Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive100

[1] Is this a satisfactory way an administrator should respond like? Who has got the authority to judge whether or not there's such a need? — Instantnood 21:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

...I'd say it's perfectly good sense to not edit the archives, unless something had been archived prematurely. Even then, often simply starting the debate anew with a link to the old threat can be done. --InShaneee 21:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What I did was to add a link from the archive to where the discussion has continued. I was not responding on the archived page itself. I don't have much opinion on whether archived entries can be edited, and I'm in fact seeking for comment on whether user:William M. Connolley's response is a satisfactory one, as from an administrator. — Instantnood 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You could either

Take out a white glove and slap him across the face while loudly proclaiming your demand for satisfaction

or

Start a user RfC.

but asking a dozen different people to come pay attention to you on the 256k administrators bickerboard is not going to accomplish anything. SchmuckyTheCat 21:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that the above comment is very productive either. 222.166.160.95 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that WMC is beginning to lose patience with you Instantnood, and I'd agree with his statement (considering I too feel you've been trolling). --Syrthiss 15:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

He just did what he thought right, and has never shown any intention to look into the details. He then used the rollback button, an administrator's priviledge, to delete my messages at his talk page. He claimed I was trolling, and blocked me for three hours. Is that what people should expected from an administrator? Are administrators given such extent of discretionary power to do whatever they want to do, despite the fact that they should act according to what are stated in the official policies and guidelines? — Instantnood 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think WMC was within the bounds of acceptable behaviour. Stifle (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've protected

Good catch. Sockpuppets rewriting the sockpuppet policy. Great. FeloniousMonk 07:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. What a cheek. He was, of course, rewriting it so that sock puppets would be slightly harder to block e.g. he changed that sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely, rather than should be, and that only "uninvolved" admins may do the blocking, and other similar tweaks in his favor. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Special:Undelete/Von Neumann's catastrophe. It seemed like the right thing to do in this case. — May. 14, '06 [10:53] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I'm curious why his block was changed from indefinite to six months. I announced a "community ban" a couple months ago on

WP:AN and asked for anyone opposed to speak up; nobody did; is he somehow not worthy of a community ban now because...he's doing t even more? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

14:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize it had been changed. He should definitely be banned indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just an oversight, I imagine. Freak? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it back because it must have been a mistake. Zephram is banned for a thousand eternities. A Sunfazer (talk · contribs) changed the tag from indefinite to six months and reverted me when I changed it back, so now I'm wondering whether that's him too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno much about the guy, but I did notice that recently he asked that a certain article that's been used to attack another Wikipedian be unprotected; that raised my antennae. [3] · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno much about the guy either, but Sunfazer's very first edit was to apologize for vandalism, and CheckUser indicates he's been doing quite a bit of vandalizing and sockpuppeting since then. Perhaps this explains his similar interest in trying to weaken strictures against sockpuppeting. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I wasn't paying attention. It's been fixed. — May. 14, '06 [19:31] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I don't quite understand this. Are you reverting to the pre-rewrite version until you find what edits were made by the illegal sock puppets? If so, why didn't you just revert to the initial rewritten version by Dijxtra? This reversion completely messes up the new terminology and processes that are being used (besides making me a sock puppet again). --Philosophus ^T 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to not keep it protected for the time being. It's not like it's a heavy traffic article. FeloniousMonk 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that the protected page policy is suspended. That policy is what prevents admins from protecting a page at their favourite version. Ashibaka tock 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka has gone ahead and unprotected without even mentioning it to me, so I've reprotected. I don't want to start a wheel war, but I find that kind of intervention unhelpful. I was actively engaged in editing it only with a view to trying to undo the damage, and in any event, any admin can protect a page against banned users. It's otherwise not a page I've ever paid much attention to; if it had been, I'd have noticed the sockpuppetry earlier.

I'd like to keep it protected until we establish which other accounts, if any, might have been Zephram Stark. I'll make a request today and it shouldn't take long. As for which version to revert to, I believe the rewrite was instigated by one of the sockpuppets and it changed key parts of the policy; everyone involved in the rewrite was either a sockpuppet or a newish editor so far as I can tell, and I don't recall seeing any attempts to involve others in the rewrite. As the page is policy, a broader consensus would be needed for any major changes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Protecting it to analyze and undo the damage is reasonable. FeloniousMonk 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've rolled it back to the pre re-write version, because I don't want to get into trying to judge which edits were okay and which not. If some of the changes were legitimate and if there's a broad consensus for them, they can always be re-added. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I requested a check user and the only two Zephram-related accounts are Team Shocker, confirmed, and Dragon's Blood, not confirmed but not ruled out by technical evidence. It was one of them who suggested the rewrite in the first place and both were actively engaged in forming it on various talk pages, so the new version should be regarded as thoroughly tainted. As both accounts are blocked, I'll unprotect shortly if no one minds. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin resolved an editing dispute between herself and two other editors by calling them sock puppets and banning them without any evidence. That is the only thing that happened here. When people questioned her about her charges, she claimed to have requested a check user. No such check user request exists through the proper channels [4], nor is there anything in her contributions to suggest that she requested a check user anywhere else on Wikipedia in the three and a half hours between when she claims to have made the request and when she claims to have heard the response, "not confirmed but not ruled out by technical evidence."[5] Because there is no reason for my block, I, User:Dragon's Blood, would like to be reinstated, at which time I intend to launch a full investigation into the misconduct of User:SlimVirgin and User:freakofnurture (for deleting the article he mentions without an AfD). --4.238.85.76 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that the main reason for reverting of the

Um, the rewrite of the sockpuppet policy was influenced by sockpuppets. FeloniousMonk 22:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In what way? In a disruptive one? Are you telling me that if a sock puppet says it's OK to breathe, I'm not supposed to do that? Again: what's wrong with the rewrite? This time please attack the content, not the contributor. Isn't that one of main principles of Wikipedia? --Dijxtra 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not when the contributor is a banned user. The line is drawn at that point. Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get this one correctly. Your sentence "Not when the contributor is a banned user." is an answer to my "Are you telling me that if a sock puppet says it's OK to breathe, I'm not supposed to do that?" question? Or "Isn't that one of main principles of Wikipedia?"? Let me remind you that this is MY work. Not work of banned user. You are attacking ME. Would you please refrain from doing that? Would you, please, attack my work. Not me. --Dijxtra 22:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're reverting to the work of a banned user. I can't support that. I'm sorry if you're offended but that's just the way it is. Editing on behalf of a banned user is serious business. Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Aham. And, if I revert to my last revision, nobody is going to revert it back? I mean, why reverting the whole rewrite? Why not just the part which was written by the evil guy? BTW, note that I'm not reverting. I reverted only once. --Dijxtra 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I see little evidence that there's any consensus behind this change. Given the number of CheckUsers protesting the change, I'd say it's a bad idea. Given the number of senior administrators asking you to ease off because they think you've made a mistake, I think you should listen. Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'm dropping it. Note: you have to do something with

