Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive41

64.142.89.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) constantly changes articles about bands that have peoper nouns for names. For instance, a passage in the Guns N' Roses article said "Guns N' Roses is" (correct) and he changed it to "Guns N' Roses are" (incorrect). The vandal suggested we discuss it on the Guns N' Roses talk page. We did so and concluded with proper evidence that "Guns N' Roses is" is the correct wording. However, when we go back to revert the changes 64.142.89.105 has made, he reverts back immediately and calls us vandals that should discuss the situation further. He then threatens to report us to Wikipedia, despite the fact that he has been blocked and banned from Wikipedia numerous times for doing the exact same thing. Please prevent him from further trolling and vandalizing Wikipedia. TheNewMinistry 15:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please report further things like this to

WP:AIV. Thanks, Master of Puppets ^{Your will is mine.}

23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually "Guns N' Roses are" IS correct. I was mearly trying to correct what I saw (and still do believe is) misinformation, which is "Guns N' Roses is". The name sounds like the band is talking about more than one gun and rose. TheNewMinistry (or other users) doesn't stop changing "are" back to "is", I will report him (or her) for vandalism. FOR THE LAST TIME: "Guns N' Roses are" IS correct and "Guns N' Roses is" IS NOT correct. 64.142.89.105 03:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is, in fact, a local linguistic variation. British English commonly uses "Group are adjective"; American English uses "Group is adjective". It's mostly a matter of style, not "correct" or "incorrect". See

American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns

(That said, "Guns N'Roses" is a proper noun which is plural in form, so that suggests "are" would probably be preferred over "is" in both dialects)

talk

| 00:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Travb is now being developed into an attack page, which includes several false statements and deliberate lies. (True, the user he's attacking, he doesn't name, but that only makes it less bad, not acceptable.) Example:

The admininstrator A admitted he was guilty of a 3RR violation, stated he was going to voluntarily boot himself, then three minutes later unbooted himself, stating he "changed his mind" Another administrator B then unbooted him.

This is a statement that Travb has acknowledged to be false under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Decision not to have a fellow admin blocked above.

Statements between myself, Administrator A, and Administrator B were erased on his user page. They are no longer in the history of Administrator A talk page.

Just as Travb has demonstrated an inability to check block logs before making false statements about what they contain, he also has an inability to check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philwelch&action=history page histories before making false statements as well.

This all stems, not only from his obsession with me stemming from a recent dispute, but also from his repeated insistence to use a fair-use image on his user and talk pages, even after repeated admin intervention. Given my past with this editor, it would be inappropriate for me to intervene, but something must be done. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 16:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: the second false statement has since http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Travb&curid=2805240&diff=53884069&oldid=53883840 been corrected. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Attack blanked, page protected. --Tony Sidaway 17:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Complaining about (what they see as) unfairness isn't the same as making a personal attack. I've been watching this too, and while I don't see that his complaining is helpful, I'm struggling to see how it's harmful. If someone thinks they're being treated unfairly, we only escalate the problem by blocking them for complaining about the unfairness. If he were spamming this stuff onto other's talk pages, that would be a problem, but as it is? Why not just leave it alone? Friday (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it helping build the encyclopedia? · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 17:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. But, unneccessary drama doesn't help build the encyclopedia, either. Friday (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you've come around to agreeing with me on this. After all, the only unnecessary drama here was recently deleted from Travb's talk page by Tony. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments User:Katefan0 and User:Friday. I agree with you both that this behavior does not helping build the encyclopedia. Deleting thousands of images from user pages with little understanding of copyright law, with the users own interpretation of copyright, with no consensus at all, does not help build an encyclopedia, and causes a lot of ill feelings and bad will between dozens, maybe hundreds of people. I also agree that ignoring a {{inuse}} tag and causing a page to be reverted 3 times also does not help build an encyclopedia. Applying the rules in what I see as an arbitrary way, also does not help build an encyclopedia, and creates a lot of bad will toward others. Please keep in mind that I did not start either of these arguments. Phil did, and the other user did, as I wrote above. If anyone misses this point, I will repeat is as many times as needed to drill this point home, I will also provide all pages and all information to back up any claim which I make.Travb 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand, the image deletion was not due to copyright law, but rather due to Wikipedia's more-restrictive copyright policy. Yes, one can argue that posting that image in your userspace didn't violate copyright law. But it does violate Wikipedia policy. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That is another debate, at another time, another place.Travb 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Complaining about unfairness is perfectly fine. Making false statements about other people's actions isn't, especially when one has already acknowledged those statements to be false. That's something we call lying out in the "real world". Bizarre obsessions with me are also rather unwelcome. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So what would you call this statment Phil, in the "real world": I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before.

13:55, 15 May 2006 Philwelch blocked "Philwelch (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (I broke the 3RR and can own up to it myself.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=user%3APhilwelch Signed: 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Further, I did not "lie". I was mislead. By your own statments: That you would boot yourself, then you changed your mind, then you actually booted yourself, then, not 5 minutes later, jareth unboots you. (See above for the entire series of events) I apologize for assuming good faith, and believing the statments out of your own mouth.

Please assume good faith and not call my statments "lies". After my repeated admonisions for you to stop, I am already going to report you for your continual deragatory statements.

