Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

Abusive and disruptive behaviour by Yamla

I was blocked for no reason and experienced abuse from Yamla in my attempts to contest the block. I could not raise the attention of adminsitrators to unblock me and so I proceeded to alter my talk page continously. I have seen that this attracts the attention of some. However, instead of helping me, an honest editor who has attempted to contribute postively to this laudable encyclopaedia project, Yamla assumed wrongly that I am a vandal and refused to help. Instead, this user protected the talk page of my account as if I was a vandal. This user has also used false pretenses to remove a suggestion that I made when I was blocked. Yamla has falsely claimed that I made a personal attack, which is not true. Please block this aggressive user or suggest a wikibreak, because this administrator is clearly abusing the user's admin powers. WP:AGF is a policy that Yamla has apparently abandoned in my case. How is it that editors in good standing can be treated so poorly? I demand an apology. Thank you for your consideration. Mumun 無文 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page history is a mess of ... I dunno ... reversions and blanking, etc. A number of admins tried to deal with your unblock requests but it looks a lot like you were uncooperative. You were caught in a rangeblock & there's nothing anyone can do until you produce the autoblock ID. User:Yamla commented that your page was being protected for "unblock abuse" which, indeed, it was. To be honest, your best approach would have been to contact the unblock mailing list at unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org with as much data as you can. I don't see Yamla as having been abusive here - Alison ☺ 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the edit I removed as a personal attack. Given the editor's obviously heated emotional state, I did not issue a warning. As to protecting the user's talk page, please see the history. Fifty edits in the space of less than an hour with Mumun man refusing to provide the information we were requesting but instead making edits like this and this, etc. etc. I believe that in such circumstances, temporarily protecting the user talk page is appropriate. In this case, the page was protected for 24 hours (and then lifted shortly thereafter). After being unblocked, the editor then went and left this and this. As requested, I did not comment further on the user's talk page. This was also discussed very briefly on unblock-en-l, though the situation was quite confused there. --Yamla 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like Mumun man was very confused by what was happening, but didn't take the time to understand the issue. Instead, he began rapidly editing the talk page which rightly ended in protection. A bit more patience and care might go a long way next time. Leebo ^T/C 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. There is nothing objectionable about Yamla's actions. Sandstein 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the non-support, all. Another honest wikipedia editor who attempted to do good is retired. Thanks. Mumun 無文 21:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, no one ever blocked you and you weren't accused of doing wrong until you started rapidly making accusations yourself. Are you still confused about what an autoblock is? Leebo ^T/C 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Step back and analyse the situation for a second here. You were rangeblocked (it happens to us all) and that's no reflection upon yourself nor does it appear in your block logs. You overreacted in a big way and repeatedly didn't produce the autoblock ID which would have been your key to getting out of that mess. When the autoblock was lifted/expired, you went gunning for both Clown and Yamla on their talk pages and on here. So what started with an autoblock needlessly escalated into something else altogether - Alison ☺ 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the autoblock screen, but I've seen a few people lose it after an autoblock because they think they were blocked directly. Maybe we need to add "Do not take this personally!" in really big letter. And maybe make them red and flashing. Natalie 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext will give you an idea as to what shows up. - Alison ☺ 21:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a lot more obvious than I thought it was. Maybe the font should be bigger. Natalie 22:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I got all WP:BOLD and made this minor tweak. What do you think? - Alison ☺ 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely more noticeable! Natalie 23:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Alison's bold move implied authority, I made this edit to soften things a bit. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

看起来，Yamla讨厌中国人。几天前，我的朋友（也是中国人）创建一个帐号，然后发现他不能编辑，因为他使用TOR。他使用

This user is asking that their autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

Administrators' noticeboard (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

---

Blocking admin: not provided.
Block message:

{{unblock-auto}} is for autoblocked users only.
Do not call this template manually. Please follow these instructions instead.

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=Administrators' noticeboard}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=not provided | 2=<nowiki>original block message</nowiki> | 3=127.0.0.1 | 4= | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=127.0.0.1 | 2=<nowiki>original block message</nowiki> | 3=not provided | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=127.0.0.1 | 2=<nowiki>original block message</nowiki> | 3=not provided | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}

，但Yamla坚持不要让他（和其他中国人）编辑。没想到，他也欺负来自中国的用户。 谷歌翻译 (http://google.com/translate_t?langpair=zh%7Cen): It seems that Yamla hate Chinese. A few days ago, my friend (also Chinese) to create an account and then found he could not edit, because he is using TOR. He used ((unblock-auto)), but Yamla insisted he should not be allowed (and other Chinese) editor. Unexpectedly, he also bullied from the Chinese users. --Zheng Youxiu 06:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may, the very latest part of this is a technical issue. As far as I can tell Zheng Youxiu is complaining that various users from China are blocked from editing Wikipedia. They are using the Tor as a way of getting around Chinese censors. However, Wikipedia blocks Tor because of a concern over anonymous proxy servers and Yamla is somehow involved in denying an unblock request. Zheng Youxiu has asked whether Yamla or Wikipedia more generally does not want input from Chinese people. Some users from mainland China are understandably frustrated because Wikipedia is preventing them from using an obvious means to bypass the censors. Howver, Tor network itself may not be immune from censorship or infiltration by authorities. This is a high-level concern that Jimbo Wales is personally concerned about. If we can assume good faith despite what looks on the surface like an unfounded allegation of racism, it is quite possible that Zheng Youxiu is sincere in his question, not simply bitter or raising trouble. If so, perhaps someone who can write well in Chinese should discuss the matter with him/her line rather than here. Please forgive if I misunderstand, just trying to help. I don't understand at all how this relates to the original issue in this section. My command of Chinese and my understanding of proxy servers are both zero. Wikidemo 08:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

郑优秀，我有同样的经验。我使用TOR，要求管理员让我编辑，但Yamla拒绝我的要求。我们该怎么做？ Babelfish: Zheng is outstanding, I have the similar experience. I use TOR, requests the manager to let me edit, but Yamla rejects my request. How should we do? --宋飞启 14:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

真的？像Yamla这种人，真是连猪狗都不如！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sun Jiaxuan (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yamla也不让我编辑。他跟中国人有什么仇？--巴士阿叔 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the above translates to a personal attack, followed by something to the effect of "Yamla also won't let me edit. What grudge does he have against Chinese?". User:Hildanknight obligingly translated, and Babelfish seems to agree in the, uh, fractured way it does. --Haemo 02:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm the above [unsigned comment by Sun Jiaxuan] is a personal attack. The second line comment translate to something along the line of "Really? People like Yamla is worse than anmial!". KTC 12:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

朋友们，请记得，你们可以用--~~~~签名。你们能以HTTPS编辑。当你看到“User is blocked”错误信息，应该在Tor选择“更换身份”，然后按F5，一再做到能编辑回执。--Zheng Youxiu 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is AN3 broken?