WP:SUSPSOCK. Dunno, delete it or something. --Dijxtra

22:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to head off any move-war here, and this seems to be the right place to post a notice to get the attention of anyone interested in helping. Al 06:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Inasmuch as Alienus and I are the only ones currently arguing over this issue, building a "consensus" would consist only of us both agreeing. Further, Ayn Rand's psychological views are NOT part of Objectivism, only her philosophical views are. In fact, Alienus has been blocked for edit warring over this article and has a history of blocks for personal attacks. LaszloWalrus 19:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to seek the opinions of interested third parties, either through a simple RFC or a notice on relevant pages. Al 19:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've move-protected the page pending resolution of the dispute. That is not an endorsement of which location the page is currently residing at. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Oldwindybear, an elderly, disabled gentleman who I have worked with previously brought the following matter to Requests for mediation. I've edited out some of the text which I felt was mediation-specific; I initally agreed to help put it in the required format for RfM, but on reading and looking into the surface of the matter, felt it was better handled outside mediation. Since I'm the one handling the mediation side of it, I don't feel quite comfortable undertaking an investigation; could someone, perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the situation, take a look and see what can be done? As I say, OWB is an older gentleman, and has difficulty with some aspects of electronic communication, but is an excellent contributor; he even goes to the Library of Congress regularly to do research for articles. I'd really appreciate someone looking into the whole situation. Below is the somewhat edited version of his comments on RfM; the full post can be viewed here (it's now been removed from RfM). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice has been filed on this user's talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mytwocents I allege the following:

• constant unending personal attacks such as the ones on the alleged sock puppet charge, a charge he knows to be false, and yet made it solely to intimidate people from opposing him - which, if you check the other user's page, he has evidently suceeded at - that user will no longer edit in wikipedia due to the barrage of false accusations;
• falsely accusing me of sock puppeting;
• lying about me to editors;
• calling me names on an administers talk page;
• edits talk pages and deletes sections as though he is some master of the language - where are his credentials to do such? He has none except his vicious personal agenda against those who disagree with him;
• attempting to bully, harass and intimidate every person who dares disagree with him - I have gotten two private emails from other members applauding my refusing to be bullied by his vicious, unending, vile personal, attacks.
• why is it that every other user got along fine with the peer review on Bonnie and Clyde except this one? BECAUSE HE COULD NOT GET HIS POV WAY. He asked for a peer review, then whined, cried, moaned, and launched every vicious personal attack he could on me when others did not see things his way;
• he should NOT be on wikipedia in any capacity, and I beg the committee, once the check/user on the false sock puppet is done, and an examination of the edits, showing no similarity to my work, to punish him severely for the false accusation, and his unending personal bile;
• I am quoting directly from one of the emails: "this person is the most arrogant and meanspirited person on wikipedia, and hopefully after this phony sock puppet charge, they will finally kick him off." I will gladly forward the emails to you! Other people are tired of this vile neverending personal assaults that typify this user.

You know from way back that I detest sock puppets, and no more insulting attack coudl have been made on me - and I am just waiting for the committee to run check/user and assess the edits, and then I truly believe the committee should address teh fact that this guy used a wikipedia tool which is supposed to be reserved for real cases, to retaliate, and effectively drove a new user and contributor out of wikipedia by making it so unpleasant, he says he won't be back. As I point out on teh sock puppet page, while of course, I, like anyone, appreciate compliments on my work, the user in question was not even really involved in the peer review - all those folks and I got only great, we identified the issues in question, and except for Mytwocents were all happy in consensus with the result. He then called me names on an admin's talk page, made the charge that AnnH has said has no proof whatsoever, (if making the first comment on someone's talk page was proof, she, an editor, had done so also! - and which I did out of sarcasm after Mytwocents begin hinting I was using puppets in the review - which again, when you examine it, you will see is totally false.

Anyway, I am not the first person this user attacked. He needs to be curtailed, and the unending viciousness put to a stop.

I and others have witnessed the attacks. Honestly, I would have no problem with mytwocents being blocked for a short time for incivility and for violating no personal attacks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Before I'm blocked, I'd like a chance to delete, or line out any personal atacks or apologize for any incivility.Mytwocents 06:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not get started straight away? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Show me the diffs Mytwocents 16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde recently engaged in some use of blocks to further a pattern of personal attacks.

I have been editing Cuba, and got drawn into an edit-war; a bit hot-headed on my part. I got carried away on reverting some POV-mongering by User:KDRGibby (7RR) and User:Drogo Underburrow. When I realized I made a fourth reversion, I emailed User:MONGO to tell him that in the interest of procedural fairness, he should place a 3RR block on me; later Drogo Underburrow filed a 3RR on me that was actually incorrect, having claimed several unrelated edits as reversions; but if the report had been more accurate, there was a 3RR in there.

Shortly thereafter (before MONGO had seen the email), Cyde started at some drastic misbehavior that is a concern to me:

1. Cyde has previously engaged in aggressive personal attacks on me on unrelated matters, and should recuse himself from this particular block. Moreover, he had not been following 3RR reports in the same timeframe, but simply noticed my name, and saw an opportunity to "get even" for an earlier RfC against him.
2. Cyde blocked me, User:Zleitzen and User:Myciconia, all without giving any notice of the block on our talk pages.
3. Cyde blocked Zleitzen entirely for editing in the same "direction" I had, even though Zleitzen absolutely did not violate 3RR.
4. Cyde refused to block Drogo Underburrow who had violated 3RR on the same page (but in the opposite direction as Zleitzen, Myciconia and I), even after being notified of the inconsistency.

Overall, it's obvious that Cyde is using blocks out of a vendetta and in contempt of 3RR guidelines. This sort of misuse of administrative powers have been pretty much a uniform M.O. by Cyde. LotLE×talk 07:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bah. Three reverts isn't an entitlement, and if there was an edit war all around blocking everyone involved seems not to be unreasonable. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, he didn't even bother to post anything at the

WP:3RR board [7]...nor informed a single editor he'd blocked them...looks to me like he saw the 3RR report...went "gotcha", and hit the ole block button.--MONGO

07:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It might have been reasonable if Cyde's blocks had not, in fact, been purely one-sided. I let Cyde know in email that if he wanted to be consistent, he would need to include Drogo Underburrow (who actually violated 3RR, moreover). I don't think Cyde's actions were even motivated by the underlying politics of the edit matter (my hunch is he'd probably be closer to the NPOV Zleitzen, Myciconia and I were trying to maintain, even if we were too agressive)... I think his actions are pure vendetta at a personal level. LotLE×talk 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lotus-eaters claim that I violated 3-rr is complete fiction. Cyde is absolutely correct in not blocking me. Lotus-eater has no regard for civilty; he calls other editors contributions as "pov-mongering" as he did here, and he frequently call other editors contributions far worse names. Considering the amount of incivility he displays, he is lucky if he doesn't get blocked further. For examples of his incivility, look at his contributions to the Cuba talk page. Drogo Underburrow 07:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for block review of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters

