Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive44

As I say, I've soft redirected. Let me know however I can help to migrate. :) I believe in smooth and cooperative processes, and support them always. Xoloz 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Have you thrown in your two-cents worth at

talk

18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The one bit I added to Cyde's compromise was to soft redirect the template to my userspace. After consideration, I'm thrilled with the German Solution, so anyone may move any userbox he/she wishes to my userspace, conveniently created by Cyde, without having to ask. Yes -- any template: Star Trek haters, Republicans, even worse (only worse in the sense of being "less like Xoloz"), I don't care. If it will ease userbox tensions, go bananas with it. Xoloz 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have preferred to see a hard redirect followed by some cleanup work to change all references. But I'm not going to quibble. Xoloz' close is acceptable though not ideal. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As you might imagine, I have no problem with a hard redirect either; however, there are those who vigorously oppose all new cross-namespace redirects. By soft redirecting, I have sought only to mollify that concern. If you believe hard is better, be my guest. Xoloz 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I hard redirected. It would probably be a good idea not to delete the redirect, as it would likely cause all sorts of complaints. (I added a note in the redirect, but apparently nothing else will show up in a redirect.) —Ashley Y 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone gives me a big list of old template names and their new userspace locations I can just have Cydebot do a batch run. Here's an example of the format I'm looking for (note that Template: shouldn't be included, but User: should):

• 'User Christian' 'User:Xoloz/UBX/User Christian'
• 'User Buddhist' 'User:Xoloz/UBX/User Buddhist'
• etc. ...

--Cyde↔Weys 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Over the weekend, User:Zeq was blocked for 48 hours by User:Sceptre for vote stacking. He circumented the ban with this post[3]. Homey 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've warned Zeq that this is not permitted and asked him never to do it again, should he be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I signed my name very clearly, there was no attempt to mislead anyone. The blocking admin could at least notify me on the block and comunicate with me on my talk page. He did not. There were several other violations of the blocking policy that had to do with that block and comunication (on my talk page) was the first step required by the blocking admin did not bother so I had to go to his talk page. Zeq 03:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Anyone who is bothering to get up in arms about this one (I only left a meesage on the blocking admin talk page, it is not that I have tried to edit any specific articvle to circumvent the block) seem to be putting by far more emphais on "rules" than on common sense. Just one more part in vandeta against me. I suggest this complaint will be removed. I have done nothing wrong and caused no harm. Zeq 03:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq you are not supposed to edit when you are blocked except on your own talk page it doesn't matter if you signed your name. Homey 05:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried using my talk page but the blocking admin did not respond.

Homey, Why don't you start by obeying the rules yourself ? No harm was done by my actions above and you know it. All I did was comunicating (attempting to communicate) with a blocking admin who violated the blocking policy. Your complain here is a form of harrasment) . Read the blocking policy it is VERY clear - the blocking admin should have used my talk page but he did not.

You yourselfalso broken the same rules before (at least twice). As an admin you are supposed to know the rules and apply them. this was comunicated to you clearly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HOTR&diff=prev&oldid=57078266 . Also let's not ignore tha fact that you yourself have edited (blocked people) while under a block and that you frequently edit under anon IP address (violation). Other abuses by you are investigated. Zeq 05:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That is simply false and checkuser has proven that allegation false. Also, User:Sceptre did not violate blocking policy, the block against you for vote-stacking was entirely justified. You just can't accept that any disciplinary action against you is ever warranted, instead you try to blame everyone else for your misdeeds. It's tiresome. Homey 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What you say is false, here are quotes from

"Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages."

• The blocking admin did not do that

"If you disagree with a block, begin by discussing it with the blocking admin."

• This is what I did and since he did not comunicate on my talk page i turned to his talk page.

The block itself was a violation of

An IP, 65.37.181.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), appears to be attempting the impersonate (or possibly is) the lead singer of Franz Ferdinand, Alex Kapranos. He is signing all edits related to the band AK, and has deleted a section from Alex Kapranos with the edit summary "My relationship is private. Comments on the state of it can only be conjecture if posted here. - AK". Does this violate Username policy, since while he is probably trying to impersonate AK, it is using an IP address, not a username of a famous person. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I created a redirect for

WFM. Snottygobble 02:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking to make wikilinks work, then both capitalizations are necessary (wikilinks are case sensitive). If you're looking to make the

go button work, the two redirects you've added are equivalent (either enables entry of any capitalization of "disc one" to "go" to the article). -- Rick Block (talk

) 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The block log shows that this user has already been indefinitely blocked by

talk

) 02:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason, I didn't see that. — Mike •  03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been coming accross some strange looking edits on Fishguard today. After an attempt to cleanup the article I noticed that the text was the result of edits from newly created accounts and an anon, who also (and only) made similar edits to Capinota which is a totally unrelated subject. Accounts in question: Vany90 (talk · contribs) Haniii (talk · contribs) Ba-KaDüÜ (talk · contribs) Skung (talk · contribs) 80.145.197.126 (talk · contribs) Miri2202 (talk · contribs). Can someone take a look and let me know what they think. Agathoclea 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation on [4]. Agathoclea 13:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has banned Anittas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Following this, Anittas and Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) abused User talk:Anittas for the purpose of trolling. When this was protected, Xed continued by using the user page as a talk page. Looking at Xed's recent contributions I see nothing but trolling. I have blocked him for one week. Presented here for review. --Tony Sidaway 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop, but this looks like a legitimate block. Much trolling under the guise of being a freedom fighter for those maligned by "The Leader". Few contibs otherwise. Good block. -- Samir धर्म 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just realised that Xed is on personal attack parole. Some of his recent edits qualify as personal attacks so I will enter this block into the log on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2 (there is no log there at present, I'll have to create it). --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Xed asked Jimbo nicely and was unblocked. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Xed began his Wikipedia career with attacks on Jimbo. I see little has changed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how Xed and Anittas's actions on the latter's talk page in any way constitute abuse and trolling. They simply discussed the fact that Wales's indefinite block of Anittas was unjust and discussed possible ways of rectifying this error in judgement on Jim's part. Are users not allowed to challange or at least discuss the decisions of administrators on their own talk pages? Anittas might have gone a bit too far at the end, but you can surely understand his anger and frustration and his impulsive block, but Xed truly did not engage in any form of abuse or trolling, he simply criticized some of Wales's actions and then criticized Sidaway's action of blocking the talk page which even to me appeared ridiculous in the extreme. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't consider this abuse? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Had he written that statement in bad faith solely in an attempt to blacken Wales's name, it would have been one thing. However, I am certain that he truly believes that the ban was inappropriate (particuarly in the case of Anittas where he posted the same statement) and that those users were banned not as much for their participation in other sections of Wikipedia, but rather for criticizing Wales, and he wrote a brief and concise message to that effect where the topic was being discussed. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have very mixed feelings about this situation. I am quite unhappy that the page User talk:Anittas has been protected. I don't think that the remarks that Xed (with whom, to put it mildly, I have had my conflicts) and Anittas made there constitute trolling, but even if they did, trolling usually calls for "do not feed". Period. Anittas is a controversial contributor (and by "controversial" I mean much could be, and has been, said both for and against him). It seems to me to be odd to block precisely the page where those things might appropriately be said. Is there a different forum where discussion can take place, and where that discussion will not be perforce confined to administrators? - Jmabel | Talk 23:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well made as usual. - Xed 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "stupid timewasting" might be a more charitable fit to Xed's recent edits. Anittas I don't know so well but if his edits on User talk:Jimbo Wales are a guide his contributions to the encyclopedia are unlikely to be missed. Xed is especially blessed; he has been unblocked twice by Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Tony, it is clear where you stand, but none of this even begins to explain why you protected User talk:Anittas. In particular, if I understand correctly the way that blocks work, that is the one page that Anittas as a blocked user may legitimately access, and where he could state his case against being blocked. It is also the page where I would expect to have discussion of the block. At least two other Admins besides myself have, on that page, expressed doubts — and I think "doubts", not "opposition" is the right word — about the whether the block was appropriate. And for my simply raising questions and concerns about process, FeloniousMonk has basically challenged me to go "lecture" Jimbo. I have no intention of "lecturing" Jimbo or anyone else. If it has come to the point where as an Admin and a major contributor (and, I believe, a good one; if someone thinks otherwise, I would welcome an RFC rather than cheap shots on talk pages) I am not welcome to ask questions, then it seems to me we've got a problem a lot bigger than whether this particular user should be banned. Again: I think the situation merits discussion. I don't think that discussion should be confined to Administrators. I would like to unprotect User talk:Anittas. (Note: to unprotect the talk page, not to unblock the user.) I would not like to find myself banned or blocked for doing so. Since I cannot get answers on that page to my questions, I am bringing the matter here. - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A few admins might take a look at University of Kent. The edit war there concerns seriously potentially-libellous issues, and there seems to be at least one loose-cannon editor involved. AndyJones 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of editors complain about a few bugs they've spotted (along with the goodies) in the new ref function, and even engage in debating and

