Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive31

Some time in January, Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) arrived and began to make big changes in the Christianity article and other related articles. His changes were resisted by those who had been editing the article for some time, as they were considered to be attempts to insert and present fringe scholarship as mainstream views. He sometimes edited as 64.121.40.153 (talk · contribs), and acknowledged those edits as his, when he inadvertently got logged out. bang bang bang boom guah

After Givanni33 had met with some resistance, BelindaGong (talk · contribs) turned up to support him. She sometimes edited from an IP address – 38.114.145.148 (talk · contribs), which she agreed was probably hers. Her very first edits both as 38.114.145.148 and as BelindaGong were reverts to Giovanni's version. They both reverted aggressively, while lecturing their ofor reverting them. They very quickly violated 3RR, but were not reported as they were new (even though they had been warned gently but frequently of the rule before the actual violations occurred).

They continued to revert unrepentantly, and seemed to take advantage of the fact that the "old" editors were reluctant to report them, or to go beyond three reverts themselves. Finally, after a long period of gross violations from both of them (on one occasion, Giovanni reverted an article 11 times in about eighteen and a half hours, despite being asked repeatedly to stop), they were both blocked. See the reports [[1]] and [[[2]].

Since then they have been careful, and have not violated 3RR, although they have, on numerous occasions, taken six reverts between them in a 24-hour period. They have also voted together. Belinda often shows up to revert just as Giovanni has used up his three reverts. In fact, as I write these words, she's doing it right now at Christianity.

The WP:RFCU results came in on Saturday. User:Giovanni33 is User:BelindaGong. They had constantly denied this, and had put up an elaborate pretence of not knowing each other (see their talk pages), while suggesting that User:Str1977 and User:KHM03 were sockpuppets, and that I was a meatpuppet for Str1977.

I would appreciate some advice on what I should do now. I seem to recall that in the past, admins have blocked indefinitely an account that was sockpuppeting to get round the rules, and have also blocked the main account for a period. In my view, Giovanni is the real account holder, as Belinda nearly always just reverts to his version, whereas he posts long messages to the talk pages in order to justify his edits (though he then insits on posting his extremely controvesial edits even if he hasn't achieved any kind of agreement.

I know I can't block people I'm in dispute with. Does that mean that I shouldn't block Giovanni or Belinda, since I have opposed their edits? Is an indefinite block on Belinda justified?

Advice would be welcome. AnnH ^(talk) 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right that you shouldn't block them, as that would be an abuse of your administrator privileges. But it sounds like they are definitely violating the spirit of 3RR, which is an abuse of having a second account. Coming here and telling the story was the right thing to do, as it sounds like this is a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't have time right now to investigate the specifics and engage in the appropriate dialogue before considering a block (which may well be necessary) but I'm sure some other admin will do so. moink 06:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you submit a

WP:RCU to see if they are sock puppets of each other. If they are, block both for 3RR violations. --Nlu (talk

) 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As indicated above, she already has, and they are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User:MONGO has blocked both for 24 hours, an appropriate remedy for the apparent violation. I'm sure many will be keeping an eye on them after the block expires. Good job keeping your cool, Ann. moink 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Kecik (talk · contribs) has shown up to continue the edit war. Jkelly 20:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the article

I second this notion. Infact my proposal has been that no one revert anothers work without at least coming to the talk page first. Making the talk page mandatory before making a revert would do a lot to help.Giovanni33 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why I could never run a stable of sockpuppets: [3] It's just too easy to get confused. I believe both of these, as well as BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), are currently blocked for using puppets to avoid the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have no socketpuppets, and I'm willing to prove beyond any reasonable doubt for anyone would would like to take me up on the offer. I will trust any arbcom admin with my the personal ID's. Giovanni33 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:FionaS may be an additional sock. KHM03 02:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think FionaS did admit to being a sock infact. But, not my sock. She stated that she wanted to speak out but not be targed for harassment in her main account. This person may be an established older user. There are legitimate reasons for somoene to have a sock, and it appears Fiona made a good argument for why she adopted this sock. I also note she did not do any reverts. That editors feel they must hide inorder to express themselves is indicative of the chilling atmosphere that results when those with a contrary POV are bullied. Giovanni33 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As I'm rushing out now, and have no time to provide an update, perhaps some not-too-busy admin might take a look

