Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive331

Unjustified block of User: Moldopodo based on alleged violation of 3RR by User:Nat

Resolved

- AN/I is not dispute resolution.

(copy of the e-mail sent to unblock)

Dear Sirs,

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the user Nat (administrator) has blocked me for the alleged violation of the 3 revert rule, in my view with no justifiable reason for this and moreover without any explication a posteriori and without any notification a priori.

First of all, nor the user who has made this request, not the adminitrator has notified of their intention in advance. The user TSO1D has written on the block that another user reminded me of the 3 RR on the 1 November 2007. That reminder, on my talk page is completely unrelated to the resent dispute and was made in the context where user Anonimu seemed to help me as a new user in an edit war on the Balti page with Dc76.

Secondly, there were only three reverts from my side proermy speaking, rest was editing. So there ws no violation from my side o the three revert rule. The problem is that user TSO1D keeps erasing text with direct referece to the art. 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and to the organic laws (to which the fourth line of the art 13 refers) to the Law on Functionning of languages on teh territory of th Moldavian SSR dated 1989 and to the law on legal status of Transistria dated 2005. Further TSO1D deletes from official languages: Russian, Ukrainian, Gagauz and adds to the given constituionally and legally name of one of the used languages in Moldova another name - Romanian (Mldavina/Romanian). The same was done by user Dc76 on the Balti (city) page before.

On the block request page, user TSO1D stated that I give unsourced information, which is an open lie/intentional misinformation. I have always sourced all of my edits on pages Balti, Moldova and Moldovan language with a source. And most often the source is the official governmental up to date legal portal. You can also check the talk pages of relevant articles (Balti, Moldova), where TSO1D boldly says that Constitution and laws of the Republic of Moldova means no source to him/her, hence no legal status for the four (Moldovan, Russian, Ukrainian, Gagauz) languages. How can one answer to such an illogical phrase of TSO1D?

TSO1D has made himelf/hersemf much more than 3 reverts on the 19th of November.

18:44, 19 November 2007 TSO1D

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172531265&oldid=172527018

18:21, 19 November 2007 TSO1D

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172526512&oldid=172525330

17:18, 19 November 2007 TSO1D

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172514956&oldid=172514406

17:13, 19 November 2007 TSO1D

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172514064&oldid=172513821

14:15, 19 November 2007 TSO1D http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172485286&oldid=172484954

14:49, 18 November 2007 TSO1D

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172284885&oldid=172275711

However, this was not taken in consideration by the administrator user Nat. Moreover I suspect Nat to be originally from Romania, as on his personal page he states that he/she likes a Romanian band 3 Sud Est, which is a local Romanian band, not even known in all of Romania and not so popular in fact. To know it, and especially to be fan of it, one really has to have some very strong connection to Romania. Anyway, my be I am just getting paranoiac.

User / administrator Nat stated that my account will be blocked for 24H; which is over by now. However, when I connect (I can log in now) it says that editing function is indefenitely blocked for me.

I would like to have my account unblocked and fully operatioal, and receive detail explications and apologies from user / administrator Nat (she/he just said on my talk page "you are blocked"; I think it's rude and impolite, she/he could have at least explained for what excatly and on which page and for how long) for this erroneous block, also for this discriminatory block, whereas user with more reverts remains clean, like TSO1D. I admit I am new to Wikipedia, but I have already learned very well the three RR and I confirm that I did not revert as it is defined on Wikipedia (may be there is some other definitions which helped user Nat in taking the decision) more than three times.

Respectfully and thank you in advance for your attention to this request.

Moldopodo (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Please note that if you have managed to post to any page other than your talk page, that your account cannot be blocked. Indeed, your block was for 24 hours and was done well over 48 hours ago, so you are no longer blocked. --Deskana (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I know Romanian but this guy above lies blatanly. There is only one official language in Moldova which is Romanian language. There's no Russian or Ukranian. This person lies. I can give you the source that there is only one official language. I hope my statement helps.Sambure (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure your personal unsourced statement has bigger authority than Moldovan Constitution and Moldovan laws, and more than that only your personal unsourced statement is enough to assert the ultimate truth on the planet Earth. Sambure, please don't be ridiculous. Wikipedia is for serious and civilised people. --Moldopodo (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Dubious image uploads

Resolved

User banninated by User:Bencherlite.

Could an admin please take a look at the contributions of one LindsayKensington (talk · contribs), please? They've uploaded several images, which (except for one that looked to be a promotional image of Darren Hayes and was uploaded over a public domain pic of Edward C. Hayes - I fixed that one) seem to have been Photoshopped. I suspect someone's playing. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Some further consideration of the editor's other contributions suggests this is a hoaxer; I've just AFDed Hussain Ali Nasser, and note that several other related articles are either PRODed or have been speedied. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorted! User blocked, problem articles deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Evis Daison Marrero (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User given a stern final warning by — Coren ^(talk) 03:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps ignoring warnings left on his talk page regarding improperly sourced images and keep uploading them and reverting other users' edits after they've been removed. He is quickly editing many articles, adding material that might be classified as spam. Could someone issue something of a final warning to him regarding this? Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Calming influences needed at the Durova subthread

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

---

WP:BOLDly closing this; Nothing productive is coming out of this discussion. Take it to the sub-page of this debate or WP:RFC if you like. — Save_Us_229 02:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

---

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor#ArbCom Elections silly season. This may increase the drama, but I have a feeling things are about to kick off over there. People posting stuff and others deleting page revisions, then the same material being posted on a user page. If anyone can think of a way to calm it down, please do. Unfortunately, I have to leave my desk for a few hours. Hopefully Wikipedia won't have completely melted down by the time I get back. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Try playing a little Mozart? Seriously, the more people make this a deal, the more it becomes one. Everyone laugh for a bit, those that deserve to feel like idiots do so for a day or two, then we get back to normal.--Doc^g 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ew, Mozart. Try Rachmaninoff. But seriously, the thread is starting to turn into a bash-Durova-because-now-we-have-the-chance thread. The topic has already deviated from the original complaint (which was resolved). Clue bats were brushed off as "obfuscating Durova's mistakes." Step away from the dead horse, guys. It's dead already, FFS. —Kurykh 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I could tell a silly joke or wish everyone happy Indigenous People's Day. Or I could post links to Charlie the Unicorn, though I might have to recreate a deleted article to do that. We could all use a good youtube cruft article to break the tension. Wikidemo (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote we nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 19:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed move: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor → Wikipedia:International Festival of Stupid, 2007 —([[Talk:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor#Requested move|Discuss]])— Collective stupidity on this epic scale should be memorialised for ever. We should also have a policy enforcing at leats ten hours discussion for every one minute of block, as that appears to be the current standard. —Guy (Help!) 18:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• You are the one who has escalated this by decreeing that such stupid rubbish was "secret evidence" to be deleted as a danger to the project. I have been telling every one for days it was rubbish and nothing secret. The only thing this has told me is that some people are seeing spooks in every corner. Now auf wiedersehen fur jetz. Giano (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of people escalated it, Giano, few of us are blameless. It's rather hard to see how actively soliciting this email and publishing it was supposed to damp down the flames, for example. I guess for some people a swift reversal, an apology and an undertaking to learn from the experience simply isn't enough, eh? Guy (Help!) 19:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Right! We have had the laugh now let us stop yodelling to each other, take the combs from under our noses and cease goose stepping and ask the serious question. Durova had her chance to come clean last night and blew it. I know the full answer and I'm reluctant to give it but it needs to be in the open, and it will be, so hopefully some one will come forward because we need to know. Who were the high ranking Admins and Arbs that Durova said reviewed that rubbish and OKd the block because any person who reviewed that was either very stupid or up to something. We are told the Arbcom are clean [1]. So who is fibbing? Either way I think you all know how this continues - but we do need to know. Someone is not being totally honest somewhere - who? Giano (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe that Durova ever said that she sent that information to the ArbCom mailing list. So there's been no fibbing that I'm aware of. Paul August ☎ 21:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Let's be frank. So, in summary, you want her desysopped. —Kurykh 19:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No, he has said he want her to be banned, and everyone who has supported her. _→AzaToth 20:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No I think we can settle for one humane de-sysoping and some others explaining themselves. Giano (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So you want Durova to be desysopped and others to apologize for supporting her. For the sake of clarity, let's avoid using metaphors, euphemisms, and colorful language. —Kurykh 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a mistake to move that thread onto a page of its own. If it had been left here there would have been constraints on its length and tone. The current discussion is like an RfC/U, but without any of the structure or policies. Unless there is a likely outcome I think the thread should be archived or moved back here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed ... and furthermore, I think that we should move fewer threads to subpages, for the same reasons. The threads drag on, and the dispute is merely prolonged. By this time, the thread might have been archived, we as a community might have been moving forward. But unless someone forcefully archives it and puts themselves on the line, it simply doesn't seem like it will stop. --Iamunknown 20:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop prevaricating. Answer the fundamental question who supported a block on that evidence. Giano (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it clear that anyone else actively reviewed the evidence and supported a block—as opposed to an e-mail having been circulated and no one having reviewed it and responded one way or the other, and Durova having mistakenly having taken that for support or acquiescence? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Durova has stated "The responses I did receive ranged from positive to enthusiastic." [2] Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I never thought I'd say this to someone I otherwise respect, but: Giano - stop the bloody trolling. You're annoyed. Yeah, we get it. Durova made a mistake and should be hung, drawn and quartered, then the remains hung, drawn and quartered and finally anything that's left should be hung, drawn and quartered just in case. Alternatively, we could all get over ourselves and edit the damn encyclopedia. Yuh know, like wot we're here for an' everything like? ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the best part about this place, there's always a helpful reminder to get back to work. Somewhere there's a very lazy chain gang. sNkrSnee | t.p. 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, that's enough. It's time to file a request for comment over this issue and let the thread die. I would take the bold step of archiving the whole shebang right now, but I have to go out and couldn't monitor it correctly. --Haemo (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment = "an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution". Wanderer57 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ha! Like we need more comment on this anyway. We know what Giano wants, the answer is "fat chance", and probably just as well. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough I made a similar comment here [3] - it is a fat chance you are right, but at least I can sleep at night! Giano (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody put this festival of ego, recrimination, pride, vindictiveness and stubbornness out of itsour misery, please. (Carefully note that I have not specified to whom these attributes do or do not apply.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

User:DemolitionMan unblocked, 3-month topic ban

DemolitionMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has apologized for his disruptive behavior on Indian Rebellion of 1857 and I have agreed to rescind his indefinite block. In return, he has agreed to a three-month topic ban on Desi-related articles. More information is available at this archived AN/I thread as well as User_talk:DemolitionMan#Last_straw. Ronnotel (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Diaboli‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just blocked Diaboli for one week this disgraceful personal attack. Telling another editor to go and die is quite simply not on. If someone could review the length of the block, that would be much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem long enough for such a bad attack. I'd say a month to three, more towards the three since he is so uncaring about being blocked, except he admits to using a sockpuppet, so thats an indef right there--Jac16888 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind getting a block for a few days or weeks or what ever says to me they wouldn't mind an indef block, to be honest. I wouldn't mind either. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. One week for that outburst seems about right since I don't see any other blocks or warnings other than the sock stuff. FWIW, I believe that sock accounts are indef blocked, but the sock master is assumed to be reformable. Ronnotel (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I was torn between one week or slightly longer, but given his prior good behaviour, I think a week is long enough with a firm warning that if this were to happen again, it would a lot longer. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punative. Good block. Daniel 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jiggerdude

Resolved

 – Page protected by Haemo, comments unrefactored. Bencherlite^Talk 02:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

was recently indef blocked. In fact, my sage words of polly annalike butting in got added just after the block notice went on. User then proceeded to refactor my comments so that it looks like I'm spouting incivility. I promised to ask someone to block him from editing his talk page if he did that again. He did so I am. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

backlog

Category:Wikipedia_protected_edit_requests has a backlog.--69.177.187.90 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered feels muzzled

Folks - back in August this year, the now discredited CSN board required me to find a mentor (I'd finally been trapped into the only offensive edit it's generally agreed I've ever made). I have such a mentor - the harassment of him started within 2 days, but he's now lasted a month without being driven off the way the three previous mentors were. (Details available if you've missed them). We've worked together very well (the only open issue is recent and nothing to do with Palestine).

However, there is someone else on my case insisting that he's my mentor (as well? instead?) and attempting to tell me there is still something wrong with my edits. His demand of me runs like this: "PR, as your mentor, I've been a little concerned about your recent editing. I see a lot of edit warring in your contributions (here's just a few: [4][5][6][7]) and many of your edits seem to be pushing your own point of view regarding Ariel Sharon. Can I please remind you that edits must be neutral point of view, and revert warring to push your point of view is clearly desruptive."

If this editor is finding something problematical, then he's going an odd way about drawing anyones attention to it, because each of the actions of mine he's challenged is handily covered by my summaries. I'd be the first edit-warrior in history to clarify everything carefully in both Talk and summary - and I don't edit-war anyway. As one of my mentor-harassers noted in the interesting tirades I documented here: "... PR has not made any "breaches of 2RR" (perhaps one)".

So what is going on with this interesting collection of interesting accusations - or is this just the final move to muzzle me?

I should add that it's possible I've crossed some red-line, perhaps it's wrong of me to quote Arial Sharon as if he were a notorious punisher of civilian populations (I've not actually said as much about him ever, but you know what I mean). Perhaps Wikipedia is simply not allowed to document what is/was happening to the Palestinians and I'll have to begrudgingly accept it. Perhaps this single purpose account was always doomed to be muzzled, and I should be grateful to the community for allowing me to make just a few corrections and improvements to articles. PR^talk 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The CSN board was not discredited. Its function was re-merged back to this board. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you mentioned this to Ryan at all, unless it was through email. Perhaps the best first step would be to talk to him about the situation. No offense, but it seems like you are overreacting to this. Another editor saw something problematic in your edits, so they brought it to your attention, which is the preferred first step in this community. If you disagree, open a dialogue with him and discuss your disagreement. If you disagree with him as to whether or not he is your mentor, discuss that issue with him first. Ryan's a reasonable guy - I'm sure this is a misunderstanding at most. Natalie (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I'll give you a piece of advice. The purpose of mentorship is to pair you up with one or more experienced editors who understand how to edit here responsibly. The expectation is that you will talk things over with them, get feedback from them, and learn from them. Unless there is significant non-transparent and off-wiki communication, coming here was not a great idea, especially not as your first contribution after receiving a piece of feedback. As Ryan has previously told you "I would just check your edits from time to time and make sure there isn't any disruption from you, and like wise, you aren't bein bullied by other editors". The appropriate reaction to a comment from him is to talk it over with Ryan. Please go do that. GRBerry 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR, I wish you'd attempted to discuss this with me first rather than take this to the admin board. My concern with the diffs I cited was quite simple, I believe that you were edit warring to put your own personal view across, you don't have to break 3RR to revert war and many of your reverts have taken articles back to your own personal point of view. Whilst I see a lot of talk page discussion, I don't always see you using the consensus on the talk pages when applying your edits. As your mentor, it's my job to steer you in the right direction and if there are legitimate concerns about your editing, to make you aware of them. I'm more than happy to dicuss your editing with you, and why I said what I said - this just isn't the most productive place for that discussion to occur however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

His issue seems to be that his understanding is that someone else is his mentor, and he is taking offense at you saying you are. Any chance of a clarification on where he was assigned a mentor, who he thinks is his mentor, etc?—Random832 14:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryan politely took you aside, suggested that you need to calm down and edit in a manner that does not push your POV and did it in the relative privacy of your talk page. He's acted as a mentor should, instructing you and trying to get you to learn to edit in a way that follows the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. There is no problem here, beyond the thinly veiled attempt to slur Ryan's reputation, sometimes we all need a little muzzling when our POV takes over our reason. I look forward to the day when you "graduate" from mentorship, but based on this outburst, I don't think it is any time soon. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

PR again - I'm used to laughable allegations against my edits (which are usually good) and my style (which may be irritating, but cannot be all that problematical). But this case (the most glaring yet seen) is about top-down interference in a "Content Dispute", as if some kind of red-line has been crossed.

