Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive72

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User: Terryeo[edit]

Terryeo has been a problematic editor of Scientology-related pages for quite some time now, deleting large portions of articles that are critical of Scientology and replacing them with illogical, poorly-written, non-neutral advertisements for Dianetics and Scientology. Since his edits are quickly reverted by many others, it hasn't been worth complaining about until recently: he has taken up the trolling tactic of attributing insulting statements to other editors that they did not make, especially myself. Today on the Talk:Suppressive_Person page, he claims I have stated "Scientology is bunk", which I have never said. A few weeks ago he stated on several different talk pages, "Wikipediatrix said 'Dianetics Kills'", which I also never said. There are at least three other incidents where Terryeo has done this, and when pressed on the matter each time, he simply ignores it and changes the subject. This constant lying about me is highly annoying and seems to be to proof of Terryeo's lack of good-faith editing and his desire to simply cause trouble on the Scientology pages, not to mention smear the reputations of editors who dare oppose him. wikipediatrix 17:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

One needs to show efforts to resolve the matter before escalating a dispute. If you can give a list of edits where you have attempted to resolve the dispute that would be useful. Then I can approach him too and see if we can't get some communication in progress without everything going apocalyptic - David Gerard 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it occurs to me he's ignored several people's concerns in this matter. This is the sort of situation an RFC was made for - David Gerard 00:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't really have the time to wade through the many edits on literally dozens of Scientology articles.... it's not something it occurred to me to keep records of till now. I was really expecting that some Scientology-watching admin would have already noticed his edit-warring which approaches vandalism at times (see the diff on this article where he typically inserts criticism of previous edits and their editors into the text of the article itself!), and his insufferable behavior on talk pages (Talk:Sea_Org and Talk:Clear_(Scientology), for example). If anyone out there reading these words cares whether or not the many Scientology pages on Wikipedia are censored by Scientologists and turned into blatant POV commercials for Dianetics, I urge them to keep a CLOSE watch on Terryeo and his edits. wikipediatrix 05:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I can verify what Wikipediatrix has said about Terryeo's smearing tactics; I've been the victim of them myself. When he resorts to just name-calling (such as the edit he made today where he called me "Beanbrain. Dogfood. Idiot."[1]) I can just shake it off. But in other cases he has deliberately accused people of things he knew to be false; in one case I remonstrated with him on his talk page for falsely claiming that he'd "caught" editors he disagreed with violating a guideline, after he was already made aware that no one had violated the guideline, only the mistaken interpretation he had of it, which was shown to be mistaken by the examples on the page, which clearly contradicted his assumptions. Terryeo's response to this? "Hahahahaha."[2] -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Netoholic for revert warring on Template:Infobox[edit]

Earlier today I blocked Netoholic (talk · contribs) for engaging in a tandem revert war on Template:Infobox (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infobox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after someone requested on WP:RPP that it be protected. Considering the parties involved looked to be administrators I wasn't confident that protecting it would have any effect...but when I looked at the block record of Netoholic and checked the directives given on enforcing his ArbCom decision I felt he was being disruptive so I decided to enforce the ban regarding 1RR. I didn't block either of the other two because neither party violated 3RR in my opinion.

As Netoholic has contacted me by email and requested that his block be lifted, I welcome comments on this matter here. I will admit I am still somewhat new to my adminship so perhaps my interpretation is wrong, and I wouldn't be opposed to a shortening or lifting of the ban based on comments. I have also offered him an immediate repeal of the ban if he will refrain from the revert war on that template. --Syrthiss 18:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User is unblocked. --Syrthiss 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
He usually does something similar. silsor 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to stop this merry-go-round of aggravation (before we get Netoholic's fourth block today) I have suggested that a simple test be performed to determine whether or not edits to high use templates represent a risk to the servers. I'd appreciate any comments at the talk page linked above. --CBD 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    • What a funny, and biased, way to describe the situation. I can barely make any template-related edit anymore without being wikistalked. -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Incipient wheel war[edit]

There appears to be an incipient wheel war brewing on {{User admins ignoring policy}}. See [3] for the status so far. The template was nominated on WP:TFD, where the usual arguments ensued. Then, about a day after its listing, it was speedy deleted by User:MarkSweep with the summary "trolling". This is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion, and is very ill-defined; in practice, the term is often applied not only to disruption but also to good-faith disagreement. There was no consensus on WP:TFD, and at least one user asked for the template to be restored so he could see what he was discussing [4]. User:Karmafist then restored it since the original deletion was out of process and a debate was still ongoing. MarkSweep then deleted it again with this summary: "out-of-process re-creation". This, too, is spurious, since it was the original deletion that was out-of-process, and a discussion was still taking place on WP:TFD. I am re-creating (from memory, as I lack administrative powers) the userbox at this time. Apparently, the initial userbox contained a link to User:Kelly Martin's RFC. This has been removed, and replaced with a link to WP:ACC, which cannot possibly be construed as a personal attack against anyone. I strongly urge that the debate on WP:TFD be allowed to run its course. I have attempted to discuss the issue with MarkSweep on his home page, but have received no response (except an accusation of WP:POINT on an unrelated TFD nomination). The irony is that by deleting this userbox, Mark is proving the point of his opponents. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I restored the history, although my connection is a bit dodgy at the moment so I cannot check that all is OK. Personally I think this template is about as much use to an encyclopedia as {{user OJ}}, and should be deleted accordingly. It's only saving grace is its irony, as users who place it on their talk page are ignoring WP:DR and instead making remarks which they do not verify. Physchim62 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no jutifaction for a speedy delete, much less repeated deletes on this tempalte. The current TfD seems to be heading towards delete, which I disagree with, but if that's what people want... In any case what is the rush about this? DES (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You maybe didn't check the link. This is (was) a personal attack template against an individual editor. Speedy deleted. Physchim62 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It wasn't a personal attack. It was critical of a particular editor, though, in a possibly-inappropriate way. Isn't editing it a less invasive way to remove the alleged personal attack than deletion? Friday (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If people are upset about admin actions, they should use dispute resolution (ANI, RFC, RFM etc), not grumble about it on their talk pages. 'tis better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. >Radiant< 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't need the kind of incessant needling and taunting expressed by this template. I've seen a number of trolls act that way: they whine and complain and taunt, and when someone tells them to cut it out, they whine even more about how they've now been wronged and attacked. We shouldn't let ourselves be bullied into keeping a template which serves no useful purpose, just because someone will construe its deletion as a confirmation of the template's message. If you have specific misgivings about specific admin actions, you're more than welcome to air them in the appropriate venues. But vague whining and passive-aggressive farting in the administrators' general direction as exemplified by this template is utterly pointless, it's poisoning the well, and it will not stand. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Pointless, maybe. I wouldn't put that (or probably any other) user box on my page. But there's no reason to continually delete this. More than one editor has undeleted, and you continue to delete? As a huge supporter of IAR, it's offensive to me that you used that as justification for this. You're not ignoring the rules, you're ignoring other editors who disagree with you. Please do not continue to wheel war over this, it is disruptive. Friday (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that a notice created for the purpose of trolling comes under disruption and can (though not necessarily should) be deleted. It seems unkind to suggest that administrators restoring it are necessarily disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but certainly nobody should hesitate to delete such a silly thing on sight, no matter how many times it may be recreated. This seems to be more of the same kind of community-versus-encyclopedia warring that has taken hold of Wikipedia in the past few weeks. The aspects of the community that threaten the encyclopedia will be destroyed, probably sooner rather than later. This is just a symptom of the general malaise, and isn't worth fussing over. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New Instantnood Block[edit]

Not even two days after the block expired Instantnood is at it again, based on the following edits I have blocked him for two weeks for violation of his probation.

user:Simonides[edit]

Personal attacks directed at two editors on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Wyss 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic[edit]

