Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive97

Vandalism levels

I am currently doing an interview for a newspaper and they want to know about vandalism levels. Has it gone up or down in the past few months in your experience? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say down. I took a few-week break from admin'ing recently and noticed a definite reduction when I returned to it. The days of WP:AIV being 15 IPs deep seem to be gone. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of schools are out for the summer, which probably helps. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Down, absolutely and without question. School letting out changes everything. In my experience, it will pick up sharply as school lets in, then slow again as the blocks get reinstated. The Evil Spartan 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it's been mostly around level 4 the last couple of weeks, prior to that it was mostly level 3 or even sometimes 2. Gandoman 21:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies in advance..

If this is the wrong place to put this, but I tend to not just blindly revert edits. This morning, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive61 was edited, with selective sections removed, by User:66.99.1.98. (See revision differences Here.) I was hesitant about editing any admin pages without asking first, (unless obvious language violations,) so I thought I'd let an admin take care of it. Hope that's okay! Cheers, ^Ariel♥Gold 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can't see a valid reason to edit an archive unless it's to remove evidence of wrongdoing, so I've reverted it. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that anyone who's deleting selective sections of an archive is vandalizing, and probably for a specific reason. Any revert would be welcomed. Natalie 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for the input. While I'm not hesitant in reverting obvious vandalism, I tend to take quite a bit longer with things that are not so obvious, and when in doubt, I feel it is better to ask for other opinions. :) (Also, I know bots archive the Admin pages so I did not want to mess anything up there.) Again, thanks for the speedy replies, and the solution! ^Ariel♥Gold 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And he's back as 66.99.0.188, same edit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I semiprotected the page. That should stop him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious edits to noticeboard archives from that range are almost certainly by the Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/George_Reeves_Person. Look at its extremely interesting history and deletion log if you are curious. He still edits here, typically on boxing-related articles (Rocky Marciano is where he most commonly edits), but I haven't seen him blatantly vandalise in a while now, other than to try to remove, in sneaky fashion, old discussions about him. His misspellings, comma splices, non-native diction, and obsession with removing threads about him give him away. Usually he edits from a Chicago Public Library range. Antandrus (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

George Reeves Person (also known as User:Boxingwear) is obsessed with proving that he/she is not Boxingwear (among other things), and so tries to delete sections from the archives related to that. If he/she notices one person constantly reverting and you have email set up, you'll start getting barely coherent emails. (Imagine a poor English speaker completely wasted and typing with one hand. It's that incomprehensible.) Don't bother answering - they'll just end up threatening various acts of violence. Natalie 23:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you fully protected it. Can someone correct this please? --Edokter (Talk) 01:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

High Database Server Lag

Resolved

 – The Evil Spartan 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The high database server lag is so annoying. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And I am having a hard time spotting and reverting vandalism. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really an issue requiring administrator attention, and unfortunately there is no Developers' noticeboard. Administrators can't do anything about the lag. Leebo ^T/C 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but not much the admins can do. The closest you can get is WP:VPT, which the developers watch a lot. The Evil Spartan 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

trying to contact someone

Resolved

 – The Evil Spartan 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Will the administrator who posts as "Xeth" on Slashdot please contact me?

Thank you. Moryath 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If "Xeth" from Slashdot is a Wikipedia administrator, wouldn't it be easier to ask him directly what his username is? Leebo ^T/C 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked there too but slashdot doesn't have a method to directly message another user; all I can do is respond in a given thread. I figured this might help find him.

That would be me. --Eyrian 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Railpage - Urgent

As the Railpage Australiaarticle stands it is vanity advertising [1]. Pending the outcome of Peer Review[2] to prevent it from becoming more blatant and to eliminate "Blitzkreig" editing [3] please lock or semi protect. Thank you.Tezza1 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Protect or semi protect (from anonymous IP users) is still required [4], a Administrator will eventually have to do it, either now or after the edit war [5]. Even though I have issues with the content, I'm happy leaving it as is, see Discussion - Recent Changes - need for third party review [6] I'm trying to organize some Peer Review [7], that's a bit hard attract if there is a "flood" of editing (you'll drive them away- maybe thats the purpose?). Thank you.Tezza1 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, did you see my action at WP:COIN? Durova^Charge! 21:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people have the right to disagree, there are some who can't play by the rules. Request some sort of lock on the Railpage Article until some independent input arrives.Tezza1 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you see my point. Your e-mail isn't enabled, so please contact me offline. Durova^Charge! 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how, but my mail seem to be okay. Send againTezza1 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The link from your user page isn't working. You can reach me through my page. Durova^Charge! 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I haven't heard from Tezza1 so here's the long and short: considerable disruption has occurred on that page (a third AFD on the page closed on 23 July and a fourth opened and closed while I was dealing with this). I issued a 24 hour block for WP:NPA on one of the IP addresses. Then, after I was pretty certain the block had been evaded, I proceeded with a WP:RFCU request on my list of suspected socks. Additions to the checkuser request are welcome if any others are hidden in the corners of the drawer. Once I posted that request I semiprotected both the article and its talk page for a week...or perhaps I should say I placed the lid on the honeypot. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, FailpageMustGo (talk · contribs) has been canvassing a bunch of people, including myself, for spurious AfD nominations, like the one he just filed. --Haemo 04:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked before I got to it. Durova^Charge! 06:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer on a rampage.

Sockpuppets of User:Meganium are on the loose, vandalizing several articles abut animated programs (particularly Class of 3000}. Be on the watch. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've protected Class of 3000 for a few days, hopefully that should stop the problems for the time being. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review requested

I just blocked User:SChiz414 for reinserting a cut&paste copyvio on Perry Ellis International after I had previously removed it and warned him. Since I had been involved in cleanup of this article previousl, to some extent in conflict with this user, i request a review. DES ^(talk) 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good block if you ask me, you warned him, he repeated his action and got blocked. Cut and paste moving is serious but understandable for users that don't really get the copyright implications - this user got told bluntly and continued. After reviewing the users talk page, it seems that they don't care too much about copyright by all the non free image warnings they have. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page, he's got some real issues with licensing too. He hasn't worked out how to use his talk page either: [8]. No objection from me--maybe someone could sit down and work with him? Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, this wasn't a C&P move it was a paste-in of info copied from an external web site (Specifically the corporate hoem page of the subject firm). Info that is significantly NPOV, to boot. DES ^(talk) 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Contemplating a Block Notification Bot.

Just FYI, there is a discussion happening at AIV about a potential bot request for a bot to automatically put a message on the talk page of blocked users. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea, contrary to WP:DENY, some admins may choose not to leave a message to an attention seeking vandal. Until(1 == 2) 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an automated message from a bot would give an attention seeker a lot of satisfaction. Personally, my only concern with the idea would be if it led to less information going onto the talk page than currently happens. If people stopped putting talk page messages and didn't put the information into the block log instead, that would be a problem. But I don't think that's likely. I expect that people will either put all the information into the block log, which would be a good thing, or they won't do anything different to what they do now, which would be just fine also. Regards, Ben Aveling 17:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There are times when very good arguments can be made against the creation of a user talk page, when a user has created a username with serious libel or privacy violations. We don't want such pages showing up in Google. The blocked user gets an automatic message on the screen when he tries to edit, informing him of the block and of whatever steps he needs to take if he wishes to contest the block. And the reporting editor should see the report being removed from WP:AIV by a bot as soon as the vandal has been blocked. ElinorD (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to satisfy my curiousity about something I've wondered for a while, what exactly is a blocked user faced with when they try to edit? Is it a template I can look at, or a simple text message somewhere, or a big red X? Is there a screenshot available? Does it happen when they first try to edit, or when they try to save? Do they even have an "edit this page" tab? I can't figure out a way to see it without getting myself blocked first. Also, is the message they receive different when the account is blocked, vs. when the IP is blocked, vs. when a range of IP's are blocked? As with most of my questions, no need to explain here in detail if simply giving me a page link somewhere is sufficient, but I have looked around a little and found nothing. --barneca (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not talking about the "you've been blocked" templates. I want to know what happens when they try to edit if they haven't received such a template. --barneca (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

They will see MediaWiki:Blockedtext (or MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext if it's an autoblock) when they try to edit. the wub "?!" 09:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems pretty clear to me; assuming the blocking admin gives a reason in their block log, these pages help a mistakenly blocked editor much more than a template on their talk page does. I suppose the problem is people get mad about being blocked, and don't take the time to read this. --barneca (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please make this user remove the image in his signature

Resolved

This user Cunado19 (talk · contribs) is adamant on keeping an image in his signature, which is against policies. Can someone please warn this user with a block? There's no other way he's going to remove the image unless he's threatened with a block. --Matt57 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't block him - we should not block punitively - but I'll join the discussion and try to convince him. Nihiltres 14:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Having a non-disruptive image in your signature really isn't a blockable offense. WP:SIG is just a guideline...WilyD 14:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. I don't think any admin will block this user for an image-containing signature. Nihiltres 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Matt57, you just brought this up less than 2 weeks ago Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive271#User_refusing_to_remove_image_from_his_signature. Has something changed or are you looking for a different answer? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry yes it was the same request, nothing has changed. Basically he ignored my request again to remove the image. Hopefully he'll respond to the other two admins who responded there. --Matt57 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The image is pretty ugly and obtrusive, of course, but the main problem with it is that it's soap-boxing. It's some kind of religious symbol. Plastering talk pages with religious symbols is not something I'd like us to encourage, or even tolerate. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be good not to be so harsh with others. The image is small enough and not offensive. We lose nothing in letting him keep it. What is wrong with people here? Please let him be happy with small compromise in your part. --- A. L. M. 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ALM, policies cant be compromised. Can I too use a picture in my signature then? Commonsense says that its wrong to compromise on policies. Please dont encourage violation of Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling it a policy does not make it so. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, its a guideline then. Regardless people cant be allowed to have images in their signatures because then I'll want one for myself too and so on. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen how many links are in the file links list? Imagine if everyone starts doing this, it will be impossible to ever find where an image is being used, because it will be buried in 1000s of other links. I'm pretty much a noob here, but already have over 500 talk page edits, meaning if I had used an image there would be around 500 links in the list (mainly leaving vandal notices). And the comparison with templates is incorrect in my opinion, because in the case of Image:European flag.svg for example, nearly all the pages listed will have in some way a link to Europe. This is not the case for every page a user signs. The only relation in between such pages is the user him/herself. Personally I dislike all signatures other than the standard one though, so my opinion may be biased. Just so people with fancy signatures know, I don't remember a user because of their signature, but because of their edits, and all the fancy signatures serve me no purpose because I can never know in advance what is going to link where anyway, also they create clutter in the code and make it harder to read in edit mode. Please consider removing your image before you clock up too many talk page edits. Also what will you do if the image is deleted ? Go back and change every single talk page you edited, or just leave big read links all over the place. Jackaranga 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that I am more concerned now as a result of Tony's response. I didn't know what the image was, but I've now discovered that it is a symbol associated with Bahá'í Faith. I recall recently an RFA which received what I remember to be (correct me if I'm wrong) significant opposition based on the use of a cross in the signature. In that case, it was Unicode I think, but the message was that religious symbols should not be used in signatures, regardless or whether or not it is an image being utilized. This is perhaps worthy of more discussion than adherence to a guideline about image use. Someone should correct all this or post some links if my memory is failing me. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be thinking of this Rfa, which closed with a final tally of 69/2/1 - hardly significant opposition IMO. I could be wrong; that is the only recent Rfa I can recall with this issue. It was indeed unicode not an image. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that that was the RFA that I was thinking of, and also right that the number of opposers was small. I do note however, that whether it was a result of that discussion or something else, both Pastordavid and Will Beback have since modified their signatures to no longer use that symbol. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on, guys. It's just a signature. ––  Luna Santin  –– [[ Talk to me (leave a message!) • My contribs ]]   SPECIAL Kitten Shrine  ;) 21:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, well, the use of color is over rated. And some flashing colors have been known to cause seizures in some people. You may also want to fix your talk page, the TOC is totally too small to read! Vegaswikian 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

oO... Thankfully that's not your usual sig! 20 lines! And on a serious note - huge sigs are a problem. I recently had cause to edit while on holidays, and my only web access was via a mobile phone. Having to wade past multiple lines of people's sigs got very old very fast. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIG is not optional. The developers have stated very clearly that templates and images are not allowed in signatures due to db load problems (it's not a big deal if one does it, but if everyone does it it's a huge problem, so banning it outright prevents that slippery slope). Thus, I have blocked the problem user until he removes the image from his signature. --Cyde Weys 03:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. He removed the image now and another admin unblocked him now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Lovely MLM editors at Usana

Usana is a pyramid scheme/MLM for (surprise!) nutritional supplements and distributorships. In other words, it's a new Herbalife. Consequently, we are getting IP after IP trying to remove all criticisms, insert advertising, and overall use the article as a recruitment for other victi... er... customers. We have one editor, a new user, Jean314, trying to keep the thing accurately written, and he or she is up against loads of IP's. I put the article on my watchlist when someone removed it from speedy deletion. I'd appreciate it if some other administrators (if they're not Usana distributors, of course) adding it to their watchlists as well. The current form may read too favorably, but it's nothing compared to what the IP editors want. Geogre 11:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please block a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of a permablocked editor

Resolved

I filed a Checkuser on a permablocked user here [9]. The connection to the IP vandal was confirmed, can someone please soft block the IP to prevent his further racist trolling? (a full block would probably be okay since this person is the only one who has ever used this IP and I think it's static, but whatever you think is right). The Parsnip! 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Softblocked for 1 month; the contribs suggest it's static, but it's tagged as a shared IP. MastCell ^Talk 15:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is really, really weird: controverial picture

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhm. This is the strangest 'possible edit war' I've ever seen.

Last night, I went to see a preview of Stardust, the new Claire Danes movie. Danes was there, and I took a picture of her, because I work on the edge of the SF industry, and so I have a lot of opportunities to take pictures of authors or actors or other notables to release to public domain for Commons.

I posted a picture[10] and a clipped version[11] for an infobox, and released them into the public domain.

I then posted it to the Claire Danes page. It was removed this morning by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg , with the comment "that picture is so disgustingly horrible it has to be a joke". No change has been made to it aside from fixing red eye (and among the many things I do freelance, I do graphic work professionally, and I changed about 20 pixels of the whole image).

I undid his entry, and explained to him on his talk page that the picture was good, not a joke, etc., that really is what she looks like when not primped for the camera. He removed me asking him what he thought the 'joke' was, because apparently my asking him to clarify what he thought was the joke or what was so horribly disgusting about it was an 'odd comment'. He then undid my re-adding the image, stating, "removing, still assume this is a ploy for attention or a joke."

