Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive63

Threatened block for using the words "hell" or "fuck" on a talk page

At Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy, Admin User:FayssalF is threatening to block users for using the worlds "fuck" or "hell." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good for him. -- 16:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have pointed out that using fuck and hell are bad, and so is blocking for it. Phil Sandifer 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

People have the right to use vulgar language, so long it's not to insult other people, so what's the fucking problem? This was the line that was used: "all the angels in Heaven cannot changing that fucking rule". Someone tell these housewives who were made admins that they have no right to censor people! Shame on you, redneck housewives! Shame on you, you new-born Christians! --Anittas 16:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, let me point out that people can be blocked for disruption. Note: I'm not commenting on this specific situation (I haven't reviewed it), but in general. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am now thinking of Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption and trying to fit everything into the marked slots:

Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks. Users should normally be warned before they are blocked. For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month.

Does this apply? I don't really know what to think - being incivil is unacceptable, but can one be blocked for it after being asked not to do it? We should hear FayssalF's side of the story before jumping to conclusions though. Izehar 17:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't apply! Read the talkpage! These is just some religious fanatics that try to impose their conservative ideals on the hard-working editors of Wiki! No censorship on Wiki! --Anittas 17:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As per Phil above, being uncivil is bad. But blocking for minor incivility is bad too. -- SCZenz 17:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, it depends on whether the person is being a) blatant enough and b) disruptive enough with their incivility. Is it beginning to affect discussions or editing negatively? If so, block. Even a short-term block can be effective (3-4 hours, long enough for a cooling off). Otherwise ...... probably not. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Use of the words won't need a block, but if the user is being incivil with them, then I think a block can be used. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

When people are using vulgar language in order to shock and offend (as they undoubtedly are on that page) it is highly uncivil. If people persist in using such language on that page with that deliberate intention, I also intend to block for it. [[Sam Korn]] 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Admins have to use their judgement. I wouldn't block for a statement such as "Wikipedia is f--king cool." That's not a personal attack, nor disruptive. However, a user stating "You are a f--king retard," will recieve a stern warning, if not a short block. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 19:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In that instance, the profanity is being used to add emphasis to what is already a personal attack, so certainly WP:NPA applies, strongly, regardless of one's position of profanity. I agree with Bratsche in that there is a difference between the bare words and how they are used in different instances, and with Sam Korn on intent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking because of genuine incivility and personal attacks is fine. Telling users that "words like hell and heaven not suitable for [the talk pages of] Wikipedia" and then threatening to ban over this issue is...well, inadvisable. Babajobu 20:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Context is key.--Sean|Black 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with what everone's saying about profanity, but what's everyone getting so worked up about? As far as I can see, all FayssalF said was "Next time, I'll start blocking any user disrespecting others" and then "If words like f**k are acceptable here than I must remind the offenders that applying policies is the rule." A threat to apply policies and block disrespectful editors is not earth-shattering. In fact it sounds fine to me; he was trying to address a real incivility problem, after all. If you ask me, Hipocrite is being deliberately provocative, and got what he wanted: a bunch of random people, admins included, to go criticize FayssalF, accusing him of censorship, abusing admin powers, and um, being a redneck housewife. Dmcdevit·t 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Fucking Wikipedia is not fucking censored for the fucking protection of minors; why the fuck should it be fucking censored for fucking prudes? Yes, fucking avoid fucking personal attacks, but simply fucking using fucking language that someone else finds fucking offensive is not a fucking personal attack. (By way of example, I know full well some people find blasphemy offensive, but if I want to interject "god" or "jesus h. christ" into a conversation, or if I want to insult the Prophet on a talk page, I kinda think that's within the limits of generally accepted civility.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BRAVO! BRAVO!!! --Anittas 21:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • That's fucking brilliant :).--Sean|Black 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Fucking ace! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary judgment:

1. No Wikipedian should call Fayssal a redneck housewife.
2. Fayssal should not issue lists of words "not suitable for Wikipedia". Babajobu 21:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys! I am very amazed by all this souk! First of all, have I blocked anyone?! It sounds like I did block people! I did not! No! So what's the problem? Threatening? Mmmmm! Yes! I did! Why? Because of WP:Civility. As Sean Black put it, depends on the context!

Too much of swearing, too much of f**k, too much of s**t, too much of p**s, etc... Aren't that threatening itself?! This is an encyclopaedia and and not a market place! And that's why wikipedians put thier faith on me!

Second thing! Why are you relating this to a religious matter????! Why not relate it to civility and stop there?!!!!

Anyway, (a message to Anittas), please don't judge situations as being religious fanatics that try to impose their conservative stuff. This is in itself a personal attack. So refrain from such declarations. I don't care if someone calls me a housewive anyway. My GF would love that! However, isn't housewive a personal attack itself? Some people are for the slogan No censorship in Wiki!!! C'mon! What about f**k? So, do I have to accept the f**k stuff? Respect is the key! Wherever you go! Including your own home!

Third of all, please have a time to read this at WP:Civility. And please avoid doing the same if you are in a classroom! -- Cheers Szvest 22:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

"Some people are for the slogan No censorship in Wiki!!! C'mon! What about f**k? So, do I have to accept the f**k stuff?" Fayssal, I think the consensus is yes, unless the word fuck is employed as a part of a personal attack, then we must tolerate it. Some people use fuck lightly (JPGordon would be an example) and do not find it offensive or necessarily intend offense when using it. We don't have to share their "beliefs", as it were, but we have to tolerate them. Babajobu 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My take, for whatever it may be worth: If I say 'snot', and Doris Biggles claims to be offended by it, must I refrain from the usage? Then if Doris says 'geranium' and I claim to be offended by it, must she refrain from the usage? Surely the criterion must be whether offence was intended, rather than that offence was taken. If I know that Doris is offended by the usage of the word 'snot' and continue to use it gratuitously, specifically to offend her, I would be in error; if I use the term as I normally would, I am not in error. Similarly Doris in re 'geranium'. Similarly anyone in re 'fuck', 'hell', etc. Sbz5809 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job guys! Keep on filling wikipedia with whatever you want as long as it is not offending anyone! If you take a look at the page where that happened you'd realize that it offended many users. Anyway, I am sure most of the users who are participating in thi sdiscussion forget about this:

Fuck is a strong and generally provocative (and offensive) swear word in the English language. It is one of the best-known vulgarisms in the English-speaking world, and it is often considered the most impolite curse word in the English language. However, today it is used more freely.

It is unclear whether the word has always been considered impolite and, if not, when it was initially considered to be profane. Some evidence indicates that in some English-speaking locales it was considered acceptable as late as the 17th century meaning "to strike" or "to penetrate" [1]. Other evidence indicates that it may have become vulgar as early as the 16th century in England; thus other reputable sources such as the Oxford English Dictionary contend the true etymology is still uncertain, but appears to point to an Anglo-Saxon origin that in later times spread to the British colonies and worldwide. -- Cheers Szvest 23:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

"FUCKITYFUCKONASTICK"..

seriously, relax a bit... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will be surprised when I say that I saw the first line of this comment in a diff and automatically reverted. This kind of comment is intentionally offensive, and confirms my perceptions of you. Don't say this kind of thing again. [[Sam Korn]] 23:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Look MSK, I don't like hearing (or reading) that word either. It serves no useful purpose speaking like that. Izehar 23:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle proved that I am totally right! Cheers -- Szvest 23:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

• Hi again(?), Fayssal. I say fuck all the time, conversationally, just not on Wikipedia (I did that once whilst on free drugs, and never heard the end of it – but this isn't about Sam Spade); I don't think it makes sense to actually prohibit it explicitly as policy (we already have WP:CIV/NPA/NOT/WQT/etc). Generally, people tend aim to minimize the use of the word here, it just looks unprofessional, inter-editorially. So if you see someone say fuck, and someone else objects to it, and fuck continues to be repeated, then you can block for disruption. El_C 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So if Doris says 'geranium' and I object, then Doris says 'geranium' again; what then? Sbz5809 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• All I said was I don't give a flying fuck what's in my best interests. Sorry! El_C 23:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So if someone says "Fuck me with a geranium" which bit is offensive? BTW Hiberno-English has such variants. One is "Fuck me with a handle and call me Shirley", and Irish people often say "Jaysus Fucking Christ" and "Mother of Divine Fuck". Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are notorious for their use of "fuck". Can that be mentioned? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, neither bit would offend me, but my point is that if some term were to be used specifically to cause offence, that would be wrong; if the same term were to be used because the user generally tends to use that term, that would not be wrong. I'm only responsible for what I mean, not for what you think I mean. Sbz5809 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fayssal, I think more people were offended by your claim that certain words are intrinsically "not suitable for Wikipedia" than were offended by any particular words. So if offensiveness is what we're striving to avoid, I think you should avoid telling people not to swear. Otherwise, I say people should just talk as is their natural habit, but not make a special effort to offend. Babajobu 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Fuck this conversation. Babajobu 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

fUkcK Meah, than!! I apologize for all the mess I've caused! However, the donkey/culprit/victim/stupid/warrior/vandal/admin/king/prothet/best-player(including swimming)-ever/spy/F**ker got a word to say!

Thank you! -- Cheers Szvest 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Cherish the innocent free drugs days many indentations ago. :) Babajobu, it's invariably a double-edge sword: there are ways of conveying that, too, without causing offence; or without stupid references to cats, and so on. Yikes, I'm circling far too close to the proverbial edge. El_C 02:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should have the right to block others for using swearwords unless they are used as part of a personal attack, in which case they can make that personal attack seem more insulting. However, people use "fuck" and "hell" all the time without a necessarily insulting context, and for that reason, I think the suggestion to block such users is quite absurd. Ronline ✉ 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I was interested to see that WP has articles on fuck and hell. User:AlMac|^(talk) 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Another webhost blocked

Another backslash-inserting vandal found and shot.

• 64.27.5.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • TequilaAndLime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Donald Easby - Wikipedia Admin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • DanWillis2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Brian Daniels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • A NON COMPLAINING WOW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • JamesWalker112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Regilo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Rodam3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Hownae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Gozeboer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • JamesAllen13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Maudser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Obesanes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Sadlersadie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kelly Martin (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, thanks for all the good work hunting down vandals. I think its a great job you have been doing. I do have one question though: Should you be posting these in such a way as to associate the IP and usernames? I'm sure in most cases these are proxies with neglible chance of tracking down the real user using them, but that can't always be the case can it? For example one might pick off a legitimate user who had the misfortunate of using a compromised machine. As I said, I think you've been doing good work, and this is just a quibble from someone with a touch of privacy paranoia. Dragons flight 19:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

First, all of the above are vandals; their right to privacy was waived when they vandalized Wikipedia, per the privacy policy. Second, since I'm blocking people who are using an open proxy, presumably their identity is already protected by the mere fact that they're using an open proxy. (All of the above accounts were "throwaway accounts" created for the sole purpose of vandalizing Wikipedia. All but two of them were already blocked for one reason or another.) Kelly Martin (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well technically, the relevant clause is Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers, which gives two reasons for releasing a vandal's IP. As you already blocked the IP, I don't see how telling us the names using it assists with that block, and as far as I know there is no one planning a complaint to their ISP. I also note that the CheckUser Policy discourages releasing IPs as much as possible even when there has been abuse. I agree there is probably very little risk here, but I can also recall at least one posting you made where you identified two apparently legitimate users editing through one of the IPs you shut down. The paranoid guy in me just thinks that one shouldn't identify an IP address unless there is some good to come from it, and while I'm grateful that you are hunting down and blocking these, I'm not sure what additional benefit is to be had by listing the names and IPs. Dragons flight 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It often helps other admins engaged in vandalism management to note patterns in the usernames used by vandals, or to correlate vandalism events. More than once I've gotten useful feedback from posting one of these notices. And since I've effectively revealed the information anyway through the block log and talk page notices, the announcement here does not further spread such information. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Posting known vandals' names is certainly a helpful thing, however patterns in user names can be viewed without associating the names with an IP. That argument for lisitng with an IP has no merit. I find your shoot first, question others when questioned later personal policy making troubling. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ, just give it up already. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kelly, keep up the great work. I am of the opinion that if more people (namely User:Curps) had CheckUser permissions, we would be seeing much less vandalism here. Hall Monitor 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this. Looks like inserting backslashes before other backslashes is also a sign of these misconfigured PHP scripts. --cesarb 21:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunfazer/Open_proxy_list --Sunfazer 21:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the list! All blocked. Curiously, some of them had already been indefinitely blocked by Kelly, yet the blocks had misteriously vanished from the ipblocklist. --cesarb 03:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:OceanSplash

I have blocked OceanSplash indefinitely for repeated blatant racism, hatemongering, and harrassment. He has been blocked several times for his hatemongering and harrassment and has been warned to stop on his talk page however he has persisted both with his tyrades and his verbal spates against editors who disagree with him. I welcome any outside comments on this block. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Bishonen | talk 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

