. So punishing someone for repeating that would be as good as punishing anyone who was involved in the editing of Daniel Brandt, since a simple click on to the hivemind page reveals details like that. That is the point here.

If this guy was presenting his personal details by himself, then sure, he's done the wrong thing. But he's quoting Brandt, which in turn is quoting off Wikipedia, so he's done nothing wrong.

And you should not, no matter what you do, excuse Antaeus' behaviour, and Antaeus did stalk this user. So if you ban the user, you are effectively saying to him "Banned for being the victim of stalking" which is entirely the wrong message. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Get your facts straight. I did not ban Danny for anything. I blocked him because he was harassing Antaeus. That does not imply I condone anything Antaeus did; if you believe Antaeus has behaved badly, please provide evidence rather than allegations. FUD doesn't cut it. Radiant_>|< 13:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact, it is Zordrac (in addition to Danny, of course) who has been harassing me. He has been telling numerous lies about me, and then screams that I'm "stalking" him if I post the truth on a page where he posted lies about me -- such as that I supposedly violated 3RR with 15 reverts in 24 hours, a claim he makes here. If he actually believed that I committed this violation, why did he post no report of it to WP:AN/3RR? Zordrac had earlier tried to make trouble for me by sending an e-mail to Daniel Brandt, giving Brandt his own lopsided interpretation of an edit I had made; Zordrac describes it here: "you were trying to imply that he was a hypocrite, by using weasel words in an underhanded way to discredit him, something which I advised him is defamatory of nature. Just so you know." Now he is claiming, incredibly enough, that I requested him to be my go-between to Brandt and 'explain' my edits to Brandt in that fashion! Why on Earth would I have asked that? And why on Earth would he have accepted, if it was true what he now claims, which is that "before we had communicated, he threatened me on the Daniel Brandt talk page, and made wild accusations about me, claiming to have been "watching me""? [33] As Zordrac (ironically) says, "we have to make sure we are stopping the [harasser], not the [harassee]". When I say I have been the victim of Zordrac's harassment I can back it up with the diffs; Zordrac's claims contradict each other and are contradicted by the facts. For instance, this is the only edit that could match Zordrac's description of me posting on Talk:Daniel Brandt before he initiated communication between us by posting on my talk page. Does it contain any of the threats or wild accusations or claims of "watching him" that he has accused me of? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please advise me if it would be appropriate to start the RfAr against Zordrac at this point. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, that link, if you look at the cache, tells us "These search terms have been highlighted: antaeus feldspar. These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: joseph crowley". Try again... Shimgray | talk | 13:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

After a recent dialog with DannyWilde, I've blocked him indefinitely for continued use of what he thinks may be Antaeus' real name. Feel free to shorten the block if you feel it's too long, but it's obvious that he's only here for some sort of weird revenge and doesn't care about making any meaningful contributions. IMO, if someone doesn't want to edit the encyclopedia, they don't need a working account. android79 08:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and someone else will need to remove that personal information from User talk:DannyWilde's history, if that is desired. android79 08:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Persisent vandals[edit]

I know I posted this at various spots at Wikipedia but I thought I would repost it here. There has been a, or some, persistant vandal(s) lately at the talk pages of Chadbryant and Moe Epsilon's (mine). I would like someone to monitor the situation there as a user(s) have been creating numerous accounts to vandalize and make Personal attacks. I'll start listing users that he has been creating here so everyone can be on alert.

  1. OSJ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (blocked)
  2. Captain_Spinkicker (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (blocked)
  3. Ham_Kazerooni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (blocked)
  4. Mister_Marbles (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (blocked)
  5. Thar_She_Blows (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (blocked)

And since the latest vandal, Mister Marbles just posted:

You've obviously decided to bed down with Chadbryant. Let the fun and games begin!!!