I'm certainly not going to take this to an edit war, but can someone please have him either explain what he thinks is wrong with the image, or leave the picture alone? While it amuses me that he thinks I'm doing this for attention, his edits and POV pushing (even if he doesn't think it is) are peculiar, and unmerited (since regardless of what she looks like in his mind, that's what she looks like from the third row of a screening room). --Thespian 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Claire Danes to me.Proabivouac 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why some people think the pic is joke but if I wrote it down then I would break WP:BLP. Probably User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg was in the same dilemma and did not how to solve it. Andries 01:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Except that it wasn't a joke, he assumed bad faith right off the top by saying it was disgusting and must be a joke, he deleted my attempts to find out what he thought the joke was, and then reverted it again accusing me of posting it to try to get attention. And it doesn't break WP:BLP to post that picture; it's not defamatory or anything, as far as I can tell, he just doesn't think she looks like that. --Thespian 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not very flattering, and as an editor I would prefer to use any more flattering picture rather than that one, but any free image is better than a pretty copyrighted one. Thatcher131 02:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that was the best shot you got at the event. --Haemo 02:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) this is why I'm a freelance journalist, not a freelance photographer ;-) Then again, people were commenting on their own pics afterward; I don't think she was going to take a glamour MOVIE STAR photo last night, regardless. She really was looking like that. My others were indeed worse; her eyes closed, blurred because the light was low, etc. She was onstage for about 3 minutes, tops, no questions, nothing. She was supposed to be at the VIP event beforehand, but didn't even show until 10m after the movie was supposed to start; they were delaying the screening for her.--Thespian 02:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not really a bad picture. If anything, it looks more like limitations on the camera (camera cell phone, I assume?). Her expression is fine, and the angle isn't bad. -- Ned Scott 02:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That or really low lighting will do that to even a decent digital camera. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Call me a fan, but she looks fetching enough to me. It's a candid, what do you want? The fact that Danes is willing to dress and act casually speaks well of her. Thespian's photo captures that nicely.Proabivouac 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted the histogram and cropped the original image a bit. Maybe the original editor - whom I supppose has a higher res version - could get better results. Brighten it up and adjust the colors a little and it's all right. Durova^Charge! 02:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I took the bold liberty of correcting the gamma on both images, they were basically underexposed. Hope you like it. --Edokter (Talk) 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to have an image that's all our own, but the pic in question isn't high-enough quality, i.e., no reputable encyclopedia would ever use an image like that. IronDuke 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Looks fine to me. Hasn't anyone looked at the pic on the Suzanne Vega article lately? Or Gillian Anderson? Or Patti Smith? Or Catherine Bell? wikipediatrix 02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Posting unflattering photos like the ones you list probably isn't strictly a violation of WP:BLP, but it feels to me that it should be. As for the Danes photo: the camera noise mars her complexion, the background clutter is distracting, and when cropped tight enough to be usable it's pretty low-res. It's not a photo I would be willing to sign my name to as photographer. Surely we can do better. —David Eppstein 03:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

May be, but only in extreme cases, I believe. This is not an extreme case. I think the following pic of Geert Wilders would be borderline. www.nosheadlines.nl/forum.php/list_messages/6057 This pic is on the Nederlandse_Omroep_Stichting website which is a serious journalistic resource. It also appeared in other serious media, as far as I remember, and is, I believe, not doctored. A pic of somebody who has accidentally his or her pants down should not be used. On the other hand, I believe that a screen shot of movie showing Uri Geller's acts allegedly proving him to cheat is okay. Andries 04:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of you talking to him on his usertalk. Also, is there a specific admin action you'd like to resolve this that discussion won't? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the history; he deleted it saying it was an 'odd comment' right before deleting the image a second time and saying I was re-adding it for attention. Mostly in needed admin attention because he was repeatedly accusing me of doing it for a joke/for attention (accusations of bad faith). He isn't going to listen to anyone 'at normal level' --Thespian 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, we need more photographs like this on articles (rather than that fair use crap). That way, when the actress reads her article and sees an unflattering picture, she can complain to her publicist, and her publicist realizes she has no point but to release a previously fair use promotional photograph under a free license. Then everyone wins. --Cyde Weys 03:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've personally found that works really well. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A good point, but I still don't think it's a bad picture. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's not beautiful, but it's entirely passable, and it's certainly better than nothing. And anything's better than the one at Michael Stipe. --Masamage ♫ 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Or Cher. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Stanley. Only free photo I have come across to ever be roundly rejected from an article, and with good reason. That Danes pic isn't awful, if anything it will encourage others to provide a better one. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The girl in this picture is very attractive. If there is awkwardness, it is only endearing.Proabivouac 11:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Parable of the Dog strikes again. (The parable is my own invention, but here it is. I drop popcorn on the floor. My dog wants it but doesn't see the kernel. I point at it. The dog stares at my fingertip. I keep pointing, more and more excitedly, and he keeps examining my fingertip, more and more avidly.) Thespian came to argue about rude edits, unceremonious removal, and accusations, and all you folks can do is talk about if the picture gets you excited? Sheesh! Look at the popcorn, not the finger, please. For what it's worth, I agree with Thespian: he was treated poorly. The image folks, like article folks, need to explain themselves and use their words, not their buttons, first. If there is a dispute, assume non-vandal as well as good faith, and be prepared to answer. If you're too busy to answer a question, you're too busy to do the deletions. Geogre 11:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I've let User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg know about this thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that if you seriously examine Wikipedia administrators and their actions, you'd find that they are not all that dissimilar from those of the common canine. Now excuse me, I'm off to chase my tail for an hour. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider it flattery to be compared to a dog. "History is more full of the example of the fidelity of dogs than of friends," Mr. Pope said. My point was about Wikipedia discussions, though. It happens over and over again. "Well, I can think of a hypothetical where that isn't true." "Oh? I reject your hypothetical. You should see this." "That's not so bad. There is another hypothetical where...." Meanwhile, the guy with the problem is sitting in the corner wondering why none of us are talking to him. Feel free to find Moshe's actions just, or his complaint valid, or my verdict wrong. Long live difference. It's just that the poor fellow felt insulted and couldn't understand why. I sympathize with him and think that Moshe was wrong to be brusque. We are all wrong to be brusque.

I can even tell you why we're often rude when we should be nice. It comes from vandal watching and copyvio cleaning. It gets into your head. You start to see every mistake as vandalism and every doubtful case as wrong. As admins, we must fight that. Geogre 03:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow I can't believe there is this many responses about something I did, I feel almost flattered. I guess in most ways this is my fault for assuming too much and not checking enough. When I saw the picture I assumed that somebody had basically gone through every picture on the internet they could find and found the ugliest one, I mean I wouldn't say I pay any attention to Claire Danes' career or anything, but I think we all agree that she is at least prettier than the picture seems to imply. I should have checked whether or not Thespian was a serious editor or just some guy with 8 or so bizarre edits. I mean I think we have all encountered so many odd people on wikipedia that when anything happens that is even remotely strange our first thought is that the person is doing something for attention, vandalizing wikipedia, or has some other motive in mind that we can only guess about. If anything I'll take this as a lesson that assuming first is usually not the best idea. I'll also say that if anyone seriously thinks that is a good picture, I must be an awful judge.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF is your friend! A good lesson learned. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Geogre and Jonel are exactly right that the crux of the problem is to be patient and polite, and, exactly as you say, avoid assumptions. Sounds like you've figured that out now, so, hooray! Onward. --Masamage ♫ 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I will point out that following the link to the image would have shown you that I had taken the picture myself that night, not that I was trying to make her look bad. When I posted to your journal asking you what you thought was a joke about it, instead of just deleting my comment, you should have replied - a vandal isn't going to go that way. You assumed bad faith from the start, and your comments made that obvious; I wouldn't have felt I needed to seek backup if you'd WP:AGF assumed good faith and respected me, regardless what you thought of the photo I took. Finally, as soon as you removed a legitimate, free picture a second time, after I'd attempted to get you to explain the problem was (and indeed, I don't think it's an unattractive picture, though the quality of it could be better) you headed off to edit war. That tendency should be checked if you're doing it with editors who aren't quite as experienced/involved as I am; me, I was just amused; with the praise I've gotten for my Signpost stuff and my DYK and a potential featured coming up, I have enough attention coming my way. You could drive a first or second time contributor off. --Thespian 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably around 95% of my edits in the past 5 months or so are simple wiki-gnome type stuff so I generally do not talk to people that much anymore. While my actions were unfair and wrong, I do not necessarily consider it edit warring, in fact if I was reverted one more time I probably would have started looking over your previous edits and the picture's fair use and understood where my previous assumptions led me astray. I also still stand by my belief that at the very least the picture should not be the primary photo in the article (if it appears at all).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Right now, though, it's the only picture available in the article. If we had a usable Claire Danes pic, I would have just skipped it, but we didn't, and as many people have said in this thread, a picture really is better than none, which is why I uploaded it. This isn't the first time I've seen her, I just only recently started to take pics with the intent of releasing them to the public domain for wikipedia, so it's not unlikely that I will do better some other time. --Thespian 05:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy check

I'm discussing block/ban policy wording with other editor/s on those pages, over concerns that the wordings of WP:BAN doesn't completely describe day-to-day reality and usage. Although basic noob points and in some cases stated in WP:BLOCK or WP:BAN, it would help to re-check some fundamentals, as input:

Q.	Comment/example
1. Which types of removal of editing access are properly described as "bans"?	For example, editor 1 picks up a 1 week block for repeated personal attacks on co-editors on an article, editor 2 is banned by an admin from editing on religion for a month following lesser blocks and personal attacks on atheists there, editor 3's edits are all personal attacks and the editor is indef blocked by an admin, editor 4 is indef banned by arbcom for incessant personal attacks - are these all "bans"?
2. Is a ban always the social construct of removal of an editor for a period and a block the technical means of implementation? (See WP:BAN)	For example, would it be accurate to describe users who pick up a 24 hour block for disruption, as technically being short-term banned with the ban supported by a block?
3. In some cases (eg vandal only SPA) an account is usually described as "account/user X indef blocked, vandalism". In other cases (eg at arbcom) an account is usually described as "account/user X indef banned from Wikipedia for vandalism". Both seem to have the identical aim and effect: to protect the site from vandalism by long term excluding the vandalistic user. Are these in fact the same thing? Different?	Comment: My impression is that we tend to use ban to mean, long term exclusion of an editor who is/was part of the community from the site (or part of it), and block to mean the removal of someone who never was part of the community, or is not being long term excluded from it. (As well as using "block" for a technical means of enforcing a ban via software.)
4. WP:BLOCK refers to partial bans to protect articles, referring to WP:BAN for more detail. But WP:BAN focusses on long term/indef bans. Neither of these document a user being short term partial/topic banned by an administrator from an article or page (eg to avoid losing good edits elsewhere). What is communal understanding on short term article/topic bans?	Example: User Z has good edits generally but POV wars on sexuality. A 1 week ban is now reasonable for repeated OR/CIVIL on sexuality related topics, but rather than giving a 1 week block that will affect all edits on the site entirely, an administrator decides to ban him just from sexuality related topics (only) for a week, to protect those topics and without losing good contributions elesewhere. Is this an option open to unilateral administrator decision?

Even though the above points are (apparently) referenced somewhat by policy, it would help to have communal double-checking. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

None of that looks very good to me. First, no one should be getting blocked for "NPA." Second, absolutely no one should be banned for NPA-related anything. If anything like that is occurring, I can only hope that the subjects of the blocks are appealing them. Some Wikipedians use the term "ban" when what they're talking about is by no means a ban. WP:BAN is right: it's reserved for very special cases. A ban is a ban -- don't come back. We have had very, very, very few bans of established editors, and a good many of those were later reconsidered. A ban is for Willy on Wheels. This is different from a topic/article ban, which is usually conditioned additionally by time. "You are banned from editing booger for six months." First, such things don't generally have genuine force without going through RFAR but really are consensual or contingent (e.g. when I see you at snot, I decide that you're violating the booger-ban and block you, with the block being the contingency). In general, no one should be using the word "ban" for something an administrator does, because administrators cannot, should not, and must not desire to ban someone. That's ArbCom's job. Geogre 11:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WT:BAN for further discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator FT2 Talk abuse of status

The following information was brought to my attention and I post it here for an administrator to review: FT2 appears to be unfair to critical editors and biased towards NLP promotion. FT2 also seems to be collaborating with or supporting other pro NLP editors and is taking this into the dispute regarding Attachment Therapy Ex: [[12]] with threats.

It looks like the story starts when RalfLender begins to critically edit on the NLP article [13] after communicating with another critical editor [14]. RalfLender was then "warned off" by FT2 [15]. Since then FT2 has taken an interest in trying to overrule prior admin checks that say we are not meatpuppets [16]. So after closer investigation of the NLP article it seems that there is a strong pro NLP agenda trying to influence the arbitration on Attachment Therapy. Fainites (who also seems to be working with FT2) seems to be keen on making sure that NLP is not mentioned as a pseudoscientific fringe method of attachment therapy. FT2 seems to be supporting Fainites in this effort. From a look at the state of the NLP article seems clear that FT2 and Fainites (and another editor with a strong and obvious COI - Comaze (AKA Action potential[17]) have been working together to make sure that critical views are not presented clearly. They have been working there consistently and the critical views are still not presented properly, pseudoscience information goes missing and is not replaced, and the article seems to be kept in an ugly state simply to obscure the main science views. The last peer review says criticism is mild [18]. Since then criticism has become milder and more obscured. I suspect FT2 of being highly involved in NLP in terms of history and probably qualifications. Considering FT2's prior attempts at OR; FT2 and other related editors seem to be trying OR at even the article level [19]. Now that it was suggested that more OR (eg, [20] has been presented [21], FT2 starts to defend NLP yet again by posting extreme warnings on the talkpage [22]. I think this is the most obvious and extensive example of agenda motivated bullying from an admin I have ever seen on Wikipedia. DPeterson^talk 12:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to admin: This is probably an overspill from this RFAr: [23] and this User RfC [24]. I believe the evidences has shown DPeterson to be guilty of multiple abusive sock puppet accounts. I also believe that the RalphLender account is another suspected sock puppet account, though currently 'unproven'. Peace.Lsi john 13:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that FT2 is abusing admin status by working with another editor Fainites on the NLP page and taking that dispute into the dispute regarding Attachment Therapy. RalphLender^talk 15:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(Note: Behaviorally evidenced DPeterson sock, checkuser unverified at this stage, evidence here).

Ralph, all that's asked of you is, don't edit tendentiously, fabricate claims, or conflict with policy. Enough said. The several warnings given to you by myself and others, as an admin, on problematic and disruptive editing, stands, the offer to coach or explain stands if it would help or you don't understand why these things matter, and if you continue to edit in breach of policy then WP:BLOCK may apply, since nothing else appears to be able to protect articles you edit on from mis-editing, or explain the need to change your approach, and the project isn't here as a battleground.

This rather flimsy and unfounded complaint seems to be an attempt to later claim (if blocked) that it's due to a personal conflict.. in which case I think that fails; I have precisely zero involvement except via dispute resolution responses, and giving warnings as an admin. My efforts are going into seeing good editing, but I see no evidence of that at present. Trying to claim spurious COI (as DPeterson et al have elsewhere against others), would be a type of game only. It doesn't get much simpler. Please heed this and re-read both the offer of help, and warning on misconduct. Both stand. (Note: user's case in hearing at arbcom, hence the preference to warn rather than block.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We are in the middle of an ArbCom in which DPeterson has already ben shown to have abused policies with the use of multiple sockpuppets. He and RalphLender suddenly appeared on the NLP page and were bullying and offensive to a newbie. I am content to stand by my edits and comments on NLP going back many months, although my involvement has been intermittant recently. Readers should be aware that alot of damage was done recently by a pro NLP Headley sock called SteveB110. There are distinct elements of Headley in the allegations, concerns and language of this ANI. Where is the 'information received' from? Fainites ^barley 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

FT2's note is rather appropriate given that DPeterson and RalphLender are continuing to engage in the tendentious behaviour that led to arbitration (e.g. edit warring on Advocates for Children in Therapy, audacious wiki-lawyering, this strange complaint). Their edits ought to be limited to the arbitration case and its subpages until the case is concluded. This is especially true given DPeterson's amazingly flagrant abuse of sock-puppets (using four socks to submit evidence during arbitration) and given that RalphLender is a likely sock of DPeterson. shotwell 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is material that would be appropriate to bring up in the ongoing arbitration involving these editors. Not here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use outside of mainspace

I am running a script that simply identifies images that are being used outside of mainspace. This is not allowed per our fair use criteria, as fair use is only for articles. The list is at User:Eagle_101/fu. I would appreciate anyone that wants to work on it, I will have more in an hour or so. If you want to blank them as you go have at it, but I will have the script run every so often to keep this problem in hand. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

i know there is a bot that replaces fair use images with some ugly svg that says something like "this non-free image has been replaced." hbdragon88 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I operate that bot, this time through I chose to post the results, and let humans deal with the mess. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Graphics Lab images

The Graphics Lab has been working on many images which are tagged for deletion in the effort to produce images which are usable on wikipedia. These images which are tagged for deletion may be vital to the success of creating a free image replacement. A new template {{glhangon}} is now being used so that these images can stay on wikipedia while being worked on. Please do not delete images with the {{glhangon}} tag. The graphics lab appreciates your cooperation in this matter. -- For the Graphics Lab, BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How long will this take? You guys can always request undeletion, if you guys know what imaegs you are going to work on in a month from now. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Graphics lab images are ongoing, hence the tag. Each image takes on average between 1 and 2 weeks. We work on a case-by-case basis, so we don't know which images someone will nominate a month from now, we just don't want images we are working on to be deleted. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot to clean the sandbox

People keep removing this ({{Please leave this line alone (Sandbox heading)}}) template from Wikipedia:Sandbox, so I have a suggestion that there should be a bot that cleans Wikipedia:Sandbox every time that the template I just mentioned, is removed. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm... perhaps a job one of the RC monitor bots could handle? MartinBot in particular comes to mind, since it's already active and already apparently checking recent changes; I don't know how difficult it would be to check edits to the sandbox to see if the template had been removed, but based on my understanding wild guesswork of how the bot works, I bet it's feasible. Similar problem, although less frequent, can be found at WP:INTRO. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

MartinBotIV does normally reset the sandbox every few minutes; however it appears to have been temporarily offline for the last few weeks as its owner has been away. =/ Krimpet 06:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have set up Seedbot to reset the sandbox every half hour until MartinBotIV gets back online. I'll obviously be monitoring the bot and I don't anticipate any problems but feel free to just block it (it has the big shiny button on its user page) if its misbehaving in any way. S ^up? 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and, if there is any interest, I could probably put together some code over the weekend that checks the feed and just reinserts the template if it's been deleted. S ^up? 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser block

I have blocked 80.216.145.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 3 months per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. User:Verdict is indefinitely banned. Verdict returned to editing Brock Lesnar (a previously edited article) without logging in today, within 2 days of the block expiring. Just notifying all incase there is something else I haven't factored in. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is a fixed IP (as it seems to be), I would suggest an indefinite block. Perhaps someone with CU privileges could check and act if necessary. Physchim62 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't usually block IP's, even apparently static ones, for much more than 6 months at a time. The exception is known open proxies. Even static IP's can change hands - people change ISP's, they move, etc. Three or six months is a long time; if the problem flares up again, another 6 months can be tacked on. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme

Resolved

 – At least for now.