Good block which should have been done long ago. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtkieffer, just curious what the precipitating factor was for the block. From his contributions he doesn't seem to have edited in two days, since you and he interacted regarding the sockpuppetry issue. Is he being blocked for the problems that occurred prior to the sockpuppetry concerns? I'm not disagreeing with the block; it's only that he told me he doesn't understand the timing, and I promised him I would find out. Thanks. Babajobu 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

this which although it's by his IP you can tell it's him by his referencing his previous statements towards me in the first person. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

www.wehatetech.com

Please see Big muff, which was redirected to User:Zoe. That was done by the people at this site, rather immaturely. It's amazing what you find when you crawl Google for the phrase "wikipedia -site:wikipedia.org" :-) Anyway, might want to watch the site. The offending post on the site is at [1]. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How mature. Thanks for the fix.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:McDonalds.jpg

Could someone explain our fair use rules to the people who use this immage on thier userpage.Geni 10:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no template being used on the userpages, but hardcode text: {{userbox|red|yellow|[[Image:McDonalds.jpg|50px]]|This user prefers McDonald's over other fast food places.}} What we could do is replace the image with a yellow m in text and see what happens. Just remove the image from the userpage, explain what is going on. If they place the image back, remove it again. If they repeat, block for a short time. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 18:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, the (not-so) man of the year

I'm not entirely sure where to discuss this, so I'm going to put it here. The photoshopped image Time-Jimmy-Wales-NoTitle.png was recently added to User:Jimbo Wales under the heading "Man of the Year 2006", which of course he isn't (at least not yet). Obviously this was intended in good fun, but because it provides a false sense of endorsement from Time it could be interpreted as a trademark infringment. If the parody was made clear by context (e.g. User:Jimbo_Wales/Funny_pictures), it would probably be more acceptable, but I'm not sure. Thoughts? Dragons flight 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty clear that it's humour. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Though this is unrelated, User:Jimbo_Wales/Funny_pictures, interestingly appears to have at least one fair use image in it... Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a lot of Fair use photos there. As for the time cover itself, I am borderline on it. While we used a GFDL photo of Jimbo for the cover, the format itself was taken from an older issue, and the format of the image crediting is the same as Time Magazine, so I think we should get rid of it. While I express profound kudos to the author, it might not be wise to keep that on our servers. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my school last year everyone did a TIME person of the year with whoever they chose. This tells me that the TIME person of the year bit is well known enough and this picture does NOT provide a false sense of endorsement from TIME anymore than my friend making Kurt Cobain the man of the year. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This might fall under parody as fair use, which can be anywhere on wikipedia. Some of these border on satire, which is not covered (or not clearly protected).--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that it is parody, and I would argue it to be a transformative use of an image, then I would think that it should be OK. Maybe if someone adds an amusing caption, it might make things a bit clearer? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that it's clear that this is supposed to be parody, which is a protected form of speech under fair use. Maybe if it were being distributed primarily as a template or if there were pictures with humorous headlines on the cover, but right now this is just there. I doubt anyone at TIME would care, but I'm not sure how well a parody defense would hold up. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 04:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd put this squarely under parody - this is not a copyright concern at all, (Time magazine can neither copyright the word "Time" or the color red), but rather a trademark issue, and the rules for parodying trademarks are much looser: there is no commercial use; no possible negative effect on the sale of the trademark-holder's goods; and precious little likelihood that this will be interpreted as a Time Magazine endorsement of Wikipedia. No legal problems arise here unless we fairly clearly make some false claims of sponsorship, endorsement, or affiliation. bd2412 T 05:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw this image I assumed that it was a genuine Time front page and might qualify when used appropriately under fair use. I now see that it's a clear and pretty serious copyright infringement (magazine front page formats are subject to copyright law just like any other artwork) and that it's probably an infringement of various TIME Inc.trademarks, too. There is no indication in the image that it is a parody. This must be deleted immediately and I'm doing so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I know of various copyright laws - is it not legal and perfectly normal to be able to use a company's logo in a parody? You don't have to state it is specifically a parody though and in the context that it has been placed it is apparent that it is a parody. -localzuk 10:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, clearly parody, not used in an abusive manner. Can we not let our paranoia grip us too fiercely? On the other hand, fun's over, move along, delete it and get back to work. Either way... get back to work. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed "time" from the image, this image is now 100% free. achilles 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bumpusmills1, legal threats, and the FBI

Bumpusmills1 (talk · contribs) has posted a threat to his user page that "Those who vandalize any pages here or anywhere I frequent are in line to be reported to the FBI." Apparently he has already reported at least one such user. In my dealings with this user, in which I attempted a copyedit of the article Cherokee society, Bumpusmills was very protective and several times violated WP:OWN and WP:NPA. I left the conflict and later admins stepped in, but he has continued to threaten other users who edit "his" pages. Please take a look at this users legal threat. If any diffs are needed, please ask for them. Thank you. — Scm83x ^talk 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You missed Wikipedia:No legal threats. -- Longhair 15:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he may have to worry about the FBI having a word with him about wasting their time with silly reportings of people altering his userpage...-localzuk 15:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I sort of recused myself from talking to him, as he stopped listening to me. I know that there is active policy to block users involved in legal cases from further editing until legal issues are resolved. I do not think that this is what the user wants, and I'm reasonably sure that if he were made aware of that policy, he would stop. Again, I post this here because Bumpusmills1 thinks of me as a "lad" and therefore brushes off anything I say to him. — Scm83x ^talk 15:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bumpusmills1 thinks of me as a "lad" and therefore brushes off anything I say to him. There may be a reason for this that is unforseen by Scm83x. In the ways of my people one must earn respect. Respect nor trust is handed out freely. I do not think I've earned his respect nor the respect of anyone else here since my arrival. He feels unappreciated due to my calling him a "lad". Well his photo attests that he is a mere "lad" compared to some of us, right? I am not calling him "lad" out of spite or being mean spirited. It is a mere fact. One day he'll appreciate being called a "lad". I know when someone calls me a "lad", and it is usually somebody over age fifty, it makes me feel good inside. As one grows older perceptions change and things of this nature do not carry the same weight they once did. We all have too learn. An elder family friend said too me when I was a mere "lad" of sixteen, "A fellow never gets too old too learn something new. When you get too old to learn then it's time to die." It seemed confusing to me way back then, but now I find it profoundly true. So I'll overlook these comments by Scm83x and attribute them too his being a fine "lad". He does a great job as an editor. I'm sincerely glad he caught my seemingly threatening statements so I can eliminate them from my userpage. It is most appreciated. Wado, --Bumpusmills1 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the active harassment he's received on and off Wikipedia -- including having had his personal information posted here, and getting packages at his parent's house. (See User:Bumpusmills1/Archive_1#Deleted_and_recreated_user_page_to_remove_personal_info_from_history. So, in fact, the FBI actually might have something to get their teeth into were the local SAIC having a slow week. You lads had nothing to do with any of that, right? --Calton | Talk 16:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This issue is separate from the off-Wiki harassment that he has received. He has now threatened to report anyone who vandalizes any of his pages. This language is very sketchy to me. Calton, I do not appreciate the implication that I was involved in his off-Wiki harassment. If you would take a look at these diffs ([2] and [3]), you can see that we settled our differences a long time ago. — Scm83x ^talk 16:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to over-react about this. Bumpusmills1 is merely a newbie who is still learning Wikipedia guidelines and manners. He was targeted for some threatening actions over the last week and is a little freaked by it so has possibly overreacted himself. However, when I looked at his user page I didn't see the comment you refered to. Perhaps he already removed it. Anyway, I'd let it go and not sweat it. He's also made vast improvements in how he relates to other editors and I imagine if people would stop threatening him he'd mellow out even more.--Alabamaboy 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How many times do we let a new user break the rules under the guise of "he didn't know"? He has been warned about all of these things before. This has become a repeating pattern. The problem lies in his views that he owns any article that he edits, so he attacks those who make changes adverse to his vision for the article. Some of these users bite back. Neither is warranted in their actions, but I think if we could stop the root cause, Bumpus's views on article ownership, then the attacks would stop. The threats are still on his user page under "Bogus Users" and "My Userboxes". For a static link, use this. — Scm83x ^talk 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Scm83x, have you considered RfC? -- Essjay · Talk 17:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Has Bumpus caused any trouble over article ownership or edits in the last few days? I pointed out to him Wikipedia policies on how to act and edit and he thanked me, said he hadn't been aware of them, and (to my knowledge and the evidence I've seen) worked to improve the way he behaves. I now see the comments you refer to on his user page and will mention them to him. Odds are once he is aware that this is not permitted, he will remove them. He admits to being new and is working to learn things. An RfC is overkill for a situation like this. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now raised these issues with the user. I suspect he'll respond favorably to them but if not we can go from there. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting fairly tired of hearing about this, as with Scm83x. If he doesn't get his act together promptly, he's simply asking for a very long block. Ambi 06:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm now in compliance. It's best too let a sleeping dog sleep. Scm83x and myself are now in contact and working out our minor differences. As for who has been behind vandalism on my userpage and talkpage or elsewhere on wikipedia, I have a pretty good idea what external organization they belong too. Out of compliance to wiki-regulations I will not mention it here. --Bumpusmills1 12:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gazzle9

I just blocked this user with no warning for 24 hours due to posting sockpuppet notices on both User:Sam Vimes and myself [4]. I know I should have got someone else to do it but that's the second time I've been attacked this morning. Could someone else review it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the user's contributions [5] it's clearly a sockpuppet. Nobody uses {{sockpuppet}} on their first edit. Rd232 ^talk 17:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jamal al din = Zephram Stark/Peter McConaughey

Jamal al Din is a transparent sock of Peter/Zephram, per CheckUser, and has been blocked accordingly. Please keep an eye out - the style of interaction is pretty obvious once you're attuned to it - David Gerard 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added the sockpuppet id to the user page. Demi ^T/_C 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Eww. Ok, right to block.

However in itself there was nothing wrong with telling people about a vote. The suggestion to "put it on the village pump" is pretty ridiculous, as lets be honest; who apart from really dedicated people and admins read "the pump"? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

People who are going there to ask something. --cesarb 01:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

People who watch the pump and read the edit summaries, in case something there interested in comes up. -- SCZenz 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we also get a sock check on User:Fred Veraxamin? He picked up right where Zephram/Jamal left off. Carbonite | Talk 03:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On looking through that user's contributions, and his forged talk page, he is fairly clearly malevolent. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I've blocked him indefinitely as an account created solely for trolling. The account was created less than two hours after Jamal al Din was blocked. Carbonite | Talk 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, is it fine for Carbonite to be blocking these editors, despite the fact that he is an involved party? Shouldn't a neutral Admin block, perhaps at Carbonite's request? Just curious. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Admins are expected to block sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. It's only a tiny bit unseemly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block Jamal, that block was actually made while I was offline. The actions of Fred Veraxamin (forging talk page, continuing same message) showed it was obviously Jamal/Zephram. He was in the middle of disruption, so I blocked indefinitely (not necessarily infinite). If any admin believes Fred Veraxamin isn't a sockpuppet, let's discuss. Otherwise let's put "Getting it right" above "Following procedure". Carbonite | Talk 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • (How odd! My edit slipped in above yours, rather than giving me a conflict notice.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I feel the spirit of the policy is better than the actual words of the policy sometimes, but we have to remember that blocking people that you are involved with in a disagreement can be a serious problem. I don't doubt he is a sock, I just think that since other Admins are around, it wouldn't have hurt to just give one of them a holler to do the dirty work. Oh well, what's done is done. This case seems fine, but let's just not let this become too common. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in general, but I do think there's a significant difference between blocking for behavior and blocking a sockpuppet of an already banned user. In this case the actual identification was trivial (Fred Veraxamin was first spotted by Christopher Parham and I concurred that it was Jamal/Zephram) and thus it wasn't really much of a judgement call. But you make a good point that, when possible, neutral admins should block. Carbonite | Talk 04:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thumbshot revert war

213.8.83.40 (talk · contribs) looks due for a block. pfctdayelise 05:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-protection for the Batman page

Hey... over at the Batman page, we're having to revert the same changes being made from an anonymous user changing his IP several times a day. It's not vandalism, although the page gets a reasonable amount of that; it's just bad content, and the editor is being REALLY insistent about putting it in.

Not sure if this is the appropriate remedy to request, or the appropriate place to request it. Simnel 10:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the history of this page, and the contributions from anonymous editors seem substantial. I have not found any effort to discuss the recent versions that have been reverted. Semi-protection is a drastic step. I'm hoping some dialogue can happen first, and it won't be necessary. -- Samuel Wantman 11:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thumbshot and User:213.8.83.40

An anonymous IP user keeps adding a link and unverified information to the Thumbshot article in spite of several editors asking them not to until it can be verified, reversing reverts to their edits (in gross violation of WP:3RR, in spite of several warnings posted on their talk page, at least one block, and, perhaps most troubling, continues to edit other people's comments on Talk:Thumbshot.

Please help.