Do you want details? I promise you, the inclusion of this paragraph is only objectionable to died-in-the-wool defenders of Israel. Ariel Sharon really did threaten to hit and hurt civilians - Israeli-supporting RSs tell us he carried out his threats with a massive military operation (UN says 497 Palestinians killed), along with scandalising, wanton other destruction of the whole structure of a civil society. It's pretty shocking such words are removed with a claim that they're a "bogus quote". That's denial of quite a high order. PR^talk 10:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that PalestineRemembered claims that, someone else [is] insisting that he's my mentor" [8] because it was quite clear in the last discussion on AN that the community supports Ryan's mentorship for him. [9] In fact, PR was about to be banned from Palestine/Israel related topics, if not indef blocked, but was given the !choice between being community banned or taking up mentorship as a last chance [10]. Since then he has continued editing in the exact same problematic way - for example, he repeatedly claims that his "mentors are under attack" (though he's been told to stop doing this this many times) and soapboxing about "defenders of Israel love/hate to..." in ways very similar to his previous "commentary" about Zionists (e.g. "the Zionist ethnic cleansers", "intentions of murderous racism" [11]), and basically edit-warring in extreme POV that doesn't conform with either WP:V or WP:NPOV. Now, when his mentor finally (and quite mildly) points out issues with his editing, he suddenly decides to reject his community appointed mentor. I suggest that User:Avi, is correct, that his behavior "leads me to believe that mentorship may no longer be capable of serving its intended function." [12]

I suggest a topical ban until such time as a PR commits to accepting the mentorship of a non-partisan mentor (and that would rule out Kendrick7, who shares his POV, which is why PR was so eager to seek him out as a mentor in the first place). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I suggest you stop distorting things and interjecting yourself here - you aren't helping. We already know that PR did not seek Kendrick as a mentor, Kendrick volunteered. We already know that Ryan is a mentor. Let the mentors mentor and stop arguing for bans at every opportunity. Your continual interjections are themselves disruptive, and if you don't start attempting to work with PR I will block you on that basis. GRBerry 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, i'm not distorting anything. i feel you have been assuming a bit too much good faith for PR for a bit of time now.

p.s. i find your threat here most concerning - you can request me to take a step back, but bullying me away from commenting, considering PR has been harassing articles i've been involved in (drive by reverts, soapbox, calling me a war criminal), seems like you're saying i can't even give my 2 cents on how this mentorship process is going... nowhere slowly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As a sometime viewer of these threads, my comment is that until Jaakobou is restricted from interaction with PR or his mentors this disruption will continue. Are we serious about an encyclopedia? or are we interested in certian points of view being highlighted on certain subjects? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Rocksanddirt, so you're saying stuff like Hated Google Test, repeated attempts to portray Israelis/Zionists as mass killers [13] and false edit summaries [14] are all my fault? ... and i thought this is an encyclopedia rather than a WP:SOAP WP:BATTLEGROUND. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, orany other concerned editor, should be allowed to civilly and occasionally discuss PR's edits with the mentors - unless/until the mentor(s) ask them to go away because of their own behavior. At this time, in Jaakobou's case, it would be better if those discussions were separate from the mentor's discussions with PR. Jaakobou, or any other concerned editor, should expect that by doing so he is also asking the mentor to review his own related editing. Most of the really problematic disputes at Wikipedia involve poor conduct on all parties, so reviewing the behaviour of all parties is necessary. GRBerry 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments - first of all, Ryan appears to have essentially appointed himself mentor without any real acknowledgement from the community that he is PR's mentor, so perhaps it would be helpful if that issue was clarified.

Secondly, I think Ryan's comments to PR on his talk page are inappropriate. If these were egregious breaches of NPOV I might support his comments, but they are not. The edits Ryan is taking PR to task over have been supported and restored by a number of other editors, so if PR is guilty of POV so are they all. Is PR now to be held to a higher standard than other editors?

The problem IMO has never really been with PR's mainspace edits, which I'm inclined to think are not noticeably worse than those of many others on these pages, but rather his tendency to soapbox and engage in troll-like behaviour on talk pages. That is what has got him into trouble in the past and that is why a mentor was appointed in the first place. So I think Ryan would be better off sticking to those issues. The Is/Pal pages are highly contentious and taking just one editor to task for alleged POV warring on them would seem just a tad farcical to me. Gatoclass (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, all the Is/Pal articles are a long running edit war. Just because some questionable edits by PR have been revert warred over by other editors (and I bet if I tried I'd guess which ones) does not make his controversial editting patterns any better or worse than the original edits were prior to the dramatic revert wars. A questionable edit is a questionable edit, regardless of if other POV-pushers support it or not. The tag team of Ryan and Kendrick was accepted by the community, PR really has no say in who his mentor is, it is not his choice it is the choice of the community. Noone jumped up and down when Ryan volunteered saying "Nooooo! Not you!" so by default Ryan got the nod. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not his mainspace edits that got him a mentor, it was his soapboxing etc. on talk pages. So I don't see what purpose is served by trying to vet his mainspace edits, especially when POV warring is par for the course on this subject. It's just going to create unnecessary friction, and quite frankly I think there has been more than enough pointless drama concerning PR already. Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, his soapboxing is related to his mainspace editting patterns and I don't see why we'd separate the two. We might as well teach him how to follow NPOV in all his activity on the encyclopedia while curbing his soapboxing, incivility, victim card tossing, history drudging and other bad behaviors that caused him to be community sanctioned. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sambure and Porcupine

Resolved

 – For now, anyway. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sambure here is being disruptive, trolling, vandalising, making personal attacks and being incivil. I'm involved so I can't comment much further, but can someone deal with him/her? Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has a content issue with me. --Sambure (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said "I'm involved", my sweet.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to defense myself. I created a page then that user Porcupeleine put right away a tag. He didn't waited nor to improve or to work to expand the article. He had tried any means possible to threat me, to report me as vandal and other techniques. The article that I created is a part of more than other 100 articles.--Sambure (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't knew that such an article Diplomatic missions of Romania‎ will create such a mess here. I'm sorry to meet such stupid by the rule people posting and filling my talk page with rules and citations from wikipedia rules.--Sambure (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Please be civil and don't be nasty.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing AfD notices is generally bad - contesting the AfD is usually better. On the other hand, I'd think it's bad faith to ignore a page under construction. I'd keep the AfD running which would solve all these problems - but this is a content dispute, so see dispute resolution. Please also take a look at WP:OWN and WP:AGF. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology: I want to apologise to everyone, I'm about to use WP:IAR to trump WP:CIV. Will you just shut up, you stupid whining troll. I've deleted a harassment thread below about four bloody times: I'm not trying to cover anything up, the thread's contents are the same as those being discussed in this thread. Now just grow up or disconnect from the net! Thanks, and sorry again.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Too late, you already made such a mess, by imposing your threats on me. not to mention that you don't want to write but to delete my work. --Sambure (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you both log out for an hour or so, take a deep breath, cucumber slices and all, and try to stay cool. You might start saying things you'll regret later. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Since I'm patrolling newbies' contributions, I'd like to comment on this matter involving the two editors. Porcupine, you are definitely an already established editor, but your behaviour by attacking new editors and accusing vandal is not helpful. Okay, you tagged Diplomatic missions of Romania for deletion, which triggered Sambure as an author to protest. Sambure is a newbie, as myself, so (s)he might not know the rule of not removing AfD tag. It does not mean that Sambure is a vandal that you'd to report to WP:AIAV. You both are just having content disputes. Then for Sambure, please calm down. Let the AfD matter be discussed first and let the community reaches the decision whether the article should or shouldn't be deleted. So for both of you, put off the hostility and just work on improving articles. Dekisugi (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)The tag clearly said, "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" in the box and the Wikitext. S/he was a vandal because she ignored that message and my two warnings.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

reply Why should you be so vicious and putting so many warning messages on Sambure's talk page including WP:3RR messages of edit wars that actually include yourself? Please calm down. Dekisugi (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Becuase s/he's adding vandalism, which is an exception to the 3RR. Plus, see this.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Porcupine - Please read WP:KETTLE. You are also engaging 3RR. Dekisugi (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You should not lie about yourself also, people have seen you..--Sambure (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Originally from separate thread

User tried several times to be uncivil, unpatience and very annoying by destrying my work. --Sambure (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User tried 6 times to hide things about him http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=173105324&oldid=173105182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambure (talk • contribs)

Merged these two threads. Whole thing seems needlessly acidic. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Given Porcupine's history of incivility and flat-out rudeness (as Porcupine and under previous names), along with the blocks he's received for same, I am saddened but unsurprised that he hasn't really grasped that WP:IAR is not meant to apply to WP:CIV. I'm pressed for time and can't deal with this right now, but I would appreciate it if another admin could look at Porcupine's conduct at Diplomatic missions of Romania and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplomatic missions of Romania. This certainly looks like a case where he's gotten WP:BITEy (and it's even a bad AfD nom) and then inflamed the situation by being rude to the confused newbie. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Again, I would urgently direct both parties to WP:COOL. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)As I see it, I reverted the removal of an {{afd}} tag - rightly or wrongly nominated, that doesn't matter. I was then generally harassed by this user, who insists on having a whole big template appearing in a talkpage where a link should - and does - suffice. I consider this disruptive.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC) An admin please should block this user who tries by any means to delete valid articles.Sambure (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with TenOfAllTrades' diagnosis and hope that we can conclude this unnecessary spat with mutual apologies for the harsh words and no further action taken. Zocky | picture popups 15:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you guys please stop? Edit-warring on AN/I isn't the smartest play in the book. east.718 at 15:13, November 22, 2007

(ec)I think someone needs to explain to Sambure the following:

• WP:CIV
• WP:MULTI
• WP:POINT
• WP:VAND
• WP:3RR
• WP:TROLL
• WP:DEL.

I'll leave this alone if someone does.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This applied to you also. --Sambure (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I do understand them, though, honey.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diplomatic_missions_of_Romania All people agree with me and not with you Porcupine. See the results. Don't you understand you can not propose to deleted valid articles from a large series?????Sambure (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Not the point here, love.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, this may sound a bit odd here on Wikipedia, but could the admins actually do something rather than vaguely and sporadically discuss doing something and then leaving Sambure to churn up this page's formatting a bit more? Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Disengagement - from both parties - would be very nice now. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks Porcupine please. You lost. --Sambure (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

New plan: I'm kicking both of you off AN/I for ten minutes. If either of you, Sambure or Porcupine, posts in this thread during that time, you'll find yourself blocked for ten minutes to enforce this. Find something else to do. Calm down. Back off. This is escalating to ridiculous levels over nothing. Grow up, people. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) I will block both of you if you don't cease edit warring on AN/I. Seriously, could you have picked a worse place to get into an revert war? east.718 at 15:22, November 22, 2007

Sambure, your article is doing well on AfD, and there's nothing more to be gained from talking to Porcupine, so please stop now. Porcupine, consider yourself warned. Any more biting of the newbies, especially the very annoying condescending tone, will lead to a 24h block. Zocky | picture popups 15:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've taken the time to give Sambure a very short potted explanation of what AfD actually means (it seems obvious that (s)he is under the impression that AfD means automatic deletion). I'll keep an eye on Sambure and attempt to guide them for a while. Hope this helps! Tonywalton  | Talk 15:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary: A new article was created by the newcomer User:Sambure and within 2 minutes, User:Porcupine sent it for AfD. Sambure (understandably) gets upset and removes the tag. Sambure then posts this (anyone understand this?), then an edit war over an AfD tag. Then there's things that hardly help the situation: [15] and [16]. I am a little concerned that posting a comment on a userpage, even if it is a little incivil, is considered vandalism. There's also the issue, I think, regarding newbie biting, baiting and at the very least, things that hardly help the situation. User talk:Sambure#Ony just a suggestion for you is probably a perfect example of this. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bait there. Someone tried to defame me, and I was being quite mature about it rather than ranting, raving or deleting.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what planet you live on, but you did rant, did rave, did delete, and your condescending use of 'honey', 'my love', and 'my sweet' isn't helping your case for civility either. Maralia (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My use of the word "there" implied that I was actually referencing the thread mentioned in the previous comment, actually.

Sambure is a brand new user. Porcupine, AKA Rambutan and Circuit Judge (both indef blocked) has been around a long time and this behaviour pattern is nothing new (just check the block logs on all three accounts). His attempt to use IAR to trump CIV is ludicrous and misses the whole point of IAR, which is to be used when beneficial to wiki and ignoring CIV is never beneficial to wiki. If Porcupine doesn't cease and desist from this long term behavior pattern, I'll move for a complete ban on him. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan was a username change, the name was re-registered after I vacated it so you've indefblocked a poor innocent newbie there!! Check the logs...--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I do understand [17]. Let's say we let it slide as a first offence in the heat of the moment, but Sambure, any more outbursts like that aren't likely to be tolerated. Zocky | picture popups 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Porcupine for one month. His behaviour in this thread and the things surrounding it should have been more than enough, but this post[18], after being asked to cool down and back off, was the final straw. I'm soon off, so won't be available for discussion. Any change to this block should thus not be opposed on the grounds that it hasn't been discussed with me first (I may of course oppose it for other reasons :-) ). Fram (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this. Is User:81.169.128.183 Porcupine .. ? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fram. John Reaves 08:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please someone do something. Dirty messages are now on my user page. --Sambure (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked User:81.169.128.183 for a short time. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page for three hours; hopefully, that'll do. Shame things came to this. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not done yet

I was very curious about what the Romanian sentence means, so checked on it with two translation tools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Porcupine&diff=prev&oldid=173101441

Asculta porcule, nu-mi mai sterge articolul ca te bag in pizda matii porc ce esti.--Sambure (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The translation tool is very clumsy but the meaning of it is understandable.

1. Listen to porcule, dont erase articolul as interfere in you pizda matii what pig are [19]

2. Audition pig , non mi May sterge articolul ca yourself bag in pizda matii pig what eastern. [20]

--> Listen pig, don't erase and interfere the edits, what a pig you are.

Here is English Wikipedia, not everyone knows Romanian language. Sambure spoke the slur in Romanian to avoid getting in a trouble. I think Sambre should also be blocked for this insult to Porcupine --72.79.30.24 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was an honest mistake. He confused porcupine and porcine? Okay, I kid. Wikidemo (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have given him a final warning, because he continues to go after Porcupine. He was provoked and a newbie, so I am willing to let his mistakes pass with only a warning, but if it doesn't stop, blocking becomes inevitable. Fram (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I guesstimate that Sambure is User:Bonaparte. If so, he should of course be blocked. I'm not sure what, if any, bearing this should have on Porcupine's block. After all, he was biting a person who by all available evidence at the time was a newbie. Zocky | picture popups 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was asked for clarification, so here goes: I'm not intimately acquainted with the Bonaparte case, but IIRC, the subject matter (e.g. Moldovan language) and the general excitability seem to match. Zocky | picture popups 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot VI (talk · contribs) - Imposter?

I stumbled upon the above user while patrolling newbie contributions. I believe this may be an attempt to impersonate User:Misza13. Whoever is operating MiszaBot VI copied both Misza's user and talk pages to the the new account. I left notes on Misza'a talk and the new account's talk to ask for verification on Misza's page, but nothing so far. I suggest a block of the new account until Misza is back to verify. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked pending verification. —Kurykh 01:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that this user seems to be included falsely in the Administrators category. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 02:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he has changed his username, perhaps? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 04:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I just checked Misza13's page and here was his/her reply (copied directly from [21]):

“ No, it's not my account - I register my bots when logged in so the fact appears in user creation log and always tag the userpages using my main account. Thanks for blocking it. Миша13 08:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC) ”

VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

74.14.147.245 (talk · contribs) aka Political junky (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – One user blocked, another warned. `'Míkka>t 07:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He is making personal attacks at Talk:Green Party of Ontario, and is adding bad citations, and keeps reverting without discussion. J (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for edit warring. The user just came off a twenty-four hour block for edit warring at this same article not too long ago and should not have gone straight back to reverting. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Does GreenJoe have explanations for this repeated revert? `'Míkka>t 07:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Political junky's referenced additions were deleted without any explanations from GreenJoe and GreenJoe must be warned about inadmissible revert war without explanations. `'Míkka>t 07:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I can explain. The <ref> left there was to the main website of Elections Ontario and not to any specific documents to which states that fact.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  08:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotary International

I've decided to back away from the long-running edit war at Rotary International. For a long time I've tried to protect the article from the somewhat bizarre editing of User:PierreLarcin: but the article isn't in any of my fields of interest, I only got involved in the first place by answering an RfC, and I'm sufficiently tired of the whole issue that I've decided to back off. Anyway, I think it might help if one or two admins could add the page to their watchlists, since I'm taking it off mine. AndyJones (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't blame you. I just read through the talk page - anyone else think that Larcin should be topic-banned? Most of his work is "this person is evil, this person is a rotarian, therefore the article on Rotary International should reflect the fact that rotary is evil" Guy (Help!) 09:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No comment!!! AndyJones (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with JzG; this kind of long-term disruption of an article is unacceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Normastitts - spamming

Resolved

User is spamming by adding the same picture adversiting some movie to lots of pages. There may be some other accounts. Please check the image for what links here. User contribs: Special:Contributions/Normastitts--Dacium (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the user, deleted the image, removed the edits. Unacceptable username will do as a block reason, if the spam and the copyright violation wasn't enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomasfrancis117 (talk · contribs), Francis117 (talk · contribs)

This seems to be a blatant case of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The first account was used to create article Altered addiction which was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G10. He is now using the second account with the obvious username to recreate the deleted article with no additional information as to the notability of the subject. He has also created an article about himself (Tom Francis) and, when he created the first username, he started his userpage with the following: Thomasfrancis117 is the writer for the band altered addiction. Currently, he has no idea whats going on, or even if this is a personal profile or article. SWik78 (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK way overdue, should have been updated twice already but not even done once

Resolved

DYK is the Did you know section on the main page. It's an important feature because it is on the main page, encourages others to start new artices, etc. It is to be changed every 6 hours. The update is way overdue. In fact that update was supposed to be updated too (it is 7 hours late, 13 hours since the last update).