Despite my concilliatory and amicable disposition, and the fact that I've pleaded to to focused on my arguments to improve the Christianity article, the continued allegations of socketpuppetry by those I've had Pov diputes with, continue unabated. I think, are being done in bad faith being pushed by a handful of edit warriors as a result of the POV differences. The speculations continue to disrupt good faith discussions and turn them into personal attacks. It has gotten so bad that I think it borders on harassment. Sadly, I've been convinced that AnnH has been making this her mission, expanding it to anyone whose agreed with me, is taking the form of an ugly inquisition; even an older valued editor has left in protest describing it with this kind of language. AnnH continues to lead this attack spreading bad faith assumptions, making interpretations and speculations to cast the worst possible light over me and others, over and over in different places. I have had a hard time even keeping up with trying to defend myself over the many one-sided half-truths being spread. Keeping my marriage private was my right; that I chose to not share this fact is irrelevant to the fact that she is my wife and hence not a sockpuppet, which is all that should matter (I've offered to prove it-- if any arbcom admin is interested, by sending you our respective ID's for Giovanni and Belinda Gong, our real names). I disclosed this after a usercheck showed our connection to offer a valid explanation for the appearance of sockepuppetry. We were both blocked. Due to the POV dispute I've had with AnnH and a couple others, they are now taking advantage of this to continue what is essential a personal attack, including anyone else who has agreed with my pov. Even after a usercheck has cleared them and myself, all kinds of accusatory speculations continue unabated. The result is in effect to disrupt constructive edit work to improve the substance of articles. This is indecent, counter-productive, and harassment. The role that AnnH describes of my wife, also exactly matches her own role in pushing for her own Pov with user Str1977; they have use up 3reverts each between each other, and AnnH has even accidentally gone over 3rv's in a 3RR vio herself. AnnH says that was an accident and I believe her. She is careful to follow the letter of the rules, although this McCarthy like witch-hunt is certainly violating the spirit of several other equally important wiki rules and principals. I ask her to stop this, if not for me then for the good of Wikipedia as it's inimical to the good the project. Thanks for reading. Giovanni33 09:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Shultz for one week for a series of trolling edits on the Ref Desk, despite warnings and his previous extensive history of blocks for this [4].

I warned him for a series of edits in which he created a redirect from 'Kim Il Sung City' (in Korean) to Seoul [5] and then asked on the Refdesk what the redirect meant [6]. He subsequently removed his signature from his question, then deleted the question, then re-added it from an IP address.

In another bout of Korea-related trolling, he started with a question [7], added a wikilink to it after Dirk had answered [8] and then (using another IP address which he had previously identified as himself [9]) berated Dirk for not noticing the wikilink which had not existed when Dirk answered. [10]

While the Refdesk is perhaps not the most vital part of the Wikipedia universe, this sort of unpleasantness and time-wasting has to be stopped. Mark^{your words} 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Good detective work. We don't need that kind of behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Mark. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the block. Has anyone noticed though that User:Shultzii has arrived on the reference desk with similar questions and has a long history of people asking him to stop redirecting and other unhelpful edits? Nothing better than circumstantial, but may be worth checking. - Taxman ^Talk 17:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Shultzii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Shultz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which was used to circumvent the block on the main account. For evidence just look at their user pages. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed this matter with Shultz, here's my best AGF interpretation of what might have happened. Shultz created a redirect from "Kim Il-sung City" (in Hangul) to Seoul (the redirect no longer exists) and want to draw attention to this "hilarious" feat. He logged out and posted anonymously on the Reference Desk,[11] yadda yadda yadda, he got blocked for trollish disruption. He has promised to take similar attempts at humor to Uncyclopedia. He also indicated that he wants to start over using a different account when the block expires. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Deceptively drawing attention to a POV redirect can hardly be good faith; neither can insulting someone for noticing something that clearly wasn't there. I would not support him getting a new socl either; possibly, CheckUser should be used to prevent this.