Can someone please take a look at Netoholic (talk · contribs)'s user page? A number of editors have removed fair-use images used in violation of our fair-use policy (specifically, WP:FUC, item 109). I've attempted to inform him of the policy on his user page, but he removed it and continued to insert the fair-use images. Instead of accepting policy, he has accused me of wiki-stalking on my talk page. Some assistance here would be appreciated. —Locke Coletc 05:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This user is wikistalking me the last few days. He's revert warred on my user page, and left taunting challenges across several other pages. Admins, please look at his contribs and confirm that he's been following me around.
There are more, but these are the most obvious ones. I would appreciate someone giving him a warning. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can provide a link to a template you've never edited before which you magically showed up to just so you could revert me. Remember Template:Message? Who's wikistalking who here (and you were being disruptive on Template:Message)? Trying to paint yourself as the victim was a cute response though... too bad it doesn't fit the facts of your behavior the last many months. The only victim here is Wikipedia. —Locke Coletc 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole is blocked for 24 hours edit warring and 2nd block for harassment of Neto on his user page. Neto, fair use images are not allowed in the user space so that image should be removed but it's not his place to keep reverting your user page. Obviously this has absolutely nothing to do with Neto's user page and has everything to do with arguments on Template:Infobox and AUM and this kind of nonsense should cease post-haste. --Wgfinley 06:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I saw this is Locke's 2nd block in 24 hours for edit warring and 2nd block for harassment so I have increased the block to 48 hours. --Wgfinley 06:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how this block is consistent with WP:AGF. Aren't we assuming bad faith by conjuring up a nefarious motive for what is admitted to be justified edits? Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
He's still edit warring on someone else's userpage. This is a good block, though Neto should back off, too.--Sean Black (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that by sanctioning Locke and not Netoholic (even though Netoholic was himself technically violating Wikipedia policy on fair use images) there are some concerns about evenhandedness. This is especially important because Netoholic has often been able to get away with pushing the rules very far, and in some cases, outright breaking them. He's under an Arbcom injunction that is basically a dead letter. He has gotten some admin support by spinning various developer comments into support for WP:AUM. I'm afraid that this block of Locke Cole will simply embolden him to further edit warring and disruptive behavior. I'd have less of a problem if both had been blocked. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 06:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus, nothing in AGF states that you also have to be completely ignorant and pretend that Locke and you for that matter have been warring with Neto all day and might be just a wee bit enticed to harass him about his user page and Locke to coincidentally visit a number of articles he's never edited before that Neto just coincidentally happened to edit recently. --Wgfinley 06:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Who said it was coincidence? If a user makes disruptive or unwise edits on one page, it's perfectly reasonable to go through his other edits and see whether they might have been unreasonable as well. I do this all the time when I catch someone vandalizing or POV-pushing. Neto may be a bit more ambiguous, but his penchant for trying to fly "policy" in under the radar makes it necessary to watch his actions. Why have a "user contributions" link if you're not supposed to use it? FWIW, I have no interest in revert warring with him on his user page. When he tries to force his views on articles or templates against consensus, though, I will stand up to this. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 06:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Do I need to post a list showing that you're baiting/wiki-stalking me too, Crotalus? Here's just the most recent one, as food for thought. -- Netoholic @ 06:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That edit summary was indeed ill thought out. I apologize for it. I do not, however, apologize for preventing you from imposing your views on other Wikipedians. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 06:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Harassment: "This (Wikistalking) does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 06:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
"Reading" is never a problem. I made no statement that AUM was policy/guideline/whatever... I simply used it as a shortcut to explain my edit. As such, by reading my contribs and then using that information to make that edit was not some good-natured attempt to "fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". It was harassment. -- Netoholic @ 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't revert all your edits, or anything close to it. I only revert those few specific instances where your edits don't fit with the community consensus. Along with the disruptive edits, you make many productive ones, and those I leave alone. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 07:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Reverting "all" of my edits would be a silly definition of "harassment", since it only takes a few well-placed reverts or comments to cause stress. I'll ask again... do you really want me to post a list of more examples of recent harassment by you? You don't have to answer, and if you don't answer, I'll take that as a sign you acknowledge what I'm saying about you is true, and I'll put it behind us. -- Netoholic @ 07:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Crotalus, Locke, Neto: All three of you need to stay the hell away from each other until you cool off.--Sean Black (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

(3 edit conflicts later...)Crotalus, you are verging on wikilawyering, let me explain. First, there's a big difference between tracking a vandals edit and tracking the edits of someone you are having a disagreement with and so you follow him around to other pages where you don't agree with him, that's called wikistalking and per prior Arbcom decision is an offense which can get you banned. Second, I'm well aware of the issue with the image and am addressing it with Neto. There is nothing wrong with a user deleting an image from another user's page that is in violation, when it's undone that's when an admin should be notified, you don't take the law into your own hands and edit war on someone else's user page. Finally, many of your comments towards Neto that I have noticed throughout the day are ad hominem and speak of "imposing views" and "imposing policy" on people. He's not imposing anything by continuing to defend his position, he's doing it appropriately and maybe if you guys spent more time on the issues and less on personal attacks of each other on these articles/templates/etc in question there would be less of a problem. --Wgfinley 07:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You say that Locke Cole should have notified an admin.
Firstly, I disagree with that statement; admins have access to some extra buttons, but we do not possess a higher level of authority when it comes to policy enforcement (beyond the acts of which other users are technically incapable). Netoholic was patently wrong, and his persistent reversions didn't somehow change that. Locke didn't even violate the three-revert rule.
Secondly, Netoholic reverted my removal of the images too. (Though again, I don't see how the admin vs. non-admin issue is relevant.) —David Levy 07:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
NOTHING justifies and edit war and that's exactly what he was doing on some other user's page! Look, I've seen lots of user pages that absolutely abhor me but I'm not going to go edit their page because I don't like it. Yes, he shouldn't have the fair use image on his page. How about leaving a message on his talk page asking him to remove it? No, neither you or Locke took the time to ask him on his talk page to remove it. So, yeah, if you came to MY user page and removed stuff and didn't bother to tell me why on talk (edit summaries are not a good method of communication) I would probably revert them. --Wgfinley 07:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Netoholic was edit warring too, and he was deliberately violating a policy in the process. And yet, you didn't block him, but you did block a user who violated no policy.
I don't understand why you believe that a talk page message was necessary, given the fact that several flawless explanations were provided via the edit summaries (and dismissed by Netoholic). Nonetheless, Locke Cole did post a detailed policy citation on Netoholic's talk page, and Netoholic "archived" it three minutes later.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain that whole "admin" thing to me. —David Levy 08:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Netoholic was not editing someone else's talk page, Netoholic was not following someone else around to other articles and then reverting them, Netoholic didn't cry and whine when I told him the image had to go, he just wanted it explained.
Finally, why would a talk page message asking someone to remove a fair use image from their user page be necessary? I don't know, maybe to be polite? Maybe because he didn't know about the policy? Maybe because that would give him an opportunity to take care of it himself?
Your last comment, I have no idea what you're talking about. --Wgfinley 08:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Netoholic was well aware of the policy, given the fact that two different admins removed the fair use images a total of three times last month (and one of them posted two explanatory messages on Netoholic's talk page). I assume that Locke noticed this (and rightfully followed up).
Regarding my "last comment," I'm waiting for you to explain why Locke should have notified an admin. —David Levy 08:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Look, it doesn't matter if Jimbo came and removed it, the best way is to politely ask him to remove it and point out why. I did that. He then asked some questions, I then answered them. He now understands and look, the image is gone from the page and I didn't have to do a single revert, amazing! Regarding why an admin because, let me try one more time, there is never an excuse for edit warring! Reverting someone else's user page three times is just plain out of line and uncalled for. No one has said having the image there was right but the proper way to go about rectifying that is not by edit warring, it's by finding out what the issue is and addressing it. That's why I suggested he get an admin because clearly he wasn't getting anywhere and clearly the image is in violation of the fair use guidelines. --Wgfinley 08:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
1. Please explain how this exchange (from last month) is less polite or less thorough than yours. You've claimed that Netoholic merely wanted an explanation, but it's clear that he already had received several (and simply ignored them).
2. Why are you condemning Locke's repeated removal of the images (per policy) and excusing Netoholic's repeated reinsertion of the images (in deliberate breach of policy)? It takes more than one user to edit war, and Netoholic was in the wrong.
3. I still don't understand what distinction you're drawing between an admin and a non-admin. Regardless, no fewer than four admins (Cleared as filed, Ilmari Karonen, Dbenbenn and I) attempted to convince Netoholic to comply with the fair use policy. What else (other than removing the images) should have been done? Should one of us have blocked Netoholic (or protected his user page) instead? —David Levy 09:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Rd232 warned Netoholic about this issue in October. Then Ral315 in November, SoothingR in December, and then the four you note. Possibly others in between. --CBD 12:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with David Levy, and have unblocked Locke. I don't buy Neto's accusation of wikistalking, because he frequently jumps to such conclusions far too quickly. Fair use law is important, and we should not block people for following up on that, especially after Jimbo's recent request that we be really careful with legal issues. And if the problem here is edit warring, both parties are equally at fault, so blocking one is not appropriate. >Radiant< 10:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I see the 'merry go round of aggravation' continues. Minor point which I didn't see above... Netoholic has been warned about this 'fair use images' issue several times by many different people over the course of a couple months now. He'll keep them off for a week or so, clear the explanations of why they aren't allowed from his talk page, and then put them back up again. I've seen that pattern repeat at least twice now, just in passing while discussing unrelated template issues with him. Wgfinley, you say that Locke Cole should have 'gotten an admin'. Ok, there are a few admins here. Why is the user who followed policy getting grief and the one who deliberately violated it (repeatedly) not? You were in an existing dispute over WP:AUM in which Netoholic agrees with you and Locke Cole takes the opposite side. You previously threatened Locke Cole with 'more serious action' over that issue. You should not have been the one placing a block on him - especially when he was, without question, acting in accordance with Wikipedia's 'fair use' policy. Knowingly using copyrighted images in ways which are not allowed is considered vandalism. Removing such is therefor not even subject to 3RR. The block was inapropriate. --CBD 11:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The image in question is NOT DISPLAYED on Neto's page ... it is an inline link. Image:Cowbell2.gif this is NOT I repeat NOT a violation of our fair use policy. Only displaying the image is.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 12:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Go back in the history. The images were previously displayed directly. There were a couple of reverts after Netoholic started using the links, but probably just because people missed the extra ':' in the diff-link and thought he was restoring the pictures again. Also note that Netoholic previously suppressed display of the images for a while, but then restored them once the latest person telling him it was not allowed had moved on. --CBD 12:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This appears to be a subtle form of gaming the system - it's bad form to pretend to change in response to reasonable dialogue, and then to turn back to the old way when nobody's watching (and then to claim this hasn't been discussed before). And it reminds me of kindergarten to see people who have just been in a "fight" be all nice and reasonable to the "teacher" in order to make the other guy look bad. >Radiant< 14:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How delightfully duplicitous Radiant -- AGF that Locke just wants to protect the project by removing the image but don't do it when Neto does what I ask him to do and removes the image. --Wgfinley 17:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Locke is not the one who was repeatedly asked something in the past, only to comply for a short while and change back when nobody's looking. Neto is, as explained above. >Radiant< 17:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Why have you continually claimed that Netoholic complied with your wonderful request? He didn't remove the images. The last person to do so was Locke Cole, and they've been gone since before you intervened. —David Levy 17:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