Usually, I do not bring this up on ANI. However, it is an urgent, time sensitive matter and it is very, very late. If it is only a little bit late, I say nothing. If moderately late, I only contact the people who frequent the board. Only administrators can move the next update page to the main page. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for raising it and getting the update page all ready to go. WjBscribe 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Phoenix741 does not believe in fairuse

Ok, a little bizarre. What to do with a user who does not believe in fairuse rationales and continues to remove them from images? Image:Ult x4 1.jpg was uploaded by User:whipsandchains over 18 months ago. I added a basic needs fairuse rationale warning, warned the uploader. User:Phoenix741 decided to remove it[22] without explanation. I explained to Phoenix that it was still needed [23], and after a little reverting, basically the response is "I don't believe in the whole idea for fair use". I am concerned because this user has also uploaded a number of fairuse comics [24]. Can someone else calmly explain to Phoenix that "I don't believe in the idea" doesn't give someone the right to go after someone else's images and say that the fairuse rationales aren't needed? I'd support a 24-hour for vandalism but I just want to leave it for other opinions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a polite note. If he doesn't stop, I'd endorse a block. --Haemo (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He may actually need that vacation he referred to when he comes back to his talk page. --WebHamster 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I refactored it so he won't be dealing with like 15,000 words of "WARNING NO FAIR USE RATIONALE". --Haemo (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite as impressive, but definitely more bandwidth friendly. --WebHamster 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not really removing fair use rationales from images but rather not adding them to images and just being disruptive with the whole tagging for deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Is "disruptive" a new euphemism for maintenance? His weren't the only images that were tagged by me last night, for not having FUR. The dealing with the removal of FURs is an admin function, notifying the lack of them is a maintenance function. I went through a lot of comic and music pages and came across his, I then found his user page with a convenient list of images, it was during tagging them that I noticed the comments on his talk page. I'd make a suggestion that you WP:AGF instead of jumping to conclusions. There were 41 images that were missing an FUR, the fact they were uploaded by him is immaterial, they would have needed doing at some point anyway. --WebHamster 10:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I know you probably didn't have any unkind intentions, but you've got to understand how it looks — a user says "I don't like fair use rationales", and shortly afterwards dozens of his images come back with notices for deletion for lacking a rationale. I could reasonably see why he's thinking "I'm being targeted". When I see people having an issue about something, I try to step off for a while to ease the pressure off them — it's not required, but it's an accommodating thing to do. Anyways, we've been talking and we'll see what happens. --Haemo (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't give a flying frisbee either way about his arguments, if I did I would have joined in the conversation with my opinion which is that there is no valid reason for him to be the only one who doesn't have to stay within the rule. Likewise for reasons that may be apparent from clues on my user page, the 'personal' aspect of diplomacy is a mystery to me. It's a very simple equation to me, if there's a copyright licence on an image page with no accompanying FUR then it gets tagged, I don't care whether it's 1 image or 41 images. I wasn't doing it to make a point, even though I can see that may be a reasonable conclusion, but the way I see it he put the copyright notice on the image, if he can't be arsed to read it and comply with what it says then that's his problem, not mine. On the other hand, it's not my usual MO to spend the best part of an hour with boring repetitive work just to make a point. I didn't leave any non-templated replies on his page because it wasn't a personal issue for me so had nothing to say. I mentioned it in passing here as it may have been relevant to the discussion. Also, wise-ass remarks are a habit with me. This is why I have a "doesn't want to be an admin" userbox, I'd suck at it as I have no concept of tact and diplomacy and even less desire to actually use it. --WebHamster 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't think, or want to imply, that you were being malicious or vindicative here. However, I know for a fact that some users will (and have) mass tag images as a kind of "retribution" and it's not totally unreasonable for someone to misinterpret actions along those lines. With that said, it's not a big deal, and you don't have anything to worry about — however, in the future it can be helpful to just keep a light hand when you know an issue is sensitive. If we wanted blind policy enforcement, well, we have BetacommandBot (Joke, joke!) --Haemo (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam harassment

Resolved

This user is harassing me on my talk page, while I have never been engaged in any discussion or edit with him. He insulted me for a second time [25] today. The previous attempt was in September [26]. Atabek (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He's already blocked for some related nonsense. I think he "gets it". --Haemo (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrolled newpages

A lot of pages have been marked patrolled in the last minute or so, quite a few which I thought were speedy or PROD candidates (which I hadn't tagged, because they were only a few minutes old). I know of no way to check who marked a page as patrolled, to check who has marked these pages, and to see if there is any 'foul play' going on, but the patrolled status suggests something is going wrong. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at Special:Log/patrol and the pages' logs. Patrolling is logged the same way as other actions. Note that pages should be patrolled once marked as speedy, to prevent other patrollers having to look at them as well. --ais523 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I missed that one. people seem to be going on a patrole rampage (getting their patrole count up?). I didn't know of that log, but can now contact them to discuss patroling. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, go back 2,000 pages or so to see all the pages that haven't been patrolled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved

Removal of CSD tags and unwillingness to discuss

Resolved

Refering to the revision history of Mediocrity and the discussion on my and user:mindrakers talkpages. Mindraker created an article, from which he keeps removing CSD tags. The discussion on his an my talkpages indicates he is not willing to discuss it, and only accepts discussion with administrators. I believe his conduct is uncivil, disruptive, and in violation of policy. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted the article. I'd like to request for it to be WP:SALTed aswell, as it has been recreated many times now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Salt on next recreation. —Kurykh 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Back up, this wouldn't have gotten to the admins in the first place if JohnCD hadn't brought the article to the admin intervention ( [27] ). If you guys want to drag this through the admins *again*, go ahead. Mindraker (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why is having a {{wi}} page at Mediocrity a big enough problem to warrant this much nonsense? Guy (Help!) 19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Irony was desired. —Kurykh 19:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Like I said, guys, if you want to drag this through the mud, go for it, I'm willing to sit back and watch. Mindraker (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • We're done, unless you want to go through it again. Hence the "resolved" tag. —Kurykh 19:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Resolved

Please investigate Try This One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, SqueakBox 21:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

False use of pp-dispute?

Resolved

• In ChaZ raRw, at 21:35, 23 November 2007 User:Bezartan (its creater) put in a {{pp-dispute}} tag. but he did not protect it. ChaZ raRw has already been deleted NN and re-created. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, people can falsely use {{pp-dispute}}. He's not an admin, so he couldn't protect the page. There's nothing to do about it except remove the tag. Also, there's a bot that does it automatically, IIRC. --Haemo (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  Durr... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Incivility?

I stumbled up on this post by EliasAlucard (talk · contribs): "[...] there's no such thing as "modern Aramaeans". Aramaeans do not exist today. They are all self-hating Assyrians.".

There seems to be other examples in the thread. I do not know if the argument had manifested itself in article namespace.

I'd like admin review.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching the discussion. It's just a content dispute that's a little bit hot under the collar. Someone dropped him a note before about this, and though he's arguing somewhat passionately, he's definitely improved his tone. I don't see any benefit in playing civility police ATM. --Haemo (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would probably use a different word than passionately to describe all thats going on there. But hey then again I do not have much of a vocab. :) -- Cat ^chi? 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Passionately seems to be used with more than a bit of sarcasm. —Kurykh 03:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant it honestly. Perhaps "strident" would have been better? --Haemo (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Warn that user that flaming leads to being block from this project, and that's it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Popescu

Resolved

Can someone please do something about this article above? I keep tagging it as speedy, but keep getting reverted by User:Vrakattack. Thanks! Lankiveil (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

Article deleted and user blocked, since his only edits consisted of vandalism. --W.marsh 06:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Harassment from User:Orangemarlin

Per the advice of users User:Arichnad and User:Dorftrottel upon my request for editor assistance, I am recording an unpleasant incident with user User:Orangemarlin here. Since making that request for editor assistance, Orangemarlin continues to harass me, accuse me of being a sock puppet for some account of a user he really must have a vendetta against, and threaten to get my IP banned. I'm ready to drop the whole thing ("Forget about them. ... Do not escalate the conflict" etc. [28]) but I just want to make sure that this user's behavior is noted somewhere so that if he acts this way with other users, the pattern can be identified, and action can be taken.

The content I had posted to editor assistance page, which I believe adaqutely describes the situation, follows.

Thanks for your consideration of this request.

---

Hi. I recently had and incredibly un-pleasant exchange with user Orangemarlin. I'm looking for editor's assistance in determining what to do about it.

(Note: I don't know Orangemarlin's gender, but herein I will refer to the user as 'he' for simplicity.)

I'm probably taking Orangemarlin's exchange with me too personally (though, granted, he did engage in personal attacks against me) and perhaps I should just let it go ... However, he's threatened to ban me, which I don't want to happen, and I'm also concerned that if he regularly engages in this kind of boorish behavior, it's going to harm the Wikipedia community. I'm no Wikipedia veteran, but if I were more of a n00b and got a message like this I would certainly not ever bother with editing an article again. ... Try to make an edit in good faith and then having the f-bomb thrown at you is hardly a very rewarding experience.

In any event, without a doubt, I'm sure his portion of our exchange violates the Wikipedia:Civility policy.

What I'm hoping is that Orangemarlin's violation of the civility policy can be recorded somewhere so that if he engages in this type of behavior in the future with other users, a pattern can be easily identified and dealt with appropriately. Is this possible?

Thanks.

An overview of our exchange follows:

Background

As the Objections to evolution article currently stands, the final sentence of the introduction reads "However, these arguments have been rejected by biologists and are not accepted by the scientific community". This sentence is followed with a citation footnote to a PDF document at the URL http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf. (Statement on the Teaching of Evolution. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006)).

While I personally agree that a consensus of the scientific community rejects these arguments, the PDF document given as a reference for the statement does not support the claim of the sentence. My understanding is that claims made in Wikipedia articles need to have citations, so I edited the page, putting the this sentence and it's citation in a HTML comment (<!-- ... -->) and added a note that for this sentence to be included a more accurate reference needed to be provided.

The goal of my doing this is that someone would go out and find a more accurate reference. Orangemarlin, however, apparently assumed my goal was to change to the POV of the article. He reverted my edit and edited my talk page, indicating as such. I then edited his talk page attempting to explain my rationale for my edit. His response to my explanation was rude, contained foul language ("Learn to fucking sign your comments too"), and accused me of being a "creationist", a term he used pejoratively and assigned beliefs to me ("You are flatly wrong, but most Creationists are.", ".06% believe in your crap.").

(I don't even "believe" in Creationism!!!!)

I was just temporarily trying to remove a claim without a legitimate citation until a legitimate citation could be provided. *SIGH*.

User-talk page thread with OrangeMarlin's Incivility

Additional note on OrangeMarlin's "VacuousPoet" accusation

I'm not sure how a traceroute would reveal something like this. If I have the same IP address as someone used to have, please be aware I'm accessing Wikipedia from home via a cable modem. I've only had this current IP address since October 15th, 2007. (I access my home computer regularly from my workplace, so when my IP changes, it causes me a lot of headaches, which is why I know this.)

In any event, I'm not VacuousPoet.

74.67.180.75 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have notified orangemarlin about this discussion. It seems clear that Orange did not assume good faith here, as well as being pretty uncivil, [29], [30], and making unverified accusations, [31], wheras in contrast, the Ip doesn't hasn't been offensive in their edits.

Looking at the article and source in question, the source does not appear, as far as i can tell, to back up the statement, so the IP seems to be correct in that respect.--Jac16888 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, OrangeMarlin has never been uncivil to anyone. Not even once. I challenge you to show a case of being uncivil on his part. Ya know what, this proves that you should be permanently banned for Anti-Semitism...! 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da REAL Tony Clifton! (talk • contribs)

Okaaaay. Heres a few tips. First, read the diffs i provided, they show incivility, second, i am NOT anti-semitic, and i'm disgusted you're accusing me of being so, third, even though its none of anyones business or of relevance, is orange even jewish? and finally go back under the bridge you came from.--Jac16888 (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls, even if you have lots of turkey left over from yesterday. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Say what? Turkey? huh. Sorry about feeding though, should have known better they just made me mad with that comment--Jac16888 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday was Thanksgiving. Apparently an American joke that forgot its limited area of humor. —Kurykh 19:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I played the odds (that Jac is American or least aware of Thanksgiving) and lost. :( --ElKevbo (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't bother to click on his user page to see that he comes from the UK, didn't you? —Kurykh 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Turkey? Lurkey? Murkey? Perky! WTH are you talking about, I don't have any turkey! Why did you say that to me? What is this anyway?Da REAL Tony Clifton! (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No one was talking to you. Now stop trolling. —Kurykh 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(I have just indefinitely blocked User:Da REAL Tony Clifton! as a vandalism-only account. If by any chance i have misunderstood the situation, feel free to unblock. DGG (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC))

Why am I wasting time with this crap. But here goes. I am Jewish. Tony Clifton above is referring to an incident about 6 months ago where we got a pretty atrocious editor banned for hurling anti-semitic sentiments my way (so, this begs the question on who Tony Clifton is). Once someone claims they are not a creationist, 97.3% of the time they are. The edit was incorrect on the anonymous editor's part, I gave a standard warning, and then I get attacked. My tolerance of anonymous POV warriors is minimal, you can check my 10,000 or so edits to confirm that my tolerance is minimal. Civility, being a judgement call, is usually a methodology for POV warriors to silence opinion. So, I don't really care about it, and I never accuse anyone of incivility (just in case someone wants to accuse me of hypocritical behavior). And this gentleman is VacuousPoet, Raspor, Rbj, or any number of other sockpuppets who have attacked me or vandalized my page. I'm not wasting my good Thanksgiving weekend working the horrific system that Wikipedia has created to deal with sockpuppets, so I'll just let this anonymous and obviously experienced editor have his way. And if you want to block me, go for it. I'm sure you can find about 20 admins that are chomping at the bit to fuck me over. Just read over my user page history and I'm sure you can find one in about 5 minutes. However, once I make the final determination of who the anonymous sockpuppet is (VacuousPoet, probably, Raspor as a second thought, Kdbuffalo is the third), you will all be embarrassed. The writing style of the anonymous sock is exactly like someone I accidently AGF'ed a few months ago User:ImprobabilityDrive, who I thought I had treated harshly, then apologized, then I discovered his being a sock. Writing style of that sock is exactly the same as this one. And yes, I studied styles as a professional endeavor, so it's pretty easy. So, this is my rather civil and nice response. Thank you for your consideration. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that the edits that started this ever-so-useless excursion into banality do indeed look just like those of a banned user, and given that this user refuses to get a nick, and given that the nickless user seems to be incapable of signing his posts (a trait shared by some of the users OM mentions in his reply) I can see why OM considered that the nickless anon might be a sock. Gee, see how easy that was? One need merely look at the evidence in a forensic manner, and voilà. Ain't science cool? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of AGF, why the hell am I spending any time defending myself to a whiny anonymous sock, who has a grand total of 7 edits, 6 of which are used to attack me, whereas I have 10,000 edits, an FA or two, a few GA's, and significant contribution to this project. What a waste. The editors who support this anonymous sock should be defending me, who has given a lot to this project. To paraphrase Colonel Jessup, " I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the anonymous sock, and you curse the scientist. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the anonymous socks treatment, while tragic, probably saved this project. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves this project. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me kicking the sock's ass, you need me kicking that sock's ass." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for starters, i just want to make it absolutely one hundred percent clear that i had no idea/ or had even thought about orange marlins religion, and even if i did know, it would not have made the slightest difference to my post above, as far as i'm concerned race/religion/gender/age etc make (or should make) no difference to how editors interact. Secondly, i was aware it was thanksgiving yesterday, but forgot since we obviously don't celebrate it here in old blighty, although, Happy Thanksgiving. Thirdly, with regards to what this discussion is supposed to be about, Orange you did not assume good faith with user, their edit seemed legitimate, even if you did not agree with it, i very much doubt you can recognize a sock after so few edits without proof, and without proof, you can't just accuse them of being one. And i am not supporting the anon, just like i am not supporting you, i just took a look at the situation, to help out admins reviewing this. Finally, contributing a lot to the project does not make you immune to the basic rules like being civil. --Jac16888 (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I made no accusation or was even slightly concerned that you said anything about my religion. And as for eating Turkey, don't worry, it's a stupid American holiday anyways. It's just a good time to get the American populace fatter than it already is. Lastly, define civil? Didn't think you could. It's a subjective definition. If you were American, you'd know that Californians are different from New Yorkers in how people are treated. Not sure one is better than the other. And yeah, you are not giving any good faith, considering I know what the fuck I'm doing on this project compared to a whiny anonymous sock who, despite a significant amount of knowledge of Wikipedia, refuses, suspiciously, to register, and who has a grand total of now 8 edits, 7 of which is wasting this project's time making baseless and frankly bullshit accusations against me. This anonymous sock is a sock. And yeah, I can tell in precisely 1 edit. I knew the guy was a sock of VacuousPoet, Raspor or others based on that one edit. I can't file an RfCU or Sockpuppet charge, because I'm not going on a fishing expedition. I'll figure it out soon enough, at which time I'll have him permanently banned along with his other socks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, Orangemarlin's tone may not always be perfectly civil, but in the context of his very positive efforts, and that POV pushers usually trigger him in the first place, it's forgiveable. I dorftrottel I talk I 02:19, November 24, 2007

I don't even go for imperfectly civil. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This is the Anon/IP again... This has grown to be much more of an ordeal than I ever intended.

How I wish this whole thing would have played would would have been as follows:

• Orangemarlin suspects I was trying to inject POV into the Objections to evolution article; reverts my changes, comments on my talk page
• I reply, explaining my case; why I made the edit; and that I wasn't trying to inject POV [32]
• Orangemarlin thoughtfully examines the case I lay out, and in response:
  • apologizes for the POV accusation
  • finds an accurate source for the sentence of the article I called into question, restores the sentence in the article with the new accurate source

Had that been the case, Wikipedia grows in quality, and there's no harsh feelings.

Unfortunately, I was met with harsh accusations and profanity.

I have no interest in seeing Orangemarlin blocked/banned. All I hope for is that he'll be a bit kinder/more civil in the future. The Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy is exactly what I'm hoping for from Orangemarlin in the future.