Wrathchild 13:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I got a heads-up on my talkpage regarding this IP. I have blocked it for a week for repeated spamming. If s/he returns after one week, I'll have no objection to blocking it again immediately. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A Comment Or Two

There are a few users who are highly concerned that I'm not learning wiki-ways or learning "how" to be in compliance with wiki-procedures, rules, etc. I am learning "how" to be in compliance. I've been here a month now and I've endured harassment, vandalism, and nit-picking; some of which I brought upon myself. However, some of it was not provoked in any way. There are some users who'd really like too throw me out the door and slam it shut behind me. Many of these same users I've had absolutely no contact with whatsoever until the last couple of days. I only contacted these same users in the form of a rebuttal. I realize few here have "any" respect for me as a person and I'm getting fairly accustomed too it. Do I like it? I don't like it at all, but there isn't anything I can do about it either. I have my own standard of beliefs, opinions, and views; as we all do, and I've learned too do my best too keep them out of the loop here at wikipedia. It isn't at all easy for a person as opinionated as myself too curb this. I feel I'm handling it and learning diplomacy, which I've admitted has eluded me all of my life. Some have over-reacted and are in the worry mode. Stop worrying about me for a while. I'm getting the knack of things. Wado (Thank you in Cherokee), --Bumpusmills1 13:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Australian politics vandal back

See Talk:Paula Rizzuto. This is the guy under 1000 sock names who I've been tracking several months. His MO is to make slanderous additions to Australian politics articles. In this case, he's created an entire article about a minor Australian political figure and edited it as User:StephenBengHo, which is the name of her husband. Of course, checkuser shows it to be the usual sock of 1000 heads.

I have a name for the sockpuppeteer, but won't reveal it until confirmed. But he's seriously trying to use Wikipedia as an arena for particularly stupid political games. His contributions are bad enough that I locked Paula Rizzuto blank with template:deletedpage; I strongly suggest this for other examples of his work, and to keep a very close eye on any pages about current Australian political figures, major or minor.

I previously made a range block on the IP, but the current one is a new range (same geographical area). Dealing with these one at a time. I'll compile a list of usernames later - David Gerard 09:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, vindication. Thank you, David. When you say Australian vandal with 1000 sock names, is he also the Crocodile Dundee vandal, or do we now have two vandals to watch out for? Ambi 09:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea. But see the email I just sent. I need the motivation and organisational abilities to keep copies of old Checkuser results on hand so that I can refer back to them when people like this show up over and over and over again ... - David Gerard 10:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this the guy who was trying to insist that Australia was a republic already? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin's RFC/ArbCom vote

This was brought to my attention in IRC: a user has posted a link to Kelly's ArbCom vote on the talk page of her WP:RFC (see [6]). The user talked to me at [7], based on a revert that I did at [8]. While I do not wish to engage in a edit war with this user, what do y'all think about this. I still find this disturbing and could lead to vote-stacking, though the original message itself does meet NPOV and CIVIL rules. Comments? Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 08:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[9] [10] These concern me. I don't think the message is proper. Input? --Tznkai 07:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

(the above moved from WP:AN#Possible vote statcking —Cryptic (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

Anyone who didn't see it coming, please raise a hand? (And its source surprises me not one bit, either.) —Cryptic (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the many comments in the RFC about the degree to which KM has or has not retained the community-wide trust needed to be an arbitrator, I don't see a neutral link indicating that she is a candidate in the current arbcom elections and telling people where to go to vote on her candidacy inappropriate. Since the official format of the arbcom elections includes oppose votes (although many have argued against this) it isobviously thought important when people disapprove of a particualr person as a candidate for arbitrator. And people who approve of KM's actions (and ther are quite a number) can just as esily follow the link. This is not the same IMO as a msg sent sepecifically to presumed opponents of a particualr candidate, urging them to vote agaisnt that candidate. DES ^(talk) 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In the end, Jimbo chooses the arbitrators, taking input from the community. He is, as is well known, a remarkably intelligent man, and I'm sure that he's capable of following edit histories and whatnot. I seriously doubt that any vote stacking attempts will influence his appointments, though the numbers on the wiki may be inflated. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As was pointed out, as this was placed in a public place in an unbiased way, it will attract both positive and negative votes, and hence not influence anything. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this another W-on-Wheels?

[[11]]. Apologies if it's not. Sbz5809 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to block in case it's a sleeping vandalism account, and then suggest the user pick a different user name. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This user already placed an explanation of his user name on his user page. I think it's kinda hasty to just ban him outright. — Scm83x ^talk 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the block was hasty. I reversed it [12] as soon as I saw WoWjUnKiE7206's assurance on his user page, which unfortunately did not appear on the user's contributions list until after I'd done the block. User SWD316 has also lobbied me, as he knows this user personally. Given this assurance, I trust that the user will prove a good Wikipedian. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reminder, people...don't block because you THINK it's WoW. If it's obvious, make the block...if not, we can run the risk of it attacking. Curps' bot will block them very quickly anyway. Ral315 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of process deletion of {{User GWB}}

{{User GWB}} is currently being discussed on WP:TfD. The consensus there seems to be inclining to "Keep". Current policy on WP:CSD limits speedy deletion for attack pages to articles. Policy discussions for extending this to tempaltes are ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Policy discussion on user boxes in general are ongoing at Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. In spite of the above, User:Tony Sidaway speedy deleted {{User GWB}}. I undeleted this, and he re-deelted it. i am not going to get into a wheel-war by redeleting it. i think this deletion is out-of-process, and given the various policy discussions no ongoing, very unwise. I call your attention to Wikipedia:Process is Important. I ask for the views of other admins and non-admin wikipedians on this matter. DES ^(talk) 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Current policy on WP:CSD limits speedy deletion for attack pages to articles. Now, that's absurd - if it wern't for WP:POINT, I'd immediately go and create 20 templates saying something unjustifiably unplesant about DES - which, since they are not articles, would then all sit on TfD for a week. Policy is a vacumm here, and process is an ass. Our inclusionist deletion policy was designed to prevent the deletion of encyclopedic material. The process to decide what was encyclopedic. Both are now being used byy a vocal minority to keep things that that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia. So we are breaking new ground in developing precidents for writing the encyclopedia, in response to new situations. That's where IAR pioneering comes into its own. Personally, I'd say, delete all non-constructive templates from the template space (userfy if you must), but certainly let's delete all the ones that disparage, divide and ask for disruption. --Doc ^ask? 18:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course such an action would be a violation of WP:NPA and lead to other consequences. But if you feel you must, go right ahead. DES ^(talk) 18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why we need a vote to recognize the obvious. I fully support the speedy deletion of attack templates of any sort. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

comes into its own, huh? <g, d&r> --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

And I forgot to say: fuck process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Next time, remember! El_C 18:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to DESiegel for not pressing the point of undeletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Enganging in a wheel-war will not persuade anyone of the value of my arguemments. Even if I should win, it would not help the project nearly as much as it would hurt it. That is the exact point of WP:PI. And when you say "fuck process" IMO you also hurt the project, even if you intend it as a joke. I urge you to consider if you are really helping the project by deleting this with no more justification than WP:IAR. Persue the various policy changes listed above -- they needn't take all that long if consensus is realy as wide as you seem to think -- and if it isn't, then perhaps summery deletion wasn't sucha good idea anyway? DES ^(talk) 18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing Wikipedia:Process is Important (authored by you two days ago) to our attention. Are you proposing it as policy/guideline? El_C 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Since it doesn't really incluide a rule of action it is perhaps not suitable for policy status. I hope it will become a basic philosophy statement adhered to by many here, and i intend to ask all future admin candidates to react to it. Perhaps in time it may becoem soemthing of a counterpoint to WP:IAR. Do you think it would be suitable for guideline status, given the way it is framed -- assuming it got sufficient suport to be considered, of course. DES ^(talk) 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I do hope that all in this disccion will read it and react to it on its talk page or in some other appropriate forum, but that is up to each of you. Currently i have categorized it as a wikipedia essay.

Encyclopedia. Say it with me: en-cy-clo-pe-di-a. Now, go work on it. android79 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to DESiegal: I'm sure that it says lots of useful things, but getting policy consensus out of a situation like this tends to require boldness. Not recklessness, just enough balls to take actions that focus attention on the issues at hand. Parts of our bureacracy have been clogged in recent days by some rather determined vote packing, but things are beginning to thaw and a consensus is beginning to form on what kinds of template, at least, are so unacceptable that they can be speedied. It's far from complete but it was significantly jump-started by the speedying of an anti-scientology template, quite outside process, followed by the out-of-process speedying of 15 more templates and an associated redirect, which have been discussed in some depth on WP:DRV and in outline principle on the talk page of WP:CSD. So we've got a bold proto-process in place, with an approval mechanism in operation and some embryonic policy formation on the back burner. Plenty of consultation going on, no reason for anybody feel left out. In my opinion, this is a pretty good way to cook. Where else do you think our original processes came from, if not by these darwinian methods? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with darwin. What it does have to do with, is that templates such as that are harmful and need to be kept in userspace (if that). Making templates for userboxes in that capcity is unneeded, and you can just as easily make userboxes that are confined to your own userspace. -MegamanZero|Talk 19:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Translation: I wanted to delete it, so I did. I know what's best. Whenever skirting that fine line between disruption and boldness, it helps to invoke how slow and unreliable deliberation can be. P.S. I've got balls. Color me thoroughly unimpressed. --Fastfission 19:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• It is sometimes true that reasoanble policy consensus can come out of "act out-of-process; descuss; formulate and codify resulting views" it is also true that much of current wikipedia policy arose in something like this way. It is my view that the act out-of-process step is not needed, adn is ultimately more harmful than helpful -- and that this is more tue the larger the scope of the action -- doing this to a single widely noticed template may get discussion going, while doing it to every trmplate to which the final policy might apply seems like an attempt to win the debate by forstalling it. So does re-deleting after undeletion, IMO, particualrly when the undeltion was accompanied by multiple comments indicating why users felt the deletion to be a bad idea. i accept that Tony had no intent to forstall the debatge, and he is pusing policy proposals, for which i applaud him. I wish he weren't quite so ready to be bold on deletion issues, WP:BOLD by its terms refers to editing issues. Perhaps I am wrong, but I disagree with this approach, and i think in the long run it will hurt us if it becomes common -- indeed unless it becomes rather rarer than it has been. DES ^(talk) 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• It shouldn't have been deleted out of process. That's what we have it for. I don't think the Wikipedia:Snowball clause would operate here, as there is a good chance of the consensus being keep. Izehar 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • NOTICE Someone has recreated this personal attack/troll template, please redelete it, and ban the person for recreation of a deleted page, also please delete and protect the talk page, they're using it as a staging area for an anti-bush campaign--Nn-user 19:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • NOTICE User:Nn-user's first edit was to an AFD page. The account was created today and he has both acted disruptively and shown a level of knowledge of Wikipedia arcana very unusual for a bona fide new user. I've requested a sockcheck. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't yet have a process for dealing with attacks that are made in template space and mostly deployed in user space. Except the one that I've been developing, with much cooperation from others, on WP:DRV, the talk page of WP:CSD, and here. And we seem to be well on our way. Do feel free to join in. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby removing POV tags

Can someone please block User:KDRGibby for repeatedly removing a POV tag from a section of Wal-Mart? He refuses to discuss POV issues with the section, and he won't even let people tag it as POV. This is disruptive editing. Diffs: [13] [14] [15]

I think the whole "response to criticism" section is original research which I'd like to remove, but I'm currently trying to engage in discussion with Gibby. Rhobite 18:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser

I've created Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser as a central point of contact for requesting sockpuppet checks. I'd appreciate it if someone would go and spiff it up and link it in to the administrative resources boxes or whatever we do for that sort of thing as I'm not very much up on those procedures. Thanks. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:66.59.105.22

Could a checkuser search (Kelly Martin, are you still around?) be used to detirmine if this IP is coming from a school or institution? The vandalism pattern of the IP seems to be juvenile in nature. Today its been directed towards Malcolm X. Theres a bunch of admins watching that page, but I would appreciate some direction before a block is instated (the user has been warned, by User:Hall Monitor). Thanks, in advance! Hamster Sandwich 20:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't need CheckUser for this: this tool shows it coming from West Perry School District, wherever that might be. android79 20:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

West Perry Township, Pennsylvania. [[Sam Korn]] 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Thank you very much! Hamster Sandwich 20:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui

User Siddiqui has twice deleted the link from the 'islam' page and the 'criticism of islam' page, once on 01:59, 9 January 2006 calling his edit 'spelling error' and again 18:50, 10 January 2006 calling his edit 'minor edits'. + Is this really acceptable? Any page should have criticism of the subject discussed, and it is already a concession to relegate criticism of islam to a different page. + The link seems necessary to lend any objectivity to the 'islam' page. + 129.12.200.49 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I posted a msg on User talk:Siddiqui cautioning him not to do that sort of thing again. DES ^(talk) 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This user has also removed referenced text in various articles without any explanation on the talk page or in the edit summary. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] and other examples. He seems to delete anything that is not according to his pov. --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 13:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