I'm alarmed that certain users are given a free pass on WP:AN3. There is a growing number of pretty obvious infractions that are marked as "not handled". If it is a backlog, the page should clearly say so. If there is some other reason not to implement this policy, it should be identified as well. I don't think that "does it really matter?" is an expected response to a AN3 request. It is unsettling to witness how, for a day or two, some requests are skipped by a bunch of guys who perform the blocks and then declared "historical", with no explanation at all.[1] Since the application of WP:3RR has become so awfully selective, we should either rethink the policy or just throw it out the window. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that many people report someone to 3RR they are edit warring with. The more experienced edit warriors know how to game 3RR, only reverting precisely 3 times in any 24 hour period, then getting their friends to revert for them (whilst getting their "enemies" blocked for 3RR or baiting them into incivility and complain about it here, pleading absolute unblemished innocence). We need some kind of bot that flags up (say) 10 revisions in a 7 day period, showing longer term edit warring. As far as the actual operation of WP:AN3 goes, though, it seems up to date at the moment, I just did the last few reports. Neil ム 10:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that people reporting their "enemies" should be a problem? Editors are entitled to work within the rules. That's generally how our society works too. And surely it's one of the most effective ways of ensuring the rule is complied with? If I'm involved in an "edit war" on some obscure page, am I supposed to sit and hope an interested third party comes along and exclaims, "hey, I've just found more than 3 reverts in one day. Shame on them. I'll go and spend half an hour reporting it". If you have 3RR, enforce it. If someone performs more than 3 reverts in one day, and that is shown, they should get blocked or warned. If there's a concern about longer term edit warriors, have a new rule about that. But there are going to be edit conflicts on wikipedia; 3RR is about reducing their impact on mainspace. Arbitrary application of the rule promotes well ... arbitrariness and unfairness. Why is admin lottery better than solid rules when it comes to a concrete and comprehensible policy such as 3RR? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I always look at the history of the article in question. Quite often you find that the reporter is as guilty of breaching 3RR as the reportee. Then I block them both ... HAH! (kidding, usually I'd ask them both to stopitnow as they'd both get blocked if they continue). Neil ム 11:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look carefully at WP:3RR it does allow an admin to revert before the letter of the rules is broken, as 3RR is not an allowance but the upper end of the limit. That is also why we have admins, experienced editors who understand the spirit as well as the letter of the rules and guidelines. As for arbitrariness, if more editors were to realise they could be blocked before the 4th edit (depending on the whim on an admim) there might be far less gaming of the system. LessHeard vanU 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This philosophy is wishy-washy and misguided. Systems will always, always, always be gamed. This is just reality. You either have the rule or you don't. What the thing you're talking about promotes is fear of arbitrariness among good users making sensible reverts against POV pushers. I mean, how is the ordinary user supposed to know where the line is drawn? Premonition and psychic powers would be needed! Admins are just editors (some of them aren't even that) who got through admin votes for whatever combination of reasons, and their powers of discretion to do things like blocking should be limited when and as much as possible. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(ecx2) The trouble with AN3 is that too many reports are motivated by a desire to get even rather then to prevent disruption. Blocks are supposed to be preventative and I personally see no point blocking someone for a violation 24 hours after the revert war if the disruption has finished. By that stage the block becomes a punishment rather then a preventative measure. Likewise, one of the cases Ghirla reports above was an editor who was trying to disengage from a dispute. Blocking them for that would have simply been lame and the reporting editor later admitted on my talk page that they were simply looking to even up the score because they felt that editor was harrassing them. Unfortunately they couldn't document the complaint properly for investigation at AN/I and there we were. Personally, I think that 3RR reports are often indicators of much more serious underlying problems. Both the decisions complained about above were mine. It would have been nice to have been told about this thread or even have the decisions discussed with me one to one before this thread was opened. I'm still relatively new as an admin and very happy to take advice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Deacon of Pndapetzim - the rules on reverting are really quite simple, and are expounded on WP:BRD. You should revert just the once, and then discuss the matter. WP:3RR was devised to allow good faith reverts of vandalism without incurring the wrath of pernicious admins (the non editing kind, I assume); therefore any revert other than the first which isn't removing vandalism makes the editor liable for appropriate action. However, it has become custom to permit (or to demand) 3 reverts per 24hours where it is an edit war on a poor or incomplete understanding of 3RR. I often review reports made to AIV and will block editors who are involved in edit wars with violation of 3RR as an "other" reason. If they want to contest their block on the basis that they were not up to their allowance of three reverts/day then they are quite welcome to do so. LessHeard vanU 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The line is drawn at edit warring period. Wikipedia isn't a court of law. We don't have strict laws for all circumstances and we don't need them. This is just a heads-up, but whenever I end up investigating something like a 3RR report, both people end up getting blocked for edit warring, regardless of how close to meeting four reverts in 24 hours they were. So don't try to play close with the rules when I or others like me are around — you'll end up blocked all the same. --Cyde Weys 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a good example of why powers of discretion to do things like blocking should be limited when and as much as possible. I mean, I am not in any "edit wars", and it sounds like you're trying to bully me. Per above. Systems will always be gamed. Trying to counter this with random fear and admin lottery is not sensible. If 3 reverts per day is too much, lower it. If persistent triple reverting a day is a problem, have another concrete rule. Self-righteous caprice is not the answer. That's not to say that discretion should not be used of course. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it's all the more annoying to see people mindlessly reverting four or five times a day and then, after a report was carefully prepared and submitted, being pardoned with the summary "does it really matter". There should be some consistency in the implementation of the rules. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not very good about consistency, and I don't really see that changing. A lot of outcomes are dependent simply on chance regarding which admin happened to come along the situation first and deal with it. A lot of it has to do with Wikipedia being a volunteer administration. In an employee organization, the owners of the company can set up strict rules which the employees must follow or risk being fired. These pressures simply do not exist on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not very good about consistency, and I don't really see that changing. A lot of outcomes are dependent simply on chance regarding which admin happened to come along the situation first and deal with it.

And do you like that system? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not optimal, but there isn't really any way to improve on it in an all-volunteer organization. --Cyde Weys 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could have a solid and consistent 3RR policy for a start. That'd be a way to improve it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The only time I was blocked citing WP:3RR (and that was my first block, mind you) was when I reverted vandalism by an abusive sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte who made no secret of sockpuppetry when he reported me on WP:AN3. I don't know whether reports by anonymous editors are taken seriously these days, but I was instantly blocked (although no revert was identical) because "3RR is a big red flag", etc., etc. Then there was a period when it was fashionable to block people for two or three reverts because "they should have known better". Now we have a period when people are not punished for four or five reverts because, after two days of procrastination, their behaviour is considered "historical". This is very confusing, you know. Looks like a big mess to me. Either we have a rule on three reverts, or we don't. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking that we block people for something they did two days ago and stopped? You might want to read WP:BLOCK. If they stopped reverting, do you just want to see them punsihed for there actions? That is by far not what blocking is for. Blocking is to stop disruption. If they have stopped themselves then why are we going to throw a block on there too to stop them from doing good?Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't "ask" for anything. I have no habit of block shopping. I welcome comments on whether the rule is still valid and, if it is, why it is applied so arbitrarily. Where's User:William M. Connolley who used to administer the blocks more or less even-handedly and in due time, rather than picking up a request on a seemingly random basis? --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Not trying to bite anybodys head off! It is my belief that there is alot of grey area in WP:3RR. It is up to the administrator handling the case to determing the best course of action. I am sure there are lots of factors taken into account i.e. previous block history for 3RR, experience of editor, willingness to discuss. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. But then these reasons should be identified by the closing admin. The bare summary "no action" is not very informative. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I wont argue with that. I think transparency is important. At least a simple note saying, "user warned, not blocked for this infraction" or something of the sort would be benificial in my opinion. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, isn't punishment is about "deterrence"? if so, deterrence surely reduces disruption? Of course, that's only if the disrupter cares about being blocked or whatever the punishment is. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with Cyde's approach, in that I block for disruption when it seems necessary, though rarely for fewer than four reverts. I more often protect the page if there are two people edit warring. But Ghirla has a point. Regardless of what we say the rules are, we only have the rules we enforce. Since 3rr is about the only one we do reliably enforce, we should probably keep on it. It's helpful to check AN3 once in a while, and to clear a few whenever you make a report yourself. It is tedious and uninteresting work, but it needs to be done. The people who do it deserve credit for their contribution to the project. Maybe the foundation could send William M. Connolley an engraved beer mug or something. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally think that giving "disruption" as the primary reason for a block is a good idea, unless the disruption is obvious and unquestionable, or unless there's already been a decision made at CSN or ANI. A strict application of the 3RR rule is better. Yes, some people will game the system, but as someone pointed out above, this is inevitable in any large community. One of the biggest problems, on Wikipedia and on other wiki sites, is the arbitrary use of power by admins. "Disruption" is quite a subjective term, and, IMO, it's better to have clear-cut rules so that editors know where they stand. Even a well-intentioned admin will make mistakes in issuing blocks; far better, IMO, to enforce the 3RR rule to the letter, in order to reduce the potential for admin mistakes. Yes, some people will game the system and get around it, but that's the price we have to pay; it's more important to ensure that all editors are protected against arbitrary sanctions. Walton^One 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No one questions the validity of blocks for "revert warring" in general (that is below 3RR but still disruptive). But these are discretion blocks not quite the same league as 3RR blocks. "Discretion blocks" should be administered sensibly and, preferably, by responsible admins who write content and, thus, motivated by improvement of the WP as a source of information rather than a self-fulfilling motivation of being in a position to show who is the boss. God forbid this from becoming a "Cyde approach". Non-writing admins should not be anywhere near the block buttons.

Engagement in content writing gives some useful insights that allow to better distinguish the disruptive revert warring between two users who refuse to discuss (block) and repeated reverting (still under 3RR) of a disruptive troll (Bonaparte case in point), copyvio pusher or otherwise nutty editor.

However, reports for "revert warring in general" should go to ANI, not AN3. 3RR is a razor wire, almost an automatic block. Removing the case, like [[2] here], because no one bothered when it was urgent as it is "too late to block anyway" may even make sense when the report is indeed historic. But reports should not get historic in the first place, they should be handled, that's one. And two, seeing Spartaz being not "block happy" is heartening. But his not blocking because the maintenance system failed would have been fine if he would still have at least warned a disruptive user.

Frankly, I am sick of that fellow. Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) goes around articles pushing the fringe Ukrainian nationalist POV for a while and this is long since tiresome. While there are plenty of poorly formed 3RR reports, often to hide the fact that the 3RR is questionable in the first place (still people get blocked for those if the backlog is handled by inexperienced or block-happy admins), it was upsetting to see my time totally wasted. I spent at least half an hour to make a report that is presented without confusion (see original) and was kind of upset to see that my time was totally wasted. Since then, I watch the fellow still editing disruptively but under 3RR and I have to waste my time with his edits.