Is this edit valid under WP:BLP? I don't even really think it's a Ponzi scheme, anyway. Corvus cornix 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Source says the subject was arrested and accused, but it doesn't appear the case has gone to trial; if we do cover it, it needs to be clear there's no conviction. Until such time as there's a conviction of some sort, though, it seems unnecessary to post the full name and hometown of every accused criminal (is this one getting more press than I realize?). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I had never heard of the case before this. news.google.com comes up with a grand total of three hits for the accused. Corvus cornix 20:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I see you've removed the potentially offending content, I'll mark this resolved for now and see if I can check back later. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If the money used to pay "investors" is coming from new "investors" rather than from the fruits of the investment, then it's a Ponzi scheme. Rklawton 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Fed Up

Resolved

 – Article (re-)deleted by Eyrian. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fed Up was not deleted despite a consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fed Up. --Uthbrian (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Eyrian 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, it had been deleted if you look at the log, but someone must have recreated it. So the deletion log for jully 28 is incorrect. Jackaranga 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but the article was essentially the same. --Eyrian 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Such a recretaed article after a consensus deletion is a speedy delete candidate and that's what I would advise you to do if this happens again, SqueakBox 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is what I did. --Eyrian 21:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe SqueakBox was telling Uthbrian to tag future recreated articles for speedy deletion rather than bring them here. Leebo ^T/C 04:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about causing a ruckus here; I forgot to check the article's log and just saw the AfD notice. Will keep the advice in mind for next time. --Uthbrian (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Eyrian...I guess you were...fed up with the article, eh? hbdragon88 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

283 citation tags in an article

Resolved

 – The issue is being resolved on the talk page and does not require any further administrative oversight. --Hemlock Martinis 19:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:History_of_Russia#283_citation_tags_in_an_article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Request block/unblock review

Resolved

 – perfectly acceptable block-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I recntly blocked User:Inneronceaisasockpuppet for an invalid (attack) username after the name was raised at WP:UAA. The user is now requestign unblock on the grounds that the allegation in the username is accurate. Even if that is true, i didn't think we allowed such usernames. Am i incorrect? DES ^(talk) 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's disruptive and inflammatory, see WP:USERNAME point 5. I wouldn't permit it. --Eyrian 20:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

They've been declined now by someone else as "incoherent unblock message", which indeed, it is. They've also been blanking pages - Alison ☺ 20:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a completely unacceptable username, no questions asked. The vandalism only drives the point home: you did the right thing. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No questions asked here, you did the right thing. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

8,000 image backlog at Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

There's currently an (approximately) 8,000 image backlog at Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, some dating back to the 8th July - a 12 day backlog. Anyone feel like lending a hand sorting it out? Mike Peel 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on this on and off the last few days too, but would welcome more help. It's not generally very difficult – simply verify that the image really is the same, has appropriate permissions and history logs, and belongs to appropriate categories on the commons (or add categories if necessary). —David Eppstein 03:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I just emptied Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 8 July 2007, making it a 7750 image backlog. James086^{Talk | Email} 04:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mauricio Soler and WP:BLP

There are reports in several reliable sources that Colombian cyclist Mauricio Soler has tested positive for doping during the 2007 Tour de France. These reports have not (yet?) been confirmed by the Tour organisers. The reports are mentioned in the article Mauricio Soler, and it is explicitly mentioned that they are reports. This meets WP:V. But does mentioning an unconfirmed positive doping test violate WP:BLP? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Has been mentioned as unconfirmed reports in multiple reliable sources, so there isn't an issue as long as it is meade clear that the Tour organizers have not yet confirmed those reports. In the future, please take this sort of thing to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. JoshuaZ 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Review

The review relating to the above-named arbitration has been closed without action because User:Certified.Gangsta has not edited for several weeks. Should Certified.Gangsta return to editing, the review may be reopened. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

On July 18 JoshuaZ blocked Daniel Brandt with the summary, it has come to my attention to Hivemind is back up, brandt is not going to be welcome here as long as he runs an outing website. period

I hadn't been following the issue and wasn't aware of that until someone e-mailed me a link to a well-known critical site where Brandt demanded that either I or SlimVirgin restore his editing privileges and block JoshuaZ, or else Brandt would list us at the Hive Mind page on his website. I won't link to that thread here but it should be pretty easy for anyone who knows the ropes to find it.

Now really, if Brandt had objected to that block on technical grounds I might have considered the request, but I find it completely unacceptable that he attempts to compel the use of administrative tools by threats regarding the disclosure of what he believes to be personal information. This is not the first time he's used this tactic with me: last month he tried it when he accepted my offer to nominate Wikipedia's biography of him for deletion, and I nearly withdrew my offer because of the attempt to compel action. At the time I overlooked that issue because I had already extended the offer before he attempted the pressure and, in good faith, I thought the fellow was just at wit's end about the page.

I posted to Brandt's user page this morning to the effect that, regardless of other circumstances, I now heartily endorse his siteban until such time as he disavows pressure tactics toward Wikipedia sysops. If WP:IAR is the necessary basis here I'll stake a claim to it; common sense demands that coercive threats have no place in administrative actions. That started a thread so I'm taking it here. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Brandt's being unblocked while he runs a site that stalks administrators makes an implicit statement that serious harassment and egregious privacy violations are not an impediment to being considered a user in good standing. I heartily support Joshua's actions. ElinorD (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC) And for the record I supported, and still support, his right not to have an article about him against his wishes. ElinorD (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• I fully support that block. People who threaten to (and do) out others who don't do what they say will never be accepted at Wikipedia, period. It doesn't matter whether or not they made the threat on-wiki. -Amarkov moo! 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• If this discussion is going to be conducted here, it may be reasonable to unblock Brandt with the understanding he can participate in this discussion and "make his case", as it were. That said, I'm not sure that he'd want to, or that it'd be worth his time. WilyD 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've offered to accept an e-mail rebuttal from Brandt for reposting to this thread. A second invocation of WP:IAR, but I think fairness demands it. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. WilyD 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Having privacy means respecting privacy. Brandt seems to think it entirely goes one way. He can't continue to post everything he can find about anyone at Wikipedia, but expect Wikipedia to take the high road in respecting his privacy (and I do believe he exceeds notability requirements). The problem is the 'system' caved to him already. He has no reason to believe he can't bully us. --Thespian 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose Brandt block Durova is referring to the WR forum. I certainly dont support Brandt's desire to see Josh blocked even temporarily for blocking DB but nor do I think that seeing SV returned to HM and Duriova put on that page to be acceptable either and therefore I think, given his editing pattern here, that Brandt should be unblocked. Is there any kind of policy that allows blocking for off site attacks as if there were and it was shown to me I might change my mind, I'm certainly not fixed on this one. What I'd really like to see is negotiations with Brandt for the specific purpose of removing HM2, SqueakBox 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't really matter where he made the threat. We know that he is willing to threaten people who don't do as he says, and we know that he is willing to carry through on those threats. It does not matter that the comments which told us this were not made on Wikipedia. Such a thing is still totally unacceptable. -Amarkov moo! 20:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Regardless of the merits of JoshuaZ's action I think attempts to coerce administrative actions should be bannable. If that's not written in policy already it should be. Durova^Charge! 20:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• I certainly don't support what Brandt is doing, but was it proper to block him in the first place given that normally blocks are not given here based on things that people do off-wiki? *Dan T.* 20:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• If he had simply e-mailed me a polite request to review the block on that basis I would have opened up precisely that discussion. The course he chose instead IMO supplies an entirely new reason for sitebanning. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Regardless of whether hastily blocking Brandt over the existence of his outing website was fair, blackmailing admins into unblocking him is completely out of line, period. An indefinite block is justified on the grounds of his threat alone. Krimpet 20:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And after reading below the additional details of how removal of the "hive mind" site was one of the stated conditions of his previous unblock, I concur that the original block was justified as well. Krimpet 23:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I absolutely support blocking Brandt, based on his past and continuing behavior, and no reasonable expectation that it will stop. If people like this threaten our volunteers and see that it gets them what they want, then they and others will threaten our volunteers. Seeing abusive jerks accommodated again and again has become tremendously disheartening. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Blackmailing editors is intolerable. - Crockspot 21:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please refactor that epithet. Durova^Charge! 21:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Durova^Charge! 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Is unblocking Brandt likely to allow him to make disruptive edits? I really think that the only reason a user should be blocked is for directly disrupting the project with their account, not any secondary reason. --Eyrian 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Directly disrupting the project from off-wiki is certainly something that can be taken into account. - Crockspot 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The primary issue here is that he was unblocked in the first place under certain conditions, and the Hivemind list being taken down was one of them. However, when Wiki Abuse was started, Brandt put the list back up because he was itching to help that project. Since he went back on one of his promises, JoshuaZ acted on his own to reblock Brandt's account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but is that really a good reason? I understand that many users are justifiably upset about his outing site, but does blocking him here really change that? --Eyrian 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the conditions set forth by Jimbo to Brandt in the unblocking was that he take down the hivemind. For about 3 weeks, the Hivemind was taken down. When Wiki Abuse went up, he brought the Hivemind back up (which he advertised on their site). JoshuaZ found out, took the initiative to resetting the ban, and because someone decided to suddenly discover this at WR, Brandt has resorted to these tactics.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My logic was as follows: we cannot have users allowed to edit while they are running websites that attempt to blackmail and out users for the same reasoning that we cannot allow users who are making legal threats: it is impossible for other editors to work with them in any productive form when such activities are being made. That is the main reason have blocked, do block, and will continue to block people who run outing sites and that is why I blocked Brandt. We cannot allow such activity to continue and long expect the project to function. The fact that the site going back up involved Brandt going back on his deal is simply further icing on the cake, and to stretch the metaphor Brandt's latest attempt to intimidate Durova and Slimvirgin makes the cake so sickeningly sweet I doubt anyone would be able to eat it without choking. The bottom line is that we have yet more evidence that Brandt does not respect site policies and will not do so. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if someone cannot play well with others then we have no reason to continue to keep them here after many chances. JoshuaZ 21:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If I thought the block would lead to he end of HM I would strongly support it. In order to protect our voluntary staff here we should, IMO, do what it takes to get that site removed from the web and blocking DB from wikipedia, far from doing that, has the opposite effect, SqueakBox 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Eyrian 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We have no idea actually whether blocking DB will help get the site removed or not. However, given that he has shown to be a liar and blackmailer, the disruption and intimidation of users that continues with his presence on the project is simply not worth it. We don't give in to blackmailers and we certainly don't give in to blackmailers who won't even keep their word. JoshuaZ 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, please refactor the tone of that statement. Durova^Charge! 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see a reason to. As per the Wikipedia article Blackmail, "Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal information about a person, or even do something to destroy the threatened person, unless the blackmailed target fulfills certain demands" since Brandt has done that he is a blackmailer. If you are concerned about legal implications it should be apparent that that type of action is not generally legally actionable. JoshuaZ 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it helps things to express sentiments in inflammatory terms. Regarding liar then, are you sure he actually promised to keep Hive Mind offline or that he engages in habitual falsehoods? I agree what he's done is a low blow, especially after I went out of my way to respect Brandt's privacy concerns. Those actions speak for themselves to anybody who knows the facts and there's no need for name calling. Durova^Charge! 00:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)*Endorse Block. How many times are we going to deal with him? Block indef and let's move on. Brandt is not a typical editor his extraordinary behavior demands extraordinary measures. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 21:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Blocking someone for something they said off-Wiki makes zero sense to me. It doesn't matter that he agreed to take his Hivemind page down before - he really shouldn't have been pressured to make such a promise in the first place. If Brandt's page has off-Wiki ramifications, then let it be dealt with off-Wiki. I don't approve of his Hivemind page, but I also don't approve of him having a Wikipedia article. Isn't there some way this endlessly escalating Mexican standoff can be resolved without both parties using the web for revenge purposes? wikipediatrix 21:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipediatrix, I can understand a principled defense of the Hive mind page per se, but your comment doesn't address his attempt to coerce administrative action. Do you defend that as well, and if so on what grounds? Durova^Charge! 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• If Brandt had shown some sort of desire to actually make useful contributions to the project, I would have endorsed unblocking him. It would have been great if one of our most outspoken critics had decided to help us fix the problems he thinks we have through constructive editing. He would have of course realized that he'd be monitored closely. But his outright blackmail of two administrators is beyond comprehension; did he even think that through? Did he really think we'd bow to threats? Does he expect us to welcome him back warmly? It's bewildering. Keep him blocked. --Hemlock Martinis 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block per JoshuaZ. - Philippe | Talk 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Brandt actively advocated trying to force me to leave my PhD program via blackmail. Phil Sandifer 21:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban his off-wiki attacks drive good editors from the project, which ultimately weakens it. He also brings down the entire community's spirit. Disruptive individuals like him have no place here. -Nard 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The proposed dichotomy between on-wiki and off-wiki behavior is belied by the circumstances behind this latest threat, directed as it is towards editors with whom Brandt has recent on-wiki interactions. Allowing him back risks further negative interactions which might lead to resentments and subsequent threats against still more editors.Proabivouac 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Editing Wikipedia is not a right.--Jimbo Wales 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

... it's an adventure! -- Seth Finkelstein 00:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block per Tom Harrison. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block - The hivemind website is irrelevant, but repeated and persistent coercion of admins is unacceptable.--Fahrenheit451 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block - This is HARASSMENT. period.-- SYSS Mouse 00:30, 2007 July 28 (UTC)
• Comment Aiii, the drama. Folks, I understand there's a lot of ill-will. But, to be objective, I assert these sorts of kerfuffles are counter-productive. Yes, yes, I understand the group-bonding aspect: "Daniel Brandt, we banish you, you are cast from our sight, you are An Enemy Of The Project, all see what is done to those who transgress". But, step back for a minute. He doesn't care. And it's not going to change his behavior. Plus, if he does want to do editing, he'll use an IP, and hence every related discussion will have sockpuppet-theatre as IP's are accused of being him. Frankly, in my view, you're far better off just letting these little incidents pass, because: 1) This stuff looks really petty from the outside, and 2) As a practical matter, it's far better having him do any discussion-edits under his own identified name. That's my advice, given with full awareness that I'm a cultural outside, so it may not be welcome. -- Seth Finkelstein 00:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein, your position makes sense if the Brandt case is viewed in isolation. But wikipedia community choices create precedent/pattern/habit in that with our agreed on choices we inform both ourselves and others what is acceptable and what are to be the consequences. For example, Jeff Merkey has responded to an arbcom case concerning him by threatening to sue the foundation and each arbcom member. We can not allow content choices to in the end be decided by whoever threatens the most or the loudest. WAS 4.250 14:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no other option. Kudos to Durova for staying the course on this one, in the face of things, and my recommendation is to indef. Folks, people should not compel other people to do things that are not right, off or on wiki in references to the project. Navou ^banter 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Seth, Brandt isn't like to edit anonymously as that would be akin to taking away the wood he used to erect his cross. It's hard to be a martyr in anonymity. •Jim62sch• 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Well, Daniel Brandt has acknowledged his awareness of these developments by adding me to his Hive Mind page. He's made no response to my offer to accept an e-mail rebuttal. Actions speak louder than words. I'm heading over to Wikipedia talk:Banning policy to propose an amendment about coercion. Anyone from this discussion is welcome to join me. Durova^Charge! 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Awwww, he likes me too! Of course, given that I use my picture on my userpage and my real name on the mailing list, I don't know what he was trying to out about me. All the same, it's the thought that counts, so I fully endorse the block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Durova. You've absolutely done the right thing. --Deskana (banana) 01:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the sentiment of support, Deskana, but please refactor the expression of it. I have no desire to fan the flames, just check the validity of my actions and update policy appropriately. Durova^Charge! 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it a bit. --Deskana (banana) 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 02:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin (talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Doc aberdeen talk page vandalism

I just indefinitely blocked Doc aberdeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), based on his vandalism to my user talk page [28] [29] [30] and to NeilN's talk page [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44], et cetera. I'm sure the block was justified, but I'd like to doublecheck, and I'm wondering if there's some way we can put a size limit on divs to prevent this kind of vandalism (which relies on huge divs, see example: [45]), which on my browser, at least, was debilitating to the page (I rolled back by manually selecting the url of my talk page's history, because the diff was overloaded). What can we do to prevent this tactic being used in the future? I recommend that bot operators of anti-vandal bots add this type of vandalism to bots' blacklists. Nihiltres^(t.l) 16:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Help for a newbie admin, please

Resolved

 – situation clarified; page reverted back--Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a request at WP:RFPP earlier today for help with the article Apartheid Wall, where there is an edit war going on over where the article should redirect to. The result of an recent AfD on the subject was that it should redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier. Given the edit war going on, I went with consensus, redirected it to Israeli West Bank barrer and fully protected it for 7 days.

