Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive148

The wording is fine. If Beta needs attention then he will get it, we don't need Mick to

_{1 != 2}

18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I am going to have to be blunt; if, during this topic ban, MickMacNee get BC related related harassment from anyone, then he should be able to contact an admin without fear of the consequences and without anyone needing to dog MMN's contribution history. As much as MMN is judged oversensitive about BC's actions, there is also an element within BC's supporters that are more intolerant of BC related criticism than may be considered as being appropriate. I should love to AGF to all parties in this recent series of events, but I am unable to do so for a small minority under certain circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this topic ban notice going to be on MMN's talk page? If so, then it should also prohibit other users from discussing BC or BC-related issues on MMN's talk page. MMN should also be allowed to contact an admin if he notices uncivil comments about himself re:BC elsewhere on wikipedia. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent cuz I can't keep track of how many ":"s to type) LHvU, your bluntness is apparently falling on a yet-blunter object, to wit: my head today, because I still feel the need to ask this question: does this caveat also cover baiting from BC himself? IIRC most offenses on BC's part have been in response to things started by MMN, but in this conflict, as you said, I've seen so little good faith on all sides as to send AGF flying squarely out the window, and necessitating an explicit wording for even the most common-sense notions. Mick should have recourse if Beta chooses to interact with him. Mick may be irritating, but he's irritating about legitimate concerns, and we shouldn't lose sight of that as we attempt to influence his future behavior. Thanks...

It goes without saying that, when MMN is topic-banned from the whole BC subject, anybody - anybody - who uses that ban to taunt MMN will be subject to sanctions to protect Wikipedia from such behaviour. The topic ban is not an endorsement of either side and is certainly not a weapon for anyone to use against anyone else. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not planning on putting common sense on the shelf. This is a measure to diffuse the situation, and if someone tries to twist that to a contrary end then that can be dealt with as we always do.

_{1 != 2}

03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Gladys j cortez) By, or on behalf of, BC. I suspect that it is the latter parties that need reminding - since BC is already on a civility parole and even a civil appearance on MMN's would raise eyebrows. In reply to Redvers and Until, it is not the appropriate response to any taunting, which is assumed, but that the editor concerned may bring it to an admins attention without violating the terms of the topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. So barring any objection I am going to post to Mick's page "MickMacNee shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Betacommand, on any page in Wikipedia. Should MickMacNee do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week." as well as add "If you feel you are being taunted, baited, or otherwise placed in a position where such sanctions would create an unreasonable position, you can make a report of the situation to an admin you trust and let that admin handle the situation without being in violation of the terms of this ban".

_{1 != 2}

15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this meets my concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Was a limit suggested? I don't like open-ended bans, as sometimes just a period of quiet is all that is needed. Open-ended stuff can get dragged up years later, even when some of the people are no longer around. It also wastes time when people insist years later that an appeal is needed to overturn the stale topic ban. The length can still be appealed of course, but not setting a length is sometimes just being lazy on the part of those imposing the topic ban (this would apply to whatever topic ban was imposed on Betacommand as well - I was just leaving when that started, and was mildly surprised to come back and find a consensus had been reached). Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that a limit seems to be needed, for any remedy of this nature. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we can continue this discussion to determine any duration. I agree leaving it forever is not productive.

_{1 != 2}

16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Duration

I suggest 2 months as a duration to start with, we can re-apply the ban if it is needed again after that. I don't think leaving the topic ban in place forever is the best idea. Any other opinions?

Two months sounds fine. I looked up the Betacommand one and saw that it says "These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate." That doesn't seem entirely right to me, but I'm not really prepared to start that up again. Betacommand is perfectly capable of appealing at the right time himself, though I must admit that limits of blocks, bans and suchlike are rather arbitrary. There is a well-known civility restriction of a year, and other lengths of various bans and blocks seem rather arbitrary as well. I just normally like to see a specific length mentioned if at all possible. Makes thing simpler at the other end. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification - of course Betacommand can appeal the restrictions himself, the wording simply says that the community has to agree, and until they do, they stay in place. Nothing in that wording states that he's banned from appealing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite, have the dispute resolution procedures been followed? -- SEWilco (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, for who? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Two months is a funny period, the block templated tariffs go from one to three months and - since one month might be considered too short - I would suggest three months. Again, the period is not written in stone and MMN would be free to appeal a lifting within that time frame. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that three months would be a sensible duration - two seems too short and four too long - hopefully after that MMN will have improved and we won't have to be back here discussing extending it. Of course he could appeal it, although I don't think it would be a good idea to appeal within at least the next few weeks (as consensus is unlikely to change in a short timeframe). I'm glad that we reached consensus for a topic ban without too much mudslinging and drama. I like Until's wording too. As two days have passed without objection to the duration, can we assume there is consensus for that also? naerii - talk 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Three months sounds good to me.

_{1 != 2}

16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully by then the community will have assumed a more productive approach towards Betacommand's excesses and MMN's commentary will not be necessary. I have seen some positive signs in that direction in recent weeks. Orderinchaos 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely for evading a prior block [2] He has been edit-warring for some time on the Ayn Rand article and talk pages using anon IPs. Currently, he seems to be using a static IP: [3][4][5], so I believe that we may be able to indefinitely block that with minimum effect on other innocent users of that IP. Idag (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I placed a semi-protect on this article, despite being today's featured article, because of a spat of vandalism from a variety of IP addresses. If a consensus is reached to remove the protection, please feel free to do so. Brianga (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Rudget (Help?) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick thank you to the person who answered my question about Image Removed, that solved my problem. Many thanks Blueturtle01 (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Restored. Rudget (Help?) 12:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please undelete Image:HarringtonNSW.jpg per this note on my talk page? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 12:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to bring this article to the attenion of the admins for not following NPOV rules. This article is very offensive to Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are looking for

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and includes articles upon encyclopedia merit and not individual sensitivities. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of users are engaging in original research by using quotes from English MPs to support the statement that there were "many concerns that England was using the Union to dominate Scotland". This conclusion is not supported by any references that are given - the argument is synthesising material and coming to a conclusion itself. This is, of course, orignal research, and I thus placed a tag on the section. However, this tag is keep being removed. Can someone please have a look at this and deal with the people involved? 213.131.125.34 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

there are also cited references to some standard histories to that effect, so I see no reason to exclude accurate contemporary quotations. DGG (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, that's not the point. The point is that those quotations are being used to infer a further statement that is not supported by any other source given. This is original research. It has stopped now anyway: the tag has remained. 88.107.18.5 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on the BLP noticeboard which got no reaction so im bringing it here instead. A number of the earlier MJ talk page archives have a lot of BLP violations. The more recent ones are clean thanx to a small army of editers that watch over them. Can some of the earlier ones be purged or something. They dont hold anything of any importance, half of it is a war over having the "King of Pop" or "Wacko Jacko" in the lead, theres nothing of any importance there. Alternatively someone could read through all of the 18 archives removing the offending pieces but that is time consuming. Thoughts. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could "sanitize" the archive pages, then one of us admins could delete the earlier revisions to remove the offending comments. Any other ideas from admins? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, english isnt my first language, could you clarify what your suggesting by "Sanitize" the archives, sorry i cant understand. Please dont take offense Jayron ;-) --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means to just remove the BLP violations from the archives (as in, blank them, replace them with "((

H₂O

) 00:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My watery friend has it correct there. Just go through the archives, remove the BLP vios (with a note explaining you have done so) and then an admin such as myself, or someone else, can go through and remove the old versions from the history, so they are no longer accessable to the general public. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, i understand, sorry for being a retard, ill get to it and show you my handy work when done. I just have to read through all those archives lol. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ive done 3 archives, it takes a long time to read each one, when i have finshed all 18 ill bring all links to Jayron, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A friendly word of warning; the MJ talk page is too big for a normal admin to remove content through deletion and selective restore. You will crash wikipedia if you try it. I know because I have done it. Please ask an oversight to handle this because they have the ability to do selective history deletion which doesn;t crash the wikipedia database. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) about the User:FritzpollBot, which would automatically generate over 1 millon more articles on settlements across the world. I suppose this may be a better place to continue discussion. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed specifically by the Bot Approvals Group here ->

Wikipedia talk:BAG#FritzpollBot --Samuel Pepys (talk

) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet several users (myself not included) wanted to continue to discuss the issue, and that is why I opened the thread. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The scope of this is big enough that the community in general should be involved, not just BAG. --Rory096 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It has also just appeared as a notice in the header of the watchlist. I assume everyone gets these. It would be better to centralize discussion at the village pump link provided, since people are being herded that direction. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Link for anyone using external editors. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It might actually be better to create a new place to discuss it (perhaps its own page), as a simple VP section is going to get rather unwieldy and difficult to edit. --Rory096 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite everyone to a tea party, don't be surprised when the girls get noisy. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Would help to let editors and wikiprojects dealing with settlements and geography know, too - I handle most of the geographic articles for my state, for example, and would be concerned if the bot started creating articles we couldn't fill. Also, what sources are being used for the information, will it create a massive cleanup task for wikiprojects? Orderinchaos 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:The undertow left the project. But now he's back, and has been using his account, participating at RfA. I was happy to see him active again, so I clicked on the "talk" portion of his sig to leave him a message, only to discover that his talk page was blanked and protected, while his user page was deleted and salted.

If a user is here, then other users should be able to contact him on his talk page.

Otherwise, users are faced with the choice of foregoing contact, or posting off-topic to wherever the user happens to be participating.

That would be pretty awkward.

Please unprotect User talk:The undertow while he is active in the project.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 12:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the account is only participating in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 (as ip accounts are not permitted to participate). I don't know if this is a full "return" to contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd request again after June 5th (ending date for DHMO's RfA). Rudget (Help?) 13:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What I get out of this is that sowing the seeds of discord is OK (and being able to hide after doing so is even better). It seems like a drive-by shooting ... ah, but maybe I'm bitter. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I unprotected the talk page since the account is no longer inactive. El_C 16:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move the search box directly beneath the puzzle globe.

It will take an administrator to make the change.

The Transhumanist 14:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First, there doesn't appear to be consensus to do this. Second, I could be wrong, but I don't know that we (as in admins; not being sysadmins) can do this, technically. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I just missed it, but was this advertised anywhere? I would think a discussion about moving the search bar from its current location, where I believe it is located on all other projects, would need a wider audience. - auburnpilot talk 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the change gathers consensus then it can be done in MediaWiki:Common.js, but I wasn't aware that a consensus had been reached. Happy‑melon 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Rereading the discussion it is abundantly clear to me that the only consensus is no consensus :D Happy‑melon 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Conversation being continued in later thread: #Al-Azhar University vandal --Elonka 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There's this one really persistent anonymous vandal on the Al-Azhar University page. He keeps trying to insert a potentially inflammatory phrase into the article, but for the longest wouldn't even bother providing a source to back it up. Another wiki editor promptly reverted his first edit. But he was right back at it, so I started removing that unsourced statement myself, and explained to him that he would have to provide a reference for it if he intended to reinsert it. He came back with what he claimed were five legitimate references. I looked into each one of these sources, and not one of them supported his statement. I explained to him on the talk page in some detail why none of his sources were relevant and why his edit was therefore inadmissible. To make a long story short, he has been trying to salvage a slightly modified version of that same assertion, but he's still trying to back it up with those same irrelevant sources. We've been in an editing war since. The guy doesn't even bother justifying his edits anymore and has gotten pretty belligerent ("you're pushing it"; "get a life", that sort of thing). As I write, his bogus unsourced edit still stands. Can someone please have a look? Causteau (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked this one out and all I will say is that you shouldn't believe the registered user simply because they have an account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.44 (talk • contribs) 19:26, May 30, 2008

There's an old saying... something about glass houses... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment The Hand That Feeds You and for exposing user 195.189.142.44. I've just re-edited the Al-Azhar University page. The vandal is bound to return, and I want him to know that he can't just post any 'ol thing with a bunch of unrelated sources, insult fellow editors, and get away with it just because Al-Azhar is a small page that not many editors visit. I forgot to mention that there were edits to the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa by yet another anonymous IP that bear a striking resemblance to this user's handiwork. I suspect it's the same person because the edits are virtually identical and because he also edited the Al-Azhar University page during the same period under this other IP. Causteau (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread is being continued at #Al-Azhar University vandal. --Elonka 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – SharedIP added --Rodhullandemu 00:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know this troll, but looking at his edits

Good luck with that. -Pilotguy contact tower 03:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MascotGuy isn't a vandal. He's just an autistic boy with nothing better to do than try and improve our articles in ways that end up doing more harm than good. The two situations are nothing alike.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the essay "E pluribus unum" in my sig links to. With Grawp, it's a damned-if-ya-do-damned-if-ya-don't thing. MascotGuy, on the other hand, is autistic and is more likely than not trying to be helpful by editing his own sock list. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 05:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Last year, Jaakko Sivonen (

I am not an admin, but I think we should give him a second chance. Just make sure he knows that any further edit warring will be dealt with quickly and decisively. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest that required adoption be in order, but that a 2nd chance be allowed. Bstone (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined just to let him back. He seems honestly abashed by his bad behavior, and perhaps is properly rehabilitated. It will be pretty obvious if he acts up again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The

(Messages)

00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's his clean block log from the Finnish WP: [6] (three blocks in 2006, can't tell why, but it hardly matters now). I think a second chance is in order. Darkspots (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Jpgordon may have forgotten to actually unblock, but I've done it.[7] - auburnpilot talk 02:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As a procedural note for those here who don't read Finnish, the block log on fiwiki reads "personal attacks", "personal attack, again" and "for repeated personal attacks". No idea about the circumstances beyond that. Oh, and I added "&uselang=en" to the link. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would forgive and forget, if Jaakko hadn't been evading his block the entire year ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) He gave a convincing argument on his talk page, where he said "I have been civil and constructive in my edits in the Finnish Wikipedia" However, from looking at his IPs, I see edit summaries as recent as last month saying, "Reverting total bullshit. Finnish Karelians are Finns and it is offensive and wrong to talk of "slow integration". No one calls them "Livvi"., It wasn't "given"... It had been part of Finland continuosly for over a 100 years in 1917. Learn history., and Learn English too." Looking further back I see comments such as Your motive seems to be Swedish Nationalism. This makes me believe that Jaako still has the same battleground mentality that he was originally blocked for. Indeed, roughly half a day before he was unblocked I find him saying "I care deeply of the Karelian people, as you are our closest relatives ethnically, but it insults me that by your false claims you are trying to strike a wedge inside the Finnish people." At User talk:88.114.235.214, he says "I think I have more credibility than you do - at least I cite real sources while you edit war without them." If I had read his argument on his talk page without knowing all of this, I would indeed be convinced as well, but because I know he has been evading his block, edit warring on Karelians among many other pages, and still being incivil (all of these were the reasons he was originally blocked), I have to disagree with his unblocking. Khoikhoi 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• So if he acts up, it's easy enough to block him again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – All done. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I am a member of Dot Com Infoway and its hard to find that my IP was blocked from any usage on the website due to spam. I accept the mistake and request your help on the procedure that I have to follow to remove the ban.