If you are really sorry for breaking 3RR, as I believe because I assume good faith, block yourself for 24 hours. Travb 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would call that an accidental misstatement, much like the multiple misstatements you have made in (for instance) confusing Admin B with Admin C. As you can see, I have corrected myself. I suggest you accept it as an honest mistake, just as I have accepted your honest mistakes as such. You have had ample opportunity to read my block log. You stated at one point that I didn't unblock myself. And then you repeat this allegation you know to be false. That is lying. And I've already blocked myself for 24 hours—I had no idea Jaroth would unblock me, and I don't even know him. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning: if you said that I lied one more time, I will report you to the verbal abuse page. I have repeatedly asked you to stop. Further, you do not "know" what I am thinking, so please stop assuming that you do.

AGAIN: I RELIED ON YOUR STATMENTS instead of "... read(ing)(your) block log.": that you would voluntary block yourself, and then that you "changed your mind" 33 minutes later you blocked yourself, then 5 minutes later Jareth unblocked you. Relying on your statments is not a lie. It is called assuming GOOD FAITH. Assuming good faith is not calling people liars, and it is not assuming that you know what the other person thinks.

That is the facts, I would post those facts here again. If you state that I lie, then why would you write: You have had ample opportunity to read my block log? This statment shows that you are entertaining the idea that I did not read your block log, and it was my own neglegence which caused me to beleive your statments. This is similar to your response when I told you to stop editing my section which had a {{inuse}} tag.

I suggest you invest in a text editor, learn to merge edits after an edit conflict, or simply override edit conflicts and reintegrate any interim changes later. I've used all of these tactics successfully for years.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Travb&oldid=53302662

In otherwords, instead of admitting a mistake, and aplogoizing, you blame me. I should have investigated into a "text editor" I should have read the "block log".Travb 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Travb's response

This all stems from Phil ignoring a {{inuse}} tag, and beginning a revert war, and violating 3RR, which he admitted he did, blocking himself, unblocking himself 6 minutes later citing that he "changed his mind, then blocking himself again(?) and being unblocked by Jareth after a few minutes.

Umm Phil, the creator of that image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uncyclopedia_logo.png has just given the permission as the creator to allow it as a free use. If the other user would have simply asked the creator premission, instead of deleting the image from many pages (I don't know how many) this intrusive and unproductive argument between myself and another user would have never started.

So the other user who interprets fair use so strickly, cause a huge, huge, huge scandal, similar to the Time magazine fair use scandal, not only with my but with dozens, maybe hundreds of users.

I may point out, that none of these people who are deleting these images citing fair use, to my knowledge, have any legal training. Further, they (mis)interpret the words of Jimbo in the strictest possible way, and cause a lot of contention and bitter feelings by their unilateral approaches. Further, there is no comprise with these people, none at all, despite me mentioning appelate court cases on point, which interpret fair use quite differently, they ignore these posts, and are quite agressive when dissent is pointed out. See my protected user talk page for examples.Travb 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Per me unblocking myself: that's a goddamn lie and I don't appreciate you repeating it. Read my block log. I have never unblocked myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3APhilwelch Per fair use: We're here to enforce Wikipedia policy, not the law. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and do not call my accusations "lies". Thank you. I have asked you repeatedly to stop, and you have ignored this.

I did not "lie". I was mislead. By your own statments: That you would boot yourself, then you changed your mind, then you actually booted yourself, then, not 5 minutes later, jareth unboots you. (See above for the entire series of events) I apologize for assuming good faith, and believing the statments out of your own mouth. Despite your statment above:I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before. you actually did block yourselfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=user%3APhilwelch at 13:55, 15 May 2006. Travb 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Philwelch wrote: This is a statement that Travb has acknowledged to be false under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Decision not to have a fellow admin blocked above.

I was incorrect, after checking my own user page, I assumed good faith with the other person's stmt, I was wrong, Philwelch did state he was going to voluntarily boot himself, then "changed his mind". I will correct this now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Travb&diff=prev&oldid=53310941 User:Philwelch message: (→Apology - change mind) Travb 17:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, as you know, I did block myself. For reasons outside my control, I was unblocked. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Statements between myself, Administrator A, and Administrator B were erased on his user page. They are no longer in the history of Administrator A talk page.

Thanks for correcting this incorrect statment (below), pointing out that I did, in future edits change this, when I realized my mistake.Travb 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Everything I state is correct:

1. At 13:16, 15 May 2006
   Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Philwelch
   , I shall block myself for 24 hours, which is the standard remedy. See you in 24.)
2. At 13:22, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch six minutes later unbooted himself stating he "changed his mind", making me assume, mistakenly based on his own statments, that he had first booted himself, then unbooted himself, without checking the block log. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Travb&diff=prev&oldid=53310941
3. 13:55, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch blocked himself.
4. 14:00, 15 May 2006 Jareth then unblocked him.

Why did you boot yourself 33 minutes after you said you "changed" your mind? Did you email or contact Jareth before you booted yourself for real the second time?

The bottom line is that you broke the 3RR rules, and should be booted, as the average user is booted.

Please assume good faith and do not call my accusations "lies" further do not say that you will use my RfC as "toilet paper", further do not call my inquires an "obsession", which you have done twice, and finally, please do not call my a "tempremental child". Thank you.Travb 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You are completely unable to let go of a dispute that has been long over and that I have already apologized and blocked myself for. Do not blame me for the fact that another administrator chose to unblock me. Furthermore, I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to correct myself: I have never unblocked myself and you know it. I mistyped. Since you accused me of unblocking myself (as we both agree that I did block myself), this was in fact a more relevant question. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before.

13:55, 15 May 2006 Philwelch blocked "Philwelch (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (I broke the 3RR and can own up to it myself.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=user%3APhilwelch Signed: 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, I dependend on your statment:

1. At 13:16, 15 May 2006
   Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Philwelch
   , I shall block myself for 24 hours, which is the standard remedy. See you in 24.)
2. At 13:22, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch six minutes later unbooted himself stating he "changed his mind", making me assume, mistakenly based on his own statments, that he had first booted himself, then unbooted himself, without checking the block log.