Crossposting is bad, so I've moving this thread here to join it's other half at wp:ani. -

Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs) yesterday at 4:47 UTC for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on Cuba. Cyde did not notify Lulu on his talk page. Today at 00:29 UTC, MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Lulu, saying that Cyde was an involved admin. I just reblocked Lulu for the remainder of his block length as an uninvolved admin, and as is my general custom, I request community input on this block. Ral315 (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the preventative rather than punative question, if post the unblock Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs) discontinued edit warring, then there is no need for any further time blocked. --pgk^(talk) 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lulu has indicated he's leaving Cuba alone. I've complained countless times that admins get a free pass on 3rr (see "Decision not to have a fellow admin blocked" above) when we are totally mechanical about the blocking of the peasants for it. Can we be a bit more consistant, please? -

brenneman^{L}

06:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate, the reason I reblocked was because MONGO unblocked with the complaint that it was an involved admin, and I felt MONGO had problems with Cyde, making the unblocking more out of spite than anything. I've unblocked with Lulu's assurance that he won't edit the page, but my problem is that MONGO didn't ask for such an assurance. Ral315 (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I call bullshit...Lulu told me in email that he was going to leave the article alone, and I told him on his talk page to do so. Cyde failed to leave any comment at the

WP:3RR page[8] and also didn't bother to tell Lulu he was blocked. My onblocking was almost at the end of his block anyway...and as noted on the 3RR page, Lulu had filed an Rfc previously about Cyde...you better get your facts straight before you go wheel warring with me.--MONGO

07:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you cited your block reason as Cyde's involvement. I was re-affirming the block as an uninvolved admin. This wasn't wheel-warring, this was a genuine attempt to enforce what I believed a fair block. If you intended the block to stick, you should have left a summary that actually referenced why you made the unblock. Ral315 (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I should have done as I did...you shouldn't be so petty as to reimpose a block for a lousy couple of hours...ridiculous. Go write an encyclopedia article.--MONGO 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, MONGO did ask that, and I assured him. But some of it might have been in email rather than on my talk page. I actually requested that MONGO block me yesterday, in the interest of fairness (also probably in email), so I'm not really concerned about the block itself. But the fact that Cyde so unambiguously was blocking out of revenge rather than actual guidelines is a concern... i.e. his failure to notify and his block of User:Zleitzen who's only sin was editing in the same "direction" as I had on the Cuba article (and absolutely did not violate 3RR), while refusing to block an editor on the other side (User:Drogo Underburrow) for actual 3RR violation. LotLE×talk 07:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I was blocked simply for sorting out the page after a banned user KDRGibby had been deleting paragraphs in frustration and adding duplicate material, as per discussion with administrators of that block. I edited three times on two different paragraphs. One of which was because I was under the impression that KDRGibby had been banned, but he popped up again to revert so I had to act again. I wasn't warned or notified of my block and received no apology from Cyde, who unblocked me after communications with the comment "long enough". I was able to get another administrator to add a disclaimer that my block was in error. Still, it leaves a rather unpleasant taste. And more than anything makes me wonder whether this is the online community for me. --Zleitzen 07:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde didn't block me because I didn't violate 3-RR. It had nothing to do with what "side" I was on, and everything to do with the simple fact that I didn't violate 3-RR. Drogo Underburrow 08:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty close...[9], [10], and attempted to add back one full paragraph from the other two additions [11] and all this after a report just days ago...[12]...nothing personal, just don't try to game the system.--MONGO 08:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't. And I didn't. Also the report is meaningless; a bogus filing that served to introduce me to the world of 3-rr reporting. I didn't violate the policy then, that report was filed by an editor who doesn't know what reverts are, and thought because I made four edits I had made four reverts. No action was taken against me, because I didn't do anything.

Lulu, on the other hand, had spent the entire day edit-warring, making edit after edit that reverted what other editors were trying to do. That is why he got blocked. Now, he makes up a lie that I violated 3-RR, probably intended to make Cyde look bad. Drogo Underburrow 09:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo's correct that I don't like gross violations of NPOV by him and some other editors. But in terms of the 3RR issue itself, I reverted exactly four times, not any more than that. Which as I've said, means I earned a block, and which I recognize was wrong of me (and which is why I asked to be blocked). But Drogo's 3RR report, and his complaint above, is just a rambling list of edits to various sections of the article that he didn't like because it didn't advance his editorial position. In any case, the problems with Cyde's actions aren't the fact I was blocked (which was proper), but the fact that he did it, without any notification, and that he blocked non-3RR editors on a selective basis. LotLE×talk 16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know how relevant this is, but Drogo filed a

his own actual violation.Timothy Usher

06:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not relevant. You say I violated 3-RR. You filed a report. No action was taken, not even a warning, nada. So much for your claim. I filed a claim against you as well, believing that you had violated the rule. No action was taken against you either. Why are you wasting space here on old 3-RR claims that no admin even bothered to respond to? Are you going to never drop this matter? No one cares but me and you. Drogo Underburrow 06:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Recently

Do we have rules and procedures or not?

I don't really care one way or another whether there exists a userbox that lists the value of 'pi'... but if we have a policy which says that we have TfD's on whether or not to keep these then we have to abide by that policy. Not put things on TfD and then delete them anyway regardless of the outcome. Doing so amounts to going out of our way to antagonize the general users by blatantly demonstrating a complete disregard for the concepts of 'consensus' and 'policy' that we are supposed to be upholding.