Good work in taking this on, NikoSilver. Jkelly 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good!

(talk)

16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wish I myself could write the darn code too... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A few users opposed to the article

Read

WP:3RR. "Daily rates of three edits"- three reverts a day are not an entitlement... --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith}

18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like

History of South Africa in the apartheid era. I fail to see why people who read about history need to get a link to one of wikipedia most non-NPOV article (have never stabalized going through edit-wars and protection all the time) unlesss of course the editor (and the team) that has places this link want to spread their political idology throughout wikipedia. Zeq

18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of

WP:3RR, which also explicitly excludes correction of simple vandalism (and I am not certain if my edits can be considered as such). The apartheid (disambiguation)article has been nominated for deletion, but failed. Attempts to undermine the disambiguation page should not continue at the article about South African Apartheid, where people do a good work. In this regad I believe Zeq's personal opinions on the concept of Israeli Apartheid are utterly irrelevant. Bertilvidet

18:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• 09:34 June 8, 2006–06–08

• 09:53 June 8, 2006–06–08

• 10:00 June 8, 2006–06–08

• 17:43 June 8, 2006–06–08

reported by Zeq 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for documenting, what I stated above, that I three times have restored the disambiguation link, that user:Timothy Usher removed three times. May I suggest that we now let some admnistrator comment? Bertilvidet 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the various controversy going on about the apartheid articles, the disambiguation link to

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. -- Natalya

20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Bertilvidet has decided to flood this noticeboard with their grievances; this is not the right place to discuss content disputes. If Bertilvidet believes that removals of an unnecessary link constitute vandalism, then there are other noticeboards where vandalism is reported. Pecher ^Talk 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The chance that a wikipedia reader searching for "Apartheid" is actually looking for "Sexual Apartheid" (for example) is infinitessimal. The link, therefore, is a waste of space from the readers' point of view. It exists only to steer them towards wilfully biased articles about unrelated subjects created in the service not of scholarship, but of political activism. Several of the articles on the disambiguation page appear to have been created only to justify the disambiguation page itself, and to provide cover for the central purpose of making the political statement, "Israel is a lot like Apartheid-era South Africa" - a cynical abuse of this encyclopedia. The removal of the link plainly improves this article, and Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The chance they are looking for "apartheid state" which has been used to refer to Israeli apartheid is reasonable as is the chance that someone is looking for apartheid applied to something to do with gays and lesbians without being clear on the term or some sort of apartheid dealing with the third world (global apartheid) without knowing the proper term. Homey 20:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "apartheid" refers solely to the practice of racial segregation in South Africa; even if the term was hijacked by left-wing activists for the purposes of vilifying Israel and the West. Disambiguation pages are not search aids; this disambiguation link is plain advertisement of articles started by Homey, articles that are nothing but political diatribes. Pecher ^Talk 21:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazing that you are still not aware about the concept Apartheid being used in several contexts. See for instance the entry in Britannica [5]. Bertilvidet 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bertilvidet, your source is not Britannica, but Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. The first definition is specific, the second only rhetorical and metaphorical, as a more serious dictionary would no doubt show.Timothy Usher 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I might suggest moving this discussion to any number of more related pages, so that it can be used to work on the ongoing conflict. -- Natalya 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To User:Natalya

Your involvement in this matter was a result of a request[6] by the prime instigator of the current mess we are in.

I suggest you that you look at this from the perspective of rarely under stood wikipedia policy

• Homey's point, a political one (which is a violation of
  WP:not
  ) is to use wikipedia to spread the notion that "Israel is an apartheid state".
• Homey's has pushed this idea by creating an elaborate set of articles about apartheid (5 of them to be exact), at which point it seemed only natural to require a DAB page. (no doubt, Homey, an experienced admin, knows how to game the system.)
• Once the DAB page created homey has placed a link to this page in the article about history of South Africa and now each person that comes to wikipedia to look for "apartheid" may click the DAB page leading him/her to an article about the so-called "Israeli apartheid" and... presto the propagation of political message have been suucessful: Distributing political propaganda via wikipedia works !

• Since this whole effort is a clear violation of
  WP:Point
  I suggest you do not join this blunt policy violation.

BTW, the diff I placed above clearly show that Homey (the one edited the 4th diff) participated in an edit war to push his agenda - After Bert "exhausted" what he think of as "3 reverts per day" Homey jumps in the continue the edit-war. (This is also a violation of

I hope that in light of this being part of a bigger picture you would think of a better solution than to accept and support this policy violation. Zeq 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, has it still not come to your mind that the same behavior, reverting three times and then being replaced by another friend, was conducted by the other side? BTW, I really find the new nickname you gave me - Bert - cute, despite being a bit anglophonic ;-) Bertilvidet 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true. At first there was a legitimate edit, you started the edit-war by reverting this edit. Next were only 2 reverts (not that I aprove of participating in the edit war) so he actually never reached 3. You on the other hand based on your own admission above violated

WP:Point#Gaming_the_system - read it , understand it and live by it. Zeq

21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Which edit you find legimate is your opinion, not an objective fact. Check the history page and you will realize that Tim reverted three times today, and Pech then jumped in. I was unsure of the removal of the link qualified as simple vandalism, and thats why I stopped after three edits. Bertilvidet 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you then solicited HOTR to revert on your behalf[7], which he did thirty-six minutes later[8].

The proper use of the term "vandalism" is clearly explained in the relevant

policy: good-faith edits are not vandalism. There was no reason, then, to be "uncertain" about it. However, accepting for the sake of discussion that you were uncertain, what changed between then and the time you titled this report, "Disambiguation vandalism?"[9]Timothy Usher

22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I came here in order to dicuss it. Bertilvidet 22:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I hope you do not misunderstand my involvment in this matter. It is not to support or disagree with either side of a conflict, but is simply to keep disambiguation pages running as they are supposed to. I do not hope to determine whether the existance of apartheid (disambiguation) is appropriate, but since it currently does exist (no concensus having been come to at it's AfD), it needs to be linked to from the primary topic. If the page were to be deleted, the link would be appropriate to be removed. Until that point comes about, it should still be there. -- Natalya 22:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly by looking an isolated issues and not the bigger pictrure is how the "system" is being manipulated. Zeq 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

Sam Spade is placed indefinitely on

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User repeatedly made nonsense personal edits in

Done, and I'll block the next time. Sasquatch t|c 23:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I didn't find the name even remotely inappropriate. Exploding Boy 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

HUH? Sasquatch t|c 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that was supposed to go here. RadioKirk talk to me 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Boy had may personal attacks upon myself during the course of editing. He decided to make up a new name for me here ("Chuckwagon") and said that my edits were useless here. I gave him a {{