I did not check the block log, because I believed what you said. 30 minutes later, you actually blocked yourself, and then 5 minutes later Jareth unblocked you.

I am interested:

1. Why did you boot yourself 33 minutes after you said you "changed your mind"?

1. Did you email or contact Jareth before you booted yourself for real the second time?

The bottom line is that you broke the 3RR rules, and should be booted, as the average user is booted.

If you apology is truly sincere, then block yourself for 24 hours, like everyone else has.Travb 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Full table

The offensive table, minus the title. If this is not okay to post here, please remove. The entire table is also found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATravb&diff=53884833&oldid=53884582

Deleted as suggested. This thing is way too big and there's the link. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This table is incorrect. I am Admin A and I have never unblocked myself and Travb knows this. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I relied on your words, stating that you would block yourself, then that you changed your mind. Thank you for not calling me a liar again.Travb 17:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Please keep in mind that both User_talk:Philwelch and the other User instigated these disagreements.

User_talk:Philwelch started a revert war, which he admitted guilt for, he also repeatedly ignored a {{inuse}} tag.

The other user began to delete hundreds of images from user pages. Instead of asking the creator of unencyclopedia for permission, he simply began to delete them. I reverted, he deleted it again, I deleted, he reverted again.

Tony, who protected my own userpage, is a strict copyright violation person, who interprets the law strictly. He was involved in some other copyright violation disputes involving Time magazine covers, which were promenent here. He is one of the admins that I emailed, who never responded to my message. He had been involved on the same side as me in the WSI arbitration. I felt that, dispite our minor disagreement about copyright, that he would be a fair and impartial judge of me being blocked today. For whatever reason, him, and another admin who did not punish phil for starting a revert war and a 3RR, never responded to my emails. (Tony was never directly involved in the revert war of my blocking, I felt he was an imparial third party)

The admin who blocked me, despite my apologies, felt like I should "cool down". Despite 4 emails, he refused to remove the block. So: there is one admin who starts a revert war, ignores an {{inuse}} tag. and has been banned twice before for 3RR reverts, and also has told other users to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Admin_harassment_block "fuck off", and gets off scot free. I was shocked at some of the behavior of Phil above, but yet many admins come to his defense, stating he may have had a bad day, etc. Myself, on the other hand, get the full 24 hours.

Favortism? You decide.

I would also like to mention the repeated deletions of what I write on this page by certain admins.

Or, you can just prove my point and try to silence me, as user Friday pointed out above, making the situation worse, and proving your own blatant hyprocricy.

Signed:Travb 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As I explained at

WP:DRV, I think Travb to have been exceedingly decorous in his postings here, and I think, irrespective of one's differences with him apropos of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines (which he seems to have come to appreciate are stricter than those Wikipedia would otherwise or by law be required to implement), one must concede that he has attempted, on the whole, to make his case through logical argument, rather than through vituperation. The substance, IMHO, of his subpage, talk page, and post supra is Wikirelevant, and his criticisms seem to be directed at the actions of various editors, rather than at those editors themselves. From his posts here, I infer a genuine desire to help to grow the encyclopedia; these are neither the posts we typically get from those intent on disrupting nor the posts we typically get from disgruntled editors simply upset about having had images removed, for example, from their talk pages. I surely think that we ought to treat Travb in the fashion Friday sets out above, with the hope that he might better understand WP policy (and the reasons behind it), in order that he might then contribute productively. Joe

18:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Decorous? Perhaps? Accurate? Not a snowball's chance. As the aforementioned "Administrator B", I have never blocked Travb, the unblocking of "Administrator A" was to reverse a punative block that Travb still cannot let go of and finally, I did respond to his email the moment I got online, it simply wasn't the answer he wanted. I have no problem with his discussion of policies, I do have a problem with the continued disruption, attacks and lying. You might find a deeper look at his history educational. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a response to User:Jareth, on my talk page, and an additional two lines:

I never said that you blocked me. I said admin C did. You are admin B. Please reread the table, it is confusing at times, and I attempt to keep admin A admin B admin C and admin D seperate.

Secondly, I did not "forgive" anyone for a 3RR violation as many people have tried fruitlessly to explain to you.

What word would you like to use instead: "dismissed"? What is a correct verb which we both could agree on.Travb 19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

claiming I did not respond is certainly false at this point You did not respond. I did not accuse you of ignoring my email, I only stated that you did not respond. I have not gotten your email yet, so I will check me email.Travb 19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hi, I got your email. It was in the bulk mail folder. I dont know why. Thanks for the email.Travb 19:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Jareth Please assume good faith, and don't call my statments a lie.

Have a cup of tea, or a hot bath and come back feeling refreshed; as you said, its the internet and just not worth getting so worked up over. Travb 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to review your above table; it current states "I was blocked by Administrator B for WP:POINT. I never "vandalize pages (user or otherwise) to make a point" again." Apparently you got which admin you were accusing of what by which fake name confused while writing it since you used B for me everywhere else. As for the 3RR incident, as before, blocks are not used as punishment, they are to stop disruption. Since the disruption was long past, blocking was completely uneccessary and your continued rallying for such and continued whining is frankly rather silly at this point. Had you been willing to consider that your current conduct might be disruptive and stop the behavior, I would have been happy to unblock you. I'm glad you were able to find the email -- junk filters can be bizarre at times. And I'm having white tea with pear; rather refreshing actually. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"I was blocked by Administrator B for WP:POINT. I never "vandalize pages (user or otherwise) to make a point" again."