AGF does not involve ignoring the obvious[edit]

I find it amusing all the calls to assume good faith on Locke's part and he was only trying to do WP a service by having this terrible violation of policy removed from a user page. Let's see, who's here complaining about how we should AGF for poor olde Locke:

Hmm, let's see, where have I seen this group of editors before.....why, that's right, arguing with Neto over at WP:AUM! What an astounding coincidence that these users are now all so suddenly concerned about fair use images in the user space and they want to start their great liberation efforts and protection of the entire project -- you guessed it, on Neto's page!

See, what I love about AGF is that so many who are willing to invoke it are oblivious to what the last line says:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring.

Any person who has a smidgen of intellectual capability can take one look at the talk page on AUM and see the long history of personal attacks and edit warring going on there that has extended to various other templates, pages, articles, etc. It is clear that these folks all have no love lost for Neto and are present on his user page to bust his balls about something, plain and simple. --Wgfinley 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Possibly, but if that is the case, then the edit war on Template:Infobox shows that you are personally involved in this group of editors and its "long history of personal attacks and edit warring". If you assume that these people are out to "get" Neto, it's equally easy to assume that you side with Neto and want to "get back" at these people. Seems to be a classic case of Pot vs. Kettle. >Radiant< 17:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    You should go past more than on day of edit history Radiant, I've been on that page for all of one day. --Wgfinley 02:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Poor Netoholic. May I give an explanation for those of us with a "smidgen of intellectual capability": It's called watchlist: if you have something to do with someone like Netoholic you shure want to put his talk page on your watchlist, right? And guess what: this implies that the user page itself is also watched. So what happens if you see something popping up on your radar? You take a look at it. This is a real kindergarten here. Everybody who opposes Neto on WP:AUM seems to be your bad guy. Please note that there are not many people who actually care about WP:AUM beause the average wikipedian silently tries to solve his technical problems on the articles and takes whatever falls out of such battles. So arguing based on who is opposing WP:AUM is quite odd. And please don't talk about intellectual capabilities here. May I cite snowspinner: "Indeed - revert wars are the wrong way. That does not mean, however, that there is not a right side and a wrong side in a given revert war." [11]. Please add me to the list above. --Adrian Buehlmann 17:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I find it amusing all the calls to assume good faith on Locke's part and he was only trying to do WP a service by having this terrible violation of policy removed from a user page. Let's see, who's here complaining about how we should AGF for poor olde Locke...
Am I also in on the conspiracy?
What an astounding coincidence that these users are now all so suddenly concerned about fair use images in the user space and they want to start their great liberation efforts and protection of the entire project -- you guessed it, on Neto's page!
So...Cleared as filed and Dbenbenn are involved in the conspiracy as well?
See, what I love about AGF is that so many who are willing to invoke it are oblivious to what the last line says:
This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring.
Any person who has a smidgen of intellectual capability can take one look at the talk page on AUM and see the long history of personal attacks and edit warring going on there that has extended to various other templates, pages, articles, etc. It is clear that these folks all have no love lost for Neto and are present on his user page to bust his balls about something, plain and simple.
Which editor, other than someone with whom Netoholic has recently interacted elsewhere, do you expect to notice the problem with his user page? Given the fact that Netoholic has been deliberately violating policy (despite the intervention of multiple users), why shouldn't he be taken to task? Why, in the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, do you continue to assume good faith on the part of Netoholic? —David Levy 17:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose to have cup of tea together (or a beer, whatever you like) and take a look at Neto's new picture :-). Let's close this case now. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wgfinley, as noted above, I have been aware of these off and on 'fair use' violations by Netoholic for months now... because every time I post something on his talk page someone new is there warning him about it. I mentioned it to Netoholic once a few weeks ago and that was all. I haven't been 'revert warring' on his user page, Template:Infobox, or WP:AUM as claimed and I am not out to 'get' Netoholic here. My involvement in this discussion was to oppose abuse of powers by you. You were in a revert war with Locke Cole on Template:Infobox the same day as your 'impartial' block of him. You reverted that page to your preferred version and protected it - in blatant violation of policy. You threatened people with admin action for disagreeing with you on that page - again against policy. And then you blocked Locke Cole for removing deliberate violations of 'fair use' policy which Netoholic has been repeating since at least October. Your insistence on extending the block to 48 hours, and continuing that duration even after your stated reason for doing so (a supposed prior block on Locke Cole the same day) was proven to be false, shows just how biased your actions have been in this regards. You should never block someone with whom you are in dispute. Least wise when you've been 'breaking the rules' and they were following them. 'Fair use' images in user space are supposed to be removed... by everyone. At most you should have suggested Locke Cole to get someone else to do it... though even that would be a stretch given the 7+ people who had done so previously. --CBD 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Radiant! protected Template:Infobox, not Wgfinley. Forgetting about my user page for a moment, the 3 other occasions I posted at the very top of this section demonstrate that Locke Cole has been harassing me across several pages which he's never edited before, and therefore would not likely have on how Watchlist. He's been watching my contribs, and been using that information to combat me maliciously. That is what he was blocked for. It's also not the first time, because he did it to User:Pigsonthewing... he even edit warred on Pigsonthewing's talk page. It's a repeating pattern, and you should probably separate yourself from it. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
2 of the 3 links you provided I found out about via posts that were made to pages I have watchlisted. Only one of those (Template:Ship table) involved looking at your contribs, and that wasn't "wikistalking". (You must have a very wide view of what you consider "wikistalking"– I consider it being disruptive; as it was never my intent to be disruptive, merely corrective, it doesn't seem to me to be wikistalking at all). In the case of Template:Ship table, you were still pushing a template fork (Template:Infobox Ship) that was (and still is) broken for the disabled (hiddenStructure does not work correctly with certain screen readers, and does not work with certain browsers (notably Lynx)).
And for what it's worth, I intend to continue going through your contribs to undo the damage you've done. Again, that's not disruptive, that's corrective. Somebody has to do it, just as when a vandal is identified, someone has to go trawling through that persons contribs and undo the damage that was done (yes, I am comparing you to a vandal; I believe the comparison fits). —Locke Coletc 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Guys, please take your dispute to RFC. >Radiant< 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like Locke Cole to be re-blocked for not only confirming that he's stalking my edits, but comparing me to a vandal and threatening to continue and even escalate his stalking habits. -- Netoholic @ 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a "Stalk Netoholic" button of which I'm unaware? Mine just says "User contributions," and I'm fairly certain that the developers expected people to use it. —David Levy 04:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

NPA HeadleyDown[edit]

I was asked to monitor for personal attacks on the NLP article, and have left several warnings on his talk page. Now (as a result of the warnings) he's made one against me, and I feel it would be questionable for me to block him myself. Please see User talk:HeadleyDown, NPA section, and final post in NLP section here. Any wisdom, insight or help would be much appreciated. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 11:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

HeadleyDown (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) blocked 24h. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Reiter (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)[edit]

I recently observed this user uploading an image previously deleted as a copyvio. I deleted it since it has already been through the copyvio process. This user has a habit of uploading copyvios and then claiming they are PD or fair use; see talk for a list of examples. I believe that substantially all of his image contribs should be deleted out of hand unless there is clear evidence that they comply with copyright law. I have tried to reason with this user in the past and he is difficult to work with. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bank of Wikipedia again?[edit]

See Bank of Faith (talk · contribs) - would I be correct in assuming this user is acting in a similar way to Bank of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) back in 2005? What was the nature of Bank of Wikipedia's block, and should this user be treated in the same way? -- Francs2000 18:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - I'm assuming good faith here, it could be a sockpuppet of course... -- Francs2000 18:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a block. Bank of Wikipedia was a sock of user:Iasson. One of Iasson's other sockpuppets was called Faethon. "Bank of Faith"'s user page makes reference to this by linking to Faethon. That, combined with the similarly confused, semi-nonsensical writing style maes this an Iasson sock beyond any reasonable doubt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked; timer reset. Good job catching that. — Knowledge Seeker 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you please increase Lir's counter too? I am so bored to ask Raul654 whether he has recipes for low-calorie chocolate cakes.... :P FaethonCounterIncrease 02:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Disturbing edit[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britney_Spears&diff=prev&oldid=38180929 - has the user been blocked?? --Sunfazer (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, it's just a little silliness. Libellous, maybe, under certain circumstances. But I'm not too worried, personally.--Sean Black (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletions[edit]

Please can an admin delete the CFD's and speedy deletions listed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sunfazer

I no longer need these. You can find them in the description in the article above.