I then received a note [46] from User:Jayjg saying I had abused my admin powers. Note that I do not, and have never, edited articles on this subject - I merely went with what the consensus was. I've put the protection down to semi for the time being, but was a bit put out by an accusation like that on my first day of adminship. Comments and help gratefully received. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are in the right, here. Don't let such things discourage you. Issues regarding the Isreaeli/Palestinian conflict are fraught with bad editors, so not wading into them until you're more sure of yourself might be a good idea. --Eyrian 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF needs to apply to admins too, I hate to see people being threatened like they were when there actions were most certainly do not show nefarious intent. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I've always kept away from the issue and had I not believed there was community consensus I'd have left it for someone else. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to Jayjg about it? It seems like they just made a mistake in ignorance ... your action was perfectly reasonable, but might appear sketchy to someone without all the facts. WilyD 18:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay doesn't exactly seem like a neutral party, here. Unless I'm missing something, a threat of that nature seems awfully premature, and actually concerns me more than any question of whether the protection was appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've only just noticed that the AfD was in June 2006, not 2007. It's still being referred to in the most recent edit-warring, though. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The page history shows you did not make any edits prior to the protection of it, dont let this person get you down as you've done nothing wrong, I think he should have checked his facts before accusing you. Regards, — Rlest (formerly Qst) 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to being an admin EliminatorJR... didn't they tell you when they sysop'd you that you are always wrong no matter what you do? Seriously though, I don't see anything inappropriate about your actions and you explained your rationale clearly and concisely. Jayjg would appear to have something of an interest in this article... In the future, just point them to m:The Wrong Version; because it always is the wrong version.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that he deliberately changed it to the version he wanted first. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He changed it to the consensus version sanctioned by the AfD. --Eyrian 03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He changed it to one of the contested version in an edit war. He took sides. See also the comment below regarding what was "sanctioned" by the AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg - I believe you thought he was taking sides when you posted your comment on his talk page, but I'm disheartened to see you repeat that after reading his explanation here. It seems beyond question to me that EliminatorJR was trying to implement the AfD resolution, which he apparently thought was a lot more recent than it actually was.--Kubigula (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I've had similar problems form Jayjg when it comes to Jewish related articles. Not to harp on him - he's a good admin, but he needs to stop. The Evil Spartan 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Similar problems"? I've stated that you abused admin tools? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a pattern, there are remediations available, either via discussion or even a request for comment. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To go back to the issue that touched it off, I think the concern was that EliminatorJR redirected it himself, then protected it. Let me be clear that a) I think EliminatorJR correctly interpreted consensus, as based on the prior AfD, as to where this redirect should point, and b) this is not "admin abuse" but clearly a good-faith action. That said, when full protection is necessary, items are usually protected in whatever state they happen to be in, regardless of its "correctness" (the only exception being BLP issues). The fact that EliminatorJR redirected the page himself, then immediately protected it, is what raised eyebrows. Though he was clearly acting in good faith, that approach (of protecting the "preferred" version) has been used abusively by other admins in the past. Jumping all over EliminatorJR with the abuse charge was hasty, but it's all part of being a new admin, as Isotope23 said; I've done worse, I'm sure. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, everyone. I'm sure it's all part of the learning process :) ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:MastCell is correct regarding the issue. In addition, the AfD in question was ancient, and many of the conditions surrounding it have since changed; for example, the material that was supposed to be merged from that article into Israeli West Bank barrier is now actually in Allegations of Israeli apartheid, hence the concern regarding the re-direct. Also, an editor on the Talk: page had proposed a compromise, which EliminatorJR reverted before protecting. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot take sides if you did not know that the factions existed. —Kurykh 03:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he should have investigated the issues more thoroughly before acting, then. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should not be accusing him of nefarious intent (or what you seem to be saying)? Or did I interpret incorrectly? —Kurykh 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse him of nefarious intent; please review the discussion above for more detail. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I know that the words themselves were not stated, but it does seem like an issue of assumption of bad faith. Or perhaps your reply to MastCell negated that. —Kurykh 04:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't back down just because an established admin jumps down your throat. Make your case and let the people decide. They're quite good at it when you give them a chance. --Hemlock Martinis 04:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The current edit war started with the edit 19:04, 5 July 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (46 bytes) (fixed) . Before that, we had a fragile compromise which had been a de-facto consensus for a few months. EliminatorJR was making an honest attempt to stop an edit war. If Jayjg (talk · contribs) is unhappy with that effort, dispute resolution is appropriate. Threats are not. --John Nagle 04:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, that at first I was sympathetic to EliminatorJR's description of his plight, but having scratched beneath the surface, there's a little more to EliminatorJR's interest in the topic than his discription here would lead us to believe, and that the reality of the situation aligns more with Jayjg's depiction of events and EliminatorJR's. I support Jayjg's caution to EliminatorJR on those grounds, and on the fact his description of his interest in the topic is less than complete. FeloniousMonk 04:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Supporting evidence? I'm curious to see what you found, if it sheds light on the tone of Jayjg's message. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've looked through my contributions and can't see any evidence of that, unless you count a Keep vote four months ago on the AfD for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, which was completely based on policy rather than opinion. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 11:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

EliminatorJR, welcome to being an admin. The fact that you've never touched articles on the subject doesn't mean that you don't have bias: we all do. We should not mix editing with admining, unless we deal with a disruption. In this case you have mixed these two functions, and IMO Jayjg warned you properly. As can be seen from talk, this is one the most contentious and polarizing corners of WP. Everyone is bound to make honest mistakes once in a while, and AGF works both all ways. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Eliminator, the problem is that you redirected to a title of your choice, then protected. The AfD was over a year ago, and in any event, AfDs can't decide on redirects: they decide whether a title should be deleted or kept, nothing more, no matter what the participants say. If it's kept, it's up to the editors on the page to decide what to do with it. In future, if you want to protect to stop an edit war, it's best to protect on whichever version you find it, unless there are BLP or similar problems, or a 3RR violation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if an AfD with broad participation on a controversial article reaches consensus to keep with a specific redirect, then, generally speaking, that consensus should be respected and not undone without prior discussion. So, if the AfD had been in June 2007 (as Eliminator apparently thought, and I certainly assume he is being truthful), I would conclude his actions were appropriate. Given that the AfD was actually over a year old, the consensus there clearly carries less weight and Eliminator's reversion and protection is more questionable. Thus, I think it was appropriate for Jayjg to question the actions. So, I'm personally comfortable that both parties were acting in good faith, and I hope they have now come to the same conclusion. Speak up if you don't think we can mark this as resolved.--Kubigula (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That way, you always ensure that you protect The Wrong Version (tm) and people can engage in dialogue instead of edit warring. --Haemo 06:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: after reviewing the history more thoroughly, I have reverted back to the compromise version that existed yesterday. I will leave the decision on whether to protect that version to someone else. Someone may also wish to look at Apartheid Wall (note different capitalisation) which points to the West Bank barrier article.ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 11:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be resolved, but I want to point out that I feel Eliminator has exhibited extraordinary amounts of common sense in that he engaged in dialogue reviewing his actions here, maintained good faith, took the advice, support and criticism he was given, and made the necessary changes, admitting that he made a mistake. (actually, admitting it twice, once with the revert, and once noting that he thought the AFD was recent). I find that quite encouraging. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s admin bot went on a protection spree in February..

Resolved

 – WP:BOTREQ#Automatically adding protection templates is an adequate solution--69.118.235.97 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

..but it never added protection tags to any of the hundreds of articles it indefinitely sprotected. Could somebody remedy this?--69.118.235.97 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you talked with him and can you offer some kind of diff? JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 21:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

His talk page has always been sprotected, there's no way to talk with him. His protection log shows pretty clearly that while his bot is capable of automated protections, it's not capable of adding protection tags. It's been so long since anyone's tried to alter curpsbot source code that there's probably no way for his bot to modified to add protection tags. Maybe if a second bot were commissioned to add protection tags to protected articles that might slove the problem--69.118.235.97 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a proposal for that at WP:BOTREQ#Automatically adding protection templates right now. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you shouldn't be allowed to semi-protect your talk page, same should go for the talk page of a protected article, in my opinion. Jackaranga 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is going off on a tangent, but there certainly are valid reasons for semiprotecting one's talk page. Mine used to be hit by a AOL-using vandal who kept replacing it with a vandalized version of my user page (after I'd protected that). My solution was to semiprotect my talk page, create an unprotected subpage, transclude it onto my talk page and direct anons and newbies there. That way, everyone could still communicate with me, yet, even if the vandal had hit the subpage, the damage would've been limited. Eventually, the vandal got bored and I unprotected my talk page again. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked him about this in April, when I was tagging dozens of anon talk pages with {{pp-semi-usertalk}}, but I never got a response. Gracenotes^T § 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Improper image use

Resolvedproper tag/rationale added ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:LittleGamersComic.jpg Shows as being in the public domain, which I find extremely unlikely given the copyright notice on the comic, the page, and the "Don't steal this shit" comment also on the page. I'm not sure if this should be deleted and/or replaced, or just have the tag on the image changed, though, which is why I brought it here. --L^ie! 00:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi ban enacted

Per the discussion at the CSN, Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) has been banned from the project. Notice has been left on his user_talk as well as by e-mail, and his block has been extended to indefinite. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, he's just been banned on de.wiki too. Since his two main editing outlets have been shut down, I'd expect to see a lot of IP socks. Hopefully that won't be the case, but that's been his pattern in the past. pschemp | talk 22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ban on a certain user of an open proxy

There is someone who has something against Firefox who had been operating out of 209.250.234.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He has since been using TOR proxies and sleeper accounts to attack my block of the hosting range that the initial proxy was on (a /20), and then has been editwarring with me on Mozilla Firefox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Talk:Mozilla Firefox (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). I don't know if it's possible to consider an individual only identifiable from what proxy they had originally been using, but at this point, it's easier to treat this guy with WP:BAN and WP:RBI rather than continue the sockpuppetry after I block the TOR nodes and sleepers. Comments, assistance, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To cite one of the current thread on WP:ANI: "What part of "This is a content dispute" do you not understand?"? Your protection of talk page of Mozilla Firefox and your persistent removal of civil dispute about relevant external link was totally immature and completely unnecessary. 88.222.51.251 22:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, I noticed that you've "archived" thread in question. Smart trick indeed, you are very talented player in Wikipedia game, but it was wrong, it should stay, because there was unanswered question there. 88.222.51.251 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I will appreciate it if you do not misquote me. —Kurykh 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazingly, this TOR node user is the man just who I was talking about.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the IP user, not me. —Kurykh 22:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But the real question is, barring further disruption by the IP user, is a ban possible?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, not firefoxmyths.com again. Hasn't it been established that this fails WP:EL six ways from Sunday? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, tell me, what is the reason for current full protection of Mozilla Firefox? Check history... Hint: it is completely unrelated with firefoxmyths. Some friend of Ryu has protected it, because some person was doing sth against Ryu (blockable/bannable offence, regardless of merits, because Ryu is always right, no?). 145.97.203.115 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for revealing a new open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• If it is a content dispute probably better to leave the blocking to someone else, as you stated "edit warring" with you. Regards, Navou ^banter 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Additionally, just because someone uses a TOR NODE, does not mean they are banned, or a bad user... unless the edits themselves prove to otherwise. Folks are permitted to edit from open proxys untill those proxys are blocked. Regards, Navou ^banter 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, I would have a hard time supporting a ban in this context. Regards, Navou ^banter 00:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But, it is obvious that they are open proxies and TOR nodes as well as obvious sockpuppetry, that is why I am doing the blocking.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So there is no ban in this context? I understand that people can use proxies until we discover that they are proxies, but what if they continue to abuse process and editting after that initial proxy block with other proxies, and they are easily identifiable as being the same individual?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• If they like, they can jump from proxy to proxy, and we only block, no reversion, just block. The policy is "Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked...". Proxy use in itself is not abusive editing, even if it is the same user. A content dispute alone does not equate abusive or disruptive editing when proxys are used. Additionally, lets ensure we are not blocking non static IP's indef.

• On another note, sockpuppetry that is abusive if in violation of WP:SOCK.

Regards, Navou ^banter 01:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not answering my question... Can I consider the individual who is abusively editting and using proxies to do so banned?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't really answer it, in this context. Could you post differential edits to support this? Perhaps post at WP:CSN. Navou ^banter 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't wnat to use the votes for banning.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mozilla_Firefox&diff=147733620&oldid=147727273
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mozilla_Firefox&diff=147727199&oldid=147581329 (never even had a monobook.js)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mozilla_Firefox&diff=147573446&oldid=147505183
• My removal of thread from talk page
• 1st sleeper after protection
• 2nd
• 3rd

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't support a siteban based on those differentials. Just those diffs alone, looks like a content dispute. Maybe some socks, but I won't comment too much without investigating myself. Sorry. Navou ^banter 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Wired076

I just blocked Wired076 for 24 hours for repeated spam, and recreation of deleted spam, and putting spam on other articles. Carlossuarez46 05:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You could give him a username hardblock, for advertising. I tried to report him at WP:UAA, but the bot keeps reverting me saying he is already blocked, even though I am asking for a hardblock not just a one day block. Jackaranga 14:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone else did it. Jackaranga 14:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Username blocked per WP:U#PROMOTIONAL. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Today's POTD

Resolved

Somebody needs to fix Image:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG. While the Green Turtles are funny, I don't think it's the right picture to use UnfriendlyFire 06:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Today's POTD is about salt mounds, not turtles. The green turtle picture in in the DYK section, and there's nothing remotely funny about it at all. --Kurykh 06:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Try clicking on the turtle picture. Someone's playing silly buggers over at commons. Leithp 07:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a persistent Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles troll on Commons. I uploaded a copy of the correct image here at en:. Prolog 07:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That commons account links to Gemberling (talk · contribs). TMNT are still showing as the commons preview image, could a commons admin delete the vandalized revisions? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 07:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Permanently semi-protecting date articles

There was a discussion on this at the village pump, which a read through indicates a rough consensus supporting at least a trial period for the idea. I thought I'd test the water here, see what people think. Hiding Talk 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Which of the criteria for full protection in the protection policy would justify this? Until(1 == 2) 14:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe full protection has been mentioned at any stage. Deiz talk 14:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If those articles do attract lots of simple vandalism like "1989 Cute guy John Doe is born", what's the big deal? It's easy to spot and revert, and not particularly harmful. It all seems to be dealt with pretty quickly. --bainer (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, these are heavily watched pages (who doesn't have their birthday watchlisted) and vandalism gets reverted pretty quickly. Deiz talk 14:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not a huge fan of that proposal either. Much like a honeypot, these articles do attract a lot of new users and I'm sure there's a sizable percentage of those who will use "their" article to take their first few steps, wiki-wise. Since those those test edits tend to be extremely easy to catch, one of two things usually happens: either one of the anti-vandalism bots catches and reverts the edits or the changes are reverted by a WP:RCP patroller or someone who has the page watchlisted. Either way, the user gets a friendly template warning and a couple of pointers (sandbox, etc). Some of those users will move on and never edit again and some will become productive Wikipedians. Protect or even sprot these pages and a new editor's first exposure to WP will be along the lines of 'Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit -- except you, of course'. That's something I'm pretty much opposed to on general principle, as well as out of practicability: the kid who inserts his own birthday will get quickly reverted. The guy who hits ALT+Shift+x and makes his test edit to $random_article might not. I see this as doing more harm than good. --S ^up? 14:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add a link to Wikipedia:Sandbox to the notice that comes up when an editor tries to edit a (semi)protected page? And is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext the right page to add the link to? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There must be thousands of articles get vandalized so often, we cannot go about protecting them, all forever, or we will just be another read-only website. Until(1 == 2) 14:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• As has already been pointed out, this isn't what is being proposed at all. Hiding Talk 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I think this is a bad idea because of all the reasons given above, the protection policy disagrees too. --Deskana (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• As is pointed out above and below, it doesn't with regards this proposal. Hiding Talk 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, these pages are somewhat different from the usual article pages contemplated in the protection policy—these are really summary and index pages rather than proper articles. It would be relatively rare that an editor totally new to Wikipedia would want to make his or her first edit to one of these index pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The protection poliy doesn't say anything about this, however, when 90% of an article's edits is a vandal or a revert, it should at least be looked into. Plus date vandalism regulary hangs around for a couple hours. Wizardman

• Endorse heartily - quoting the semi-protection policy:

[Indefinite semi-protection may be used on:] Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism.