Im sure he's going to create more socks. — Moe ε 05:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

List of unblocked vandal accounts[edit]

As before I posted there is a persisant vandal on my talk page if someone wants to block him feel free to do so as this is just a sock puppet used for making personal attacks and vandalism. — Moe ε 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. The_Jiggler (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Sock puppet detected[edit]

What do I do when I detect a sock puppet? Is there a dedicated noticeboard? Anyway, I'll link the evidence here for now --Dijxtra 15:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


  • Show the evidence to the arbcom member and ask them to do a technical sockpuppet check to be sure. - Mgm|(talk) 15:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

please unblock 83.104.44.219[edit]

not on list. Please unblock. Bobblewik 16:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Duk for removing this unlisted block. I have asked a question about unlisted blocks on the talk page of this article. Bobblewik 17:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

SpongeBob vandal[edit]

Please block 67.38.2.90 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as the user is promoting his bullshit again. ' 16:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Attitudes differ. Izehar 17:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Free Republic proposed invasion[edit]

See www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Here's the homepage of another major wikipedia administrator. The very first thing on it is a giant picture of Che. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C " – they say approvingly! El_C 02:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there are a few Voices of Reason™ in there. It's the conspiracy theorists ("Wikipedia is run by liberals!") that we need to be concerned about. How stupid would it be to post there and say, "Hey, I'm an admin, and I'm not a liberal!" I was this close to doing it... android79 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Marvelvsdc[edit]

Back in March, User:Marvelvsdc did a copy and paste copyright violation into the Eclipso article, which was not caught, and many edits have been made since. The copyright owner contacted the Help Desk mailing list and asked us to remove the copyvio, whcih I have done. I asked Marvelvsdc on his/her Talk page if they had made any other copyright violations, and he/she has not responded, even though they've made more edits since my request. Can I suggest a brief block on this User till they respond to my question? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Normally I'd say no, but given Jimbo's recent activism against copyvios this may actually be reasonable. But let's give him a day or two, at least. Radiant_>|< 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Nixer[edit]

For over two weeks now, User:Nixer has been unilaterally warring to write "Ioann the Terrible" rather than "Ivan the Terrible" in Age of Discovery. He hasn't quite crossed 3RR, but he has now reverted over 10 times in two weeks and has, in turn, been reverted by at least three different people, nyself included. ("Ioann" exists—our article Ivan IV of Russia acknowledges it as the Church Slavonic form of his name—but I gather that it's pretentious even in Russian and almost unknown to native speakers of English.) Anyway, the consensus is clearly against him, but do I understand correctly that there is nothing we can do if he does not actually cross the 3RR boundary in 24 consecutive hours? - Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see Nixer is back to gaming the 3RR - don't bother waiting for him to violate it, he won't - he'll just keep on reverting for the rest of eternity. Izehar 19:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Judging from his persons talk page he frequently breaks the 3RR rule, if he does continue warring after being warned he could be blocked briefly for disruption, even if it doesnt break the 3RR, but make sure he is warned. Martin 19:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
For those who don't know, Nixer fights "3RR-aware" revert wars. At any given consecutive 24 hour period he will have reverted exactly three times. He only gets blocked if he makes a mistake. Izehar 19:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Rule-gaming is irritating and unacceptable; he's been warned plenty of times and knows very well what he's doing. I've given him a week to reconsider his methods. — Dan | talk 19:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh - I thought it would be more appropriate to protect the page in question (in m:the wrong version from Nixer's point of view). Izehar 19:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
IMO a week is too much - do you mind if I reset it to say, 24 or 48 hours? Izehar 19:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
For a serial 3RR-gamer? A week sounds fine to me. android79 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
He's the only user in the wrong here. Protecting the page would inconvenience everyone attempting to edit it; there's no need for that. Shorten it if you wish, but he's been blocked many times before and clearly is not getting the message. — Dan | talk 19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
A week is good, let him know we mean business, as he clearly hasnt got the message before. Martin 19:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Meet you half way - half a week (84 hours)? A week long block is a click of a button for you, but it's days of inactivity for him. Izehar 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this is his 12th block - log --GraemeL (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but he is now blocked for a week - I still think it's too much. What we need is an ArbCom decision limiting his reverts to one each day or something. Izehar 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's hardly necessary in such an obvious and uncomplicated case. I maintain that a week for his repeatedly disruptive behavior is entirely justified. — Dan | talk 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least someone should have told him on his talk page why he is blocked (and direct him to the {{unblock}} in case he decides to turn over a new leaf early). Izehar 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The block message fulfills the former requirement quite nicely. I'm not familiar with the unblock template; feel free to inform him of it if you feel it's important. — Dan | talk 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Rocky Day[edit]