--Sunfazer (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the full list: This category has been made to hold categories made by User:Sunfazer
CFD articles: Category:User:Sunfazer/Suspected sockpuppets
Category:User:Sunfazer/Suspected sockpuppets (testing)
Category:User:Sunfazer/Suspected sockpuppets of Sunbulker
Category:User:Sunfazer/Suspected sockpuppets of fictitious user Sunbulker
Category:User:Sunfazer:Suspected sockpuppets
Category:User:Sunfazer:Suspected sockpuppets of fictitious user Sunbulker
listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sunfazer

and speedy deletions are contained within them, which are:

   * User:Sunbulkerrunning1
   * User:Sunbulkerrunning2

Please speedily delete them! --Sunfazer (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User: Jersyko[edit]

User Jersyko is riddled with a compulsive editing disorder, in addition to a pompous dereliction to discredit Mr.Saks. This user (Jersyko) is not aware of the work of Mr.Saks, nor his accomplishments as a musician. As I am new to Wikipedia, I hope that the actions and pedantic whistleblowing of this user are not indicative of the protocols afforded courteous participation insuring the rest of the community unabashed by his (Jersyko) participation. Talk:Reneec

  • Reneec is right on one point, I most definitely have a "compulsive editing disorder", two actually, editcountitis and addiction to Wikipedia (197 automated). - Jersyko talk 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Document your contention, and the edit war will end immediately. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible personal information disclosure, needs attention?[edit]

I don't know if this is worth attention, but the articel American Chess Association had someone write up a strongly biased, highly PoV rant on the subject, that also included someones SSN. Is this grounds for revision deletion, or am I overreacting, or...? Thanx 68.39.174.238 21:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Says the guy is dead, so does it matter? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it matters. I have removed the infor from the page history, along with plenty of other reverted vandalism by the same IP. The IP has been blocked for repeated vandalism and legal threats. Physchim62 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Upon notice of your death, the federal government publishes your SSN. I'm not sure why they do this, but if I had to guess it is probably to help reconcile banking and financial records which may be part of your estate. Regardless of the reason, the SSN of a deceased person is public record. In fact I just went and looked it up and I can verify that the name matches the SSN provided. The SSN is not something we need worry about. Dragons flight 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The main reason for publishing the SSN upon death is to prevent misuse. If someone tried to use that SSN to open a bank account, for example, it would raise red flags at the bank as soon as routine checks were done. Jonathunder 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it matters or not, but it does not seem to add to the article, so I took it out of the text of the article. As for deleting it from the history, it does not seem to me that Physchim62 has actually done this. The information seems to still be there. Johntex\talk 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
All the personal info appears to be gone now. Ral315 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
All SSN info on individuals should be deleted on sight, since they are not, contrary to popular belief, unique. Tomertalk 10:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist (talk · contribs) and unfree images in template/userspace[edit]

Hi. Karmafist (talk · contribs) has started reverting userbox templates back to containing unfree-copyrighted images again [12] [13] [14] [15]. I left a message at User talk:Karmafist quite some time ago, and the response left me with the impression that I am not the best person to get through to that user about this. Since it is my impression that User:Karmafist is a valued member of the community, I was hoping that someone who has a good collaborative relationship with User:Karmafist could perhaps have a word with him or her. Thanks. Jkelly 22:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea for a respected admin to play on the border of the 3RR rule. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC) [16]

Clarification[edit]

The real issue with me on this now isn't the icons, but rather the thuggery of certain users, including some who posted in regards to this on my talk page. Is the Wikimedia Foundation really so frightened of one admin who disagrees with them that they have to sick a goon squad out to do their bidding? Or is it just some goons on a power trip looking to exert intimidation over someone, and "decrees" give them an excuse to do so? To me, it's a clear WP:IAR, in this case WP:CIVIL is broken to uphold WP:FU, cancelling each other out.

I can get a decent alternative on one of the userboxes i'm "edit warring" on, and I can likely get permission in regards to the Dem logo (I know several Democratic National Committee members), but I may conduct some civil disobedience just to stand up to those bullies even if I do go down that route, which i'd prefer. I haven't decided yet.

One thing's for sure -- if those dicks are able to rally up a mob and lynch me for standing up for what I believe in, Wikipedia will be a worse place for it. That's my only real concern. I'd much rather have free images in the place of potentially non-free ones, but coercion by force isn't the Wikipedian way to do it.Karmafist 12:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thuggery or no thuggery, I hope you understand WRT fair use, you were probably in the wrong (which is no big deal, as per Raul's law on copyrights -- many of us who think we understand copyright law really don't. I've probably fucked up on this somewhere too). There's no point pursuing "civil disobedience" when it's doing the wrong thing TM. Johnleemk | Talk 13:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Policies don't "cancel out." If one side is violating policy, that doesn't grant carte blanche to the other side to do the same. If people are being uncivil, then take it to dispute resolution, but don't use it as an excuse to act out against policy yourself; it is "sinking to thier level," seizing the lowest common denominator (in this case, all policy is thrown out the window). Also, it creates a never-ending cycle of policy violations: <begin intellectual exercise> They violate civil, cancelling out FU, you violate FU, cancelling out NPA, they violate NPA, cancelling out NPOV, you violate NPOV, cancelling out BLOCK, I block you indefinately, violating BLOCK and canceling out VANDALISM, you violate VANDALISM, cancelling out ADMIN, Jimbo promotes Willy on Wheels to administrator, signaling the beginning of apocalypse. <end intellectual exercise> The appropriate response is to remain safely within the bounds of policy (remember IAR includes the phrase "ignore all rules, including this one") and use the established dispute resolution proceedure to address the base issue, rather than retaliating with your own policy violations. Anytime you're invoking IAR to justify an action that is likely to (or is designed to) create more discord than good, then it's time to ignore IAR. Essjay TalkContact 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Karmafist's beef is; I'm sure he doesn't intend to wrongly use the property of other people in this freely licensed encyclopedia. I hope all parties, including Karmafist, will wake up in the morning and think of something more productive to do with their time. This is an encyclopedia, so let's write more good articles. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I do know. See the Gmaxwell stuff elsewhere. :-/
In other news, should I block you all for violating WP:WOTTA? ;-) Kim Bruning 01:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This kind of crypic comment does not help. I look on this page and WP:AN and see nothing. Rather than wander all over Wikipedia for enlightenment, I think I should say: please explain more fully. I really have no idea what is going on here. Just explain so that people who need to know will know. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


See start of thread especially, with refs to IAR, CIVIL, DICK, etc etc :-) TMD TLA! ARG! Kim Bruning 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not helping. Why can't you just explain what you're talking about for the benefit of people who don't know what this has to do with Gmaxwell? --Tony Sidaway 12:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh THAT part! That's easy: Sections Gmaxwell and Gmaxwell2 right on this page... eh where'd they go? OH! they must have been archived already. No wonder I got you confused! My apologies.
Ok, short summary:
This complaint is so similar to Slimvirgins complaints about Gmaxwell that at first I thought they were directly linked. Perhaps they are even.
There's some set of people who are checking for copyright violations on wikipedia, as well as removing "fair use" images that aren't. (Even trying to remove all fair use, if at all plausible). There's some set of people who will not let people remove images from their user pages, except over their cold, dead bodies. The stage is set for wikidrama :-/ Kim Bruning 13:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, we haven't voted on that page yet. :P >Radiant< 01:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy[edit]