Chrisdru (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Chris Drum

I've asked the user for further information on their talk page and we'll deal with it there. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And, having got the information (see User talk:59.145.89.17), I've declined the unblock. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with decline, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive133#Seeking_Community_ban_of_Dot_Com_Infoway_company_Adsense_marketing_and_Spamming. --Hu12 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I need to change the text appearing in everyone's watchlist about FritzpollBot to something like "There is a proposal to allow a bot to help human editors create stub articles for places not yet covered in Wikipedia, please comment here" with the wikilink already in the text. The Watchlist text doesn't represent the proposal, and people may judge it based on that first impression. No idea how to do that! Can someone do it for me? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You can change the message by editing

Template:Watchlist-notice. --ais523 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC

)

Ah, excellent - cheers for the pointer Fritzpoll (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello, I have gotten lots of messages saying I have been vandalising, but the articles concerned are about things I've never even heard of before! Are you sure you don't have an IP address mix-up? Apparently I have been blocked several times for edits I haven't made and I only hear of the blocks now! Please help me, the only changes I make at the moment are: correcting spelling and grammar errors, or obvious logical/chronological mistakes. Also, these messages disappear when I log on. I am the only user of this computer so nobody else on this IP could have done these changes. I'd appreciate any feedback, I am very confused. I am neither a vandal nor a spammer and I hate being called so. Thanks. Khilsati (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What account are you seeing that has the vandalism warnings? Corvus cornix_talk 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP address's user talk, here [15]. When I log in, the warnings are gone but it's tiring to have to log in every time. Khilsati (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your internet service provider (Telkom South Africa) apparently uses a rotating IP pool. Your computer will be on a different IP very regularly (likely every time you disconnect from the internet you will be on a new IP the next time). You will see messages, warnings, et cetera that were generated for whoever has had that IP previously. Only by logging in can you avoid the warnings.

GRBerry

17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When you log in, there is a box beneath your login and password that says "Remember me". If you check that box, you should be logged in every time you come to Wikipedia. Just be sure not to stay logged in at public computers. Corvus cornix_talk 17:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically what's happening is that your ISP gives one IP address to more than one person. Then when other people who previously used the IP address you are using vandalise, the warnings get sent to you by mistake. Apart from logging in, there isn't much that can be done about this; when people aren't logged in IP is the best way we have to try to send messages like vandalism warnings to people. --ais523 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kindness. I'll keep that in mind and make sure nobody I know ever vandalises this very valuable web site! Kenavo. Khilsati (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi there just thought that I would mention that there is a small backlog at AutoWikiBrowser approval page. ChristopherJames2008 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleared. - auburnpilot talk 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Al-Azhar University vandal is back, pushing his POV and bogus sources again. The guy just doesn't get it. Arbitration is definitely warranted; please have a look at the article. He is now in an editing war with both me and another editor. Causteau (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The most recent edit by the ip (made 2 hours after the above report) seems to be satisfactory as regards the other editors concerns. However, a review of the previous edits and the ip's contribution history does tend to indicate a partisan bias in relation to Sunni and Shia Muslim viewpoints. Can this account be related to other (blocked?) accounts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think this anonymous user has been blocked yet. However, administrators should definitely consider doing so because this is a guy with an agenda, if I've ever seen one. Here are some random examples of his handiwork:

1)Inserting inflammatory POV material without bothering to support it with any reference(s).

2)Tacking on a bunch of unrelated, dummy references behind a slanderous POV phrase to lend an air of credibility to said POV phrase (see my analysis on how I know those sources are bogus here).

3)Mocking fellow editors.

4)Altering sourced material so that it reads differently but still looks sourced, and reverting subsequent edits other editors have made to those initial changes -- all with no explanation.

And that's just the half of it. There's more info on this user's shenanigans on the Al-Azhar University talk page. The guy has gotta be stopped now because he edits literally all the time and under a ton of different IPs. The longer we wait, the more time it will take to undo all of the damage he has done. Causteau (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been taking a look at this, and I'm not seeing vandalism. There's definitely edit-warring, a content dispute, and incivility and personal attacks around. There also appears to be some POV pushing and possible misinterpretation of sources, but of course that's always a tougher call to make. I recommend that everyone calm down, since it looks like there's incivility going from both sides, which always complicates the situation. --Elonka 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a more serious issue at hand here. Via the several IP addresses, this user has been engaging in edits on articles relating to terrorism that are quite startling. The latest examples are removing known terrorists from categories relating to terrorism. While this might seem like a simple POV issue at first glance, as a graduate student in counter terrorist studies and coming from a family with a law enforcement and military background, I will say with no exaggeration that this could be dangerous for anyone who interacts with this user. Even something as small as edits like that on Wikipedia are a legitimate security concern; this should not be a platform to promote extremist and/or violent agendas. I don't think it's something that should be left as a content dispute. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are problematic edits from the anon. However, just because someone may be pushing a POV on one set of articles, doesn't mean we should revert all their edits on all articles. For example, it's a common thing to see editors make vandalistic edits to history articles, but when they're editing videogame articles, they get very serious and thorough. If there are inappropriate edits being made to the terrorist articles, we can deal with them, and the accounts. But as far as the

assume good faith in some of the other topic areas. --Elonka

05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're 100% correct, in fact i'm sure most disruptive editors at some point make good edits on non-controversial articles. My thing isn't so much Al Azhar at this point, it's what i've seen on other articles that I find disturbing. Look, this is a big deal. We're on the internet here; we don't know who this kid is or what else he's doing. It's one thing to try to posit a reasonable source disputing that a person is a terrorist; what this guy has done is beyond suspicious. Per

WP:NLT I won't sit here and throw out threats, but this is something that warrants attention even outside Wikipedia (and may gain it whether we try or not). This is noteworthy enough to contact the FBI about, even seemingly small things like this. MezzoMezzo (talk

) 14:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to contact the FBI, no one is stopping you. However, speaking as someone who has made FBI reports myself in the past (you may wish to Google my name and "Steganography"), I'm just not seeing a major problem here. We have an IP from Lebanon that is removing "terrorist" categories from a few pages, seems to have a bit of an anti-Shia bias, and has been a bit uncivil when challenged. But this kind of opinion could easily apply to countless non-terrorist individuals. People can be anti-Sunni or anti-Shia, and still be able to present their opinions in a civil and non-violent way. People can also have

reliable sources that specifically call that person a "terrorist". As for the places where the anon is removing the category from biographies where we do have such sources, well, we put the category back, we warn the anon for blanking sourced information, and if they keep doing it, we block them. But that's still not something that I'd want to contact the FBI about. I'd be more inclined to write off the activities of this anon as "over-eager student" than "criminal". Now, if we have an anon who is making threats of violence, then that is something I'd be more concerned about. But just disagreeing on some content issues? Nah, we get that all the time. --Elonka

15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A related SSP report has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn. --Elonka 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Proposal failed spectacularily. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a proposal

I've made a mistake and contributed on the proposal page instead. Good faith error! No decimations! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you are a group account, it would be hard to kill one in ten of you! DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how often the meaning of 'decimate' is misinterpreted to mean 'annihilate' or similar. Exxolon (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprised, no; appalled, yes. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems Princeton considers 'annihilate' and 'decimate' to be synonyms.[16] - auburnpilot talk 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I pity tha uncultured foos. For the record, I was thinking of losing digits, in a cross-cultural Yakuza/Roman mashup kinda way. Never mind :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, the word you're looking for is sansdigititus. - auburnpilot talk 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

HM forgot to give Jimbo his proper title: Caesar! Or would that be Co-Caesar? Hmmm... --SimpleParadox 22:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hummm... then who is Brutus? DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp? J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he'd be

Remus. Sam Korn ^(smoddy)

22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So from now on instead of RfA, there'll be RfQ? And instead of AN, QN? ;) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was funny, until I realised it wasn't in the humour category. Then when I realised someone actually thought this was a good idea (rather than deliberately and exceptionally dorky), it becamse less funny.

龱

09:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy mama, that made my brain hurt. Bad freshman-Latin flashbacks to 1985--run for cover!

Gladys J Cortez

10:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Time for another Larry Sanger joke. — CharlotteWebb 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently made an "account creators" login that has now been approved, I have also registered on the accounts list. The issue is I have not been assigned to the "Account Creators" group as of yet, can someone rectify this please :)

I just checked the admin interface and you've been approved for [17]. You are now able to create accounts using that system; accountcreator (which puts users in the Account Creator group) is not a requirement, it just helps if you're going fast.

H₂O

) 08:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• thanks
  talk
  ) 08:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just realised your not an admin, the idea of this notice board is to get admins attention, do not get to far ahead of yourself Dihydrogen Monoxide your not an admin yet and by the looks your current RFA isnt going to well. Can an admin please comment or rectify, thanks
  talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC):::I'm pretty sure non-administrators are allowed to reply. --Tombomp (talk
  ) 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Prom3th3an, I would try to help you, but instead I think I'll go look for someone who needs help and isn't acting like a snot about it. --

barneca (talk

) 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I came across as a snot as it was not my intention, I am very direct sometimes and I do apologise :)
  talk
  ) 12:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, was trying to be a snot, sorry. I don't know enough about that interface to help, but someone will likely come along soon who does. And, for the record, anyone can help anyone on this board; yuo certainly don't need to be an admin if you have something useful to say. And since DHMO was trying to help you, I was reacting to your tone; I generally save my snide comments for people who aren't trying to help. --

barneca (talk

) 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I should rephrase my initial response, its not that DHMO is not an admin that im re-requesting the group permission. Its just I have now hit my upper limit of rego's per day from a single IP. So now I need that group permission to work effectivly :)
  talk
  ) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've added you to the accountcreator group. And since Barneca's said everything that I would, I'll just leave it at that. --jonny-mt 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help and I again I do apologise for my stuffup
  talk
  ) 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Huge backlog at

CAT:CSD

Resolved

 – Much better now. Thanks —

^talk

18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Any admins with a bit of extra time on their hands might want to hop over to

^talk

17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for unbanning by User:Iamandrewrice

Ban not lifted per strong consensus. Iamandrewrice and friends must appeal directly to ArbCom.

talk

) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

From Jimbo's talk page, moved here as a more appropriate venue. George The Dragon (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I made an effort here but with the opposition and concerns raised by George The Dragon I'm reverting to back to my initial opposition to this. Sorry but this is exactly what I was afraid of. Can we instead discuss a time limit on the ban, to be reset whenever he is caught socking?

talk

) 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already been waiting 6 months... :( I don't understand why I'm still being banned. I am on medication for my disorder now; if you were going to be at all fair, you would at least give me a trial. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing the indef ban with a six-month ban. Lifting the ban and just using a block wouldn't be appropriate as he could then use any other account, etc. If this user was capable of being more discrete and not going after exactly the same articles as usual, they could have been back editing by now and we'd not know the difference. However, I do feel that if this user's presence will attract others to disrupt the project, especially give the level of disruption we have seen before, we may have to take all steps necessary to protect the project. May I also suggest admins convers with admins in Simple English? I know it's not standard practice, but it may save hassle down the line George The Dragon (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely this is now a punishing ban, rather than a preventative one, since I'm now on medication? 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Let's see. 61 listed confirmed socks. 64 listed suspected socks. Threatening Wikipedia with "far worse disruption". I don't see how this is a person we want here. Your mental health problems are not our concern. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Threatening Wikipedia with "far worse disruption"" - That is taken out of context. I asked User:Yamla why my friends were labelled as sockpuppets of me, and he said that it meant we were all banned. However, I said that if this was so, their sockpuppet tags should be changed to reflect this, and he said that they would continue to be labelled as me because of the ease of distinguishing anyone who was involved as being banned. So then I said that my friends regarded it to mean that they werent banned, since I am the only one who is listed as banned, and that I advise Yamla to put them into the ban list, otherwise they could cause "far worse disruption", and then this was taken out of context when he wrote it down on wikipedia.

And I no-longer have any mental health problems since I'm treated.

And not all of those sockpuppets were me. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If they aren't you, why did the checkuser say they were from the same IP address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.delanoy (talk • contribs)

This has already been discussed. We all attend the same school; one of the other users stayed in my house for a time period while his mother was in a hospice; and some of the checkuser results said some of the accounts weren't linked to me, but they were grouped with me anyway according, to what I can only presume, as

WP:DUCK. 78.149.186.121 (talk

) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it needs to be pointed out that he wasn't "banned for psychological illness", but banned for being a serious disruptive sock-puppeteer. I can remember spending 4 or 5 hours on a single checkuser case. I'm not passing any comment regarding unbanning, but just pointing to the damage and timewasting that occurred before - Alison ^❤ 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia that dealt with him a lot - he has been given a LOT of second chances. You can read his appeal to us a few months ago after his "cure" here. There have been several incidents at SE Wikipedia since then which have been attributed to him (can't remember how many were conclusively proved), but it included cross-wiki harassment of simple:User:Gwib, and a massive amount of sockpuppets. I (personally) strongly suspect him to be behind the massive creation of accounts with usernames attacking Gwib over the past two or three days - Gwib was an admin that dealt with him a lot. Benniguy/Iamandrewrice claims to know the person that did it, but it wasn't him - it just doesn't seem right at all. The "cure" seemed to happen overnight, but I didn't see much change in behaviour from what I could see. I believe that problems would recur. Our CheckUsers will probably be able to explain things a little better, I'll see if they have anything to add. Archer7 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever to assume that I am connected to the recent hash of accounts at Simple. If need be, I have a physical written letter from my doctor to show that I am certified of being cured of my disorder. And no it did not happen overnight; where are you getting that from? 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I created so many sockpuppets was because of the psychological problems my disorder caused me. And please remember Alison, not all those accounts were me. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathize with someone who claims they created disruptive sockpuppets because of a psychological illness. I did that myself last year.