A user, Projects (also known as Vesa and many others) is repeatedly removing the templates I have added asking for sources to be cited and for it to be copyedited. I have discussed the issue with the user and they are not budging on it. They are stating that they are a historian but will not state any references. I have put 3 warnings on their talk page but they are not paying attention - instead reverting to being aggressive/childish. If I alter the page again I will be breaking the 3 revert rule - I think this user has done that already. -localzuk 22:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Something going on @ Republic of Moldova[edit]

Multiple reversions by 2 editors. Don't know if it's vandalism or a revert war. Either way one or both ppl is probably up to blocking level by now... 68.39.174.238 10:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Serhio, one user and two anons blocked for 24 hours -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Harrassment and Threats[edit]

I know lately you have been hearing alot from me. I am not a complainer by nature but I have a problem that needs your attention. a "new" user by the name of Quirkywiki (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been harrassing me with constant threats, going as far as calling me a pedophile. This all stems from a page i mistakenly created for Mandy Moore. I was told that Ms. Moore's new album will be called Once Moore. I later found out that the information i got was false. I aided in the destruction of the article. But for some reason, a user named Extraordinary Machine created the article and mereged it with an already existing article. I didn't even know this user until later. But Quirkywiki claimed it was me or we were one and the same. And went to every user she could find and spammed them with lies, talking about the Mandy Moore forum (which has nothing to do with this site) to my book (which is also irrelevent). She tried to blame me for her getting banned. I did request it, but i didn't place the banned. I haven't the power. Quirkywiki has many sockpuppets, 206.170.104.27, 206.170.106.42, 206.170.106.48 just to name a few. People have warned her constantly but she refuses to listen. She thinks because she is on a public computer, she won't get banned. She needs to be proven wrong... again. -Parys 16:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Death threats? (Jimbo)[edit]

What's our policy on these? Do we followup with the ISP? Cops?

Here.

-- Curps 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow, that's messed up. I'd seriously consider the cops in this instance as that is illegal in all 50 states, even jokingly.Gateman1997 22:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What a nutter. I suppose the best thing would be to let jimbo know so he can decide. It would be great if he decided to follow it through and track this guy down, though I doubt it would happen. Martin 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The "is communism" makes me think it's a joke, but WP:BP has a provision for "personal attacks that place other users in danger". If it looks serious, then ISP all the way.--Sean|Black 22:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I blocked the user for indef, and I copied Crups post at Jimbo's talk page. Zach (Smack Back) 23:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I once talked to a policeman about the issue of death threats. He said that a threat that even hinted at something like that, even if probably was a joke, must be reported in all cases to the police. The reason is straight forward. If it is reported then it is on record so if anything was ever to be attempted that in any way compromised the safety of the person targeted, even if didn't amount to much, there is something on file for the police to look back on. Having something on record is vital. In addition they have experience in accessing these things. Something that us might seem just a sick joke might to them, from their experience, not seem so innocent. A friend of mine, John, once received a death threat. It looked like a joke but to be safe he reported it. The police weren't as convinced as he was about its innocence and checked it out. The managed to find out who had found it and found that the sender did have a habit both of stalking people and of becoming violent when his victim challenged him about it. What seemed like possible joke turned out not to so innocent at all. Even if the sender did not at the time intend it as a threat, his past behaviour meant that if he was interested enough to send something, he was likely at some stage to start stalking and could have become violent. Reporting it nipped the threat in the bud. He was severely warned off by the police but John was warned to keep an eye out for the individual and shown a photograph of him.