As many here will have noticed, this article has received a mindblowing amount of user attention over the past few days. Because the article is still linked to from the main page, it cannot the protected or semi-protected. The result of that is that the cartoon is removed from the article on an almost minute-to-minute basis. This is being done despite a clear and overwhelming consensus on the talk page to keep the cartoon in the article (currently 161/21/12), and despite massive warnings surrounding the image, telling the user that the image should by no means be removed. I believe that these warnings are not enough, and that removers won't listen to talk page warnings, since Allah is more important to most of them than Wikipedia. I propose a drastic measure. It has probably never been done before, and I hope it will never be done again. I believe that it is necessary to immediately block anyone who removes the cartoon from the article for 24 hours for blanking vandalism. This should stop the influx of vandalism on the article, which would reduce the need for full-protection/semi-protection once the article is no longer linked to from the main page. This in turn would allow good-faith IP's to contribute valuable information to the article. I'm afraid that the situation on the article is getting out of hand. We currently need around-the-clock vigilantes on the article, which costs valuable editor time that could be spent much more effectively on other articles. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, we can 3RR block persistent image removers. I just blocked 211.43.206.161 for example. howcheng {chat} 23:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Rgulerdem is also rapidly approaching a block. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Rgulerdem has been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to exempt those restoring the image from 3RR, but I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of blocking someone because they're expressing their faith, even if their methods are less than productive. Block persistent edit warriors (like with any article), not passerbys.--Sean Black (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that insta-blocks will work; most such editors are drive-by. I'm beginning to think we should semi- the article for a little while since it is probably being hit harder than George W. Bush on a pre-semi day. -Splashtalk 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to complicate things, current reversions are coming from Saudi Arabian block proxies: anyone care to turn off Wikipedia in Saudi Arabia, 'cos I don't... Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be an exemption from 3RR for people who restore the image. The IPs go through 8,9, 10 removals before being blocked, and all the conscientious users exhaust their three reverts. This should be regarded as simple vandalism, and we should be able to restore it as many times as necessary? Do people agree with that? The community consensus is well over a supermajority here. Babajobu 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on this. These reverts are blanking reverts, which is 3rr exempt. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and I've said before this may be the exceptional case where it makes sense to protect an article linked from the main page. However, consensus is not actually established by polls, it is also established by action, and going down the road of discounting the opinions of those people removing the image from the article in your definition of consensus is a dangerous one. It is a tempting thing to imagine that having the image missing for a while is a terrible consequence, but it isn't really, and the article will eventually stabilize on a good (accepted) version. In the meantime, many people will have learned they can edit Wikipedia, and a few of them, even if they might not be making such great edits to this particular article, may stay and do something useful. There is precedent for restoring consensus being exempted from the 3RR (Gdansk/Danzig) but that was very well-discussed for a long time, while we have actually not been discussing this for that long. Demi T/C 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Why Demi, you cur! You fiend! You Judas! ;-) Yes, your points are well taken. I agree with you that polls are a crude manner of gauging consensus, but this one has produced an unusually emphatic answer. Regardless, I suspected that not everyone would agree that this situation warranted an exemption from 3RR; some agree, some don't. Perhaps a poll? ;-) Babajobu 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Instablock is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. That's my 2¢. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm happier with sem-protecting than with instant blocking. Semi is unfortunate and un-wikilike - and leaves noobs wondering what wikipedia is. But a good-faith drive-by noob who sees an image he passionetley objects to, reads 'anyone can edit' and decides to do just that, then gets blocked without any warning? That will look like draconian anti-Islamic censorship. If we have to do something (and do we?) lets semi for a time. --Doc ask? 23:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Main page articles can't be semi'd, but I think IAR was meant for cases like this. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, forget instablocking, what about allowing restorers of the image to do so as many times as necessary? Are we agreed this is exempt from 3RR? Babajobu 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd not really necessary. There are plenty of people avalaible. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Baba here. It's not fair to block one way and not the other since the image is a disputed item here. Most people who visit the page probably didn't visit the poll on the talk page. Also the poll is full of people whose only edit has been to that poll and also IP addresses. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
They may not have visited the poll, but they will have noticed the two massive warnings directly above the image. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, well at least three people have disagreed that exemption from 3RR is appropriate as of now: Anonymous Editor, Demi, and Theresa. So for now I think that's enough to conclude that there is no consensus for exempting restorers of the image from 3RR. Though I've only very rarely engaged in revert wars, in this case there's really no other way to defend consensus, so before anyone blocks me, please give me a warning because at this point I have no clue where I stand in relation to 3RR! Cheers, Babajobu 00:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove sourced and valid information against consensus can be classified as vandalism without being unreasonable. Warn and block. Phil Sandifer 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Phil 100%. Removing the image is vandalism; it's black-latter policy that reverting vandalism does not count against the 3rr . Raul654 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Raul, so how should I and others proceed? Many admins do think this calls for exemption from 3RR, but at least three have stated that they don't...for those of us trying to ensure the image is kept as per the very strong consensus, do we regard 3RR as applicable here or no? Babajobu 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You're not breaking 3RR if you're reverting vandalism, that's all there is to it. So don't break 3RR—but restoring an image with strong consensus, when it's removed without discussion, isn't breaking anything. If an admin blocks or warns over your actions, politely refer them to this discussion. -- SCZenz 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Goodness! Then I've discovered a terrible vandal--right in our very midst! And the vandevelopers are in on it, too! Sorry--as much as we might wish we could dismiss the opinions of people we disagree with as "vandalism", this isn't it. Twisting the definition of vandalism to include everything you disagree with has become a common tactic--I think it might need to be added to our guide to discussion. However, it's engaging in sophistry to avoid dealing with an actual dispute as what it is--a dispute. You may disagree with the disputants, you may even be right, but that doesn't in itself make them vandals. Demi T/C 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Slamdac is being awfully non-productive on the talk page... I think he's running dangerously close to some violations of policy. Anyone else? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, he's indicated that he agrees it's not helpful and he seems to be willing to back off. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Some admins are instablocking for one hour, even on shared IPs. If you must block, can you keep the time shorter on these IPs (for a first offense, obviously), there seem to be plenty of admins around to treat the problems on this page. Physchim62 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I said to Babajobu before that these people need at least one 3rr warning. a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that people must get at least one warning before being blocked, I don't support instablocking. However, AE, it seems like there is a lot of support here for regarding removal of the image as vandalism, rather than a revert. Also, I'm not blocking anyone on this article, I only blocked one person who showed up on WP:ANI/3RR after I'd been away for several hours.Babajobu 00:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does the insta-block suggestion have to be for 24 hour blocks? Why not issue an hour block or something to start? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing the image is vandalism, but vandals get warnings. At least one hand-written explanation inviting the user to use the talk page would be the minimum appropriate before any block, I think. -- SCZenz 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't even support instablocking, there should be at least one warning, then block. Babajobu 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been using {{bv-n}} for first offense on thsi one, with an added msg explainign that ther is consensu to leave the image. On repeated removals after the warning, i will block as disruption -- but only for a short time if the IP might be shared. DES (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes, but these vandals are being meatpuppets/sockpuppets; a justification to block on sight. Calling your (cyber)-terrorist cell mates to come over and help vandalise Wikipedia puts them in the same boat. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Natalinasmpf, your remarks are way out of line. There is no evidence these are sockpuppets or meatpuppets—in fact, I rather suspect they are not. -- SCZenz 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
See also WP:BITE and WP:NPA. -- SCZenz 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that the "terrorist" remark is in EXTREMELY poor form given the topic under discussion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed...natalinasmpf, I actually do suspect there is some meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry here, but the terrorism remark was totally inappropriate, cut that out. Babajobu 01:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
My experience on the Qur'an page makes me suspect meatpuppetry. (The cell remark was just out of sarcastic exhaustion, pardon, I meant it mostly with the "cyber" prefix in there.) We already have a warning on the editing page. One should notice how the majority of the removals are mostly uniform, in the same kind of style. This kind of suggests someone posted about our article in some forum and asked people to help them vandalise it. It's just like voteflooding at AFD, only within a vandalism context. I don't have good opinions of people who are out to censor Wikipedia. I do have compassion for clueless newbies, but this is clearly malicious editing. I rather like the protestors' form of eye for an eye in expressing free speech, but it's the vandals who I equate with terrorism, I admit my remark it was a bit risque. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand the situation is frustrating... But for any given vandal, you can't tell if they're a clueless newbie or malicious; you can only see the general pattern. That being the case, I think we have to warn them—the situation is not so dire as to suspend basic Wikiquette. -- SCZenz 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well one warning and that is it, IMO. Looking through most of the diffs it appears that most have a bad faith intent. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I've created Template:Mohammed as a warning template for users removing the image. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 04:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The page was semi-protected for a while, and that seemed to work fairly well. I realize its disadvantages for brand-new editors, who simply want to genuinely add the article. (A template on talk suggesting accounts?) Septentrionalis 04:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See template:anon. We already have one! Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Look up the user history of the IP User:165.230.149.152 - and you'd see that there was no repeat cartoon blanking vandalism on the Mohammed controversy from that IP. 165.230.149.154 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC) That means that there was no reason for that IP to be blocked.