There's a question of degree here. I didn't waste checkusers' time, I didn't wind up on the requests for arbitration page, I didn't badger Jimbo, I didn't create more than 100 sockpuppet accounts (I think there were seven or eight), and I didn't drag my friends into this. I'm not quite seeing on what basis Andrew should be reinstated. I am inclined to defer to Josh Gordon. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You refer to "Andrew" but, from early posts, that is actually the name of someone he knows IRL, and not him, incidentally. So the username is arguably against policy anyway George The Dragon (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did not create that many accounts. And it was not me who dragged my friends into it. It was actually some of my friends who impersonated my account which caused most of the original situation. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"So the username is arguably against policy anyway" If I was unbanned, I think its certainly evident that the name Iamandrewrice would not be suitable. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[18] Can I just comment to Eptalon. The question was not whether or not the accounts here were me (we already know they are). The question is whether or not the recent rash of accounts on Simple is the same as me. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. This is what happens when I try to assume good faith. Next time Jimbo's hypnotizing words about letting bygones be bygones and focus on the future gives me ideas please just block me until I snap out of it!

talk

) 19:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're openly admiting the ban is now as a punishment for my past rather than as a prevention for the future. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

←No, we are protecting the project from an incredibly disruptive user who has cost the project a significant amount of wasted time and stress to fix the disruption. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's prevention. We don't trust you. It's entirely personal. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That is being bias, based on my past. I am completely different now that I have been cured of my disorder; suggesting otherwise would only be an incorrect thing to suggest, based on lack of understanding of my disorder. I am not asking for a full unban; simply a trial, with restrictions. If I mess up, then just re-block/ban me straight away; it's not hard. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

May I just point out, [19], that the checkuser has showed that I do not have a connection to the recent mass of account creations on simple wikipedia. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

NO WAY. One of the most prolific puppetmasters ever. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I predict you'll be unblocked at about the same time Wizards of the Coast lifts the tournament-ban on this card. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's probably about right. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is there a reason we are still allowing the IP address 78.149.186.121 to edit, since it is patently the IP of a banned user. We do not normally allow IPs of banned users to edit for any reason. Why is he an exception to this rule? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, blocked for 48 hours. I'm with Jpgordon--there's no place here for such an account.

96

00:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the victims of Iamandrewrice - I am not unbiassed. The problem here is that we have two possible scenarios that are indistinguishable a'priori:

1. Iamandrewrice is trying yet another trick to get back here and start being disruptive.
2. The story about mental illness and medication is true and someone who has suffered needs mend bridges.

The old Iamandrewrice was utterly untrustworthy and would be perfectly capable of claiming what is now being claimed in order to have another chance at disruption and to get attention once more. We have absolutely no way to tell the difference between these two situations other than by allowing Iamandrewrice to prove, through actions (not words), which of these is the case.

In case (1), unbanning this user would allow more (albeit exceedingly brief) disruptions since there would initially be dozens of people checking edit history and performing checkuser's. A step of even a tiniest bit out of line would result in a banning from which no recovery would ever be possible. Refusing to unban would have more or less the same result.

In case (2), unbanning would be the fair and caring thing to do - not unbanning would be cruel and heartless.

On balance, I'm inclined to

WP:AGF

and offer an extremely tightly monitored unbanning - wrapped with bands of steel and enforced with absolutely zero tolerance. We would need to nominate a arbitrator and to make it clear that rebanning would be instant, total and without any hope of appeal at any time in the future at any level or in any manner or circumstances.

HOWEVER: IMHO - if Iamandrewrice is telling the truth - I think it would be wise for (s)he (I never did find out his/her true gender) to think very carefully about this. If this new story is true - then medication may take time to settle down - it hasn't been that long since we last saw awful behavior. There is no such thing as an instant and perfect cure for these kinds of mental problem. What happens if you miss a pill? What if the dosage isn't quite right yet? You should find out what your doctor advises? Rmember that you'll NEVER have any hope whatever of getting another last-last-chance. If you have a "slip" then no amount of pleading that this was a one-off medication-malfunction would convince even the most soft-hearted admin. So, it might be wise to follow the advice that I and others have given you via eMail and wait a few more months before taking advantage of any last-ever Wiki-reprieve. Editing Wikipedia is something we can all manage without doing - there are other things to do - other places to be - and it might just be more healthy to stay away for a while longer and come back when you KNOW you'll do it right.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you support a time limit on the ban so that he is banned for 6 more months, to be reset everytime he is caught socking? In 6 months we can then reconsider the matter and work out a set of restrictions including a condition that he can be rebanned without the usual tiresome and slow paperwork. This would give the medication time to work. Those who were actually affected by his disruption should be able to veto an unbanning if they don't feel safe letting him back here. This would be in the spirit of what Jimbo wrote on his talk page and caused me to consider an unbanning.

talk

) 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) simple:User:Creol has just confirmed that the creation of massive socks over on the Simple English Wikipedia was indeed simple:User:IuseRosary (one of his friends) and User:Benniguy (which is Iamandrewrice after a rename). The link to the page is here. Both of them used a total of nearly 100 sockpuppets to create usernames that were personal attacks to both simple:User:Gwib and myself on the Simple English Wikipedia. This has only strengthened my resolve to have him not unblocked. His continued disruption on the Simple English Wikipedia, even after an indefinite block should point to a decline of his unblock. He is a seriously disruptive user who loves to create sockpuppets, and we have had to add a ton of regexes to the Username blacklist over on the Simple English Wikipedia because of the scale of the amount of sockpuppets that were created over there. Some of the sockpuppets, however, were not linked to them at all, but the majority of them pointed directly to some of the addresses in both IuseRosary and Benniguy's ranges. Cheers, Razorflame 02:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point. Checkuser results could not confirm seven of 48 proxy checks were tied to IPs which were either used by the named accounts (IuseRosary - unblocked account) or self-identified (Benniguy/IamAndrewRice - blocked account) because the proxies used did not provide direct information (CU isn't a magic wand). Edit patterns (mainly names choses as this is primarily a username creation abuse issue) and targets of the abuse from the unidentified proxies matches those of the indentified proxies. The Checkuser list has been informed further on the matter. Creol (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No the checkusers have not shown any such thing on simple wikipedia, razorflame. Both Eptalon and Creol have stated this now.

They did say that a couple of proxies that I used crossed over with a couple of proxies used by some of them, but that is obviously going to be so, since the proxies are different each time, and of course there are going to be at least some picked at random which share similar IP strings.

The checkuser finishes with this summary:

"Benniguy - 10 self-identified proxies, 5 unconfirmed"

So we are talking about the 10 proxies I used (constructively, and you can ask AmericanEagle about that) and I openly said who I was, and then 5 unconfirmed proxies which people think might have something to do with me. I am sorry but that is a ridiculous assumption to make, and no one has made it but you Razorflame.

And why here [20] is someone called "PetraSchelm" suggesting I have been making pro-pedophile accounts?? And that I have apparently confirmed these by email? For a start, I am 16, so I don't understand how I could have a pro-pedophile account, and secondly, I've never even heard of any of the users. However, I just noticed something. I think the user first encountered me at User talk:Jimbo Wales, where there was both my thread, and some pedophile one (which he was on). He would have seen me there. However, I am unsure as to why he is suggesting those accounts are mine; perhaps they have something to do with him? Their editing patterns all seem to revolve quite finely around pedophilia... but then again, I forgot, my word can't be trusted on anything, so I guess they must be mine.

I would somewhat support a 6 month ban, but I'm still worried, because by the end of it, people are still going to be bringing up the same issues and refusing to let them go, so those that are holding a grudge are still not going to let me be unbanned. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It was established back in January by Creol himself I believe that Iamandrewrice and IuseRosary are two different people. Since there is no checkuser evidence to prove any connection with the accounts created on Simple recently I fail to see how this debate belongs here to begin with. Is this a new trend? This thread was created to see what opposition there would be to an unbanning or reworking of the community ban. There is substantial opposition to an unbanning but there appears to be some willingness among those affected bu his past disruption to consider a time limit and agreement on what should happen then. Do you have any actual proof of Iamandrewrice creating these accounts or is it simply an example of blaming the usual suspect and then taking it here for additional drama? Sorry for being blunt but this is derailing this debate the same way it derailed the debate on Jimbo's talk page.

talk

) 08:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual proof such as him self-identifying as using two specific proxies to answer a question by User:American Eagle (both self-identified in the message and he states right above that he did this) and that the proxies show the underlying IP address; one of which was used to create 10 accounts using other proxies and the other created 25? Yep, got it. How about another IP he has admitted to which was used to revert the removal of a disruptive RfA (created by IuseRosary no less) and then vote on it? Got that proof also. Edit patterns and the fact that before he showed up we had virtually zero traffic from this IP range and now we get literly hundreds of edits each week from through proxies (the range has been soft-blocked for months) just helps round out the picture of the sitution, but direct ties between the vandalism and him do exist. I did state that they are two seperate people, but given their activities and personal statements as being friends, there is little doubt to me that they are working in conjuction playing their little game. Creol (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay and I assume that you have e-mailed our resident Iamandrewrice expert Alison about this? If this is true then he isn't on any medication (I notice from the WR thread about him that he was on meds some 2 months ago also...). I would still like to note that this thread is not about his behaviour on your wiki and that detailed discussion about this should take place on your own wiki. This thread is a community discussion about his ban here which was not imposed on him due to any behaviour outside this wiki. He is banned for what he did here and although your evidence can establish character it should not be the main focus of this debate.

talk

) 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Checkuser list was informed of the basic underlying information of his proxy use (so all en: CU's are aware) and Allison as a complete listing of the data confirming everything I stated listed. As he is indef blocked on our wiki (and we don't realy differenciate between indef and banned) there is little for us to discuss on this matter (until his next unblock attempt). His character is what is important here; he is requesting to be unbanned because he has changed due to changes in a pyschological condition. His actions show this to be a false statement. For the most part, I am simply clarifying and correcting points made by him and others about the situation. IaAR stated "10 proxies (that I used constructively...)". This is blatantly false. Two of those were used constructively and yes he has admitted they were him. Unfortunately the other 8 were used to cause disruption and are tied directly to the two he claims. Creol (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. His character is very much the subject of this debate and the use of proxies to evade what I can only assume is a far wider and longer lasting set of rangeblocks than we would ever get away with certainly isn't good news. If those have been used here also we can close this ban discussion without the need for any more discussion about the duration of his ban here. I notice he stopped editing here after the debate below this morning.

talk

) 14:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As for Iamandrewrice posting here I urge you to stop doing that. You are evading your ban and aggrevating people. None of that is helpful nor is the continuation of your constant debating. Let others do this for you in accordance with our banning policy. This is a community debate and you are not welcome to participate in that onwiki per your ban. You are not helping.

talk

) 08:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would comment that by arguing here Iamandrewrice is demonstrating that the statement that the medication is controlling whatever condition they are suffering from is perhaps not as valid as they might declare; perhaps not as disruptive as previously, but still prepared to violate WP policy by both block evading and by forum shopping. I see no acknowledgement that their actions are contrary to WP policy, but rather a distinct campaign in having the validity of their actions accepted. As I remember, this was the basic premise of the banned account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with EconomicsGuy and LessHeard. Here's my proposal. If he wants to be unbanned, he has to go to his one username, he remains 'banned' on a technical level but he can converse from his talk page. For now, he uses that talkpage to converse with us. Later, if he uses {{

helpme}} to indicate positive edits on some articles for a short period (I'd suggest a month) that do not indicate any potential arguments, I can live with unblocking him then (and only on the one account). From there, I would suggest he get a second account (publicize it) for his use on public computers (which would be blocked along with his main if abused even once), and if another user abuses on his computer, he's proven that his computer is compromised and not worth allowing. I think this would work towards a middle ground where editors aren't allowed back into article space but are allowed to be productive if they wish to be. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 09:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is with the epidemic of people trying to get sockmasters unbanned lately? Jtrainor (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I find this diff particularly disturbing; the phraseology, threats and general nature don't indicate a user who wants to participate constructively. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For a start, we are dealing with now, after IM on medication, and secondly, that account wasn't mine anyway. There were two main users originally, but we all got bundled together among with many others into one big list of sockpuppets of "me". Do a checkuser - I never even logged on to that account. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at the rest of the account contributions, I realize that account was mine. But anyway, as I said, that was left during the original series of events, and this whole thing is about unbanning me due to me now being treated for my disorder. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Motion to amend the ban and close

Per the above discussion, the evidence of continued disruptive behaviour on Simple and this evasion of his ban after being told again not to I propose the following amendment to the ban:

Though community banned, Iamandrewrice and friends must appeal the ban directly to ArbCom.

I don't see the need for any paper work here. The evidence speaks for itself and this was the very very last chance for an appeal. This effectively makes this a community imposed ArbCom ban. I know he will retaliate but we will just need to deal with that and there is still the possibility of informing his ISP.

talk

) 15:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?? I was told to go to my user page to talk, by Ricky81682 above, so i havn't done anything wrong. I am NOT a pedophile. And I am not the one behind those accounts on simple, as Eptalon originally stated. The girl behind them is Natasha Supple Turnham, the sister of User:IuseRosary on Simple Wikipedia. I have not done anything I was not instructed to do. (I am editing here now however, in response to what you just said, since you seem to be jumping to conclusions). 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit here. Why the hell is that so hard to understand. You are 16 - don't you have anything better to do than this?

talk

) 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just did what I was told to do! And you reverted it! Why??