AN3 used to be the least back-logged task. Was it because too many admins love blocking and this is the place to go when one is in a mood to kick some butts or because it requires less skill and work than updating DYK I don't know. But if now even sterile revert warriors can get off and multiple FA writers get blocked under bogus pretenses (recent example) something needs to be changed. --Irpen 15:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I regard edit-warring as a symptom of a problem. It's rarely a disease in itself, though that can sometimes be the case. Sometimes I think a better approach, rather than blocking, is short protections, particularly on non-high-profile articles. It's often better to look at what's actually being written. On higher-profile articles, admittedly, protection becomes rather more evil. Example: I recently came across a nationalist POV-crankery-pushing troll and a good guy edit warring. They were both on 6RR, or something similar. Much as I would have loved to have infinibanned the troll's arse, doing that without blocking the good guy would be lynchable. Instead of blocking I locked up the article for 12 hours, and the troll got sent packing a couple of days later when he kept on reverting despite 6 different people reverting him. I'm not a huge fan of wholly mechanical 3RR blocks. Yes, edit-warring is a pain, but implementing 3RR in a completely robotic fashion will do nothing but antagonise people. Moreschi ^Talk 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Much as I would have loved to have infinibanned the troll's arse, doing that without blocking the good guy would be lynchable." That admins get lynched for blocking trolls is a problem in itself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Tom. The inability to deal with trolls who know how to stay within the bounds of 3RR and around the bounds of CIVIL is frustrating as fuck. But what do you do with a bad-faith editor who doesn't break 3RR, doesn't use obvious personal attacks, but just sits around aggrivating editors who are trying to build an encyclopaedia? WilyD 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's something that may not be taught, but must be learned. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is no automatic administration. If people could make automatic calls on blocks, we could have -bot overlords. The more we praise or seek automatic administrative decisions, the more we abdicate our responsibilities, abridge "community trust," and render ourselves both otiose and destructive. Therefore, investigation, judgment, and communication are de minimis for being an administrator acting in a conflict. The better the investigation, the better the administrative action (the more valid). It takes time. It takes concentration. People who have a lot of experience with writing will be better able, in general, to discern editorial issues, but it would be possible for someone to not be a top writer and yet have Solomonic discretion. It's just rare. The one thing that is absolutely moronic is the idea that something like a block can truly be "automatic." We're people, not automatonic. Geogre 16:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A note. This was initially not about "automatic handling", also a bad thing. It was about non-handling and then archiving without even warning an editor. Agree with the rest. --Irpen 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if that was the concern, that could have been handled by a note on my talk page pointing out my error. That's a good point but the first time its been made to me. If anyone wants to know about why 3RR gets backlogged look at my talk page - the amound of time and trouble that not being block happy caused was amazing yet both cases were symptomatio of other more serious underlaying problms that would not have been addressed by a mechanical block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: partially agree but treating the habitual revert warriors with block of increasing length does help address the problem, not of course being the only thing that needs done. Your not block-happiness is appreciated. Still, warning a disruptive editor would have been useful at that point. Finally, you should not see this thread as just a criticism of your action. The thread originator pointed out at the problem with AN3 in general, hoping that some non-block-happy and content-writing admins would go there helping you. The report on Hillock was crystal clear and he well-deserved a block. He is still around from time to time and, frankly, I am tired of dealing with his tendentious edits. Not that I can do much until he over-reverts again. --Irpen 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely debatable whether the 3 revert rule does more good than harm. I for one have no interest in enforcing such a rule, and I suspect many others see it the same way. Friday (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, even though it's not supposed to be an entitlement, many editors do think of it that way. It eliminates some of the fear of being blocked for edit warring, or even thinking of a bit of back and forth reverting as edit warring. WilyD 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is talking about entitlement. But 3RR should not be used to block editors who don't break it, that's all.

• 3RR violation is a blockable offense. You touch the razor wire, you are sent home for 24 hours. There are exeptions, though.
• Disruption is also a blockable offense. Being on occasion close to a 3RR limit may or may not be revert warring. And does not mean the editor considers this "entitlement". Being habitually close to 3RR on a set of articles, is revert warring. WE usually mean the latter when speaking of the editors who consider 3RR "entitlement".

Being able to tell the disruption from legitimate returning the articles to normalcy, once they are attacked by a troll is what's expected from admins, we call it discretion. Content writing helps admins to be better at it. --Irpen 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I understand the argument against robotic enforcement of 3RR, I think, as I said earlier, that it's very dangerous to simply block people for "disruption" or "being a troll". In the end, terms like "disruptive" and "troll" will always be subjective to some degree. An admin coming into a situation could easily get the wrong end of the stick, and block the user they identify as a "troll" without blocking those on the other side of the conflict. While I know it's frustrating when trolls figure out how to game the system, I think that the arbitrary or unfair exercise of power is a much bigger threat. Better to enforce 3RR strictly; when both sides of the conflict violate 3RR, give both of them a 3RR block, regardless of who you think is a "good guy" or a "troll". Even-handedness and transparency are always needed, and having strict rules protects users against arbitrary exercise of power. Even a great admin with good intentions can easily make a mistake, or misunderstand a situation, and drive contributors away. Walton^One 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You will note that I did deal with the matter in question completely even-handedly by blocking no one :) Also, I am capable of looking at the content in question. I become very hesitant to block anyone when one side is citing reliable, peer-reviewed academic literature and the other side is citing some random blogpage off teh internetz. These are things we should be thinking about. Overmuch of the mentality of the arbitration committee, who will not rule on content, has filtered down to the admin corps. We should use our brains. Our ultimate aim is to build an encyclopedia. Yes, revert-fighting is doubtless disruptive, but adding shitty content is even more disruptive. 3RR blocks should be made with clue, and, yes, that may involve looking at what is being written. Moreschi ^Talk 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

micro-summary

There seem to be two schools of thought, and two contradictory principles in action:

• It is important to be seen to be consistent and impartial in applying the 3 revert rule. Otherwise, see WP:ROUGE, WP:CABAL etc.
• Admin discretion is what prevents the smart trolls from freely edit warring, gaming 3RR and getting their opponents blocked.

I'm not saying either camp is wrong. Just trying to sum up. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

AN3 and WP:KETTLE

It would seem that if two people are edit warring and one reports the other, the proper response is not to block whomever happens to go over the line first, but to protect the article in question. >Radiant< 11:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Crafting a response to attempted GFDL revocations

Recently, Wikipedia has been placed under extreme danger by the attempted revocation of a GFDL licensure grant by an admin, who then proceeded to delete all of his images. Needless to say, the license itself and the Foundation (read the general disclaimer) consider the GFDL non-revocable; if it were revocable, Wikipedia would not be able to keep working, as even a moderately active contributor who departed and wanted to take his ball home with him could cause the deletion of hundreds of articles that he had contributed to. Now imagine even 5% of departing users trying to take their ball home with them and you can see how the majority of the most edited articles on Wikipedia would have to be deleted.

Consequently, I have codified up a policy on Revocation of GFDL which I believe sums up the response we should have to attempted revocations of the GFDL. Note that this already describes a common practice, that is, the banning of anyone who attempts revocation of the GFDL (similar to how we deal with legal threats). Please discuss this proposed policy on the relevant talk page. Do not discuss it here; this is merely a notice pointing you to the correct place. We should keep the discussion centralized.

Thank you, Cyde Weys 15:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on prior history: we've had people do this stuff during the lifetime of Wikipedia, including I believe admins going around deleting stuff. Of course the only "policy" we need for this is the GFDL and the only tool we need is the block button.

I've taken the liberty of moving the proposed policy to Wikipedia:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony is right, if a person does not understand that GFDL is irrevocable, and is performing disruptive actions based on this lack of understanding(such as removing content), and ignores explanations, then blocking seems warranted. I agree that the license itself and our rules about disruption covers this, but an explanatory essay is a good idea. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please people, Only you can prevent forest fires. --Cyde Weys 00:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed that we have admins who don't understand free content! How did that happen? Secretlondon 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Show me one RfA where this is a question. What? None? Oh, there you have your answer... RfAs should come with standard basic questions regarding GFDL, tools, and other objective criteria. Instead of the subjective popularity contests/pet issue referendum that they are. If we choose admins without basic knowledge of the objective nature of wikipedia, you can't blame them. --Cerejota 17:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from asking this question to each and every candidate. Feel free to ask. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says that they don't understand free content? Oh, right: the people pushing for an extremely narrow action. This section opens with a conclusion, says that it's bad (which is contained in the opening conclusion) and then says that everyone must listen up. I don't suppose there is any room at all for anyone anywhere to in any way disagree with the conclusion or to point out how utterly it begs the question? No. Figured. Geogre 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Which admin? the only user I know that tried this was Mabler and he's not an admin Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree that some guideline on this is appropriate, I imagine that the wording of what is proposed above might be questioned. (If WP's lawyer feels that it is important enough, perhaps he will give advice). We *already* have a policy called Wikipedia:No legal threats. How about changing that policy so that proposing to withdraw your GFDL permission for your WP contributions will be interpreted as making a legal threat? Then such behavior would qualify for an indefinite block until the threat is withdrawn.