User:Nn-user registered today and immediately immersed him/herself into a variety of edit wars, including warring over various template policy issues. His very first edit was to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economics of fascism. He has also violated WP:CIVIL by calling other users liars for disagreeing with him. His behavior is very unusual for a newbie; can someone see if he is a sockpuppet of an established user? I have a suspicion about who it might be, but no way to back it up. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make this request on Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. [[Sam Korn]] 20:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to pick on you (since you weren't the first to do it) but it's just funny that there's something about a new centralized CheckUser thingy three headings above. :-) android79 20:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I posted the request on that page. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

White Rose Society

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Rose Society (website) has turned into one big flame war with all kinds of depravity and voter fraud and you name it. It is impossible to sort out, because it's under constant change, however if somebody feels like sorting it out, please do so. Dr Debug 21:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that most of these votes must be considered invalid. They're not signed, and it reaks of sockpuppetry. I suggest not counting all of the unsigned votes and continue the deletion process, with a reminder above stating votes must be cast with signitures. Just my opinion. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On the AfD's talk page, 67.171.38.176 (talk · contribs) has accused BenBurch (talk · contribs) of meatpuppetry. [21]. The user has only ever contributed to the AfD discussion. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I was tempted to block User:Freepersh8truth (only contribs are to the above AfD "discussion") for their username. Jkelly 21:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion is pretty seriously bad. I am also tempted to semi-protect it. The personal attacks are really beyond the pale. Jkelly 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just went in, and deleted every vote that was un-signed, including the personal atacks, I also placed instructions for furthur voting precedure. I also looked at the history, and all the IP's involved may need blocking. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yikes... would it be proper to SemiProtect an Afd? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. But I see the IP's are persistant- they need a block to calm them down. I also left a notice on the person's talkpage who oringinally put it up for deletion, as they didn't follow procedure and state their concensus why they wanted it to be deleted. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't do it. I have no idea if it would be "proper" or not, but I suggest that we don't want to be hosting that "conversation". Jkelly 21:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. When the IP's and "anonymous users" revert their attacks and such on to the page, just delete them. They need a block, however. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just done major surgery on the AfD page, and have blocked one repeated reverter for 24 hours. Whew. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In general i think that deleting commetns on an afd, even unsigned ones, is a mistke. Atrib them using {{unsigned}} and leave appropriate comments on any that are from logged in but new users. Trrue persoanl attacks could be removed, but I think thot ought to be the limit. DES ^(talk) 22:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

North American Man/Boy Love Association

There is a growing suspicion that the page has been infiltrated by right wing Free Republic activists. FR had already named the article as one to target for alleged liberal bias. A Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transexual category was added to the page unilaterally though there was no consensus. (Now in a vote the insistence of those responsible is that a super consensus is used to overturn the addition, even though questions arise not just over accuracy but whether it fits the categorisation guidelines. One user appeared and edited no other articles until the fact that he curiously appeared and focused on no other article, at which point he suddenly developed interests elsewhere. The particular user had engaged in a series of homophobic attacks on the talk page.

An attack has no appeared on [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts#46 their] page and followed through [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/replies?c=46 here] attacking someone they claimed is "a pro-homosexual administrator who guards the NAMBLA article to hide the fact that this group of pedophiles is homosexual."

Among the comments on the Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association from the user who suddenly appeared are

• Attraction to sexually mature teens under the age of consent just makes one a "Fag with Good Taste," not a pedophile.

Two users seem to have appeared in or around the date of the Free Republic stuff and in one case primarily edit the NAMBLA page, one almost exclusively do so, using extreme and provocative comments. The first edit by one of the two, at least using a usernic, was curiously to the name of the admin [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/replies?c=46 this page had attacked]. It all seems rather fishy. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to reject your, uh, interesting conspiracy theory here, Jtdirl, but I'm not conservative, I'm not a homophobe, and I've never seen those pages you linked until now. In fact, I argued against the category at first, but then I was (rightly) put in my place by Corax and Freakofnurture.

I also find it ridiculous that you could even fathom Hermitian's "Fag with Good Taste" comment as an insult. // paroxysm (n) 21:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, not everybody who disagrees with you is a part of some large conspiracy. I've been editing the article in question for over a year. The article in question remained peacefully classifed in Category:LGBT organizations for over eight months before this ordeal, contrary to your characterization that it was recently "added unilaterally." Quite frankly, I am tired of the insinuations and outright accusations that I have setup sock puppets, that I am not making my contributions in good faith, and that I am a part of some conservative cabal seeking to attack gays. In fact, I am gay. But I suppose these are the kinds of low tactics to which one must stoop if one does not have tenable arguments to propose in support of one's positions. Corax 06:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of Anakinskywalker and Hipocrite over University of Ottawa

I'm reporting this here because I just blocked Anakinskywalker and Hipocrite 24 hours for violating 3RR and editing disruptively. Hipocrite is dissatisfied with his block and I wanted to submit it for others' review.

Anakinskywalker and Hipocrite both violated 3RR on the University of Ottawa article, however Hipocrite reverted himself on his last edit [22]. I blocked him anyway because I don't believe the revert was done in good faith; his edit summary read "oops, one might argue I just violated 3rr. I'll wait for AS to get blocked then fix the article again." Anakinskywalker is a relatively new user and as I have watched their dispute, it's my opinion that Hipocrite has taken aggressively uncompromising stances [23] [24], skirted the boundaries of incivility [25] and, in this case, baited Anakinskywalker into taking actions Hipocrite knew would get him blocked. Anakinskywalker has not been an angel either [26], but my impression is he's significantly newer than Hipocrite.

I welcome other administrators' review. For the record, I've offered to lift both of their blocks if they agree to avoid editing the UO article for the time period in which they would've otherwise been blocked; Hipocrite has yet to respond to this, but has posted this on his talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite has agreed, and I'm lifting his block. However, I still welcome comments. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I may have, looking at things with 20/20 hindsight and an imposed 20 minute editing break, flown off the handle. I still believe my conduct to be head and shoulders above the other parties, but clearly not up to the standards I set for myself. There is no need for another adminstrator to review what was clearly a valid block. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record they have both been blocked before for edit warring on the exact same article. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For a more accurate record, I have never been blocked before. [27] Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-spoke. Anakinskywalker has been blocked before for edit warring and 3RR violations on that page. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pandora Rodriguez

I have indefinitely blocked this user as a sockpuppet of banned user Zephram Stark. For more information, see Carbonite's evidence at WP:RFCU. [[Sam Korn]] 22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to find out whether commons:user:Pandora Rodriguez is the same user. I'm thinking that it's extremely likely, given that the…interesting…image which used to sit on PR's user page here is hosted on commons and currently makes up the only contents of both user and talk pages for c:u:PR. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to ask a steward. There should be a page on meta for requesting such attention. However, I think that is probably a no-brainer. The user is quite clearly the same, and I seriously doubt that image is GFDL. [[Sam Korn]] 17:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Modgrrl

At a quick look User:Modgrrl's edits all seem to be additions of links to [28]. I noticed because of an irrelevant link added to Home! Sweet Home!. Probable spammer, in my view. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Pretty obvious spammer. I recommend a block. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Death metal

As you can see on the article Death metal, there is a user named user:METALGOD42088 who is adding external link to his own death metal site. I follow his link, and its not an extremely popular site. www.ultimatemetal.com/ and www.anus.com/metal/hall/ are extremely popular sites, so I do not feel it is relevant to add his external link to his own page. Now am I in the wrong for removing his link? I forget the term, but I believe it can be found:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Someone please respond what should be the the correct course of action.

(Opes 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Vandalism on Basketball

I'm not entirely sure on how the semi-protection policy works. But Basketball has had a lot of vandalism recently. Is this a candidate for semi-protection? history of 'Basketball' Neonumbers 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! Let's see if that would stop anons from vandalism. Feel free to unprotect it when possible. Cheers -- Szvest 03:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

That was quick! Thanks. Neonumbers 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's probably better if requests like this are made at WP:RFPP. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Morton devonshire

Just wanted to give people a heads-up on User:Morton devonshire. Makes some good edits, but also others, usually with political POV, that border on vandalism. Has been repeatedly warned about the latter, but simply removes warnings from his user talk page. I figured I should mention here, since if you have an issue with him and go to his user talk page you'll have to look at the history to see that he has been warned repeatedly. warning from me, warning from Schuminweb, removal of latter, removal of former. Schuminweb restores both warnings, Morton accuses Schuminweb of being my sockpuppet. Etc. Then later he blanked this. Similarly with warnings from Will Beback and Skywriter. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

SEWilco's arbcomm restrictions

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 places SEWilco (talk · contribs) on probation using the follwing language:

4) SEWilco is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, SEWilco's Probation shall automatically end.

SEWilco has been placing notices on the talk pages of what appears to be everyone who voted against William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) in his previous WP:RFA, notifying them of WMC's current RFA. This appears to be blind spamming - Dunc received this message despite the fact that he had already voted in WMC's second RFA. Since campaigning in RFA's is generally frowned upon, and SEWilco is on probation for regarding to disruptive behaviour (stemming, in part, from his previous campaigning against WMC), I believe that SEWilco has violated the terms of his revert parole. Guettarda 08:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I had already voted when I got SEWilco's message (for the record, I voted support this time around). Letting people know about an RFA is one thing, letting only the people who voted oppose last time is another thing entirely, and quite inappropriate. --Deathphoenix 08:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As I had stated on my Talk page, I misread part of the list and notified some who had already voted. You can see in my Contributions that just after Deathphoenix, after Encyclopedist I noticed the error and backed up to the right part of the list. Some redirected names also show up in nonalphabetical order. (SEWilco 08:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Incidentally, don't you see it as inappropriate to not notify all the parties to a discussion? None of you told me that this discussion was taking place, so I almost was again unable to correct erroneous assumptions being tossed around. (SEWilco 09:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

I certainly agree this is both spammy, and inappropriately partisan. Touch and go whether it rises to the level of "disruption"... Alai 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

concur with the above. I suggest a stern warning and if he reverts his own edits, and/or apologizes, let it go for now.--Tznkai 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Grace Note has now opposed WMC's second RFA, after getting a similar talk page message, and I highly doubt she would otherwise have voted. This is disruption of WP (in this case, an RFA) to make a point (that he opposesthe candidate). Even without ArbCom ruling I'd advise any admin who wants to take this up to block for a WP:POINT. NSLE _(T+C) 08:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're letting your voting POV show. You're only mentioning an Oppose vote and not the two Support votes from two others notified, Calton and Carnildo. I'm not the one interfering with an RFA, as I'm trying to notify everyone equally in the previous RFA who has not participated (and thus does not need notification), and complete notification is what is required for it to not be spamming. El C already has interefered by removing some of the notifications. (SEWilco 08:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

The question is whether Calton and Carnildo knew about WMC's 2nd RFA before they were notified, even if they didn't vote until after they were. In this case I doubt many of the opposers did until you mentioned it. NSLE _(T+C) 08:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't know about the RFA before the Talk Page note. I also voted "Support" in the first one, so if SEWilco was trawling for "Oppose" votes he was doing a bad job of it. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I have no idea how who would have voted. As I already said, I edited out the votes from the lists and sorted the lists alphabetically specifically so I wouldn't know how they had voted. (SEWilco 08:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Try acting upon the facts rather than incorrect interpretations. Guettarda is incorrect. I am notifying everyone who participated in the first RFA but not yet in the second RFA. I edited the list before extracting the names in a way that I can't tell who voted for or against in either RFA. Dunc changed his signature between the two RFAs so "User:Duncharris" does not match between the two RFAs. (SEWilco 08:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

I am unsure whether this is actually a major improvement.Advertising RfAs tends to lead nowhere good.--Tznkai 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, don't always follow RFAr, and was not aware of WMC's candidacy until I saw SEWilco's posts appearing on my watchlist. But I agree that advertising RFAs is a bad idea. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it's disrupting Wikipedia to let me know that someone whose RfA I opposed is asking for the mop again. I welcome it. I'd have been annoyed to miss the vote. I welcome the notification of anything another editor thinks I might be interested in. If I don't want to know, I can just ignore it. What's disrupted?