Oh, hang on, let me get this straight, I'm 16, but I'm a pedophile. Hmmm... yeah, sounds just about right. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did. I was then told to go to the talk page of Iamandrewrice and talk to you from there, which I did. EconomicsGuy then goes and reverts what I did there, and tells me I have not done as asked, and the ban should now not be lifted. I don't understand. I just did what I was asked to do. And can you make up your mind. This is currently the 5th time you have switched your views on my unbanning. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did... Double take. Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did... Boggle. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ow, yeah, you were told to stop posting on the AN, so you did... Yet we see this post. Eh? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the statement is perfectly correct, as it is in the past tense. Rather than trying to pick me up (incorrectly) on my grammar, it might be more useful if you read the meaning of the discussion, which is that I was told to go do write something (at the talk page of Iamandrewrice), and when I did, I was told off for it. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are still banned. You have no standing to post here. You know that, you articulate your knowledge of that, yet you still post here and expect any other result than a continuance of your siteban? Strong support for continued siteban. Good grief. Next time, hang out for six months without socking and present your case at your own user talk page. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have already said, I did stop posting here, and I went to my old talk page (which is allowed, remember) as instructed by another user. At this point (even though I was doing nothing wrong), another user then told me off for going and writing something on my old talk page, even though I was supposed to, as instructed by another admin. Anyway, that is when I came back here. If that was not allowed, then perhaps the admins should have decided amongst themselves whether they wanted me to write on that page or not.

I have been accused of being a pedophile, even though I am 16

I have been accused of making hundreds of sockpuppets at Simple Wikipedia, even though the checkuser showed they were nothing to do with me

I have been told off for going and doing something another admin told me to do.

I'm sorry, but I'm certainly not doing anything unreasonable here. If you don't want me to post on the AN, fine, but at least tell me one thing, not a multitude of different things from different admins who tell me off for doing what the other one told me to do. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite ban, such as the one you have been given, means you, as a human being, are not allowed to post on EN:WP ever again. So if you really want to appeal, do it via email to the Arbcom. George The Dragon (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I stopped. As I have already said, I then went to my old talk page (as I was both instructed and allowed to do), and did what I was asked to.

So far, no one has commented on what Ricky81682 said. What he suggested seems like a workable suggestion, and it allows you to ensure I'm not a harm to the community at any time

89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't stopped, and each time you continue to post here in violation of that ban, and in full knowledge that you aren't supposed to post here, makes that grave you're digging for yourself a little deeper. Take some serious advice: quit while you're behind. Durova^Charge! 17:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've spent some time examining and re-reading the checkuser evidence, both from our own wiki and from seWP (thanks, Creol) and have to say that I am strongly opposed to unbanning at this time. Given that he's been socking up to three weeks ago and given his behaviour over on sewiki, unbanning would definitely not be in the interests of this project - Alison ^❤ 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That was a constructive account, and anyway, it brings nothing new to the table than we already have - everyone already knew about that account.

And anyway, if there was a time limit on my ban, and it was reset everytime I sockpuppeted, there would actually be some inspiration for me not to make any other accounts, but the way it is, I'm "indefinitely banned", meaning that people are in effect saying I am never allowed back anyway, so you're saying that my only means of ever editing is through sockpuppets. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm deeply opposed to all bans for reasons I've stated repeatedly at other places, this conversation has go on way too effing long. Here's what you do, 1 go get a new account, 2 refrain from editing any of the same pages or topics you used to edit, 3 change your behavior to prevent any suspicion. 4 rise in prominence and notability from within. 5 hatch an evil scheme of revenge, and finally either 6a build some super useful bot that wikipedia 'can not live without' and proceed to act like a dick under diplomatic immunity (known here as the betacommand rule) or 6b keep your agenda secret slowly changing the pedia to shape your will. Why I remember one such user, but perhaps I shouldn't go there... --

talk

18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's how I handle this: as of now you get my standard offer--refrain from evading the ban for six months (plus a couple of other obvious things: please don't bash Wikipedia offsite and please promise to refrain from the behavior that led to your ban in the first place). If you do those things then six months from today I will support your return. There's a twist, though: from this moment forward until your legitimate return, each post you make in violation your siteban adds one week to the time frame. So if you respond to this post, that's six months plus one week from the moment you respond. You could add a seventh month just by posting four more times. And if you waited four weeks and posted once more, that would reset the clock to seven months plus one week from the date of that post. This is why we call the block indefinite: it could end whenever the community believes that you can adapt to site standards, but as you demonstrate otherwise the duration lengthens of its own accord. I express this numerically because it's easy to communicate, but a lot of people go by a similar basic rationale. Durova^Charge! 18:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like "unban me or I'll sock anyway". And from what I can see, you're still socking right now on sewiki, and using the "sister/brother vandal" excuse. *sigh* - Alison ^❤ 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the user PetraSchelm on SE Wikipedia was an impersonator of en:User:PetraSchelm. This was the user that was claiming that Iamandrewrice/Benniguy was creating pro-paedophilia accounts. I don't believe there was any connection between him and the pro-paedophilia accounts. Archer7 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support the proposal re ArbCom appeal per Alison. How much more time do we need to waste on this? --Rodhullandemu 18:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support and I resent the fact that my proposal at to how this user should conduct themself has become an excuse to post here that they will no longer be posting here. Again, use your talkpage, {{
  helpme}} and go to Arbcom. -- Ricky81682 (talk
  ) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support If this is the evidence of someone who is in control of their condition... plus, there are Featured Articles with a smaller word count than this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I'm a user on Simple and have seen the damage and then never-ending stress and wasted time brought about by his sockpuppets. This debate needs to come to an end. FusionMix 11:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It's Benniguy. I know I'm not allowed to edit, but I find this very important. I would like to look into the Right to vanish. The reason for this, is that I have not only been receiving several abusive emails regarding my disorder, I have also received a phonecall yesterday (well, my dad did), in which someone said that I had been "abusing profiles on the net", and that they would "go to the police". I find this a very serious, and disturbing matter now. I know that for me editing here again, my ban will be reset with another week added on, but I think that this neeeds to be brought up. I know it is not usual practise for a banned user to activate the right to vanish, but I think this is an extreme circumstance, which has now moved onto off-wikipedia harrassment, and is involving my family and home, which is not acceptable. In addition to this, it is unnacceptable that people are receiving my personal details, such as phone number, in order to do this.

Please note, the user who telephoned my house has obviously broken a privacy policy, and as according to [here], should immediately be banned. My parents are considering contacting the police about the issue, as they consider it harrassment. Additionarlly, since I have not caused a "disruption" in that sense of the term on wikipedia for several months, the claims the person is making are incorrect anyway. My father reports to me that the voice who spoke on the phone was a middle-aged male, with a "rough" English accent. The first possible user that springs to mind on this matter is <user name redacted. Gross personal attack> who lives in England, right near my town, and is male, and who used to persistantly view my myspace page, meaning they would have access to lots of information about me, and took a strong dislike to me. Obviously, I do not know for definite who it is, and I could be completely wrong, but please remember that whoever the user is, they have committed a serious offence here.

I have also received a third email today, which mentions both my sexual orientation and wikipedia - someone is obviously giving out my email address. I think that activating the right to vanish may be a possible solution to all of this, and I strongly hope others will consider it for my sake, as even I, as a banned user, still require some kind of protection in a case like this, surely?

Again, I appologize for already breaking my ban, but as I said, this is quite a serious issue, and I did not know where else to go. 78.146.171.173 (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the hundreds of sockpuppets and personal attacks on SEWP committed recently not disrupting Wikipedia for "several months". --Gwib (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• Post-close comment here, to anon editor in particular and others in general. If you are being stalked and harassed off-wiki and you are getting phone calls and threats, then Wikipedia is not the place to report this in the hope of obtaining justice; the local police department is. Personally, I've found that to be quite effective, and recommend you do the same. Making vague accusations on-wiki is unproductive in the extreme and may actually work against you, so don't do it - Alison ^❤ 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Don't jump to conclusions about who the calls/e-mails are coming from either. --Gwib (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! - Alison ^❤ 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page blocked

Resolved

It says my talk page i protected to prevent me making disruptive edits. Can an admin undo this now I'm not blocked kthxbai.193.120.116.177 (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nipped this one before it spiralled out of control again. seicer | talk | contribs 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Zap these please!

Resolved

 – Zapped. Other admins merely delete the main page - I deleted the entire globe... several times over. <evil laugh/>

Bencherlite^Talk

23:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've marked for speedy deletion some images that I uploaded that I discovered violate copyrights.

They are listed at Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion

They've been up there for quite awhile, and it appears other items are getting deleted while these are being avoided for some reason.

Would someone mind zapping them please?

The Transhumanist 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

All killed by

Anthøny

23:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin input needed to close discussion.

Resolved

_TalkIslander 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin, have a look at

Template_talk:Infobox_Television#Proposal:_Flags_should_no_longer_be_used_in_Television_Infoboxes.2C_per_WP:FLAG please Gnevin (talk

) 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand: we need an admin to close this discussion and determin consensus - said admin should, if possible, be completely uninvolved in both

Wikiproject Television and related matters, and the MoS Flag Guidlines. Thanks in advance. _TalkIslander

12:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratification vote on {{C-Class}} started

Hi. The ratification vote to add {{

here

, where we ask for your comment.

On behalf of the

cool stuff

) 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Image:Ac.delphi1.jpg

Hi! I'm a sysop from Commons. This picture was first uploaded here, then transferred on Commons and deleted here. The author seems to be User:Adam Carr. Can one of you please check the original description? Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Original description (Adam Carr, April 15, 2004): completely blank. Quadell tagged it as {{GFDL}} January 26, 2005, with no explanation of what connection he might have to Carr and/or the photographer: the edit summary was merely "tagged". Finally on 21 September 2005 JesseW added a quote from Carr: "taken by me but never added to the Delphi article, which i was going to rewrite but never got round to it." (with this diff as evidence it was said by Carr). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to contact Adam directly to check the license. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely recall Quadell's 2005 image tagging activities, and the 'problem' of Adam Carr. In short, Adam did not buy into the need to tag images, and got quite testy with repeated requests made to him to tag his images. IIRC, he issued a blanket proclamation that any of his self-made photos were GFDL, hence Quadell's tagging. (However I don't have a diff supporting this assertion). Maybe he's calmed down by now; good luck with contacting him. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp account?

See here. Is that GRAWP? He just posted something big on the unblock template, it didn't crash my browser or anything but wouldn't recommend checking the diffs.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

09:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Grawp, but a Grawp-a-like, a wannabe :) One other account, already blocked now - Alison ^❤ 09:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A Grawp Groupie? Fab. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Charming

talk

) 10:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah it happened with WOW it is to be expected.Geni 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shamsheer abbas

Resolved

Shamsheer abbas (talk · contribs) The above user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images, despite warnings. I have issued them with a last warning, but there are a large number of (blatantly stolen) images awaiting deletion, as seen here. Could an admin with a few minutes please go through these, and keep an eye on the user for a little while (as his last upload was only minutes ago). I would do it myself, but I have to leave for a couple of hours now, and I would like someone else to make sure I've not made a mistake here. I have notified the user of this thread. J Milburn (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to speedy his entire contribution list to the image namespace. But would welcome other suggestions.

talk

) 13:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur that speedying all would be the best way to proceed. We should have limited patience with users who will not cooperate on this most basic of levels. We need copyvios much less than we need cleared images, if you see what I mean. The risk of a false positive speedy is less than a failure to remove a copyvio. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(My real-world commitment resolved itself quicker than expected.) Ok, thanks for the input, that was what I thought. I'll get deleting now. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted all of them, but now I have come across Shamsheer naqvi 14 (talk · contribs), an editor working on similar subjects. Though they have uploaded far fewer images, they all appear to be copyvios. I will delete them now. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All deleted and warned. Ok, I'm calling this resolved. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR should be changed

Please note before I continue. I do not disagree with or am complaing about this block. The block was fine but i think something regarding 3rr needs changing, i just used this block as an example.

OK, ive noticed this a lot recently. People think that as long as the dont actually go over the 3RR limit they have done nothing wrong, an example is this very fair block,Seen here. I submit that the title 3RR is very misleading and many new editers believe its arbitary and are therefore not breaking a rule (or so they believe). I suggest that the title should be simply called "Edit War", the 3RR idea is completely misleading to newbies. Do we honestly expect them to be able to find and understand the policy before they get blocked? They usually only read it after they've been blocked, hoping somehow to disprove an admin. I know how conservative wikipedia is regarding policy change but this is due a change. The title should reflect the crime. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It has.

Disruptively Editing is what blocks should be issued for, if 3 reverts hasn't been reached. SirFozzie (talk

) 04:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It just seems like a policy to catch anything 3RR doesnt cover, still 3RR needs changing, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree.

WP:3RR should be any different. --jonny-mt

04:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The title lacks clarity and is misleading, thats my concern. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that blocks have been made for 3RR when the user has violated the spirit of the law rather than the letter, it's still the most descriptive term we have for it. More to the point, if your argument is with the title rather than its use, it seems that this could be better taken up on

WT:3RR.... --jonny-mt

05:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the change. The three revert rule is pretty much what it says on the tin- you're allowed to make only three reverts. Perhaps it could be made clear that that policy is not the be-all and end-all of edit warring, but I think people realise that if they're edit warring and refusing to stop, they're going to find themselves blocked eventually, whether they make three reverts or not. In any case, this discussion would be better on the village pump or the 3RR talk page, as it does not require immediate admin attention. J Milburn (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that

Wikipedia:Edit war is also a policy; there was at one point a merge proposal, but I believe it was turned down amidst fears a merger would "de-tooth" one of the few no-nonsense policies we've managed to put together. – Luna Santin (talk

) 09:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it would be a bad idea for use to word things to emphasise that you can be blocked even if you do not go over the count of 3. Too many people are, unfortunately, reading that very literally. the policy makes it very clear that is is not a license, but it would help decrease the wikilawyering around here if it were made much clearer. Very much clearer. As it, it seems to encourage playing games with the limit. DGG (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR already says that it's not a right to 3 reverts, it's an electric fence. Perhaps if that wording were made much clearer - I think the "not an entitlement" section should mention the electric fence line, and maybe make it clearer that there are other reasons you can be blocked even if you never cross the 3R line. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!

) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the {{uw-3rr}} warning template clearly states that editors can be blocked for edit-warring even if they don't exceed 3RR. In my experience, people who spend a lot of time arguing that they made 2.5 reverts instead of 3 are usually exactly the ones who Don't Get It, who will continue to edit-war after the block expires, who will game the system by reverting 4 times in 25 hours, and so forth. I sometimes try to leave a clear indication, along with {{uw-3rr}}, that editors can be blocked for edit-warring even if they don't violate the letter of 3RR. It's also useful to emphasize that 3RR applies to any reverts on a page, not just reverting the same material 3 times - I think this is a much bigger point of confusion for many editors who get caught violating it. MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure no one objects

I was going to add

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain to ClueBot's AngryOptin list, but I just wanted to make sure no one thinks it will be a problem. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze

01:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, don't know why I asked to do that, I guess it's because it's past my beddy-bye time. Cya tommorrow, and sorry for messing with all your watchlists... J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing Cluebot can't identify POV edits at those articles, else we'd have nothing to do. Fully support all three additions. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep a close eye on User:Lemmey

A note was posted at

talk

22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this area, but I'm fairly sure you're misinterpreting the policy - the setting the context simply refers to the introduction to a piece. For example, on yesterday's entry the context being set for the opening of the first entry is

• 2008 Sichuan earthquake:

Just that. Nothing to do with the context in the sentence. The policy states nothing about removing wikilinks in the text on the subject, regardless of whether they're on the context or not. The wikilinks are fine being included.

talk | contribs

) 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yesterdays entry is fine, I'm talking about links on todays crane collapse and Kentucky murder stories that had links to

talk

01:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point -- I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood what the context is in the policy. It's not talking about the context of the sentence, it's talking about the context of the entry -- as it calls it, the context string -- which is the introduction to each individual piece. Not all of them have it. On the example the policy page gives, it's this bit:

• Saskatchewan general election, 2003
  : The NDP government of Lorne Calvert is returned to power with a majority government.

It has nothing to do with the context of the sentence itself.

talk | contribs

) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, I followed it. Either address the edits I made or don't but please refrain from repeating yourself when your not exactly saying anything at all. You're just giving me non relevant examples of the introduction. I'm not talking about the introduction, I'm talking about the rest of the sentence. Current Events is over linked and as a result of the ITN trail it acts as a sole nesting bed for ITN candidates. Events may only exist for a short while before posing to the main page, with little or no review from other users. As such the links in current events will be links posted on the main page. There is no reason for the article

talk

01:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I addressed the edits in my first response: the links should be included, according to the policy you're citing, but I'm not going to revert as I don't want to involve myself in what is a borderline edit war and is based on a poorly-worded piece of policy. I agree that convenience store is too trivial to need mentioning, but a link to location is entirely relevent.

The policy states:

• It is customary, if possible, to indicate the context for a story at the start of the line.

It does not mention anything about removing wikilinks in the blurb for the story.

I can't explain it any better than I have in the previous two replies, but I'm certain you've misunderstood the point the policy is making... Could someone more eloquent than me try and explain the point I'm trying to make?

talk | contribs

) 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Lemmey blocked

I have blocked Lemmey (talk · contribs) for one week given a pattern (with history, first edit was February, blocked almost 48 hours later) of very uncivil, editwar-like, pointy (very pointy...and just to prove a point), offensive, disruptive, offtopic, pointless and POV comments across the board. Having been warned several occasions (by more than one user, and on 3RR), it is clear that he is not willing to tone down his behavior and act civilly with other editors. I am open to comment on this block.

I have specifically not blocked LemmeyBOT (talk · contribs), as it has been doing good work in and of itself as far as I can tell. As long as the bot's edits remain bot-related only, I am planning to leave this unblocked.

Finally, I also open the discussion of a topic ban for this user. His primary point of conflict seems to be around the ITN entries. Given his heated statements and oftentimes offensive comments, I believe a 3-6 month enforced break from ITN might help him calm down.^

^{[omg plz]}

 21:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection for the execution of the block, although I am uncertain what 7 days will achieve that 3 wouldn't, given the diffs provided. I would suggest, however, that the discussion regarding a topic ban should be held until the effect of this block is known. If the block provides the impetus for Lemmey to generally re-appraise their relationship to WP positively then the topic ban might be superfluous (and its existence when the block expires counter productive). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And now for something from the clear blue... Lemmey is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, and continues to abuse multiple accounts. I've known this for some time, but intentionally neglected to bring it to light because of the good work they've been doing, but it appears that Lemmey's been sliding back into disruption. Lemmey is a pretty transparent reincarnation of

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I indefinitely blocked in February for running a vandalbot against a new user, who apparently became so shellshocked that they've rarely edited since. Immediately, he came back with several disruptive sockpuppets, which earned a lockdown of their user talk page. I first noticed Lemmey, who started editing as soon as Mitrebox's unblocks got declined, when they began inserting themselves into conversations about me in a snide manner and referencing Mitrebox's block; they also edit the same topics (cf. the results of Betacommand's tool). Here's the ace though: Lemmey's IP address is 68.209.2.187 - this is not particularly private as he logs on to Wikimedia IRC channels without a hostmask - and he's used it in the past to evade blocks and is still logging out to avoid scrutiny of their main account(s) with edits such as these. (Apologies for the dense run-on comment, but I need sleep. :]) east.718 at 23:29, May 31, 2008

Vandal bot you say? And why is Lemmey Bot not blocked? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well... support upping block to indef, per East718's evidence. Kudos also to East for staying quiet about Lemmey's past while they were contributing positively; as this account did eventually slip into old habits I would suggest, however, that the next sock is tagged before it gets the opportunity to go sour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose. OTOH, it would have been more above board to have the original MitreBox account request an unblock instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above info, I would endorse an indefinite block. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• About bloody time, endorse current block, care not about indefinite block, do it if the evidence is there, but either way, it'll be nice to not have his stench steaming up WT:ITN for a while. (OMG COMMAS) But also, additional kudos to east718; redemption is available for all, and there's no reason to bump a good editor simply because they used to be a bad editor on another account. But, if they then become a bad editor, it just bodes the worse for them and lessens future chances. I suggest that, if the link is proven, that any future accounts be exposed immediately. --Golbez (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

While I frequently get sick of Lemmey's comments, i feel that what you've said here isn't really fair. As a "regular" at ITN, I disagree with him more often than not, but despite his acerbic and sarcastic commentary, he does help get stuff done, if you avoid taking his bait. Since he apparently does good work in other areas as well, I would suggest a mid-length topic ban from ITN instead of a full block. As long as his behaviour this time around is ok, I don't see the relevance of his previous actions. Random89 06:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was the rest of the community's duty to avoid taking the bait; I thought it was the individual's responsibility not to dangle it. Furthermore, the evidence is far more than simple acerbic editing; responding to a civil statement with "You might want to avoid gay people in California. They might compliment on your 'perrty mouth'" is good grounds for a civility block. --Golbez (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I too don't agree with a full block. He does help get things done. I cannot speak for any other page, but he is one of ITN's best contributors. I think what good he does outweighs the bad. A small topic-ban on ITN would be sufficient, as that seems to be where he gets into trouble. --PlasmaTwa2 06:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to endorse the view that Lemmey is more of a positive influence than a negative one. I strongly disagree with his more caustic comments, but most of what he says is harmless comic relief. When he crosses the line there are more than enough reasonable people to put him back in step with the rules for him to cause too much trouble. I can't speak to his other contributions or the socking allegations, but for what I've known of him he is a mostly harmless contributor to ITN/C that keeps things lively and helps make positive contributions when he gets around to them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the two previous posts. From my observation over the past week and half of the ITN trial format, I'm observed Lemney habitually veering into gratuitous personal digs, which some other users find funny. He may do much of the work over at ITN, but that appears to be largely a result of the fact that a miniscule amount of productive activity is going on at ITN, which in my opinion is the result that nobody wants to hang around and be insulted continuously. In my experience, the recent atmosphere at ITN and its subpages is the most poisonous I've seen since before the Reference Desk was cleaned up. Lemney is certainly not the only one contributing to that, but he a major and perhaps key component. It's hard to claim a single case unarguably qualifying under NPA, but I would prefer to not to drag this all the way through dispute resolution given the background. I had recently considered trying to arrange a consensus ban but, now that I'm aware of the background, I feel no qualms about pulling the trigger unilaterally. If anyone is interested in keeping him from being blocked for extended periods (assuming that the decision isn't for an indefinite block), a topic ban may be in order. - BanyanTree 00:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about whether this account has been good or not. You are not supposed to have

good hands, bad hands accounts, which is what might be happening here. If he wanted to be allowed to edit, he should have asked and gotten permission. If not, a one-second block indicating his prior history should have been noted. Nobody would have allowed him to have a bot if he had been running a vandalbot in the past until a sufficient time had passed. It may be fine now but this is not the way we should proceed. The most important thing here is that everyone is informed, above all. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot

I don't know if the operator could use it or not while blocked but I didn't want to take the chance. I also have no idea what now happens to the bot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea.

H₂O

) 07:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayup. Keegan^talk 07:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good block. I am also concerned, about the previously having run a vandalbot, and, presently being flagged so that it's contribs are hidden from recentchanges. However, the bot's edits thusfar have been normal and good. I suppose my concerns are, "If he's going back to his old ways on his main account, will this happen with the bot too?". This is compounded by the fact that the bot's edits are presently hidden from the RC. SQL^{Query me!} 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we should take away the bot flag... no harm in keeping it since it's blocked, but at the same time it's not doing any good (and he could abuse it by flooding his talk page, I guess...).

H₂O

) 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the block says indef, I presume it will be unblocked when the main account is. The bot was doing something useful; we should support users trying to turn around and make positive contributions. There is one issue I see with its operation that might need correcting. If there are other concerns, the task doesn't need to run fast and it could run without the bot flag so everyone can see what it's doing. Gimmetrow 01:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I couldn't know the conclusion of the Lemmey situation I indef'd while it was being resolved. If the operator is unblocked, with bot privileges intact, then they should request unblocking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Sarah777?

Relevant discussion at

→ 619 in Ireland → Can someone block Sarah777?

User:Sarah777 was blocked indefinitely for disruption (reverting a series of page merges which resulted from an AFD discussion). Following this, a series of discussions have taken place on her talk page, to find a remedy that would be acceptable to all parties and allow Sarah777 to edit again. The user has now accepted that there was a good reason for the block, and agreed not to continue with the disruptive behaviour she was blocked for. With that in mind, I suggest we unblock her.

Normally, of course, this conversation would take place on the talk page of the blocking admin (SirFozzie) but since there was a fair amount of discussion at

WP:AN/I about this issue, I thought it would be better to bring this suggestion to everyone's attention. (I will of course notify SirFozzie of this thread). Waggers (talk

) 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to endorse this, on the caveat of no more drama, please? :) Sarah has recognized her previous behavior was... less then stellar (I think she called it bolshie behavior on her page). So lesson learned, she has also stated that she was going to leave off editing the "(Year) In Ireland" articles, that caused this block, although I would definitely like to get her thoughts in an RfC on the whole thing down the road (articles on individual years, or if it would be better served to have them in decade long articles or century long articles.) So definitely, endorse an unblock with the caveats above, and hope that the community will give her another chance. SirFozzie (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was initially in favour of mentorship for Sarah, but as the thread progressed (with her continuing to argue the problems are with anyone but herself) I change3d completely to be in favour of a block. I'm all for redemption and forgiveness, but this is just too soon to even consider an unblock under any restrictions. My advice to Sarah would be to wait a while, have a think about her actions and then consider asking again in 3 months time. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I understand her reason for refusing to use the request-unblock template. I'm not gonna say yay or nay on this, because I am unsure, but is the community still OK with her not admitting what she did was edit warring? reviewing it, I'm not that nitpicky. She is de facto admitting to it. Reading everything on her talk, it seems like the only committment she is really making is that she won't be involved with those specific year articles. I thought we were looking for more than that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

She also said that she'd abide by

assume good faith, at least now), she seems to be saying that she will not disrupt, even if she doesn't agree. We can't necessarily change what people think, and agreeing to not be disruptive seems like all we can ask for. -- Natalya

12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't she use the unblock template at her page? Wouldn't that be simplier? GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

She actually gives the reason that it will invite continued scrutiny of her that of course she is unable to defend because of being blocked. Thinking about that more, and giving the nature and scope of this block, that's actually not an untrue statement (despite saying above myself that I didnt understand it). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah should make the request though. It would be like asking for forgiveness & acknowledging mistakes. By other editors unblocking her (without her request)? it would be like other editors are admiting making a mistake. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be rubbing salt in the wound.