Talk

05:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:SteveDevine has uploaded three images, which I am reasonably sure are connected with an article he created about a 16-year-old girl, which I speedily deleted. However, since I am totally blind, I am not sure what these images are and am not sure what to do with them. Is there a better page to ask a question like this? I have been patrolling Newpages for over a year now and sometimes run into images with specific names, but usually only one, not three. Academic Challenger 10:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're all of the same girl, and I can only assume they were to go on his article. I'm guessing they could be deleted. Raven4x4x 10:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The article was about an Australian teenager, Jessica Mckenna. Three images were all the same; I've deleted two of them and placed a template:nosource on the other. Steve Devine, btw is an All Black scrum-half [12]. — Dunc|☺ 11:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Though SteveDevine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is possibly Stevedevine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Dunc|☺ 11:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I saw him create a bunch of variations on his username, but it could have been someone else. Is there a problem with this, as long as they are not using them to avoid a block or influence consensus? I figured that it would be pretty dumb to do those things with such similar usernames. -- Kjkolb 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm indefinitely {{

Talk

06:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hyles-Anderson_College, probably the biggest stretch of a legal threat ever. Mike _{(T C)} 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it and warned the poster.

Talk

07:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This arbitration case has closed. RJII is placed on personal attack parole, probation, general probation, and is cautioned regarding POV editing. Firebug is counseled that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that perfection is not to be expected. These remedies (where applicable) shall be enforced by a block of up to one year. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A final decision has been reached in this case and it has been closed.

Shivraj Singh, DPSingh , Gurkhaboy and all of their sock puppets and all users listed as the "Hindus only side" at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence#involved_users are banned from editing Rajput and related articles. This is to be enforced by the usual escalating blocking policy.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

For how long are these users banned from these articles? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely, I guess. --TML1988 22:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask the committee to clarify, but for now I'd assume it's an indefinite ban. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is no statement otherwise, remedies have no set expiry. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that bans were never for more than a year. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite. It is doubtful that their caste will change within a year. Their place will be taken by others from the Rajput caste who hopefully will conduct themselves more courteously. There are a million other articles available for their attention. Fred Bauder 13:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

... I appear to have been de-sysopped. Can someone explain why? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I just can't edit locked pages. Why is that? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the meta logs: [13].

Chick Bowen

04:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been no logged changes here to your privileges and

Talk

06:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a problem with editing Adolf Hitler. Strangely, problem has gone away. Something on my browser must have gone screwy. Apologies for knee-jerk reaction. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

AAAAA! Its The Boys from Brazil cabal! :) --Syrthiss 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been experiencing long-term difficulties with User:Rick lay95. I now feel too personally involved to block this user, since his talk page comprises mostly messages from me. He's been blocked twice this month (the second time, I'm convinced he used User:Zeo6 as a sock puppet account to evade the block - please see my rationale at User talk:Zeo6). Since the second block expired, he's persisted in uploading images without source details (despite 38 previous missing source/licensing reminders and three messages from me in which I've offered to help him if he doesn't understand how to deal with source/licensing tags), he has blanked a redirect page and he has removed an AfD tag from a page he created - I left a "final warning" after that one.

Since the final warning he has uploaded images which he tagged as public domain because he "couldn't find anything that matched and that happened to be the closest [he] could find". As a result, I left a long-ish comment here, warning him that he needed to start heeding copyright issues and to follow policies. He has since added a speedy delete tag to an article for no apparent reason.

As I've said, I feel too personally involved in this case to give another block myself. It could be that due to my lengthy involvement with this user and my subsequent frustration, I'm over reacting. However, I feel a block (probably longer than the 24hr/48hr blocks he's already had this month) is in order - please could another admin review this case and take appropriate action (either issuing a block or telling me to cool down if I'm over-reacting!). Thanks, CLW 18:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for one month. The amount of repeated copyvios he has uploaded is ridiculous. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Greg. CLW 18:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been some controversy over the name of a page on a band, Transatlantic. It has been resolved as shown at

Problem has been rectified. Sasquatch t|c 22:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was I blocked? Can I be, you know, unblocked? That'd be nice... --Xiaphias 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Silly question, but if you're blocked, how can you edit this page?--205.188.116.200 23:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page. It is a little paradox, isn't it? :)