This notion that votes should be semisecret, with only those who happen to stumble on them (or who are emailed or telephoned by interested parties of course) able to vote on them, is bonkers. I've never seen anything even approaching a decent rationale for it. Grace Note 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I request that User:El C's rollback of my notifications be rolled back so the required full notification is restored. You'll note that this discussion has also interefered with my notifications, and should not consider the current partial notifications as a factor. When I have time to continue I'll complete the required full notification. Below is the list. (SEWilco 08:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

User:Actinide
User:Alteripse
User:Audiovideo
User:Axon
User:Bishonen
User:Boothy443
User:Borisblue
User:Calton
User:Carnildo
User:CDThieme
User:Columbia
User:Cortonin
User:Cyberjunkie
User:Dbachmann
User:Derex
User:Dmn
User:DropDeadGorgias
User:Duk
User:Duncharris
User:Ed Poor
User:El C
User:Eloquence
User:Facethefacts
User:Fastfission
User:Flcelloguy
User:Fred Bauder
User:Ghakko
User:Gkhan
User:Grace Note
User:Hadal
User:JamesTeterenko
User:JCarriker
User:Jdforrester
User:Jonathunder
User:Juntung
User:Kaibabsquirrel
User:Karmosin
User:Kelly Martin
User:Klonimus
User:Linzer2002
User:Lucky 6.9
User:Marco Krohn
User:Mel Etitis
User:Mike Halterman
User:Morven
User:MPerel
User:Netoholic
User:Neutrality
User:NoPuzzleStranger
User:Noren
User:Doradus
User:Petaholmes
User:Radiant!
User:Radicalsubversiv
User:Redwolf24
User:-Ril-
User:R.Koot
User:SchmuckyTheCat
User:Scimitar
User:Seancdaug
User:Secretlondon
User:Shem Daimwood
User:SimonP
User:Slrubenstein
User:Stewartadcock
User:Stirling Newberry
User:Stormie
User:Sunray
User talk:Denelson83
User:TimLambert
User:Trilobite
User:Tznkai
User:Unfocused
User:UninvitedCompany
User:Viajero
User:Wikibofh
User:Willmcw
User:Wyss

I'm not quite prepared to do so without further input from others here. Please review my rational on User_talk:SEWilco#WMC_RfA_notices. El_C 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be notified of anybody's RfA. Please don't spam my talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rolling back (unrolling?) the edits makes no sense, since both the original message AND Guettarda's rollback lit up the "New Message" banner, meaning that the recipients have had the chance to see it already. Unrolling (rerolling?) the edits will be redundant. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point - I didn't unroll any messages, El_C did, and I think it serves the point of saying SEWilco shouldn't have done it, while at the same time leaving the message (since the recipient will get the new message message). But the issue is that SEW was put on probation for his last set of spammy activities regarding WMC. He should have known better than to do this, regardless of his intentions. Guettarda 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What spammy activities regarding WMC were involved in the RFAr? I should be better at sending these messages if I've been doing it before. (SEWilco 16:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

The notification on my talk page was removed. I have reverted the removal. I resent anyone removing any msg from my talk page (other than myself). It is also quite ineffective since I tend to look at the diff of the last msg sent, which obviouly highlights the removal. I also do not see that a general announcement to those who might be interested, as evidenced by their former participation, is in any way a bad idea, particualrly when name changes are involved. Indeed it might be a good idea to routinely post the names of nominees with a link to the RfA page to the Village pump, for greater visibility and hence greater tranparency. Targeting announcements to presumed suporters or opponents is a bad idea, but a neutral msg (which the one on my talk page was) to a neurally selected list (which User:SEWilco says this was, and no one has offered any evidnce to the contrary in this thread) does not seem undesireable to me. DES ^(talk) 16:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I will refrain from editing your talk page in the future. Sorry if I upset you. Regards, El_C 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would support, under the terms of the parole, putting SEWilco under a restriction modeled on the restriction against Everyking regarding me. Are there two admins who would agree here? Phil Sandifer 16:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See #SEWilco blocked from commenting on William M. Connolley. -Splash^talk 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bogdanov sock?

Govin (talk · contribs) has been removing links to Bogdanov affair from articles. His second-ever edit was to replace the redirect at Bogdanoff affair with a copy of the page itself. Crossposting this to WP:VIP. --Angr (tɔk) 14:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Range blocks

I've range-blocked 72.36.128.0/18 and 209.67.208.0/20 indefinitely. These ranges belong to Layered Technologies, a hosting company that appears to be hosting at least one open proxy with roving IP addresses within these ranges. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu

Leyasu has been on Wikipedia for 2 months and since has been making edits on various articles that have lacked factual acuracy, fair-point-of-view or encyclopedic format. Most attempts in making a discussion with this user results in personal attacks and name-calling from him/her (and continued reverts) as if Wikipedia were some kind of personal battleground on who's right and who's wrong.

The origin of the problem stemmed from the Gothic Metal article, involving a revert war that included myself, other users (for one version) and Leyasu (his/her version); there was no concensus on this discussion, and Leyasu eventually posted his/her version without said concensus. Rather than flare another revert war, I placed a (((verify))) tag at the top of the article, and like the beginning, the user has still failed to provide sources for the points argued in the discussion board for their article. The same goes for the Symphonic metal article, and now the Dark metal article. Per Leyasu's discussion page these three articles are not isolated incidents. The dispute process at this point is for naught. I would appreciate admin input on this matter. Thanks, Danteferno 14:20, 14 January 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure

I ran across User:Jim Apple advertising this betting pool on when deeceevoice would leave Wikipedia. My immediate inclination was to speedy it and block the user for disruption, however, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, assume good faith, and give him the opportunity to llist it for speedy deletion himself. I left a note to that effect on the user's talk page, further indicating that if he chose not to, I would list it on MFD and bring the issue here to discuss whether a disruption block was in order. He did indeed choose not to have it deleted, and true to my word, I have listed it on Mfd (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure) and am now raising the issue here to get input from other admins as to whether a disruption block is in order. Given the controversey surrounding deeceevoice's RfAr, I am astounded that a user would do this, but further, I'm astounded that a user would disregard two administrators (Jmable also spoke up against it) protesting against it and pushing for him to have it speedy deleted. I have been online since 6AM this morning (it is 1:30AM now) so I am going home to bed, but I leave this situation in the capable hands of my fellow administrators and rest assured that you will see it solved. -- — Essjay · Talk 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have speedied it as an attack page. If anyone wants to put it up on WP:DRV, fair enough, but that page was simply unnaceptable. -- SCZenz 06:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The page was recreated immediately after the deletion (my guess is that it was an edit conflict, not a deliberate recreation) so I have re-speedied it to maintain SCZenz's speedy. — Essjay · Talk 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1. It wasn't a betting pool; there was no betting involved.
2. I am shocked that you're shocked that someone would disagree with two administrators at one. I'm sure it has happened thousands of times before, and will happen thousands of times again. Jim Apple 08:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • It's three administrators now (and I'm sure that more will join me). We're telling you that you're breaking the policy on civility and probably the one personal attacks, and that you're being a dick about it (and yes I'm being a dick by calling you a dick). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Make it four (and yes I know that Tony Sidaway and I agreeing on something probably heralds the end of the world).Geni 12:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With me, that makes it five (or 4.5, depending on how you see newbies). --Deathphoenix 12:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My comments are on WP:DRV. This is particularly nasty. Whatever you think of Deeceevoice she is a very useful contributor on subjects Wikipedia has otherwise poor coverage. This page treats her serious concerns over the way she's been treated in a flippant manner. No-one deserves that. In other words, make it five. David | Talk 12:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that she has contributed much. That's why I stated that I want her to stick around. I diddn't mention think racism on Wikipedia, so I certainly couldn't have treated it flippantly. -- Jim Apple 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim Apple clearly intends to cause provocation; his perpetual passive-agreessive bewilderment notwithstanding. El_C 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You admit that its wrong to call me names, but you do it anyway? I think that's more abusive behaviour than disagreeing with admins. -- Jim Apple 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

well, I agree with the deletion, but give the guy a break. What he did was not "POINT" since he didn't disrupt anything. What he did was not a PA, it amounted to saying "I don't like you" I suppose, and there are many ways of saying that, many of them frequently seen on talkpages. What he did was poor wikiquette. We tell him we consider it poor wikiquette and delete or blank the page. Dcv is not exactly an unproblematic user herself, what with the insistence on keeping the Nazi vandalism featured on her page. Again, well done deleting the page, but making a "disruption" case out of this is a little over the top imho. I would be grateful if the disruptive editors I have to deal with would confine themselves to their own userspace :) dab (ᛏ) 13:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You lost me. El_C 13:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

He's saying there was no personal attack. -- Jim Apple 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying Jim didn't "disrupt the functioning of wikipedia", and he didn't call dcv names to her face. He was not being nice, and should just accept that he was scolded for disregard of wikiquette, keep the page deleted and move on. dab (ᛏ) 13:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's his insistence on the right not to be nice that has me concerned. The issue is basically settled in my view, but I do kind of wish he'd stop harranguing me and Tony about citing m:Don't be a dick to him. It seems rather applicable. -- SCZenz 14:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to review the situation, and the user's respective contributions again, dab. El_C 14:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no right not to be nice on Wikipedia. You are highly encouraged to be extremly nice, and to avoid any possible meanspiritedness, especially when it is pointed out to you. At anyrate, no good will come of the page, its deleted, there is massive concurance, lets move on.--Tznkai 17:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• "We're telling you that you're breaking the policy on civility and probably the one personal attacks, and that you're being a dick about it (and yes I'm being a dick by calling you a dick). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)"

• sigh* - how on earth do you expect users to respect NPA when admins don't? Or is it one rule for users and one rule for admins? Two wrongs don't make a right you know. Responding to a personal attack by making one yourself only aggravates the situation. Users should not make personal attacks. Admins should definitely never make them, as they're supposed to be setting an example. 84.65.13.206 13:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Probable open proxy blocked

I'm blocking 142.150.204.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a probable open proxy. This IP has been used to create multiple user accounts with obviously inappropriate names (full titles of recent movies) and is vandalizing. The IP is at the University of Toronto. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is another in this series. What IP is it using? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to another IP 142.150.205.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I wonder if we're going to have to block all of 142.150.204.0/23. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Further sockpuppets of User:DickyRobert have been created. I have imposed the one month range block which Kelly suggested and hope that will end matters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjakkalle (talk • contribs) .

This problem has moved on to 142.150.160.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (the University of Michigan vandal, below). I'm starting to wonder if we will have to block all of uToronto in order to get the attention of their computing services department.... We'll give it a try: 142.150.0.0/16 blocked for 4 hours. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

PackerFan1000322 blocked indefinitely for uploading copyrighted photos

WikiFanatic blocked PackerFan1000322 indefinitely for uploading copyrighted photos from NFL.com and other websites, after being repeatedly warned to no response. I agree with this block, though since I didn't see it publicized anywhere, I figured it should be posted here. Ral315 (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, he apparently did respond... [29] Ral315 (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Were these headshots of the players or other types of photos? android79 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Most were headshots, though I know of at least one action shot. In any event, many of the pictures were unsourced, and I don't believe he tagged them either. Ral315 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but AFAIK headshots are probably fair to use; see {{promophoto}} (the wording of which has been made stronger since I last used it myself; that's troublesome). If they were unsourced and untagged, though, then I've got no problem with this block. android79 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Unsourced material. And by the end, he was blanking pages and the like. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

1 week block of User:Nixer for violating WP:3RR

I have blocked User:Nixer for 1 week for violating WP:3RR no fewer than 10 times including at least one other 1 week block. He has protested this block, but as he is blocked, can not bring my actions here for review. As a result, I'm bringing them here myself in case someone disagrees with my actions. Wikibofh_(talk) 20:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, having experienced firsthand what it's like to work with Nixer, and having observed his pattern of actions, find this block completely justified.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 20:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• The original 3RR report I acted on can be found here. Wikibofh_(talk) 20:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like your block was entirely appropriate, and your bringing it up here was also appropriate. Good work, fellow custodian. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. I didn't get the mop just to use it as a wig.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I (and many other users) have been in a content dispute with Nixer where he has been conducting some magnificently bold revert wars. He knows that he has violated the 3RR and yet proceeds, I can't imagine what is going on in his brain while he is doing these things. He recently nominated one of the disputed article for deletion. I call that blatant trolling and IMO that alone could justify this block. Check the revision histories of the articles in question:

• Comparative military ranks of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Basque language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He has been pushing an extremely odd POV on these articles and has been opposed by many editors. He revert wars consistently and he knows he is doing it. He continued to revert after the compaint had been filed. I have no idea what he thinks he's doing, perhaps he can't understand the 3RR, but I think he is a very problematic user. Izehar 21:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixer is extremely difficult. Most of the time he doesn't even appear enough sense for me to understand what he wants. Maybe he'll learn, maybe not, at least the block buys a week's peace. dab (ᛏ) 21:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The previous block had no such effect. Time for a month, I think? — Dan | talk 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it's probably time for an RfC or Arb. It's probably past time, with that many 3RR blocks. Wikibofh_(talk) 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  I concur with both Wikibofh and Dan. Nixer has also numerous copyright issues, see my comments on his talk. --Ghirla | talk 10:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Talrias & SlimVirgin

Sorry to bring this up again everyone, but I feel this is important. There's been a lot of public vitriol between us lately and it's spilled over into a number of pages and unfortunately a number of people have been drawn into what was originally a legitimate disagreement of opinion but escalated out of hand. I take my share of the blame and I would like to apologise to everyone but most importantly Sarah for my attitude, my comments towards her, and how this has affected her and those also involved. I've apologised to her privately but I thought I needed to apologise to a number of other people too and I thought this was the best way to do so. Thanks and once again my apologies. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude! I think the community consensus is that comments as mature as that have no place in Wikipedia. If you continue in such reasonableness, you may expect sanctions. ;) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If all comments were as mature as you say that comment was, then they wouldn't be needed! Interesting paradox. Thanks for your forgiveness. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Talrias, thank you for that. It's very decent of you. I apologize to you too, and to anyone else who was affected, and I'm really glad we can put it behind us. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, it's good to see that there's some sanity left on this place. karmafist 03:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Aww, Wikilove! --Golbez 05:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yaaay!!! I love you guys :).--Sean|Black 05:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Grееbo