Looking through Orangemarlin's edits, I see the bulk of the work he does is reverting the work of vandals/trolls. That makes me a bit more understanding of why he treated me how he did. But I'm not a troll, or vandal, or sock puppet (and please stop insinuating I am one; it's not true and growing wearisome), and I'm sure there will be others that edit pages Orangemarlin dutifully guards against vandalism that will make edits like mine but also not be trolls/vandals/socks, but simply infrequent contributors acting in good faith. Allow me to simply submit that going forward, if Orangemarlin will simply act with civility and treat editors (even us anonymous ones that only make edits occasionally) in good faith, things will go much more smoothly. No tempers will flair, and he can spend his time more productively improving Wikipedia rather than commenting on the ANI page.

Thanks. 74.67.180.75 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Plaudite, acta fabula est! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

problem (please read all the way through)

I'm not even sure if this is the right place to make a complain... but here goes:

My name is Annabelle, and I recently joined wikipedia and created a page called 'Clarendon House Grammar School'. This was all well and fine, until I added a colloquilistic term reffering to the school. I and another user, User:Owain.davies had what I later found out was an edit war, as I kept adding the term and they kept deleting it, telling me I couldnt use it until I proved it, and calling me a vandal to my own page. However, we shortly solved this issue after I was informed of the rules (which I was not aware of before due to my nouvellity to the site).

However, after we stopped, I then received a message from User:SteveBaker talking about the edit war, which I and User:Owain.davies had already sorted out. When I went to User:Owain.davies 's profile, I found a message from User:SteveBaker talking about the edit war we had, and saying that that user and I were going to break the 3 revert rule or something, which was all fair enough because it was true that we were having an edit war (although we had just stopped anyway). Anyway, User:SteveBaker expressed sympathy for the other user saying he was probably "unaware of this rule". He then however went on to express his belief that I would probably have no respect for Wikipedia's laws even if I was aware of them: "In your case, this may simply be because you are unaware of the rule - I doubt Iamandrewrice would care" (I am 'Iamandrewrice' by the way). In addition to this he referred to me as "an especially annoying person," having had no previous contact with me before, and simply judging on the helpful edits I tried to make.

I was obviously enraged by this, and demanded that he apologized for this at once. However, he did not, and stood by his view, simply continuing to bring up the edit war that me and another user had conducted before we became aware of the rules. I pointed out to him that this was not what I was talking about, and that what he was saying was slanderous. However he still failed to accept that it was, and then after that, I ended up getting a 24 hour block from User:Jc37 for accusing another user of slander. However I do not even understand why I was the one who got this block, and why truthfully saying that he was slandering me to another user would make me be deserving of a block anyway.

That is more or less it... please tell me if I am the one who is mistaken here, but I am pretty much sure I am in the right. Oh, also another thing, I was later accused by User:SteveBaker of threatening sockpuppetery or something when I said that if he was going to block me since I told him that I was going to complain, that I still hav proof of his slander because I have saved the entire conversations, and would instead have to utilise one of my friends accounts to make the complaint (if it be the case that he block this account throught threat of making a complaint).

Please write back to me soon. Give me your help and direct me what I should do, or could you please take the action yourself. Thank you everyone.

xx

Iamandrewrice (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Anabelle, this is only a website. Please try not to take things so personally, and do remember that we get a lot of edit wars and a lot of editors who get carried away and have to be blocked for short periods of time. If you had responded a bit more calmly instead of ALL CAPS WITH EXCLAMATION MARKS! on Owain's talk page in the first place, I doubt you'd hev been perceived or described as annoying. My suggestion is that you chalk this up to experience. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be right; however, my caps locks did not put me in the wrong, whereas verbally insulting me to another user in such a way was certainly wrong of User:SteveBaker, yes? Even after all my asking him to apologize for his rude behaviour against me, he still refused to back down that he was in the wrong. Surely he must therefore learn that talking in such a manner against another wikipedian is not allowed, and should serve due punishment. You have also missed something... the reason I was blocked was not for the edit war, but instead for pointing out that this user had slagged me off! which i still am unaible to see the reasoning of.

Thank you, and keep the help coming please... xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't "punish" people here. None of the admins here are going to block punitively; that's just not how we work. You were blocked for accusing someone else of slander, which is a legal accusation — and is considered an oblique legal threat. While I'm not sure this accomplished anything here, since it's (now) clear you weren't planning legal action, you have to understand that the Foundation takes legal matters very seriously. Sometimes, people saying mean things about you is just mean things — you would do best to just move on, and put it behind you. --Haemo (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

By punishment, I mean I would like you to talk to him and deal with him in the appropriate manner. And yes, I do intend to take legal action and go as high with this as possible. And I still stand by my accussation of slander, as anyone reading his message to the other user will see that this is entirely what it was. xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then you're going to have to take a break from editing until your legal case is terminated. Contact the Foundation official, because our policy requires you to be blocked until your legal case is over. --Haemo (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. End of discussion. —Kurykh 20:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Notso fast; they were confused, so I've unblocked them. Hope this is okay! --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry people, by legal threat I misunderstood the term. I do not mean taking him to court if that is what was understood. I mean making a formal wikipedia complaint against User:SteveBaker. Of which my complaint still stands...

xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Denying that you made a legal threat looks like explaining away the obvious. It's not the accusation of slander, provocative enough as it is, but this: "I AM NOW DEFINITELY GOING TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION, AND I CAN VERY MUCH ASSURE YOU THAT YOU SHOULD FIND YOURSELF SOME LEGAL ADVICE." Just how is that not threatening a lawsuit? Because Wikipedia has a limited budget and does not want to get dragged into court, it takes a zero tolerance policy against anybody threatening to sue anybody here. The flame war that preceded this was completely unnecessary, and off the charts for Wikipedia drama. Please consider yourself lucky to have your block removed and realize this is a place to build encyclopedia articles. If you truly want to write and improve articles, that's the best way to spend energy. Plenty of conflicts and differences of opinion arise, which is natural. The only way this project works is when people make an extra effort to get along rather than an effort to defend themselves against perceived insults and opposition. Wikidemo (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, you can do that. If you can state the complaint in neutral terms and can find other people who have had a similar experience then you can raise a request for comment, but it may be better just to ask nicely that he not do it again. Or walk away, since that might cause the whole thing to flare up again. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• A message to User:Wikidemo:
  

As I have already mentioned, I did not mean anything of the sort with regarding a lawsuit. I was unaware that was what 'Legal action' meant.
I simply implied that I would be formally complaining against him on this site.
If you read my talk page you would realise that.

And I have already asked User:SteveBaker to apologize but he still stands firm that he was in the right to insult me. Therefore this is the only way in which I am able to put the point accross by handing the case to a member of higher authority on the site.

xx
Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is always the time-honoured way of preventing being described as "annoying", which is to do one's best not to be annoying. However your preferred method appears to be to go in the opposite direction. Can I just add my own voice to the number of older and wiser editors who have suggested that you leave it be, move on and learn from the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talk • contribs) 14:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Iamandrewrice, it's a bit disingenuous to say you don't know what "legal action" means when on your user page you claim English is your mother tongue. I have read through Steve's talk page, and found him to be remarkably patient with you. Much more so than I would have been. You are now taxing the patience of the community at large by perpetuating this. Hadn't you best just quietly edit some articles, or even better, read some of the policies that another user helpfully left on your talk page? Then you'll learn how to avoid such situations in the future. Jeffpw (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the best way forward would be for Iamandrewrice to drop the matter completely and edit some articles. I must say that I find it quite implausible that someone who has the education described on her user page (English language, English literature) is unaware of the difference between legal action and a complaint on a website. Just chalk it up to a learning experience and be done with it. Happy editing, Chaz ^Beckett 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• However, User:SteveBaker had no right to insult me in such a manner, and until a final result with an input from him is achieved I am afraid I will have to leave this complaint open.
  

And yes, as you said yourself, 'someone who has the education described on her user page'!
If you have read my user page you will in fact realise that I have not taken law!
So you are still missing the point; it is not me that is choosing not to discontinue this, it is User:SteveBaker for not accepting responsibility for his actions and insultations. xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• • You don't need to take a law course to know that a legal action involves courts, lawyers, lawsuits, etc. Arguing this point isn't helping your case any. I agree with Jeffpw that you're definitely approaching the limits of the community's patience. I strongly suggest that you let any past wrongs stay in the past. All you have to do is drop it and it's over. Chaz ^Beckett 15:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• You think you have a hard time? Look at User:Agüeybaná. He get's insulted about 10 times a day and doesn't let it bother him--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why am I the one 'in the wrong' according to you here, when I am just informing the public of the insults that User:SteveBaker used on me when speaking on another users page. I am simply standing up and pointing out that this is not allowed and he should be made aware by someone authoritive that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable towards another wikipedian.

And regards to your point on the legal action, I am just telling you of what I thought it meant. What? Do you want me to lie and say that I am taking him to court or something?! Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• May I suggest that you quit now whilst you are ahead, because if you continue in this vein SteveBaker's comment will have evolved from a mild insult to an accurate portent. --WebHamster 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• No. I am not going to allow myself to be subject to this kind of behaviour by another user just through to his power. My complaint stil lies against him. My main problem is that he does not seem to realise that insulting me in such a manner was wrong. If he made a formal appology and recognition of his behaviour, then I will be more than happy to end this. However, utnil that time, I see no other method to show my dilemna to the public than to leave the complaint standing.

Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, Iamandrewrice, I'm going to be blunt, because as far as I am concerned, being nice to you isn't getting anyone anywhere. First you came to Wikipedia, behaved badly and got nicely reprimanded. Then after you took umbrage at being told you were out of line, you started making threats. You got blocked. Then after you got unblocked, instead of learning from your mistakes you came here and repeated them. You got blocked again. At this point you're just farting in public. While others may not want to point that out to you, out of embarrassment for you, I am not so shy. Stop farting. It's annoying. Or do you want someone to give you some anti-flatulence medicine? Jeffpw (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that your complaint has been noted, as evidenced by the numerous responses in this section. Your attempt to extract an apology from Steve Baker through arguments is almost certainly not going to end well (for you). Let me very clear in my advice: nothing benefiting you will be accomplished by continuing this argument. If you're heer to edit articles, no one is going to stop you. If you're here to argue about admin behavior, well...I wouldn't recommend that. Chaz ^Beckett 15:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well thank you User:Jeffpw for your oh so nice phrasing there. I am glad to see that Wikipedia is full of such nice mannered people. I am sorry but I am not going to discuss anything with anyone who is so unabled to speak English with even an attempt at decency. Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you Chaz for your concern. However, I choose to stand by my principles and await a sincere apology from User:SteveBaker, for as far as I can see, it is him who is in the wrong. And with regards to your point on trying to edit wikipedia... well try having a look at the article i made on GHD hair irons... including all the quotes I this time found (having learnt from last time) that I would be needed to make. Good Hair Day. It seems to me that wikipedian editors only edit things that they have heard from their own ears, and if there is something that does not seem likely to them (as in this instance, hair tongs), then they out of personal discretion, place their own oppinions on the matter, without actually knowing anything about the matter at all. Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I'd support blocking Iamandrewrice indefinitely at this point as she seems much more interested in perpetuating the wiki-drama rather than contributing to the encyclopedia. Many attempts to give her advice, ranging from quite friendly to rather blunt, have failed. Chaz ^Beckett 15:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well after some consideration I feel that SteveBaker's description was wrong, you aren't "annoying"... yet, you are merely "irritating". For someone to behave like this against all advice and common-sense just has to be a troll. --WebHamster 15:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I will be medium-blunt. You have gone well beyond "informing the public". You participated in an edit war, then a flame war, then a legal threat (the claim that you did not mean what you said is moot - it's forbidden either way). Now you are arguing against our unanimous and patient advice. Whether or not someone was mean to you, your reaction overshadows the initial affront. It got so messy and unpleasant that it doesn't seem worth the brain cycles to figure out who started it. Yes, although we try not to be too mean to newbies we give the benefit of the doubt to administrators and long-time productive contributors with good reason. If I may be forward, reviewing your contributions to date it seems you are by choice getting into drama and involving other people in it. If you continue in that spirit you will quite likely have another incident soon and with this one as a background people will not be as patient next time. This is an encyclopedia, not a family breakdown. For everyone's sake including yours, please take a deep breath, drop this matter, and move on. Your complaint will stand - it is here on this page, and once nobody edits this section for 24 hours it will be a permanent part of Wikipedia's archive. In the meanwhile nobody is going to take any further action so it's a waste of time to pursue it further. Wikidemo (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so now I'm a lier, because I apparently meant that I was going to 'take a user to court' over the internet... hmmmm, yes thats right isnt it?!!!!
And excuse me?! Am I to blame for the flame war, when I was the one that was verbally attacked?
I just dont understand any of you... I came to wikipedia to help, only to be given insult after insult, which have really been hurtful, and only for the continuation of some 'drama' for you!
No matter what I do on here, I come across someone who either starts some sort of 'war' with me, or says my articles aren't good enough, or deletes my articles, or insults me... You have just made me very unhappy that I am unable to even contribute to Wikipedia without the all so many of the nasty editors here having some sort of attack at me... Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, my prediction came true as I was writing the above post -another hour, another drama. Good Hair Day does indeed appear to be a notable company but the article is rudimentary the point of being deletable. Guy, one of Wikipedia's most senior administrators, advised her that it was deletable under CSD A7 as it is indeed unsourced and makes no claim to notability. He was in one of his friendlier modes, and rather than taking his advice on how to write articles properly she uses the incident to accuse not only him but Wikipedians in general of not knowing what they're talking about. I try in various ways to counsel her and she lashes out at me too. I don't think she will last long here absent a drastic improvement in attitude. She seems incorrigible. I wouldn't object to an indefinite block but I do think that's premature. The initial incident that gave rise to this is done. Simply being difficult and refusing to take advice isn't by itself disruptive. She has to actually do something wrong, right? Wikidemo (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well to put things into some perspective... countless words used and time spent complaining about someone's accurate assessment of her vs 1 line of text in one article. Hmmm. One wouldn't have to stretch too far to get to WP:POINT methinks. I'm just glad the kisses have stopped! --WebHamster 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I did not 'lash out' at you thank you! oh em gee... its like talking to a brick wall!!
  

I tried my best on that GHD article! :( But now according to you, I'm not even allowed to give that...
so now im also in the wrong for ending my comments with kisses?!
wow you lot really are a nice bunch arent you!
)':

Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"so now I'm a lier"..."nasty editors"..."brick wall"...."nice bunch arent you!" Incivility and WP:AGF violations, perhaps? I'm out of here. Nothing more I can do to help. Wikidemo (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• How about the murder of the English language? "I am able to converge almost fluently in French". Yup, I know, I'm heading off track. I'm supplying no more meals for the troll. Will someone kindly put up the resolved sign and switch off the lights before leaving? --WebHamster 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have tried so hard on here! I made 2 articles! I tried extensively to develop them, but everytime, I have come up against so many people that don't even understand! I have received some very hurtful remarks, some of which have actually brought me close to crying. I strongly suggest that you reconsider your manners and behavioral conductions, because eventually, you're going to come up against someone who won't be as helpless as me...

and no this is NOT resolved! and in fact is even worse now, as even more insults have been directed at me! Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i am not an admin, but i think that most of the admins that have commented here have been rather harsh with Iamandrewrice, she's just a kid that wants to write an article about her school. Why don't you block her for a week and give her some time to read other articles and discussions? She has been ranting on both of those user's talk pages and here, isn't that enough? Too much unnecessary drama is going on here.-Yamanbaiia (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure I can be bothered with Wikipedia now... Everything I do is not good enough anyway... Iamandrewrice (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think this thread is just generating more heat than light now. User:Iamandrewrice, if you want to continue editing, please read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and feel free to improve the encyclopedia. If you don't, then don't. ELIMINATORJR 18:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

A constant act of vandalizm of the Russians page

Resolved

 – generic vandalism

Someone who obviously hates himself and his nation, tries to feel better by constantly vandalizing the Russians page. While people work hard on the article, someone vandalizes it. The user has a variety of IP numbers and nicknames.

Examples:

[33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51].

As you can see this user has many nicknames and IP's, but does the same thing. We were patient to much just reverting him back. I dont care if he feels the nation he came from is small and not important so he vandalizes the Russians page, i dont care if his bored. This must stop. We were quite about it to much. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It could just be a bunch of vandals. "Russians are crazy" is not a very unique, though unpleasant, insult, and the types of vandalism are all over the map here, so I don't think it's one person. I think you're looking for requests for page protection here, in the future. It's not going to help, since the vandalism is relatively infrequent. You'll just have to live with it I guess. --Haemo (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Most often the same remarks come from differen't IP's. It's obviously one person. Protection will prevent not only the vandals from vandalizing the page but also the regular editors to make it better. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism edits made are generic bland insults. Any person can make those. Lumping them all as one is unrealistic. —Kurykh 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Different IP addresses usually imply different people. For instance, in the diffs you've linked here, the IP addresses come from New Jersey, Calgary, Estonia, New Zealand, and Mexico. There is no common thread to the vandalism (some of them are not even insults; some are pro-Russian, some are anti-Russian) and the addresses come from all over the world. It's not one person. --Haemo (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It clearly is not. Just a quick glance at a few of those edits and I see 2 edits in the United States, 1 in Canada, 1 in Great Britain, and 1 in Estonia. All one person? I don't think that's quite right. Also, I have taken out on of the diffs because it's clearly not a vandal edit. Metros (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone run the IPs through TORstatus? Relata refero (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; I did a TOR check on a few. Didn't see anything. --Haemo (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if those are different people, which i doubt since today with programs anyone can change his IP, could you at least make it that only registered user could edit the page? Most of the vandals are unsigned users and it will really make the thing better. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There's not enough recent vandalization to justify protecting it. The vandalistic edits aren't frequent enough. Metros (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Need an outside perspective re: Johnny Sutton please

In a discussion over at Johnny Sutton, administrator Irishguy has been consistently removing the comments of one side of the discussion.