We occasionally have what could be called "rolling blocks." What happens is, an editor ends up on a dynamic IP address that has been blocked earlier in the day for one reason or another, and is blocked as a result. Sometimes it is not a direct block of the IP address, but a Wikipedia:Autoblock that causes it. Generally, the problem corrects itself quickly, as the user is moved onto a new, unblocked IP just as quickly as he or she was moved on to the blocked one. It's inconvenient, but barring all users demanding static IPs from their ISPs, there is nothing that can be done. In future, if you have this problem, you can email the administrator who placed the block, or add {{Unblock}} to your talk page. Make sure to say you believe it is not an actual block of your account, but a block of the IP you are on, and give that IP address (it will appear in the block message you see). An administrator can do a "hard unblock" (acutally input that IP into the unblock page) and force an unblock of that IP, whether the initial block was an actual IP block or an autoblock. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You can always check that your username hasn't been blocked at the block log. (Note that the User field there refers to the blocker, not the blockee - so leave it blank when checking your own block status.) Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I get this message: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by Duk Reason given: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Kalsi". The reason given for Kalsi's block is: "suspected sock of User:Kiop, serial copyvios". (see our blocking policy)

That is a Wikipedia:Autoblock; it can easily be removed. I'll go see if I can't find it now. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I pulled three autoblocks matching that discription, everything should be back to normal. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey 2006 (talk · contribs) was recently created today. I'm not sure about his edits though. All of his edits seem to be tagging random artcles for deletion. Could someone go threw his edits and Afd's he started are worth keeping? Moe ε 00:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A couple of his recent edits appear to involve removing the }} at the end of templates; I left a note on his talk page. --AySz88^-^ 00:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also formatted some of his AfDs and listed them all. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that, Flcelloguy. My question: I understand that this is our usual practice, and I have no problem with what Flcelloguy has done, but is it really necessary for us to complete AfDs if they are both badly formed and clearly are going to be kept? Obviously any AfD that is correctly nominated has to go through the process (even if that will certainly lead to a speedy keep), but does one that appears to be either bad-faith or based on a misunderstanding of the process and that is not correctly nominated need to? This is not a rhetorical question (and not necessarily about the current user; I'm think more of clear bad-faith or retaliatory nominations such as often come up); I'm curious to know what others think.

(2 edit conflicts) I was going to say before 2 edit conflicts that its better to just let it's run course than delete because who was going to support the deletion of an article that has the AfD description of "who?" It's no big deal to speedy keep. Moe ε 01:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just think that anyone, who we believe is acting in

good faith, has the right to nominate articles for deletion. If we need to speedy keep them, we speedy keep them - it's no big deal. In addition, most of the articles that he nominated weren't "obvious" speedy keeps, per se; it's no harm to put them through AfD. Of course, that's just my opinion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?

) 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

C.C. Brown were both up for AfD and both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrence Murphy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.C. Brown were closed as speedy keep but the AfD tag was not removed from the article. I removed them now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk)

12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that there will be no acceptable solution whereby some of the more polemical templates are deleted, but not others. The various templates related to George W. Bush are a clear example of this. The only long-term solution will be to get rid of them entirely, which is what I've just done. In the interest of avoiding more divisiveness, please discuss any future actions here first. Thank you, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll say a few more things: This is not the End Of The World As We Know It. As the French Wikipedia and German Wikipedia have demonstrated, the project will not grind to a halt if we disallow polemical userboxes. And before anyone says "let's wait until we have a comprehensive userbox policy", let me counter this by saying that we're under no obligation to keep stuff which is irrelevant to the project's main goal. Once we have a comprehensive userbox policy, let's see if it says "polemical templates are Ok and encouraged"; if so, these templates can be recreated in a flash. But for now, things will be much easier without them. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's

^ask?

22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "the project will not grind to a halt". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do, now corrected. Thank you. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Bravo. --Improv 22:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Does it not occur to you at all than it will cause more "divisiveness" to just whack them in a flash than to just leave them for a while? Does it not occur to you at all that doing so and then saying "please discuss any future actions here first" is problematic? We're under no obligation to not delete every person's user page that has anything on it that doesn't aid the project, but we don't because most of have some slight shred of common sense. What was the emergancy that required this action, almost certain to result in recreations, wheel wars, blocking, and further driving potentially good editors from the fold as well as giving the "freedom of speech" provocateurs something else to scream about? And would it have been so crazy to talk about it first? -