The threat above probably is just a sick joke, but to be safe it is important that the police are informed of it. They are the people who can form a professional judgment on how innocent or threatening it really is. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 23:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Could you tell me if "numbskull" is the correct terminology to use when correcting a new user? --Period

Indeed. We're lucky enough that it doesn't happen often, but when it does, block them immediately, no questions asked, and inform those in the Foundation who can deal with such matters.--Sean|Black 23:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The thing is that Jimbo has a lot of personal information online at various websites (some of it is ours), all someone has to do is look for the right information and they pretty much they know where Jimbo is. So this is why some of us feel that this should be seriously looked at. Zach (Smack Back) 23:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The user claims it's a joke; see User_talk:Yankee Hater. I'm not suggesting for an instant we unblock him, but FYI. I will leave the decision on whether to track him down, or just leave him indef blocked and forget about it, to wiser heads than mine. -- SCZenz 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Death threats are a banning offense, have been since Mr. Treason, will remain so as long as I've got a mop and a bucket. Phil Sandifer 00:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Most certainly. But do we do a sock check on the IP to keep the person out of Wikipedia forever, or just permablock the account and forget about it? -- SCZenz 01:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
If I had checkuser, which I don't, I would not sockcheck until there was a suspicion of puppetry, rather than a fear. Phil Sandifer 03:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The question was more do we keep poking around to see if we can find suspicion of sockpuppetry, or just let it go completely? -- SCZenz 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally I feel anyone who makes a death threat, even jokingly, should be instantly blocked, for at least several weeks, if not permanently. — JIP | Talk 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah, the account is permablocked. No question of that. What Snowspinner said above about "death threats are a banning offense . . . as long as I've got a mop and bucket" goes double for me. -- SCZenz 00:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Fplay[edit]