The latest has been reverted by Agamemnon2 here [52].

I have asked that Irishguy stop doing this [53]. My reasoning is that the current behavior of administrators and editors that have acted so far does nothing to lower the temperature of the debate in an already contentious subject. Continual behavior like this is inevitably going to either provoke someone into doing something wrong, or else is going to drive one side of the discussion away.

Given the nature of the discussion and the fact that the page is locked, I have seen bad behavior on both sides of the aisle. I have attempted to speak up to ask those involved to calm down and look rationally and reach a compromise (please see [54] and note that the first section is not my edits but merely restoring Irishguy's ill-advised deletion of comments) but so far, Irishguy has refused to speak on the talk page.

He also appears to have been involved in editing the article (or at least reverting it) as well as having blocked someone with the claim of sockpuppetry, the evidence of which is that a user reverted to a previous version by another user, which is odd given that Wikipedia provides the History tool for precisely that purpose. It is also worth noting that only one side of the argument has been sanctioned for edit warring, despite both sides being involved in it.

For the moment, I am going to assume good faith and presume the least dangerous explanation, which is that Irishguy has gotten a bit too close to the subject matter and a bit overzealous and perhaps needs cool-down time.

Any outside perspectives that could be brought would be greatly appreciated. There appears to be a great deal of work that needs to be done, especially since there are rapid updates in the ongoing case of Sutton vs various border patrol agents (including an appellate court hearing scheduled for December in the cases of agents Ramos and Compean), and that cannot happen as long as this behavior continues from either side. As the situation currently stands, the article is unfortunately locked in a very un-encyclopedic state.

Kudos to Irishguy for following the unbreakable tenets of WP:BLP and for refusing to kowtow to a slew of single purpose accounts with an agenda. His removals of personal attacks should be applauded. Corvus cornix_talk 01:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article is becoming more a right-wing soapbox and less an encyclopaedic biography. There's already far too much weight given to his cases than there is to him. Irishguy's reputation is that of a fair-minded admin with no axe to grind, his actions on this article do nothing to change that. --WebHamster 01:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

FixtheBorder, BorderGuard3022, and FriendofBorderPatrol all reverted to that same version as well as call other editors liars repeatedly for reverting them. [55] [56] [57] [58] They were single purpose accounts that did nothing more than push their website and their own agendas. I haven't edited that article beyond reverting the BLP violations and have no personal opinion of the article subject at all. IrishGuy ^talk 02:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I note that the rather obvious puppets are now blocked, and FixtheBorder's unblock request makes a good case for this person being congenitally unable to comply with Wikipedia policy. After his one week block expires, my money is on further disruption and insults Guy (Help!) 10:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to do

Resolved

Matter is being looked into by authorities, nothing left to report here. — Save_Us_229 02:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Earlier on I noticed this troubling edit. I didn't really know what to do, so I asked the reverting editor if they'd reported it. They haven't replied so I thought I better post here so everyone else could decide whether anything needs to be done. Seraphim ^Whipp 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably nonsense, but according to Jimbo, to be taken seriously. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

According to a search I did, they are in Richardson, Texas, which I think is weird for the mention of Chicago in their edit. — Save_Us_229 00:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Jimbo has made it crystal clear that even if it's not a credible threat, it may still be a crime and thus unacceptable within WP or elsewhere. It should be followed up but I am neither an admin nor in the USA. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Call batman. 1 != 2 00:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I ain't Batman, Spiderman, Superman or Wonder Woman (thank god) but I can contact authorites near where the IP originated from. — Save_Us_229 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, they know about it now, and will hopefully look into it, rest easy. — Save_Us_229 00:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am quite certain that Jimbo never meant to suggest that this sort of "threat" should be reported to anyone. Even as I certainly can't raise any objection to anyone's reporting the threat—each of us is, after all, a volunteer who is entitled to do whatever he should like with his own time (I, for instance, for various reasons, ignore any threats of violence or suicide that I encounter here and would certainly never seek to involve myself in any IRL activities relative to those threats)—but I cannot imagine that such reporting should be remotely useful. Joe (Wake me from my food coma) 05:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you see a maniac screaming that he intends to use a bomb to kill himself and kill others, would the police not arrest him and take him in for questioning? This should be treated no different. I think situations like this, and for this fellow, is a wake-up call that editing Wikipedia with this kind of mentality has real-life consequences. — Save_Us_229 06:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe, you should have seen Jimbo's comments here last week in relation to a similar incident. He made it quite clear that it is not up to editors or admins to judge the merits of this type of thing- it is the proper function of LEA to do that. Reporting is useful for three reasons (a) it might save life (b) it might prevent or detect crime and (c) (probably least important) it prevents WP being criticised for inaction. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Kittenluvermeowz

Resolved

 – Indefblocked as vandalism only account. Sandstein (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• User:Kittenluvermeowz has in 17 months made 17 edits (6 to pages which have been deleted), but in that time has received in User talk:Kittenluvermeowz 5 complaints (including today by me for vandalizing Duck). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Every edit from this account is vandalism. I would block it indefinitely since he/she is obviously not serious about creating an encyclopedia. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I put an ANI notice on his/her talk page, as well as a spam warning. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Extension of block of 81.86.240.175

Resolved

User is still blanking, but he's blanking his talk page...so I'm requesting an extension of block. Thanks! Signed, Jonathan • Don't stereotype 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A more elegant solution has been put in place. east.718 at 16:10, November 24, 2007

BetacommandBot blocked yet again

I've blocked BetacommandBot, specifically for this edit, and more generally, because Betacommand isn't taking responsibility for making his bot work properly: [59].

There is an obvious fix for the reported problem, but please don't implement it unless Betacommand requests it. I'm hoping he'll realize that he needs to take responsibility for his bot's actions. -- Carnildo ( talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While the bot's tagging of that image with that tag doesn't seem to make much sense, doesn't blocking the bot because the owner doesn't agree with you seem vindictive? — Kurykh 21:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sort of, yes, but... if this results in the attitude readjustment Carnildo seems to be hoping for — which I doubt, as such measures often only serve to escalate the dispute, but I'm willing to be proven wrong — then I'm all for it. Don't get me wrong, I can certainly see where Betacommand is coming from here, and I can understand that doing such a thankless task as he and his bot are performing can easily lead one to find ways, such as passing on the buck, to minimize the effort needed to deal with complaints. Even so, I do believe that it is the responsibility of every bot operator to do their best to adapt their bot to any circumstances it might encounter, so as to minimize cases where the bot will act contrary to common sense as most humans would interpret it. I also believe Betacommand would do well to notice that there are situations where "I'm just implementing policy" is not the right response, especially when the specific policy in question ("All images in Category:All non-free media need a fair use rationale.") does not actually seem to be written down anywhere and essentially appears to be Betacommand's own invention.

I realize that this comes across rather harsh, and I hope Betacommand will not take this more personally than I've intended. In the past, I have encountered several cases where BetacommandBot has malfunctioned in this very same way for similar reasons. In all cases, Betacommand has been quite polite and helpful in getting the issue straightened out and the mistagged images fixed, for which I thank him. It's just that the same problem keeps coming up again and again, and I haven't seen any sign of Betacommand acknowledging that there might be anything he, as the bot operator, could or should do to actually prevent it from reoccurring. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because I dont say something does not mean that I am not doing anything. when ever there is a problem I do what I can to resolve the issue whether or not it is on wiki or in my bot code, I do what I can to prevent errors. β^_command 00:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I had the category created and placed in {{ non-free media}} to assist in tracking NFC, BCBot just uses the template, but it is useful for quickly seeing if an image is non-free. {{ non-free media}}'s (NFM) sole purpose is for labeling no-free images. All of our non-free license templates include NFM and it serves as the method of labeling media as non-free. β^_command 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, presumably the template and the category it populates should be clearly described as such, stating in big, bold letters and simple words that every image in that category is assumed to require a valid non-free use rationale and may be automatically tagged for deletion if it doesn't. Also, the current uses of the template should be reviewed, since it's clear that right now it's included in a lot of templates where it shouldn't be. (I'm willing to help with that task if you want, but presumably you, as the creator and main user of the template, should take final responsibility of ensuring that it's transcluded only in those templates where it is actually appropriate.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

While we're in the shop, as of this month the bot was still tagging an image lacking a free use rationale as being deletable seven days after its upload, whereas the policy states they are deletable seven days after being tagged. Bad to have these msgs misstating policy. 86.44.4.103 (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps let us know what the 'obvious' fix is, and describe the problem in a bit more detail? It's not nice to make everyone else on the board play detective. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand's got at least three options: he can have his bot notice that the image is tagged with a free license and ignore it, he can have the bot notice that the image is not tagged with a fair-use tag and ignore it, or he can request that {{ Non-free media}} be removed from {{ Fairusereview}}. -- Carnildo ( talk) 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And this required the bot to be blocked because for what legitimate reason? — Kurykh 21:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the bot is not doing the right thing, and the operator is declining to fix the problem. -- Carnildo ( talk) 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Kurykh, plus, the edit the bot is being blocked for was days ago. Also, if there's something broken that you can fix, just fix it. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The edit was days ago, but this is a task that the bot performs on a regular basis. I don't know when the bot will do it next, but I do know it's buggy, so I've blocked the bot until it's fixed. I could fix it myself, but what about the next time the bot malfunctions? And the next? And the next? I don't want to spend my time chasing around after BetacommandBot when the bot's operator is better-positioned to do so. -- Carnildo ( talk) 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carnildo - Betacommand is a negligent bot-runner who refuses to accept that s/he may have made programming mistakes. I was given two image-deletion notices "...you have uploaded this image..." for images I'd not uploaded. I pointed this out, got some rude reply, asked for an apology and was given the excuse: "You did edit those images". I was ignored when I noted that reverting vandalism on an image page is hardly the same as uploading the image. I think the bot-permission should be rescinded; I took a glance at the blocklog and it runs to more than 50. That's absurd, guys! It certainly needs very careful scrutiny by someone who understands coding.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Ec)What the obvious fix was wasn't obvious to me. It is obvious that the bot should not have applied that tag, as the issue for which review was requested is not one of disputed fair use, and in combination with prior reports it is clear that there are not adequate controls in the bot's code to prevent false positives. It is fairly basic that the bot operator is responsible for all operations of the bot. I think it is time to test whether there is actually community consensus for the bot to operate in this area at all. The bot policy clearly places the burden of proof of demonstrating this on the bot operator, and there have been far more administrators objectioning to the bot running than there were total participants in the original bot approval discussion. If I remember that discussion properly, there was only 1 participant other than BetaCommand in it.

The bot policy also says that "Administrators should block bots if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously." Tagging images incorrectly is ultimately messing up articles, and thus administrators should block this bot until it is fixed. GRBerry 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. This bot has done almost nothing of value in its entire existence. Most of its actions require human judgment. For example, it tagged images for needing a "rationale" even if they had templates with rationales. It then left messages on article talk pages and user-talk pages. It's a troll bot. Given all the malfunctions it seems to have, I think it would help more than hurt if we left it blocked.
  — Gnfgb2 ( talk) 00:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to keep calm here, BCBot has not done any NFC tagging since that run and I was waiting to see the outcome of that discussion. the image is disputed as non-free. Carnildo is being an ass. If I had run the bot without resolving that issue then he may have grounds for blocking, But I did not do anything, I was hoping the users involved with that image could sort out the issue, or if Carnildo thought that {{ non-free media}} should not be on the template he could have removed it. Carnildo I ask that you unblock the bot now, as the you are harming the project. BCBot does more than non-free images. β^_command 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Be civil. Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 00:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why you split the bot into separate tasks. If one malfunctions, the other ones keep running. But you refused last time, so you can't keep your cake and eat it too. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 00:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is why you dont block the bot if its not malfunctioning, An issue was raised, and I am waiting on the outcome of that before I do anything. (The bot was not doing anything related and carnildo decided to just block it for no apparent reason for an edit that was made days ago). β^_command 01:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you tell anyone that you were working on the problem? If not, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether you indeed intend to do anything. AGF goes so far; we don't read minds here.

Your bot has malfunctioned multiple times in the past. If a severe malfunction happens, does it mean we can't block the bot because it is doing other things properly? Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 01:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If the bot is actively editing and malfunctioning, please block it, But the bot is not doing those task because I was waiting the outcome of a pending discussion. you dont block days after the fact when the operator knows the issue. β^_command 01:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But you still didn't answer my first question, nor why you are against splitting the bot's tasks over several accounts. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 01:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the bot into several accounts would be a pain in the ass and increase the risk of error, along with other problems. β^_command 01:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How would it increase the risk of error? What other problems? "It would be a pain in the ass" is not an answer, unfortunately. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 01:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

K.I.S.S. (making the bot use separate accounts would require large amount of unneeded code to be added just to handle that ) β^_command 01:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like your bot code could use some serious re-writing, then. I know that OrphanBot's upload-tagging and image-removal functions can be changed to run under different accounts by changing one line of code. -- Carnildo ( talk) 01:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The fact that the bot's block log is a mile long kind of makes the "unnecessary" portion of the "avoid unnecessary complexity" clause inapplicable to this case. You are making the argument that the bot is mission critical, so again, that excuse is just that, an excuse. Nor you have answered whether you even told anyone you were looking at the problem in the first case. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 01:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for the outcome of the discussion won't change anything. The next time the bot encounters a free image in Category:All non-free media, it will make the same mistake. -- Carnildo ( talk) 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in the middle of a back-end code cleanup and optimization at the moment. I also have a idea that will help to clean-up our image issues. its a {{free media}} template that will be used to id all free images. But if an image is tagged as both free and non-free the default assumption is that the image is non-free. β^_command 01:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The last part sounds like a bad idea to me, both because, as in this case, there are plenty of ways in which an image can get "accidentally" tagged as non-free, and because we have quite a few images tagged as "free, but just in case, here's a fair use rationale too", which tends to end up involving both free and non-free license tags on the same page, or multilicensed under a free and a non-free (e.g. CC-NC) license. More generally, a non-free image is defined as an image that is not freely licensed; therefore, if the image does have a free license tag, it should be considered free regardless of what other tags or categories might be present.

Also, you don't need a new {{free media}} template to start implementing this: it should be trivial to have BCBot check for existing subcategories of Category:Free images. (Alternatively, it could check for known free image copyright tags, though this would be somewhat harder due to the large number of variants. Still, it should be a moderately easy exercise in regexp matching.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, don't be surprised if the bot as a whole gets blocked because it has stopped doing a single task. There is no way for anyone to know what task the bot is or isn't doing at any given moment. Why not just put on the bot's page any tasks you have stopped it doing (or better yet, what exactly is it doing)? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be said here that the bot owner is unresponsive to at least one other appropriate complaint. This thread started the same day as the other, and as of this morning the bot was still posting the same cryptic message. No, I’m not saying this is a reason for blocking, but it shows unresponsiveness. --teb728 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We must do something about BetacommandBot

This is not the first time, and it will not be the last time. BetacommandBot was blocked over 50 times because of bugs. There are many complaints that the way BetacommandBot works bites a lot of users, both newcomers and experienced editors. Also, Betacommand does not want to fix his bot.

We must do something about BetacommandBot. I think we should file an RFC against BetacommandBot, where everyone posts what is wrong with BetacommandBot, and then suggests how we can fix it. Once a suggestion on how to fix the bot has consensus, we can try the suggestion, and see whether BetacommandBot works after then. If BetacommandBot cannot be fixed, its time to shut off the bot.