I second the idea that protection in this specific case is probably the best of the remedies available, if remedy we desparately need. Part of the notion of our attention to this is that we should not be changing our editorial rules to accommodate Muslims--and yet, here we are making up special warn-and-block schemes and 3RR violation exceptions we don't usually carry out. Protection is better, and might actually drive some objectors to the talk page or other discussion venues, which is what we want anyway (rather than an unstable article). In contrast, "requiring" people to keep reverting in the face of a wave of "attackers" will just make everyone a lot angrier. Demi T/C 17:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My problem is this. We do not protect articles linked from the main page. "Well it doesn't say it in the policy". Yes, it says it's "best not to protect". But you know, for those of us who actually protect pages, it's a rule we follow. I'm tired of those admins who have done 20-25 protections in their entire admin careers (if that) telling those of us who have done literally hundreds that we are just wrong. We're not. It's a convention we've been following for months and months. We follow it on all FA articles and on everything else linked from the main page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Argument Sandbox[edit]

The talk page for Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy repeatedly gets bogged down with debate and discussion about the underlying issues, rather than the relevant matter of article content. Consequently, I've created Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments and placed a notice at the top of the main Talk page asking to restrict all discussion of underlying issues to that page. That way, people can argue on the Arguments page, and hopefully useful discussion can take place on Talk. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. We shouldn't be encouraging people to treat Wikipedia like a message board.--Sean Black (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's specifically telling people to use Wikipedia as a message board. I quite frequently will create a sub-page of my own user page to mock up a page I'm editing (this is generally during a rewrite or substantial copyedit). While I'm typically only involving myself, at least a few times, I've posted a link to my "scratch pad" on a talk page for an article in the main namespace. I think this is common practice, as I got the idea from somebody else. Anyways, giving people a space to mock up an article or to "hash out" differences is A Good Thing. It hopefully will prevent people from having "revert wars" on the main article. I think it provides an alternative to "harmful" behavior (eg revert wars). What was your take on it? Avriette 01:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't bother with discussing it anywhere. Just remove it with the edit summary, "Rm- off topic poltical/religous/social discussion."--Sean Black (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly wrong to call it a Sandbox, which implies it can be deleted at any time. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for the idea that it should be. Jkelly 04:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that people who want to argue about this be redirected to the POV wiki. This is the kind of thing that the POV wiki was created for. It is open to arguments of all kinds, and can really help remove the clutter from Wikipedia and its Recent Changes page. Danny 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Being a vandal patroller as well as a Protection patroller, I wish they'd just take the darn thing off of the main page so we can SP it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
We should have a template for this to stick on talk pages. It'll be a great help when I deal with POV pushing Malaysian editors. Johnleemk | Talk 06:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
For those interested, I've MfD'd this talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Simon Says[edit]

You've had your fun with me, now I'm going to have my fun with you. I have placed 30 nihlartikles throughout wikipedia, and your job is to find them. Be careful, over half of them have graphics and look very unassuming.


Simon says find the nihlartikles and revert them. - MilkMan

Okay, we will. Thanks for letting us know in advance, it's much appreciated!--Sean Black (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

range block[edit]

I have had to implement a 5 minute range block on 212.138.47.0/30 because of the huge amount of vandalism coming through those addresses. The block includes the state run proxies for the country of Saudi Arabia through which all their traffic is filtered thus the reason why the block is only 5 minutes. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Capital Punishment - request for semi-protection[edit]

Article Capital Punishment is vandalised quite often; current problem with an anonymous IP user (71.107.80.90), quite knowledgable but definitely heavily pro-death penalty who runs through the article subtly (and unsubtly) deleting anti-death penalty arguments or shifting the emphasis. Caravaca 07:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Request Urgent Help[edit]

User 209.215.39.5 has this page attacking the Shiloh Shepherd [[17]] and now attacking on the actually Shiloh Shepherd talk pages. This user is also known as Wolfin_42 [[18]] [[19]] (also signed post as Lisa Trendler) posted a message on Shiloh Shepherd Dog Talk Page [[20]] revealing personal information of other editors and numerous personal attacks on them. While it is understood that this editor has a personal vendetta, it is felt that the revert by Dixen is a different matter.

Edit was rv’d by ShenandoahShilohs for violation of Wiki WP:PA and WP:Harrassment policy.

Post was rv’d back by editor Dixen with comment “too late to get self-righteous now”.

Dixen has never previously posted on Shiloh Shepherd talk page/article. I checked Dixen’s other contrbs and found the majority have been made to article “Joomla” [[[[21]]]] .

Found administrator Jareth to be common and frequent mediator/administrator/contributor for both Joomla and Shiloh Shepherd and to have previously communicated with Dixen.

Please note: And if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page or heck, poke me and I'll answer. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC [[22]]

Please note: "re:Hey" on Jareth's talk page: Jareth: "One of my major mediation feats was completely behind the scenes - when Joomla! split off of Mambo, someone thought Wikipedia needed an entry on the new CMS. I did a lot of coaching..." [[23]]

Please see: Jareth's Request for Admin: [[24]] "One of my favorite mediation feats actually occurred entirely off-wiki -- the community supporting the Joomla! fork of Mambo wrote a page, which was afd'd shortly thereafter for its ad-like quality."


Please note, Admin Jareth recently resigned as mediator on Shiloh article, due to conflicts/controversy with other Shiloh editors, and is involved in RFA against them. [[25]] We find this coincidence, extremely concerning.

Please consider block/ban of users 209.215.39.5(aka Wolfin42). Please perform check user for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dixen and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jareth. Please monitor Shiloh Shepherd Dog article/talk page for further WP:PA, WP:Harrassment, and and hostile reverts. Please take any/all other necessary actions as warranted.

Thank you. |||Miles.D.||| 02-11-2006 18:16 (UTC)

Range block / Jack Abramoff[edit]

The problem with anons at Jack Abramoff continues, and has now spread to the talk page hist. So:

  • Can I sprotect a talk page (yes I know I *can*; is it considered unreasonable?)
  • Can I reasonably range block 217.132.174.44/16?

Your input is appreciated... William M. Connolley 20:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

From Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy : In the exceptional circumstance that you protect a User or user talk page, use {{usertalk-sprotect}} instead. With regard to the range, it's not an AOL IP range, but maybe it belongs to another ISP. Jacoplane 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind that, you were referring to an article talk page. Jacoplane 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The IP you mentioned: 217.132.174.44 ISRAEL, TEL AVIV, Jerusalems BROADBAND SERVICE. Should be fine to block. Jacoplane 20:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
He's actually asking about the IP range 217.132.0.0/16, which is a lot of addresses—presumably the entire ISP's pool of broadband IP addresses with maybe some collateral damage on the side. It might be better to sprotect the pages in question if that's the only place where trouble is coming up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll hold off the range block for the moment :-), esp as it would have been my first. William M. Connolley 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC).
Okay, I have to admit my own ignorance here. But will someone good with slow people (read: me) mind explaining to me what exactly a range block is? What is this /16 thing... a multiplier I guess, but how does it functionally work? If this is too much explanation to be reasonable on-wiki, maybe someone could point me to an informational website somewhere. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
m:Range blocks, and no, I don't really understand it either.--Sean Black (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
See CIDR for the explanation of the /16. --cesarb 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Our Subnetwork article lays it out pretty well, but it is not a simple concept. Where I work, I need to explain how IP ranges work sometimes in training, but I need a blackboard to make it clear. Jonathunder 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Unh, Jewish "vandal" here. You could try to to range block our IP address as part of the CIDR block, which as you can see matches the CIDR prefix but then you would essentually have to block out EVERYONE IN HAIFA, and a little secret. We are rerouting. You might have to block out the entire north of Israel. But going by some of the Israel Bashing attitudes here YOU MIGHT LIKE DOING THAT. 85.250.102.83 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Once you set the R-block, we can reset the range until you will have to really shut out the entire world. Or so says our smart Jewish Computer expert. Who we are holding back with a chain.

    • Such histrionics will get you nowhere, sir. Calm down. --Golbez 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that several ranges have been used. Another one seems to be in Haifa. See the history on the main article and its talk page for other examples. If you can keep the article and it's talk page semi-protected for a while I think things will be better. The person (or persons) in question don't seem to be ranging very widely. --StuffOfInterest 21:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, sorry to be a pest, but the vandal has now turned his attention to Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor. Could it possibly be included in the protection? --StuffOfInterest 21:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And add in with that Talk:Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor. Current round of vandalism coming from 85.250.122.199. --StuffOfInterest 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And now from 85.250.102.83 --StuffOfInterest 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --StuffOfInterest 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

66.237.172.226 (talk · contribs) has just come to Wikipedia:Articles for creation asking for a talk page for Talk:Jack Abramoff, to discuss its semi-protection. ☺ Uncle G 23:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I've already made one Talk:Jack_Abramoff/anon_talk, though it may no longer be needed... [26] William M. Connolley 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

I see that that sprotect was removed overnight (Eastern US time). Of course, soon afterward, our friend who contributed above returned. I expect that things will be going full speed ahead again soon. He is now working from 62.0.142.2 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log). Also interesting to see that he is posting threats and acusations over here now (noted above from IP 85.250.102.83 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log). --StuffOfInterest 11:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not for nothing, since I've been a heavy target of this anonymous IP's ire, but I don't agree with how this is being handled. {{sprotect}} on a talk page for over 24 hours is ridiculous. This seems to run counter to everything that the policy at Wikipedia:Semi-protection states. I've done the research and there are indeed multiple other valuable anon-IP contributors from the same ISP ranges, so a mass block is out of the question.

There's two options - return to the table and continue to talk it out, or write up the behavior for RfC and eventually RfArb. I felt that we were making some progress on discussing this topic on the talk page until about February 1 when Brad or one of his cohorts started a revert war on the article, and it's been downhill since. I have no problem with the anon IP stating their viewpoint as long as they are not disruptive or make attacks.