User:Greebo was blocked by Curps and has requested to be unblocked, but I don't know what to think. Please see User talk:Grееbo and comment. Thanks. Izehar 22:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That was G-r- Cyrillic-e Cyrillic-e -b-o, not "Greebo" as you indicated above. I blocked it as a confusing username (spoofing Latin letters with Cyrillic or Greek). -- Curps 23:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP address. Don't know if the account itself should be unblocked, but Greebo (whom he was thought to be imitating) has no edits. David | Talk 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new name and was able to make the edit I wanted to. Thank you David. The account with the cyrillic characters can be deleted. By the way, this page is huge. Greebo the Cat 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That is without doubt true. [[Sam Korn]] 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

University of Michigan vandals blocked

1. 20:04, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:Hermite The Frog" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
2. 20:04, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:Seller" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
3. 20:04, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:DoodBlocker" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
4. 20:04, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:Teh Priest" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
5. 20:04, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:Analysty" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
6. 19:59, 11 January 2006 Tznkai blocked "User:Analysty" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism)

--I hit them all for 24 hours because I'm not quite sure how the autoblocker works for periods longer than 24 hours, but this should do it. If someone could check user so we can just ban the IP, I'd be happy.--Tznkai 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It was the featured article yesterday, and is still linked from the main page. What makes you sure that these are the same IP? Ral315 (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

you came late to the party I think, and I may have missed a couple. All of these accounts had one vandalistic edit, linkspam, and usually the same link--Tznkai 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Machine translations

Zonk43 (talk · contribs) is mass-posting what appears to be machine translations from other Wikipedias of articles on churches. Some are somewhat comprehensible but for instance, Sankta Klara, Stockholm, is two lines of complete incoherent gibberish, translated from the beginning of the Swedish Wikipedia. As I pointed out on the user's talkpage, anyone trying to clean up these articles will in any case need to know the original language (and have access to the original text) to see through the absurdities which result from automatic translations. Unless someone rewrites them immediately, most of these articles should better be deleted. u p p l a n d 01:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange revert war at Benjy Bronk

If an administrator could lend me a hand with Benjy Bronk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that would be really great. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I semi-protected it. No idea why people want to remove all the external links and cats.. that's vandalism. Rhobite 15:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Intentional disregard of WP:FU by User:MegamanZero

I happened across an inappropriate use of unlicensed media on a user page today at User:MegamanZero. I removed the inappropriate use and informed the user that I had removed it on his talk page. He has since replaced the removed image. Since I follow 0RR with respect to admin actions, I've merely notified the user that I will report his disregard of policy here. And so I have. I request that some other administrator remove the image again and take such appropriate measures as to ensure that this user returns to compliance with policy in this regard. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: User:MegamanZero altered the license on the image in dispute from "fair use" [30] to "free for any use" [31] in order to get around the fair use policy. This alteration of the license was based on no legitimate claim and was clearly done with total disregard for our copyright policies and the copyright law. I am therefore blocking MegamanZero for one month. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is OTT, though I agree with the block on principle. Would you agree if I reduced it to one week, with a "don't do this again or else" note on the user talk page? [[Sam Korn]] 19:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree he needs a block, but a month seems excessive. android79 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I can live with a week. Note that under policy I'm entitled to block him indefinitely; Jimbo has sanctioned a zero-tolerance policy for this sort of thing. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. Another violation -> month block. Further violation -> indefinite block. [[Sam Korn]] 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A week sounds good - it sends a clear message of "no". And, of course, much longer would be appropriate for any repeat of this -- sannse (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll reduce the block to a week and update the note on his talk page. Thanks for the advice. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This guy is an admin? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Who? MegamanZero isn't, no. Kelly Martin might be; I can't quite recall. -Splash^talk 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That entire statement "0RR in respect to admin actions" does kind of give it away. ;-) Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I must have misread. Thank god. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• These Fair use and other copywrite issues are confusing to many people. Megamanzero is a fairly new user, but he shouldn't have replaced the images under a new proported license. Is a one week block a bit long in light of the fact that he is still fairly new and seems to be quite youthful?--MONGO 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He's not all that new, having been here for at least a couple of months, and deliberately applied an inappropriate copyright tag, implying he knows precisely how copyright tags work. I imagine if he establishes by email with Kelly Martin that it absolutely won't happen again, and Kelly is satisfied of that fact, that the block can be shortened or lifted. But that's up to Kelly. -Splash^talk 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest that a user savvy enough to alter the copyright template on an image in an attempt to get away with copyright infringement doesn't get the benefit of claiming a lack of experience with how we deal with copyright issues. I suggest that the user in question is being treated quite leniantly in not getting indef-blocked. Jkelly 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • NO, it's not up to Kelly. I won't lift the block, but I think he is just very youthful. If he agress and apolgizes for his transgressions, the block should be reduced to 48 hours in my opinion. And an indefinite ban, Jkelly?...you're joking of course? What are we here, a lynch mob?--MONGO 22:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't kidding. There have been a couple of statements recently by User:Jimbo Wales indicating that copyright infringement is serious enought to indef-block for. Jkelly 22:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of those statements by Jimmmy Wales. They pertain to more egregious situations from my understanding.--MONGO 22:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as less serious than two cut-and-pastes from IMDB done over a year ago. I'll grant that its reasonable to disagree with me about that, though. Jkelly 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I will lift the block, it looks like that rfc wasn't enough to end the lynch mob mentality that MONGO's talking about here. You think Kelly would have stopped all of this after that rfc. I try to take some time off, and I see that she's still at it... karmafist 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, leave the block in place, I gave Meagman instructions on what he really does need to do..--MONGO 22:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Karmafist has lifted the block anyway, replacing it with one of his own choice. Karmafist is cruising for trouble. -Splash^talk 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Karmafist, if you are reading this, I request you cease making decisions that are not backed up by consensus. There was not consensus for Kelly's original block. I shortened it. There was consensus for my block. You shortened it. There is not consensus for your block. I don't intend to change it again, but I request that you think more carefully before using your admin privileges in future. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 23:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I can't believe that with an ongoing discussion an admin takes such unilateral action. It shows total contempt for process and concensus and abuses admins powers (hey, wasn't that what Kelly was criticised for in the RfC.... - looks like the pot and the kettle). --Doc ^ask? 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• MONGO is right (and so is Doc); I say, let him take over this case. El_C 01:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I say the 1 week block should be restored. That's what had consensus, and consensus is good. -- SCZenz 08:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the block should not be restored. Don't get me wrong, Karmafist was wrong to shorten it. I think the 1 week block was appropriate, but it is not fair to put MegamanZero in the middle of our fights. Karmafist is an admin, and we need to live with his decisions in this case. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 09:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Megaman Zero appointed me voluntarily as his mentor a couple of weeks ago. As there are enough eyes on this case and he should know not to do anything like this again, I propose that the block remain as forty-eight hours. If he doesn't take copyright very seriously thereafter , then a one-month block would be deserved. I know that an indefinite block may be considered in circumstances where someone has knowingly tried to fiddle the copyright policy (this would apply if he did it again, see this), but this is a user who genuinely wants to help Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems very petty for a copyright issue. Just delete the picture and be done with it. Is a block really necessary? Let alone threats of an indefinite block for what, listing a picture without appropriate copyright? There's so many pictures on here without proper copyright that it's not funny. Whilst that is an issue in itself, I don't think that someone should be blocked over something like this. If its a repetitive thing maybe, but not as a one off. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Um....let's clear this up, shall we..? Since there are so many misconceptions regarding this situation, and everyone seems to be able to read my mind except for me(!), I'll just say that this was all a immense misunderstanding. My valid argument can found here. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Other stuff

Would you consider similar action in relation to this removal of a copyvio statement? (See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 January 6) for abuse associated with this action). User:Noisy | Talk 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because this says that the material is indeed Crown copyright. (Unsurprising — it's a crown!) The linkedto list suggests it may appear on some userpages, but I haven't checked them all. -Splash^talk 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you read this portion of the page you cite?

Copyright of photographs on this site appears alongside each photograph. Copies of many of the photographs appearing on this site can be obtained from the sources listed below. Pictures must not be copied, used or reproduced by any means or in any format (including other web sites) without the prior permission of the copyright holder.

User:Noisy | Talk 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The odd thing is that at the source where it says the image is from does say it is under crown copyright [32]. Maybe we should send it to WP:PUI and see what they say, or we can just look on the Commons for a crown photo. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 19:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has Image:Kamelia shojaee.jpg on her user page which is also a fair use image, been on there a while it looks like. funny how only certain people get targeted by certain admins isn't it? -_-

This is also just as intentional, see this edit and this edit.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate policy is at Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy (which is an official Wikipedia policy). It states at bullet point nine (my bold):

Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages.

User:Noisy | Talk 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed that photo from another user page, but Slim was telling me on my talk page that the copyright situation is being "worked out" with the artist, who lives in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I still think the photo should be removed for the time being, but I am not going to engage in a wheel war over it. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Fair_use#Counterexamples: Some people find it easier to understand the concept of fair use from what is not fair use. Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: … A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War SlimVirgin, used without permission to illustrate an article on the war SlimVirgin. Also note Raul's 4th Law. The image is released under a promotional tag, so it's safe to say that promoting the artist or the Iran Cultural Heritage Foundation, and quite likely the nation of Iran is covered under the image's licence. Promoting the SlimVirgin is not. And I'm sorry to say that this: stating on User:Zscout370's talk page that Iran is not party to the major copyright treaties to be able to keep the image is cheap and disrespectful. Let us respect the artist's intellectual property, even though she does not live in a country that is a signatory of the Berne Convention! Pilatus 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Commons even has a provision about copyrighted items from the Islamic Republic of Iran. [33]. I also believe that Jimbo said that we should respect Iranian copyright though they are not a party to any of the various treaties. [34] Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 01:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This was apparently released for promotional purposes, so fair use isn't being claimed. Give me a few days to hear back from the artist, and if I don't, I'll remove the image myself. In the meantime, I'll add her name and some other details to make sure that I am "promoting" her. I wish as much energy was expended tracking down and removing defamatory, inaccurate, unsourced edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipdia doesn't allow "with permission" images anyway does it, because it's not verifiable other than the person asking for permission? I remember someone saying that. And yes it is fair use, the tag on the picture says fair use clearly (note that SlimVirgin did not take the photograph of the art or upload it) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 08:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Permissions (i.e. verifications of a release under the GFDL) can be verified by emailing permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org. [[Sam Korn]] 11:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the artist wants to or intends to release the image under the GFDL - definitely hasn't so the image is a clear copyvio in its present state: what I'm referring to is SlimVirgin's comment that she will "try get permission from the artist" --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the location of this artist, there is pronbably few times that the artist might even email, so I will suggest this: SlimVirgin launches an email explaining about the Permissions/GFDL and all of that good ol' fun stuff and explain about where the email should be sent to to grant permissions. Until we get a response back from permissions, I respectfully ask SlimVirgin to remove that photo for that duration. Once we get the email and the artist give us the green light, then SlimVirgin can put it back. Deal? Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 09:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewfro

There seems to be a minor edit war/revert war going on at Jewfro, with one user and an IP contributor who may or may not be the same user reverting to reinsert PoV content. Extra neutral eyes would be welcome. My attention was called to thsi on the help desk. I have placed a msg on the talk page of the relevant user. DES ^(talk) 00:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have nominated that page for deletion as a neologism. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was in a revert war last Thursday on this article, and the other editor was putting in nonsense. In one summary, he called me a vandal Sceptre ^(Talk) 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby vandalizing section-pov tag

I asked about this earlier, did not receive any responses. User:KDRGibby is repeatedly vandalizing Wal-Mart by removing a POV tag from a section which he wrote. He does not engage in substantive discussion, he only says that he has "addressed" complaints so he is entitled to remove the POV tag. I would like an uninvolved admin to talk to him and/or block him for vandalism. I am trying really hard to resist the urge to block him myself.