The purpose of an npa warning is to make the user aware of the policy. I can assure you that he is now aware of it. Beyond that, the state of his talk page is really for him to worry about, not you or me. Henry^Flower 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain what your talking about. Npa is a warning, and he removed it. If he had talked about the problem, I wouldn't have cared, but he didn't. He removed it, removed it again, and removed it again. It may not be our place to say the state of his talk page, but he cannot remove warnings, that is a clear-cut policy. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that using templates to communicate with an experienced user can be seen as offensive or inflammatory, especially when you have been involved in a dispute with that user. FreplySpang 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Removing warnings is a proposed policy. It is not policy. Henry^Flower

21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to

WP:V isan official policy. And just because he is an experienced user who was committing personal attacks, doesn't mean he can't get a warning template. Chuck^(척뉴넘)

21:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a very important may in that wording. You seem to misunderstand the whole point of the npa warning: it's not a black mark to give out to naughty people; it's a device to make people aware of the policy as efficiently as possible. It's not an appropriate way to communicate with established editors who are likely to know the policy already. Henry^Flower 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry is, to be sure, correct; for new users, the templates do sometimes serve as more than edifying devices, as they allow other editors to see that a user has been apprised of our policies and guidelines, in order that, should he/she continue to flout those guidelines, further warning or blocking may occur. Here, the warning serves, at best, to inform EB that you took his comments to be personal attacks; once he has read the warning and apprehended your meaning, he may remove it. I think it's a bit untoward to remove warnings--or any commentary, really--from one's talk page, believing that one ought to reply to, rather than excise, comments with which he/she disagrees, but neither would I try to compel others to act similarly nor would I support a blanket proscription on removing warnings (which does not now exist). Finally, even as EB's comments were indecorous (although Chuckwagon seems a jocular, if unduly informal and perhaps patronizing, appellative, and certainly not a personal attack), I don't think they rise of the level of blockable

personal attacks; in this instance, you would be better served to leave an actual note on his talk page, to the effect that his edits bothered you and that you perceived them as personal attacks, the cessation of which you would, as you continue to collaborate with him and others, appreciate. Joe

21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Having been one of the targets of

personal attack policy for a bit of clarification on what a personal attack really looks like. Shell ^babelfish

10:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this is long over (relatively), but I wanted to clarify that my spree consisted of adding the template to two people's talk, Shell and EB. I realize I should have said the comments were uncivil rather than PA's. I had made a mistake. However, removing warnings should still be discouraged/disallowed until they are discussed. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 07:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Wikipedians with disruptive signatures are asked to change them. Your analogy is also confusing and not relevant at all. Please consider removing the irritating use of the PAGENAME magic word from your signature; I especially dislike the way you suffix it with .com.au which is completely beyond me, although somewhat dubious. Thank you. robchurch | talk 13:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I like it... I seriously thought I had a fan whenever you left a message on my talk page :) Thanks for your quick reply Myrtone86. -- Longhair 13:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This user's insolent attitude to reasonable requests convinces me that he needs encouragement. Blocked for three hours to help him to make up his mind [10]. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He also seems to have been engaged in some vandalism. Warned. --Tony Sidaway 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He also opposed Gurch's RFA with the utterly ridiculous reasoning of "no userboxes". Talk about trolling. --Cyde↔Weys 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He also opposed Samir's RFA because he didn't speak a differant language? What exactly is he trying to prove? The King of Kings 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Still hasn't changed the sig and the race commentary is bizarre. FYI, fluent in three languages. -- Samir धर्म 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

His talkpage is just a complete circle jerk of complaints about his behaviour. I doubt his signature was made to do anything but annoy people. He seems to have made a habit out of it. --mboverload@ 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No userboxes? Isn't this the guy who made a

WP:POINT out of TfDing a ton of userboxes? --Rory096

07:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Chooserr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have removed two instances of solicitation of funds for political purposes, through linking to an external donation web page, from each of Chooserr's user page and talk page. Chooserr had been editing but his response to requests by other editors that he remove the links was negative and defiant. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Negative and defiant? As soon as he logged on he replied to the person who'd warned him, and as he demonstrated on Tony's talk page, nobody bothered to explain to him that there was actually a policy violation there. Then Tony gives him this reply, and Chooserr does this and then on second thought, this. Congratulations, Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being unnecessarily charitable towards Chooserr. Everybody knows this isn't where you come for fundraising. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows? Chooserr's had that link on his page for about six months, and nobody's ever said a word to him about it. How does he know that the "wide latitude" we allow in user space doesn't include what we've been allowing him for six months? It's not like an admin's never looked at his page. You think I'm being too charitable; I think you're being way too brash and disrespectful. Tony, you talk to people like they're misbehaving dogs and you're their master; it's disgusting. Would it kill you to treat people respectfully? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if occasionally an administrator wasn't pilloried for removing blatantly unsuitable material from the site and warning the editor in question. Your own part in this was unfortunate; you restored the solicitation link after another editor had correctly removed it after the warning. Don't make it worse by blaming others. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you removing blatantly unsuitable material. I have a serious problem with your apparent inability to maintain courtesy. You contribute a lot to the Wiki, and we all appreciate that, but you are not above

WP:CIVIL

. If it's not readily apparent to you that you could have handled this situation much better, then I question your good sense.

As for my action, I explained it sufficiently at the time. Removing a link that had been sitting there for six months is not so urgent that it overrides our basic need to treat each other well. An administrator had left a warning, asking Chooserr to remove the material himself, and then acted on it before Chooserr had even logged on again, as least as indicated by his Contributions page. Then another editor vandalized the page by inserting different linkspam. Having a choice of which version to revert to, I chose the version where Chooserr still had a chance to remove the offending link himself, because what's the point in giving someone a chance to fix something for himself, if you're going to just do it before he actually gets that chance? I err on the side of respect, because it pays to maintain an atmosphere in which people treat each other excellently.

Again, to be very clear, you have mischaracterized my statements. I am not criticizing you for removing the link. I am criticizing you for talking down to other human beings. It's unnecessary, rude, counterproductive, and against policy.

Oh, another thing: I'm not "blaming" you for anything. I'm just saying be more respectful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor correction, GTBacchus. Timothy Usher did leave a request (I wouldn't call it a warning), but you're incorrect in stating that an administrator did. Timothy is not an admin. Jumping in to remove it before Chooserr had logged on was, of course, unfortunate, as it made it more difficult for Chooserr to do so without losing face. AnnH ♫ 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you just joining us,

Chooserr has a pretty massive block log and does seem to have a history of biased editing [11]. Had he come here to produce unbiased edits but had only popped a fundraising link onto his user page by accident, then of course a lighter approach would have been appropriate. But Chooserr isn't about that at all. He uses his user page to advertise his pet causes, though he does so in a reasonably Wikipedian way:

• American Life League
• The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
• Pro-Life Alliance
• SPUC
• Student LifeNet

• British Weights and Measures Association
• Foundation for Endangered Languages

Now Chooserr has been up to this for six months. Hooray! Let's allow him to continue to engage in political fundraising for another three weeks or so. Or should we just remove the bloody horrible thing and tell him not to abuse Wikipedia again? --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First I was "pillorying" you for removing inappropriate material, and when that turned out not to be true, I'm suggesting that you put off removing the material for three weeks. Where will you go when that turns out to be false?

I'm actually quite familiar with Chooserr's history. I remember him new at Wikipedia, getting blocked left and right, and I watched him learn how to edit here, and how to use the talk page instead of revert warring, and how images have copyrights that we have to worry about, and I have seen him become a valuable member of the editing team on some articles that we both work on. He hasn't been blocked since the last time I blocked him in February, because he's improved, and he's helping build the encylcopedia. The linkspam on his page - you were right, it had to go - but I see a human being there, and I have no problem having a conversation explaining to him about why the links aren't cool. You know, changing the culture one person at a time? Apparently, you don't see a human worthy of respect, all you see is "abuse"; and who has time for a conversation or a civil interaction, when you could be bossy and contemptuous instead? It's efficient, that contempt stuff.