If you want to be able to delete userboxes at whim then follow process to get a new 'speedy delete all userboxes' criteria added. Or rewrite the policies to 'admins can do anything they want and users just have to accept that'. However, so long as we continue to publically claim to believe in some sort of 'due process' and decisions by 'community consensus' this kind of behaviour cannot stand. --CBDunkerson 11:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, we do. Next time I'd appreciate a friendly note my talk page before a complaint is brought here. We're both admins and we can both civil to each other, I should think. Mackensen (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Check your talk page. :] --CBDunkerson 11:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• People can disagree over whether or not they'd have closed the TfD in the same way as Mackensen did here. However, your post to AN/I like this, and your immediate action in undeleting and screaming about Mackensen's supposed abuse of process leads me to assume one of two things: a) you don't have a clue what you're talking about (I know this is not the case), or b) you're making a massive assumption of bad faith on Mackensen's part. Please, this is not appropriate. There's a DRV in progress. If you'd have closed differently, why not just mosey on over there and say "I'd have closed differently"? This sort of action only seems necessary if you think Mackensen is wilfully acting in bad faith ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're kidding right? You are actually claiming that there was some way to interpret that TfD discussion as a consensus to delete? Really? And to be clear... yes, I think Mackensen was willfully acting in bad faith. Closing a deletion debate you started is not a good thing. Closing it as 'delete' when there is no possible way to see that as the consensus is not a good thing. Mackensen, Cyde, and others involved are blatantly disregarding policy and consensus. --CBDunkerson 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course not. (My understanding of) The way he interpreted it was that, while everyone wanted the content kept, those arguing for deletion were saying it didn't belong in template namespace, while those arguing for keeping just didn't want the content to go away. I can see how someone, closing in good faith, would say "okay, we'll keep the content and remove it from the template namespace". I've made analogous calls myself, many times, on AfD, without complaint. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • If you think I'm willfully acting in bad faith...wow. In that case you're in the wrong place. You need to RfC me now and start working on an arbitration case because I've obviously gone off the deep end and need to be defrocked (is that the phrase that's popular these days?) Heaven forfend that any admin ever uses his judgement, or makes an unpopular decision. Note that I reversed myself when it became apparent people thought I was nuts. Mackensen (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• To save you counting, I'll add that the votes were: 23 for Keep (18) or Strong keep (5) and 4 for Delete (2) or Subst and delete(2). The "consensus" result was apparently Subst and delete according to Mackensen who did exactly that. I know that this "vote" is supposed to be rather a discussion to seek consensus. But if a consensus was found, it was the exact reverse of how the TfD was concluded. Friendly Neighbour 11:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Stop. TfD is not a vote. How many times do you need to be told that? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Have you bothered to actually read what I wrote? Friendly Neighbour 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Of course; it's one courtesy I always try to extend. You posted a vote count; regardless of how sophisticated it was (and I admit, it's better than the standard "4 delete 3 keep" thing we see from the clueless on AfD) it's meaningless. The comments of each user were not included in your post, but the comments are important. People are better off looking at the TfD and making their own minds up than having you poke vote tallies in their noses. It's one thing to look at the TfD and say "I don't read it the same way Mackensen did", but quite another to look at it and say "I count this many votes for x, y, or z!" fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I wrote that I know TfD is not a vote but consensus seeking and you reply with "TfD is not a vote". I'm glad we agree but why order me to Stop? My point was that if a consensus was there, it was not the same concensus Mackensen found. I do hope it is clear now. Friendly Neighbour 11:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Well, TfD may not be a vote, but it isn't "let's hear some opinions and then do what we wanted all along anyway" either. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What I want, more than anything else, is to see people assume good faith now and then. I acted upon what seemed to me three speedy keeps and closed in the best possible manner. What better way to keep the "template" than to subst it and get it out of harm's way? I'm trying to save the boxes at this point, damn it. Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And what I want more than anything else is that people would stop automatically saying "AGF!!!" whenever someone criticisea their actions. For the record, I think you had the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind when you closed that TfD (against consensus, in my opinion, making it a good-faith IAR), but that doesn't mean I have to agree it was the right thing to do. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all I'm looking for. From the above comments, I didn't feel I was getting even that. Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I thought I had found consensus. The only consensus I'm seeing here is that people believe I didn't follow policy/process. I assure that I believed, and still believe, that I did. In any case, the box has been undeleted and is on DRVU anyway. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• You believed, and still believe, that policy/process allows the person nominating a template for deletion to be the one who closes the discussion? Really? If so, then my apologies... the problem is not bad faith but lack of understanding of the process. However, I really have to strain the AGF muscles to believe that and that you thought there was a consensus to delete the templates so long as the content was kept. I don't see how you could have reached that conclusion, and obviously (based on the objections) it wasn't the intent of the participants, but if you really thought that was the 'consensus' you are again merely incorrect. I suggest that at best your view of the desired outcome colored your interpretation of the 'consensus'... which is why you shouldn't have been closing it in the first place. --CBDunkerson 12:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Now I'm confused. Cyde Weys just wrote that admins closing their own nominations is not controversial as long as the decision itself is not controversial (which I think I understand, and even possibly agree with). Who's right here, or is it all a matter of interpretation? -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Why bring up the tally at all? The TfD is there for anyone who wants to go look at it (and I encourage them to do so, and participate in the DRV). It's very ... annoying ... to see people referring to numbers as if they mean anything, not least because the less-clueful-than-you are likely to get confused. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I count 8 keep votes (more if 'as above' votes are interpreted to refer to only the vote above, but I discount that) that specifically refer to the template being harmless/worth retention. I am not commenting on the relative merits of the arguments, but having read them IMO the keep votes have sufficient weight to at least suggest a 'no concensus' result. BTW, it strikes me that we'd all save a bit of time if an official policy re userboxes was reached and supported.
  Tom
  12:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Couldn't agree more. Comments desired at
    WP:MACK. Mackensen (talk)
    13:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Somebody just said they valued policy over product. Rules-lawyering and process wankery needn't be given the time of day. Recommend community ban or immediate archival. — May. 16, '06 [13:43] <freak|talk>

  Wow. Can't really make any other response to that. Just... wow. --CBDunkerson 17:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I wonder what is the use of TfD these days when things like this happens. -
  Mailer Diablo
  17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I see Mack's viewpoint, but I also see the overwhelming consensus to keep the userbox. I do wonder what the use of TfD is as well. I think that the debate should've run the full course Will (^E_@) T 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• At this stage there's little disagreement on the matter. I also welcome your input at
  WP:MACK. Mackensen (talk)
  17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• no comment on good faith or bad faith but this template should have been kept because of the consensus Yuckfoo 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

this keeps happennning: [13] [14] every time it is spam for uzhgorod.ua can someone please blacklist it thanks Yuckfoo 19:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The second one, 196.12.137.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), was an open proxy and I have indef blocked it. If he's hopping around, try posting over at m:Spam blacklist to have the URL blocked. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked 72.21.45.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for a week for spamming (creation of spam pages at locations such as Talk:Cold fusion/w/index.php, Talk:Snowboarding/, Talk:Unbibium/, Portal talk:Lithuania/wiki/Portal talk:Lithuania/Guest book/ Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Danah boyd/index.php, Talk:W/w/index.php, Talk:W/index.php). 84.108.242.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 86.51.0.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also seem to take part in the spamming (I haven't taken any action yet for them). - Mike Rosoft 21:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

84.108.242.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an open proxy and I have indef blocked it. The other two test clean. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page about meat puppetry, and he attacks me. I did nothing wrong but point out the policy on Meat Puppetry. He has many times removed warning tags, etc from his talk page. Ardenn 01:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He also removed it from Talk:Queen's University. Ardenn 01:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the focus of the dispute? Where's the alleged meatpuppetry (mmm...meat) taking place? Mackensen (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's taking place at Talk:Queen's University. A new user, LeftCoast (talk · contribs) and Tykell (talk · contribs) who go to the school, popped up recently. Ardenn 01:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to ensure this remains a neutral, fair impartial debate. I did list it on RFC. Ardenn 01:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I warn him about