We don't actually know whether revocation is legally possible. (We hope that it isn't). The essay written above appears to be making demands on forces beyond our control. But it *is* within our power to prevent editors from asserting revocation and *then* continuing to edit Wikipedia. If necessary, we could also say that revocation is a cause for immediate desysopping. EdJohnston 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Revocation or an attempt to do so should definitely be a reason for immediate desysopping, and banning if possible - someone attempting to revoke the GDFL license of their contributions obviously does not care for Wikipedia anymore, and the effect is so frustrating that a ban would probably be justified. Now, it seems to me that pages which have been edited by other users probably can't have their GDFL revoked based on one user's claim, but this is something for a lawyer to look into. If the GDFL is revokable, we'll need to change something, because it would be altogether too evil to allow revocation - it would allow anyone to sabotage almost any article. We need legal counsel. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It was I, yes I, who requested to revoke GFDL on some images I uploaded (because I didn't want them being moved to Commons and deleted here where I can't watchlist them). Although my concerns have pretty much been resolved, I still believe it would be possible, and indeed legal, providing no subsequent transformative amendments, or derivations, have been carried out. There's a pretty detailed explanation on my talk page - and yes, I do understand free content, thanks, Secretlondon. I am no longer threatening to revoke GFDL, however, because it's pretty clear it would be way more trouble than it's worth (far too many people believe they understand the rules perfectly). Neil ム 08:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Neil should have his adminship revoked based upon this behavior. Someone who starts deleting his own images en masse in a WP:POINT reaction to the regular process of moving images to Commons, has de facto demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with the tools. >Radiant< 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's not POINT, if a person believes that it is compliance with policies and the terms of the license. Images are not documents. We have to realize that. Suppose that Leonardo's Mona Lisa were before us. PD-old. Fine. Now, one of our clever Wikipedians takes the digital image, puts a moustache on it and goatee. Fine. What he may not do is call it Mona Lisa. He can call it L.H.O.O.Q., but, because the image is a single event rather than a process, because it means all at once rather than in sequence, "showing the contributor" means changing the title. I would say that if our user:Duchamp simply re-uploaded his "Mona Lisa" with the same file name, he has replaced a work that was licensed with one that is not. Therefore, I, for one, would argue that altering an image and popping it all over the place violates the GFDL by creating unfree from free files. This is not as simple as all of these analogies to articles would have us believe, and it damn sure can't be settled by pronouncements from on low. Geogre 13:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, lets de-sysop him! Ill grab the pithfork and torches! Lets go! (NOT). I think that is a rather snap decision that I strongly disagree with. Neil is an experienced editor with a large number of contributions to this project. I believe his actions were in good faith based on his understanding of the policy. Why are people demanding his head? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dude, way to exaggerate everything way out of context! Hyperbolic appeal to emotion is the best way to encourage sensible discussion! >Radiant< 15:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded to Radiant on his talk page. Neil ム 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I dont see how I took it out of context? That is basically what is going on. My apologies if it discourages sensible discussion, I will however spurn any reccomendations that seriouley punish a long time contributor who may or may not of had a lapse in judgement. That is my pet peeve on this project, how quickly the community will turn on anybody who does one thing wrong. It has nothing to do with over exaggerating the situation at all. I percieve this as a very real problem. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

George the language of the license is in very clear English and "grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration". Even if it is possible that a court challenge may find this part of the license unenforceable, that is something for courts of law. Wikipedia needs to see its contributions of irrevocable or it cannot build an encyclopedia off of them, and we cannot be offering our content to mirrors in an irrevocable manner. Someone who chooses to make their content "unfree" after making it "free"(as in freedom) to us, is incompatible with the projects goals and their contributions are now a burden instead of a gain. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point. My suggestion is that a change of an image that maintains the same name cannot show revision histories, the way the History tab on an article can, and therefore, while a GFDL photo I upload is yours to mess with, if you change it and keep the same file name you have made a new creation, one that should not be passed off as mine. In other words, altering it and yet keeping the same name violates the GFDL because it makes a new work without a new license. GFDL means that you can have it, but you can't call it the same thing, if it's not the same thing any longer. When there is a true image wiki, where clicking on revisions takes us back to see the contributions of each person in the history, then we can say that GFDL is not altered by the manipulation. We don't have that now. Right now, Duchamp gets to say that Mona Lisa always had a hot ass. Geogre 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I need to say "I am no longer threatening to revoke GFDL"? Have you read what I said just above? Hopefully most people don't view my contributions as a burden after one disagreement. Hypothetically, I actually agree - someone threatening to revoke their contributions after other editors have amended the text/image in question does not share a compatible viewpoint with that of Wikipedia. However, that wasn't what I was claiming at any point. Neil ム 15:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

From his comments above, User:Neil is no longer revoking, or threatening to revoke, the license on his contributions. But he still seems to be saying 'I could revoke if I wanted to' (see his User Talk). I wish he would stop saying that, because it still has overtones of a legal threat. He is free to say whatever he wants outside of Wikipedia, but I don't think he should say that in here. From Neil's comment on Radiant's user talk: From my point of view, the matter is dealt with; I have re-uploaded my images, and, indeed, a few more. I would accept Neil's statement as a resolution of this issue, so long he doesn't persist in discussing revocation as something he could do. EdJohnston 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion (and only my opinion) is that revocation might be possible. I don't think expressing an opinion (and not one I am alone in having) has any tones of a legal threat. Unless the thought police are now in charge. However, I guarantee I will never again ask to revoke GFDL or other kind of Wikipedia licensing, nor support anyone else attempting to do so, in any way, shape or form. I do not want to - my concerns have been addressed. How's that? Neil ム 15:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed as well. EdJohnston 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox news block

I must make a comment about a recent Fox News IP block by User:Adam Cuerden. It was universally agreed that a block of this IP was not at all appropriate here; however, Adam Cuerden went ahead and blocked it anyway here. As this is certainly an office issue, someone pointed out to Adam that he should do something. However, Adam has not been willing to respond to my comments on his talk page that the community thought a block was inappropriate; nor, for all I can tell, did he make a mention to the Communiations Committee. I ask for someone to address this, as the block was clearly overzealous, and Adam has not discussed the issue. The Evil Spartan 17:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is a bad block to place without notifying the Communications Committee. Major government organizations and corporations need to be reported for abuse so the Foundation can take care of any implications that may arrive. — Moe ε 18:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, FoxNews has its own Abuse address, I'm sure. If we're talking about a very brief block, it's probably pre-emptive, but a long block of a range of IP's? No. Has anyone lifted the block? Evil Spartan, have you notified the blocking admin that this discussion is taking place? It looks questionable to block a whole IP range, but he should present his reasoning in terms of policy violations. (I cannot imagine any good coming from FoxNews, except a test pattern, but that doesn't matter.) Geogre 12:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have unblock the IP, no vandalism or POV-pushing for quite a while Alex Bakharev 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I had two people, one telling me to remove it, the other asking me not to. I decided to let them fight it out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You "decided to let them fight it out"? Seriously? Did it occur to you to thoughtfully consider their rationales and seek additional input from the community (which you should have sought in the first place) instead of washing your hands of the matter by simply ignoring it? —David Levy 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Speechless. Sarah 15:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Sherzo

I request that action be taken to look into edits made by User:Sherzo on the List of United States Presidents by military service page. He has, for at least the ninth time, edited it to a NPOV. He has been asked to stop. This time he changed George Bush's service to AWOL with the reference being a highly controversial and onsided movie produced by Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11. He continues to vandalize this page after being warned over and over. This is still a highly controversial topic with it's own page on wikipedia. When you warn him he makes taunts back to the person who warned them. Thanks. User:Bluecord August 18, 2007

Good faith edits aren't vandalism, no matter how much you disagree with it. I suggest instead of 'warning' him about his actions, that you talk with him to see why he prefers this revision. Thank you! — Moe ε 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the admin's noticeboard really isn't the right place to bring these kind of problems, because we have no power to arbitrate content disputes. Natalie 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

These are not good faith edits. This is a politically slanted edit that he has been talk to about several times. No one is in concensous about this edit and he is a blantant jack ass to anyone who tries to talk to him about it. What we are asking for is at least a warning block.User:Bluecord

Don't make personal attacks, or you're the one going to end up blocked. — Moe ε 22:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks. You can clearly see where he has though if you do any research. There have been many complaints made against this user besides myself due to his actions. However, no one wants to take action which makes it seem that you guys want wikipedia to be utilized for blantant political statements. I take great offense to your warning. I have never personally attacked anyone on here. All I want to do, being a veteran and history teacher, is to make sure that things are correct and not politically biased. This is the problem we are having.User:Bluecord

How isn't "he is a blantant jack ass" a personal attack? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Er..."Blantant" - and you're a teacher? LessHeard vanU 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

More crap like this [3] trying to get editors blocked will result in you being blocked Bluecord. — Moe ε 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe, what the heck are you talking about?User:Bluecord

New editor: User:Sherzoe

Says he's Sherzo, which outside of this thread I have never had any contact with anyone named Sherzo or Sherzoe.

Sherzoe threatens to "sue my fucking ass".

As I said Sherzoe and I have never talked before, so threats of legal action from him are slim to none.

I just warned you of personal attacks you don't admit.

Need I go on? I can see straight through obvious sockpuppetry, I'm not stupid. — Moe ε 00:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe, I didn't have anything to do with that. I don't even know where that edit happened or who that is. I think you need to do a little more research before you make accusations against me. I am trying to be civil in this manner and would never ever do something like that to another user.Bluecord

Moe, THAT IS NOT ME. It maybe someone else who has had an issue with him, but not me.Bluecord

This is an unwaranted accusation. The user Sherzoe did not originate from my IP address. Please ignore any accusations that are made linking me with this user. Thank you.BluecordBluecord 02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely per checkuser evidence of sockpuppetry. Feel free to alter the block if necessary. --DarkFalls ^talk 09:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I'm ever wrong about sockpuppets :) — Moe ε 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is acceptable article tagging behaviour?