My mistake, I try to be 100% accurate, because I know that I will others will point this out quickly. MY APOLOGIES: User:Jareth HAS NEVER BLOCKED ME. I WAS WRONG. User:Jareth HAS NEVER BLOCKED ME. I can add this apology anywhere you would like.

As for the 3RR incident, as before, blocks are not used as punishment, they are to stop disruption.

As mentioned before, I gave in to Phil, and stopped the revert war, which he started, and reported him to 3RR, hoping that, since he obvoiously broke 3RR, which he later admmited readily, his actions would be punished. That is the entire reason why the disruption stopped completly. So because I had the good sense to stop the 3RR, and report it to 3RR, Phil gets off, scot free, and is not punished for his actions.

Further, he states that he will block himself, he changes his mind, then 30 minutes later he blocks himself, and 5 minutes later you unblock him. Despite this confusing change of heart, you take his sincerity at face value, yet you state that in regards to my own apology: "It does appear, however, that your apology was less than sincere".Travb 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please stop using your userspace to create malformed

RFCs. This is the second example of this in a week. If you think an issue or behaviour is worth bringing additional community attention to, please create a proper RFC. Jkelly

18:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty broad topic. What do you suggest? Travb 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, not a single RFC on both concerns that you have, that's for sure. See

WP:OWN its content. Jkelly

19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think my debate with Phil will die. In fact, I will not report him to the page for abusive comments. I will pursue a RfC about general fair use rules in the future. But I want to build my case first, so it may be some time in coming. I have also calmed down a lot, so the urgency of doing this has subsided.Travb 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd still like to see where I told anyone to fuck off. Please give me a link to the precise diff. Special:Contributions/Philwelch is a good place to start looking. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am relying on this statment above:

If you visit Philwelch's talk page you will understand the whole sequence of events. User:Samir asks him "Phil, please don't call him names. Thanks." for whichhe replied "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby". At this point I put a no personal attack warning on Philwelch's talk page and I was blocked and asked by him to "Leave me the hell alone! ". On posting a noblock template on my talk page I was further blocked for 3 hours. - 203.88.151.10 10:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I will assume good faith and trust that you never said: "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby" My apologies for believing user:203.88.151.10.Travb 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I said that. But I never told anyone to fuck off. I'm sorry you can't see the distinction. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh. I see. Sorry, from now on I will state that User:Philwelch said: "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby" I am glad that we are clear on that point.Travb 22:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this the same garbage that was deleted from your Talk page? Why are you importing it here? Why does it matter? Go write an article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zoe, for your vote of support (I am being cynical, if you didn't catch that). User:Philwelch began this argument here. I am defending myself from his allegations. I can defend myself from User:Philwelch allegations, can't I, even if you may personally disagree with my view, and call my views "garbage"?Travb 16:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Leaving the subject be and engaging in some article construction sounds like a fine idea. Boy, I just finished making three:
  Talk
  17:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been contacted by a user who say his name is User:Kirkham, however I can't seem to find him? He says that he been blocked from editing even though he was not at fault? Am I doing something wrong in the search, is it possible to search for a user account with an email address, which I have since he contacted me directly? this is kinda odd... thank you for your help. Gryffindor 17:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a user Kirkham (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Kirkham). I would guess that (s)he has been hit by an autoblock or an IP block. Either way unblocking the IP will unblock the user. Do you have the user's IP address? Prodego ^talk 17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. No I don't unfortunately. Should I ask (doubt the user will know it though). Or should I just recommend the user to start with a different account? Gryffindor 00:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place for this request, and if not would appreciate a pointer to what would be the right place.

I'd like to put in a good word for restoring User:Dzoni's account. He was banned for being a sockpuppet of the Communism vandal, but he pretty clearly is not the Communism vandal, mainly because he hasn't been following the modus operandi: vandalizes with references to communism and/or the hammer and sickle. He's had a noticeable tenure here at Wikipedia, so would have had plenty of chances to do that if he was tCv. His only connection to the Communism vandal is that he mentioned him in admiring tones. He hasn't vandalized following the tCv model.

He is a well meaning, if somewhat rash and hot-tempered editor, which has earned him a few temporary blocks. However blocking his account forever for that plus mentioning tCV is like convicting a jaywalker wearing a Charles Manson tshirt of homicide, and will dilute the impact of blocking real sock-puppets of tCv.

He's been blocked for quite a few days now. That should be sufficient punishment. His attempt to get his account reinstated is accompanied with promises of better behaviour and moderation. Given that he was convicted of a false charge, I recommend giving him that chance. If he is punished, it should be for something he genuinely did, not for guilt by association. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to think the sockpuppet allegation to be, although not unfounded, unpersuasive. Dzoni may eventually exhaust the community's patience and merit an indefinite block (his talk page is replete with warnings and short blocks for disruption [though normally only in the form of
  assume Dzoni to be editing in good faith and genuinely to want to contribute productively. Joe
  18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If I get another admin's support, I'd consider unblocking Dzoni. I agree that he doesn't look like the communism vandal, and if he is fooling us and vandalizes like communism we'll just reblock. Not like WiC is subtle. Syrthiss 18:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll go along with that ... we should all try and assume good faith. And vandals have been rehabilitated (is that the right term?) before. He needs tp be kept an eye on, though. But he needs to have it made perfectly clear that any further asshattery may result in a long-term / infinite ban.