Although I disagree completely with their tactics, the anonymous user does have an iota of a point in wanting to make sure that Abramoff is not portrayed as some sort of Jewish Willie Horton. I don't believe that they should get their wish that the word "Jewish" does not appear in the article, but the subject should be treated with dispassion. KWH 04:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:New newness[edit]

New newness (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) registered in January and made enough low-level edits to qualify for the ability to move articles, then did a three-round move of User:Jason Gastrich and User talk:Jason Gastrich requiring deletions to fix the moves since you can't rollback across double moves. I've blocked them indefinitely and have fixed the moves. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The user also created a bunch of nonsense redirects. (e.g., AEU to Courtney Mitchell, AAX to Reflecting Skin, etc.) — TheKMantalk 02:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Their first edit was vandalism, their second was to their User page, their third was to create an article which is currently on AfD, and all the rest were nonsense redirects until they got into move vandalism mode. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The sound you can hear is me biting my tongue... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Questionable image[edit]

I want to get everyone else's opinion on this image, Image:Dylan jams with campbell.jpg. It was deleted once for being a orphaned fair use image/possible copyvio, I deleted once before for it being recreation of deleted content, but it has been uploaded again. The source of the photo, for those using AGF, is from a friend of a Wikipedian. But, from reading the image license, it says it is "a non-commercial publication." Can someone look at it please? Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedied again as a recreated copyvio. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Are we allowed to {{deletedpage}} the image, so it cannot be uploaded under that same name? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I have also blocked User:JDG for 24 hours for blatantly violating Wikipedia's copyright rules, he's been warned several times and has stated:


"I will be uploading this image again. It is 100% Fair Use (the source is an acquaintance of mine) and I won't have a posse of paranoiacs interfering... Zach, I've been contributing to Wikipedia approximately 4x longer than you, so your threat to "make sure [my] stay on Wikipedia will be very, very short" is as amusing as it is idle. Warning: don't push me. JDG 03:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


which besides being a personal attack states that he plans on repeatedly violating Wikipedia's rules on copyrights which is something even Jimbo Wales has stated is grounds for an immediate indefinite block though I'd like wider feedback before implementing one. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: As per the ruling from Jimbo that we are supposed to take a hardline on blatant copyright violation and ignoration of our copyright rules and regulations I have extended to an indefinite block. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
One more comment, yes, I did say that if the user uploaded the image again, I would have made his stay at WP short. Was it out of line: maybe, but with the block above, I guess Jimbo meant it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was out of line since you should never threaten other users like that, that being said he was clearly warned on the image's talk page that the image did not qualify as fair use and as such would be deleted, he was also warned not to repeatedly re-upload the image which he continued to do. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I also wish to note that extra discussion is taking place at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JDG#blocked. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reduced this block to one week. We shouldn't be blocking good contributors because they upload one potential copyvio.--Sean Black (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The issue wasn't one potential copyvio, the issue was blatantly re-uploading a copyvio when told not to and after having policies to that effect explained to him as well as him blatantly stating (see quote above) that he would entirely ignore policy, and his blatant incivility towards me on his talk page after being blocked. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Sidenote: I issued an apology to the blocked user about my conduct with him. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 07:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If the issue was not the copyvio, but the issues surrounding it, then I'd say that he deserves, oh, a week. ;)--Sean Black (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The above makes no sense to me. The user was blocked because they stated (and demonstrated) that they were determined to continually re-upload an unfree image without providing source or copyright status. Blocks are not punitive, so once the user agreed to abide by image use policy, they should be immediately unblocked. Blocking for a week sends the message that they are being punished for an arbitrary length of time for being a jerk. That's not our job; the behaviour problems should go to WP:RFAR whereas the "protect the project" admin block should stay in place exactly as long as that protection is needed. Jkelly 19:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It appears he has gone through with his statement that he's leaving the project though hopefully he'll take me up on my suggestion that he use this only as a wikibreak and that he come back with a new outlook on things when the block is over. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks are an ArbCom matter. We're getting way to cavalier with these. If there is no proven case against a user, no matter how obnoxious, RFar. We do indefinite blocks for user names that are obviously inappropriate and for sockpuppets that are vandalizing and for vandalism-only accounts. Other than that.... I know this has been taken care of now, but I'd like to urge folks to watch out for the temptation to block indefinitely. Geogre 16:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Stub problem[edit]

Help is needed at Template:US-journalist-stub, which is now placing the bio of a woman named Madeline on every journalist's article who uses the stub. I don't have time to untangle it myself, so help would be appreciated. Elonka 16:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Just needed to revert the template to the last good version. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't get on wikipedia[edit]

I posted this at the Help Desk and no one responded, so I'm putting it here. I'm having a rather strange problem. English Wikipedia seems to be blocked on my computer. I can't access it on any browser, including IE, firefox, and Opera (not that I can't edit Wikipedia, I can't even view the site at all, nor can I link to it from a google search). Firefox gives an error message saying that it can't establish a connection to the server. I can access any other website, including any other language wikipedia, but I can't get to English wikipedia. I'm writing from a public computer right now. No one else on the network in my dorm is blocked from Wikipedia, so I find this very strange. can anyone offer any help, or any possible reason why this could have happened? I'm sort of clueless right now, wondering if my computer got hacked by somebody who i blocked on wikipedia or something? I don't know, please help if you can. Thanks, --Alhutch 16:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

can you acess other sites with firefox?Geni 17:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Any chance someone with physical access to your computer is pulling a prank on you? Possibly by adding a line to you HOSTS file or similar, redirecting en.wikipedia.org to a bad IP? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I can access any other site with firefox. I don't think the people who have physical access to my computer are smart enough to do something like that. If they did, how would I fix that?--Alhutch 20:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Problem solved.--Alhutch 22:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL
The previous unsigned comment is by 64.12.116.65, previously blocked for disruption on this page. RadioKirk talk to me 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL, all AOL users who edit the same page have the same ip
Nice try, 64.12.116.65; anyone at that IP who is editing this page would be taking part in the disruption, would they not? RadioKirk talk to me 19:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense, AOL uses shared ip ranges, they change from page to page, anyone who edits the same page using AOL has the same ip, if you're confused, ask someone who is smarter than you, they'll explain it--64.12.116.65 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What? do you think only one(1) AOL user has ever edited this page in the entire history of wikipedia?--64.12.116.65 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You sure seem rather defensive about this... — TheKMantalk 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No, just annoyed, everywhere I go, people pull up unrelated things from my ip history and blame them on me, there should be a template:AOL for dummies to help people understand this without so much fuss--64.12.116.65 19:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me attempt to explain this in a manner you can understand. You speak of IP ranges, which is a smokescreen. I refer to a specific IP, and the propensity of people from that specific IP who make edits to this specific page. The likelihood of multiple users (with no accounts) from the same IP who are aware of this page (or who have the wherewithal to check the IP's user history and go from there) is so small, it could probably be narrowed to one or two people. Meantime, yes, you are oddly defensive... RadioKirk talk to me 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You really don't seem to understand, all AOL users in the same range who edit the same page, at any time in the history of the planet earth, all have the same IP, as long as they're on the same page... say we're both using AOL, I edit a page, then you do... we would have the same IP, but still be different people--152.163.100.65 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
10 years on the 'net, this is the first time I've heard of any such thing. So, 64.12.116.65, was this edit yours? RadioKirk talk to me 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to create an account. Takes about 30 seconds, and most of that is spent deciding your username and password. Much less annoying to do than getting bugged for being on a shared IP. — TheKMantalk 19:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wheel-warring[edit]

The paedophilia template has been the source of a huge debate at WP:AN and a wheel war over the template, even though a TfD for it is already running. He is the wheel-war log [27]. This is getting out of hand.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly a wheel war. Some people think it should be deleted as a troll template, others disagree. Who's to say which party is right? If it's a troll template, then obviously it should be deleted without mercy, no matter how many times it's created. This kind of disagreement is inevitable as the community grows and administrative standards diverge. --Tony Sidaway 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but if you are an admin, and your admin action was reverted three times by three different people, that is a sure sign that you better seek other ways of making your point. :) Hopefully User:Ashibaka got it.
That regardless of who is in the right or in the wrong. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
"Obviously it should be deleted without mercy, no matter how many times it's created." I strongly disagree with this statement, applied to anything. Nothing trumps civility, and civility means engaging with other editors in discussion instead of reverting them. It means leaving Wikipedia in The Wrong Version while pursuing respectful dialogue. Reverting repeatedly without constantly attempting to discuss and build consensus is always wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. Numerous things "trump" civility, violations of law to begin with. Civility takes a distant second place to protecting Wikipedia. ➥the Epopt 03:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think he means nothing excuses incivility. I fail to imagine a scenario where incivility would be good for the encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
But GTBacchus is defining reverting others instead of engaging in discussion as incivil (particularly in regards to deleting things, I think). Incivility, defined in that manner, could be good for the encyclopedia if, for example, it meant ridding a page of clear libel quickly, no? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Protecting the encyclopedia need never "trump" civility. There is no case in which it is necessary to be uncivil in order to protect the encyclopedia. If someone is adding illegal content, then you still should address that person via their talk page each time you revert them. Even then, doing it more than twice should immediately feel fatuous and silly. At that point, it's appropriate to get more Wikipedians involved. Just reverting is never the right way to go about things. This applies to deletions, content disputes, whatever. The main problem with just reverting is that it doesn't work. After two reverts (with no discussion), the problem is exactly as it was before two reverts. That's unproductive; don't do it. And making remarks in the edit summaries is no substitute for discussion. Why don't admins hold themselves to a higher standard of civility, and not the lowest that's technically within process. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
From WP:RFC, an example of the attitude I'm suggesting: "Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Wikiquette is more important in resolving a dispute, not less." Why not try to live that way? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Look, I mostly agree with you in the current case, but I caution you that your use of absolutes ("Reverting repeatedly without constantly attempting to discuss and build consensus is always wrong", "Just reverting is never the right way to go about things") is silly. If someone is defacing today's featured article with a large number of penis images, "just reverting" is perfectly appropriate for a while (though eventually a block becomes necessary). There's a fuzzy line somewhere where it becomes inappropriate, but things are not black or white and talking as if they are does nothing to further the conversation. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, ok, I see where you're coming from, and every absolute claim has exceptions. Sometimes though, it's a very good idea to take an adage as non-negotiable. I'm attempting to describe an ideal, which, if all editors held themselves to it, would raise the bar around here considerably, regarding both how we treat each other and the quality of encyclopedia we end up with. An ideal has to be couched in terms of absolutes. In your example, by the way, it would be acceptable to warn the penis-image vandal once, and block them on the second offense. Only two reverts are necessary in that scenario, and communication takes place in between them. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