So apparently, I'm asking that we screw around for three weeks, and "allow abuse" or something; that's right, Tony. Christ. You really think the small effort of treating someone respectfully is a big waste? That's all I'm talking about. You're right about everything, of course, but you could treat people better, and you should, because it matters. Stop contributing to an atmostphere of combativeness. Play well with others. This is all I'm saying. If you want to blow a bunch of smoke about how I'm harassing you for removing unsuitable content, or what a "bad user" Chooserr is anyway, and how he was being "stroppy" (what a load of horseshit), I don't buy it, and I don't give a fuck either. None of that is an excuse for you to be a dick. Stop poisoning the well, because I care about this project a lot, and I don't like you marring it with your antisocial attitude. If I see you shitting on people, I will call you out on it.

Now, are you going to find another way to miss the point, and drag this out longer, or what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the odd user page or two asking for donations via Paypal in return for their wiki contributions. Is this also frowned upon? -- Longhair 00:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly not. I don't know. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends who you ask. Me, if it helps build the encyclopedia, then so be it (but certainly don't spam asking for it). Hell, I wouldn't mind some pocket money myself for the hours I've put in here.

(talk)

18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Chooserr - Enforcing policy doesn't require trampling on other editors

Chooserr had those links for months. I haven't checked the history to see how long exactly. I had noticed them before, and had found them inappropriate for a Wikipedia user page. However, I have seen user pages and user talk pages with pictures of penises (and I don't mean just the one recently reported at

At 16:35 (UTC) on 1 June, Alienus removed the link from Chooserr's talk page with no prior warning or request. The edit summary said this is offensive enough on a user page; it doesn't belong on a talk page.[12] Note that Chooserr did not edit Wikipedia between 31 May and 3 June, so presumably did not see it at the time.

At 20:01 on 1 June, Elliskev reverted, with rvv.[13]

At 20:05 on 1 June, Elliskev sent Alienus a {{

At 02:31 on 2 June, Timothy posted a message to Chooserr saying that the link was inappropriate, and politely requesting him to remove it.[15]

At 04:05 on 3 June, Timothy posted to Chooserr: As you've not responded, I've done it. [16] Note that Chooserr had not edited at all since the request was made, and so had presumably not been online.

At 04:06 on 3 June, Timothy removed the link, but kept the words "Make Abortion History".[17]

At 05:15 on 3 June, Alienus vandalized Chooserr's talk page by linking "Make Abortion History" to the donation page of Planned Parenthood — edit summary: a link is fine, so long as it's not to anything partisan.[18] The page now looked exactly as it had looked before Timothy removed the link, but the link was to the donation page of a pro-choice website, rather than of a pro-life one.

At 05:23 on 3 June, GTBacchus restored the page to Chooserr's version — certainly not out of approval of the link (Chooserr and GTB disagree on article content), but presumably because he felt annoyed by the vandalism and harassment, and felt that the removal of a link which had already been several months on a page which visitors browsing Wikipedia would be unlikely to see was a less urgent matter than treating another human being with respect.[19]

At 05:51 GTBacchus pointed out that Chooserr had not even logged on, and that "respectfully waiting for a reply" was "more important than making [the link] be gone now".[20]

At 05:53 on 3 June, Timothy posted, "Okay, let's wait until he's logged on."[21]

There was also

Most editors who logged on to find all that in the page history would find it a bit galling to remove the link. Once again, I agree it shouldn't have been there, but for Alienus (who is in constant dispute with Chooserr, and who at the time had offensive comments about three editors on his own talk page) to barge in and remove it without request or warning, for Timothy to jump the gun by removing it before Chooserr had had a chance to respond, and for Alienus then to vandalize his page by linking to something that promoted the opposing POV must all have have contributed towards making Chooserr feel that he didn't want to remove the link. I saw the history of his talk page just before I went into work on Saturday morning, and decided I'd ask him myself to remove the link: I felt fairly sure he would agree, and it would all blow over. I have found that Chooserr responds well to being treated with ordinary human respect — something which unfortunately does not seem to have been tried by Alienus or Tony in this case.

In fact, at 06:50 on 3 June (his first edit in three days) Chooserr wrote to Timothy, thanking him for his comments, saying that they were obviously well meant, and that he might remove the tags.[22] I wouldn't call that "negative", "defiant", or "stroppy". Nine minutes later, he posted a fairly mild message to Alienus, asking him not to vandalize his page.[23] His next edit, at 07:25 was to his own user page, where he removed two links to external sites requesting donations for the pro-life cause, and kept the remaining one. I would call that a step in the right direction, not being "negative", "defiant", and "stroppy". I would also consider it to be evidence that reasoning with Chooserr would be better than bullying him.

When I got home from work, I discovered that Alienus had added "Well, he's logged on and entirely unrepentant" at 14:05[24] (No sign of any repentence from Alienus for his own trolling, vandalism, and insult.)

At 14:13, 14:19, 14:20, and 14:34, Tony Sidaway made four edits to Chooserr's talk page, removing the link, calling it "completely inappropriate", threatening "to block [Chooserr] for linkspamming if [he] insist[ed] on abusing Wikipedia in this way". That must have been especially galling for Chooserr since Alienus had not been threatened with a block. (He was subsequently threatened by Nandesuka.) Tony may have been unaware of the vandalism, but was able to make (false) statements here about Chooserr having been "negative and defiant".

At 18:28 on 3 June, Tony told Alienus that his edit (linking Chooserr's page to a Planned Parenthood donation page) was "out of order", and asked him "please" not to do stuff like that again.[25] (No "completely out of line", no threats to block.)

At 19:07 on 3 June, Tony, in response to Chooserr's protest that he would have taken down the link himself if someone had shown him it was against policy, said "You've been told now. Happy?"[26]

I have just two questions for Tony and Alienus:

1. Would it have been possible to get that link removed without threats and vandalism?
2. Assuming that it was possible, would it have been preferable to get it removed without threats and vandalism?

I'm quite, quite sure that I, or GTBacchus, or FreplySpang would have been able to get those links removed without trampling on Chooserr, without making him feel that someone who had vandalized his talk page was vindicated (note that Alienus claimed elsewhere that his action had been redone by another admin), and without resorting to threats of blocks. Tony, you've managed to get that link removed, which is good for the project, so you probably feel that this has been a success, but in my view, the only people who could be happy at the way this was done are people who don't think that real human beings with real feelings matter. GTBacchus has come out of this extremely well. Nobody else has.

AnnH ♫ 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of Alienus' vandalism. In fact alienus later told me about Nandesuka's warning (which contained a block threat [27]). I told alienus not to do it again, feeling that a further block threat was superfluous as he'd stopped. Personally I would probably have blocked alienus without a warning had I been aware of the vandalism at the time. He is an experienced editor and should know better.

Alienus' vandalism to a certain extent explains and mitigates Chooserr's uncooperative and defiant attitude. I think it's possible, though it seems incredibly unlikely, that Chooserr didn't realise that what he was doing on his talk page and user page was quite beyond the pale. --Tony Sidaway 13:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought you probably were not aware of Alienus's vandalism at the time, and I agree that since he was unlikely to do it again, a further block threat was superfluous. My problem was with the block threat that you issued to Chooserr. If Jimbo came to your talk page to tell you that he'll block you if you vandalize his user page, there would be an implication that he suspected you of intending to, which would be unfair. Your non vandalism could then be seen by others as simply a result of that threat (that you knew you wouldn't get away with it), which would make you lose face, and would be undeserved. In my view, the threat of blocking Chooserr was also undeserved — much more so than a threat to Alienus would have been, as Alienus did something that was definitely malicious and definitely intended to taunt Chooserr, whereas Chooserr was simply linking to something unsuitable which he probably thought he could link to. As GTBacchus says, he had had it there for months, administrators had frequently visited his page, and nobody had said anything. Chooserr edits articles closely related to his own interests, and shows little interest in Project pages concerning policy. He may have heard that we allow a "wide latitude" concerning user pages. In any case, I don't agree that what he was doing was "quite beyond the pale". If it had been, someone would have protested earlier. I do agree it was inappropriate, but feel sure (and GTBacchus and I both have more experience of Chooserr than you do) that it was in good faith. I personally believe that putting images of penises and/or human excrement on one's talk page is "quite beyond the pale". And I think that what Alienus did was "quite beyond the pale".