type

14:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll go enact that, and email the user just in case they aren't monitoring their page. Syrthiss 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User does not have email enabled. Syrthiss 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree,I was blocked for no reason,and now Im unblocked because I should have never been blocked(off course,I wasnt blocked for being sockupuppet in the first place,it is clear that administrator tried to block me few times and he was just waiting for a right time,although he knew I am no sockpuppet).Anyways,you made a right decision and I accept apologyDzoni 17:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) The administrator who blocked you doesn't appear to have had any interactions with you before (at least on your Talk page). (2) I trust the judgement of the admins who have blocked you before for 3rr, etc. One thing you can be sure of: we have plenty of admins who will block you without attempting to cobble together a reason to block you, so please don't assume a conspiracy. Syrthiss 17:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this done or no? I always understood that users who were leaving could blank their talk pages and have their user pages deleted, but that talk page histories were generally preserved for "historical interest." But I've seen lately that User_talk:CarlHewitt and User_talk:JedRothwell have been deleted, so perhaps I'm mistaken. This doesn't seem to be covered in the deletion policy. –Joke 18:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if a page is deleted, its history is still extant for admins to view. Syrthiss 18:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Blank the page and protect it, but do not delete it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zoe, just blank the page but never delete the user talk page. Only delete the userpage and personal subpages but the talk part has some valued history of the users. The only exception is cases of stalking like what sadly happened to

^{wat's sup}

02:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should never be deleted, and actually I don't know why we don't say the same thing of everything in user space, for that matter. Some of this stuff contains a useful record of past events. Friday (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of a gray area. Some admins prefer to delete the pages, particularly when there are personal attacks or other inflammatory content on the page or in the history, and some just blank them or blank them and protect them so that all users are able to see the history. Cases like this have been brought to the administrators' noticeboard before and when there is a lot of participation in the discussion, the page is usually restored and blanked (in my possibly faulty perception). However, some longtime admins and Jimbo have deleted user talk pages. I think a good policy would be to blank them in most cases, with or without protecting them, and delete them only when necessary, especially considering that pages deleted before the database crash on June 8, 2004 cannot be viewed or restored by admins. -- Kjkolb 02:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zoe on this one: blank and protect, but don't delete. However, be aware that there http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Jimbo+Wales&page=User+talk%3ALocke+Cole is precedent from up high for the deletion of talk pages, although I personally disagree with that.

(talk)

02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That was once, it was an extenuating circumstance, and it won't be repeated very often. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

...to report personal attacks? I see them by the score as I read Wikipedia, but usually I shrug and remember a free press is a nice for those who own one. But it eventually does get tiresome reading the leavings of people so confident of their own rightness they attack the sanity of others instead of responding to the subject at hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=53224490 "Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist?" wrote User:John Smith's Notice.NPA 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You report them to

WP:PAIN, the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard. — Phil Welch (t) (c

) 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc.

contains this text:

"Blackmun's Rape

Justice Harry Blackmun dissented, and, joined by Justices, raped Sony Corporation's Pamela Njaie, saying afterwards, "We didn't mean to.. We all just had hard-ons and we needed to ejaculate Somewhere!"

I hope someone can fix this. J.

Fixed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=53975619 . Antandrus (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Re these http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aluminium&diff=prev&oldid=53841769 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sodium&diff=prev&oldid=54005043 and presumably many more edits, would a meta-admin please consider putting pru.in.ua on the spam blacklist? Femto 12:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I tossed that url up on the meta "to be added" yesterday...but I guess it hasn't been added yet. Syrthiss 12:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note that they keep changing the sub-domain. Have you requested to blacklist the base address? It should be safe (that is, would not affect a whole webhost); no googlehits for site:pru.in.ua, and pru.in.ua/ is an empty page. Femto 12:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I only listed pointy-chested-blondes.XXX (whatever it was), but the blacklist folks typically put *.XXX anyhow. Its pretty common that they change the subdomain. Syrthiss 13:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been blocking IPs that edit like this for 48 hours on sight. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 12:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The IPs that edit like this are open proxies should be reported on

Naconkantari

15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Philwelch is moving around my comments on this board, and refuses to stop, this behavior here is exactly what cause the first 3RR:

19:56, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page - fixing fmt--just as Travb's responses shouldn't intersperse with mine, mine shouldn't intereperse with his)

(cur) (last) 19:53, 18 May 2006 Philwelch m (Reverted edits by Travb (talk) to last version by Philwelch)

(cur) (last) 19:53, 18 May 2006 Travb (please do not move around my comments, I am attempting to add back your comments after you deleted/moved mine along with Jkelly Once again, you initiated this, just as the 3RR.)

(cur) (last) 19:53, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page)

(cur) (last) 19:52, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page - rearrange)

(cur) (last) 19:49, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (rv--Travb is deleting my comments, I am not deleting his, I am rearranging them.)

(cur) (last) 19:47, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page)

(cur) (last) 19:46, 18 May 2006 Travb (Phil, do not delete my comments--or I will start another 3RR)

The previous revert war:

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NSA_call_database&oldid=53299074 11:31, 15 May 2006
• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NSA_call_database&diff=53303795&oldid=53303681 12:23, 15 May 2006
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NSA_call_database&diff=next&oldid=53303905 12:24, 15 May 2006
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NSA_call_database&diff=next&oldid=53304170 12:26, 15 May 2006
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NSA_call_database&oldid=53304639 12:30, 15 May 2006 Philwelch

In which I allowed Philwelch to delete my graph, despite the revert war he started, and the ignored {{inuse}} tag