I'd like some opinions on whether it is acceptable to engage in mass-tagging of articles within a particular topic area, as opposed to raising general issues and concerns at a WikiProject talk page (if one exists)? I am referring to a series of edits by User:Guest9999. See Special:Contributions/Guest9999 for details, and in particular this series of 302 edits on 18 August. During that series of edits, Guest9999 placed many tags on Middle-earth related articles: 45 PROD tags were followed by nominating 24 articles for deletion at 2 umbrella AfDs, followed by placing 193 notability tags. The tagging seems fairly indiscriminate, as minor places were tagged along with major locations such as Rivendell, Rohan and Lothlorien. I have raised this at the user's talk page (several discussions there are also relevant, from here onwards), and pointed out that there is a WikiProject trying to rectify the problems with Middle-earth-related articles. I would be the first to admit that these problems exist. I've asked the user if they will consider raising their concerns at the WikiProject talk page, instead of putting notability tags on hundreds of separate articles, behaviour that I think borders on being disruptive. The user has replied to me, but the issue still remains as to whether this behaviour is disruptive or not, and I'd welcome second opinions. User:IronGargoyle has since reverted most of the tagging. Guest9999 has explained his tagging here and here. It looks like this particular case is being resolved amicably (and is possibly due to inexperience as regards the best way to flag up such issues), but advice on the general case of how to deal with mass tagging that disrupts the efforts of a WikiProject to carry out long-term merging and sourcing on a group of articles, would be welcomed. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My own view is that the mass tagger believes he or she is doing the good thing, and such a tagger is probably not a newbie, but an intermedie, as it were. True newbies put two tags up and see what happens. Oldsters know about the sore spots and don't tag unless they want a fight. It's the sophomoric that are problematic. Until notified of the inappropriateness of what they're doing, they're trying to help. If they keep going after that, then we're looking at disruption.

The problem is the volume. 302 edits before being notified? Wow. Anyone who gets in 300+ edits in very short order probably (it's just probability) trying to say something, is probably highly motivated, and that kind of messianic impulse could be problematic in another context.

Short version: notify them. Until you notify them, AGF means believing they're trying to help. After notifying, weigh the intent -- is it to "fix Wikipedia" or "help Wikipedia?" The latter is wholly good. The former...maybe not so much. Geogre 12:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent answer. Very insightful. :-) FloNight 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, Geogre. Intermedie? That's a new one for the book. Carcharoth 23:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just assume good faith. If no rules were broken, try considering whether the tags accurately represent the article and its current needs, and try to address it on the talk page or fixing the article. ~ UBeR 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't the appropriateness of the tags, more the volume and switching from one set to another, instead of starting a general discussion, but it's all sorted now, anyway (well, apart from the clean-up work on the articles, which is still needed). Carcharoth 13:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As the user in question I would just like to say that my aim was not to prove a point, disrupt Wikipedia or push my own POV. I am learning from experience that mass anything (deletions, nominations, tagging) on Wikipedia don't seem to go down well. I still think that most of the articles that I tagged should have remained tagged (although I did accidentally mess up the formatting on a few articles) and that the tags shouldn't have been removed without providing some evidence of notability - however that is not the point. I see now that the way that I acted was not the correct way to go about things in a project which is based largely on community consensus although I would say that I was acting in the way layed out by WP:BOLD, and that I did try to co-operate by withdawing the AfDs that I originally started when asked. [[Guest9999 22:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Absolutely. I agree that the problems you raised were very real, but as you now say, your method probably wasn't the best way to draw attention to the problems, though in some ways it was a bit of a wake-up call - a literal prod to carry on cleaning up those articles! I apologise if you felt my response slighted your contributions in any way, and I'd like to thank you for drawing attention to the issues. Please feel free to help out or come back later and see how we (WikiProject Middle-earth) are getting on. Carcharoth 13:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reapplication of IP block

• 66.90.151.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm bringing this to AN as it's not an incident per se - while it hasn't edited, there are plenty of reasons why the IP should be blocked for as long as possible:

• Self-confessed IP of banned user Sixty Six (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IP appears to be static
• IP is near-certain to be the person responsible for the (frankly sickening) ED biography on me.

I should elaborate on the third point - Sheneequa (talk · contribs), an ED admin, had performed a checkuser on my behalf and told me that the ED biographer, "Die clown die", had edited from two ISPs - one being RoadRunner (which was used by sock/meatpuppet Geoffrey Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), the other being Grande Communications, a small Texan ISP that Sixty Six had edited from (WHOIS the IP if you don't believe me). The username "Die clown die" was most likely because of CSCWEM's block of the IP, so given the harassment of multiple admin and users in good standing, he should not edit Wikipedia under any circumstances. Will ^(talk) 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually we don't block until there has been abuse... While I am quite familiar with the abuse that SixSixty and his socks have dished out (to myself and others) I don't feel comfortable with the potential collateral damage until there is some abuse. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Pigsonthewing's editing privileges are suspended for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 18:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And once again, Mabbett shows his contempt for Wikipedia and its contributors: [4]. Andy's already been banned for a year by ArbCom, and here he is again banned for the exact same period. How long will we let this go on? Are we just going to keep going like this until we see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 8 or higher? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Strike 1, strike 2? Maybe? --Haemo 04:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think so, but in light of the ArbCom's unwillingness to ban for longer than a year (well, to be fair, they say they can't ban longer than this, but I've yet to see any source for this assertion), I'm hardly optimistic that strike three will mean he's out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are editors who have contributed a lot, lot less excellent content than Andy, who have been far more ungracious and incivil, who we don't block for anywhere near this period of time. Neil ム 08:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, hypothetically speaking... strike 3 is simply someone getting an indefinite block from an admin that no other admin is willing to over-rule. Bear in mind that I'm speaking general theory here, not specifically to this situation as I've had only very limited contact with Andy and have no idea if anything he's done would actually warrant an indefinite block. Neil's point is valid; there are a few editors around here (and some sysops as well) that aren't exactly the model of civility, but they have extensive contributions to the project and they are still editing in spite of whatever conduct issues they may have.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would think that there would have to be an admin willing to unblock at the end of that mandated one-year period; if not, it can probably be assumed that a community ban as pointed out by Isotope is in place until someone's willing to unblock. If the disruption is greater than the contributions, that would seem to be the best route to dealing with the problem. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the reason the ArbCom bans for a maximum of one year is due to a limitation in the software. At least that was the reason given when this issue was brought up in the past. I don't know if that is still the reason, or that the bug was fixed & the ArbCom either doesn't know or doesn't care. For the record, from what I've been told, there's never been a case of someone being disciplined by the ArbCom coming back & becoming a productive Wikipedian, so a one-year ban is practically identical to an indef ban. -- llywrch 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason the community can't supplement the ArbCom ban with an indef community ban? WP:CSN, anyone? Durova^Charge! 18:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rather gotten the impression that there are admins willing to unblock, and if I'm right, community banning is obviously not going to work here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If he comes back and causes more trouble I'm sure the community will ban him. We might as well wait the year out. Moreschi ^Talk 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus closed

The above case is closed. A general amnesty for editors involved in Eastern Europe-related articles is extended, with the expectation that further editing will adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 19:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

...So, we had pages and pages of evidence that everyone is deliberately obstructing each other, plotting onwiki disruption offwiki, the findings of fact included "In the course of these disputes, many of the editors involved have acted in some manner that violates Wikipedia policy; this includes both occasional editors as well as some of the primary producers of content on the topic", and the result was the long awaited...amnesty. In short, Arbcom intends to do nothing until someone decides to file another case, which, because as the Arbcom itself pointed out, the Eastern Europe articles suffer from "long-standing personal enmity between some of the editors working in the area, as well as by the broader historical and cultural circumstances of the region", is only a matter of time. So, if Arbcom has decided to let abuses go unpunished even when they acknowledge they're there, what's the point of having it anymore? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, this will show up again, but such is the ruling at the present time with the present ArbCom, and the result shows as much the difficulties of consensus among ArbCom members as anything else. I'm speculating, but probably some arbitrators thought, "Well, I'm sure they're not going to do it again," and some thought, "This isn't clear cut," and some thought, "It's clearly his fault (or his, or his, or his)." There is a value to a second case. I'm sure it seems to the involved parties like this is a rolling horror show that repeats every day, but just keep a cool head, keep vigilant, be polite, and abide by the ruling such as it is. Geogre 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, before you lance a boil you have to let it fully form (so all the poison can be extracted). Just a thought. LessHeard vanU 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Extremely unfortunate choice of image, I'm afraid. I don't think the sores will look any better, and I don't think the people are the cankers. Geogre 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they're hoping the editors will let bygones be bygones and work things out, with the understanding that a second arbitration would result in much harsher remedies. Durova^Charge! 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I should think so, but the participants have every reason to believe that it's going to happen again. I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that they're wrong. If there really are masses of throw-away accounts being used, gaming of the policies, etc., then we'll have see it again. I hope not. (I think about the "my garden" rule. What you do in your yard, saying that your roses are beautiful, is fine, so long as you don't go into my garden to say that my roses are weeds. The problem is that the garden walls have shifted back and forth, and each gardener wants to claim the waste, and my metaphor just broke in half.) Geogre 02:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was better than the boil metaphor. That brought back memories of the contremps that led to a different arbitration case. Carcharoth 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard needs more sysops!