I hae blocked Fplay (talk · contribs). I don't know what he/she is doing, but they seem to be using an unapproved bot to do it. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fplay's no vandal. (S)he probably tried to do something reasonable (although I can't figure out what either), but didn't realize (s)he had to get the bot approved. I've offered to unblock if the bot is turned off until it's approved. -- SCZenz 23:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
After failing to recognize what was happening and taking intrusive action, Zoe says nice words but fails to actually undo her block (which she did with no discussion whatsoever), as Fplay is still blocked in an infinite manner. -- Emact 01:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Fplay still hasn't indicated his bot is turned off. That's what this block was needed for; Fplay was running an unauthorized bot, doing something possibly unnecessary, and using quite a bit of server capacity to do it. Nobody's saying Fplay is a bad person, but Zoe did the right thing. I, or any other admin, can (and will) undo the block as soon as it's warranted. -- SCZenz 01:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, SCZenz. I don't know why Emact thinks we should unblock him when his bot is still running. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be interesting to note that Emact and Fplay are the same user. --cesarb 03:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Remind me not to feed the troll next time. android79 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"...his bot is still running". What evidence is there of that? -- Emact 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. But all Fplay has to do is say on his userpage that it isn't, and the block will be undone. Since the block isn't punative, or indeed a judgement on the user of any kind, there's no need for the innocent-until-proven-guilty logic you're alluding to. It's really all about avoiding further accidental waste of system resources. -- SCZenz 02:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You are jumping to conclusions. I do not assume that Fplay is innocent. I am pointing out that Fplay has had a new requirement thrust upon him due to Zoe's inability to recognize what was happening, despite her have admin priviledges for more than a year now. I am pointing out that Fplay's edits have not been active since reaching the letter "Z" (as any person of meaningful experience would recognize). I will now ask on the page: What is Zoe waiting for? -- Emact 02:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? He hasn't yet said anything on his talk page or emailed any admins (presumbably), so he remains blocked. What's the problem?--Sean|Black 02:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I am noticing a trend here. Zoe is failing to respond while others interfere with the communication process. A familiar story. I am waiting for Zoe to respond. She is responsible for her actions. What is she waiting for? -- Emact 02:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
She seems to have stopped editing, since about a half-hour ago. If this was a problem for Fplay, s/he'd leave a message on User talk:Fplay. Any admin can undo the block, but there's no need to yet. If you've got an axe to grind with Zoe, grind it elsewhere. android79 03:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It would seem that Zoe has gotten the point: Fplay is now unblocked. -- Emact 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Err, no... android79 03:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You are so right. 50-at-a-time does not quite cut it to monitor blocks. The list grows quickly. -- 68.164.245.60 03:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"...his bot is still running". Thre is no evidence of that. What is Zoe waiting for? -- 68.164.245.60 03:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We wouldn't know if it was, because he's blocked. This seems to matter much more to you at the moment than it does to Fplay. android79 03:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Note that others are interfering with the communication process in lieu of Zoe responding, undoing her actions or some other admin undoing Zoe's actions on her behalf. -- 68.164.245.60 03:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
"interfering with the communication process"... no idea what you're getting at. android79 03:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To explain what he was doing... on Special:Wantedpages there is a Votes for Willys page which still has over a thousand red-links to it. This was apparently some kind of predecessor to 'Votes for Deletion' (now split into the various AfD, TfD, IfD, et cetera pages). Fplay was running the bot to make null edits to pages linking to that old article so that the old links would update to 'Votes for Deletion' and 'Votes for Willys' would no longer be listed so high up on the Wantedpages list. Or so I surmise from his edit summaries / actions. There's a more detailed explanation of it here, which is probably where he got the idea. Looks like the bot had finished running by the time he was blocked. --CBD 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Fplay better use better edit summaries, and I truly wonder if it is worth touching user talk pages. That seems silly to me as it basically sends messages to a lot of people.
Also, making around 800 touch edits from one's own account greatly inflates one's edit count. Not that it matters much, but it would be wiser to get a specialized bot account for that kind of things. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Touching doesnt involve making any edit at all. It is essentially like clicking save without making any change, it will never be seen in the history. If people want bot work done it should be taken to Wikipedia:Bot requests, and someone can do it properly. Martin 01:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Templates will update with a null edit, which does not appear in the article history or count as a user edit. This bot is defective and should not be used. Period. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, some of us do have lives outside of Wikipedia. And if Emact and Fplay are the same person, and Emact is trying to make it out like I did something wrong without explaing what he was doing and why he won't stop doing it, then I see no point in unblocking Fplay. I was only planning on blocking him till he stopped his bot, but now it appears he's intentionally disrupting Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