Once again, I am going to let Philwelch "win" and Jareth can come along and forgive Philwelch because no controversy still exists.Travb 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's standard practice on talk pages not to intersperse your replies with the original post, as it gets confusing. In the edit on top there, I'm actually rearranging *my own reply* to conform to this rule. It's also standard practice to post replies in chronological order—i.e. not to post your reply before an earlier reply, which is what you were doing. The formatting was getting confusing and I was fixing it. Furthermore, you removed my comments—I never removed yours. Once again, your obsession with me and compulsive need to pick a fight is somewhat disturbing. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the graph you were working on on the NSA page is right here so you can work on it without (a) interfering with other edits to a topical and heavily-edited article and (b) subjecting readers to what is now a disorganized work-in-process. I moved your graph there in order to help resolve our dispute. I have seen no such productive problem-solving from you, although I hope this changes. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) Phil's certainly correct here (btw, Travb, for future reference, if you meant this as a specific 3RR complaint and not a general admin conduct complaint, you ought to have noted it instead at

NSA call database is useful; relatively petty carping about hypertechnicalities, especially where your interpretation is likely inconsistent with that for which a consensus exists, is not. Joe

20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not move my comments around again. Travb 20:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's standard practice. It's something I and many Wikipedians before me have agreed on, and it's something you learn from experience. Wikipedia isn't run according to precise rules and regulations that govern every small aspect of what we do here. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had two other editors (one here, one on your talk page) come out to say that my refactoring is perfectly acceptable, while your actions here are counterproductive. Is that enough for you to stop? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight, so all I can say is this:

Nobody cares!. Get back to creating an encyclopedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In the words of the great philosopher -- Meat Loaf -- "I couldn't have said it better myself". The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• The page says it is to "get administrator attention quickly," yet there have been issues there for 3 days now that no admins have addressed yet. On Wikipedia, I would think quickly means at most a few hours, not days. Paul Cyr 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it is because your argument has no merit. -- Gnetwerker 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess you didn't notice the other user reports on there. So none of those arguements have merit and admins won't remove issues with no merit? Seems to me you are just trying to create problems. But what I find funny is that you had said before "I am tired of dealing with this user" and yet you seem to be following my edits. Get lost Gnetwerker, stop following me around making snide comments. Or are you up for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IronDuke_and_Gnetwerker/Proposed_decision another ArbCom ruling cautioning you against being rude? Paul Cyr 06:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Malber, who did in fact address your complaint, that Gnetwerker did not make personal attacks requiring immediate admin intervention. By claiming that admins oignored your complaint when Malber took the time to look into it, you do him a disservice. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • And you do me a disservice by claiming I said stuff I did not. I never said admins were ignoring my compaint. As for Malber, I can't find his name on the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedia_administrators&from=Knowledge+Seeker administrator list. He hasn't identified himself on his user page that he is an administrator either. Can you show me that he even is an administrator? Paul Cyr 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I consider it fairly self-evident that your complaint here relates to the fact that your other complaint on
   WP:PAIN
   was not dealt with the way you wanted.
2. No, Malber is not an administrator, but non-admins may deal with any 'administrative' task except those requiring administrative tools. Admins are not anything particularly special, they just have some extra buttons.
3. If an admin declines to block someone on
   WP:PAIN
   , they won't necessarily announce it, especially if someone (even a non-admin) has adequately addressed the case. If no-one posts to disagree with the first person to reply, then that almost certainly indicates agreement.
4. If you really want the voice of an administrator, here it is. Malber's analysis is correct.
5. Your own comments are far from civil: for instance, saying that Malber has "been accused of making personal attacks yourself", then giving a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malber&diff=52356926&oldid=52170791 diff which showed a user quoting an NPA warning by Malber, presenting it as if the quoter was issuing an NPA warning. That misrepresentation of the facts is then followed up by a healthy dose of well-poisoning with "I recommend admins taking this user's comments with a grain of salt". For your own good, I would recommend that you drop this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Or maybe the fact that I did not get an administrator response on an administrator notice board. Would I be making my comments if I hadn't posted on PAIN? Obviously not. However not only were my notices not addressed by an administrator, no one else’s have been for four days now. That only compounds my point. Especially since I have brought this to your attention and other people's complaints are still waiting to be addressed. To the point of Sophia resorting to shouting! Is user has restored the material [5] AGAIN! Help! not notice enough? My notice was never addressed by an administrator and I was simply saying "hey! look at all of us waiting for administrators!" Your blatant accusation that I am just doing this because I am not happy with the handling (or lack thereof) is just bad faith and incorrect. In short, the first line of the page says This page is intended to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks. If no administrators comment on issues lasting days you actually think the page is being properly monitored?
2. Pot meet kettle. Below you say that I was misrepresenting the facts (which I will address) yet you say By claiming that admins ignored your complaint when Malber took the time to look into it, you do him a disservice. Hmm... post on admin notice board, user comments, poster saying admins ignored him does said user disservice. Explain to me how that doesn't imply said user is an admin. At the very least show me how it could be reasonably interpreted that Malber wasn't an admin. non-admins may deal with any 'administrative' task except those requiring administrative tools. Really? Show me the Wikipedia policy that says non-admins may make rulings on admin notice boards, not comments, rulings. Show me the policy.
3. Do you actually expect me to believe that? That's just faulty logic plain and simple. If an admin removed the notices that would be an indication. But four days of users saying "is anyone reading this? help!" is hardly admins agreeing with comments. At the very least they would remove the notices or say something.
4. Now, now, did you really think that would be satisfactory after I asked Malber to justify his remarks? You haven't even shown any indication that you've even read the notice. So basically you are agree with a user that doesn't provide justification. In any case, the reason why I've been asking for justification is simple. Just for kicks (not really), in your own words, define ad hominem, because I have a strong suspicion you have no idea what it is.
5. And I will apologize for that, I read it over too quickly and though Malber was being warned, not quoted. But please, don't try to intimidate me with that "for your own good" crap.