This is disruptive editing. Diffs: [35] [36] [37] [38]

Also a personal attack: "I'm repeating again for your thick skull" [39]

Yeah, I am going to complain about this until someone looks into it. Is there some sort of admin shortage all of a sudden? Someone deal with this please. Rhobite 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

well, I'm pretty sure this constitutes an edit war, incivil behavior, and possibly general jackassery, but it isn't vandalism. I'll leave him a stern warning.--Tznkai 07:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, having reviewed the history breifly, it looks like this is developing or has been an edit war. While his comments are uncivil, its still an edit war, which generally require more than one particpant, unless someone self-reverts a lot.--Tznkai 07:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not accusing me of doing anything wrong. I'm adding a POV tag to an obviously opinionated section, and attempting to engage in dialogue with Gibby. If Gibby wants, he can revert my attempts to fix the section, that's fine. But I'm not going to let him remove the POV tag as well. POV tags function as a "release valve" for edit wars - the party that is unwilling to revert war (me) can instead add the tag and engage in discussion. They are meaningless if we allow anyone to remove them. The general protocol on Wikipedia is that nobody should remove a POV tag until there is consensus that the dispute is resolved. Most admins frown upon removing valid POV tags. Rhobite 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I frown on it as well, I'm simply stating that its not vandalism, and edit wars are bad, whatever they are over. For what its worth, you are correct that it is original research, but thats a verifaibility dispute, not a pov one, but thats semantics. At anyrate, I issued a blanket warning, and first, second, third, and fourth person to sneeze funny gets slapped. I don't see how thats a problem--Tznkai 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you finally met Gibby. He's been warring everywhere. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood and Huaiwei Article Bans for Category:Chinese newspapers

I may be the wrong person to do this but I haven't seen anyone else step up to the plate. Since I'm user banning both of them from this category page I'm hoping I won't be accused of bias. If one simply reviews the edit history of the cat you will see these two going back and forth over the same issue from their ArbCom case that resulted in probation [40]. The warring on this cat has been going on for more than a month. Per that decision I placed the ban notice on the talk page and notified them both. I am sincerely hoping that this ends here, the edit warring has to stop as if another Arb motion[41] wasn't enough to stop them already.

I realize that since I was an advocate for Instantnood this may be seen as bias, I think it's obvious to one looking at the category history but I welcome any reasonable comments on my actions. --Wgfinley 09:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good shoot, and indeed exactly like their Usual Revert War. Of course, I still have the niggle that, as I pointed out when the decision was being finalised, much of this dispute was over catgeories, and those aren't expressly included in the probation (though at least on arbiter has expressed the view that it covers them regardless, by what seems to me some Mysterious Method). Alai 09:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I also support this move. Ambi 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, but I noticed this post (and linked from the one in my talkpage) only after doing my "routine" of going up my watchlist and basically scrutinising every instantnood edit and making reverts/edits where neccesary. Meanwhile, may I point out, that the revert warring is much more widespread then otherwise suggested above. I even posted a list of "current hotspots" several times before (including in this very page), with little intervention from admins so far.--Huaiwei 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And your "routine" could be considered wikistalking and by ArbCom precedent has been shown to be an offense that can get you banned. My suggestion to both of you is to quit following the edits of the other around, this is how this keeps occurring. Also, I would cease the POV-pushing into just about any article that has anything to do with China, the dispute is the same carried from page to page to page as shown below. I'm well aware it was going on, I chose this one to make the point and apparently it didn't take because today you two have been at it again. I'm not the only one following this now and I strongly suggest you guys try something to work out your differences before it gets one or both of you banned. --Wgfinley 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all.. Thanks so much for help bringing the issues towards resolution. While I understand that sysops have to respond accordingly as mandated by the ArbCom decision, I'd like to emphasise that it's much more important to help Wikipedia to solve the trouble through discussions, with the inputs from the broad community who're familiar with the issues. Only by doing so can we get out of the trouble by mechanisms of consensus building. — Instantnood 19:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Huaiwei Block

I blocked Huaiwei for 48 hours for this edit [42] in violation of the article ban. The talk page shows the ban took effect at 4:01 on 11 Jan [43] and his edit was after that. I picked 48 hrs because 24 hrs has previously been tried in this case with little effect. --Wgfinley 03:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I notice the 'user ban' templates on the talk page say that people should contact the banning administrator, but they don't actually reference who was the banning administrator was! Is it possible to add the name of the admin in the template? novacatz 01:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, changed it. --Wgfinley 01:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

SEWilco blocked from commenting on William M. Connolley

Per the consensus of myself, Ambi, and Extreme Unction, SEWilco is blocked from commenting, either directly or indirectly, on the actions of William M. Connolley. This is to be interpreted liberally. This restriction is to last for one year, or until we believe that SEWilco can distinguish what actions are appropriate in respects to other users. Ral315 (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should also say that this block is in conjunction with the Probation placed upon SEWilco per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. Ral315 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all happy about SEWilco's harrasment of WMC, but... is it not the ArbCom which has the power to enforce such sanctions? Please correct me if I have misunderstood something. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Strike that, I see the remedy now. Good. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I object. This flies in the face of freedom of speech. Yes, SEWilco sometimes can be a PITA. Yes, some of his comments and behavior violate WP:Point or WP:AGF or WP:CIV. But there is no reason for a blanket block on a whole class of comments. This message will go to User talk:SEWilco, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 --Stephan Schulz 14:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia. See WP:NOT. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia is a great vehicle for freedom of speech. The closest I could find at WP:NOT is "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.". Fine. As far as my interpretation goes, this applies to vandalism, POV-pushing, massive anti-consensus edits to the article name space, and so on. I don't think there is consensus that "regulation" should go so far that a whole class of comments on talk pages can be outlawed for a year. I am certainly not part of such a consensus. --Stephan Schulz 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Regulated" free speech would not be free. This restriction is a "regulation" that, if within the bounds of the ArbCom's decision, is entirely appropriate. I think the question is: is this restriction within the bounds of the ArbCom's decision. That's a valid question. But it just clouds the issue to bring up inapplicable concepts like free speech. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A consensus is not required; the imposition of this restriction is pursuant to an order of the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee has determined that such regulation would, when applied by the agreement of three administrators, be in the interest of furthering the development of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a "vehicle for free speech" or a soapbox; it is an encyclopedia, and speech which does not further the development of the encyclopedia can be curtailed, especially when it becomes disruptive. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think consensus is the main method of decision making on Wikipedia. I know about the ArbCom decision. In fact, I initiated the reopening of the case. ArbCom created a tool that I disliked at the time, fearing misuse. I think it has now been misused. I quite agree that "speech which does not further the development of the encyclopedia can be curtailed". But apparently we disagree as to where this starts. Disallowing comments on someone who currently stands for office (and whom I very much support, BTW) is a very strong and, in my opinion, very much anti-productive restriction.--Stephan Schulz 15:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Assuming when you say free speech you are referring to the First Amendment, it doesn't apply here. First, it says "Congress shall make no law." Sorry, we aren't Congress, we're the cabal. Second, we are a private foundation running a private website; we can ban who we want, block who we want, and restrict the contributions of who we want, and the only things that we have to answer to are our own policies, which we can change at our discretion, and Jimbo Wales, who formed the ArbCom and gave them the power to issue orders like the one against SEWilco. Outside of that, we can censor what we like. You have two rights on Wikipedia, and two rights only: the right to fork, and the right to leave. -- Essjay · Talk 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You missassume. I'm speaking about the abstract concept of free speech that has been recgnized by nearly all reasonable enlightened societies to have a massive overall beneficial effect and that hence is enshrined in nearly all modern constitutions as well as in e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I don't claim there is a right to free speech on Wikipedia (altough I do hope there is a strong community consensus for a reasonable right to it), I claim we should have and allow (reaonable) free speech. I don't claim I have right to a burger this evening, but I still think I should have one. I also think this ban is hasty, unproductive, and plain sucks. --Stephan Schulz 15:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

there is no "free speech on Wikipedia" any more than there is "free speech on Britannica" or "free speech on Stephan's cellphone". "Free speech" means that you are free to speak, using your mouth, or media in your possession, without fear of punishment. It does not mean that you may use media paid for by others. Where do people get the idea that there is anything like a principle of "free speech" on Wikipedia?? What you do have, on Wikipedia unlike Britannica or Stephan's cellphone, is the right to speak, at all, within strict bounds known as Wikipedia:Policy, as long as you are not banned. After you are banned, you have no right to speak, even within policy. dab (ᛏ) 15:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this action is probably a mistake. I have seen no evidence supporting it, and I see no reason to cooperate in enforcing it. I urge its reconsideration. It is apparently within the letter of the current ArbCom ruling, but I think the admins imposing this block ought to lay out their ressons in detail, either here or on some page to which the provide a link here. DES ^(talk) 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As to "free speech" the legal protections of free speech in the US Constitution apply to govermental action and do not apply on a privately owned forum such as this, as others have said above. But I hope that free communication is an important value on wikipedia, and that we would tend not to block speech unless it is positively disruptive to the goal of building an encyclopedia. DES ^(talk) 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That is by no means as clear as some people seem to think. To quote from Marsh v. Alabama: "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." Wikipedia is about as open fot the public as possible, and it is certainly for the advantage of the owner (who wants us to build an encyclopedia). But I'm not arguing for a legal right to free speech under US or other law. Wikipedia is not primarily a number of files on a hard disk. Our goal is to make a great encyclopedia. But our tool for doing this is the Wikipedia community. And I think that we as a community, essentially making our own rules (under Jimbo's benevolent, but remote dictatorship) should recognize a reasonable right to free speech. As I wrote above, that does not extend to massive vandalism or similar. But commenting on the actions of someone who runs for office is one of the most elementary, most protected form of expression in any society. If SEWilco uses spamming for that, we should censure him. But a reasonable way to do this would be a revert and a limited block (for, say. 24 or 48 hours). --Stephan Schulz 23:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll: SEWilco not blocked from commenting on William M. Connolley

I request that "three or more Administrators" remove the above "block" on my "commenting". I note that my recent comments on WMC have been within his RFA. It is not clear if "commenting" includes the neutral "you may be interested" phrasing in my incomplete WMC RFA notifications. I'll note that the above block gives no indication of how many Administrators opposed such action, and only says there were three who supported it. (SEWilco 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

• Note that the probation does not say "a majority of admins" gets to decide this, but "any three administrators". The number of admins opposing the action is not important, and there is no provision for any three admins to remove the block. Therefore the outcome of this poll cannot have any effect on the block. Eugene van der Pijll 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Support (remove block)

1. So fart as i can see, the block seems top ahve been imposed for sending neutral notifications to a neutrally selected lsit of an ongoing RfA. I do not see this as disruption nor as a valid reason to block. DES ^(talk) 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Rd232 ^talk 00:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose (keep block)

Comments

1. Was the sole reason for the block the notifications of the ongoing RfA, or were there other reasons? I do not want to support lifting a valid block, nor to act out of ignorance. DES ^(talk) 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

   In the run-up to the second climate change arbcomm case, SEWilco repeatedly posted to WWP:AN/3RR regarding months-old violations of WMC's arbcomm parole (these issues had already been raised before the arbcomm, and they had made no comments). Subsequent to this, the arbcomm agreed to re-open the case, lifted the restrictions against WMC, and placed SEW on parole for his actions (the text is quoted higher up this page. SEW's latest action was of the same spirit as his prior actions for which he was rebuked by the arbcomm. While I think that the language used is somewhat extreme, this "block" would appear to fall under what the arbcomm ruling allowed. Guettarda 17:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Why are we deciding this by democratic fiat?--Tznkai 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
3. The Arbcom didn't give 3-or-more admins the right to remove such a restriction. It just gave 3-or-more admins the right to impose one. We could, if it were warranted, tell the 3 in question that we think they were wrong; but this strawpoll wouldn't be binding in any case. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

   So, as I recall from the enforcement requested blurb, this particular strawpoll is pointless?

4. Having spent considerable time dealing with SEWilco's previous efforts regarding WMC (the 3RR/parole episode), I nonetheless find it hard to understand this decision. Possibly the failure to explain the rationale is a factor here... On the face of it, SEWilco has had a difficult-to-enforce restriction imposed without terribly good reason (per DESiegel above). Furthermore, Wikipedia sanctions are, in my understanding, largely preventative, not punitive: since WMC is unlikely to go through an RFA any time soon (since this would require desysopping first, barring the unlikely failure of the current RFA), what purpose does this restriction serve? (If the restriction relates to other behaviour, why isn't it mentioned in the remark that begins this section?) Note also that this restriction does not merely place a burden on SEWilco, but potentially also on others who may have to deal with the fallout from it. If his actions deserved a temporary block (for disruption, say), fine. Just because the Arbcom made this restriction possible does not mean it was the right thing to do at this time, in this way. Rd232 ^talk 00:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

   It is preventative. SEWilco has been harrassing WMC for months with all means at his disposal (not just his RfA, but things like wikistalking and bringing up repeated frivolous requests for sanction). WMC needs a break, and it was precisely this sort of behaviour that the arbitration probation was meant to cover. This shouldn't effect SEWilco's editing in the slightest, and should he behave himself, will likely prevent him from getting a more serious ban for the same reason. Ambi 02:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

   As I indicated, I'm aware of SEWilco's past behaviour, having been involved with dealing with some of it. I just don't think this particular behaviour alone warrants this sanction - it seems disproportionate (1 year, blanket no-commenting), if you take into account that he was being relatively neutral in terms of who he was contacting. It also seems to require a fairly liberal interpretation of the ArbCom decision: "If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia..." This, in my view, does not qualify, especially as in the ArbCom context it relates most obviously to the use of a bot. Has there been other recent behaviour that could reasonably be considered harassment of WMC? That would make all the difference to my view of this sanction. Rd232 ^talk 11:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

5. This "poll" is a horrible idea from start to finish. It miscontrues the nature of the arbcom remedy, but more to the point, while it'd be one thing if some large number of admins spontaneously opposed such a measure (for the record, I support it), for the subject of it to immediately start initiating "appeals" and other made-up-on-the-spot processes is entirely another. A good-faith attempt to comply with these restrictions really would be the best way to "circumvent" them, in the longer run. Alai 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to saw, SEW, this is not good behaviour. It is not for you to decide how admins are to decide their consensus. Your restrictions were validly invoked under the ArbCom ruling. If you want the admins' decision overturned, you should contact the Arbitration Committee. Admins, other than those who initially imposed the ban, are not able to revoke it. [[Sam Korn]] 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this poll is crazy. Second of all, the use of this measure is straightforward - simply put, most of the case regarding SEWilco regarded his harassment of WMC. This brings that to a halt.