3RR, and he removes it from his talk page. Ardenn

01:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ardenne you need to stop being agressive and stop trying to bully other editors. You cannot behavwe in this manner. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Then start condoning the personal attacks and other complaints listed here. Ardenn 05:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see - you try to bully him. He gets a bit upset over it. And you want me to block him? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't try to bully him, please get that through your head. Are the rules less important to him than they are to me? I thought we all had to follow the rules around here. Yet he removes tags from his talk page, which is against policy, gets his buddy to violate 3RR, of which they go to the same school. If you want, I can put in for a CheckUser, but I'm sure it'll turn up what I suspect. Then suddenly today LeftCoast (talk · contribs) suddenly shows up, and his only edit is to that talk page. Sorry if I feel a little ganged up here. --Ardenn 06:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It was not my intention to make you feel ganged up on. But you have to understand that admins will not block people based on your say so. It would be so much more pleasent if you simply put your argument nicely on the talk page of the article and then let the community decide. The rules are there for one reason alone - to ensure that people cooperate rather than war over articles. You are trying to use the rules as weapons in order to win a war. That's why I accused you of bullying. I've seen plenty of real meatpuppeting to know that your template was wholly unjustified. Try to see it from thier point of view. How would you feel if people started slapping accusatory templates about you all over the place? How would you feel if people tried to get you punished for getting a little upset over being accused of something you didn't do? How would you feel if after removing wholly unjustified templates from your own talk page someone slapped further templates accusing you of vandalism becaused you removed them and then got into an edit war with you over it so that an admin had to protect your talkpage to stop the onslaught? Because you have done all that and more. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am writing about Padgett22 (

This is a new user who seems to be placing improper deletion tags and warnings on numerous pages, including some "deleted" tags. Contributions: [15]. I've left a message, but perhaps an Admin can provide better guidance, or even block temp to make sure edits are done according to policy. --mtz206 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears he's apologized for this. Might be worthy of watching him, but it's fine for now. Ral315 (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am writing to report unsubstantiated deletions by user "moe.RON" regarding legally licensed images that I uploaded while following the Wikiepdia guidelines for image uploading. The first, Janick Gers, is the VHS cover photo of a foreign concert tape entitled "Dive! DIve! Live!" Video tape covers are listed as a viable option for photo uploads. The second, Trevor Horn, is the cover of the RECORD PRODUCER magazine dated 16 December 2002. Anyone familiar with RECORD PRODUCER knows that the front cover always is without text; the inside contents contains official text information.

Moe.ron has no proof otherwise and has been annoyingly removing these perfectly legal images. He demands that the user abide by his unsubstantiated image questioning techniques, which is unfair to Wikipedia users. I feel it is very dangerous for users and administrators to consider images "unsourced" without any proper evidence or cause. Thanks - Padgett22

I have deleted nothing. User:Meegs called into question the Janick Gers photo at this link. User:Meegs also put up the questioning of the other photo here. I was just merely reverting what User:OrphanBot edited here and User:Meegs edited here. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 03:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict, it looks like Moe well encapsulates my views.) Notwithstanding that this likely oughtn't to be at AN/I,

good faith Padgett's adduction of Record Producer's having a text-free cover, I'd prefer that we be able to substantiate such contention (Google hasn't been of much help). In any case, Padgett seems to misunderstand our policy with respect to images; images are not presumptively included, they are presumptively excluded and must be accurately tagged with celerity, lest they should be deleted. Whilst each was tagged to provide copyright info, at least one tag appears to have been in error, and it was reasonable to conclude that the other was as well. Moe did not delete the images in question, and his commenting-out was consistent with policy; should proper copyright info be provided, the images can surely be returned to the articles. Finally, Moe wasn't acting as an admin here; he was simply commenting out unsourced images (likely) soon to be deleted, as any editor may and as any good editor should. Joe

03:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are only 105 hits for "Record Producer Magazine" which does make tracking the thing down rather difficult. However, it appears I did find a picture of one of the covers in a Google cache... in an ad that pops up after about three seconds. Lo and behold, there's absolutely text on the cover of the mag. JDoorjam Talk 04:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the only image I find as well; it's difficult for me to believe that the magazine was previously published without any cover text, and I think we'd do well to err on the side of caution: to assume that the image is cropped from a magazine cover. Joe 05:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am have also been looking for somewhere that has a picture of [Image:Janick gers fot leszek jastrzebski.jpg], but I am coming up with nothing. I really don't think that the VHS holder from this video would just have the guitarist and no writing/other members on it. Just my $.02 on that picture.--MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 05:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I able to revert these pages back with the "Unsourced Image" tags? This will be third time doing it in a 24 hours, though, so that is why I am asking.--MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 13:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask help in clearing references to old posts from pages. Marlon Fire Thunder 05:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

John, I've already cleared out all of the edits that I can legitimately remove without controversy. The protected {{

AmiDaniel (talk

) 05:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Butterbean has been repeatedly vandalizing multiple Christian userboxes (Special:Contributions/Butterbean) even after being reverted and asked not to on his talk page. Gateman1997 05:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What caught my attention is that it's a new account doing exactly the same thing Gosse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He certainly looks like another sock of this user. He should probably be blocked indefinitely. Gateman1997 05:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Aww Nigga ... see also the AFD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aww Nigga

Non-notable bio ... vandalism ... nonsense ...

Do {{d}} or {{prod}}; Absolutely no need for the AFD. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 06:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's gone.--MONGO 07:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A user editing from IP

Don't think so, but as long as you've got a decent password, you're supposed to just smile and enjoy the thought of the person's frustration. They can't do a thing to you or your account. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

Seeing as how my password has been automatically changed 35 times in the past hour, yeah. But as for the enjoying the frustration part of what you said - I blocked the account to put an end to the vandalism, not to get a vindictive kick. There are a lot of people out there who are convinced wiki admins are out to get them just for the heck of it. Occasionally I think we should remind ourselves that we're not... Nonetheless, thanks for the support, and your response did make me smile. --woggly 11:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that your old password will still work even after a newpassword request. JoshuaZ 14:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

is there an upper limit of new password requests within an hour? Otherwise, I don't think you'd still smile if the troll used a "request a new password bot" and you got half a billion notification emails.

dab (ᛏ)

14:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Rob Church implemented a throttle in Mediawiki on the rate at which password reminder emails can be sent. Maybe it hasn't been turned on here yet. Kimchi.sg 14:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Any way to activate it? I've had more than 70 of these emails, and it looks like they're still coming. --woggly 14:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't you block e-mails from the address from where they come from? It wouldn't block e-mails sent through the e-mail user feature, would it (although you'd have to make sure you didn't forget your password). --Telex 14:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I could, but that would block all email from wikimedia.org. --woggly 14:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do it until the troll gives up (three or four days, perhaps even less). --Telex 14:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:John Gabriel Robinson has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 13:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, umm nice catch curpsbot! Syrthiss 13:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good block. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User continues to add claims that various left wing people/organizations are murderers, anti-semites etc., previously blocked for personal attacks. Arniep 14:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Presumably pushes POV, pushing pro-monarchist moves, pushes a regnal number to a person who just was a pretender of a kingdom.