I expect all the other user' issues on

WP:PAIN to be addressed before or immediately after your reply to me, otherwise I would love to see how many words you have to write to even begin to show no hypocrisy. Paul Cyr

06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see - taking the recent ones, H8 wasn't addressed because it was a throwaway account that had already been discarded, but just to please you I blocked it anyway. Gnetwerker had already been dealt with by Malber, EnthusiastFRANCE archived the personal attack warnings rather than removing them (he does not wish to have a talk page) and is trying to move on, so no administrative action would be productive, and RyanFreisling asked a difficult question in a perfectly civil way. Now that's over with, you don't bring up anything new. Non-admins may always offer comments (no-one makes 'rulings' around here, except the Arbcom), this is a generally accepted principle everywhere, and, if that doesn't satisfy you, has been formally accepted at

WP:AIV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Appropriate_for_Non-Admins_to_Remove_Alerts.3F . And it's very simple - if no admin posts, that means "no action necessary". If a non-admin posts, and no-one posts to disagree, that means "we agree". This is a wiki - "I agree +1 editcount" isn't as commonly seen around here as on Internet forums. --Sam Blanning^(talk)

10:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. How do you expect me to reach a consensus with you if you are going to pick and choose which points of mine you are going to address? You addressed most of my first point but not my points raised by Sophia's complaint. I can't see how you even attempted to address my third point, and you completely ignored my fourth point which is the cause for this debate. In addition to your comment of "If a non-admin posts, and no-one posts to disagree, that means "we agree"." Completely supports my point. I was the last responder to Malber. So since no one disagreed with my insisting he provide some justification for his views, according to your statement the admins agree that he didn't provide a good justification.
• Non-admins may always offer comments (no-one makes 'rulings' around here, except the Arbcom), this is a generally accepted principle everywhere, and, if that doesn't satisfy you, has been formally accepted at WP:AIV [60] .. If it's been "formerly accepted", why is there no policy on it? At the very least there would be a guideline no?
• In any case, back to the point at hand, no one has even offered a measly sentence to try to explain how Gnetwerker's comments were not personal attacks. The fact that you have refused to offer an explanation that you even know what an ad hominem is even when you could have copy-pasted from Wikitionary makes me doubt your sincerity in trying to offer a balanced view. I handed that one to you and you still didn't bother to address it.
• I don't find it objectionable if someone disagrees with my views. However on every level of non-fallacious arguing and just plain honesty, picking and choosing points to address is indecent. Paul Cyr 05:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• EDIT: oh, just so you know, Sophia has been waiting a week now for a response. Either she is being ignored or no one is bothering to maintain the page by removing out-dated comments (I was the one who removed a bunch yesturday.) "self-evident that your complaint here relates to the fact that your other complaint on
  WP:PAIN
  was not dealt with the way you wanted" my ass.

Given Samuel's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Samuel_Blanning abandonment of this discussion and Alistair's removement of my complaint from

1. Gnetwerker made personal attacks against me.
2. I asked Gnetwerker to stop multiple times.
3. Gnetwerk continued making personal attacks.
4. I brought the attacks to the attention of
   WP:PAIN
   .
5. The user Malber commented that they were not personal attacks.
6. I asked him to explain his views because he wasn't providing any justification, he did not.
7. After a few days without any action being taken, I felt the page was being disregarded and brought it to the attention here.
8. After the above discussions, Samuel's comments appear to be an
   ignoratio elenchi
   which were full of unexplained and bad-faith remarks and cherry picking.
9. Without respect to the discussion here, Alistair removed the comments from
   WP:PAIN
   .
10. Since I am not going to repost the complaint on
    WP:PAIN and no serious attempt has been made to resolve the issue, I am going to request mediation. Paul Cyr
    02:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You missed something out of that chain of events. After Gnetwerker's first edit to Windows Aero, you responded by reverting his edit with the comment rv fanboyismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Aero&diff=51921793&oldid=51899955. AlistairMcMillan 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your accusation Alistair to which you ignored. Don't bring stuff that you are not willing to discuss. BTW, there is nothing incivil or offensive about what I said. Paul Cyr 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You are complaining that Gnetwerker attacked you by accusing you of being a "Microsoft fanboy". You don't think it is relevant that you had just previously described one of his edits as "fanboyism"? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Aero&diff=51921793&oldid=51899955 In your initial post to WP:PAIN you quoted Wiktionary: 'a personal attack as any comment about the commenter inorder to discredit them'. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=52259810&oldid=52205863 You don't consider describing Gnetwerker's edit as "fanboyism" an attempt to discredit it?AlistairMcMillan 15:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop cherry picking, you still haven't addressed the fact that I previously addressed your point to which you ignored and that now, only after you brought it up again, are you seemingly willing to continue discussing it.

Alistair, with all due civility, please read up on an

WP:NPA says that saying someone is acting like something is not a personal attack. You seem to be cherry picking once again by ignoring that I already addressed why I made that comment and how the situation changed afterwards. Paul Cyr

01:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User stolenfishjoke was deleted with absolutly no recourse given to appeal the decsion, this unilateral userbox edit warring must stop--ConcernedObo 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It looked like an attack on Cyde. Joelito (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Above user ConcernedObo has been indefblocked, strongly suspect its the same user who has been vandalizing Cyde's pages (see RFCU) Syrthiss 17:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

God forbid we shouldn't be allowed to delete vandalism so long as the vandalism is prefaced with User. --Cyde↔Weys 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably going to go insane after I say this, but in this case the deletion was justified as it was true vandalism. JohnnyBGood t c 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind! I think I found it: Wikitopianism. Technically, Wompy deprodded it and added a speedy tag, but I'm sure no one will mind. Actually, I'm sure no one will mind, as the author of that article gave me that impression on my talk page. Cheers! You should be good to go. Mangojuice^talk 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username? (If you don't "get it", read it aloud after reading his user page.)