WP:BLOCK doesn't require that an unblock request is made before a user is unblocked. Sarah777 has already admitted that she was edit warring and that this was "bolshie behaviour", which I think is as close to "I made a mistake, please forgive me" as we're going to get. Waggers (talk

) 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to stop wasting time on this. Bad editors can't generally be reformed. Yet, we never seem to run out of editors who want to be that miracle worker who reforms them. She's already adequately demonstrated that she has a temperament which is incompatible with a collaborative project. Time to let this one go, folks. Friday (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I support unblocking Sarah. PS- she can call me an Anglo-American Nationalist anytime she wants (it doesn't bug me; actually humours me). PS- Although, that's not why she was blocked. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs provided in

WP:BRD - one revert - would have been better, that's not typically indefinite block-worthy either, not on its own, and not in combination with the non-incivility and non-attacks. I would be happy enough to see Sarah777 unblocked. Angus McLellan (Talk)

15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, you don't have to answer. Have any of the admins or others taking part in the fate of Sarah777 ever been blocked? Jack forbes (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Some have, some haven't. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 14:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope those like Friday and any others who want to throw Sarah to the wolves are not one of those who have! Would'nt want to check their history and have to tell them they are not really reformed and it's "time to let this one go folks". Jack forbes (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As somebody with a lot of sympathy for Sarah's predicament I would suggest letting her ask for an unblock in her own time. A premature unblock would potentially be disastrous. When the time comes, I will support an unblock. I don't think that time has come yet. --John (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to see some more explicit concern for Wikipedia rather simply that individual acts were wrong. "I won't mass revert or remove AfD tags" isn't the same as "I understand and respect the rules and processes of the Wikipedia community". Sarah is much smarter than to not understand the difference between deletion and merging, or between vandalism and a content dispute, and yet she has consistently taken positions in this situation that indicate she doesn't. I'd like to see a solid commitment to thoroughly familiarising herself and complying with Wikipedia rules and standards. I'm also still a little disturbed by this comment. I won't oppose an unblock, but I think the community should demand impeccable behavior from her and not just focused apologies. - Revolving Bugbear 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Has she pledged to stop the personal attacks and the claims of pro-British POV in every article she edits? Corvus cornix_talk 16:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone is showing quite obvious signs of pro-British POV then surely it is far too restrictive to tell her not to mention it, whilst people like myself are accused of pro-nationalist POV! Seems to me it's fine to have her back with the provisio that she wears a straitjacket. Jack forbes (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that this short time after an indef-block is far too soon to be seriously considering reversing it, given Sarah's absurd insistence of a conspiracy, digging herself into a deeper hole during the last discussion, and asking what policy prohibits the deletion of AfD-tags. I strongly oppose any unblock at this stage unless it's to set an expiry time, minimum 3 months. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. This one was indefinite to stop Sarah just waiting it out, and instead to ensure she addresses the reason for the block. If she has done that, and it appears she has, there is no good reason to maintain it. Sarah has given her word to be civil, which I think we should accept it. The only concern I have is that what Sarah considers civil may not exactly equate to what the community expectation is. If that is the case, Sarah should be aware, now, of what the consequences would be. In short, I support an unblock, but would prefer there to be some discretely stated conditions with specific consequences for violation, rather than a general be nice or else... unblocking. Rockpocket 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the unblock, followed by an immediate discussion on the articles in question. I think Sarah777 might have achieved better results by being a little more restrained, but I also believe those who connected the AfD decision (one article) to a consensus on "let's roll up all the articles" decision (many many articles) as flawed and incorrect procedurally. As such, Sarah777 was only as guilty as the admins incorrectly interpreting that she was in breach of the AfD ruling, which she was not. Reverting so many articles, by itself, was an act of frustration, and I am still incredulous at this behaviour meriting of an indefinite block. --

talk

) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on this discussion with Sarah777,[21] I do not support an unblock at this time. Her view of what is and isn't civil, does not seem in accordance with the rest of the community. --Elonka 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself new to all this, and I honestly can't believe some of these discussions, it reads like a courtmartial. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Jack forbes (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That is generally an issue between the State and individuals, and does not apply in a private context, which is where we are, and is therefore governed by the rules and conventions of the community. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</lawyer>

Don't see the point of opening this discussion in this manner. Besides the moral supports who as is normal turn up at these places for their friends, there was a rough "consensus" that Sarah should only be unblocked after some time and only with some restrictions. So, what restrictions are envisaged? Since the argument that restrictions aren't necessary hasn't really been made, if this is a widely held view, I would like to know what evidence is there that restrictions are no longer necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As a completely outside view, I agrew with Deacon here. Nothing has been presented to warrant an unblock. The editor in question is contentious, biased, and unwilling to change. Support indef block/ban of Sarah777. We've got much better things to do as editors than babysit this particular POV warrior. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are we still continuing the drama of Sarah777 with a third thread? There was strong consensus for a block, and all attempts at reform have failed. Sarah refuses to abide by the ArbCom ruling, refuses any sort of mentorship -- even though two administrators stepped up to the plate to help her, has not acknolwedged her faults -- although she said she would stay away from the xxx in Ireland articles, which does nothing to solve the root issue. I'm all for kiss-and-make up, but it's just too soon, and her lack of willingness to reform is point enough that the block should remain. seicer | talk | contribs 02:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't help but agree; I normally steer clear of participating in such dramas, but that doesn't mean I'm not aware of what's going on, and this vague commitment to improve doesn't convince me. I think sometimes we waste far too much time on contentious editors who are good in small ways but overall cause so much disruption that on balance their presence is not constructive. Nobody is irreplaceable in the long term, and we shouldn't be blinded by superficialities. The content could easily be provided by an less argumentative editor with more regard for policy and cooperation. End of. </rant> --Rodhullandemu 02:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I swear Rodhullandemu, in some of your posts it is like you're reading my mind. This certainly isn't the first occasion. To the matter at hand, I in summary agree with the last half dozen posts. I don't participate much these days because of work, but I'm still reading and have been following this as an uninvolved third party. The block should remain until their will be no further disruption. Sarah continues to insist that her articles (with continued sarcastic reference to WP:OWN) were deleted without her permission, when instead the whole bundle was merged into a cohesive collection. Additionally, she says that she doesn't consent to the arbitration decision. Well, that's not what arbitration is about. In legal terms (which we actually follow here quite well), arbitration is when there cannot be an agreed compromise through negotiations or mediation and a decision is required. Arbitration decisions are binding and are not subject to consent. Unblock when Sarah learns about collaboration. Keegan^talk 05:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the consensus seems to be against an unblock for now; thanks everyone for your input and sorry to those of you who feel I was wrong to bring this up again. What would be helpful is if we could agree under what circumstances (if any) she can be unblocked. Now might be too soon and there might be agreement for an unblock subject to certain conditions, but how long is long enough? What conditions? Or does this need to be an ArbCom decision? Waggers (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have become worried that over the last few months this page is becoming a

star chamber

and the above does not diminish my concerns. The emphasis should not be if there is a consensus to take the block off but if there is a consensus to continue with an indefinite block. I do not think that there is.

In the longer term there needs to be a formal system in place to deal with issues like this, preferably -- as

devils advocate

on this page. -- but this is another issue for another time.

However in this case of

talk

) 09:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't want to overstate my case, because my experiences with Sarah are somewhat limited. However, my experiences with her have led me to the view that she is not here to help create a credible encyclopedia but rather to peddle her own simplistic black hat/white hat view of Anglo-Irish history. She appears to me to be very much in the "nationalist zealot" mould, and highly unlikely to reform in my opinion.

I personally don't need to see her indef banned altogether, but indef banning her from Anglo-Irish pages is unlikely to do the project much harm. Possibly she can be allowed to edit in other areas, and on talk pages related to Anglo-Irish topics where she could make suggestions. If she can manage to behave herself under those restrictions for a sufficient period of time, then I suppose she might eventually be given another chance, but quite frankly I have my doubts that she can ever become a net contributor on the topic in question. There's just too much animus there. Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Maybe it's just me. I don't understand the logic of what's going on here, so with respect, this post is not intended to offend, or to hurt Sarah777's chances for unblocking, or to point a finger at a particular admin or editor. Someone above equated this with a legal process and that Wikipedia is good at this. I disagree. I'll try to keep this short, and my intention is to ask people to really think about the process being used here, and to be fair.

• Sarah777 was blocked for being disruptive because she reverted a number of edits to articles being merged. The blocking admin stated that a consensus had been reached to merge the articles, and therefore Sarah777 should not have merged.

• There was no such consensus tested or formed.

Even if there was, an AfD about a single article should not be used to form/test consensus affecting other articles as it does not give all the interested editors the opportunity to comment, never mind realize that their article might be affected by an AfD on a completely different article.

• The original admin, SirFozzie, has stated that he is happy to open an RfC to ensure that a consensus is tested and formed for the merge.
• The point is that, having retrospectively examined Sarah777's reversions and the AfD, there is a question over whether the block for disruptive behaviour was justified in the first place. In the interests of fairness, keep this in mind.

• Many editors and admins have commented that Sarah777 has breached
  ad hominen
  attacks.

• This has nothing to do with a blocking decision for reverting articles. Any complaints not related to the article reversions are separate, and should therefore be dealt with separately. There are processes and procedures available to deal with this. I would fully endorse the usual and normal process of placing warnings for
  WP:AGF
  on any editors Talk page to mark the fact of specific incidents. It too easy to be vague. There is also the process of RfC on an editors behaviour where the discussions held here would be more appropriate. But this is not the correct place, and Sarah's alleged policy breaches should not form part of this unblocking decision.
• I used the term alleged above because there are no warnings on her Talk page.... Some editors have provided diffs on occasion, but if they truly wanted to take action, the first step is to issue a warning. Some editors provided diffs on incidents where they weren't even involved. It is not fair to trawl through an editors comments and hand-pick some incidents spread over some time to paint a particular picture. In a legal setting, this would be thrown out. If you truly have a problem, then issue a warning or open an RfC. Be fair.

• Finally, some editors have stated that an unblock should only occur if Sarah777 agrees to certain terms and conditions.

• In my opinon, there should be no requirement to ask Sarah777 to be civil, or to not participate in
  ad hominen
  attacks. We already have a perfectly working set of procedures and processes for this. If she breaches policy, issue a warning. If she gets enough warnings for the same behaviour, ask an admin to review and block if necessary. If she continues with disruptive behaviour, she gets more warnings, and the blocks get longer. With respect, if admins and editors alike followed this process, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If that is in fact the correct process and procedure, then the one here is invalid and unfair.

• This process no longer appears to be about the appropriateness of the block, or the length of the block for the incident in question. Instead we are talking about attitude and incivility. But processes and procedures exist for a reason. In the absence of warnings on her Talk page, I do not accept handpicked comments as evidence of inappropriate behavior - nor should you as it is not fair.

Apologies - I hoped it would be shorter. --

talk

) 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read her ArbCom restrictions and discussions relating to that? Or her continued incivility? Or consensus (as previously found elsewhere) towards the merge, although it may not have been explicit? seicer | talk | contribs 13:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the ArbCom restrictions and discussions - are you saying this block is related? Ans if so, why wasn't it stated when the block was made? Or are you merely trying to justify this block? I've already made the points about the continued incivility - have you read the points above about the correct procedure to follow, why you shouldn't handpick specific incidents to retrospectively make the point especially if you're an uninvolved editor, and to ask why there are no warnings on her Talk page (even today) for alleged incivility. Finally, please point to where the concensus was formed for the merge - your point about is may not have been explicit is exactly my point too. There was no consensus....and therefore the block of Sarah777 should never have taken place! --

talk

) 13:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason people are, to some extent, talking across each other is because the proximate cause for Sarah's block was the reversion disruption. However, in what can kindly be described a remarkable misjudgment, she did this at the same time a discussion was ongoing about the weight of Sarah's incivility and politicizing. So while the former, immediate concern has largely been resolved, the latter underlying concern remains.

In addition, Bardcom, I would invite you to peruse the entire history of Sarah's talk page. There has been many, many warnings about incivility and disruptive behaviour (I have given a good many myself) on the lead up to her previous blocks. Instead of heeding them, though, Sarah sees them as an opportunity to debate the issue (which usually leads to an accusation that the admin involved is editing from a pro-Anglo-American agenda.) This I believe is the crux of the problem: despite all these warnings and short blocks, we don't seem to be making progress. So, while I don't support keeping Sarah blocked indefinitely, I do feel than any unblock needs to have defined boundaries, and defined restrictions for exceeding them. Because is Sarah is cut loose with a general "don't be uncivil" mandate, I guarantee you we will be back here again in weeks or months, and next time the odds of her being unblocked will be much longer. Rockpocket 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket, thank you for the response. I admit I haven't had time to peruse the entire history of Sarah's Talk page - there's a lot of it. But I'm looking at her current page (which more than spans this period in question, and more besides) and I can't find a single warning, etc. Can I be cheeky and ask for a diff?  :-) --

talk

) 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to be cheeky right back, but take a look at her block history:

• "Attempting to harass other users: Derogatory comments after extensive warnings" (28 Feb 08)
• "Gross incivility" (23 Feb 08)
• "Attempting to harass other users: Multiple violations of civility on User Talk:Alison and User talk:Ioeth" (25 Jan 08)
• "Disruption: 3RR; POV pushing; tendentious editing" (22 Dec 07)

That seems to me like it ought to be a sufficient warning. - Revolving Bugbear 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the time to go through the history and document them at the moment, Bardom, but I can do that later if you like. Having a look at the current pages a few things jump out at me, though:

• Camillus: Hi - I can understand your reaction to the anon remark, but please try not to bring in the old Rangers/Celtic stuff into the debate...Just a friendly word, which you can heed or not, as you see fit :)
• Sarah:I've zero interest in either Celtic or Rangers; just the irony of the demonisation of Zenit by the British media...

• Deacon of Pndapetzim: Sarah, I sympathize with the fact you are frustrated with certain elements of wikipedia. I in the past have had similar frustrations. But English football's small problem with racism and the bigger Hiberno-Scottish problem with sectarianism have absolutely no bearing on Zenit
• Sarah: If certain people conditioned by a lifetime of living the Anglo-American paradigm choose to interpret elimination of British pov as anti-Britishness rather than anti-pov and support for WP:NPOV then all I can do is try to educate them...Your downplaying of British racism signals to me that you are not really able to adopt a neutral position in this case

• John:Why would you add an old AfD tag to an article rather than to its talk page, and why would you mention vandalism in the summary? Let me know if you need any help or advice; I'd hate to see you getting blocked for incivility again, but it definitely looks like you're heading in that direction. Please take this as a friendly comment rather than a threat.
• Sarah I refuse to treat each article in isolation when they are linked to the same British/Irish dispute with much the same British pov-pushers pushers of British pov involved in each case.