User Gryffindor made the following move: "14:10, 17 May 2006 Gryffindor m (moved Ernst August Prinz von Hannover Sr to

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles): Monarchical titles, rule 6: "Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned. For example, use Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, not Louis XX when referring to the legitimist pretender to the French throne....even though royalists call him so."

Simply saying, Gryffindor moved an article to a name which is clearly against the naming convention and which supports the idea that Ernest was a ruler, not a pretender.

Gryffindor has worked for months and months here in Wikipedia, participating (and pushing) talks about royal and nobility titling, and made a huge number of small edits to royalty articles. It is inconceivable that Gryffindor were unaware of the naming convention, and the correct way to name pretenders.

When doing that move, Gryffindor had already received an invitation to participate in general discussion what to do with Ernests, as evidenced by Gryffindor's user-talkpage's diff [16]. Gryffindor however went and moved the article page to a location which is against naming rule (forbids ordinals of pretenders).

Gryffindor knows very well that regnal number is forbidden and Gryffindor has repeatedly received admonitions -at least a year now- that royal titles and such paraphernalia should not be bestowed against facts of real life. I believe Gryffindor is a repeater of such POV offenses.

Now Gryffindor has made a move to push a regnal number to a pretender.

I request that Gryffindor be blocked for a couple of weeks' duration, to reflect her/himself the problems caused by overly monarchist POV pushing. Marrtel 15:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense. Everyone who deals with Gryffindor knows him to be one of the fairest and most objective contributors to WP. Those particular pages are causing problems because a series of individuals all have the same name. Some individual unilaterally moved the pages from their previous location, without consultation or going through requested moves, to ludicrous makey-up non-existent names, breaking MoS rules on name usage. Royalty and nobility never ever use Sr and Jr. Calling Ernst Augustus Sr is a bit like putting George W. Bush at George II. It is absurd and nonsensical. All Gryffindor did was return the pages to their original location (where people can find them and where there links were) to enable a debate to take place on how to diffrentiate between the multiple Ersnt Augustus claimants. He broke no rule, just acted as any professional Wikipedian would act. Marrtel's claim is balderdash from start to finish. Accusing someone like Gryffindor of being a POV pusher is a bit like accusing Jimbo of being a sockpuppet and a vandal. It is nutty. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 15:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)}

A review of Marrtel's behaviour shows that they have been moving pages all over the place without discussing it, using requested moves, fixing links or anything. If anyone should be blocked for a stampede of page moving it is they. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)}

Guideline, not policy Will (^E_@) T 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked

seems reasonable.Geni 16:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate, but not surprising. I support this. Mackensen (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In his defense I should point out that his vandalism of

t • c

) 22:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience interpreting and applying the user page policy generally, so I thought I'd post this here: User:Hickory Grove Retreat has posted a full advertisement for a hotel in the Hocking Hills on its user page, which seems to me to be inappropriate, but I don't know if we can remove the content entirely, pare it down, etc. What are our options? Postdlf 16:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a free web host. --Sam Blanning^(talk)

19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User El Pingüino is vandalizing my userpage. Due to methodological similarities (altering picture) I strongly suspect this user is, or is in contact with, user Benlegrand, who received a ban for repeated vandalism of the same page. Could you look into this, please? Edward Grefenstette 18:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've warned pinguino with a test4 to leave your userpage alone. They are >< close to me blocking them as vandalism only. --Syrthiss 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He created another sockpuppet: User:Joe_Muz to get some advantage in Wii dispute. Considering their bad blood and reported past [17] isn't time to take this guy off? --Jason Five 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your second edit, and you talk of sockpuppets? Hmmm... --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I preffer keep this dennounce in anonimity to avoid harassment payback. What you suggest? Abandon this account and make another report with IP? If you want know, Yes I created this account only to dennounce him and keep my identity anonymous. Thanks. --Jason Five 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: [18] Comproved sockpuppets and counting..

Doom127 was already blocked prior for those previously reported sockpuppets (all of them except Joe Muz were created in a single day, and he was blocked for those) - furthermore, sockpuppetry itself isn't against Wiki unless it's used to violate the 3RR (which hasn't happened here) - thirdly, I do believe we already know your identity. You're Brazil4Linux, and you've been stalking Doom127 for close to a year now. Not really, it would seem, to be one to talk about sockpuppets.

This userbox used by hundreds of users has been vandalized by Gmaxwell (talk · contribs) and Cyde (talk · contribs) and protected in the vandalized state by Freakofnurture (talk · contribs). An userbox of the size of a full article (full of heave calibre POV) is obvious vandalism to me. BTW, none of the two vandals uses this userbox. To add insult to injury, one of them added a rotating crucifix as the image (now deleted). A user Rexmorgan (talk · contribs) who tried to revert this obvious vandalism has been blocked for 24h by Freakofnurture (talk · contribs). Friendly Neighbour 15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to call anything here "obvious vandalism", but it does look like a silly edit war. FWIW, Tony Sidaway has dealt with this in a sensible way, putting the template back to a simple version and unprotecting. Friday (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not obvious? A userbox with the height of my screen? C'mon. Look the definition in Wikipedia:Userboxes: "A userbox is a small coloured box that allows users to add small messages on their user pages". Anyway, thanks Tony! Friendly Neighbour 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the other version was accurate :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree this was absurd, I wouldn't call it anything worse than a content dispute. He certainly meant well, at the very least. --InShaneee 16:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A classic case of the wrong version :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It was no mere vandalism. Changing a message hundreds of people have already chosen for their userpages is megavandalism of hundreds userpages. I believe long blocks are the only appropriate penalties for such mega-vandals. Friendly Neighbour 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Megavandalism, huh? The problem is, if people had just subst'd their templates, they wouldn't have known about this at all. --InShaneee 18:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is hundreds of people did't. Can they be vandalized because they never heard of "subst" (like me until very recently) or simply preferred the uncluttered versions of their pages (also like me)? Maybe we should also replace our userpages with uploaded screenshots of them, not to be the 3RR guilty party when a vandal gets the idea of a "content dispute" on our pages ;-) Friendly Neighbour 18:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This reeks of POINT and it certainly isn't civil. Furthermore, I am astounded that someone would actually block for this case of 3RR and not block Cyde and Gmaxwell. You shouldn't get to edit war by virtue of having one more person than the other side and get away with it.