Reported by: Atlant 00:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Worse, the user jumped straight into GFDL issues at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=54083312 Jimbo's talk page. (Meantime, a Google search of "Issac Dick" turns up no obvious links to anything other than slang terminology.) RadioKirk talk to me 00:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked it.

Talk

02:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_13#Template:User_sumofpi this allowed? I quote:

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems like the admin is just interpreting the vote in a way he likes, but I'm not entirely familiar with policy in this matter, so I'm asking here. +

talk)

xfD discussions are not votes, and admins are not required to give a damn about the tally (I make a point of never knowing how many users "voted" one way or another when closing these sorts of discussions). Mackensen closed it with a solution that, he thought (based on how he read the discussion), would satisfy all participants. This was entirely appropriate behaviour on his part.

Of course, the magic word "delete" appeared and so, regardless of the practical effect of the TfD close, we now have a swarm of userbox fans on DRV saying "you're deleting our userbox even though we had a majority of votes to keep!". And people say AfD is bad! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

20+ people voted keep, 12 of whom said in no uncertain terms that they were talking about the template itself. In the ensuing discussion on

WP:DRVU, I added up the votes from the TFD. 12 people said unambiguously keep, meaning keep the template itself. 6 people said unambiguously delete the template itself. 11 said keep and didn't specify what they meant by "keep". This is a real problem we have here. If anti-userbox administrators are just going to delete userboxes, in clear defiance of a supermajority or they are going to speedy userboxes they don't like for no particular reason, why are we even having a discussion? They're doing the same thing whether the vote is keep or delete. Regardless of your opinion on userboxes, out of process deletions are dead wrong and need to stop. To delete userboxes out of process or, in this case, flying in the face of overwhelming consensus, is arguably an abuse of administrative powers. BigDT

12:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

One thing I should add here, since not everyone reads DRV and elsewhere,

WP:MACK with a statement of mine about out-of-process deletions ending as a part of the policy discussion, so as far as I'm concerned, there is no longer an administrative issue to be dealt with - it's not in danger of happening again, so there's no incident to be dealt with. BigDT

12:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is in danger of happening again since, as Tony said, it was perfectly consistent with the practices of many xfD closers. I'd rather not see a "but he didn't count votes!" issue blow up ever again, even if on a subpage divorced from the userbox issue. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This close was in line with current closing practice on xFD; needless to say, all closes are subject to review. I like it for its solomonic quality, keeping the content (which is perfectly acceptable for a user page) and disposing of the problematic template. --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But that's the problem - this "current closing practice" is inventing a new policy that doesn't exist and is reading into the votes something that isn't there. Rather than assuming good faith, the administrators are assuming that everyone voting is a mindless robot who will vote keep arbitrarilly on every userbox. BigDT 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As one of several admins who have been known to spend far too many hours of our lives closing xfD discussions, I take exception to your characterisation. Perhaps you'd like to review all my closings in the past six months, on AfD and elsewhere, and provide me a list of cases where I've acted in bad faith or violated policy and accepted community norms? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is if the admin closeing it thinks it should be deleted then it doesn't matter whether or not the consensus was to delete? ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 19:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The article

Article was deleted after being prod'ed. I've blocked the above user for their username. Jkelly 17:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article have had a tag placed on it for five days? It does seem to have been deleted out of process.

Will Beback deleted it as a hoax. The only sources were some silly blogs. --Tony Sidaway 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, I've never heard of

Independent Media Center

being described as a 'silly blog before' www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/331106.html?c=on.

I blocked Omniplex yesterday for 3RR on a help page, and I'd just like someone to check it over and see if I acted correctly.

Here are the four reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help%3AFootnotes&diff=53708621&oldid=53655495 diff
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Footnotes&diff=next&oldid=53714536 diff
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Footnotes&diff=next&oldid=53724530 diff
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Footnotes&diff=next&oldid=53727189 diff

Points to consider:

• Template:H:f Help says that people are entitled to copy the master help page at any time.
• It also says "don't edit this copy" with respect to the copied help page here.
• The user claims to have been reverting vandalism, but I feel that it is definitely not reverting simple vandalism (which is the only thing the 3RR excludes other than self-reverts), and may not be vandalism reverting at all.

Opinions, please. Stifle (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a dispute over content, that certainly wasn't vandalism by any definition. Good block. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've collected the evidence at How_to_use_Cite.php_references, because it involves four pages. Check the first diff, it's IMO no rv at all, it integrated the included page. -- Omniplex 00:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an odd case. There were four 'removals of one or more words' (the most restrictive definition of 'revert'), but Omniplex was following standard procedure in editing the meta page and copying it down... the other user was incorrectly editing the local page directly without updating the meta page. Omniplex did repeatedly cite the proper procedure to follow... and the template does say that the main meta page may be copied down 'at any time'. Given the conflicting instructions and technicality (I've had admins tell me they didn't violate 3RR when the first was a 'new edit' like the above) I'd probably have given it a pass. Wouldn't say you acted incorrectly though. --CBDunkerson 14:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal for script addition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.js#Request:_Edit_L.2FR_for_diffs.