Thirdly, regarding SEWilco's questions about the limits of this, allow me to be clear, though speaking strictly for myself. The purpose of this injunction is to prevent SEWilco from causing WMC the slightest bit of distress, irritation, or difficulty. The clear message is not "moderate your conduct" or "only be impartial," but rather "leave him the hell alone." Should SEWilco find bold new ways of being a problem for WMC, he should expect these bold new ways to be forbidden as well. Should he focus his attention on other people instead of WMC, he should expect to be pried off of them by force as well. There are no rules here to game. We are playing Calvinball. If we do not like how the game is turning out, we will simply change the rules until it turns out right. It is thus far more important for SEWilco to understand the goal than the rules. For that, there is no literal phrasing to parse - there is only common sense and basic decency. If he lacks those, there is nothing that can be done for him. Phil Sandifer 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it so clearly Phil. I agree. Guettarda 02:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Bleh: more spamming. Dragons flight 05:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours, as the clear and explicit intention here was to find another way to make the notification. Phil Sandifer 05:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I endorse Phil's actions. Guettarda 07:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The block I have no problem with: there's a clear rationale and a clear and proportionate remedy. Incidentally, SEWilco raises a valid point here: if we must have this type of "blocked from commenting" sanction, we should find a specific name for it. I suggest ASBO. Rd232 ^talk 11:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated long-term personal attacks

Rbj (talk · contribs) has engaged in repeated long-term personal attacks against me. I've informed him, numerous times, of WP:NPA, however he refuses to stop.

• 06:38, December 31, 2005
• 20:35, January 1, 2006
  • 20:39, January 1, 2006 - here is where I direct him to WP:NPA (I've done so other times as well)
• 01:06, January 12, 2006
• 02:35, January 12, 2006
• 02:49, January 12, 2006

Some help here would be appreciated. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: someone blocked rbj for 48 hours (or until an apology is issued) for personal attacks. Quadell 15:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That was me, but he has since e-mailed me indicating that he will not. Oh well.--Sean|Black 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

North Carolina vandal has promised never to vandalise again

User_talk:A_Man_For_The_Glen. See also [44], where he posted as 63.19.131.31.

We'll see. I unblocked 63.19.128.0/17, taking him at his word (I'd just as soon leave it unblocked whenever possible, since there's a good user at that range). I also unblocked User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes since he claims he wants to use this account "to do good." It's easy enough to block again if necessary, and now we have a promise we can hold him to. Antandrus (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remington_and_the_Rattlesnakes_and_the_Socks? Not promising... Dmcdevit·t 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... Indeed I'm skeptical too. This is the first time I remember him actually promising to stop, and he also made this interesting edit [45] changing his vandalism to past tense. If he vandalises again ... ka-blam. Antandrus (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes!!1!! [46] He has threatened he will start vandalising again unless I unblock his account! What shall we do!! LOL. (By the way, I did unblock this account last night-- [47]. --Doesn't exactly look like it was a good-faith promise to stop vandalising. I needed a laugh this morning anyway. Antandrus (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Deeceevoice and GFDL

Deeceevoice made a comment on her user page [48] "And in case you're wondering, no. I don't agree to free license diddly squat." I wasn't sure we shared the same definition of "free license", so I asked "You're still licensing your diddly squat under GFDL, aren't you?" Her reply [49] was "Still? Never did." As far as I know, licensing under the GFDL is completely non-negotiable. I think it's very important that someone who's more familiar with copyrights look into this potentially serious situation. Carbonite | Talk 11:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to Wikipedia:Userpage#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space, userpages are GFDL like everything else. What a person can deny however, is licensing the materials with the Creative Commons license. I am not entirely sure if any action is needed unless Deeceevoice starts to make trouble with people who want to make derivative works of her userpage. (Besides, who would want to do that?) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A similar attitude came up with Pioneer-12 (talk · contribs) back in July of last year. Pioneer-12's intent was not to licence his non-article space edits under GFDL. Following discussion on WP:AN and the mailing list, it was decided then that an indefinite block would be imposed until such time as he agreed to abide by the mandatory GFDL licensing terms. (Such a block would be immediately lifted should the editor in question agree to abide by the terms of our license.) If Deeceevoice genuinely intends to stop contributing under the GFDL, she cannot contribute at all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

OK... thanks for the info. I am never happy about blocks being applied to reasonably sincere contributors, but I agree, if Deecee is serious about this, then she cannot edit Wikipedia, GFDL is a very important part of Wikipedia. Perhaps a formal warning first might be best? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant - if you hit the same button, you agree to license you contribution under the GFDL. If someone says "what agreement" point them to the line under the box they type in when they write. Guettarda 14:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity over whether click-through licensing is actually legally binding. As a result of this, there has been general agreement that people who openly state that they do not want their contributions licensed under the GFDL should not be allowed to continue making them. Dragons flight 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If the text at the bottom is legally binding (and Wikipedia seems to assume it is), then when a user enters text into Wikipedia the user does agree to license it under the GFDL, whether the user later denies it or not. A similar case would be if a person went to an Apple software store and asked to purchase some Apple software, but stated out loud that he does not agree to the terms of conditions, even though he will click "yes" in order to install it. Since such a case has never appeared before the U.S. court system, no one knows how that would play out - it would be up to Apple to decide whether to sell it to him or not.

But it doesn't sound like she's really obstinant about it; it just sounds like she wasn't aware of what she agreed to. Someone should simply notify DC in as non-confrontational a manner as possible that all text she entered is explicitly licensed under the GFDL, as specified in the not-so-fine print at the bottom of each edit page, and move on. (Unless she comes back with an unambiguous denial of some sort.) I wouldn't elevate this unless there's no way around it, and though DC can be reactionary and uncivil sometimes, she usually responds to friendly reasonableness with reasonableness. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I did ask her in a rather friendly manner "You're still licensing your diddly squat under GFDL, aren't you?" and the response seemed quite unambiguous "Still? Never did." It's probably all a moot point now, since it seems that she agrees [50] with Sannse's comment that contributions have to be licensed under the GFDL. Carbonite | Talk 15:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should make an issue of it unless she does, at least in a more forceful and less ambiguous way. Fred Bauder 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere out there, an encyclopedia awaits. El_C 14:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda. She is essentially signing her name to the agreement much as one does when downloadingg software so if she doesn't agree with GFDL she shouldn't sign. But whatever she claims, she is legally making the agreement in signing and wouldn't have a hope in hell of preventing anyone using her published work because she has signed. it could be pointed out to her that regardless of what she thinks she has signed a legal agreement every time she edits and as she is not above the law she cannot negate the reality of having signed, and that if she doesn't want anything else released under GFDL she must herself stop editing because if she continues she is putting her legal agreement to release it under copyright. If I sign a contract and then claim I didn't mean to my declaration would have zero value in court so she shouldn't be blocked merely for blowing off steam and showing a poor understanding of her actions (ie that she has signed all her works over to GFDL). Wikipedia has done all it needs to in forcing people to agree to the GFDL and doesn't need to act further (but I am no lawyer) SqueakBox

this is obvious. but we have a precedent of blocking a user who said they didn't agree with GFDLing their contributions. Since we don't know what "diddly squat" means precisely, we may not assume that dcv is actually refusing to honour the GFDL. In any case, dcv is behaving increasingly abrasive, even considering she was provoked by vandals or stalkers or whatever, and is in my impression rather close to risking a community block dab (ᛏ) 15:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

H-m-m. This is interesting. Frankly, I just put that blurb on my user page, prompted by something another user (I consider him a stalker) said about seeing something elsewhere on the Internet that read like me. So, you're telling me I could press this and prevent Wiki from disseminating my ish if I so chose? And if consent is automatic with editing, why do people go around asking people to put a blurb on their user page stating that they consent? If it were automatic, and unambiguously/bindingly so, why bother? What's the real deal here? Dragons flight? Anyone? (Just curious. This has piqued my interest.) deeceevoice 15:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The only blurb worth putting on the userpage is the one where you agree to multi-license your contributions with both GFDL and Creative Commons. If you don't declare that you are multi-licensing with CC in some way, then you haven't licensed it with CC here. As long as you agree to licensing everything under GFDL there is no problem. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe when a new user account is set up, it could be required that the user activate a check box that says, "I know that contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GFDL". --JWSchmidt 15:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It is my view, and that of a number of lawyers who have studied the matter, that the "contracts of adhesion" created by "click-through licensisn" as well as the older "By opening this box and using the software, youa agree to..." are not legally binding. if so no such sign-up check box would be binding either. In copyright matters particualrly, there has been a tendancy not to accpet adhisive or implied licenses in the face of contrary explict statemetns. There has not, so fr as I know, yet been a case testing click-through software licenses. All that said, i see no reason to press this at the moment. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In the past I have, without controversy, indefinitely blocked one user who claimed an exception to the licensing terms of the GFDL, on the grounds that they were in a de facto legal dispute with Wikimedia (I think this was the pioneer-12 case mentioned above). I am reluctant to do this here because Deeceevoice is a party to arbitration proceedings, but I think that the situation should be considered by the arbitrators, so I'll make an application for an injunction. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that she seems to have acknowleged that her contributions are GFDL as of 10am today. Let's not make mountains out of molehills. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone bothered to address her concerns about mis-attribution? El_C 22:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because rather than pointing us to an instance of misattribution, she has claimed that someone told her that somewhere out there on the internet is something that looks like her writing but is not attributed to her. That's about as close to meaningless as you can get, I think. Babajobu 07:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't meaningless if it serves as the impetus for her concern, and if a simple, albeit general, answer can respond to it. El_C 10:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Alteration

Grace Note altered a signed request for comments I made at Wikipedia:LGBT notice board to insert his/her agenda into what I created as a NPOV RfC (as NPOV as could be given its location, anyway). Then s/he labeled it a "minor adjustment." Is this the proper place to report that behavior? According to his/her user page this user has been blocked fairly recently already. Is this a blockable offense or what? Thanks for your attention. Dave 02:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note is a relatively well behaved user. I don't track what he gets up to, but I put a suggestion on his talk page about this. It's a bit careless of him and he should have appended his own comment instead. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dave 02:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I genuinely didn't notice that I'd adjusted a signed comment. My apologies. Tony, I haven't been banned under any user name. That's an untruth and I ask you to retract it. I could edit under the old user name tomorrow if I chose but I don't want to. Please retract the personal attack, remove it from this page and notify me at my talkpage that you have done so.

Dave, if you have a problem with something I do, the first thing to do is leave a message at my talkpage. I'm very approachable. Bar one stupid drunken incident, which I apologised to the person concerned for unreservedly, I've adhered to the policies of Wikipedia throughout my time here. What I'd suggest is not a good approach is running to teacher to try to get me blocked over something that could could be and in fact was entirely innocent. You and I have a disagreement, not a war. Please try to remember that in your dealings with and about me. Grace Note 02:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Grace. I genuinely misremembered the result in that case. You were banned (prohibited -- Grace Note.) from removing an image from an article. You left for a while and then came back with a new username. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have refactored both comments to remove the suggestion that I was banned from editing. I hope you'll feel this is satisfactory.Grace Note 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. Tony accommodated the clarification about not being banned; making him seem to make an evaluation he didn't make isn't quite "refactoring." I've restored his words (or tried, to, if I made a mistake, I apologize to all). Demi ^T/_C 03:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony has left his personal attack suggesting I'm a sock of a banned user on the page, and used the word "banned" again. I am not a sock. This is the ID I use to edit Wikipedia. Under my former ID, I was prohibited from removing an image by Tony's clique after we disagreed about it. In line with this guideline, which Tony himself has often followed, I have removed the personal attack and I have noted his comment to remove a further suggestion that I was banned from editing, which I was not. If Tony has a problem with the editing, I know he'll be in touch. It's not becoming for admins to make personal attacks against unempowered users, and even less so for another to support it. Please don't. Grace Note 05:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I again apologise for imprecise and offensive use of words. Yes, you were prohibited, and strictly speaking your quiet adoption of a new username was not sock puppetry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)