--Kaypoh (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to throw oil on the fire here, but is this really a bug of the bot? If I review the above case, it looks to me that it was doing what it should do, tag media in categories where fair-use media can be found. In this case, the image was in such a category (at this moment in Category:Fair use review requested; so according to the tagging it is fair use), and it does not have a non-free rationale (for which it got tagged, but which it does not need, indeed, but that is because it is categorised wrongly!). So instead of a bot-bug, I would call this a problem with the image. What does it do in Category:Fair use review requested categories, while it is actually not a fair-use image? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's there because someone tagged it for review using a tag that (quite unexpectedly, IMO) places it in that category. Now, this might not have been the right way to go about it (probably it should've been sent to WP:PUI for review instead), but you can't expect every new user to know that. In any case, the image is obviously tagged as freely licensed, in a way that a bot should be able to easily tell (the presence of {{PD-ineligible}} is a clear giveaway). Unfortunately, BetacommandBot, as it currently operates, ignores free license tags and just mindlessly assumes that every image directly or indirectly transcluding {{non-free media}} is non-free. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that bots are not smarter than users. If the bot relies to a non-free image category to lookup images, and nobody expects a user to put a PD image in this very category, it's fairly sure that the bot wouldn't double check for the existence of an other tag contradicting the first. The doc of {{non-free-media}} tells that This template generates a list of all non-free media by being transcluded into every known non-free image copyright tag, allowing a machine-readable list of all non-free media to be created. It seems to me that the bot is right in considering every image tagged as such as non-free. That's the very purpose of the template. Now that this problem was spotted, and that Betacommand told he had something in mind to prevent such user mistake to fool the bot, I fail to see the need to keep the bot blocked. Again, if an admin delete a PD image because it lacks a fair use rationale, the admin (the one with the brain a bot doesn't have) needs to be beaten with the clue stick until they they learned to review images before deleting. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well .. Now you assume that the placing of the tag for reviewing is the wrong tag, why is it not the tag that places it in the PD-ineligible that is wrong? There is obviously something wrong with the image. As it may have been the PD-ineligible tag that was placed wrongly, and hence, it may have been a non-free image (which have to be tagged if the fair use is not tagged correctly). Whatever the reason, it should be repaired! Do you expect the bot to go through the history of each image, and determining the 'age' of the accounts (whatever measure that may be) placing either of the tags, and then making a review of which of the tags is most likely to be wrong? I think it would have been more correct to repair the wrong placing of the template in the first place, i.s.o. complaining that the programming of the bot is (again) wrong. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (slightly refactored Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

I'm starting to think more and more that Betacommandbot is not the issue, we must do something about admins blocking the bot for every glitch that happens that is not directly a bug. Looking at the image for 10 seconds before blocking here would have saved a lot of drama, the cause was that {{fairusereview}} included an incorrect template, not Betacommandbot tagging wrongly (this is an effect). Stop shooting the messenger each time he bears bad news. Do we block users that speedy tags an article when we're not sure the edit was not made in good faith? If you think betacommand tags an image wrongly and you can't see why, ask here, someone will most likely find out the reason, and block if that's the only fix available. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We have 130-some days to bring all images on WP up to requirements (not policy, not guidelines) set by the Project for non-free media; at the rate BCB is handling images and how they are added, it is going to take close to that to complete the task - there's little room for error here. The last thing we want to see happen is the loss of a lot of non-free images because one little thing, required by the Project, was off. I'd much rather BCB be tagging things as false positives (mistakenly tagging a few handful of articles it sorts as having bad rationale though technically being ok when looked at by a human (and thus can be dealt with easily by a human), than to have an excess number of false negatives (articles without proper rationales skirting by and thus failing the Project requirements). Blocking or trying to stop a bot because an unexpected case with no clear or immediate resolution out of the thousands it tests everyday seems to be excessive. Plus, it's not that BCB is deleting the stuff - if it were, I would definitely through caution and block the bot, but given that people still have 7 days to react through messages left at several places (image, user, article pages), and that final deletion is still done by a human, it still ultimately ended up as a human reviewed process, and thus being tagged by BCB is not the kiss of death for an image. --MASEM 12:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see that anyone on en.wikipedia has to have any respect for a self-imposed deadline set by a project such as this. If the non-free media project will be doing things wrong because of the pressure of a self-imposed deadline, then that is their responsibility, their screwup. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are many images where the tagging from BetacommandBot of non-free images is directly removed ('because the bot is wrong'), and often results in complaints to Betacommand(Bot). May I friendly ask the admins (and other regulars here) to assume that there actually is something wrong with the image if it gets tagged, even if it is not the correct tag that BetacommandBot has slapped on it, instead of blaming/blocking the bot or its operator? Often the things are small (the fair use rationale is pointing to a redirect page), sometimes articles were wrongly categorised by a wrong tag. I have been handling some of the complaints on the talkpages of Betacommand/Bot, and often there are things wrong, even if it is not obvious what is wrong. Some help in handling the non-obvious things would be much appreciated to actually get to the deadline. Whatever was wrong with the image, still it improves the wikipedia. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, it is not advisable to speed things up and increase the number of false positives merely to meet a deadline. After the deadline has passed, what will naturally happen is that lots of images will be tagged and deleted, and the current effort will be spent on reviewing appeals against those deletions, much as happens now. If someone says they want an image undeleted to add a fair-use rationale, or to fix a minor mistake, then that is generally allowed. If, say, 100,000 images haven't been dealt with by the deadline, then the next year will be spent reviewing appeals - say 10% of images are appealed, that will be 10,000 images to review. The worry is that the non-appealed ones will include acceptable images and that the quality of the encyclopedia will suffer until people eventually discover that an image has gone missing. But I think this is a reasonable compromise. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that the number of true positives the bot has hit is much larger than the false positives. I would think from a human reviewing side that I'd much rather have the bot tag, say, 1% of the images as false positives in order to catch true negatives on this side of the deadline, than to not tag any at all and then have to deal with a much larger number of restoration reviews for images that have been outright deleted without warning on the other side of the deadline. --MASEM 14:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the purpose of bots is to make life easier for the Wikipedia community; to ease up their time from spending on menial and repetitive tasks. Since BetacommandBot is not comforting our lives, and we're spending our time on fifty+ blocks and several long ANI threads, the bot would seem to be defying its own function.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least the last of these 50 blocks was completely unnecessary (so less than 98% was correct), and I guess that many others are also debatable. BetacommandBot is comforting our lives, as I explained above, if there the bot tags in error, than that is because there is something wrong with the image, not with the bot! I don't see what is not comfortable about being notified that there (probably) is something wrong with the image. It is not that the bot is doing some general cleanup, this is something that has to be done, above policy. The bots has 10 of thousands of edits, and I think 99.99% of those edits were correct (a higher rate than the correct blocks!). Again, please assume that the bot is tagging because there is something wrong, probably what it tags for, but if that is not the case, then there is something else. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Bot policy:

“ The burden of proof is on the bot-maker to demonstrate that the bot:

  1. is harmless
  2. is useful
  3. is not a server hog
  4. has been approved
  5. has appropriate community consensus for each task
  6. abides by all guidelines, policies and common practices

”

1. 4 isn't in doubt for the image task, but it was not a large discussion, more of a rubber stamp. However look at #5. It is time to test community consensus, in an appropriate forum, for the image task. I suspect that community consensus is likely to require so more safeguards and quite possibly splitting the bot. Is a bot conduct RfC the right forum to test community consensus? The BAG is definitely not the right forum, neither is this page. Wherever it is done, put a notice at WP:AN. GRBerry 14:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Community consensus? The policy WP:NFCC does state it is an official policy; "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." This bot tags images which do not comply with that, per the statement in that policy: "As per the March 23rd, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia.". I would say that the work the bot is performing is necessary, and the things that go wrong with this task are generally problems with the images outside of the bots scope (though regarding the documents it is doing its tagging correctly, it tags image in the non-free categories). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Community consensus for WP:NFCC is completely different for community consensus for allowing this bot to make its image tagging edits the way it does. Compare the total lack of controversy over User:OrphanBot to the recurring controversy over this bot. One never needs administrative attention due to a problem, one does. The difference is real. We could (though really don't) have total consensus that every jot and tittle of WP:NFCC is perfect and yet have an equal consensus not to let a particular bot, or even any bot, anywhere near it. Different issues. That NFCC has consensus is barely relevant to whether there is consensus to let this bot do this task - the relevance is that if NFCC lost consensus we'd immediately shut off all bots applying it because they would no longer have consensus. But that it has consensus doesn't do anything more than say "some bots may have consensus to do some things related to this". GRBerry 20:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

NFCC is relevant, 10c is very simple for a bot to check, does the name of the article where the image is used appear on the image description page? if not there is no valid rationale on that image. its clear cut. β^_command 21:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope there are other conditions. Which is why NFCC having consensus doesn't mean that there is consensus for the bot to run this task. Per the Wikipedia:Bot policy it is your responsibility to prove that there is community consensus for the bot to do this task over and above being approved by the BAG. Please go open a Bot conduct RfC if you believe there is such community consensus, so that you can prove it. The NFCC conditions apply only to fair use images. The bot has had trouble recently with identifying fair use images. There are at least three cases where the image shouldn't be tagged under NFCC 10c even if the name of the article never appears: 1) image has no source or copyright tagging at all (proper solution is to tag for lack of source/copyright info), 2) image is disputed as to PD/fair use (proper solution is to wait until that dispute settles), 3) image is not copyrightable, hence not fair use (proper solution is to do nothing). I've seen the bot get all three of these wrong in the last few weeks. This general pattern seems to me to reflect the bots repeated failures - the code is not designed to eliminate false positives; it is instead designed to eliminate false negatives. A bot should only be used where it can always get it right; look carefully at the one bot approved to operate as an administrator - it is very carefully designed to eliminate false positives with no concern to the number of false negatives. That is good bot design. This - isn't. GRBerry 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

the bot does not delete anything, all it does is flag images for human attention. If you dont like the fact that this bot is approved and does a better job than most humans WP:ARBCOM is the third door on the left, Then maybe with arbcom approval I might be free of the people who disagree with policy. This has been proven time and again, and again, and again, and again. People dont seem to get it. If you disagree file an ARBCOM case because there is nothing else that will settle this argument besides a ARB ruling. I have approval and its been re-enforced over and over again. β^_command 02:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do we resort to blocking whenever we don't like something? Whatever happened to talking? -Pilotguy contact tower 15:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Bots don't tend to be that talkative!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Im going to point a few things out BCBot's error rate is less than 0.1 %, (1 in 1000 images). Porcupine has a major grudge against me, I denied his request for access to VandalProof due to conduct issues and a long blocklog for revert warring and other issues, He then placed a {{uw-agf}} on my talk page and then proceed to try and get revenge on me. To my knowledge the issue of a dual-license tag has only happened once before. and Beetstra is correct most of the issues with BCBot are caused by human error. All the bot does is say there is a problem with the image. As for the comment about the cryptic NFCC#10c that task has not been run since before that issue was brought up. β^_command 16:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that's the bot's error rate? If that's the rate at which people have complained, the actual error rate is much higher. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I review the bots edits periodically and I also check on every issue that is raised regarding the bot, I am low balling my estimate of the error rate to 1 in 1000, But I think its more like 1 in 10,000+. β^_command 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the actual rate of complaining is actually much lower. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• On the basis that "we must do something about Betacommandbot", I have done something aboutBetacommandbot. I trust that this issue may now be closed as having been appropriately actioned. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Best idea anyone's had here yet. Wizardman 23:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed!! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. You give a barnstar to a bot that makes so many mistakes and bites users? The bot was blocked more than 25 times. Maybe some of the blocks are wrong, but most must be correct. Unless you tell me that most of the blocks are wrong, then the admins are bad and should be desysopped. Better deal with the bot and stop it from making more mistakes. Why wait for the bot to make more mistakes and delete tag more images wrongly and drive more users away? File an RFC against the bot before it does more damage. I dont want to upload images to Wikipedia if the bot will handle the images. --Kaypoh (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot does not delete images. The deleting admin deletes the image. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I strike that. I still think we must fix the bot or get rid of it. --Kaypoh (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As was your above 'BetacommandBot was blocked over 50 times because of bugs' (the actual number is 27, and at least the last one was a wrong block (the tagging was correct, there was something wrong with the image). So I'd like to know, what exactly do you think has to be fixed? A rough estimate is that 99.9% of its tagging is not a mistake, and I think that of that last 0.1% still 99% is correct (according to function), but that there are other mistakes on the image page which result in 'a wrong tag' (but that is not a bug of the bot, the bot tags the page correctly). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

0.98p: Bcbot isn't doing anything wrong. It's going through non-free images and checking for a rationale. The problem is at the template-end, not the bot-end. (though I will concede Bcbot might make a mistake, such as here, it's the bot needing a link to make sure it satisfies NFCC 10c, not Bc twirling his moustache and saying "today the non-free images, tommorow the world!"). Will ^(talk) 12:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the version that BCBot tagged on that image was correct, in the rationale you had an incorrect page title, it said at the Through the Looking Glass article, Through the Looking Glass is a redirect to a children's book, while the image in question was actually used on Through the Looking Glass (Lost) a TV episode if the page had said at the Through the Through the Looking Glass (Lost) article the bot would have taken that as a valid rationale. β^_command 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

BC refuses to update BCBot to handle obvious cases where the bot makes a mistake, such as not noting that the article in which the fair use image appears has been moved, or refusing to accept that sometimes a templated fair use rationale is adequate without futher customization. If he would separate the bot into different accounts, or have a page with the list of bot functions on it to allow admins to block a function individually by tagging the appropriate line, we could just block the misbehaving process without blocking the entire bot. There are many ways to allow individual functions to be blocked without blocking the entire bot. Many Some of the individual bot functions are handled correctly and with few errors. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC10(c) does not require a non-templated justification; if we accept that a low-resolution album cover can be used on an article on that album, no additional specification is desirable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But it does require a rationale and the name of the article where the image is used. BCBot does not check for templates so it treats templated and non-templated pages the same. β^_command 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And without commenting on the details of the last block, if there was something wrong with the image, was it something that Betacommandbot should have detected? If it was right in tagging in this instance, but in a way which would still tag an image which shouldn't be tagged, it's wrong, and the block was correct. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of blocks by bot

Bot	Blocks
BetaCommandBot	27
CydeBot	12
AntiVandalBot	11
OrphanBot	7
SmackBot	5
TawkerBot	2
DriniBot	2
ClueBot	0
VoABot	0
Thijs!bot	0

This is not including any blocks of robots running under BetaCommand's main account.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya, and how many of those blocks were based on sound reason? 1 != 2 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I count 11 valid blocks, for 10 blocks that were apparently overturned (5 gray area, if the above count is right)... As I said, we should do something about admins using the nuclear button when there is no issue. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If the bot is wrong, fix it, file an RFC against it or shut it down. If the admins are wrong, desysop the admins. File an RFC or RFAr against the bot to decide who is wrong - the admins or the bot - and decide what to do. If the bot tags images wrongly because of template problems, program the bot to know the template problems so it does not tag images wrongly because of template problems, and fix the template problems. Betacommand is a unresponsible bot owner and ArbCom desysopped him because of that. Also, the way the bot works bites a lot of users. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You might have forgotten a subset of people who might also be wrong: the complainants themselves. —Kurykh 04:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Kaypoh, calm down. Don't bring whatever distaste you may have for betacommand into this. "I don't like it" isn't a valid block reason. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Live Issue Prematurely Archived

Issues that have been left dormant for 24 hours are archived by a bot. Feel free to bring it back out of the archives or start a new thread. —Kurykh 19:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Here's the situation. It seems to have gone cold.

• 26 October: started gnoming, no complaints there [60]
• 1 November reported to WP:ANI here [[61]]
• 1 November: last edit using this account [62] (Note last edit comment, which I leave to speak for itself)
• --Three weeks silence from User:Gnome Economics, Annie Nightingale is untouched.
• 22 November, 00:24UTC User:User:212.32.112.152 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) deletes FUR with no edit comment & no notification.[63]
• 22 November, 00:25UTC Removed image from page where used [64]
• 22 November, 00:37UTC Reverted by me as apparent vandalism from anon IP [65]
• 22 November, 00:37UTC Reverted by me as apparent vandalism from anon IP [66]
• 22 November, 00:58UTC User:212.32.97.36 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) reverts - see edit comment[67]
• 22 November, 00:59UTC, same anon IP reverts, see same edit comment [68]
• 22 November, 01:10UTC, again reported here as possible sockpuppet, however well-intentioned this user's edits are.
• Now I am not really paranoid, despite being targeted by Don Murphy[69], and Googling my username reveals not what I would want to see, but I do try to be above board, helpful and constructive here. See [70]. I know it's customary for editors to use different accounts for different purposes, but they usually announce this. For User:Gnome Economics to come back as two anon IPs from the same block within 30 minutes makes me suspicious. Also, to stop editing altogether when the issue is raised here makes me more suspicious. Maybe it's just me, having spent most of a lifetime investigating crime, and I would be more than happy to be proved wrong. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Editors might sometimes use different accounts for different purposes, but unless there's a pretty good reason they should not be doing so, and using one account for trolling and harassment is absolutely not permitted. That said, unless you have the identity of the suspected main account and can request CheckUser there is not much that we can do - other than warning or blocking User:Gnome Economics, which looks to me to be well overdue. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So I'm not sure where to go with this now. If checkuser is out, User:Gnome Economics as such has not edited since 1st November, and his clone IPs since yesterday, what am I supposed to do? Put every page he's ever edited on watch? What's the point of WP:RFC here? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Oh, for fuck's sake.

My name is Mark H Wilkinson and I've been sockpuppetering on Wikipedia for a couple of months. Prior to that, I had been editing on Wikipedia as Digby Tantrum, only I found myself getting frustrated with the kind of stuff I was routinely doing; so I decided to set up an alternate account, Old Raw, to try doing something different for a while. And it went on from there: each time I got irritated with whatever I was trying to deal with, I upped and started a new account. I've been through a few, now. The list is as follows (or at least, the ones I can remember off hand), in hopefully chronological order:

• Digby Tantrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Old Raw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lara Cunningham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Domestic Correction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gnome Economics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rawfully (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bogwoppit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Turnipface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Plangent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Not big and not clever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Brown Bottle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm sure CU will be able to confirm the way that IP numbers link from one account to the next.

I don't pretend to feel much guilt about the time I spent doing this. While I had to deal with people treating me as a newcomer (despite the clues I left which clearly outed me as someone who knew the system), I enjoyed the freedom of not doing the same old shit all the time. And I'm only doing this now to give Rodhullandemu a break before this turns into a real obsession for him.

There, I'm done. It's been an enjoyable run.