Sounds like this is a perfect example. Will ^(talk) 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of them aren't subject to heavy and continued vandalism. January 1 has only been vandalised once or twice in the past few days, for example. Protecting them all indiscriminately without checking to see if they're vandalised is just stupid. --Deskana (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Individually, no; collectively, yes: eyeballing a list of changes over the last twenty-four hours shows maybe 50-60 vanity additions/vandalism for the 366 articles in this range. That's a pretty steady drip-drip there. --Calton | Talk 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not fair to group them like that. I'd rather add every single page to my watchlist (and I will if I have to) than sprotect them all. --Deskana (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not fair? In what way? --Calton | Talk 04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not do a day or two expiring protection when there is a problem, and watch them after they expire? Until(1 == 2) 21:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, there is not serious, or persistent vandalism on any of the date articles I watch. Definitely not anything that requires protection -- permanent protection should be used in the case where, otherwise, one would be continually filling WP:RPP requests. This is simply not the case for date articles, in my experience. --Haemo 00:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Individually, no; collectively, yes: eyeballing a list of changes over the last twenty-four hours shows maybe 50-60 vanity additions/vandalism for the 366 articles in this range. That's a pretty steady drip-drip there. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the 11th of each month on my watchlist, so I'm watching 12 date pages. If others would take different days of the month, then I think we can have this covered. Vandalism to the date articles isn't that bad, but occurs on a regular basis. Or more often, people adding their own birthdays or other silly stuff. --Aude (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that -- by my rough estimate -- 90+% of the edits by anon IPs to the date pages are vandalism/silly vanity edits AND that the pages are simple, relatively stable listings, I fail to understand the downside of semi-protection other than adherence to some peculiar form of fundamentalism regarding Wikipedia editing principles. Is there some horrible slippery slope I'm missing here? --Calton | Talk 07:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No disrespected intended Calton, but I have to say that I see a slippery slope if the pages are protected, not the other way around. --Deskana (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you have an actual rationale other than "Slippery slope! Boogety boogety!" --Calton | Talk 04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For the first time ever, I have to say that Calton actually does a very good job of reverting "vanity" additions and vandalism on the Days of the Year pages. I don't see the need for a partial protection. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is just not heavy and continued vandalism. It's true that there's a lot as a group, but it would be easy to compose a list of 366 articles vandalized at least as frequently. If we're going to bend the policy, it should be available to all drip-drip vandalized articles; I would love to throw a permanent semi-protect on Mormon. Cool Hand Luke 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm against it. Semi-protection is to fight against vandals during a spree, full is for edit conflicts. Either way, I don't want to see any namespace with any sort of permanent protection. Anyone can edit, any time. Keegan^talk 04:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, other than the bureaucratic -- even fundamentalist -- handwaving regarding the unstated eeeeevils of semi-protection, what's the problem here? I repeat:

• 90+% of IP edits to the date pages are vandalism/vanity
• The date pages are reasonably stable to begin with
• The date pages are, essentially, listings, so not much work should be required to begin with.

Some numbers. I checked the edit histories for July for a couple of the pages and came up with the following:

• September 19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Total number of edits: 41
• Vanity/vandalism edits and reversions to fix same: 38
• Actual change in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_19&diff=147351875&oldid=141689153
• Vanity/vandalism additions: 13
• Average time before reversion: 2:18 (two hours, eighteen minutes)
• Range: 0:01 to 8:47
• Number of editors making these changes: 4

• December 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Total number of edits: 25
• Vanity/vandalism edits and reversions to fix same: 23
• Actual change in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_5&diff=147380379&oldid=141152932
• Vanity/vandalism additions: 9
• Average time before reversion: 3:14 (three hours, fourteen minutes)
• Range: 0:00 to 11:46
• Number of editors making these changes: 5

And these are conservative numbers, as a quick glance at the edit history of July 25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) would show. So these numbers extrapolate out to the 366 date articles as, based on this limited set of data, to be about 4,000 vanity/vandalism reversions over slightly less than four weeks. So, tell me again about the slippery-slope evils of semi-protection, again? I'd say putting a big dent in the source of thousands of vandalism/vanity edits each month trumps vague and unsubstantiated noises gesturing towards policy. --Calton | Talk 04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if you picked any 366 high traffic articles and watched them for a month, you would see about 15 vandalism incidents on them. And most of them aren't really "vandalism" -- they tend to be vanity editing, often from well-meaning people who just don't understand our notability guidelines. Lumping them all in with the kind of people who replace pages with swear words, and treating them like a cancer to be removed is pretty contrary to the spirit of this entire project. --Haemo 04:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, our date articles are probably the biggest set of wholly unsourced articles we have - and most aren't even tagged as such, I tagged several of the month articles (e.g., July) back in April and as far as I can tell none have been sourced since- so tagging doesn't seem to move the ball forward much either, but that's another story; yes, they attract vandals, but is sprot'ing the lot in their current unsourced state really the best policy? Carlossuarez46 18:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Really the only way to be sure something is sourced is to go ahead and start yourself ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

Recent edits by an anonymous user with the IP 86.148.14.148 to a discography table on The Stone Roses (edits: [47], [48]) have done nothing other than move some items around and change seemingly minor details like the dates a record was released. The user's only other edit (here) changed the chart position of a record. The trouble is, he or she did not add any edit comment and it's difficult to verify the accuracy of such edits, so I'm wondering whether the user is actually a vandal, since these kinds of edits can easily look legit, but in fact be a deliberate attempt to vandalize Wikipedia by introducing inaccurate information. Is there any way to tell for sure? Are there already documented cases of vandals doing this, along with some guidance on what to do if such vandalism is suspected? Thanks, Hux 12:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandals do that sometimes, but the trouble is (as you said) it's hard to tell whether it's vandalism or not. Often it's things like changing a number such as a car's top speed or the date of someone's birth. I wouldn't know whether that instance is vandalism or not. Sorry :) James086^{Talk | Email} 13:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Stone Roses stuff seems legit when compared to [www.everyhit.com]'s database of UK hit singles. -Halo 05:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. And thanks for the link too - very handy! -- Hux 12:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alkivar

Requesting more eyes to check out the rather strange activity here. Although it isn't unknown for new accounts and IP addresses to leap into existence when an administrator conduct RFC opens, this set of uncivil newcomers springs to the vigorous defense of the administrator.

This has resulted in WP:RFCU#Alkivar, where Iamunknown suggests a connection to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Abu_badali/Proposed_decision#Checkuser_request:_Mosquera.2FYakuman. Maybe broader scrutiny can make better sense of this matter.

Disclaimer: I'm one of the people who certified the basis for this RFC. Durova^Charge! 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Request review of contributions by BlueSapphires for possible WP:POINT block. Durova^Charge! 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My goodness. Videmus Omnia and Abu dabali were the two original certifiers of the case, though you became a third. My contributions detract from the focus on Alkivar which might be your WP:POINT, but they are raising all kinds of trouble. I'm surprised that you'd throw your hat in their camp.

• That they are tag-teaming on the Alkivar case - even having committed WP:CANVASS here, in the certification process.
• There are two open ANIs [1] [2] detailing their egregious behavior with four separate people (obvious targeting).
• The points I raised in the RFC are perfectly valid, because VA and AB were driving this RFC, essentially. It wasn't an RFC that drew huge support, and others seem to have been glad for the additional information.
• Durova seems to be WP:POINT about disregarding the information about the errant pair, Videmus Omnia and Abu dabali, to forward a possible agenda against Alkivar.
• For this, she's referred me for a checkuser, to see if I'm Alkivar (more WP:POINT) and has suggested that I created this account specifically for the Alkivar/RFC. WP:NPA WP:AGF
• This is 2-3 month old account, as I've dropped my old one, which had personally identifying information in my talk page that I want to detach from - and I've been off-wiki for a long time anyways. But the account is 2-3 months old, I've used it for a little editing, and it was certainly not created for the purpose of the RFC. In fact, I've been monitoring Videmus Omnia's attacks on other users, as well as Alkivar.
• I'm concerned about not only the WP:POINT, but also the WP:AGF and WP:NPA aspect of all this. I've said all I've had to say on the RFC. If she wants to try create an ANI on my because I disagreed with her, or supported Alkivar, well then fine, she can do that. What I did was right. BlueSapphires 23:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User is cluttering the RFC with long diatribes such as the above, but often less civil. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I will strike anything which is deemed by consensus to be un-civil. To be fair, these two are trying my patience. One of them just got out of an ARBCOM, for apparently the same thing. And the other went and deleted all the images of four people, including Alkivar and one person who commented on RFC/Alkivar/Talk.
• I'm also done with the Alkivar/RFC, for what it's worth. BlueSapphires 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note - I didn't and can't delete anything, I'm not an admin. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• There are two open ANIs [1] [2] detailing your mass removal tagging and marking for deletion of images, immediately following minor disagreements with the four persons in question. You were also blocked temporarily for the same. BlueSapphires 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tu quoque is not a defense, BlueSapphires, and the rest of the participants at RFC are reasonably within standard procedure for that page. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Tu quoque? Translation please? I am very disappointed in your response to the RFC, and how you don't seem to pay mind to AB and VO behavior, which is poor, per consensus. BlueSapphires 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, he didn't "remove" images; he tagged them for having violated policy, which they did, and which no one disputes. The contention is over posting dozens of warnings -- one for each image -- to the talk pages of the uploaders. And yes, he was temporarily blocked, which was widely criticized and later acknowledged as a mistake by the blocking admin and removed. --Haemo 00:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I corrected that above semantics. But the targeting of people that are in dispute with the two appears to be a pattern, which had a relationship to the RFC, which they initiated. BlueSapphires 00:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

Fair enough; I find the targeting of these two users to be somewhat worrisome as well. However, there is plenty of blame to go around here. --Haemo 00:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as long as it isn't put on one person, then I'm happy. :)

Also, it should be noted to correct the statement above, that Abu badali did not co-certify or even make a comment on the RfC in question. As for the targeting, I regret that, and have apologized at WP:ANI. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that he didn't. But I did note you asked him to in the CANVASS link above. BlueSapphires 01:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A single heads-up to one editor is not canvassing. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you are in a position of moral authority (or a victim) here, after the past week. BlueSapphires 01:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BlueSapphires, any valid criticism you might have of these two editors' conduct is diluted by construing that single post as canvassing. Durova^Charge! 01:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. There was a reason that there were two RFCs on them. I invoked neither. What, pray tell, is your investment in this? WP:POiNT? As for diatribe, I am 100% willing to drop this conversation, save for that I reemphasize that I'm not a sock, and I'm not the person who should be investigated. Hardly. BlueSapphires 01:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Since declaring himself/herself to be done with Alkivar and the RFC (I'm also done with the Alkivar/RFC, for what it's worth. at 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)), BlueSapphires has made five posts in less than two hours to the same RFC[49][50][51][52][53] and numerous posts to this thread. Urgently request WP:POINT review. The RFC is becoming a mess. Durova^Charge! 01:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Madam. Immediately following my above statement, I was asked by VO, on my talk page, to delete two sentences in the RFC, which I did. That took two edits. I saw then that another editor asked what I meant by refering to that you checkusered me. I answered him. That was it. As for accusing me that I had something to do with the other Alkivar discussion - thats uncalled for. I don't appreciate being accused by you - yet again. Nice WP:AGF. As for my numerous posts to this board - you were talking to me, I responded. Kindly stop trumping up false accusations against me. BlueSapphires 02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll second this. I made a comment this morning aimed at diffusing tensions, but frankly at this point have little idea what exactly is going on. Newyorkbrad 01:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad it's not just me. Someone could try lobbing a good-faith grenade over there...Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW the underlying validity of the RFC is discussed here. It's a bit less than overwhelming community indignation, a bit more than two problem editors picking on an admin. Legitimate civility issues on Alkivar's part with some very strange conduct by a few folks who came out of nowhere in his support. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection, at least?[54][55][56] Durova^Charge! 02:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

reply:As long as you stop making accusations about me on the RFC, Durova, and VO doesn't ask me to edit it, then I have nothing more to add to that RFC (or here, for that matter). Most of my conversations on there today (here and there) were answering or contesting your accusations. I suppose I am supposed to not answer that you claim I'm someone I'm not? Uh-uh. BlueSapphires 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BS makes strikeouts for Videmus Omnia on ANI: Videmus Omnia (per my talk page) wants me to make some erasures on the ANI (not the RFC, at least I think I covered that), so I will do that. Please forfend any accusations from Durova about this. Thanks. BlueSapphires 02:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think everybody should chill. Let the RfC run its course, and just drop everything else. I think everyone involved has already learned any lesson there is to be learned here. Everyone will be better off if we all just assume oodles of good faith, and go about our regular business. --Haemo 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All right. Things are settling down over there. Durova^Charge! 15:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about image tagging

Greetings. I have a question about image tagging that I hope will prompt discussion. I post it here in part because I am unsure where else to post it, but also because it is administrators who can ultimately block editors for perceived harassment of uploaders, and so I would like to get a variety of different opinions. I could ask specifically about two uploaders whose logs I examined, where I found a majority of inappropriately tagged (read: mistagged replaceable copyvios, not missing fair use rationales) images, but I am going to ask in general:

How should an editor as myself go about tagging a significant number of images by the same uploader, such that the image tagger (as myself) will not be perceived by reasonable people as engaging in harassment? Please consider commenting on whether the uploader should first be engaged in discussion, and consider whether he or she may be inactive or unresponsive, or whether logs should not or should be used, etc.

Thank you, Iamunknown 00:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I would do, and a number of other users have said similar things, or supported my proposal. Post a single templated warning for each type of violation; then, list the other images with the same type of violation after it, in list form, stating "Also applies to...". --Haemo 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you even need a boilerplate? Write something by hand. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the boilerplate is comprehensive, has the correct tone, and is universally recognized. It's a handy, handy tool. --Haemo 02:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and there are too many noncompliant images and too few people checking them for handwritten messages. Unless vandalism warnings should all be done by hand as well? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are some situations where I prefer to avoid templates, but in many cases they work very well and save time, when crafted and used appropriately. I'd prefer to avoid any situation where we flood someone's talk page with over a dozen apparently redundant templates, though -- perhaps we could modify the templates involved to accept parameters for multiple images, and then either do some work by hand or modify scripts to reflect the template changes? Just a thought. Image tagging is important; it would seem to be best if we could work out a solution which avoids flooding uploaders, without undue strain on those who defend our ability to call ourselves a free encyclopedia. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

People tagging images could start with the simple step of checking a user's talk page before sending any message. If there are already messages of the same kind there, then just give a link to the latest image in the same section. If there are many such messages, that's probably a sign that the boilerplate hasn't been helping at all, and that some better explanation is necessary. --bainer (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Be polite, but be firm. Until(1 == 2) 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is more than one image being tagged per session, these should be noted in one, single section. It should really be intuitive to avoid redundancies and flooding a talk page with, for example, many tens of redundant templates is disruptive. El_C 05:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your comments. I shall take them into consideration. I have one other talking point I hope you might address: Under what circumstances is using an editor's upload logs considered harassment? --Iamunknown 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that it's harassment if you are someone who doesn't generally take a great interest in image copyright issues, and has no significant history of tagging images, you get into a POV conflict with another editor over article content, and then you look through their logs and start tagging their images as lacking source, lacking fair use rationale, etc. If you are someone who is known to be interested in image copyright work, who regularly tags images as not being properly sourced, etc., and you find a user engaging in copyright violation, you not only may but should look through their uploads to tag other images, regardless of the annoyance it may cause.