What worries me, Tony, is that while you have acknowledged that Alienus's vandalism was a mitigating factor, you still use language like "Chooserr's uncooperative and defiant attitude", which ties in with your original language of "defiant", "negative", and "being pretty stroppy about it". You haven't offered any diffs to show that he was defiant, negative, or stroppy, and GTBacchus and I have both given diffs to show that his first post after being made aware of the objections was a polite one to Timothy saying "I thank you for your comments. They are obviously well meant, and I might remove the tag(s) . . . I'm not trying to cause trouble", and that he then removed two of the three links he had. He was probably still thinking about the remaining one. Nobody had shown him it was against policy. All he had been treated to was vandalism, taunts, and people taking the matter out of his hands while he was offline and before he was aware of any objections.

I recall as long ago as last summer I began to notice that you sometimes voted to support RfAs of people with whom you had been in dispute, and I thought, "that's decent of him; he's obviously fair." It wasn't just once or twice: I noticed it many times. And now I see you most unjustly (in my view) threatening someone with a block and reporting him as "defiant", "negative", "stroppy" and "uncooperative" without any justification whatsoever. Everything I've seen about you suggests that you care deeply about the project — but we're dealing here with a real human being who has feelings.

I used to have a Catholic user box on my user page, plus a pro-life one, plus a homemade one that said I was obedient to the Pope, plus another one that said I agreed with

Humanae Vitae

. At that time, many people had user boxes. I was completely unaware that Jimbo didn't want it. When Jimbo made his very courteous request, clarifying how he felt, appealing for our cooperation, etc., I thought about it for a few days, and then took away all my boxes except the homemade "obedient-to-Benedict" one. I felt he'd find that less objectionable because it wasn't in template space, and I had made it myself, so it didn't encourage a "clubbing together" of editors. He never (as far as I know) specified his views on boxes in user space, and I watched to see if he would. Eventually, when redesigning my user page, I removed even the Benedict one. I think it would have been quite inappropriate to describe me as "negative", "defiant", "stroppy", and "uncooperative", and to have threatened me with a block while I was thinking about it. But the end of the story is that the boxes were removed, and nobody bullied me or took away my dignity. Chooserr's story didn't have such a happy ending.

By the way, Alienus has continued to hassle Chooserr, by removing an extremely mild post from one of Chooserr's friends[28] and by sending him a {{

here

.

Anyway, the main point of all this is that in my view Chooserr was not negative, defiant, uncooperative, or stroppy, and should not have been threatened with a block. When it was brought to his attention, he answered nicely, took away two of the links, and was presumably still thinking about the third, at a time when nobody had shown him any policy that forbade it. It would be nice of you, Tony, if you could leave a message on his talk page telling him that you see that nobody had shown him the policy, that he wasn't refusing to remove the link, and that you shouldn't have threatened him. AnnH ♫ 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I could have misread Chooserr's attitude. It did seem to me that continuing to have that link up and continuing to edit without doing anything about it spelled deliberate defiance in very unambiguous terms, and what appeared to me as a patronisingly-worded "I'll think about it"-type response was very negative.

I think I got it wrong here. I'll apologise on User talk:Chooserr for the tone of my warning message. --Tony Sidaway 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. That was very nice of you, and I'm sure that Chooserr appreciated it. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I wholeheartedly agree with your action, but also with Ann's description of your tone, and am really pleased to see this being resolved favorably on both fronts.

And Ann, as for no one looking good but GTBacchus - you've criticized me for removing it before Chooserr came back online, but the link violated policy - why should it have remained just because Chooserr was taking a wikibreak? I also condemned Alienus' gratuitous post-removal vandalism. Both were out of line. Though I don't, as you note, have the power to block for vandalism, I do have the ability to remove links that shouldn't be, and I used it.

I personally don't understand the level of hostility towards pro-life here - it seems to me an issue upon which good-faith disagreement is natural and hardly cause for demonization - but maintain that it shouldn't be exacerbated by irrelevant (to wikipedia) statements in userspace. Since then, Chooserr has taken issue with another editors' user-page discussion of his transsexuality (pardon me if I've abused the increasingly arcane rules of jargon), which I personally (key word) find kind of disturbing as well, though as Tony rightly asserts, it's well within current policy. I honestly don't know why we need any of it. Who cares if you're pro-life? Who cares if you're Muslim? Who cares if you're transgendered? It's all off-topic and pointlessly divisive.Timothy Usher 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I disagreed with your removal of the link while Chooserr was still offline, but if it was criticism, it was of the mildest kind. I didn't feel shocked or angry, just "I wish he'd left Chooserr to do it himself." People prefer to be asked to do something without the "and-if-you-don't-I-will" threat. I agreed with GTBacchus's remark that "respectfully waiting for a reply" was "more important than making [the link] be gone now", but I wouldn't push the point. There's room for disagreement there, based on how much we think the link violates policy and how urgent we think its removal is. Remember, it was there for six months, and several administrators (pro-choice ones as well) visited his talk page and didn't protest. You say it violated policy, so why should it remain while he's on wiki-break? Well, I'm convinced that such a solicitation is against what Jimbo Wales intends Wikipedia to be, and that's good enough for me; but I'm not convinced that it violates any explicit policy.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox deals with what you shouldn't have in an article; it doesn't say what you may or may not have on your user page. POV edits violate policy, but you can't remove them a fourth time in 24 hours: you have to leave them there. I personally think it's more urgent to get rid of something that shouldn't be in an article, because visitors who look up something in Wikipedia are unlikely to navigate to Chooserr's talk page. I think that allowing Chooserr to do the right thing of his own accord would have been preferable to urgently removing the link. It wasn't as if the link was to a site that gave personal information about other editors. And it wasn't as if Chooserr had been gone for a month. Can we agree to disagree on this? My "disapproval" of what you did was so mild that I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it anywhere if the whole business of Chooserr's "negative and defiant" attitude hadn't been brought up here. AnnH ♫

14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read it for yourself, you can see that the message expressed some frustration, but was still quite civil [30]. Note that nobody, not even AnnH, ever complained that it was uncivil. More significantly, as that diff shows, the moment one of those three extended the olive branch, I immediately accepted it and removed the message.

That's the reality. In the world according to AnnH, I had "offensive comments about three editors on [my] own talk page". See what I mean? Similar distortions can be found in each and every case where she brings up my name.