• John: Sarah, please stop digging yourself deeper at AN/I. At least consider that you may be wrong. If nothing else, just step away from the computer for a few minutes. Note that I have never blocked you and have no plans to. But if you continue to flout policy like this, it's likely that someone else will.
• Myself: Arguing the toss is not going to get you anywhere except blocked, and then restricted from pages that you would rather not be restricted from.
• Lar: So don't do that again or you may well be blocked to prevent disruption to the project. Walk away, find another way to contribute.

These were all in the days leading up to her block. These are warnings. They many not be stop or I will block warnings (and that is because experienced admins are generally aware when those sort of blunt statements are counter-productive), but they nevertheless advise Sarah to stop editing in a problematic manner. Her response, in general, does not address her contribution to the specific incident at all, but instead turns it into a British POV issue. Rockpocket 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi RocketPockEt, sincere thanks for going to all that trouble. The block history shows that Sarah777 avoided a block from 28th Feb until this most recent incident. Not bad, considering the number of edits Sarah777 made during that period (irony). But it's the warnings I'm most interested in. You state that the blunt "stop or I will block" warnings can be counter-productive - but how else can an editor know or realize that they've been warned?? Advising someone to behave differently is not the same as warning someone to behave differently. The examples you picked have lots of great examples of behaviour that should have been warned (even now, some of it is very cringeworthy) - but not one warning. Hopefully I've made my point - those "with power" must be (seen to be) fair, and in my opinion this blocking did not follow procedure and was not fair. --

talk

) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason for this is because we don't want to treat editors like children, who only respond to punishment. Sarah needs to realize that those sorts of comments are not cool. When people bring a concern to your page (or in her case, when many people bring the same concern to her page) you shouldn't just ignore it unless it is accompanied by the threat of a large stick. This is what Sarah does (she quite openly stated that she wanted people to explicitly note whether they were admins or not, presumably so she knew who to ignore and who not to ignore). So, I disagree that admins need to explictly state "do that again and I will block you". When you do that it is often perceived as a threat, and threats tend to alienate people and aggravate the situation. The last three comments I quote (from John, myself and Lar) all make clear what would happen if Sarah didn't start to listen to the community. They are clear warnings and it is equally clear that Sarah didn't heed them. My preference now is to ensure there is a system that Sarah will heed so she can edit again. Rockpocket 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock has said what I was going to say. Prematurely unblocking her before a framework is in place to protect her will do her no favors at all. I'm heartened that she says she will not edit-war or continue to be uncivil, but personally I am looking for demonstrable evidence that she has learned from what has happened rather than a mere statement of intent. We are heading in the right direction but we are not there yet. Maybe we should use the way Vintagekits was rehabilitated as a model for how to proceed? --John (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, I hold my hands up and acknowledge that there's a lot of people trying to help Sarah777. I'd just like to see the existing processes and procedures followed first, and a separation between different incidents or complaints. --

talk

) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I did an extensive investigation of Sarah's behavior a couple months ago (multiple threads, starting around here[22], then search on "elonka" or "civil" to find the others). I was particularly looking into her claims that the civility rules were being misapplied in her case. After I spent hours looking through diffs, my realization was that she had received multiple warnings from multiple admins, but she just wasn't hearing them. Her general mode of operation is to take immediate offense to anything that anyone else says to her, but when she throws abuse back, she does not see that as a problem. It was my opinion then that I was actually surprised that she hadn't been blocked more often. She was definitely in one of the classic "revolving door" modes of Wikipedia: In other words, we have certain users who are disruptive, we block them, they wait out the block, they disrupt again, we block again, they wait out the block, they disrupt again, we block them again, they wait it out again, etc. But they never actually acknowledge that they understood what they did wrong, nor do they promise that they are going to do better. That is why I support an indefinite block at this time, because despite multiple people explaining things at Sarah777's talkpage, despite multiple Administrator threads which she is obviously reading, she still refuses to acknowledge that she was ever uncivil, while at the same time she still continues to accuse other people of being uncivil towards her. This kind of double standard behavior is extremely disruptive. If Sarah777 can ever acknowledge this discrepancy in terms of how she defines civility, and promise to be civil as defined by the Wikipedia community, then I might be willing to support an unblock. But until then, no, she should be kept out of the community. We've already spent enough time trying to convince the unconvinceable. It's time to just move on. --Elonka 20:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"she still refuses to acknowledge that she was ever uncivil," When

talk

) 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she said "OK Philip; in your case and in your case only it appears I was utterly totally and abysmally wrong in both cases". She's capable of being very nice and has apologized to me on occasion too. I would still question whether this shows real understanding of how off-putting her continual accusations of bias can be. Being rude across the board then issuing the occasional apology and carrying on as before has been her modus operandi thus far. To unblock I would be looking not for contrition (hell, she offered to say a Hail Mary for me the last time she was apologizing for some false allegation she made, and me an atheist!) but for genuine evidence of growth and learning. So far, I do not see this, though if it happens I promise to be the first to acknowledge it. This is to protect her, not to punish her. --John (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Category:Copy to Wiktionary

here. (There may be older; I only looked at a couple.) I wrote to the bot's operator, User:Connel MacKenzie, about it on May 24th and got a prompt reply, but it wasn't really encouraging that the bot would be up and running again any time soon as there is evidently an issue with "false positives" in Special:Import. (Note: I am technologically pretty clueless. I am reporting it, but I don't know what he meant by it. :)) Currently there are 56 pages in the category. He suggested that an admin may be found on Wiktionary in the event of an emergency transfer; I don't know that there are any emergencies in this list, but am concerned that they are stacking up. Are there perhaps any admins here who also are admins on Wiktionary who might be able to help out with clearing this? Any other ideas? If not, I may wander over to find some AN noticeboard on Wiktionary and ask for ideas there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Try asking at Village Pump (technical), you should get better answers than at ANI --Enric Naval (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I might wind up giving it a shot, although I really have no clue what the problem with the bot might be or what technical alternatives there might be. Evidently Connel has been aware of it for some time. I am hoping to find an admin who works on both sites who might be able to figure out how to proceed. :) I'd be happy to import the articles to Wiktionary myself, but, alas, my adminship extends only here. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All right. I'm moving this on to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (more general than technical; not sure a technical response is what's needed. But, then, I really have no idea what is. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator)Hi. Is it possible to manually copy it to Wiktionary or are there too many in the category to do so? Thanks. ~

U

) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable music by not notable musicians?

Question. When there's an article created about Artist X, a completely unknown 14 year old rapper from Denmark, it gets a {{db-band}} tag and will be speedy deleted within minutes. But when Artist X (or his friend) creates an article about his upcoming, not even recorded let alone released, debut album, there's no speedy tag to deal with it. The {{db-band}} tag specifically says it doesn't apply to albums,

WP:CRYSTALBALL

doesn't do speedies, and the article isn't really spam either. Yet we're dealing with an unreleased album ("will probably be recorded in spring 2009") by a musician that is considered to be not notable and/or insignificant.

I come across these kind of 'releases' quite regularly and I simply don't know how to tag them. Should {{db-band}} perhaps be extended to include unreleased albums? Can a 'not notable' musician make 'notable' music? Or am I completely missing an obvious solution to this tagging problem?  Channel ®   23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place- try the village pump or a speedy deletion talk page. However, as someone who has done a lot of new page patrol, I find prod almost always works, and, otherwise, a quick, painless AfD (sometimes with a snowball close) works fine. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This comes up a lot. The most recent detailed discussion on

WT:CSD is here; as you can see if you read it, there is really no good consensus for when an album could be speedied. Someguy1221 (talk

) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I'll go to CSD, read and ask.  Channel ®   23:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Worded just a little more exactly, there is very clear consensus that it does not fit the present criteria. There continues to be disagreement whether the criteria should be changed in this regard. DGG (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If both are there, I redirect the album to the artist (usually not enough for a separate article), including all relevant information and then db-band the artist. That way, the album isn't left hanging. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Liz Wilde

I thought some additional admin eyes might be good on this article, which is currently in some turmoil. The article subject has created an account and is running into many of the usual new user pitfalls, in addition to COI concerns. She asked for help on one of her edit summaries, and I've reached out to her regarding an image she posted (which is up for speedy delete). Dppowell (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 24 hours and would welcome a review of that decision. Dppowell (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because of ongoing COI issues (the account is autoconfirmed), I've upgrade it to full protection. As per policy, the revision it was on was protected. Any admin can downgrade it once this issue is worked out. -

R!

) 20:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New global userright

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#New_global_userright on how our local policy should reflect changes to the global user rights policies at Meta. Please feel free to stop by and comment. MBisanz ^talk 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

Resolved tag didn't work, let's try the archiving tag and see if that does the trick. --

barneca (talk

) 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – Turns out, its perfectly appropriate

This failed RfA has been blanked.

That's not appropriate.

Please unblank it.

The Transhumanist 19:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To be a little crude, how does this need administrator intervention? Rudget (Help?) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rudget, the page is protected. Only an administrator (I assume) can unblank it. For the record, and I supported and will support the Rfa itself, I agree with The Transhumanist that the page should not be blanked. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was blanked, not deleted. You can see it in the page history. Nothing to see here though, however. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And technically it is not a "failed RfA", it is a withdrawn Request for adminship. And like Keeper76 said, it's in the history if you need anything. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have used the PC term "unsuccessful adminship candidacy".  :) The Transhumanist 20:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not unsuccessful, it was withdrawn. Corvus cornix_talk 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the harm in having it blanked, especially as it is in the history (as noted). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, DHMO said he wanted it blanked so that the things the opposers said would not show up in Google searches. I think that we should honor his wishes. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a reason why having the material in the history is insufficient, I would concur. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as it becomes a policy that applies to all Rfas, I guess there is no harm in it. A question though, what happens if a failed Rfa candidate reapplies? Does the new Rfa link to the blank page or is the page unblanked? It might be worth spelling out a policy here (if it is not already spelled out). --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not a failed RfA. Corvus cornix_talk 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I don't think that particular RFA should be used as an example of any policy changes or overgeneralizations, as it was an anomaly swirling with badness all around. If/when there is a # 4 (and I believe the editor in question has stated there won't be a #4, correct me if I'm mistaken), we can deal with it then. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC) My impulse in that case would be to manually construct the list of past RFAs (which we would have to do anyway, as a prefix search for DHMO does not catch G1ggy) and link this request to the Diff prior to blanking instead of the Page itself. No problem. Should it be policy? I don't know that it needs a specific RFA provision under

WP:CBLANK, necessarily, but having a procedure in place (or a precedent; I'm sure there's another RFA where this happened) may be of value. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC)::OK. As long as we know what to do I don't see a harm. And, as Ultraexactzz points out, there is now a precedent that future failed rfas can use if they want to do the same thing.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not a failed RfA. Corvus cornix_talk 22:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been several, can't think of them ATM, but highly contentious RFAs have been blanked before. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

DHMO doesn't want information showing up about him in Google searches? Google is the primary search tool used by experienced editors. Unless a real-life identity is being protected, editors should be able to find info about the performance and conduct of other members of the community. What if DHMO gets in an edit war or conflict with someone in the future, and an intervening admin tries to look up info on DHMO? Wouldn't his RfA discussions be relevant? (RfAs contain many references and permlinks.) The Transhumanist 20:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They absolutely would. This appears to be the last revision before the page was actually blanked for good, though I note that it was never actually formally closed. All permalinks and such should be intact, and the history clearly shows which revision this is (The jump from 397,241 bytes to 314 is a good clue), so it should be simple enough to find even if a link to the diff is not prominently displayed (i.e. if it's not in the context of a future RFA). Per Keeper, there is unlikely to be such a future RFA, so it's probably a non-problem. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But if you guys are going to set a precedent here, then I'd like to take the opportunity to bury my past. Who wants dirt about them flying around on Google? Please blank and protect my previous RfAs. All five of them. It'll be interesting to see what happens when those changes hit the watchlists.  :) The Transhumanist 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

TTH, were any of your RFAs as contentious as this one? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh relax. There was a truly abysmal amount of sniping and nastiness in that RfA, and google searches on a number of user names will reveal some pretty poor behaviour on the part of many and unproven allegations about several editors. It was appropriate for it to be blanked, and it's unlikely to be forgotten in the near future. And no, RfA discussions would not normally be relevant to edit warring or other general behavioural issues; they are specific to the assessment of potential for an administrator role. Perhaps you should try the enhanced MediaWiki search interfaces, they have been significantly improved over the last few months. Risker (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

TTH, you've been accused of violating

WP:POINT before. Try not to give those accusations any weight. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood}

20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But here, accusations are entirely the point. The question is, should accusations be allowed to float around for them to be found on Google? My RfAs are about as contentious as you can get, and many of the accusations (mostly about what I think) contradict each other, so you know they can't all be true. And if contentious RfAs can be blanked and protected, then I would like that done to mine. All five of them please. Deleting them altogether would be even better.  :) The Transhumanist 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't setting precedent; it's been done before at RFA at least once I know of for sure, and probably several times. It isn't a big deal. I think the philosophy is, if you want your RFA blanked, go for it, it's your decision. If you want it deleted, well that's a different story... --

barneca (talk

) 21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist also blanked his, using this one as a precedent; if DHMO can blank, so can anyone else. (Also, there probably will be a number four, for the same reasons evidenced in number three, and sooner than expected, particularly considering that some of the behaviors that were discussed in the RfA were rewarded afterwards at DHMO's talk page.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just let it pass folks.