With all the news this week, conflict of interest is a big thing. The conflict of interest noticeboard is flagged for backlog and has 99 open cases. Please pitch in. And if you aren't a sysop, you can still help by investigating and posting warnings or making recommendations. Durova^Charge! 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

DNSstuff no longer permitting Wikipedia WHOIS requests

The IPvandal and other Wikipedia tools for WHOIS lookups went to the DNSstuff website, and they are now redirecting such requests to a subscription page. THF 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You could try http://samspade.org// ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WORKSFORME, I don't have a problem when I click the WHOIS link or any of the other ones. Cbrown1023 talk 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also works for me, perhaps you have exceeded the number of permitted lookups. Check the dnsstuff banning info. Navou ^banter 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not admin, but just telling you that it still works for me, and I've looked up info like that like 100 times now. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Anontalkpagetext for more (brief) discussion related to this. It seems to be working for some, but not for all. Might be best to find a site that accepts everyone. - auburnpilot talk 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this explain the recent abrupt inquiry at my talkpage, perhaps? --Wetman 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it works for me on one IP address, and not at the one where I do the vast majority of my Wiki edits, so it suggests that it is a cookie issue of exceeding the number of permitted lookups. Though that in itself is a potential problem. THF 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you figure out which cookie it is and remove it from your computer? Corvus cornix 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would expect it is done server-side with IP addresses, not client-side with cookies. --Tango 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is causing the problem, something needs to be done. It makes it quite difficult to review vandals and unblock requests when the linked WHOIS doesn't work. - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Alx 91

Alx 91 is removing orphaned tags from numerous images which he has uploaded, and has added warnings to a few images (Image:NASDAQ logo.png and Image:Corona can.jpg) which seem to be unwarranted. Brianga 04:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can’t see anything wrong with his edits, worth reporting to administrators. He is correct in removing the orphaned templates, because the images are no longer orphaned! He uploaded all the images first and is now including them in the appropriate articles, the bot tagged them in-between, which is why there is a 7 day delay, to allow users to insert the images into the correct articles. On that image of that can of beer, he was right to use a copyvio template, a can of beer can’t be released under GNU GPL, it is all copyrighted by the manufacturer. Obviously he was wrong to use Spanish though, but hardly a major offence. Jackaranga 09:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You can’t license a photograph of a copyrighted logo on a can of beer under the GNU GPL, imagine if people did the same with books, and photographed all the pages in the book and released the photos under the GNU GPL. People could do the same with photos, with magazines, why not also film a movie in a theatre and release the copy under the GNU GPL ? Copyright specifically forbids you to reproduce the copyrighted material by any means including digital means, so the tag was correct allthoug in the wrong language. Jackaranga 10:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism bot block length

Just to get everybody else's feedback, to what length do you think we should be blocking these slew of vandalism bots that have been appearing? An example is 201.219.13.252 (talk · contribs). I've seen other admins do indef, 1 year, 1 month, and 1 week. I've also seen different block reasons. Can we settle (or at least try) on a particular block length and reason? I don't mind what we settle on, just thought we should settle on something standard. -- Gogo Dodo 05:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

They are usually proxies or zombie computers, so indefinite should cover it. If ever a real person starts using the IP, they can always request unblocking on the talk page. Neil ム 08:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm, just make sure they are really proxies first. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

They are all open proxies, but the IPs are sometimes dynamic. I opt for five years where there is evidence that the proxy has been around for a while (tagged with {{blocked proxy}}), and six months where the IP is probably dynamic or the proxy is short-lived (tagged 'vandalbot'). I've seen blocks for one week and one month which is probably OK for short-term proxies. The only way this bot edits is through open proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Any automated vandal editing earns an automatic indefinite block as far as I'm concerned. The computer may not be an open proxy, but if not it is a zombie computer and will continue to do as much damage either way. Dynamic IPs do throw a minor wrench into things, but that's what {{unblock}} is for. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said. I always knew ESkog was a smart guy. ;) Neil ム 15:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would go with 6 months. Is the risk of one of these IP addresses vandalising in 6 months time really much higher than any other address? I don't expect so. If they are open proxies, then by all means block indefinitely, but zombie computers aren't necessarily going to remain zombies over a long period. In fact, a 1 week block is probably enough for most, since zombie's rarely have static IPs. --Tango 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally I agree with Neil and ESkog, though I'd suggest after the initial block to stop the vandalism in progress, WHOIS the IP and if it is dynamic you could probably drop it to 24/48 hours just so unblock list isn't getting inundated with IP unblock requests where the original vandal is long gone.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on protected edit requests

I was interested in the number of protected edit requests that are made and how long it takes to respond to them. So I kept track, since May 25, of the requests while my bot updated the table of requests. Since the table is updated every half hour, any request made and resolved within a half-hour window between bot updates will not be counted by these statistics. The bot recorded 1025 protected edit requests in 88 days, about 12 per day. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown of requests by type
Type of page	Percent of requests
Mediawiki	6%
Fully protected template	44%
Fully protected (other)	31%
Semiprotected	11%
Not protected	7%

Time to service requests
Time (hours)	Percent finished within this time
1	33%
3	50%
6	63%
12	79%
24	89%
48	96%

Help on promoting BetaWiki

I've recently come aware of a site called BetaWiki. Personally I'm using it to translate system messages into my native language. But I can see that it would also be helpful for managing english system messages. As you know, system messages can be edited by sysops at Special:Allmessages. The problem is, these changes only appear at Wikipedia, that's fine as long as the changes are only help full for Wikipedia and not for other Wiki sites. But sysops here often make general changes here that could benifit other wiki sites. MediaWiki:1movedto2 MediaWiki:article MediaWiki:badsiglength just to name a few. It would be nice if somehow all sysops would be asked to submit general changes like this to BetaWiki. After they have been verified they will be sent to MediaWiki and soon live on all Wikimedia sites. What do you think? Dose anyone have the time to start Wikipedia:BetaWiki, I'll at least add a small section at Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. --Steinninn 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Username imposter or spoof -- policy?

Is there a specific policy which addresses someone coding/typing a sig line with intent to deceive -- to intentionally appear as if they were some other specific user? The policy at confusing usernames doesn't quite seem to cover this; the typed name doesn't "closely resemble" someone else's username, it is someone else's user name (if the IP plus-typed-name user and the regular User:Example are two different people; they seem to be so far). I'm trying an informal approach first to ask the IP user if they are User:Example, though the contrib histories suggest strongly they are not. While this is still informal, I'd like to be able to point the possible offender to the right policy against spoofing someone else's legit name, or using a fake sig to further an imposture. Thank you. -- Lisasmall | Talk 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

imping (the activity of pretending to be another user) I would think counts as disruption. --Rocksanddirt 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, impersonation is disruptive. Blocking is one of the appropriate solutions to disruptions. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely blockable, it's fraud, deception, and disruptive.Rlevse 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Falsifying definitely counts as disruption. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indents) Thank you all. Right now, WP:IMP and WP:Imp take you somewhere else. WP:Impersonate and Wikipedia:Impersonate take you nowhere. The section at WP:USERNAME on disruptive usernames includes Usernames that are similar to those previously used by persistent vandals or banned users but doesn't have Usernames that are, or appear to be, identical to those in use by other users. Since WP:USERNAME is a policy page, I'll make a suggestions about this to its talk page, WT:U. Thanks very much for the guidance. -- Lisasmall | Talk 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIG#Customizing your signature is relevant here; "In no circumstance should a signature be used to impersonate another user: in particular, a signature should not be identical to the actual username of another existing user. While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." Was that what you were looking for? --ais523 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Image:7674564574788.jpg

Hi! I'm an admin from Commons. Image:7674564574788.jpg was deleted on en: as a copyvio. The very same picture is now on Commons, where it's marked as PD-user-en, the author being a Richard Arthur Norton. I'd like to know what the original description was, and if possible what motivated the deletion here. Thanks in advance, Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the page history.

# 2005-07-03T05:21:20 . . Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Talk | contribs | block)
# 2005-07-02T23:35:08 . . Chiacomo (Talk | contribs | block) (imagevio)
# 2005-01-02T02:19:26 . . Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Talk | contribs | block) (The Portland Vase {{pd-user}})

According to the deleted history, the image is at http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/science/portland%20vase/sr-portland-p1.htm . — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The file here was claimed to be a copyvio of this. Also note, the uploader changed the license from PD-self to promotional. While the link is not a pixel for pixel copy, the view is the same to suggest that the source for both images is the same. Needless to say, based on the uploader's change of license, I believe it is safe to say that they do not own the copyright of the image (and since this is a sculpture, not a 2D piece of art, the PD-old rationale doesn't apply either). Therefore, I believe it is safe to delete the image from the commons. Hope this helps. I can provide more detail if necessary.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirm, it was the original uploader here that changed the tag to {{promotional}}. GRBerry 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I nominate this image title as "one of the vaguest titles ever"? hbdragon88 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your help. I'll delete the picture on your evidence. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Image:3CABB5LJ4CAAW1OMQCAAX5I86CA74CLKECA3ATELDCA17QFLLCALHB0QJCARCNTBZCA9PMR5SCA16PX35CANC4ZUZCAJ3MJV3CA7ZWJVPCAJMMPXLCAZ030FLCAH3YVO4CA31AB2GCAE82AN8.jpg. Corvus cornix 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebelstar

I just got a bot message saying that the image I'd uploaded for use on this page [Image:RebelStarcover.jpg] was orphaned. I went to the page to check it out and found it had been turned into a redirect. I went to the original Rebelstar page and all the content I wrote has vanished. There's nothing in the history apart from the redirect creation, and the page logs are empty. What's going on here??? Exxolon 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• A cached copy of the previous content can be seen here [5].Exxolon 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The page history shows the page was moved to Rebelstar (series), which includes your original edits [6]. - auburnpilot talk 01:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued on WP:ANI. Exxolon 02:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

cryptic content readded to BLP-relevant article

I am in a quandary over how to handle the editing of the Bob Casey, Jr. page. The vast majority of its last 50-100 edits are dealing wih this issue, so for now I don't have an diffs; the History page is pretty self explanatory.