With all due respect, I feel hurt by Ann's remarks and wish she hadn't made them. In the end, all I can ask is that you use your own eyes and judgement instead of depending on hers. I'm only peripherally involved in this Chooserr issue and don't wish to be drawn in any further, so I'm going to walk away now, as promised. Please don't be distracted by this silliness; the Chooserr issue still needs to be resolved, and no amount of focus on me will help. Thank you for understanding. Al 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyone in this conversation but valuable editors, of undoubted good faith, and certainly none of us needs to be characterized as "the bad guy". -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should inform Ann of that fact, since she seems interested in characterizing me as the bad guy, so as to spare Chooserr. Al 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think I just said, in my above post? I just called you a "valuable editor" and said there's not need to characterize you as the bad guy. Why did you think I posted that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out that this is something that Ann in specific ought to read. Al 16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

When in a hole - stop digging. Agathoclea 17:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, it is perfectly appropriate to bring up your vandalism of Chooserr's talk page in this section, where Chooserr's attitude was being discussed. You say that it's irrelevant because nothing you do can excuse Chooserr's prior acts. I think it has generally been agreed now that Chooserr was unaware that he was in violation of any policy when he put the link there, and your vandalism is very relevant to the discussion of Chooserr's attitude after he was requested to remove the link (an attitude which was Tony has now agreed he may have misjudged). If you don't want your feelings hurt by reference to your vandalism, I suggest you don't vandalize. I don't think there are many Wikipedians who will argue that changing Chooserr's MAKEABORTIONHISTORY link so that it looked the same as before but now linked to the Planned Parenthood donation page instead of to a Catholic Pro-life charity was not vandalism. If an Ulster Protestant puts Ian Paisley on his user page in a list of admirable people, and I change it so that it links to Pope Benedict XVI while still saying Ian Paisley, that is vandalism, pure and simple. Nandesuka called it vandalism and threatened a block, Timothy called it vandalism, Tony called it vandalism and said he would probably have blocked you without warning if he had seen it at the time, and GTBacchus reverted it and told you that it was "not cool". I suggest that instead of edit warring at my talk page to put bogus {{civil1}} warnings there because of my post above, you explain why I'm mistaken in calling it vandalism.

By the way, I acknowledge that you did remove your reference to the three editors who were (according to you) responsible for your last three blocks when Nandesuka extended the olive branch. However, what I said was that at the time that you removed something from Chooserr's talk page on the grounds that it was offensive, you had something on your talk page that was offensive. You may not think it was offensive, but then Chooserr probably didn't think his link was offensive either. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on UK time so have just read all this (one of the userboxes I think is useful) and I think it's sad to see so much stereotyping of other editors. One very interesting interaction I had on

Sophia

09:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said Sophia. May I add it does not go down very well in calling people sock/meat-puppets because they agree with opponents edits. Constant defence fighting does not help ones image. Agathoclea 10:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also it is often said that "converts are the most dangerous". So after convincing C that POV links on ones userpage in a no-no it is not surprising to see him looking for the same mistake elsewhere. Agathoclea 10:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Some believe that others should suffer as they do. Others believe that their own suffering is bad enough and need not be repeated. I lean towards the latter, myself. Al 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to second Alienus' characterizations of AnnH's tendency to not simply report the facts relevant to the case, but to expand them against antoher editor with a bad faith spin that can be viewed as a distortion. This is not to say that AnnH is not reporting what she genuinely believes to be the case. I always assume good faith, but I note that this occurs only when she is commenting about editors with whom she finds herself on the opposite side of the ideological fence with (what she has called enemies). So, in her view, Alienu's message about his conflict with the three other editors could very well be, in her eyes, "offensive messages left by AI...," but she does not use NPOV language to state this belief of hers, but states it as if Alienus is guilty as a matter of fact of doing these bad things, being in essence uncivil by leaving offense remarks about other editors, etc. This is why Alienus feels attacked here, because he is being attacked. Its also true that this is supposed to be about a specific incident regarding Chooser, but AnnH felt the need to bring up other "evidence" to try to paint a negative picture of Alieus, which is not really related and which distracts from the issue. This is something that is also a common technique that AnnH uses. I've seen it many times. Therefore, I highly recommend that whenever AnnH comments about a user that she has direct POV conflicts with, take her views of the matter with great caution as you will need to shift through what is relevant and what is not, as well as to filter out the significant bias in the editorializing and spin that is sure to come from such a partisan editor.Giovanni33 17:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I expand them "with a bad faith spin", and you "always assume good faith"? Hmmm. How would you describe my "bad faith spin" if you weren't assuming good faith? And is your reference to my bringing up unrelated issues something to do with the fact that I sometimes bring up the way you pretended to have no conncetion to BelindaGong (who was reverting and voting for you) until a checkuser exposed that it was the same IP, and that while you were blocked for puppetry, you were asked if you had any connection to any of the other new users who were reverting to your version, and you denied it — forgetting that you were logged on as one of them![31]

Giovanni, I won't bring up these "unrelated issues" except where:

1. We're working on an article, you run out of reverts, and an account that shows that its purpose on Wikipedia is to revert and vote for you (and that has the same linguistic idiosyncrasies and spelling mistakes which I won't alert you to, but which I'll e-mail to any admin who requests it) shows up and supports you; or
2. I'm dealing with a separate administrative issue, unrelated to you, and you turn up to tell all the other administrators about my history of bringing up unrelated issues. They might just be puzzled and want to know what you're talking about.

It would be preferable to stick to what's relevant to the case of Chooserr, Giovanni. I don't know why you want to bring up past issues. You never come out of it well when you do. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy about this? See, for instance User talk:Ukrained. It is difficult for a non Ukranian (presumably it's Ukranian but maybe it's Russian?) speaker to know whether there are matters of concern there or not. I went there because I was concerned about some things I saw on the DYK talk page and wanted to learn more about this editor and this editor's interactions with others. I thought there was a policy or guideline requesting English but if there is, I can't find it. Thanks! (note that even without being able to read everything I certainly have some concerns) ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see all that much ... whatever language it is. It seems to be mainly confined to one largeish section. But really, I don't think there is, or needs to be, any particular rule about confining user talk page discussions to English. Lots of our users are able to communicate in more than one language, and plenty of us edit articles on more than one Wikipedia. Judging from some of the remarks left on the page in English, though, it seems the user may not be aware of some of our policies. Exploding Boy 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with other languages so long as they are limited to User Talk pages and do not dominate the page, but I object to their use in other communications. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone is using non-English on a talk page, you can ask him politely if he'll provide a translation. Some people will do so, but bear in mind that some may not be able to because their English skills don't match their native language skills. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have actually never come across a userpage that was anything but English =P --mboverload@ 07:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In that particular example, the user actually told the person talking to him on his talk not to use Ukrainian, since this is enwiki. Also, the paragraphs just below each Ukranian paragraph seem to be english translations. --Rory096 07:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If while on RC patrol you notice a user making a beneficial edit and simultaneously removing most of the article, especially if it's from an otherwise semi-reputable editor, it may be due to an apparent bug in Google Toolbar for Firefox (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136#Problems with Firefox and previews and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bug with Google Toolbar for Firefox. So go easy on them, OK? (I haven't seen any overly harsh warnings, just thought I'd comment.) — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank god! I was wondering why that was happening! --mboverload@ 07:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think an admin (or someone who knows more about politics) needs to take a look at (and possibly protect) this page. There's a little revert war going on. --

Naconkantari

19:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(is the below related?).. I have on the article talk page offered to help work through the issues with this article. I admit bias, my kids play sports against some of his kids... ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry: User:209.69.163.69's only Wiki edit to date was to "Revert to Bkonrad's last revision". RadioKirk talk to me 00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have confirmed that Envix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is associated with the Devos campaign. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep watch on the Dick DeVos article to make sure User:Envix or anyone else from the DeVos campaign does not try to control content of the article. Is Envix blocked for six months like the IP addresses associated with the DeVos campaign were? Steelbeard1 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Name may be inviolation of Wikipedia's username policy.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to defend that one: its a fairly well-known phrase that seems innocuous enough. What specifically do you think is wrong with it? I guess it could be seen to have a sexual connotation, but that doesn't seem to be the major meaning that Google finds. Gwernol 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see anything wrong with the name. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; the innuendo is obvious, but the desire for a plate of fettucine alfredo immediately overcame the thought... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the innuendo is obvious, but as was pointed out to me by a friend earlier today, even a binder clip can be lewd if you just think about it in the right context. Incidentally, I thought of hostess cakes :-). --

Bachrach44

02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is true that in the proper context even the stiffest amongst us can find a word or phrase lascivious. But the real thrust of the matter is that we should be careful to avoid giving good users the shaft simply because their name may be somewhat bushy. Now, it is easy to rectify the situation if a heinous blockage occurs, but hopefully we can allow the flow of good edits to emerge from our editors without the repeated blocking and unblocking beforehand, even if it is somewhat fun; remember that it can also be dangerous.--