_{1 != 2}

21:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The quality of mercy is not strained .......... --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• TTH, don't try to leverage DHMO's blanked RfA in order to start a discussion about your own; it's petty and selfish. If you wanted your RfAs blanked in a similar matter, you could have just gone ahead and done so yourself. No one would have objected, since the whole point of such blankings is a fundamental appreciation of courtesy in the project. Starting an AN/I discussion challenging a courtesy blanking, especially to further a personal pursuit, is discourteous. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You just accused me of premeditation. Shame on you.
    WP:AGF. But you also assumed I know more about this procedure than I actually do. And for that, I'm flattered.  :) The Transhumanist
    23:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not premeditation per-se, but I could see where this was going from the first post. No offense, TTH, but you have a particular habit of challenging uncontroversial actions in order to achieve other objectives or in seeking unnecessary clarifications on common sense issues. If you really thought that DHMO's blanking was inappropriate, as you first claimed, I doubt you would have requested the blanking of your own RfAs such a short time later. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. ;) The Transhumanist 00:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Per The Transhumanist's request, I've blanked all his old RfAs. This should solve the matter, I'll mark this "resolved". WilyD 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And protect them too, please. The Transhumanist 23:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've started a thread at another noticeboard in relation to this. No desire to reopen old wounds, just to learn and heal. Durova^Charge! 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm all for that. But what's really needed is transparency in the system. And we just took a step backwards from that. :) The Transhumanist 23:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The history button provides plenty of transparency. Put the stick down, and walk away from the dead horse.

_{1 != 2}

00:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Really, let's not waste further time arguing about this. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Images as refs

Is it permissible to scan a newspaper, upload it as an image, and use the image itself as a reference? I came across this today and am not sure if this is okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My gut feeling is no, but I'm not sure if policy currently agrees with me. What I'd do myself is source the newspaper in the normal way and then post on the talk page that you have an image of the page in question at (some off-site location). I'm assuming that you worry that using the newspaper without additional proof will be doubted? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The usual caveats on news sources aside and absent more context, Morven's suggestion seems excellent. I don't think there would be any problem with the image being linked to as a convenience, as a quote would. Fvasconcellos (t·c

) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, if its a newspaper scan, it must meet our image content rules. If it is before 1923, then it is ok to upload, if it is after 1923, it must have a

WP:NFCC. MBisanz ^talk

00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to do so—as others have noted, you can simply cite the newspaper as a source in the normal way. If someone has challenged that citation – that is, they argue that the content of the article has been misstated or misrepresented – then I think it would be a legitimate, fair use to upload a scan for a short period of time. (On the other hand, in most cases it shouldn't be necessary to go to such lengths, and we should give such citations the benefit of the doubt.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is all pretty much what I was thinking but I wanted confirmation and you guys provided more detail. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Double standards for tennis players

Administrators, tell me please, is this game whit so called policy, where we have rule to abolish Serbian and Croatian latin letters for tennis players, but on the other side we have huge serie of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnik people (politicians, football, basketball players) whit correctly spelling letters š, đ, č, ć, and ž? Why is Wikipedia tolerating double standards? And why are tennis players special spice? (Novak Đoković to Novak Djoković; Jelena Janković - Jelena Jankovic) --Pockey (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, not the Serbian wikipedia. So English naming conventions apply (e.g., "Vienna" not "Wien"). And somebody has to start somewhere. (PS. It is "with" not "whit"). --HJensen, talk 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this something that project did on its own? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "double standard." See this on the tennis project discussion page, this on bureaucrat's Redux's talk page, and this on administrator Darwinek's talk page. See also this about Pockey's (Pokrajac's) disruptive edits on this very noticeboard. Tennis expert (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see this and this. Tennis expert (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair point. This whole discussion has not been an edifying one, and has rumbled on for a very long time. Most of the "consensus" proposals on this issue have been stacked one way or another by two diametrically opposed sides. I don't see why we can't have diacritics in titles, as no policy anywhere on en.wikipedia precludes them. Orderinchaos 08:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You've called my page moves "disruptive" and threatened to block me. Isn't calling me "disruptive," threatening a block, and saying that I'm burdening administrators a little premature? Tennis expert (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the prominence of earlier discussions on the tennis arena I had incorrectly assumed you were appraised of them and had adopted a radical (and arguably ethnocentric) point of view held by some within them. I have already apologised in two different places for that assumption and my earlier remarks - it is becoming clear that the fragmentation of this discussion between different groups, each of which is unaware of the goings on at the other, is more to blame for this mess than any one editor, and in questioning your 68 moves today, I adopted a tone which was unduly harsh.

WP:CSB, while definitely not policy, has always been a consideration in my editing and it pains me to see it being violated in ways which don't assist either our coverage or our editors' understanding, and which remove or designify valid information. Orderinchaos

16:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this talk about "double standards"? Frankly, this has been explained to exhaustion on the relevant discussion, which was open for more than 8 days, with notes and links added to the talk pages of most, if not all, of the articles that were to be affected. It is not acceptable to attempt to restart this by ignoring the points made by opening new forums, with no mention to the previous discussion. To make a long story short: there is no such thing as a double standard; there is such a thing as the fact that on the English-language Wikipedia we adopt the preferred spelling in the English-speaking world as long as this exists and can be verified. In the case of tennis, it exists and can be verified by using the profiles in the official websites of tennis governing bodies, which adopt English as their working language. The same may not apply to other sports or modalities, in terms of verifiability of use throughout the English-speaking world, causing any article titles to default to the spelling used in the native language. That is why something may be done concerning a specific segment (in this case, tennis) and maybe not in others: verifiability of a widely used, preferred spelling in the English-speaking world that is different fromt he native one. What the people from any given native country think of the English spelling is not a relevant point and it has no barring on which spelling the English-language Wikipedia should be using. This has been noted in the discussion mentioned. "Real spelling" is a relative term, there are countless examples of people's names which are altered and "official" in different languages, the easiest to visulize would be the names of monarchs.
I am extremely disturbed at posts such as this. First and foremost because it is making a request for an administrator to undo page moves made in observation of consensus reached, based on guidelines and policy, on the ground of there being "no real consensus" among administrators. Not agreeing with consensus is not a valid reason to claim that it is not real; And even worse is quoting consensus among administrators as a validating criterion. There is no such thing. Administrators are not empowered to overturn community consensus by reaching a different consensus amongst themselves, nor are they empowered with "validating" community consensus by "sanctioning" it in a consensus amongst themselves. That the administrator in question even granted the requests, especially given the fact that he had communicated with me previously about the page moves in question and I had explained (yet again) the grounds in which the moves had been performed, is beyond comprehension and frankly, unacceptable.
The moves were implemented in accordance with our guidelines and policies and following a discussion where consensus was reached on that regard. There will be no reverting it based on claims that the consensus "wasn't real" because it is not respecting any given alphabet, national pride or similars. Making individual requests to administrators who happen to sympathize with any given position is unacceptable. Granting such requests, and especially on the basis of the requests made, is even more unacceptable. Redux (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely disturbed at seeing my request described in such a way and not just here. I requested to have those pages moved back to their original titles after a number of pages had already been moved back. These simply seemed forgotten, the way you described my "individual" request is unacceptable. Please next time don't rely on these NPOV reports about the situation (second part of the thread).

A discussion on a WikiProject's talk page is NOT real concensus regarding such a controversial issue. Squash Racket (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Montessori School of Westfield‎

Resolved

The article

Montessori School of Westfield‎ has been attracting persistent vandalism from a number of users who appear to be sockpuppets of User:Heyj00, who has taken a dislike to the article. I have blocked indefinitely a number of users and an IP address. The article was semiprotected for a day but that did not seem to deter. I would appreciate any help in seeing if there is a IP from which these users are all being created and if we can block account creation from that IP. DJ Clayworth (talk

) 18:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a request for checkuser on this. Kevin (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser is done, User:Thatcher and User:Alison have blocked all the socks, and hard blocked the IP. We should be able to unprotect for the nexr month. Kevin (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - tag-teaming checkusers :) - Alison ^❤ 04:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected AFD meatpuppetry

Resolved

 – AfD closed as delete

There appears to be some sort of slightly disruptive meatpuppetry going along at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucknell Pong. I'd like to request a fresh view from an uninvolved administrator. Thanks. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Far as I can see, there's not a single Keep that isn't from an SPA. It might be an idea to collapse all the SPA commentary into collapseboxes (as per

iridescent

02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, and I was going to do just that, but this AfD discussion would end up with something like 5 to 7 collapse boxes. Oh, and I was an uninvolved admin, but I just couldn’t resist adding my 2¢ worth. —

^talk

03:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at

WP:BAG

Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This guy was just blocked for 24 hours on June 3, for edit warring on a related page. Now, he is back at it again, with 2 reverts of edits, from 2 different users (I being one) within the last few hours (see here). He has a personal vendetta against BAG/Bot policy and he continues to disruptively edit war. I'm too involved to take any action, so I welcome your thoughts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly disputed just by reading all the dissenting opinions at

WT:BOT. I've no idea why people keep trying to remove that tag while the issues remain unresolved... (except that that many people seem to suffer from a "sweep it under the rug" mentality). —Locke Cole • t • c

05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread is to address your disruption, not the dispute itself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that you're the one being disruptive by removing a perfectly harmless tag from a page while a dispute is ongoing... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't endorse Locke Cole's methods, but at least he draws attention to the fact that BAG has totally dropped the ball on finding a consensus-supported way to get new members. I wish this could be done with discussion and not edit warring. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Attracting attention is fine, as you say, the edit warring is a problem though. Quite frankly, if I weren't involved, I would issue a block on Locke Cole. His block for edit warring just expired a short period ago, and he immediately chose to start edit warring again. It is disruptive. It would be different if it was just one other user revert warring with him, but it isnt; it has been several. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Several" being two, unless you count yourself. At any rate, the number of people disputing that page is much larger on the talk page, but we can ignore them because they get tired of watching you guys carry on like everything is just fine? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Heads up:
  cool stuff
  ) 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While I suppose that could be considered more of the disruption, the subject at hand isn't as much the content dispute as it is the editor in question's actions. SQL^{Query me!} 05:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I recently suggested to Locke Cole on his talk page that an MfD might gauge opinion better than limited policy talk page discussions. I did say that it would be best if someone else brought the MfD, and I did urge him to stop edit warring (and that implicitly included edit warring over tags). The way in which WP:BAG is appointed is a small part of Bot policy, but it is an important part and it does no credit at all to WP:BAG members that the discussion stalled and they are reverting Locke Cole instead of trying to sort the situation out. Carcharoth (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, what's done is done. I would recommend that it not be speedily closed, at this time. If we let this one run it's course, we might get some good input on it. I know, however, that's really not what MFD's supposed to be for.... SQL^{Query me!} 06:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I have just blocked Locke Cole for 72 hours for restarting the edit war. The MFD needs closing as a pointy bad faith nom but since I just blocked him I guess it would be better for someone else to do this.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  05:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Either way, as I said on the MFD, if LC has a problem with the process itself, (which he evidently does if he wants the page deleted) he should propose an alternative, not scrap the existing one,however flawed it may be. (I'm not going to argue that because, frankly, I know little about the process. I do know that if it has lasted this long, it is obviously FAR better than nothing) J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 05:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Not a bad-faith nom. Naive, sure, but not bad-faith. Locke Cole has genuine concerns with the failure to address how WP:BAG members are appointed. This was part of the (unstated) reason I didn't put myself forward when I was offered a nomination to join BAG (well, that and I didn't have the time). As it is, I think the current membership of BAG is more representative than it has been for some time, but they can't just ignore the "how do we appoint new members" issue. I urge everyone involved to restart the talk page discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Move assistance

Resolved

I would like to move a page to the location of a current redirect. There are also about a half dozen redirects that need to move along with the page. Could you please help me move

WP:LOTM

) 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests like this generally go to

WP:RM, in the future.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a page I created and am virtually the only editor of. It is non-controversial, IMO.--

WP:LOTM

) 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.

Bencherlite^Talk

07:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm currently watching today's episode of The Hour on CBC Television, which is featuring an interview by Andrew Schlafly and his "students" about Conservapedia, so wait for some more action on that front..... --RFBailey (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that article has been pretty quiet (hell, quieter than I thought it would be). A vandal once every other day or so is good enough for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

entry untouched for 7-8 hours

Resolved

I added an article to

WP:RFPP in response to a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit/Revert_War_in_progress... and it has been untouched for 7-8 hours. Anyone care to protect or deny? :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!!

07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Denied it. It seems that all the IP addresses and SPA stopped once one particular user was blocked. Very interesting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

New activity by banned user Jvolkblum

I've come across a new account that appears to belong to this banned user. User:ConcertoNo.888, who has not yet edited, was created on June 3 at 09:18 (a few minutes before several already-blocked socks of Jvolkblum). A user by the same name has uploaded several images of New Rochelle (all with doubtful status) at Commons (see Commons contributions log). --Orlady (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

These images have been inserted into an article by an anonymous user in Indonesia, which is 99.9% sure to be an open proxy or zombie being used by Jvolkblum to evade the block. --Orlady (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Blatant Copyright Infringement by User:Reezy

I ran across an image that this user had put up as fair use, and for source it reads: self made. When I tagged it, not only did he remove the tag, (I put it back), but he removed the warning from his talk page. I was looking at the history of his talk page, and this is not the first time this has happened. Is there anything that can be done about a user who is blatantly copyright infringing? Thanks! ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Per

an honest mistake? Fvasconcellos (t·c

) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:USER does not cover reverting an image tag advising of a fair use issue, not least when the tag carries the category entry which would later get the image deleted. I've dropped Reezy a note. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough (no pun intended), but he didn't remove the CSD tag outright. He replaced it with a valid rationale. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

True. My AGF might have been a wee bit on the blink, too. I'll rectify that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at some of their other uploads, I'm a bit skeptical of the source given as self-made for Image:Briancook.jpg and Image:Jsantana.jpg. --Onorem♠Dil 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note asking about these two. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That is the reason why I tagged the image in the first place. Because of the source given. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 01:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's understood. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Image:Briancook.jpg, the user uploaded 3 more versions, all copyvios,before they were deleted. The current version, showing from Commons, is the same as the last version deleted from here, and sourced to a Flickr account which only houses copyvio images. I marked Image:Jsantana.jpg as a blatant copyvio, since it was taken from a newspaper blog, and the user replaced it with a picture of his fist. User:Reezy now features a middle finger and a personal attack directed at me - all of this suggests he has no interest in respecting Wikipedia's copyright policies or playing well with others. Mosmof (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)