ZOE: Your logic is flawed. Trying to retroactively saddle Fplay with "intentionally disrupting Wikipedia" after YOU disabled his account. He was not bothering anyone. Your approach is revisionist and hypocritical. Did he taunt anyone or ask for this trouble? No. Why did you disable his account? Because you did not understannd. In your ignorance, you made a rushed decision. Truly responsble people are ready to admit when they are wrong. But you are not making that admission. That is the problem. -- 68.122.124.33 09:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I still have hopes he'll realize his mistake, indicate on his talk page that the bot won't be used anymore without going through proper channels (see Wikipedia:Bot requests), and get unblocked. -- SCZenz 04:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see this edit. I'd love to know what Emact means by "of a certain demographic". User:Zoe|(talk) 04:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he ment "people like Elizabeth Morgan". A lot of people around her got pretty badly damaged, but she managed to muddle through somehow and turned back to say: "What? What's the problem? I am happy. Why are you not happy?" -- 68.122.124.33 09:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fplay/Emact has stated that both accounts belong to one person [34], so that edit is pretty weird. My hopes are dwindling, but I'm gonna leave a little message for both accounts with one more appeal. -- SCZenz 04:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Note that Emact deleted that just prior to coming here to complain. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Also keep in mind Wikipedia:Sockpuppet#Deception and impersonation. "Talking to yourself" isn't mentioned, but this sort of behavior should not be encouraged. android79 04:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It's such a bizzarely bad job of deception that I'm tempted to let it go (if possible). Anyway, I've left them "both" a message to stop playing games; I hope my advice will be taken. -- SCZenz 04:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I have warned FPlay/Emact that I will consider further edits trying to get Zoe in trouble on this page to be vandalism. I suggest others do the same, complete with rollback buttons and vandalism warnings. This is getting really silly, for no reason. -- SCZenz 05:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention as a point of curiosity that he/they has/have pestered Jimbo about this now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure that the Benevolent Dictator will come down hard on Zoe for blocking Fplay. --Deathphoenix 14:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It is very foolish of you to be so sure about that. History shows that when privileged individuals of a certain demographic get their way without the constaints of fairness or logic (let alone a consistent set of rules), that, once those individuals get their way, there is a maniacal obsession to maintain the status quo. Zoe got her ignorant way: another Wikipedian's "edit count" has been reset to zero (again) and no one dares to undo what she has done, least of all, quite sadly, Zoe herself. -- 199.33.32.40 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
History also shows that Jimbo doesn't really care that much when one of our best admins rightfully blocks someone who then proceeds intentionally disrupt Wikipedia.--Sean|Black 19:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Sean: The log now provides abundant evidence of Zoe's popularity among a certain, other demongraphic of Wikiepdian admin; evidence that even Jimbo could not deny. There is an inconsistency in your words and actions: If Zoe is such a wonderful admin, then clearly she can handle this herself. You input has only increased the volume of the log and obfuscated Zoe's true nature. Try to find the discipline and maturity to recognize the fairness, relevance and validity of that logic and, then wait and see if Zoe has anything else to add. -- 68.164.245.60 20:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to review: Is does not matter was Zoe digs up after the fact about Fplay. The fact that she is attempting to dig up anything about Fplay after the fact indicates a problem and a weakness in her reasoning. What matters is what she knew when and what she did with her admin priviledges. By the account in existed only for a moment in this log (before one of her supporters removed it), but still resides in Jimbo's talk page, she acted hastily and, apparently, overreacted. Let us now see if Zoe cares to respond to this assessment. -- 68.164.245.60 22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thegame05 (talk · contribs)[edit]

As much as I can't abide racism, I also can't abide people falsely accusing others of racism just because they can't have their own way. This is why I blocked the above user indefinitely earlier this evening: I'm making a note of this here because I'm off to bed and they might well come back on another IP complaining about the block. -- Francs2000 01:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Even given the above, an indefinite block is pretty harsh. On top of that, it seems bad form for admins to block those they appear to be having disputes with; they should ask for other admins to help. That being said, I agree with a block for the user, so I am lifting the indefinite and reblocking for 48 hours. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 05:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I retract the above; I thought it looked like a content dispute from the talk pages, but I've just noticed that there isn't even one decent edit in his contribution history. Leaving as is. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 05:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to point that out. This user's entire edit history consists of adding nonsense to Cranford, London, vandalising/blanking articles, making legal threats and accusing people of racism. -- Francs2000 02:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Carlisle[edit]

Please protect this article, it will become another Bogdanov Affair. --Glenzierfoot 16:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection should be requested at WP:RFPP instead of here. --cesarb 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Assistive technology[edit]