Seriously, this was wildly inappropriate, disruptive, not done in good faith, etc even if I think it was hilarious. Kotepho 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur here. I thought it was funny too, and I am the one that got blocked over it. However, "funny" is not really appropriate when it is affecting many users on The Project. With regard to InShaneee's comment - subst is not, as far as I know, official policy or even suggested guideline regarding userboxes at this point, so it is unreasonable to expect everyone to have already worked together to come up with that solution to the problem. Rexmorgan 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It may not have been the best move, but I still wouldn't call it vandalism. First of all, the simple fact is that without transclusion, you're open to whatever happens to the template, like it or not. Secondly, although the gif was a bit over the top, the new text was NPOV, and as silly as it came out, I don't think it's something he should be punished for; rather, he should simply be overruled on the talk page. --InShaneee 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Every time I see one of these userbox squabbles, it makes me want to tear out my eyes. Whether intended or not, they always end up waltzing with

WP:POINT. Keep the blasted thing at Tony's version. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c

) 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell started it again. This time a "compromise version". I reverted him once. I would prefer a better solution. Anyone ready to block the vandal? Friendly Neighbour 19:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a talk page there. These things CAN be discussed. Blocking isn't always the answer. Neither is reverting a 3 word change and calling it 'massive vandalism'. When two users refuse to discuss a change, BOTH are at fault. --InShaneee 20:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking an article page. We are talking a message that multiple users link to their userpages (as userbiox policy allows them to) and some other users (who do not use it) want changed. The outsiders can always create their own template if they want. This is the difference between an article about a person/thing/idea and a template where a dissatisfied user can always create a new one. There is no need of template compromises. Really. Friendly Neighbour 20:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see

WP:OWN. You do not own that template, nor does anyone else. It may be freely edited just like anything else here. Compromise is not only needed, it's expected. --InShaneee

20:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You did not get my point my point. You can't "own" an article exactly because there can be only one on a given subject. You actually can "own" a template because anyone can create a new one (for example adding a number to the name). Friendly Neighbour 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't own ANYTHING, period. Templates (such as userboxes) included. If you want your own userbox, subst it, or just create it wholly on your userpage. Once it's put in the Template space, it's subject to all the usual policies. --InShaneee 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Job Friendly Neighbour, in your haste to defend against evil you managed to revert text suggested by someone who appears to hold your position. As InShaneee said above, compromise is a core aspect of wikipedia. Please discontinue your allegations of bad faith and join the discussion rather than attacking. --Gmaxwell 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to qualify, reverting discussed, agreed upon changes can be considered vandalism. --InShaneee 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Holy War

Saying this as a non-religious person, I am both appalled and offended at some of the actions being made by two administrators, Gmaxwell and Cyde at

See

WP:AGF as soon as possible, please. --InShaneee

20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He should assume good faith when someone writes a whole article inside a userbox, ruining many userpages? There was no good faith, just admins vandalizing. Lapinmies 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want anyone being able to change what appears on your userpage then you oughn't be transcluding templates. Please read up on

WP:OWN while you're at it. Also note that calling an established Wikipedian a vandal because you disagree with them is far, far beyond the pale. Mackensen (talk)

20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The point was not that they can't be changed, it was that they should not contain a whole article. Lapinmies 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no guideline stating that. As I said before, if anyone had a problem with it, the talk page is the first place it should be brought. --InShaneee 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no guideline stating that you should not stick peas in your nose. Lapinmies 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And I, along with many of my fellow users, strongly support other user's right to do so, along with anything else they may choose to do outside of wikipedia, where we have no control over them. --InShaneee 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm appalled that anyone thinks this comment is anything other than trolling. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So we can assume good faith of someone who (as an obvious joke) replaces a userbox with an article, but we can't assume good faith of someone who considers that action a violation of

WP:POINT? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We can assume good faith in EVERYONE, if I'm reading the policy correctly. --InShaneee 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was sort of my point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm appalled that anyone is calling an online content dispute a "Holy War". Millions of people have died in real Holy Wars. That's like calling the New Years Userbox deletion "The Userbox Holocaust". --Cyde Weys 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• For those late to the party, this is where it started.
  Thatcher131
  20:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See

Flame war#Holy wars --Carnildo

20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that Mackensen has speedy-deleted the template under T1, I'm sure that everything will calm down. (rolls eyes) Everybody, brace for impact — it's going to be New Year's all over again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It was dividing people in a big way...I'd consider that 'divisive'. --InShaneee 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

... nnnno it wasn't. Cyde and Gmaxwell having fun with the content at the expense of everyone who put it on their page was being divisive. There is absolutely nothing divisive about the content that was at {{

User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian}}. JDoorjam Talk

20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah — the only divisiveness came about when Cyde and Gmaxwell started their joke. The same thing could be done to any userbox, not just political or religious ones. To take an example at random,

WP:POINT.) I really think this was ill-considered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 21:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Which, of course, comes back to the issue of userboxes. Should they be wiped off the face of the earth? No. Should they be subst:'d? Yes. After all, this is an encyclopaedia, and saying "This User is a Christian" is unencyclopaedic (although I find Cyde's version still too restrictive in its definition). As for size restrictions on userboxes - have a look at the one at the bottom of David Gerard's page. Now that's a userbox. Guettarda 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I agree that userboxes should be subst:ed. I just don't think that this is the way to go about it. If we're going to subst: all userboxes, then let's formulate an appropriate policy and do it. This maneuver (starting an argument, and then deleting the template because it's divisive) smacks to me of pushing someone into the mud and then condemning him for being dirty. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For historical purposes, it was RexM's fault for editing it to say "This user claims to be a Christian". Having said that, despite how hilarious the Gmaxwell & Cyde version of the userbox was (I miss the animated crucifix; I'm actually considering using the userbox in my userspace, although I really am a Christian), they were definitely violating

WP:VANDAL, but this was definitely disruption (even if meant well, and done in an absolutely hilarious manner). Johnleemk | Talk

14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just like to point out that we still have User:UBX/Catholic, User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Protestant, Template:User Muslim, Template:User Buddhist, Template:User Jewish, and probably a lot of other ones. If "This user is a Christian" is division, then all of these are, too. Either we need to delete them all, or an infobox saying "This user is a Christian" needs to be reinstated. — BrianSmithson 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to let folks know that I've substed the userbox on all the user pages it was used on. I can do the others too, if people want them gone from Template space. I've expressed my opinion on the edit war itself already on the WikiEN mailing list, so I won't repeat it here. It's not particularly polite, anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what should happen, frankly. Substed code on a userpage isn't subject to anyone's petty whims. I can't say I'm happy about the last 24 hours. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've listed the template at

No legit T1. Nothing to debate.Geni 03:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Although the debate over whether the template should be kept on WP has moved elsewhere I think there is a larger problem that has been glossed over: Cyde and Gmaxwell were irresponsible and created a debate unnecessarily. Their claims that the changes were made to the templates out of "good faith" to preserve NPOV are laughable and I think that as admins they should know better. Can the fact that they seem to be getting out of this unscathed indicate that other admins are endorsing this sort of thing?Reverie 07:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Reverie here. At DRV/U, some users have pointed out that that page isn't the appropriate place for discussion of Cyde and Gmaxwell's behavior. Although many admins and other users have agreed that the affair was a