I think in some cases it may be prudent and sensitive to stop, if you believe that the editor with problem uploads is feeling targeted. In such a case, I think it would be wise to find another editor with a good understanding of copyright and with a tactful manner to take over. That way, if the person with problem uploads continues to get angry, we can take it that it's not because you're harassing them, but because they are more interested in decorating articles than in creating a free encyclopaedia. I know that if I have any faulty image uploads, they should be sorted out; but I know I'd find it galling if someone I was quarrelling with over Gillian McKeith started tagging all my images. ElinorD (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: (mount soapbox) Are we basically saying here that the use of Twinkle to tag multiple images (for I6 remediation for instance) should not be done on the chance that the images may be uploaded by the same person and their talk page will be flooded? I never used to do this work at all until I saw how big the I6 backlog was after the 1 month deletion moratorium. In the process of clearing the backlog, I often came across large non-free galleries. It is very simple to navigate through a template for a video game, for example, and pull up all of the articles pertaining to it in Firefox tabs, and then open each image in a tab to see if it has a rationale. Often many of these images do not have any rationale whatsoever. These images should be tagged, and remediated. Twinkle is very effective at tagging the image, putting a notice on the article and notifying the uploader, with the caveat that it does leave a message for each image. Now if all these images have different uploaders, then this is no big deal, but if one person happened to upload all the screenshots for that videogame, then they get bombarded. Frankly, when I do this work I just navigate from one to another without regard to who the uploader is. I am looking very carefully at the image to see if it is a non-free image tag and that there is no rationale and that's it. I do not typically pay attention to who the uploader is. Is there a consensus here that I should not be doing this or that this is depreciated? While I am not keen to spam user talk pages, it seems that use of non-free images in galleries, discographies, etc. just waiting until BetacommandBot happens to come around at a random interval to clean things up is not particularly effective either. Is there truly a need to watch how many images of a particular user are tagged at any one time? If so, people should not be tagging images, ever, period, full-stop, on the off chance that people will be bombarded. There is too much work to do for this work to be done by hand. Either a bot needs to do it, or we need to have semi-automated tools to help us. I would never endorse focusing on an uploader who you have ever had any conflict with, but it seems that all of these images do need to get cleaned up and everyone involved is going to be affected in some way. Keep in mind as well, that the uploader is not the only one who sees that the images are tagged, since the article also gets a notice in the image caption. I would also like to note that every single time that someone has asked me to restore an image for them so that they could post a rationale, I have done so and been thanked for it. Any time someone has asked me about tagging their images, I have civilly provided them assistance to help them find the tools to tag what is needed. Any time that someone has challenged me about flooding their talk page (only once, I think), I have refactored it for them. I have never been asked to stop what I am doing, and I have been treated pretty well for the most part, and I have responded in kind or better. All of these issues can be found on my talk page, so I'm not providing links here, but if you want them, let me know. (dismount soapbox) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use deletions

Discussion continued at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair_use_deletions_of_living_persons
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems we have a number of rabid users tagging and deleting images after two days for ostensibly violating the Fair-Use policy [57]. Everyone who has uplodaed an image has been bombarded with these messages. The latest for me was an image of an elected state representative File:HUPPENTHAL.gif that has a publicity photo that they use for their press kits. The notice I get is that a free image may be available. I have not found a free image nor can I take one because of security at the capitol. I would put the onus on the deleters to replace the image with a free one if they believe one exists. I have no problem uploading a free image but simply telling me one should exist without finding one is coutnerproductive. This image has a fair use rationale and it's a public figure with publicity photos that appear on government websites. The bigger issue is stopping the insanity of tagging and deleting images after two days. I can't even read the previous history or copyroght info. If anything, it should be blanked, not deleted. --Tbeatty 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Unfortunately, it increasingly appears as if many fair use enforcers are conducting themselves as legislator, police, judge, jury, executioner, and undertaker, but too few dare to effectively protest this in fear of organized retribution. El_C 06:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC) The argument against fair-use for pictures of people that are living is not that a free image does exist, but that one could be created (or in fact, does exist already). Sancho 06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC) That's fine. We understand that. But if it does exist, the deleter should be looking for it and if it doesn't exist, the deleter should look to create it. But deleting legitimate fair use images doesn't accomplish that task. Since fair use is allowed, it seems rather insane to delete fair use images without replacing them with the free content. The fair use images should stay tagged until a free one is available but not deleted until that happens. --Tbeatty 07:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC) No, deleting legitimate fair use images doesn't help, but in the case where the image is of a living person, the use is not legitimate fair-use. I don't think anyone is deleting fair-use images. They are deleting images that fail to meet the criteria for non-free content (aka. fail to meet the fair-use criteria). The Wikimedia Foundation's Licensing Policy] requires us to delete images that don't comply with the licensing policy of the project. If the image is a non-free image, and fair-use doesn't apply, we do need to delete it. Sancho 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Also, I should add that something like 30,000 images per month have problems with their licensing. Everyone here is a volunteer. Some of us help the encyclopedia by ensuring that the media complies with policy by removing non-compliant media. This helps downstream users be able to trust that the content they receive is either "free" or tagged with enough information to make the judgment about whether or not they can use the material themselves. Other users volunteer by contributing new, free media. These two don't have to be the same groups of people. If we required people from group 1 to do the activities that the people in group 2 do, we'd probably lose a lot of people doing activity 1, which would really hurt the encyclopedia, I think. Sancho 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) By definition, fair use images that are tagged with the date and source comply with policy. In fact, it will create a problem for wikipeida if it takes it upon itself to delete material as it will void the real official position of uploader(s) are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions are legal. The interpretation that living persons cannot have fair use pictures of them in the encyclopedia is absurd. Of course free is preferred, but purging fair use pictures that are legitmate fair use will not protect Wikipedia from copyright infringement and it also sets up the project for a de facto ruling that the project is responsible for all images as it polices itself in direct opposition to the policy that uploaders police themselves. --Tbeatty 07:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Actually, disallowing nonfree images of living people has helped tremendously in getting free pictures of them. It encourages people to create and upload new free images of that person, or request a free-license release of images which others have taken, and often these efforts are successful. Articles on living people now have many free images, and it's largely due to disallowing nonfree ones. There's a lot less of an incentive if something is already there and it's likely to be allowed to remain indefinitely. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Why don't the deleters find these non-free images? They can query the holder of the copyright if they have questions about fair-use. I don't mind deleting fair-use after a free one has been uploaded. There is no value, though, to replacing legitimate fair-use images with free ones. They are legally the same. Lazy deletionist are creating worthless work for editors and removing legal content. Also, it creates a huge amount of Original Research. Joe Editor taking a picture is not the same as a sourced version. There is no verification that the image is accurate because there is no reliable source. --Tbeatty 08:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I think you missed the point that images of living people used in an article for the sole purpose of showing what the person looks like are not fair-use uses. This is covered under Wikipedia:Non-free content. Images tagged as "fair use" need to show more than date and source; they must also provide a fair-use rationale. The real official position regarding content licensing includes the line: "As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well." See example 8 under Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Examples_of_unacceptable_use for why images of living people only to show what they look like will always lack an appropriate exemption rationale. Sancho 08:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I think that "uploader(s) are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions are legal" is a disclaimer rather than a guide to fair use policy. WP:NFCC#1 should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Per WP:FAIR, There are some works, mostly historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself. Logically, if a person is still alive, getting a photo of them is a realistic expectation. If the person were dead and there were no known free-use images, then yes, a fair use would be justified as an irreplaceable illustration, however a living person CAN be expected to have a free picture eventually, and that should be used. Also from the same article, which is why we don't use fair-use for BLPs, An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph. Also, removing non-free use images and adding free ones is a different purpose. A, someone who doesn't have access to the person couldn't take a photo, and B, lack of a replacement NOW is not a lack of replacement IN THE FUTURE, or a reason to break the rules. Your logic is like saying that vigilantism is OK if the police don't find enough evidence.--Lie! 08:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC) No, I'm saying that fair use can cover living people and that's case law and statute. The blanket exclusion of living people is silly and unnecessarily burdensome. Here are the factors used for fair use (from our article on fair use). Notice how alive is absent. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Thumbnail publicity photos of elected politicians that are recreated in Wikipedia easily clear all four "fair use" criteria. Namely, it's non-profit educaitonal, it's specifically created to be distributed, it's a low resolution, there is no future potential market for this image. By creating a new "fair use" standard for living people, these administrators are wasting the time of volunteers. If they think there is value in creating a free image that hey can source as being accurate, then they should do so. But don't make up rules that are not based on reality and expect others to comply. --Tbeatty 08:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC) No one is arguing that the use of these images violates US copyright law as it pertains to fair use considerations. If you think that the "replaceability" rule is unrealistic or unfair, please discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. The practice of deleting copyright photographs of living people is fairly well established by now. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Administrators have no special role in the crafting of policy. Policies regarding non-free content has been crafted by the entire community that expressed interest in the policy. We don't make up rules and expect others to comply, the community crafts policy and only expects those that want to participate in this community to comply. Sancho 08:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (EC) Our restrictions on nonfree content are deliberately and knowingly stricter than the legal requirements. Otherwise, we'd use "noncommercial use only", "educational use only", and "permission for Wikipedia only" without restriction, as obviously we are noncommercial, educational, and Wikipedia. The reason we don't is that those are not free content, and the bit you see up at the top left of your page, under the Wikipedia logo, doesn't say "Wikipedia, the legally-compliant encyclopedia." Maximizing free content is a core part of our mission. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC) And to hell with that secondary thing called knowledge. ;) El_C 08:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Maximizing free content does not mean eliminating all non-free content. Again, wikipedia allows fair use. It is not policy to delete fair use images. Living people can have photos of them that are fair use so their deletion is somewhat arbitrary. Wikipedia is NOT free content and never pretends to be as it will always have fair use content. The distinction between pictures of living people and pictures of dead people is NOT a legal one. There is no difference in the content if they are both fair use, therefore wikipedia distributions will always have fair use requirements. --Tbeatty 08:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) However, it is policy to delete images that don't meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Sancho 08:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC) This policy has been arrived at by community consensus. If you disagree with it, there is nothing that an administrator at this noticeboard can do to help you. You need to bring up the topic at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content. Sancho 08:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (EC) Tbeatty, we don't disagree that photos of living people would be legal. What we do disagree on is simply blowing off the "free content" part of the mission because we don't do it 100%. (The German Wikipedia actually does restrict itself to 100% free content, and they seem to be doing quite well.) However, we should still keep nonfree content to an absolute minimum, and part of that is asking the question "Is it replaceable by free content?" In the case of a living person, the answer is almost always "yes, it is." And yes, deletion of nonfree content which does not fulfull the nonfree content requirements (which, again, are more strict than the legal requirements) actually is policy. (And in reply to El_C, yes, knowledge is a core mission as well as promotion of free content (not instead of it, alongside it!), but replaceable nonfree images of living people don't often contribute significantly to knowledge of that person.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Incidentally, making that distinction that pictures of living persons are not fair use in wikipedia, will torpedo any defense of fair use for pictures of dead people. hard to obtain is not one of the 4 criteria for fair use. A tacit admission that Wikipedia's use of images of living people is not fair use will create a nightmare in a fair use lawsuit since the criteria for fair use includes the nature of the enterprise. These delitionists are creating more of a problem then they are solving. --Tbeatty 08:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC) + :::(EC) Tbeatty, we don't disagree that photos of living people would be legal. What we do disagree on is simply blowing off the "free content" part of the mission because we don't do it 100%. (The German Wikipedia actually does restrict itself to 100% free content, and they seem to be doing quite well.) However, we should still keep nonfree content to an absolute minimum, and part of that is asking the question "Is it replaceable by free content?" In the case of a living person, the answer is almost always "yes, it is." And yes, deletion of nonfree content which does not fulfull the nonfree content requirements (which, again, are more strict than the legal requirements) actually is policy. (And in reply to El_C, yes, knowledge is a core mission as well as promotion of free content (not instead of it, alongside it!), but replaceable nonfree images of living people don't often contribute significantly to knowledge of that person.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC) The policy page is locked because of edit warring and the current version is not necessarily endorsed as policy. --Tbeatty 08:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC) If you look through the page history, you should see that there has been no warring over the requirement that an image not be replaceable. Sancho 08:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Here is the edit war and it's exactly what we are talking about. This should not be enforced as policy as it is not defined what replaceable means. . --Tbeatty 09:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) This image also meets all 10 requirements as the "living person image" requirement is not policy but a guideline. --Tbeatty 09:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC) En.Wiki is not De.Wiki, and let's hope it never becomes it. El_C 09:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC) :) I guess it's a matter of how you interpret our mission. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I care about knowledge, not about some corporation being able to profit from my volunteer labour. The whole disallowing for educational or noncommerical uses media content smacks of profit-seeking which is antithetical to knowldge. El_C 09:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I don't see how corporations would be better able to profit from a wikipedia without fair use content. Anyway, half of the essay deals with de.wiki's better management of knowledge and higher ratio of quality to crap articles. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC) That point was not FU-related, for once. As for de, I have no idea how well it runs. I presume their entry about Goethe is okay. El_C 10:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC) It's doing all right, and it is extremely well illustrated. Removing all fair use content does come at a heavy price, it puts drastic constraints on the ability to illustrate twentieth century art, biographies and fictions (among other topics). On the other hand, consider all of the problems that our ass-backwards fair use policy has caused. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Surprisingly, un-feuatured (or, do they not have those). The FU question is how many of these problems were and continue to be self-inflicted? And to what extent is the paranoiac and even paramilitary conflated with the rational. El_C 10:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC) There's been an ever growing pressure to clamp up on fair use, and, yeah, the response to such stress has gone up proportionally. The way I see it, interpreting fair use in the context of a free-license project has caused no end to pontification from armchair lawyers and the anal retentive. This is why I am inclined to reject fair use despite any moral considerations. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I'm afraid view such an inclination as inherently defeatist and urge against it in the strongest possible terms. El_C 11:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (EC) Elian's comparison there is almost enough to make me wish I spoke German. :) Really, while I can see arguments for occasional use of nonfree content, I think we might be better off if we just said "Free only, period, end of story." It'd certainly put a stop to all of these threads, and it seems that when we allow nonfree content, everyone wants a flood of it ("All corporate logos! All (album|book|movie|etc.) covers!") rather than measured and very occasional use where the benefits are immense and indisputable rather than marginal and perhaps nonexistent. And we sure could use a bit more of that "Get it right the first time" culture too... But in a more on-topic and more serious response to El_C, contributing to any free-content project means, by definition, that corporations may profit from your volunteer labor. (They can't lock down the product of your volunteer labor with licenses like the GPL or GFDL, but they sure can profit from it.) answers.com is right now making a nice profit off of everything you've ever written here, perfectly legally, so are a bunch of other mirrors. If I wanted to make a printed version of Wikipedia and sell it, or offer a more easily indexable version for a fee, or whatever you like, I'm free to do all of that, so long as I comply with the GFDL. That's a major part of free content, "noncommercial only" is nonfree only. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Noncommercial-only would be fine if it wasn't for this profit-seeking ideology that key WMF figures promote at all cost. El_C 10:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Non-com and with-permission make sense, but the WMF goal was defined from the beginning. I don't know whether it's fair to attribute this to profit seeking or the pre-established open source standards. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Of course it makes sense, if the goal is knowledge. I call it what it is. El_C 10:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC) The goal is freely reusable knowledge. And yes, "freely reusable" means "If someone can find a way to make money off it without locking it down, more power to them." That's always been part of the free-content standard. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Again, the goal is, or at least should be, knowledge, not recycling what was since time immemorial, nor otherwise polemical exclamations. El_C 11:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, that's why we had a fair use standard prior to this pointless purge. --Tbeatty 15:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC) If we cannot be very strict about fair use then we should not have it at all. If an image is not free, then the least we can do is provide a reasonable justification for fair use and attribution to the source. That is all the policy requires, and if that is not done then every last violation should be deleted as soon as possible. Until(1 == 2) 15:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Perhaps calling this issue "fair use" leads to more heat than light. It is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation that unfree images of living people may not be used on Wikimedia projects, regardless of whether they could be included legally under fair use law. Arguing here that this policy impedes Wikipedia's goals is ineffectual, because the policy does not come from here. —David Eppstein 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

The article Naranjo, Guatemala was moved from Naranjo via cut and paste to make way for a disambiguation page. Could the talk page and history be restored? Eluchil404 07:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a {{db-histmerge|Naranjo}} tag on the article. Hopefully this will be dealt with soon. Od Mishehu 07:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Next time, please use WP:RM. El_C 07:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually use WP:SPLICE. Prodego ^talk 13:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rollback unredirectedness

Is there any way to make rollback work like it did last month? I can't tell which rollback work and which don't without spending needless effort. El_C 10:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

? Viridae^Talk 11:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Before I left for Israel a few weeks ago, after making a rollback, it would automatically redirect back to the respective page. This is how it has been for years (ever since I became an admin in 2005). Now it's just stuck in the rollback window (the one which hithero would inform you of a rollback edit conflict — otherwise, it would redirect back to the page). My question is whether I can autoredirect again. El_C 11:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, I was just now attending to double vandalism to John Howard. First, I rollbacked Mr. Cherry Leggs, then clicked to get to the page and fix the prior vandalism by 58.179.77.88. An extra click doesn't sound like a lot, but it sure adds up. El_C 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed it too, and I've got to say I found it annoying too. I always liked that as soon as you clicked Rollback it'd take you back to the article straight away. --Deskana (banana) 11:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that whomever changed this didn't take us, massive rollbackers into account. Because I have firefox with 25 tabs open (I updated recently and took me a while to remember how to change browsermintabs; i.e. to integer 8 instead of 100, but that's another stogy) and I rollback vandalism or spam, and I can see in the tabs themselves what works as I go to the next one instead of having to go back and check. That totally wastes my time. If Wikipedia servers could match my 10mb connection, than it would be instant and I wouldn't need to manage my time this way, but they're slow and in the interests of productivity I go to the next instead of waiting the 5-10 seconds. This need to doublecheck what worked, however, is a total time waster. I guess what I'm saying is that Deskana, being the techguru that he is (probably!), should find out what happened (i.e. revert the clueless edit to whichever mediawiki page causing it). El_C 11:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All timed redirects were removed in [[(revision 23979 for accessibility reasons. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-16/Technology report. Using a screen reader, I found the redirects after logging in and things like that to be annoying, but I never found the rollback redirect to be a problem on my test wiki. Then again, I don't think the rollback redirect took a long time to appear ... Graham87 13:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I never even noticed it was a redirect, since it was so quick. I thought when you clicked rollback it took you back to the article you reverted on straight away. We should ask them to put it back in. --Deskana (banana) 13:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Links Deletions on Eagles and Don Henley

Three different ip addresses (none of them used before this weekend) keep on deleting links from the Don Henley and Eagles entries. I have asked them to discuss this on the pages Talkpages but they ignore me and just keep undoing my reversions. I don't want to get into an edit war so I'm leaving the articles alone now. Kelpin 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Its now 4 IP Addresses. I don't know if these are Sock Puppets but they look like they are based on their editing behaviors.Kelpin 13:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please ignore - the changes have now been explained to me on the Talkpage. Kelpin 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Block Review - Vintagekits

I have indef blocked Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). However, as a (sometime) useful contributor, albeit one with a record of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, gross incivility, personal attacks and edit warring and, I kindly request another admin review the block.