Sean Black

02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Teehee, you said "rectify". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh... heh heh heh... heh heh... he said "stiffest" RadioKirk talk to me

16:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"When correctly viewed, everything is lewd!" -- Tom Lehrer

Atlant 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was quite amusing. Exploding Boy 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the name first, my first thought was that someone was claiming that the user name was inappropriate because of the violent conotations from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Willow compares a demon that is removing people's organs to a person who doesn't eat the outside of Oreos "but takes out the creamy goodness" (slight paraphase since too lazy to go over to Wikiquote at the moment). JoshuaZ 23:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange. I've never seen an episode of Buffy, but Oreo cream is exactly what came to my mind when I saw the phrase. Joyous! | Talk 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually cream cheese came to mind but this is what first got my attention [32].--Dakota ~ 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He appears to have C&Pd the entire Main Page to his user page. It's very confusing, but he seems passionately attached to it. Some assistance convincing him otherwise might be good. Exploding Boy 00:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want me to fix it, then all you have to do is ask me to do it instead of reporting me here like a vandal. Thanks to Chuck I found out about this. It is not so hard to press the "+" button next to the "edit this page" tab on my talk page, and ask me, "George, will you please revert your userpage back to normal because it is confusing" and I will be happy to do it. Also, I didn't copy&paste it, I transcluded it.--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap, I never thought I'd ever agree with you, Exploding Boy (this isn't an insult if you read into it properly, please don't take it as one, just as a statement of...utter shock). I reverted him and was promptly called "a vandal" and told "it's my userpage, I'll do what I want with it" (see

talk

) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I called you a vandal because you called me a vandal for inserting a stupid little HTML comment on your page. All you have to do is ask. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough. Please calm down. I've answered you on my talk page, there's absolutely no need to bring that up here, and I won't answer comments about that when it's brought up in such an inappropriate place. — 

talk

) 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

After multiple edit conflicts...

Yes, you're right. I should have left you a message on your talk page. Sorry. It's just that looking at your edit history you seemed unwilling to change it.

While we're on the topic though, why is it that your talk page header says that the page is for discussing the Main Page? Is that a holdover from your transcluded user page?

Anyway, I'm going to leave this here for a few more minutes and then remove it; it's obviously not needed here. Exploding Boy 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be my fault. I thought I reverted everything, sorry. I'll accept blame for it. — 

talk

) 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I seemed unwilling to change it was because Nathan reverted it without asking me first. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough arguing. The reason why is posted on my talk page. Any admin can look there and read it for themselves. The question remains: Why did you senselessly transclude the main page onto your userpage. That's what Exploding Boy is asking, and that's what I'd like an answer to as well. Please stick to the question asked. I refer to two policies:

talk

) 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Now is my userpage ok? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, in this case I think the first step would have been to contact GeorgeMoney, rather than just editing it yourself (in particular if the "problem" is just one of annoyance, not of critical importance to the project). People feel a lot better about changes to their user page if they themselves make them, in my experience, and a polite request can go a long way. Just my two cents. Thank you for changing your page, GeorgeMoney. --Fastfission 02:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I should have left George a message. Nathan should probably have left him a message. However, the issue seems to have been satisfactorily resolved, and is now closed. Thanks to everyone. Exploding Boy 04:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked to agree with you a second time (please, don't make a habit of this). Yes, I probably should have. — 

talk

) 14:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken this back to the RfC. It makes sense to keep it there. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! FreplySpang 20:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved this to the talk page of the article. --Tony Sidaway 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the uploader's history of contributing images without proper source information (I see several Orphanbot messages on his talk page) as well as the very suspect use of {{

NoRightsReserved}} on Image:Pink36.jpg and Image:Pavel Novotny & Ales Hanak 3.jpg (that second image is not work safe!), I'm not inclined to trust that the image Image:Cum.JPG being discussed is actually the creation of Perkyville (talk · contribs

). I note that an image of the same name was deleted as a copyvio back in March.

While discussion of the appropriateness of the image perhaps belongs on the article's talk page, addressing the copyright issue is in the purview of admins. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sysop's actions re photo on Ejaculation

Although the discussion has been moved my question is about the sysop so I will place it here: May I ask for some feedback as to how appropriate it was for an admin to revert an image that is obviously so controversial back into the article and then completely protect the article from editing by anyone other than sysops? Surely whilst there is no consensus an image that some find offensive should be removed until further discussion has taken place? And why the heck would full protection be placed after one' change has been made??? Anyone help me here? - Stollery 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify that one admin reverted the picture back in, and a different one protected it 2 minutes afterward. ChChcknwnm (Chuck) 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes correct Chuck, apologies, my bad. Still the question remains, why the hell protect it with the controversial image included whilst discussion is still taking place? - Stollery 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I follow the question. If there was controversy, surely protection was advised! See Wikipedia:protection policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when did small blue worms travel through the vas deferens? Ral315 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As a doctor, I can say never. Never blue ones. -- Samir धर्म 10:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not the image that was disputed... Nonetheless, I do agree, and we're looking for a better diagram. It's a hellofalot better than the previous image though, IMO at least.

AmiDaniel (talk

) 06:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean they're not supposed to? Oh dear ... *goes to doctor*

Proto

10:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version. Kotepho 06:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"An image that some find offensive should be removed"? See

As that article is about the image, the image is appropriate. As Ejaculation is not Highly controversial image of ejaculation, the criteria should be does the image improve the article in any way? IMHO it does not. It illustrates nothing which is not easily understood from the text. Illustrations are to illustrate, not for any other purpose. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Updated, apologies: I typed with brain half-engaged. Meant to say, If it does not, etc. Stand by "Illustrations are to illustrate". KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• On the image, I think it was an excellent illustration, especially useful as there will be many younger people who will not have a clue what ejaculation is (and may be worried if it happens to them). Providing a good illustration of ejaculation would be of great benefit to the encyclopedia. This was a pretty good one, very well illustrating the intensely joyfully explosive nature of the event. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconding Tony ... now I haven't even seen the picture, but it has to be better than the diagram we're currently using. That diagram shows a flaccid penis ejaculating. D'oh!!!! --Cyde↔Weys 15:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, per my discussion on the talk page, I would argue that while

Wikipedia is not censored, neither is it an internet pornographer. A visitor should have the option via an inline link, or via page-bottom placement with a warning at the top, to see such an image or not. Page-top placement of hard-core pornography should never happen. RadioKirk talk to me

16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that you're prejudging the issue by equating sexually explicit pictures with "hard-core pornography." I agree with your suggestion of appropriate placement (sizing also helps) but we have a general disclaimer so warnings and the like would be superfluous (not to mention insulting). --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, this almost seems evasive. First, hardcore pornography (apparently, "hardcore" is now the preferred spelling) is defined as the photographic depiction of explicit sex acts (and, neither a partner nor mutual activity is a requirement for a "sex act" IMO) so, in the context, I find the terminology identical. Second, The disclaimer is linked from the bottom of each page, long after this article would have shoved (porn/a "sexually explicit" image) into the viewer's face. RadioKirk talk to me 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, it's a page about ejaculation. How could you not expect to see something sexually explicit there? ~MDD4696 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy: go try to find a similar image in the Encyclopedia Britannica; if any image exists at all, it will be a diagram. I reiterate my stand that

Wikipedia is not a pornographer. RadioKirk talk to me

17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that it was decided in the middle of the dispute to delete the image (image deletion is permanent). The deletion log says that it was flagged up as db:pornography (which isn't a reason) and was deleted less than 10 minutes later for having no copyright info when it was tagged as pd-self (and hadn't at that point been tagged as needing copyright info). [33] Image deletion should not be used to settle content disputes like that. Secretlondon 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that; I thought it was deleted because of licensing terms. If true, this is very disturbing. In context, the image was not pornographic as far as I was able to tell. It simply showed a masturbating man, frontal torso view, ejaculating. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The deleting admin tried to restore 8 mins later but doesn't seem to have realised that image deletions were permanent. It was apparently listed as a speedy and got deleted:( Considering the % of false speedy claims this is worrying.. Secretlondon 17:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So .. did we lose the image permanently or did someone have a backup? At the very worst we could hide it in a linkimage or something. But just deleting it outright like that ... hrrmmm ... that seems like a clear abuse of speedy deletion. --Cyde↔Weys 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It ain't abuse when the speedy tag was false. In such a tense and high-pressure situation, not many people, including myself, would check the history and would rather just proceed with the deletion. I don't think xaosflux can be blamed, nor accused of misuse of speedy.