WP:POINT violation, Gmaxwell is continuing to maintain that his sole intention was a concern for NPOV. I don't think that a heavy sanction is warranted (especially if he has the decency to apologise, as Cyde has done), but perhaps something should be done to show that this sort of thing isn't appropriate behavior. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 08:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one administrator who does not endorse their actions. Paul August ☎ 01:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please defrock this rogue admin a.s.a.p., see

Hold your horses. All he did was change the name of the category from "user con" to "Wikipedians who use the Yahoo! Widget Engine". Ashibaka tock 00:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Category:Wikipedians who use the Yahoo! Widget Engine actually, so it needs a rename either way. Kotepho 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed by removing the double Category: (obviously that part was accidental). Omniplex, is renaming Category:User kon to Category:Wikipedians who use the Yahoo! Widget Engine really so unreasonable?! --Cyde Weys 00:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's uglier than "User:kon" - I submitted it erroneously for the first CFD in March, and I still don't like it, but CDP says "use TFD", the DRV fixed my error, a 2nd erroneous CFD got no consensus, and ignoring CDP+DRV+CFD for this bogus category with a more ugly name makes no sense. -- Omniplex 08:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, Cyde is really growing on me. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 00:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I need to be desysopped immediately for renaming a category. /me sighs. --Cyde Weys 00:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

renaming a category a category without community consensus that is. 70.48.250.138 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Read up on it. This category renaming was soooo obvious I didn't need to waste other people's time at CFD. --Cyde Weys

00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet If I boldly edit your userpage, i surely would've been banned. 70.48.250.138 01:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, it depends on what you put on there. Try me. --Cyde Weys 01:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first case in which Cyde has closed on his own whim and against consensus; but if Cyde is going to get away with consistently being judge in his own case:

• Unblocking himself early because it was inconvenient;
• Closing his own TfD nominations 3 days early and against consensus;
• Blocking Salix Alba for notifying members of a cat he had put on CfD;

Then we certainly shouldn't do anything for this. Septentrionalis 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• It really bugs you that I can block and unblock myself and you can't, doesn't it :-P Cyde Weys 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Trolling again, Cyde? Septentrionalis 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Defrocked"? Cyde, do you wear frocks? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• My frocks are all pink, lacy, and made by Gucci. And no one is going to be taking my frocks away. --Cyde Weys 02:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You may be interested in Male Unbifurcated Garment.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• You'll be personally excommunicated by Jimbo. Ashibaka tock 02:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo has no place on the internet. Move for lifetime ban immediately. -- Daniel Davis 02:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• As someone who strongly opposes and disagrees with almost everything User:Cyde does concerning userboxes, I can confidently state that the above category-renaming is an extremely reasonable and good one, and am honestly amazed that such a ridiculously trivial and clearly beneficial change is what we're discussing here, not something like the {{user christian}} debacle. Come on. Is this a joke? This must be a joke. -Silence 02:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How many userboxes has this user

deleted in the last few days. And all of them against the waiting time which is specified for TfD. I would say that this gross breach of policy would be worth a very close look at. Its not acceptable to have an admin running around doing what they personally want while ignoring consensus and policy. Ansell Review my progress!

07:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that Cyde is also the author of this version of {{User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian}} template who, by changing this userbox, embelished more than a hundred userpages with a spinning crucifix on top of an article-length rant. Friendly Neighbour 07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And you're the one that violated

WP:AGF by claiming that the userbox was somehow sacred (pardon the pun) and editing it in a way you didn't like was vandalism. If you don't want a userbox on your user page to change, subst it. --Sam Blanning^(talk)

09:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please show me the edit where I claimed userboxes are sacred. You seem to mix up my (twice) reverting what I deemed (and still deem) a simple vandalism by Cyde & Gmaxwell (please note that arguing an edit is vandalism is explicitely allowed under

WP:AGF is about accusing about bad intentions, not criticizing past deeds: "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, it only means that one should not ascribe said action to malice.". Please show me an edit where I assumed malice. I can show you one where Cyde assumed malice on my part (like this one - please compare the tone of Cyde's edit with the one by myself he responds to). Friendly Neighbour

10:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What you're also doing is violating

WP:CIVIL by bringing up this incidenct at every possible opportunity, on every page, in every context. --InShaneee

16:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. None of the uncivility examples in the policy bears any similarity to reminding a user's previous tresspass on

WP:ANI. You must be joking. Friendly Neighbour

18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the discussion of admin abuse of powers, particularly in a situation where the admin in question has brought up their POV relating to userboxes on almost every template they can find, without at least letting the situation reach consensus and then cool down sufficiently. You can hardly call that civil if you believe that the discussion of the events are not civil. I call it an admin making a

WP:POINT Ansell Review my progress!

12:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-star (talk · contribs) has been uploading unsourced images for months now, despite many warnings. This diff [19] from his pre-blanking talk page shows a sample of the warnings left by OrphanBot and others. On several occasions other users have asked Wiki-star to provide sources for his images, but he simply replies that he is working on them; looking at his backlog of OrphanBot warnings, he hasn't sourced a single one, all the while continuing to upload new images without sources. Isopropyl 14:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• (Dare I show my face around here?) Well, I'd say that an administrator needs to warn him; if he doesn't respond in a reasonable length of a time a block is probably in order. Has he gotten any non-OrphanBot warnings? Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have,

(talk)

14:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest we table the matter unless he starts up again. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have warned him on a number of occasions, with later warnings suggesting that he stop uploading images until he sorts the existing ones out. Isopropyl 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If the user doesn't follow this advice, indef-block until they commit to it. It would be useful if we could turn off a particular user's ability to upload files. Then again, being this sloppy with sourcing their file uploads may be an indicator for a lack of respect for the project that we can do without. Jkelly 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea's been kicked around before but it bumps up against the notion of being a wiki, to say nothing about being additional instruction creep. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Being a wiki doesn't give us the right to infringe copyrights. If he uploads any more unsourced images, block him until he promises not to do it again. If he does it again after that, block indefinitely. Enforcing our copyright policy isn't instruction creep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand Mackensen's objections, but I wonder if a proscription against a user's uploading images (where he/she has continually contravened our policies with respect to tagging and sourcing) is much different from a proscription against a user's editing a specific articles or articles w/r/to a certain topic where the user has been disruptive on such article or topic. I imagine that we'd not want image uploading-specific blocks to be doled out only by the ArbComm, as almost every article- or subject-specific ban is, but I think that, where a user may be productive on the whole but disruptive relative to certain specific articles/categories/actions, it's appropriate that we take action such that the users productive edits may continue whilst the destructive edits cease. Joe 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be up for at least a short block on this user. Talking to him is impossible; you get mostly wild paranoia mixed with some patronizing comments. Isopropyl 22:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Can do. OrphanBot currently inspects every image upload; it would be trivially simple to check for uploads by a given user and tag them for speedy deletion. --Carnildo 01:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As directed by Essjay, I am bringing this incident here. This request for user check was confirmed. But no action was taken and it is now closed. Prin continues to upload photos violating copyrights - see Prin log, Benzee log and Jath16 log. Anwar 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)