Vintagekits has been blocked nine times previously this calender year. Recently he was determined to have recuited meatpuppets to stack votes in a AfD see (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits) and has previously operated two sockpuppets and used them in a manner not permitted by policy. There was some admin support to indef block him after the meatpuppetry incident, but a week long block followed by mentorship, by SirFozzie was agreed upon. However, it was made clear to Vk that further transgressions would not be permitted and will result in longer blocks. Since then there have been literally dozens of occasions where Vk has edit-warred, or enagaged in incivility. These precipitated into a 24hr block by his mentor for further incivility. I also issued a final warning for this attack (note Vk has a unique style of writing which intensifies when he is attacking people, however the meaning is not difficult to understand). I issued a 31 hour block this afternoon after a spate of questionable edits culminating in this edit and summary, which reflects pretty accurately Vk's long-standing attitude to editors who hold differing opinions to him in certain geo-political spheres.

Vk's response was a tirade of abuse, bother personal and sectarian, threats of violence (rather comical, to be honest) and meat puppetry (which he has threatened previously and carried out) [58][59][60][61] until his talk page was protected by another admin.

The attacks on me are neither here nor there, but I really think we have given this editor chance after chance and still he shows no real committment to treating other editors with respect. Worse, however, I feel it is pretty clear that he sees Wikipedia as a POV battleground. Short of an indef block, the only way forward I see is a ban on editing articles related to Irish republicanism (his contributions to boxing articles are constructive and relatively free of civility problems). Rockpocket 02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What does his mentor think? If SirFozzie is willing to keep an eye on him, I would support a brief block and a topic ban upon his return. If SirFozzie doesn't want the responsibility (which is perfectly understandable) I suppose the indef should stay in effect. My two cents. IrishGuy ^talk 02:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for his input, though he appears to be on a short break. I should add, I have received a number of charming emails, one that I will reproduce:

UP YER ARSE YA WANKERS !! YOU WONT BE FORGOTTIN - YOU AND YER GEEK LIFE ARE ABOUT TO GET ASHOICK -WAIT 5 DAYS AND IT WILL START - YA TRAITOR HUN LOVIMG CHUNT

The others are similar, but longer and less coherent. Rockpocket 02:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. I have tried to help Vintagekits in the past, and I also received some pretty abusive emails and threats from him after his last block. My patience is certainly exhausted, personally. This editor only wants to push a narrowly nationalistic agenda, and (even more importantly) has shown beyond all doubt that he is incapable of operating within our norms. We have been more than patient with him as a community and we should recognise that after almost a year he is not going to change. I say that in all sorrow. --John 02:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

E-mail is blocked now as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The indef-block sounds about right. Reform only works when someone has a genuine interest in working on Wikipedia harmoniously. When someone's goals conflict with ours, though, they will work towards those goals until they are finally banned outright. They will never give up the goal merely to be able to continue editing, since they don't really care about editing for editing's sake, only for advancing their agenda. --Cyde Weys 03:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur and endorse the indef block - the email incivility drives the point home. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block. Useful contributions do not justify continued, and seeming continual disruption. I suspect the editor will be back, though. Keegan^talk 04:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie has good judgment, but I don't see any reason to tolerate gross incivility if he's unavailable. Durova^Charge! 05:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bejasus; maybe wikipedia does work after all. Well done. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(sighs) I have to very reluctantly endorse this block. I was hping that VK was turning over a new leaf.. even those who were opposing him mentioned on my page that he was improving in some ways.. but this is beyond the pale. SirFozzie 12:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with indef block, but that doesn't infer that I agree with all his edits. WP is a broad church, I hope! GH 18:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block but ultimatley leave it up to sir fozzie. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As an editor/admin who's also dialoged with VK, I reluctantly also endorese. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick update. Vintagekits has emailed me (I had sent him emails when I was counseling him, so he had my off-WP email). Probably as you can guess from the email plus his comments, he was more then a bit drunk, and more then a bit shocked to find out what he did when he woke up today. He's apologized to me, and asked me to pass on an apology to Rockpocket, which I have done so. I'm not going to lift the block, however. Maybe a few months down the road, when we improve the enviroment on WP, he can come back in some very limited capacity, and see if he can regain the community's trust. *sighs* SirFozzie 19:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to publicly accept Vk's apology. Rockpocket 05:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

May I just add this note. I always found Vintagekits civil and spirited in the past. Actually I could see this coming this last couple of weeks. There was a certain hounding and baiting going on, and unfortunately these results were very much inevitable. GH 19:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is tragic. While I would endorse a shorter block (up to a month) I dont think he should be indefinitely blocked without being up in front of the arbcom first, and this because of his record of main space edits. Anyone of us who drink can say things we regret so he should get another chance, SqueakBox 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he should be indef blocked, without prejudice, until a decision is reached by the arbcom. This may be of some benefit to Vintagekits, as it doesn't give him the opportunity to further taint his history. LessHeard vanU 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Tragic? No. Maybe MrDarcy will now return? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittybrewster (talk • contribs)

Tragic?! This user engaged in meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry, not to mention incivility and personal attacks on an almost daily basis. Extreme PoV pushing and edit-warring... Nine blocks since January! If you weren't with him, you were against him and were treated as such. Fully endorse the indef block. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No Bastun, I was neutral. There are some neutral people still left, even in the world of Wikipedia. There is much more going on here than meets the eye, but will be sorted eventually without my help. We need more Irish editors on Wikipedia. GH 08:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

100% agree - but VK is too provocative, rude and POV. Bastun was responding to squeakbox. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

GH. You have, a number of times now, implied that there is something else afoot here. Perhaps could could enlighten us to what this is, so we can address it rather than interpret hints. Rockpocket 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't encourage any editor to work with you. You left a racist remark on my page, which I subsequently had to delete [62]. One which I found very offensive. Neither have I received an apology from you yet. GH 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bit of an over-reaction perhaps, seeing that, despite apparently finding it so offensive, you proceeded to add an example yourself about another nationality.[63] Or does that mean you would encourage other editors not to work with you also? Tyrenius 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That comment was in jest for Vk's benefit. I had been discussing the issue with Vk privately and he had told me that he loses his temper quickly and says things that he almost immediately regrets. In response had joked along the lines of "I wonder where people get these stereotypes from". Vk, as far as I know, took the comment in the manner it was offered and certainly expressed no offence, indeed our conversation at that juncture was most congenial. If you had a problem with that comment, why didn't you express concern at the time, or even indicate that you found it offensive? I would have been happy to withdraw it from your page and offer an apology for the offence caused. This is the first I have heard of the matter and seeing as the comment was not made in reference to you, I find it difficult to understand how I am supposed to know you found it offensive and would like an apology (assuming this is what you expect an apology for). As it is, I'm very sorry for offending you. Is there anything else afoot? Rockpocket 00:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I did remove it from my page very quickly, and I did find it extremely offensive, and you did actually write those remarks on my page, and not very privately. Your apology appears to be somewhat reserved and very excuse ridden. But I will accept the apology at face value. Sadly, Tyrenius seems quite satisfied with the offence caused. GH 04:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In retrospect it was ambiguous to write that publically on your page, albeit within scare quotes and in reference to someone else, when you were not aware of the context it was used with respect to that person. That I regret. The apology is somewhat reserved because it has taken almost two weeks - and a blocking you disagree with - for you to mention how "extremely offended" you are by it, despite interacting with me on my talkpage since and responding to the original comment with a smiley face. Nevertheless, I'll accept it at face value. Is there something about Vk's blocking that bothers you, or is that the extent of the concerns you have? Rockpocket 18:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A racist remark is a racist remark, whether it is today or yesterday. It's not vital that a recipient of racial attack respond immediately, or respond at all, it doesn't lessen the intent. I would have a problem working with editors that are racist, or have a tendency to racist remarks. I really do think that you should stand down from the relevant Irish pages. GH 17:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Except it wasn't a "racist attack", as I have explained. The fact you replied with a smiley then used a similar comment in response ("Germanic ice in their veins," which incidently I took no offense at) leaves me skeptical of your retrospective complaint. If you are going to make hysterical accusations of racism, you really should make sure you are not guilty of exactly the same thing lest you appear a hypocrite. I have see no reason to recuse myself from Irish articles, as I have previously explained to you. Though if the community has a problem with my work on Irish articles, I may consider. I suggest you open an RfC if my (multiple) apologies are not sufficient, or else drop this. Rockpocket 19:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See Rockpocket, it was a racist attack, but neither do I harbour any vexation against you. These are the sort of caricatures that eventually led to the holocaust, and those millions who suffered, cannot now respond, or to the nineteenth century Punch caricatures of suffering people of Ireland, that absolved the UK government from doing "more" for "those" people, and when civil rights were fought for, it was such an elitist way of dismissing the plight of a whole nation. GH 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

An interesting article here.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (fixed link by removing errant pipe Rockpocket 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)) Sorry/ thank you.--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Link doesn't work for me, Major. Also, VK has asked me privately to unprotect his talk page. I have done so, but I'm sure he knows that the second he steps out of line, the protection can and will be reapplied. SirFozzie 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Might be an appropriate time to permit him to send emails again, also. Rockpocket 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. SirFozzie 19:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we baleet a user ?

Can we delete any references to indef blocked [private information removed] per WP:DENY, and also hard delete this current discussion ? Also in relation to this; User:Madjabuds, who claims to be the pornographic actress known as Sasha Grey, was warned about making legal threats, diff, but made 2 more legal threats in response to this warning diff and diff. This user is also claiming ownership of the page in the edit summary of this diff. Also the user claims to have the right to modify the picture illustrating the article, this is a blatant WP:COI, as Sasha Grey is a performer and User:Madjabuds is claiming to be her and wants to modify her image in order to better sell her performance. If you look on encyclopediadramatica at the article called Sasha Grey, you can see the kind of stupidity at the root of these problems. Don't let people abuse the privacy of others, but do not let wikipedia be manipulated by COI simply because the thing that is being sold in this instance is a performance and not a produce, and the main subject of the article has suffered from trolling. Jackaranga 13:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also the image User:Madjabuds, wants to keep on the page is in violation of the recommendations on Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography, i.e. if it were a child in the picture it could be classed as child porn, and as wikipedia does not keep the legal documents certifying a person's age, a picture of the face is better. However User:Madjabuds, has repeatedly removed the picture of Sasha Grey's face only to replace it with the current picture, which is slightly pornographic in nature, possibly for commercial purposes (WP:COI. Jackaranga 13:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To your first point, we can't "delete" a user, but a bureaucrat can rename the user to a less trollish title (there isn't any precedent for that, but it might be allowed if there are privacy concerns). All references to the content on talk pages can also be removed. The relevant revisions of this page can also be deleted. To your other point, any pornographic images which may depict minors must be removed, unless we have written evidence that they are adults and/or have given their consent to have their pictures used in this manner. Walton^One 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. The problem here is that User:Madjabuds claiming to be Sasha Grey does not want her real name published. That is fine, but we must therefore assume that the article will be about the performer not the individual behind the performance. Therefore there is a fundamental conflict of interest, when User:Madjabuds removes a perfectly good image, to replace it with one which is less good because more pornographic in nature and not showing the face so well. She says it is "for quality control" this is blatant COI. She is using wikipedia to promote her performance, and making legal threats even though previously warned. She also claimed ownership of the page, showing more COI. Is this all OK ? I'm just checking because it is a complicated issue to comprehend. Where I live anyone has the right to view and modify the information regarding them as they like by law. Is this also the case in the USA where wikipedia is based ? And is this article about a person or a performance ? And if it is about a person, should we be even keeping the article if we can't even know the person's name ? You can't have everything in my opinion, an article about yourself on wikipedia but without showing your name ? This leads me to believe the article is about a performer and thus there is a COI. Jackaranga 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty standard practice nowadays on Wikipedia to omit the real name of someone only known to the world under a stage name if that name is not common knowledge and not available from solid sources, especially if the individual requests that their real name not be used. See our policy on Biographies of living persons for more details. I don't think, in this case, that Sasha Grey's request to have her real name kept out of her Wikipedia article is unreasonable. It also does not change the nature of the article, which should primarily be about what is notable about the person, not trivia about their private life. In this case, Sasha Grey is a performer, and the article is primarily about her as a performer, not the intimate details of her private life.

It is also twisting the truth, IMO, to state that the picture User:Madjabuds, aka Sasha Grey, prefers to be used for her in the article is pornographic. It is sexy, yes, but that does not equate to porn. In the photo, Sasha Grey is dressed fully enough to walk around in public without being arrested for indecent exposure. That does not qualify as porn by any standards in use in the United States, at least. I feel it is completely appropriate for use in a Wikipedia article, if correctly licensed as it appears to be. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Ryulong

The pail or the pale, that is the question? The answer is a pale pail of course. Impale whoever wrote this. _{Note: It's actually spelled "empail", as in "Meet our newest admin, Cacknuck, who was empailed on July 30, 2007". Don't feel bad, it's a common misspelling.} That pales pails pahles by comparison.

It is with great regret that I get to this issue. But the conduct of Ryulong has been so above the pail, and so awful (I look in his block log, and the great majority of users, even good faith ones, are blocked indef without the slightest warning; and this just a few days after he promised to stop this at the threat of admin recall) - that I have to open up an RFC on this user. I think this is lenient - it only hasn't happened before because of the great amount of time needed to go through with it, and no one (myself included) has the patience. Unfortunately, I don't have much time (only a few hours per day at most), so it's going to have scant material in it; I ask for other users who have had problems with Ryulong to add material. The Evil Spartan 19:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• The discussion, of course, is here. WilyD 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's blank at the moment. With all due respect, I think if you feel a RFC is in order the least you should do is fill out the description and some of the action items (desired outcome at least) and evidence. Maybe withdraw it until you have some time to work on it? Thanks, RxS 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (You haven't even certified it yourself)

• Is his conduct above the pail, or beyond the Pale? In all seriousness, I'm not commenting on the necessity of an RfC, but I agree it would be best to collect the evidence first; otherwise the open, empty RfC just becomes troll bait. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly, guys, I hate to sound rude, but I don't have the time to be around here all day. I know it sounds bad, but I really don't know if I'm even going to be on for a while; and I only have a few hours to get it done per day anyway. I would not have instantiated this, but several admins have actually asked him to be recalled - let alone have an RFC on him. Please don't delete it yet. If you must, please move it to my user space after a day or so. The Evil Spartan 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's understandable, and I didn't mean to be hard on you. It can be userfied if necessary. By the way, can you point me to the thread where the issue of recall was raised? MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In his last archive. Several administrators brought it up. He promised to stop being so trigger happy, so they backed off. The Evil Spartan 20:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the lack of time also, so no problems. I was just thinking that some work could be done on it before posting it to the general Wiki. I see you've been working on it so it's all good. RxS 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Have I done something wrong?