brenneman^{T}{L}

22:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've considered this. In fact, I've ignored userboxes for a long time, treating them essentially like trolls, hoping they would go away. But they clearly won't, on the contrary. We can no longer ignore the elephant (no political pun intended) in the room. I don't see why we shouldn't enforce core policies vigorously. We don't go around first debating whether we want to enforce 3RR, for fear that we will be accused of "censoring free speech" (or treason, for that matter). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We might as well use the correct terminology. It's called a ForestFire. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron might be right, but what is the other option? No compromise will be acceptable to the warriors, and they clearly will not go away. Will some editors leave over this? Quite possibly. Will some of them be a loss? Probably. But the alternative is a) just allow wikipedia to become a POV-pushers club, and campaigning ground/my space. 2) Wait. But for what? Will it get better? I think the problem here has in fact been too much delay and tollerance. If we had delivered a swift 'no' to this several months ago, we wouldn't have created all these new warriors. Karmafist has been going around petitioning noobs with his 'manifesto' creating partisans rather than wikipedians. We must cry stop. --

^ask?

23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• These are probably the most often deleted, restored, and recreated templates of the lot. Is there some special "Delete and I really mean it this time" tab that has been used? Further, since I've seen Jimbo (praise be his name) quoted a few times with regards to "not acceptable", didn't he also ask for restraint in deleting things? For less action and more talking?
• This "fire" is caused at least in part by the repeated deletion of these stupid little boxes. If they aren't deleted right now than they won't go to TfD and DRv, then we won't have the non-stop three ring circus. A little bit of patience would go a long long way to defusing this stupid and pointless cycle. Did the memo go out that Wikipedia had to be finished tomorrow and I missed it?
• One of the things that we're supposed to be good at as administrators is resolving conflict. We're meant to help people talk about things, we're meant to educate newcomers into our occult ways, we're meant to be patient and thoughtful. By continuing to randomly delete stuff we're creating POV warriors, not stopping them. When we balance out the damage done by these templates continuing to exist for another week or even a month by the "forest fire" that is created by the continued and repatative deletion, there is no contest.
• I'll ask Mark directly: why was it that these had to be deleted now as opposed to next Thursday?
  
  brenneman^{T}{L}
  23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  Playing devil's advocate: why next Thursday rather than now? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no presumption that eventualism always trumps immediatism. I could counter by saying "if not now, when?" But to be honest, several things happened today that made me realize that there will be no other quick solution that will make everyone happy. Check

WP:TFD and my talk page to see what I mean. --MarkSweep (call me collect)

23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"A little bit of patience would go a long long way to defusing this stupid and pointless cycle," quoth Aaron. Can you explain how? How will waiting around make the userboxes go away? How will it send the message that they're not part of an encyclopedia? How will it change the minds of the edit warriors? How will it counter the idea that Wikipedia is a free webhost? What on Earth are you proposing as a solution? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Brenneman, I 'hear what you are saying'. But perhaps you can tell me what you'd prefer - and how it will play out in the long run? We wait (for what?) and exactly what happens? --

^ask?

23:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As requested

Ok, this turned out to be huge. Sorry to post such a screed here, but you did ask. And it's only about one tenth of one percent of the total words we've wasted on this. -

I have to agree with Aaron. What we must remember here is that the majority of users with these boxes probably won't have any knowledge of this debate, or the damage the boxes can cause. Imagine an editor who doesn't read AN, or TFD or anything like that, but sticks to a few articles about his favourite subject, whatever that may be. Upon going to the user page of another editor, he finds a "This user does not support George Bush" box, or whatever, and thinks "hey, I like that", sticks it on his page and thinks nothing more of it. If he sees one day that it's been deleted or removed from his page, can you really be surprised when he wonders why or gets a little annoyed? We need to explain to users like him why these boxes are such a big deal. Raven4x4x 02:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I highly 2nd this suggestion above. I'd ask that it be put onto a separate page somewhere, so it can be referred to. This is really sensible, and right. We do need to get rid of these things, but we also need to do it in a way that adds, rather than splits, the community. 134.10.12.31 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC) (User:JesseW/not logged in)

Not doing something about polemical userbxxes is not an option. They have been used in several instances of attempted vote stacking, they are divisive because they inject external political advocacy into Wikipedia, they give people the wrong idea about what Wikipedia is for and what a user page is for. They are harmful. And the boss wants them gone.