Pax. --212.32.97.36 (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as usual for me, it's been a long day here, and now nearly over. I thank Mark for his candour here. It was clear that User:Gnome Economics knew his way around from his knowledge of policy, and that raised the alarm bell. His attitude didn't meet my expectations, even for an experienced editor, which is why I was suspicious that he might have been a blocked/banned user and I probably over-reacted myself, to the great amusement of User:Jehochman and others, which I will not forget. The work of his that I have seen is largely useful to the project, gnoming indeed. I don't understand the need to change IDs so much, because personally I would rather gain a long-term reputation under one ID (this one) so that if it comes to the crunch, I can point to my contributions here and have them justified objectively. I will leave it to an admin to decide if any further action needs to be taken. Meanwhile, I have become more hardened to the realities of editing here, particularly in relation to images, so I doubt there will be a recurrence from my side. Enough. There's another twelve hours work scheduled for me here tomorrow, and that's without NPW responsibilities. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling WikiProject

Resolved

 – No. east.718 at 19:34, November 24, 2007

The above WikiProject has 7 articles nominated at WP:GAN.

• Randy Orton
• WrestleMania III
• Don Kent (wrestler)
• Amy Dumas
• Mickie James
• Royal Rumble (1994)
• Briscoe Brothers

If someone is interested in reviewing the articles, please do so; as members of the WikiProject to not want to review the articles, because of accusations of conflict of interest. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why are you posting this here? This page is dedicated to reviewing disputes for individuals. Please move this announcement somewhere else. TSO1D (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, TSO1D. This page is for any circumstance requiring administrator intervention - move repair, blocking banned users' puppets, investigating controversial actions, etc. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I might have made my definition too narrow. However, do you believe that this page is the right place to ask users to participate in GA debates? TSO1D (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Jéské is correct that AN/I is the place to go for matters requiring admin attention or tools (not just disputes); TSO1D is correct that this isn't the place to announce Good Article debates (unless there are serious user conduct issues not indicated in the report posted here). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with the Football hooliganism article

I am not sure if this is the correct place to bring this up or not but perhaps if not then someone could point me in the right direction? Over the last couple of days there have been numerous edits by one registered user and multiple instances of IP user edits, all from within a very small IP range, and all of which seem to be from the same user as it always the same type of edit with often very poor spelling. I am not sure if this user is the Elspeth Munro banned user or not? However, they keep adding odd edits to the article, sometimes with a source (though the sources are not usually correct sources), and also keep adding comments about racism and clear POV edits. Also they add wiki links to articles that don't exist and clearly will never exist such as Preston fans and numerous other examples. They also keep leaving odd and often insulting short messages on IP user talk pages - some of which seem to be the same user. In addition they seem to be adding contradictory edits sometimes seemingly disagreeing with themself. I really don't know how this can be dealt with though. It is not only the above article they have edited on but on other articles too in a similar way.

These are some of the IP range that have been used and the registered user:

User:86.25.55.161 User87.165.78.223 User:86.25.54.160 User:86.29.252.112 User: 86.25.54.1 User:86.29.240.183 User:86.29.255.150 User:86.29.243.70 User:86.29.240.169 User:86.29.241.110 User:86.29.252.157 User:86.29.241.9 User:John Q. A. Geadon all of which seem to be one and the same person, and all of whom have edited on the same articles in the last few days as mentioned above. Any ideas what can be done please? I don't know the history of the elspeth munro user or whether it is relevant to this or not? Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's possible I might be able to think up a fancy rangeblock to avoid collateral damage and totally prevent the user from vandalising. Hold on a minute. --Deskana (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Should any administrator wish to, they can hardblock both 86.25.32.0/19 (which blocks 86.25.32.0 - 86.25.63.255) and 86.29.224.0/19 (which blocks 86.29.224.0 - 86.29.255.255) for a week or two, as an alternative to semiprotection. There's a user on the second range, but he's an admin so won't be affected by the hardblock. --Deskana (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I just semiprotected it for a month. Seems the user was aware of this discussion, and was creating accounts to attempt to circumvent the rangeblocks. --Deskana (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. They do seem to have created at least one more registered account as there is also another account which is clearly theres - User:The Lemmick unit in the sin which for some reason they chose to add a block message on (before it was removed) using one of the IP ranges, very strange. As they can't edit the article now they are going back to posting odd comments on the articles talk page, which is fair enough if they want to, at least then it won't really matter or affect the article.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The same user is now back on the same article adding nonsense messages on the talk page. So far they have edited the articles talk page 8 times since the main page was protected with two messages even disagreeing with themself as if they were two different users. Can the talk page also be protected? They seem to have at least three registered accounts User:The Lemmick unit in the sin User:Appel and cheese pie 1977`7 and User:John Q. A. Geadon.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for help on South Korea article

I found recently someone has stived to do harm on the thread of South Korea by the Jjk82. I have checked his contribution, and I found that he has been obessed with altering and adding the information on variuos threads regarding South Korea to demote its reputation. I have no idea the reason why this user have done this, but this is a serious crime, and I won't disregard his misconducts. The enviroment section, the Jjk82 added, was suppored barely by some columnists' private opinions. In addition, the Jjk82 concluded South Korea is a dirty country with his pathetic so-called references, but on those references, they also refer and indicate that many other developed or developing countries, including Japan and Taiwan, also have the same problem. Moreover companies like toshiba and other Japanese companies were rated lower than Samsung and LG. So can I claim that the those countries are disgusting and dirty, and those companies are sick and ignorant to enviromental issues? I will ask administrator to assess the user Jjk82's conduct. This Jjk82 reminds me of someone (Keyngez )who had tried to do vandalism using the same approach on the Seoul's thread. Please make this Jjk82 get a hard lesson that defaming other rivalry country is not a patriotic deed. It's nothing but huge disgrace on his country.Patriotmissile (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Three people have warned him. Post here if disruption continues. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has now been warned by several people to stop vandalising. If he continues despite these warnings, please post a brief report to WP:AIV. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin j Spamming an unreliable source?

Today, user Kevin j went through dozens of TV show articles and added multiple links to the to website http://www.classictvhits.com, claiming it as a source for television ratings. The site, however, does not give any information on the source of its ratings, and though Kevin j says they are Nielsen ratings, the site itself does not make that claim either. I've reverted the first, explained why, to which he responded with borderline civility User_talk:Collectonian#Your_Show_of_Shows. In looking at his his contribs, I saw he'd hit a lot more articles the same way. I did revert the first two pages worth, it seems he spent most of the day in this effort so I decided it would be better to bring it to the admins (in hopes y'all have some automated methods for undoing it all) and because he is already going through and putting them back (along with another site (http://www.chez.com/fbibler/tvstats/) that also does not meet the RS. In addition to flooding articles with these links, he is putting his own interpretations on them, making it WP:OR. He is also adding some other sites as "sources" but again giving them his own interpretations. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert it and tell him how he's wrong on his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I finished reverting all of his removals that other editors didn't already get to. I've left him an additional note on his talk page, beyond my answers to his posting to my talk page. It seems like other editors may have attempted to correct him on a variety of issues with his edits, though, so not sure if he will actually listen this time. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If the polite notes on WP:OR and WP:VER fall on deaf ears, you may find use in the {{uw-nor1}} series of warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Wwerawrocks and User:69.123.30.159

Resolved

This situation is now getting out of hand. This is brought from Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Wwerawrocks and has been caused by a refusal to observe WP:OR and WP:V. This user, under both his user name and what clearly appears to be his IP, has been insisting that Chris Benoit won the WWE title at WWF Fully Loaded in 2000. He has stated he was at the event and is basing his edits on this fact alone. He has been told to provide sources, and he has steadfastly refused. I have just now reverted an edit on the Fully Loaded page by the anon IP. A comparison between the edits of both will show (in the edit summary) the clear similarities. A check user could be used to eliminate any doubt if an admin prefers to do so, but in my opinion it is obvious they are the same. A block should be considered if this keeps up. !! Justa Punk !! 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wwerawrocks has been banned, the IP has been blocked for one month, and the Fully Loaded article has been semi-protected. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Digimon

Resolved

Can someone please have a look what Izzyq (talk · contribs) is doing? I'm not familiar with the Digimon issues, but this looks odd. I deleted 2 articles as G4. As far as I found out, the Digimon pages are transferred to the Digimon wikia and shouldn't remain here. He/She didn't respond to my question at the talk page. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. east.718 at 10:47, November 25, 2007

Thank you. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Relata refero on Talk:Winston Churchill

Resolved

 – No administrative action required; the cabal is lazy tonight. east.718 at 10:50, November 25, 2007

This user added the word 'imperialist' to the lead of the Winston Churchill article which was reverted and re-inserted and reverted again. After he was warned not to edit-war, a discussion began on the talk page at Talk:Winston_Churchill#Lead in which the consensus of opinion was expressed that the word was inappropriate. Relata refero insists that if he cannot have the word imperialist that we agree on some synonym or similar wording to use instead. The discussion is dead as other users do not believe that such an addition is required. But Relata refero has stated "There's no response to my concerns; unless you do provide citations or an alternative, I will restore the wording to the lead." after being told "You cannot just ride roughshod over other peoples views and think that because people refuse to re-engage in what they believe is a dead debate" he came back with "I certainly can ride roughshod over other people's views if I have reliable sources behind me." and then "Unless you attempt to engage by discussing the specific sources and/or suitable phrasing on the next post, I will be forced to make the change unilaterally." I believe the user fails to understand the importance of WP:Consensus and is threatening to engage in disruptive editing. Jooler (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot this part: "Of course, I wouldn't [ride roughshod over other people's views]. Which is why I waited for a response. Please attempt respond to my concerns, by clearly explaining why the sources I have brought to the table are inappropriate." Seems like a run-of-the-mill content dispute where everyone could stand to chill out. east.718 at 10:45, November 25, 2007

You left out part of Renata's post when you quoted here. After renata said "I certainly can ", s/he went on to say "Of course, I wouldn't do that." You seem to be cherrypicking to make your case. Further, Renata is dissussing on the talk page, and hasn't made that particular edit since October 29th. This seems more of a content dispute than anything else, and I don't see why admin action action would be required at this point. Jeffpw (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the comment "Unless you attempt to engage by discussing the specific sources and/or suitable phrasing on the next post, I will be forced to make the change unilaterally." - contradicts the part you pulled out from earlier in the discussion. and it was because of that threat that I posted here. I was pre-empting the start of another edit war. You don't think threatening to engage in an edit-war is a cause for concern? The issue had already been discussed and the conclusion reached by several users was that such wording was inappropriate. Relata doesn't see it as dead though. Jooler (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It may or may not be dead, but this thread definitely is. I think it's time to drop the stick and keep it moving. east.718 at 11:26, November 25, 2007

You seen to have given Relata license to re-introduce the material and begin another edit war. Well done. Jooler (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Terrible case of ownership on that page. I presented impeccable citations on 29 October, and asked that they be discussed in order to modify the somewhat absurdly fawning lead; they haven't been discussed even once since then, the above user preferring to focus on my breaking a 'consensus' - which consisted of him and another user (who argued against it at first, and has subsequently accepted that the lead needs rework, and is looking for a compromise). I notice I haven't re-added anything even once, and have patiently waited for responses each time. I also don't see any threats. No admin intervention required that I can see, though if anyone thinks that this sort of behaviour is typical of this user, perhaps a quiet word to lighten up is in order. Relata refero (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You accuse me of WP:OWN - when I have barely edited the article, only to remove some vandalism and revert your edit. "I also don't see any threats" you say but I think "If you don't do X - I will do Y" is a threat in anyone's language. Jooler (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec with archive) Frankly, most people who own articles think any edit to their preferred version is vandalism. (I was certainly treated like one when I edited originally.) Refusal to engage with people who are willing to compromise and have reliable sources on hand to discuss, together with the belief that consensus cannot change and so on, are hallmarks of ownership. Noting that in the absence of any refusal to deal with the arguments on the talkpage - after waiting for a month - I will rewrite the disputed area, taking into account your original objections, is hardly a threat. Its more like business as normal, and I flatter myself that few people would have been as forbearing. Be that as it may, I strongly suggest we end this ill-advised thread, and you deal with the specif examples I provided on the talkpage in good faith, in a spirit of compromise, and with understanding that never on WP are major articles exactly how a particular user would prefer them to be. Relata refero (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No one as far as I am aware has accused you of vandalism. Certainly not me. However Lord Harris said to you "please understand that you cannot just disregard other users opinions." I have said to you "You cannot just ride roughshod over other peoples views and think that because people refuse to re-engage in what they believe is a dead debate, that you have the right to re-instate material that clearly goes against the established consensus." and it has been pointed out to you by at least four different users that we believe that the word imperialist is not right for the lead whatever your research might say. Yet you insist in re-igniting a dead debate by threatening to add the wording anyway if you don't get you way and we come around to your way of thinking or we accept some compromise yet to be discussed. The reason no-one has re-engaged you in debate on this issue over the last four weeks is because it is a dead debate. The conclusion has already been established. You simply refuse to accept that we do not regard such an addition however you word it as appropriate for the lead. Jooler (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Winston Churchill is thataway. → —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 14:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Angli Cado Primoris and List of Female Heavy Metal singers

User:Angli Cado Primoris has been repeatedly inserting a non-notable singer into List of female heavy metal singers. I have left information on his/her talk page explaining him/her that wikipedia has certain notability criteria for including musicians on it, but s/he has not responded and has continued to reinsert the non-notable into the list, and has not responded to my attempts to reason with him/her, nor has s/he responded to Wikiquette alert that I posted here[71] and on his/her talkpage[72]. Can somebody please help? Asarelah (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave the user a level 3 vandalism warning in response to his/her editing pattern. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 03:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across this after this user made a few edits to female wrestlers taking out some kayfabe tags. I note that just two hours after your level 3 warning this user went right ahead and ignored it again. Suggest further action. !! Justa Punk !! 21:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Level 4 (final warning) given to this user. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 14:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:EDITWAR, it seems I was mistaken on given the user a vandalism warning. Instead it should have been a 3RR warning, which I will give him/her now. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reporting User:Smilehalt

Resolved

 – User was blocked indef by Theresa knott

VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Check his contributions. New user can not be aware of complicated Giano episode and this user attacked Jimbo Wales in first edit. He is obvious sockpuppet.

Perhaps he don't know that I am termed as master of sockpuppets. Sockpuppet can identify other sockpuppet easily. We use steel to cut steel. I am User:Neo.. Thanks to Ryulong. 195.189.142.200 (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo's actions and mine

Resolved

I would please like other users here to review the behavior of user:Moldopodo. He is a relatively new user who has entered into numerous edit conflicts with other users, including myself. My concern is primarily his accusations of bad faith against user he disagrees with and an unwillingness to seek consensus for certain controversial edits. I have tried to discuss the matter with him on his talk page, however he feels that I have acted in bad faith. Please take a look at his recent participation on Wikipedia. I believe he is more likely to take into consideration the advice of a more objective user, or if others believe that I have indeed acted improperly I would like to know that. Thank you. TSO1D (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours for his disruptive editing. Hopefully this will prevent further damage to the articles, and give him a chance to think about his editing techniques. Anthøny 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

After Moldopodo was blocked, he added the following to his talk page, so I will add it here:

"TSO1D openly lies and I have nothing to hide or to improve. Unfortunately I had no time to write anything on the ANI page, where TSO1D put a comment on me. TSO1D bad faith is manifested by the following:

1) Intentionally enducing in error readers on the Balti talk page as the discussion was started on move of Balti article and ended, thanks to TSO1D ill manoeuvres, in discussion of general move of eastern European localitis and general debate on diacritics. Hence the significance of the initial debate was lost.

2) TSO1D lied, as TSO1D filed a block request against me, that I do not support my arguments with a source, whereas me and other users (Illythr) confimed and reconfirmed this (please see the Moldova page, last days edits), TSO1D also lied on Moldova talk page that I do not provide sources, right after my sections and references with sources.

3) TSO1D has immediately reverted Balti article to the strongly contested pro-Romanian version deleting all Russian names of districts, which is against consensus reached on the Balti talk page previously.

4) TSO1D does not make the necessary effort for a constructive dialog and pushes through a personal opinion both on Balti article and Moldova article." TSO1D (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add that my intention in making this report was not to have Moldopodo blocked. I consider his recent behavior to be disruptive in many ways, however I believe that blocking him is unlikely to solve the problem. It will only generate certain ill-will and possibly exacerbate the conflict, and as soon as the block will expire, he will probably return to the same pattern. My idea was to try to make him understand Wikipedia policies and what he is doing wrong, and since he believes that I am too biased against him, I wished for others to review his actions and talk to him. TSO1D (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet another sockpuppet of Daddy Kindsoul

Resolved

 – Red-carded. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Any chance someone could check on the identity of User:More to it All? His/her only contributions so far have been to a discussion started by another sockpuppet of Daddy Kindsoul's. – PeeJay 20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, and I don't mean by goalies. The first two edits were enough for me to block him - he attacked Yamla again. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JAMAA Deletion Review

This is in reference to the article JAMAA, which was, in my opinion, unjustifiably deleted. It was first speedy deleted without reason, and then restored and nominated for deletion. I opened a second deletion review and it was closed within hours of its opening. I opened a third deletion review to appeal this closure and this was again deleted within hours. It is sheer administrative abuse to allow a deletion review to be closed within hours, particularly when I have given many legitimate reasons as to why this article should remain intact. Please see the latest deletion review for more information, which also provides links to the previous deletion reviews. I will continue to appeal this deletion to the fullest extent of Wikipedia policy. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh.* The Nov 25th one was closed and the Nov 24th one was re-opened because it was closed prematurely (due to a misunderstanding that has been fully explained). In other words, you got exactly what you wanted an hour and a half ago, but you wanted to scream "admin abuse" so we've got this. Leave the drama elsewhere, please. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing the recreation of a properly referenced article asserting notability.--Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

article on David Bradbury needs to be able to be created

The page for 'David Bradbury' "... has been protected to prevent creation" due to issues with an apparently non notable trumpet player with the same name.