The page had a Trivia section (discouraged of course) containing simply the sentence "Mr. Casey is proud of the fact that he knows how many bars of soap are provided for patrons of the Red Roof Inn in an interview on the Pennsylvania Cable Network." or something very similar. This content was added some time ago, and the Talk page shows other editors had issues with it before me. I added a "trivia" tag to that section.

Then the removals began, mostly by anons although also by User:Pittsburgh1. I put the tag back a few times, usually (but not always) mentioning something on the respective usertalk pages. With no responses forthcoming, I removed the material. Anons kept putting it back. Finally, I posted to the articles talk page, being firmer in that this needed to be (better) sourced and placed in some kind of context. I smile as I say this "helped", because then an anon put the info into a pre-existing section, but still with no context whatsoever(!). I kept the content but added a "fansite" tag as some of its language seemed to apply (excessive trivia, lack of context, irrelevant criticism(?) etc.). Well, it was removed. Currently I put it back.

I would like some comment as to whether indeed this material needs to be better sourced and better incorporated to the article (context etc.). My assumption all along was that 1) if it stays, it is much better not in a trivia section 2) Without good sourcing and context, it could be deleted without difficulty per BLP issues, albeit not severe ones.

So I ask, can I have some feedback as to whether my actions are justified? If it is not clearcut, I do not wish to edit-war, nor come across like I own the article. I bring this here rather than AIV (still within radius of good-faith) or BLP noticeboard (the proper action might be page protection). I will point out that I would be much more flexible if there was any feedback from the editors who inserted the content and removed tags. There was none.

Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing the sentence. Unless the fact that he made the statement has been commented on by other publications, I don't see how it is relevant or notable of itself. I think the BLP noticeboard is a more suitable place for these issues though. Cheers Kevin 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Threatened sockpuppetry by User:24.169.235.56

I just blocked this anon for the usual 24 hours for vandalism to Mike Morgan, Ray King and User talk:CruiserBob. On the talk page he more or less threatens to continue with sockpuppets. I semi-protected the three pages above, but any vandalism to other baseball relief pitchers' pages or my user and talk pages by anons should probably be considered to be socks of this user.

Just a heads-up. Daniel Case 05:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Having trouble with a stubborn vandal

User:Laughing Man clearly vandalizes here. I warn, and he removes the warnings persistently, then he accuses my of vandalizing his talk page. He won't accept the fact that he vandalized, please help. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If he removes things from his talk page, that is just evidence that he has read them. If he continues to vandalize, post the relevant diffs here and he may be blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What was pissing me off is that he was accusing me of vandalizing his talk page. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 05:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your anger is fair, but don't let it distract you from writing an encyclopedia. Accusations of vandalism get thrown around. Let it roll off your back and move on.--Chaser - T 05:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So, let him accuse. Laugh it off. Remember that this is one user; proceed with good practice. Geogre 12:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he shouldn't have called your edits vandalism...but don't you think posting the warning 11 times, 9 times after he'd asked you to stop, was going a little bit overboard? --Onorem♠Dil 12:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

3 editors 'tag teaming' to keep false charges againt me

User:Calbaer made some false charges against me on Tbeatty's page, that I called him Gay, Link and when I answered them, Tbeatty erased them. This is not right! Tbeatty made trouble for me last night, and lost, and now he's doing it again. It is in no way fair or correct for him to erase my answer to Calbaers false charges! Please talk to him and ask him to just leave me be! Here is the 'diff'. Link Is that what you left me a message about? Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 05:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the false charges and NPA on Tbeattys page since he won't let me answer them. Please 'mediate' Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you stay away from him, and vice versa. Newyorkbrad 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It was Crockspots who erased my words the second time! I will not let false charges against me stand! It was Crockspots who wrote that anybody with 'Bear' in their name 'takes it up the ass' not me! Now he erases my proofs to Calbaer who claims that I said that about him? I will not let that stand! Here is the link to Crockspots words on Conservatives Underground. Link Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 05:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]

Now Tbeatty put up the false charges one more time, with shading. I removed them one more time. He and Crocspots are making 'tag teamed' edits to keep false charges about me on his page. Please 'mediate' as an administrator. Thank you! ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 06:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Now Mongo put again the false charges! ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no attacks. Just a discussion of the content of your edits. You were asked not to edit tbeatys talk page. I see most of your posting as little more than taunts, especially your continual links to the crockspot posting. I think that Newyorkbrad offered some very good advice. Dman727 06:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you entering the fight now? Calbaer accused me of making a dig at him! Crockspots wrote the homophobic words about 'Bears' 'taking it up the ass' not me. That is a false charge. Then Calbaer accused me of being homophobic, when I only point out homophobia, and I am Gay and I am out! I have a right to answer of remove the false charges and NPA's, or have an administrator do it. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 06:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's advice is sound. I suggest following it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Bmedley I am not interesting in your lifestyle. Nor is this a "fight". At least is not supposed to be (see [[7]]). I've read the postings and talk pages and honestly, well I think that you are unnecessarily escalating things. Dman727 06:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a right to have false charges against me removed, if the editors who make them or keep them won't be men enough to let my answers to them stand. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 06:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked: 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on User talk:Tbeatty and for edit warring on other talk pages as well. It would be nice if other users would be willing to acknowledge Bmedley's claim that he was misrepresented, but there is, of course, no basis to force this. Thatcher131 11:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the supposed "dig" that Calbaer mentioned so Bmedley was misrepesented there. Nor did I see Bmedley's charge that Calbaer said Bmedley called him gay (if you can follow that).. I just don't want it on my talk page. I thought the whole series of this on the RfAr was disgusting, defamatory and a violation of a whole slew of policies and principles of Wikipedia. The meat puppetry that was the RfAr doesn't need to extend to my talk page. --Tbeatty 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Found this link

This was written by JzG, who is presently on indefinite wikibreak. Frankly, the guy has a point. (1) we are almost infinitely tolerant towards grudge-bearers and people who pick an enemy and keep hounding him forever, and (2) our only effective mechanism against POV zealots, the ArbCom, takes literally forever to reach a conclusion. These are both needless causes of endless wikistress, and are both things that we admins can do something about. I would be happy to hear suggestions. >Radiant< 13:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is a question of finding the right balance. In a community as diverse as Wikipedia, you are never going to satisfy everyone. A crack-down on trolls and POV-pushers could lead to more drama than it saves, and it could lead to injustices. On the other hand, it could reduce drama and make the editing environment more pleasant. Whatever is done, please draw a distinction between the harmonoius, productive areas of the encyclopedia, and the festering hotspots of controversy and (frankly) battles and outright wars. In addition to this are the completely dead areas that no-one ever visits - or hardly anyone. If anyone feels under stress due to on-wiki issues, either take a break, or find someone to talk to about the issues. If there are off-wiki stresses, just take a break. I took a long break from category work, because it is difficult to make changes stick, even when you take the time to explain them. With article work, good references usually makes a piece of text stick. Policy and guideline work is also hard to make stick, or even to muster enough momentum for any change whatsoever. Admin work, I can't say, but maybe the admins here can say which parts cause them most stress. Carcharoth 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of what JzG writes (though I'm less bothered by violations of WP:NOT#INFO than JzG is, as I find some of those guideline violations the most useful and accurate parts of Wikipedia--Wikipedia is a much better almanac than it is an encyclopedia, and I will be sad when admins get around to deleting those pages). But my personal experience is that JzG is a grudge-bearer against me, leaving hit-and-run comments bad-mouthing me in a couple of instances where I had disputes with other users where I was eventually vindicated. I wish we were quicker to block edit-warring kooks pushing chiropracty and 9/11 conspiracy theories and their pet guru, but, then, there are people who are quite happy to classify me as a kook. THF 14:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What JzG wrote was also pointed out by others, and I'd like to number myself among them, and the solution that worked its way to the fore was the Community Noticeboard. It's not my favorite thing, not a thing I'm wholly comfortable with, but it is the faster form of community defense. I fear its use as gang warfare, but that's another matter. Geogre 14:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I too am not quite so bothered by WP:NOT#INFO; if someone wants to write 10000+ words about Pokemon and can source it as verifiable and notable, then all I can say is "meh". I'm not here to judge what other people use the encyclopedia to look up; we have policies and guidelines about this and frankly Wikipedia would appear to reflect modern human culture, which obviously cares more about Bowser than Robert Hooke. Tabloidism is annoying, but that really can be dealt with by common sense application of our existing guidelines and policies. Where Guy is spot on though is in his assessment of Wikipedia's failures dealing with POV warriors, fringe theorists, and grudge bearers. I would go beyond what THF (talk · contribs) said above and say it isn't just the kooks pushing Chiropractic, 9/11 conspiracies, and gurus... that can usually be dealt with by reasonable editors and sysops applying WP:NPOV, WP:RS, & WP:V. The problem is when you get the kooks pushing 9/11 conspiracies fighting with the kooks pushing an anti-9/11 conspiracies agenda and engaging in all sorts of disruptive gaming of WP:3RR, fishing to get their opponents blocked or banned at WP:ANI and WP:CN, and generally wikilawyering, editing tendentiously, and selectively wielding policy as a cudgel to beat down all who oppose them. This is where it starts to get frustrating from a sysop standpoint. I've seen several of these sorts of situations happen; in fact part of the reason I've curtailed my time here for a while is because I've been watching two situations in progress that are going to eventually end up at ARBCOM and I'm simply tired of dealing with the involved editors' bullshit. A substantial number of the parties involved are simply here to push an agenda and I have a hard time seeing how Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with them editing.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a half baked thought about a way to help the problem areas, but it doesn't fit within the current NPOV and OR standards. It would be for a controverisal topic to have maybe a category or control page and places for people to put essays on the topic. Obviously the better sourced, better written essays will come to the fore, but it gives a place the reader to understand the variety of viewpoints out there better than a single article that's trying to be neutral. Then, for example the whole allegations of apartied thing would have been headed off by a series of essays discussing the actions of the various groups on either side that led to (in the case of Israel) some allegations that seem to have some merit. --Rocksanddirt 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My idea to combat POV pushers would be put remedies such as probation, revert parole, and article probation (with a six-month time limit) at the discretion of admins. If 4 admins all agree that these measures should be applied, they are if no other admin objects within 24 hours. Moreschi ^Talk 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I like JzG, and though I've had less firsthand interaction with MONGO I see the pattern. I can think of a couple of others but won't name them because Guy doesn't. The trolls are going to work on me now: this happens with sysops who consistently take on the hard cases. (Don't worry; I'm thick skinned and good humored). If more pitched in to spread the work around this effect would dilute itself and become less of a concern. For nearly a year now I've been working toward the goal of fair, streamlined, and equitable community-based sanctions. This is not an easy balance to achive. The disruptive editing guideline, community enforceable mediation, and the community sanctions noticeboard are outgrowths of this effort. I understand that some of these are controversial. Community sanctions isn't a fun area to volunteer: a lot of people turn up only when they have a specific problem they want to solve. I urge more volunteers to make a long term commitment to the area. ArbCom was already running full steam two years ago when I became a Wikipedian. The site had 800,000 articles then and as many registered accounts. Now it has 5 million accounts and 2 million articles - somehow the site must address the increased need to deal with problem individuals who burrow into some topic and insist the moon is made of green cheese until external forces uproot them. Durova^Charge! 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW I agree with Moreschi that community-based sanctions can and should encompass more than just sitebans and topic bans. A broader and more flexible approach may reduce the need for banning. Durova^Charge! 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a current CSN thread on banning a user from one article. Regardless of the merits of that particular case, some more of this is what we need. Ultimately, less people would get blocked/banned. Moreschi ^Talk 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Durova brings up a good point. More admins involved in content dispute resolution at the article end would keep the few who like controverial topics from taking all the heat and work. I don't know how to encourage this as there is unpleasantness aplenty on some of those topics. --Rocksanddirt 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Durova brings up some excellent points. I just put community sanctions noticeboard on my watchlist and pledge to help out there when I can. --Alabamaboy 19:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