Speedy deletion has been very successful, and the new criterion has gained wide acceptance among acculturated Wikipedians. It's not as if we're doing this without explaining what is happening, and it's not as if a huge number of editors were using these boxes--a large-scale survey I did found that only around 10% of all active editors on my watchlist actually had polemical userboxes.

But still the number of useroxes grows. Up from 3500 on January 4 to 5800 when I checked again on February 14. The page of political belief-based userboxes is up from 45 in January to 150 in February. A relatively small number of editors are producing userboxes in any great numbers, and quite a few of them those already known as trouble-makers on these pages. Names like Mistress Selina Kyle (92 boxes), and Bourbons3 and his sock Dussst (a total of 174 boxes across both incarnations).

People with no interest in editing the encyclopedia become Userbox producers and advocates--

So its utter nonsense to say that Wikipedia isn't being damaged. It's pie-in-the-sky to imagine that we can get anywhere by talking to the kind of people who come to Wikipedia to produce this trash. And its insulting to equate those, some of us senior Wikipedians with an edit count that would make your eyes water, destroying this damaging rubbish, with those producing it and frankly little else on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 07:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, editing articles is important. People shouldn't be on Wikipedia just to fight about userboxes. If I were a closing admin in a deletion discussion I would not pay much heed to the recommendations of someone with 5 article edits overall.

Tony, I think you may be trying too hard to save Wikipedia from the evils of userboxes or the deletion process or whatever you feel is most urgent at each moment. There are five days since your last article edit. For the month of February so far article edits are 7% of your total contributions. So here is my annoyingly condescending advice to you: Relax a little :) Make some old-fashioned content-contributions. Let someone else carry the torch for awhile. Don't burn yourself out, we want to keep you around for a long while. Haukur 11:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony describes an ever-growing problem here in Wikipedia. People like Vargher, for instance, demonstrate

my law: that the number of opinion-expressing userboxes is inversely proportional with number of edits that user makes to the main articlespace. I won't say that I'm much better, because I'm just a lightweight editor, but the amount of time and serverspace that these relatively new users spend on Wikipedia could be better used for editing articles. If they want to go around making pretty little userboxes expressing their opinions, why don't they go on some other Wiki, or maybe LiveJournal or something? Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation have all their currently-overloaded servers to make an encyclopedia: not so people with a tiny amount of main articlespace edits can go around making pretty little userboxes saying that they are opposed to George W. Bush. --Deathphoenix

13:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Haukurth, please don't mistake my article edits for my only contributions to Wikipedia. I am also a clerk and a tools developer, and I am currently in the middle of a very important arbitration case involving me and, not surprisingly, userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mistake your article edits for your only contributions, in fact they are just a small portion of your current contributions. And I'm not saying all your non-article contributions are useless either :) Haukur 18:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman's post has convinced me that our approach has been much too lenient so far. We've seen a lot of silliness related to the more polemical userboxes, plenty of boundary testing behavior, and a few cases of borderline trolling. This has to stop. We need to keep in mind what the goal of this thing here is. This is not boxopedia. It's time to be decisive and send a clear signal that we're serious. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think at least one of the boxes you deleted was pretty good. It read: "This user opposes George W. Bush but equally vandalism of his Wikipedia biography." That's a good message to send to clueless newbies. Not liking X does not mean that you would want to damage X's article. Haukur 18:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's a case of

WP:BEANS. Whenever you say "don't do X", someone will take this as an incentive to do X. --MarkSweep (call me collect)

09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

People need an incentive to vandalise GWB? WP:BEANS applies to fairy new ideas not something that has already been done several thousand times.Geni 16:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding all the TIME covers we gave in Wikipedia: this is bad. I agree with this site: having so many covers on Wikipedia will not cut fair use, especially as some of them are not lower resolution. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The high resolution ones are not fair use and should be replaced or deleted. We really should have a template, analogous to {{

Chick Bowen

03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Done, {{

fairusereduce}}. Edits are welcome. —Ilmari Karonen (talk

) 11:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work Ilmari. But do we have any guidelines as to what is an appropriate "low resolution" in relation to the original work? I also had a look at the various images in

TIME

}} which has as the only fair use rationale:

• to illustrate the publication of the issue in question

There is a clear anomaly here which needs to be addressed I think. Fair use for the article on the subject on the cover could be argued in many cases I am sure. It seems to me the best way forward is to modify the template. Thoughts welcome. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your modification, since the rationale you added was way too broad. To quote an analogous example from