There is now an Australian member of parliament with the name "David Bradbury" - see http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/lind.htm

I think the page should be unprotected' 1dragon (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Graham87 00:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat; please block

Please block 70.218.5.177 for making a legal threat. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User wasn't warned. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No legal threats does not necessarily require a warning for the user to be blocked. People would be wise to heed Doc glasgow's adivice below. --Deskana (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

FFS! Unbelievable! Actually that was probably the frustrated subject of an apparently libellous biography. Please don't jump in with "legal threats - block" and quoting house policies when- first ask if someone has a legitimate reason to be upset. (Article now deleted). --Doc^g 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked for a week, but I am going to check the article for BLP vios because that was the basis of the threat and remove the block myself since there seems to be basis against. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) -Text redacted by Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)}

WTF, I'm tempted to block all the above idiots (not Deskana) for cluelessness and extreme stupidity.--Doc^g 01:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Uncivil sorry, just very angry.--Doc^g 01:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for WP:AGF, folks. The article looked decent when I nominated it for deletion. I can't look at it now to see what it may have become since it's now deleted but I'd appreciate an apology from a few folks since all I've done is proper and necessary. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you still don't get it. A badly referenced article accuses someone of being a criminal - it is blanked by an IP who suggests that it is libelling him and it may be legally actionable - and your response is to revert the banking (restoring libels) and ask admins to block the IP???? That is not "proper and necessary" it is incredibly negligent. I apologise for my angry incivility - but not at all for my criticism. Pay attention if you want to deal with BLPs. And stop and at least ask if an IP might have a reason for its actions - that's called assuming good faith.--Doc^g 01:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT is very clear - block someone making legal threats. Then we can investigate. I don't question our lawyers in legal matters nor would I advise you to do so.

I don't recall anything in the article being libelous. I didn't even get a chance to look at the article after the anonymous editor made the threat as I did the right thing: I immediately reported the legal threat. I then dropped a note at the BLP notice board. In between those two actions, the article was deleted.

I'm sorry if I missed something but threatening to block me and jumping all over me is uncalled for and unfucking cool. I'm pretty damn angry for all the work I've done here, following the spirit and the rules to the best of my ability as a normal editor, and I get shit on like this. I'm done for the night. Others can babysit article, revert vandalism, and make unappreciated reports of vandalism and legal threats. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at its log, the article was deleted three times (including tonight), and twice within the past 48 hours. If it pops up again, I'll delete and salt it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean to "salt" it? Is that a reference to salting the earth? Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, prevention of re-creation/regrowth. Acroterion _(talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SALT. --Yamla (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified block

Resolved

Hello, I would like to contest the block of Jgoessling1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He or she created one (or at least was warned once) about a non notable person and made a test edit on User:Jimbo Wales (reverted by him or herself). I would like to propose an unblock, as the only warning was for the speedy deleted article. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the block should be reduced to 12hrs. I will do so myself unless anyone objects. TSO1D (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs, I'd say KoS was a bit trigger-happy here. The Jimbo Wales edit was self-reverted, (s)he hasn't created any more pages (attack or otherwise), and the Melon edit was in good faith. I support an unblock, not a block redux like TSO1D is saying. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree, no block at all should have been imposed. TSO1D (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I unblocked him. TSO1D (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah—like we all haven't heard the "my little sister vandalized while I wasn't looking excuse before" no wait now it was the brother who vandalized the melon page.... "My younger brother played around on my computer with my account, which I created today, and vandalized the melon page. I am very sorry about the mishap and I will not let it happen again" The deleted article was an attack page—and while the melon edit may have been good faith, the guy admitted it was vandalism. Yeah for the record maybe the block was a little "trigger happy" but it appears to me it wasn't a mistake. Oh well, with regards. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Math forumla generates image in sig?

Is it a violate if someone uses a mathematical formula in their sig, because it generates an image and images are not allowed in sigs. This user has is one example but there are others: [73] --Dacium (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Images aren't allowed because of the potential for vandalism and the cluttering of Whatlinkshere. Is this doing either? No. Is it doing harm? No. Just leave it be or point them politely towards Unicode. Cheers, east.718 at 02:55, November 26, 2007

Because of the nature of the math formula tags, it doesn't always generate an image, either. It depends on the personal preferences on every user log in. I don't really see a problem with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

However, the image has to be generated (are they cached?) each time it is viewed, also depending on the viewer's preferences. — Edokter • Talk • 13:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are cached. So only one image needs to be generated for each preference. --ais523 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned user Anacapa revert warring in Talk:Misandry

Resolved

 – Blocked. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

128.111.95.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is restoring and adding new soapbox posts in Talk:Misandry. This is Anacapa (talk · contribs) (description). Page history shows several of these posts previously removed by other administrators. Claims "As for this IP being 'suspected' of being a banned editors IP that is a false suspicion. This IP is shared by hundreds of other users." Could use a short-duration block on this IP. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you post three or four diffs showing the soapbox posts? I have dealt with Anacapa before. This sounds like his editing pattern. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

All 8 of today's posts from this IP address are to Talk:Misandry. First edit restores information previously posted by 128.111.95.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 128.111.95.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), deleted for being Anacapa[74] (plus a few replies to same by another editor)[75].

These deletions are discussed extensively here (which BTW provides a useful guide to spotting Anacapa).

• 2007-11-26T05:27:57 Banned user suspicion is false. This IP is shared by hundreds of users. Restored censored content
• 2007-11-26T05:33:31 to editors who cry "forum"
• 2007-11-26T05:30:09 added discussion on forum and banned user

3 edit conflicts trying to post this. No idea why. /edg ☺ ☭ 06:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated adding of {{db-g7}} onto Able to Love and related articles

Resolved

 – Category deleted by Mushroom. Bencherlite^Talk 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone please watch Able to Love and Category:Benny Benassi songs please - I've been declining a G7 speedy by Alexander Vince - twice - and they've resorted to logging out to place the tag instead. However, if someone else gives them a look and thinks G7 is valid, I have no objections. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I recently dealt with a huge spate of G7s related to Benny Benassi songs, but deleted them all since the author was the only person to make significant edits. Other admins are welcome to trawl through my logs and overturn if necessary. east.718 at 06:11, November 26, 2007

I think the songs are worth redirecting. (Which is what I did to Able to Love...) Someone can tag this section as resolved, now... Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Mushroom (talk · contribs) has deleted Category:Benny Benassi songs. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

SSP Report by New User

When I going through the suspected sock puppets cases I noticed the following report. Upon checking this report I noticed that the user User:Morgwatchwatch — a new user whose only contributions were filing this report. I found it suspicious and noted so [76]. I am not sure what else to do about this so I am bringing this notice here. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 10:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of this and the first report, which is almost identical to this one was oversighted. I'll take care of it, along with a checkuser. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Blatant sockpuppet blocked and report deleted. Thanks for reporting this. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The submitter is, yes, but it's way more complicated than that. I'll get to the bottom. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

84.234.60.154 (talk · contribs)

I came across an anon editor who was mass reverting character articles about Samurai Shodown. Apparently the character articles were redirected to one singular page back in April of this year, (Samurai Shodown (series)) I couldn't find a discussion about undoing those redirects, so I reverted and left the anon a message asking him not to undo the redirects without consensus. My question is was I wrong? His edits did not appear malicious in the very least, so I thought I'd bring it here to see if anyone has any insight into what is right. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 13:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There's no trace of the information from all these articles left. Not a SINGLE word. Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Samurai_Shodown_characters is just a redirect. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

After further delving into this, it appears that someone else is working on a list of characters in their sandbox in preparation of restoring List_of_Samurai_Shodown_characters. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:169.244.140.98

The above user was blocked for vandalism on 20 November and warned about it again on 26 November. He's at it again [77] I think a longer block is needed. Kelpin (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. However, this would have been better brought up at WP:AIV. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Daniel Brandt Posting Anonymously?

When I was viewing the talk page for Public Information Research, I noticed an IP address [78] and [79] sign there with his name. I am not sure whether banned user posting on article talk pages is acceptable, so I am bringing this issue up here. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

it is my understanding that all posts from banned users may be deleted on sight, nomatter where they are posted. However, I see that admin Will Beback is in discussion on the talk page and has taken no action, so perhaps I have missed something. Jeffpw (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

on second thought, after re-reading WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits, I have deleted the posts. Jeffpw (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Posts from banned users should be evaluated with understanding and intelligence and not just blindly deleted merely because of the source. In this case Brandt had an issue with an article that has BLP considerations about himself. Not deleting until enough people could read it was a good move. Deleting once people had read it might wind up being helpful, so I don't see that as unwise. Just be thoughtful, folks, that's all. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while I don't agree with the ruling, officially they're to be removed without prejudice under all circumstances AFAIK. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Was 4.250 is correct on this one. If a banned user removes libel, don't revert it it. If a banned user removes blatant vandalism, don't revert it. So on and so forth. From our ban policy.. "Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing.". Regards, Mercury 13:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand this, Mercury. "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." The edits should always be removed, regardless of their merits. An editor who reinstates the edit by the banned editor takes complete responsibility, but the one who removes is has no further responsibility, even if by removing this edit he reinstates older vandalism or so. Fram (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, with great respect, I think you are misunderstanding. No policy was meant to be interpreted with such rigidity. With have to use common sense on this. Absolutely remove libel, do not reinstate vandalism. Reverting a banned user is no excuse for harming the encyclopedia and could be met with preventative measures. Very respectfully, Mercury 13:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the important word in the policy is may. Each edit by a banned user is to be examined and reverted if it does not suit our purposes. We don't have to revert them, but can without discussion. In this instance, the first post Brandt made was arguably helpful, and was replied to by an admin. His second post seemed to descend into ravings. As an admin had seen the first post and acknowledged it, I saw no need to keep the conversation in the talk page, since that would encourage more such postings on Brandt's part. Jeffpw (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned editors can make useful edits in attempts to mislead us and pick us apart from the inside. We should not revert such edits. What's the point of reverting vandalism reverts made by banned editors? There isn't any. --Deskana (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I said, I disagree with the policy but it's been firmly enforced in the past. WP:IAR seems to get thrown out of the window if the subject of the ruling happens to be one of a handful of banned users or that Dramatica place. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thumper, his posts were removed as soon as I saw them, so existing policy was enforced. How this policy is interpreted and enforced could probably better be handled on the talk page of WP:BAN or the admin notice board. Jeffpw (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides having the pleasure to laugh at us when we argue on whether or not we should follow policy, I fail to see why Mr Brandt isn't contacting WP:OTRS if he has a BLP issue with an article he is closely linked to. May I suggest we ask him to do so and go do something constructive with our limited time? -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think some of you are mistaken and should read WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits a little more carefully.

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users.

Emphasize mine. This article is akin to Daniel Brandt posting there and if an anonymous IP address is posting as him, it should be removed, without prejudice. We're not talking about blatant vandalism or BLP violations people are trying to wiki-lawyer above, he's making posts about a topic he is related to and he is banned, thus his comments no matter what they are, should be removed and not restored. I've taken the liberty to remove them now. — Save_Us_229 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank oyu, Save_Us. I removed two, but didn't see the others. Jeffpw (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe that, regardless of someone's status on Wikipedia, they should be fully entitled to comment on article content that directly concerns themselves. Everyking (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

When you are banned, you don't have a status on WP. Any edit you make is revertible by anyone. If you have a BLP issue, you email the Foundation. Crum375 (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course you have a status: banned. I don't understand your reply. I was simply stating my opposition to the application of that to banned users commenting on information concerning themselves. If we want good content on Daniel Brandt, and Daniel Brandt has something to say about the nature of that content, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot to keep him from saying it. Everyking (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's use some commons sense here. The edits may be removed, they don't have to be removed. If there is a good reason for the edit in the first place, like correcting a BLP problem, then let's accept the help and not be pricks. --Duk 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing libel trumps WP:BAN. End of story. If you don't understand that, you need a healthy dose of clue. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your wrong, he wasn't removing liable, he was commenting on the talk page, and as a banned editor, he is not permitted to do that whatsoever. To let someone know of something potentially liable and to avoid violating WP:COI (and WP:BAN in his case) he should e-mail the Foundation like every other person with the complaint that he has. Daniel Brandt gets no exception, no matter what his status quo is here. — Save_Us_229 04:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, remember. The banning policy clearly states that edits by banned users should be removed on sight, as the user is unauthorized to make those edits. A ban is basically telling a user "We will no longer allow you to edit here." However, we must always remember to use common sense. If it'd be detrimental to the project to revert the edit, then we simply shouldn't. WP:BAN is an important policy, but always remember to keep the encyclopedia's best interests at heart, even if it means ignoring a policy to do so. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The good of the State err... project is not the only thing that can justify keeping edits by banned users. Even if he is wrong, there is no way to justify making it hard for people to comment on content about them. Anyone who hasn't been banned can, and often does, just comment on the talk page or remove the information themselves. Requiring Brandt jump through more hoops because we don't like him is wrong. -Amarkov moo! 07:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN means you are no longer allowed to comment by normal means like every Wikipedian.

"The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia."

Brandt is banned from all parts. Editors who are banned have their comments removed and their edits undone (and if they are helpful edits, they are redone at the editors discretion). It's not because we don't like Brandt anymore than another banned editor, but because that what policy dictates. Brandt is like every other banned editor, and everyother banned editor is not allowed to comment either. — Save_Us_229 18:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Save Us 229, Brandt is *not* like every other banned editor. I don't believe we have articles containing biographical information about any of our other banned editors (folks can feel free to correct me if I am wrong). Our Biography of Living Persons policy states "In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material." (Emphasis mine.) BLP policy takes precedence in this case. If Brandt were to edit the article on, say, Superman, any editor would be absolutely within his right to remove the edits. Care must be taken not to violate the GFDL by reinserting, word for word, what another editor wrote that has been subsequently deleted; those edits should be appropriately attributed to the original author even if re-inserted by someone else. Risker (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Other cases that come to mind are banned User:ColScott, who is a movie producer we also have a biography article for, and possibly blocked User:Ashida Kim. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What about User:Beckjord? — Rickyrab | Talk 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns can be done through the office, Banned people are not welcome to edit. Full stop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned editors do not have any right to edit here...this has long been the case. If they have issues that need addressing they can contact the arbitration committee and or Jimbo wales via email.--MONGO (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do we want them to do this? I'd really like to know that something was removed because it's poorly sourced and Brandt denies it is true. That's very much preferable to being told WP:OFFICE. -Amarkov moo! 20:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he is a banned editor. Wha6t;s the point of banning people if we don't enforce the ban? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

With the Durova scandal in full heat, it's time for everybody to re-examine policies and attitudes where the punitive and vindictive activity of seeking out people to ban and then treating them like Orwellian Unpersons takes precedence over building an encyclopedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If an IP address or account identified with a banned editor carries out a noncontroversial action that you agree with, like removing libel or copyvio from an article, or removing vandalism, then it is not necessary to revert that action (though sometimes this is done accidentally when mass reverting a large series of edits by a banned user). Equally, if someone does revert such an edit (thus re-instating the libel, copyvio or vandalism), then it is perfectly acceptable to revert back again, thus removing the libel/copyvio/vandalism (and technically reinstating the edit made by the banned user), as long as you take responsibility for the edit on yourself. What might also be needed is to follow up on the editing and enforce the ban (or at least report the breaching of the ban). Carcharoth (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Knee jerk reactions aren't helpful here. This is symptomatic of a larger issue we have within the Encyclopedia, when our content policies conflict with our behavioural policies. That was always the challenge with WP:NPA which took many months to resolve. Perhaps a pre-emptive generic discussion on the topic of whether content or behavioural policies take precedence when the two are in conflict should take place, but not on this page. Risker (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally when removing edits from a banned user, I'll explain to other users who ask that if they like any of the removed edits, they are free to put them back, as then it is a good faith edit by a user in good standing as far as I am concerned. Banned users are usually banned because they have abused the system and/or their fellow editors. It's disruptive to the writing of an encyclopaedia, and that is all that banning should be intended to discourage IMO. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree in cases where the banned editor has added content. When a banned editor removes content, things are different. Consider the following sequence: (A) Random vandal XYZ adds "isn't wikipedia great!" to an article; (B) Banned user ABC goes on a large vandalism spree from an IP address, including reverting the action of vandal XYZ, and then confesses to being a banned user; (C) Industrious admin QRS or other user comes along and rapidly undoes or rolls back all the edits of ABC without checking, leaving the edit summmary "reverting edits of banned user" (I've seen this happen). End result, the vandalism has been restored and (because it seems to be a legitimate reversion) may be missed for some time before it is spotted and corrected. I've seen this happen. I've totally blown WP:BEANS out of the water here, but it was necessary to get across to people that there is a qualitative difference between reverting additions and reverting removals. When you revert a removal of content, you are effectively re-adding what was removed. If you cannot check what you are re-adding by this action, then you shouldn't be doing it. Blind reversions of the removal of content can easily damage the encyclopedia unless there is human oversight. Carcharoth (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my sentiments. When a banned user does something such as an anti-vandalism revert, it shouldn't be reverted because then we'd be bringing back vandalism. It is to the detriment of the project to return vandalism. Basically, what should be done is Brandt should be customarily blocked per WP:BAN, but if he removes disruptive content, we shouldn't just return it. WP:IAR applies here. Maser ^(Talk!) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)