Apologies for bringing this here, but I've gotten no attention on WP:VIP. A persistent spammer is editing Assistive technology from a variety of IP addresses, repeatedly adding a commercial link, often removing legitimate links to non-noncommercial resource lists in the process. I seem to be the only person reverting. I suppose spamming is not absolutely blatant vandalism, and I see that, without noticing, I just reverted for the fourth time in just under 24 hours. I hope no one will consider this a WP:3RR violation on my part, but I request that someone else please watchlist this article, since it is beginning to look like I'm edit warring, which is really not my intent. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Watchlisted, for now.--Sean|Black 22:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
TNX. - Jmabel | Talk 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

George W.Bush[edit]

Can we unprotect it? Semi-protection is a bad idea, an article should be protected or not at all - not halfway, as semi-protection is. Maybe deleting and restoring the article is a solution to the problem. --Whitewalls 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection is Wikipedia policy, and if you want to oppose it, go to Wikipedia:Semi-protection and discuss the issue there. In the meantime, if you want to edit the article but cannot, go make some constructive edits on other articles to give us some evidence you're a legitimate contributor. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Closure of WP:RM vote on Islamofascism (term) -> Islamofascism by User:Marudubshinki[edit]

(copied from WP:AN) User:Slim Virgin has already raised this issue on User talk:Marudubshinki#Islamofascism, where that admin closed the move request by counting participants in the neutral discussion together with those who voted move in order to arrive at a consensus to move. Comments by experienced admins on closing WP:RM discussions and assessing consensus on the talk page appreciated. --- Charles Stewart 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I asked Nandesuka for a second opinion on this a few days ago, but haven't heard back yet, so if another admin could take a look instead, that would be very helpful. In summary, Islamofascism (term) was moved to Islamofascism after 54 per cent voted in favor, whereas WP:RM suggests a minimum of 60 per cent. Full details at User_talk:Nandesuka#Islamofascism_.28term.29. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I asked Nandesuka for a second opinion on this a few days ago, but haven't heard back yet, so if another admin could take a look instead, that would be very helpful. In summary, Islamofascism (term) was moved to Islamofascism after 54 per cent voted in favor, whereas WP:RM suggests a minimum of 60 per cent. Full details here, and see here for the poll. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look and give Maru my second opinion. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

(Copy and pasted from elsewhere. Sorry for the delay)
SlimVirgin asked me to look into this issue as an uninvolved party and offer my opinion. Without getting in to the specific merits of whether or not I personally think the page "should" have been renamed, I think this is a case of biting the oldies. Page moves are typically doable by anyone, and the 60% guideline on WP:RM is phrased somewhat loosely. The whole point is that if you end up on WP:RM, the move is controversial. The stakes are, frankly, low here — the substance of the article is unchanged — and getting worked up over a few percent one way or the other seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees. It seems wrong to me that we should give an admin less discretion in deciding how to close a page move discussion than we do when closing an article deletion discussion.
I think Marudubshinki should be encouraged to close out the discussion however he thinks appropriate, and people should be encouraged to redirect their energy into improving the article and making sure it stays properly focused, rather than fretting over the semiotics of whether or not a parenthesized word appears in the article title.
Hope this helps. Looking forward to the hate mail. Nandesuka 23:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, some day I'll make a list of things you generally shouldn't do on WP:RM. Like moving a page against a WP:RM descision when you were involved in the debate just a couple of days afterwards. Arg!

And well - there a lot of simple moves on WP:RM like:

  1. Normal page moves
  2. Cut n' paste fixups
  3. History merges
  4. Simple mispellings by authors
  5. Plainly obvious uncontroversial moves, usually changing a case of a letter for updates in the MoS.
  6. Sometimes some minor merges, but those are rare

WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Was it Marudubshinki who was involved in the debate, RN? Anyway, regarding the title, it seems to have been settled; thank you both for your input. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The user, BrandonYusufToropov, who moved it back to the current state was involved in the debate. WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I finished taking a look over the thing. My personal descision would have been no consensus (the version with the term added to the end). WhiteNight T |