Cuddlyable3 is blanking sections of talk pages against Refactoring talk page policy. They leave the blanked sections with the text WP:RPA. RPA is an essay which suggested that personal attacks should be removed from talk pages, however it isn’t and has never been policy but furthermore the content cuddlyable3 is removing isn’t personal attacks and I believe it is simply being used as an excuse. This has been pointed out around 10-15 times to the user. However, the user just continues and when a note is left on their user page warning about talk page vandalism they just remove it. Such as here: [8]. Administrator intervention would be great in this case otherwise this pathetically small but none the less incredibly aggravating issue is likely to have to go to arbitration if they will accept. Here is a typical cuddlyable3 RPA blanking: [9] Thanks for your time. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3 removes two sentences from Talk:Fuel_injection. They may, or may not, be an attack, but they don't add anything to the discussion. So you restore the material. Cuddlyable3 deletes it again and you revert within 10 minutes. Let's say that I wasn't surprised that Cuddlyable3 reverted you, albeit more than 3 hours later. All this, and dubious warnings too. It's past time for this to stop. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Users may remove warnings from their talk pages per WP:TALK#User_talk_pages. It is taken to indicate that they have received the warning. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There are other reverts last month of more substaintail material. I suggest a more thorough read of the edit history of the user in question. Equally thats a breach of 3RR above. Even small sentences are fairly significant on the article as the general dispute was part of mediation and an ongoing dispute, so its removal is fairly important. In response to the second query I wasn't suggesting the user shouldn't remove warnings from their talk page but was rather trying to indicate the user isn't prepared to discuss the matter. We tried to go to mediation but the user backed out. I don't see why the warning was dubious in the slightest. Refactoring policy is fairly clear on this, that any material removed from a talk page should be reverted back if a user is not happy to have it removed. I'm a little dissapointed by the lack of a clear response in line with policy. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The warning is dubious because, while an RPA may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism, and a vandalism warning for non-vandalism is inappropriate. And why edit-war to reinsert an inappropriate talk-page comment? What sort of clear response would you like? Diffs are still available to demonstrate what the original talk-page comments were. If there's a deletion of substantive talk-page comments, why did you show us a diff of a legitimate RPA? It's not immediately apparent that Cuddly is doing anything wrong other than being the other side of your edit-war. THF 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Note these are article talk pages, not user talk pages. Thatcher131 18:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Point taken about the diffs, although with regard to the RPA removals being vandalism we pointed out to him that in line with refactoring policy we didn't want any comments removed, irrelevant of the RPA non-policy essay, especially when its really questionable whether its even a personal attack and that further removals would be considered talk page vandalism if the user was unprepared to discuss the matter. The RPA essay itself seems to me to suggest the type of personal attacks to be removed should be more like racial insults, obvious slurs and such that are clearly a personal attack. Anyway, moving on this is a diff of a more substaintial removal, which was a shame as these [10] comments were quite central to the mediation on the article. This isn't really an edit war as I have stated on teh talk page that I am not prepared to make more than the reverts I have made now (2) today. If this method of resolving it fails then I suspect I and the other editors involved will try to take it to the arbitration comittee but it seems like such a pathetic thing to take that far, yet its incredibly irritating to have your comments removed, and persistantly removed after you've asked for them to be kept. Thanks WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor Update: It seems another user has found Cuddlyable3's RPA talk page removals to be vandalism and restored my original warning plus their own. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is adding the uncivil "[sic]" to your talk-page comments? THF 19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3. This following edit was the user page vandalism which consists of some fairly heavy and abusive language in this edit plus the addition of [sic] tags, the talk page comments were also cuddlyable3, here are the diffs. I hope that answers your question if I understood it correctly? WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Stupid pointless crap. Final warning given. Thatcher131 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Thatcher131... this is a complete misuse of WP:RPA (which is only an essay); none of the text being removed is even close to a personal attack. If this was in the user talk space it would be one thing, but I don't think this needs to be tolerated in the article talkspace; it is disruptive edit warring over nothing.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention guys. Believe it or not I think the user in question is usually well intentioned but just may be prone to getting carried away with it, i dont think this will take extreme punative measures, i'm sure they'll heed the warning and resume peacefull editing. As far as I can see this matter is now closed unless further erroneous RPA removals occur. Thanks for your time, sorry if I was not direct enough to begin with, I should have provided you with more suitable diffs. Apologies. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with .Isotope23, this is inapropriate use (intentional or otherwise) of WP:RPA in the article talkspace. Seems there is clear consensus that. --Hu12 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nonsence

The entire set of procedures for Afds needs attention. It is too easy for an individual or groups of pals to attack and delete articles, for whatever reasons. Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Stronge . Nominated by a new user (I don't think) as a first edit, and a copycat of numerous other deletions supported by the same people a few months back. I refuse to get involved or vote because when I have done so in the past articles I created or made substantive contributions to were subsequently attacked. Is Wikipedia anarchic? Administrators need to show us it is not. David Lauder 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy and so AfD isn't a pure vote. If you can raise some genuinely good reasons to keep the article (namely can prove why it meets noteability?) then I would have thought it would be kept, even if a large number of other editors disagree by forming a cabal of sorts. The thing with the article in question to me (though i'm not an administrator) seems to be the lack of much content and a large number of references. Infact there seem to be more references than sentences. I would think this information could be merged into other pages where relevant if its to be deleted. Don't feel though that you can't contribute to an AfD, like I said, I'm sure if you can present a genuinely good reason for it to stay it will be kept even if you are outnumbered by proponents of deletion. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible WP:TROLL#Misuse_of_process ?--Hu12 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the last poster should at least explain himself. To WPProlific all I can say is that there are countless, possibly thousands, of pages of WP articles which fall into the categories he mentions. What, also, of stubs? Sometimes you can find numerous reference books which say much the same thing about an individual. Must there be umpteen pages to prove he is notable? I have come across many people whose notability can be easily slotted into one paragraph. My complaint is essentially about the abuse of process for AfDs. I have had no input (I don't think) to that article so I am a neutral party.David Lauder 20:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call this abuse of process. Look, it was nominated by an extremely new editor and multiple established editors have opined keep. I'd honestly be quite surprised if this got deleted. If new accounts are being created to AFD a series of articles then that needs to be dealt with as an editor issue... but I don't see anything particularly "broken" with AFD as a process. It isn't perfect but it tends to (for the most part) get it right from what I've seen. David, can you point to some AFDs where you feel something was wrongfully deleted when it should be?--Isotope23 ^talk 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I nominated this article for deletion, as a result of this the article has been improved although "multiple established editors" have still questioned whether the subject meets the inclusion criteria. If nominations produce such a dramatic improvement in article quality they should be encouraged IMHO. Stramash 21:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)