By Tony's reasoning I could revert war on any article and the only defense I would need is that I was right. It wouldn't even be a revert war. This is the exact same reasoning that got at least one editor severely restricted by Arbcom. I understand things change when you have pull, but this is ridiculous. — Phil Welch 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By Tony's reasoning there was no wheel war, despite 3 reversion. Maybe that is not unusual for him, but most of the time that is considered wheel warring. I reverted a block once and people called it "wheel-warring" and said that "wheel-warring admins should be blocked"...looks like reason and consistancy have gone way out the window here.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Phil, if you were reverting vandalism you could revert it until the cows come home with my blessing. We do allow reversion of damage to Wikipedia, and a template created avowedly for the purpose of trolling may well be classed as damage to Wikipedia. Rather than condemn those who deleted and those who undeleted, I'd like to look at the situation and see what we can learn from it. --Tony Sidaway 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ashibaka's repeated restorations, at least, were a clear case of wheel warring. And it is not okay. This whole fiasco was shameful, and quite avoidable. Dmcdevit·t 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Tony, there is always the possiblity that your judgement may have been wrong, that you misread the situation, or that there exists an alternative explanation for the facts you see. Deleting or undeleting a certain template/article/category till the "cows come home" is not acceptable, in any circumstances. Get to talk to the other admin, seek a third opinion, do something except a show of force of who will give up first. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Just in case anyone missed it... 05:40, 6 February 2006 Jimbo Wales blocked "Joeyramoney (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (I desysopped karmafist for reverting my block -- no more wheel warring) [28]. Assuming that this is going to be spread around to all and sundry, I cannot help but think it's a good thing. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, though technically I reblocked first (a few seconds before Jimbo). Wow, two desysopings in one day...Jimbo must really be pissed.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 06:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
the wheel warring had to end at some point. maybe people will finally get the message.--Alhutch 06:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually he has desysopped five so far. See [29] TacoDeposit 07:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
indeed: Borghunter, Carnildo, El C, Karmafist, and Ashibaka have been desysopped.--Alhutch 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Allies (band)[edit]

Walter Görlitz insists on adding the claim that the Sweet Comfort Band is "seminal", but refuses to offer any evidence for this. His response to my requests for references or sources (aside from merely reinstating the word) has been to restate the claim, to say (in an edit summary) that many bands have said that they were influenced by Sweet Comfort Band, though he is unable or refuses to name any of them, and to tell me that I shouldn't be editing the article as I'm ignorant. His messages on my Talk page ("since you don't know anything about the subject, I suggest that you stay out of it", "You seem to have your fingers in a lot of pies, but don't seem to have grown any of the fruit. This is one pie I'd like you to refrain from ruining"), and edit summaries ("an attempt to satisfy Mel Etitis--the man with too much time on his hands and no knowledge of CCM") have become more and more insulting. Could someone else explain to him that the onus is on him to justify the claim, not on me to disprove it? I'm getting nowehere. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I left a lengthy note. Jkelly 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
My last attempt to explain anything ended in tears. Would it be appropriate to call this a really severe case of WP:OWN? Allies (band) also led him to war over another band ("The Allies"), because they apparently stole the name before he could write an article about the Allies. When your ownership of an article leads you to try to take out other articles as well, it's probably gone Too Far. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Brokeback Mountain[edit]

Brokeback Mountain is semi-protected after a few waves of vandalism from several anons with IP's in the same range. I'm wondering if this is from one individual using multiple computers in a school. is there a way to investigate where the range of IP addresses originates? -- Samuel Wantman 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

ARIN is a good way of determining ownership of an IP address. — TheKMantalk 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It appears the IPs in question come from Bell Canada. — TheKMantalk 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Fahamli Ghi[edit]

Fahamli keeps recreating Danielle Cunio, which I have deleted four times. I suspect that Fahamli is a sockpuppet of User:Danielle Cunio, who herself is a sockpuppet of the North Carolina vandal. What should I do? Thanks. --M@thwiz2020 21:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've put the {{deletedpage}} tag on it and protected i. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Sam Sloan[edit]

User left this edit on my talk page, which seems to me to be personal attack, given that it contains the sentence "You are just a crackpot."

To give some background, this user is angry at me because I removed some uncited material and asked to reinsert only with a citation. The user responded with this comment calling me a "menace to wikipidea" and a "non-discriminating vandal. He deletes content randomly...If allowed to continue, soon there will be nothing left in Wikipedia." This is a clear violation of WP:AGF.

It would also be also helpful if an admin explained to him that content needs to be accompanied by citations. He keeps accusing me of being a "Wikipedia policeman" for insisting that content be cited. --Pierremenard 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Know-It-All is a sockpuppet of Ruy Lopez[edit]

Ruy Lopez (talk · contribs) has come back as Mr. Know-It-All (talk · contribs) to evade ArbCom action. I've blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely. However, keep an eye around Ruy Lopez's usual haunts for further hot sock action - David Gerard 23:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats[edit]

Zothip (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) has made legal threats against Antaeus Feldspar (talkcontribsFeldspar page movesblock userFeldspar block log) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Donald Kring, PHD. Stifle 02:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as per WP:LEGAL. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

MilkMan threats[edit]

Lactose_Oracle (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has warned that there's going to be some sort of POV-pushing / brute-force attack on Wikipedia within 72 hours. Just keep an eye out for this. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting edits by Congress (RFC, etc.)[edit]

See: [30]

Kim Bruning 03:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

and [31] - please re-block the IP - the IPs vandalism was reverted, and then repeated from the same Congressional IP; I reverted this. I know an IP block is alleged to block other users. Congress refuses to self-regulate; we must take action; I grow weary of reverting. Elvey 04:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AND! Has attacked the RFC again, I'm in a slow revert war here. This person has been removing comments by Jamesday. Kim Bruning 10:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello! They messaged me again. Could someone please block, checkuser, and all that? User_talk:68.50.103.212, thank you for your time. Kim Bruning 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no ability to checkuser, but I have blocked this IP for 12 hours for removing these comments. I'd rather not block for longer, in case they decide to contribute to the RFC more constructively, but if someone thinks a longer block is needed, I have no objection. Demi T/C 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Blocking Complaint[edit]

I will post here the same text I posted to WikiEN-l mailing list in search of answers: -- 68.50.103.212 10:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Context[edit]

This concerns the article Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, within the subsection "The established conduct methods have not been used." This section erroneously states "Both the Senate and the House have established ethics bodies which, so far as I can see, have not yet been used in an attempt to resolve this matter." (only members of the respective body can refer matters to the ethics committee)

Background[edit]

I possibly erroneously removed this [32]. User:Kim Bruning reverted my changes reminding me not to delete comments from an RFC[33]. I then corrected myself moving the erroneous text to the discussion page [34], explaining "Comments are misguided and statements are blatantly false, moved to talk." User:Kim Bruning immediately reverted my changes, ignoring my comment and saying "RV political vandalism. Please watch, block"[35] I later reminded Kim that this was not vandalism and again moved the erroneous material to the discussion page [36], and explained "These comments are in the talk area and contain factually incorrect accusations. please do not revert again (3RR)." User:Kim Bruning threatened me on my user talk discussion page with "consequences" that "can be rather dramatic," and though not an administrator ordered me "don't touch that page."

Blocked[edit]

Responding to misleading comments by User:Kim Bruning, administrator User:Demi then unilaterally intervened and blocked me for 12 hours with the brief explanation of "Repeatedly removing valid comments from RFC." I believed this was an abuse of administrativ