T+C) at 17:16 UTC (2006-06-09

)

You HAVE to check - people add false speedy tags to all pages all the time. It's especially important with images as image deletions are permanent. Secretlondon 17:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?! It's not an admin's fault if he deletes something which has a bad speedy tag? Am I the only one around who still thoroughly checks up on something before deleting it? Deletion is a tool only given to administrators for a reason. If an admin acts as a rubber-stamp, deleting everything that any user happens to put a speedy tag on (whether or not the tag is deserved!), then the system is broken. --Cyde↔Weys 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not THAT high pressure - there are always other admins, you don't have to do it all. If you delete without checking you are a liability to be honest. Secretlondon 18:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This was just a one-off case. It would be nice if sysops deleting pictures could grab a copy (unless the photograph is clearly illegal, such as child pornography) and hang on to it for a bit, but I can understand why a lot of sysops don't go to such lengths.

No doubt other photographs of ejaculation will appear in time--probably better than the deleted one--so it isn't a huge deal.

We do need to make sure that the animation there at present is properly licensed and sourced, however. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a big deal, though, if we have admins regularly going around deleting stuff without stopping to verify whether it's actually a candidate for speedy deletion, or whether the page hasn't been manipulated so that it looks like a candidate when it isn't. Deletion rights are given only to admins because regular users can't be trusted ... but if admins are just running around deleting everything nominated for speedy deletion by regular users without verifying it, then that is a baaad thing. --Cyde↔Weys 18:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've not always agreed with Cyde and Tony apropos of how admins ought to exercise discretion in speedying things, but Cyde (with whom Tony seems to agree) is wholly correct here; thorough checking, important for articles, is crucial with respect to images, which, as many note, can't be undeleted. Joe 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth my views on speedy deletion are heavily influenced by what deletion candidate we are considering. If it's an unencyclopedic template? Mehh. If it's an article or an image used in an article? Hold up buddy! --Cyde↔Weys 18:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by regular users can't be trusted? Chuck^(contrib) 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regular users can't be trusted with access to the "delete" button. It's very simple. If they could be trusted, then it would be available to all users, not just admins ... but it's not. --Cyde↔Weys 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User with previous warnings of copyvios upload an image containing a nude human being. Happens a fair bit. The percentage that turn out to be copyvios is rather high.Geni 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - however this seems to be a "delete as tagged" problem. If they checked the edit history of the uploader they would have checked the edit history of the image too. Speedy tags *are* used in edit wars - it's up to us to know what deletion policy is. All our images in sex related articles are contentious and we need to be extra careful with contentious topics when the potential for admin manipulation is higher. Everyone should be more careful with images because image deletion cannot be reverted. If in doubt always ask - IRC or any of our talk pages is a good idea. I wonder if we should start a voluntary mentoring project for new admins - people you can bounce ideas off if you want to. Lots of stuff is borderline but where the lines are drawn isn't always obvious as we basically work on something like case law. I'd happily handhold a new colleague - I'm sure others are the same. Secretlondon 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that Cyde's "trusted" formulation is altogether appropriate; nearly every consistent contributor could, IMHO, be trusted with the power to delete things, even speedily, but surely those users who partake of the project for less-than-encyclopedic purposes (either to disrupt or simply to impose certain views) mustn't be permitted to exercise deletion deleteriously. Admins are not necessarily preternaturally infallible, and neither does some special brilliance entail from one's being approved as an admin. Adminship is, on the whole, not a discretionary task; admins act only to implement consensus, either as expressed in a specific situation or as codified in policy, et cetera. To say that "regular users can't be trusted with access to the 'delete' button", is, I think, fundamentally to misunderstand what adminship is and unintentionally to underestimate "regular users". Joe 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a central page where you can find a description on how to fast delete personal information from a history when that history is HUGE? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if it is really HUGE, you may want to just ask a dev to do it for you. Well, really anyone with Oversight powers. They have selective deletions. Perhaps Essjay or Brion? I don't know if they are around though. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the page in question? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I solved it, there is a quick way to do it actually, so, if there is not such a page, I will create one tomorrow to describe it. It is actually quite simple. I just did homosexuality, which has 6900+ revisions. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete all, restore recent twenty or so, move to your userspace, delete, restore non-inflammatory items, move back, and restore all? Still a lot easier if you got someone with oversight to do it in one click.

AmiDaniel (talk

) 06:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If a page has a few thousand versions, having

Dmcdevit, Essjay, Jayjg, Mindspillage, and Theresa Knott. There may be others. If the information is very confidential, I wouldn't leave a message on the user's talk page: I'd rollback the edit, and then check contributions so as to make a judgment as to which oversight users were most likely to be online, and would then send a private e-mail. Apparently it also helps the oversight user if after reverting the vandalism, you make another edit — even a small one like putting in a comma. Also, I think that an advantage of the oversight method is that the bad edit can't be accidentally restored by an admin who removes personal information from the same page six months later. For example, if someone puts User A's phone number into the article on Vitamin C on 14 March, and an admin deletes the page and restores all the versions except the bad one, and then someone comes along on 27 August and posts User B's real name, an admin who doesn't check the history of the page to see what edits have already been deleted before deleting the page will delete the page and restore it with everything except User B's name, so User A's phone number will once again be retrievable from the history. As far as I know, there's no way of knowing which versions were once deleted once they've been restored, or once the page has been deleted again, but I could be wrong. AnnH ♫

08:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Full list can be found at Special:Listusers by looking at the group oversight. Basicaly arbcom puss a few devs.Geni 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, much easier. If you see personal information, not even bother to rollback or revert. Do the following:

1. Delete page (Foo) on sight.
2. Restore bad version (yes, the bad version)
3. Move bad version to Foo/Bad
4. Delete Foo/Bad
5. Restore remaining versions of Foo

Advantages:

• If there is a second time in which personal information needs to be removed, there is no change of accidentially restoring the removed personal information of previous times. All Bad stuff wil accumulate in Foo/Bad.
• It is fast, regardless of the number of revisions, and it is effectively a ons checkbox operation.

I think it might be actually a good idea to scan the database for partial restores and move the personal info (or other needs to stay deleted stuff) out of the way so that it stays deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is not fast irrespective of the no. of revisions in Foo. Not so long ago (Dec?) someone deleted George W. Bush and locked the whole database for about an hour. So don't delete on sigt, delete on judgement and, if there are many revisions, get someone with the unfortunately-named Oversight to do it. -Splash - tk 12:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. But would it be a good idea to describe this methiod anyway somewhere, in a page dealing with Wikipedia:How to deal with personal information? I searched yesterday, and could not find it, maybe I just did not find it, but I suspect it is not there. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a good chance that no one with oversight will be around. Jimbo and Brion are devs, not just wiki admins, they are not usually patrolling. Filiocht ‎left Wikipedia. That leaves 14 people.

Talk

20:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find someone with oversight hassle your admin of choice. We can do it but it takes us a little longer, that's all. Secretlondon 20:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll just use javascript to speed it up, unless the article is very long, its faster than spamming the oversights.

Talk

00:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)