Wikipedia:fair use, "An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses" does not count as fair use. However, I agree that there's a gray area here. In particular, I believe that using a picture of a TIME magazine cover to illustrate the fact that a subject appeared on the cover of TIME magazine probably does count as fair use. —Ilmari Karonen (talk

) 12:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that if the fact that a person/place/thing appeared on the cover of TIME magazine is itself a notable fact, and one which is discussed in that subject's article, then it is appropriate to have the cover image to illustrate this fact. However, this isn't quite the same as a general allowance to use the covers in any context whatsoever when an illustration of its subject is needed. *Dan T.* 13:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. It seems to me that many articles are using the TIME magazine images as a general picture of the subject without reference to the relevance to their portrayal on the cover. I think some wording needs to be fashioned on the template to restrict this blanket use. I am sure we can work something out. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with

Err... ? [14] · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's cool, this is sorted out now. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am getting very frustrated with people sticking to the word of policy regarding blocking people on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I often find that people should have received a test4 or bv template long ago but people often seem to not bother warning people when reverting vandalism or give them too leniant a template i.e. test1 when the edits are clearly vandalism not just a mistake. Really I do not really see the point in warning a blatant vandal as they are not the sort of person who would be likely to take any notice, in fact, it would probably encourage them. I would be grateful if someone please block this ip Special:Contributions/66.189.121.67 as they have done nothing but vandalize since May 2005. Thanks Arniep 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider me a "rogue" admin in this sense. I show no mercy...I even rollback with a different summary for vandals. Adding a :) or "cool...I can edit" gets a test1....but "I suck cock", which I see here all the time, gets you 24 hours on the spot, more if you vandalized other stuff. They can always come back later if they magically become constructive editors.

T|@|ESP

23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No vandalism from this particular IP since last warning. The IP appears to be registered to a school, so this is probably a series of separate delinquents rather than one persistent one. Thus, warning before blocking makes sense.

Chick Bowen

23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the entire problem, warning will often not deter these people, but just encourage them. I really find it absolutely amazing that even if an ip's edits have consisted of nothing but vandalism from the start, still no block is applied just because people have not put the appropriate warning templates on. Arniep 00:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you have no mercy for vandals, but most people believe they deserve at least a warning. Either try to change policy, or become an admin and be

bold about vandalism blocks. -Greg Asche (talk)

00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I will not block a user who has never been warned, and I will remove all unwarned IPs from

WP:AIV. See User:Mindspillage/admin for rationale. --Ryan Delaney ^talk

00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

But the current warning system is just not working properly because people are using either too leniant a template or often not bothering to warn a user at all (resulting in the situation we have with this ip). Arniep 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I warn with test1 for people just playing around (and I rollback). If they have vandalism with a clear intent to damage the article/person in question, they get a test4 and my revert usually has "reverted vandalism by...to last version by..." in the summary. If the edits show a clear attempt to compromise Wikipedia more than once then they will get:

A)blocked indefinitely if it is a new account with an innapropriate/suggestive/fractalic (like "snfdsfnp444") name or an account with no other edits(a vandal account)

B)blocked for 24/48 hours if it is an IP or a new user with an exceptable name(most anything) and some other edits (not a vandal account).

C)blocked for 15 min - ~1 hour if it is an AOL IP.

And pretty much there we go. If someone keeps adding ":)" or "hello?" to an article, they will get test1 up to test4. They are not "true" vandals. Adding "HE IS GAY AND LIKE TO SUCK HUGE COCKS" will get you thrown out the door much faster. It is really just common sense. Besides, what Britinnica authors add stuff like that to their articles?(none...because they would get fired).

T|@|ESP

00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mindspillage says in her rationale "(warning) What does it cost you? A few minutes of refreshing someone's contributions page to see if they're still at it.". This is the whole problem- that it is not at all the only cost- what it costs is a lot of time wasted by wikipedia contributors in dealing with vandalism when they could be improving articles! I don't think that a distinction should be made between offensive or non offensive vandalism, whatever sort it is it still wastes a lot of time for everybody so is detrimental to the project. I think that the applying of at least a short block of at least half an hour for blatant vandalism would greatly reduce the amount of work in dealing with this problem. Arniep 00:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)