On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/300 (film), I was concerned about the weak coverage given to the Iranian reaction to the film. I illustrated this by suggesting that a featured article on The Passion of the Christ would contain more than 1.5 paragraphs on the Jewish reaction to the film. Whilst I realise now this was an oversimplification, I was not prepared for the accusations of racism from User:Arcayne or the removal of some of my comments. My efforts to explain my position have not been successful, and I've been told to 'take my soapbox elsewhere'. See also my talk page.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I initially removed the comments that suggested that the writers of the article (and Wikipedia in general) gave perferential treatment to Jewish sentiments over those of muslim countries - specifically in this case, Iran. When he reinstated them, I answered these disruptive remarks, indicating they were such for having suggested that the writers of the article were racist. I did not call Mydas a racist; I called his little asides accusations of our racism, and took offense at that. I offered him the opportunity to address the 'great unfairness' of Wikipedia's preferential treatment at the Village Pump, as it has precisely no place on an article's fac page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Arcayne's removal of Nydas's comments as being justified under WP:TALK. Arcayne's claim of racism seems peculiar. The issue was that the ancient Persians were being depicted in 300 (film), while ancient Jews were depicted in The Passion of the Christ. The analogy doesn't seem far-fetched. I have no opinion on whether the amount of coverage of the modern Iranian reaction in the article under FA review was appropriate. Since Nydas restored his comments, and they have been allowed to remain, I don't see that there is still an issue needing administrator response, unless this discussion gets further out of control. EdJohnston 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nydas first suggested that the writers of the article were racists by removing or downplaying commentary about Iranian anti-sentiment about the film by comparing it incorrectly to the Last Temptation of Christ and the Jewish criticism. Nydas specifically suggested that were it Jewish sentiment, we would have given it more play than we supposedly gave Iranian (read: Muslim) criticism. Then, he commented on the preferential treatment given Jewish concerns by the English-language Wikipedia. I took offense at being called a racist, having my fellow contributors called racists and having the English-language Wikipedia considered racist. I certainly hope that is a clear enough explanation as to why he used up all his good faith with me by replacing his comments on an FAC page instead of taking them someplace else. His comments were inappropriate for the discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out which comments you are referring to when you say "Nydas first suggested that the writers of the article were racists..."? Diffs are the best way to do this. --bainer (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any diffs, since I haven't suggested anyone was racist. I just suggested the article lacked a worldwide view of the subject. Arcayne views this as an accusation of racism, even though the subject is covered in depth at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countering systemic bias.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Category, Infobox, and Script Removals

To whom it may concern: I am informing you that User:AjitPD has removed several Categories, Scripts, etc. from multiple articles. Other individuals (i.e. 1, 2) as well as myself (i.e. 3), have kindly requested him to stop, but he continues to do so. I have personally spent over two hours reverting his edits. Could you please address this issue? I would highly appreciate it. Thanks in advance! With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Request

Resolved

I don't know if this goes here, but would someone please undelete Grockle which was prod-ed. I would like to expand it. Thank you. 209.77.205.2 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tricky 3RR

Resolved

I closed this badly filed and rather incivil report as No Violation, but looking at it again there is some element of reversion in of the user's last four edits to the article, even though they're not to the same version and have incorporated intervening diffs. It leaves me rather unsure, so an extra pair of eyes might be useful. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorted out (for now) after a bit of negotiation. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali closed

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Abu badali (talk · contribs) is counselled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who question his tagging of images and to work with them in a collaborative way. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ericthebrainiac

For well over a year now, there has been a troll on the Reference Desks asking questions about MyNetworkTV Telenovelas and the Good Burger movie. Their posts have been deleted over and over again, because it's pretty clear that their questions were not designed to actually solicit information, but just to make silly questions on the RD. I can't point to any diffs, but there have been TONS of them. They would ask questions like, "When is Good Burger going to be made into a TV show?" or "In what city in Florida will the next Good Burger be filmed?" They asked such questions about MyNetworkTV telenovelas as "When will MyNetworkTV start filming my version of such and such telenovela?" I wasn't aware at the time that the people asking the questions about the two subjects were actually the same person, since they have used tons of different anon IDs to post their questions. Well, now comes Ericthebrainiac (talk · contribs), asking the exact same nonsense questions again, and nothing else of substance. Any chance he can get blocked? Corvus cornix 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Note his edits to Talk:Eric Lerner. Corvus cornix 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lots of candidates for speedy deletion here

I've been cleaning up the punk record labels category, and so far have had at least ten pages speedy deleted.

I imagine there are a plethorea of these here[64]. If anyone is looking to do some speedy deletes this is the place.Hoponpop69 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You'd probably get a better response over on WP:AN; when the CSD backlogs get insanely high, that's generally the place to drop a note. I'd help out, but I'm at work. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for review of administrative action

A couple of days ago I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid as delete based on a close review of the policy arguments that had been put forward in the discussion. The decision seems to have upset those who voted to keep or merge the article and is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid. Input from uninvolved administrators, particularly those with prior experience of closing AfDs, would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a nasty cynic, but it kinda looks like you're canvassing for people to help out because your deletion decision may get overturned. Neil ╦ 21:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm merely asking fellow administrators for an independent review of my actions. I haven't asked to be helped out and I wouldn't insult people by asking. -- ChrisO 21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The decision seems to have upset those who voted to keep or merge the article — how diplomatic... El_C 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

DRVs happen to everyone. They should - don't worry about it. If you decided it right, you'll be vindicated. If you decided it wrong - hey, we all fuck up, no worries, eh? WilyD 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Duae Quartunciae/WFCKehler

User:Duae Quartunciae/WFCKehler - WTF? Corvus cornix 02:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a communication page of a adoptee/adopter. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Duae Quartunciae has been helping out with alerts at WP:WQA. He also posted an alert himself here, in regards to the user WFCKehler who edits only from IP addresses. WQA has not responded to this alert yet because we didn't really have any idea what to do about it, then as usual, many more alerts came in and we've been busy with those, so his alert does not yet have a response.

Apparently, Duae Quartunciae set up that sub-page to have a way to communicate with the IP editor, since the IP was changing so no user talk page was available. I will inform Duae Quartunciae that this is being discussed here. I'm sure he would appreciate any advice or help that can be provided. His help with WQA has been positive and well-appreciated. --Parsifal _Hello 02:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I knew it was some sort of communication page. That makes more sense than the adoptee idea, as I didnt see anything about adoption. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a formal adoption. It was an informal notion of my own. I think I know what the right advice is at this point... give up and disengage. But I may try a bit longer. I am giving these links here just in case anyone wants to dig further or help resolve it all.

Background to this whole thing... Mr Kehler is from Germany, and has been contributing in good faith some very unusual WP:POV to lots of physics pages, for about almost three months now. How uses a dynamic IP address, so finding the edits is very difficult (unless someone here can tell me how to look at contributions from the IP range 84.158.*.*). I came across this rather innocently in the Fritz Zwicky biography, where I made some major changes. Mr Kehler was very put out at my edits. Ever since he has been very upset with me, and made comments to that effect in a number of different locations.

Because of the dynamic IP address problem, initial communication to resolve issues directly was rather tricky. I therefore set up this page in my own user space, and gave a link to it in one of the article discussion pages which was afflicted with some of Mr Kehler's concerns. The end result has been... unusual. His style is in the form of a stream of consciousness, with an attempt to give emphasis by putting statements as section headers, and using lots of fonts and capital letters. The English is poor. The physics is worse. The basic comprehensive level is bad also.

The matter was of concern to me in particular because Mr Kehler's physics is roughly on a par with his English; and he has been contributing in good faith but with fringe WP:POV in roughly 20 different physics pages. I am by now aware of several other editors who have tried to deal with this.

I do think this is a problem, and I don't know what is best to do. Here are some links, all of which go to an appropriate section within a page. To see Mr Kehler's complaints about me and other editors, check out:

• This complaint about user DVdm in the now retired FURG noticeboard.
• This complaint about ScienceApologist in Wikiquette alerts archive.
• This complaint about Duae Quartunciae in the archives of Jimbo Wales' talk page.

To observe what goes on when he actually contributes to an article talk page, see especially these discussions:

• Fritz Zwicky — my first encounter with the problem.
• Anti-gravity — where I suggested further discussion would be better taken to my user space.
• Photon — engaged by the patient User:WillowW, who also speaks German. Good work.
• Non-standard cosmology.
• Big Bang.

There are others instances.

Trying to figure out the page User:Duae Quartunciae/WFCKehler will be ... taxing. It anyone is really interested, I recommend looking at early revisions. The initial page before Mr Kehler joined in, here; and then my first response to Mr Kehler's opening, here.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Did it occur to you, Corvus, to ask Duae Quartunciae before coming to the noticeboard? --Golbez 04:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's no skin off my nose! I appreciate the interest and am very happy to have this whole matter brought to the attention of the inner cabal. I have deep sympathy with "WTF" expressed by Corvus above. I set up the page, and have the same feeling. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It did occur to me, but I generally get nasty comments back when I ask such questions, which was why I wanted input from others. Corvus cornix 18:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A suggested change regarding the {{editprotected}} process

Please comment on my suggestion here. Od Mishehu 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit

Severus Snape#At Hogwarts, paragraph 4.

Current: Snape's expert skills are used in third novel, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to brew Wolfsbane Potion...

Desired: Snape's expert skills are used in the third novel, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, to brew Wolfsbane Potion...

Thanks! —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 17:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please use {{editprotected}} for this sort of request. —David Eppstein 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin user sub-pages that are protected title lists

Is it appropriate for an administrator to have in their userspace pages that are protected title lists? Should we have a central list of such userspace pages? Please centralize discussion at Wikipedia talk:Protected titles#Are admin specific protected title lists appropriate?. GRBerry 18:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Pfagerburg is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Kebron is banned from Wikipedia for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I missed this. It sucks. Pfagerburg deliberately baited Merkey into doing something he knew would land Merkey in trouble. My experience of Merkey is that he is amenable to reason and can be calmed down with relatively little effort. He can also be wound up with relatively little effort. This is just one more example of the trolls getting the upper hand; when Merkey says that these characters are SCOX trolls here specifically to make trouble for him, he is absolutely right. I am deeply sorry I failed to protect Jeff from these arseholes, because unlike them Jeff is actually committed to the idea of a free-content encylopaedia. All they are committed to is making trouble. Of course, Jeff's reactions are bad, but there are numerous editors with bad reactions to trolling who we tolerate because they are intelligent and committed. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree he's been the victim of egregious trolling, but his response goes beyond a "bad reaction". I'm not aware of too many editors who respond with indiscriminate, well-organized legal threats against Wikipedia and its editors, existential attacks on ArbCom, claims that the "Gay Mafia" is out to get them, etc whom we tolerate for very long. It sucks that he was trolled so heavily; in a just world, your hard work on this situation would have had the desired results. A certain amount of ire is natural, acceptable, and excusable in response to provocation. However, being trolled is not an excuse to run completely amok, and in the end he's got to take some responsibility for this outcome. Anything less endorses his conduct, which while not inexplicable had reached the point of being unacceptable and counterproductive to the goals of the project. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you know I tried to talk JVM into working constructively during the RfC. My words were even used in the ArbCom case to show that, yes, this is a two sided issue. I actively dislike what the trolls have pushed JVM into. But his comments on the ArbCom about Gay Mafias, and how he's promising to sue every member of ArbCom, trying to wikilawyer everything, DEMANDING to be sysoped, etcetera, shows that he just does not GET IT. Period. We've tried our hardest to impart clue, and he refuses to accept it. It does suck that we had to show JVM the door, but we did all we could do. SirFozzie 19:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So you basically favor inducting him as a full member of the Wikipedia Cabal Clique, with the privilege (which comes along with the membership card and secret handshake) of getting off scot-free for all misdeeds and incivility through the expedient of labeling one's opponents and critics as "trolls", "sockpuppets of banned users", "single purpose accounts", etc. Works better than a "Get Out of Jail Free" card! *Dan T.* 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think that's what Guy was saying at all. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Guy's essential point (that we as admins are doing a poor job of protecting good editors from trolls and troublemakers) probably deserves extensive discussion elsewhere. As for Merkey ... at this point, I'm not sure there's anything the community could do. I'm not sure there ever was, either, but it has been handled poorly all around. WilyD 19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jeff absolutely got baited into this... but he didn't have to take the bait. At the end of the day nobody could protect Jeff from himself. That said, I'm not so sure there is any reason to ever let Pfagerburg (talk · contribs) or Kebron (talk · contribs) edit here again even after their year is up... Neither proved in any way beneficial to the community.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, but it might be nice if in the future we could do better protecting editors from being baited. Sure, Merkey shouldn't have taken the bait, and I have no idea whether he'll be able to reintegrate into the community should he so choose to, but I'd like to see this kind of situation resolved better in the future. WilyD 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A few years ago I watched a fellow get into trouble. He was basically a good guy, quite young, but bookish and quiet and not very popular. I wasn't present at the incident, but afterward I took him aside and said, "You are absolutely worth a hundred times more than that other guy. He knew he was going down and he wanted to take someone down with him. He picked you. The trouble is, you punched back." There are ways to handle things and ways not to handle things. And there's still a big difference between swinging back and starting the fight. Durova^Charge! 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the MONGO arbitration:"Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them."[65] Which did we do?Proabivouac 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

At present, I would submit that we're supporting and protecting the various users whom Merkey has attacked with threats with legal action, insults, "Gay Mafia" conspiracy theories, etc. I'm sensitive to the fact that Merkey was baited, but I don't think it's fair to say we should all have been in his corner, given that his behavior was frequently as bad or worse than that of his harassers. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am only stating that they should have been dealt with separately. Had the anti-Merkey SPA's been blocked forthwith, there should have been no question about the integrity of whatever procedures had followed. For those who complain (with some validity) that Merkey got away with things he shouldn't have under the (similarly valid) excuse, "but I'm being trolled," the obvious solution was to remove that excuse, and take it from there.Proabivouac 23:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Well, in that case I agree with you 100%. MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a fine line between supporting and protecting the victims of attacks, and forming a gang of bullies among the supposed "good guys" in order to beat up on anybody the purported victim claims to be a "troll" or "attacker". There has been way too many cases where "defending against trolls" has turned into an attack spree on its own right, suppressing dissent and criticism. *Dan T.* 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Baited or not, he was still responsible for his own actions. Acting the way he did was absolutely unacceptable, and he must therefore suffer the consequences. As must we all, when we do not follow Wikipedia policies. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[I, as well, missed this speedy RfAr] Nonetheless, it reflects poorly on and is to the discredit of the Committee that JVM receives the same penalties as these SPAs. The former should have been given half the censure, at least. Doesn't look good. El_C 00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If he respects the decision and asks for a review in a few months, it may be that a good overall history will earn supporters. Of course (if successful) those supporters would be obligated to keep an eye out to make sure the same problem doesn't recur, and if necessary to use the banhammer themselves. Durova^Charge! 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the details of this case, so I probably shouldn't comment, but I want to say in general that we do need to act faster against troublemakers and SPAs. I speak from experience when I say that being surrounded by trolls is hard to tolerate, and I have every sympathy for people who end up reacting badly to it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hard to tolerate? I find them clownish and amusing. A well-developed sense of irony is the best protection. Durova^Charge! 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Less amusing when they use your real name.Proabivouac 06:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kind of flattering, in an odd way, when someone thinks they've found that. Who would bother to go to that much trouble over someone who volunteers for a nonprofit encyclopedia? To paraphrase Samuel Johnson and Douglas Adams, we're mostly harmless drudges. Durova^Charge! 17:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Right you are, El C, as usual.Proabivouac 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opposing opinion, I feel that the labeling of critics and opponents as "trolls" has had a destructive effect on the atmosphere of this place, and it is this which needs to be curbed more than the trolls themselves. *Dan T.* 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration case workshop page makes amusng reading: [66]. To be honest there is plenty enough there to extend that one year ban into an indefinite community one. Viridae^Talk 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And that such cases should end up in arbcom because of a lack of decisive earlier intervention is lamentable and its far from the first time that good faith users have been caught up like this, SqueakBox 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I question whether any reasonably well-known citizen would be able to edit here under his/her real name without being trailed and trolled by a retinue of SPAs dedicated to ensuring that their target is perpetually embroiled in wikicontroversy and to bringing every misstep to the attention of the noticeboards. If so, what's to stop them from saying, "Yes, I'm a wikistalking SPA, but you need me here to curb the excesses of [prominent figure], which we should now resume discussing." Do we want well-known and potentially controversial figures here, or have we decided that we are incapable of providing the needed "security," thus they are more trouble than their participation is worth? To take a one example, were we so lucky as to have Bernard Lewis participating here, I can guarantee that his userpage would be troll and vandalism central, and everywhere he went would be turned by SPAs into an ongoing BLP violation, without some special determination to stop it. Obviously, most serious people won't contribute here under those conditions (and most don't.) See also User:Stirling Newberry, who while less prominent then either is still well-known enough to have been a serious troll magnet. Who else are we agreeing we don't want editing here? The issues raised by this thread go beyond anything particular to Jeff V. Merkey/User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, and have long-term consequences to Wikipedia which I fear we've failed to address. In a nutshell, treating vested eponymous citizen-editors and throwaway SPAs as equally meritous of our indulgence has the inevitable effect of driving off the former, for the latter have nothing to lose.Proabivouac 01:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But if the "eponymous citizen-editor" acts in an abusive manner, and attempts to label anybody who criticizes him/her as a troll, then how is his behavior to be curbed? *Dan T.* 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, if controversial citizens are going to insist that they edit under their own name, in the full knowledge that they are controversial, the resulting mess is inevitable. We cannot stop the trolls coming, but those being trolled can stop themselves ending up with sanctions like those imposed upon JVM, by acting in a manner befitting a wikipedia editor. That does not include legal threats, insults etc etc. Considering JVM's history on the internet (but off wikipedia) [67] [68], he should know full well that he is likely to attract trolls, and take steps to avoid bringing attention to who he is. Taking basic steps to distance his wikipedia account from his real life controversy would have probably headed this problem off at the pass, and should he not do that it is not wikipedia's responsibility to do it for him. That having not been done, and being that he now attracts controversy on wikipedia, not having taken the first steps to protect himself from that he now has to deal with the consequences. Now at this point the community can make an effort to step in and provide hm with support, and indeed if he shows himself to be worthy of the support the community gives, then good job, we don't have an arbitration case. However JVM's response to the trolling was legal threats, which is conduct wikipedia does not allow under any circumstances. As such I cannot see that it is now the communities responsbility to support him. He has lost that right. That he couldn't even stop spouting legal threats during the arbitration case (see the workshop), is an incredibly poor reflection on JVM as an editor and as such have absolutely no sympathy for him and believe he deserves the decisions mposed by the arbitration committee. Viridae^Talk 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone comes in here and acts like a kook, I'll call a spade a spade. I don't care at all how well-known or influential they are in real life. Want to edit Wikipedia? You have to observe the community's standards of civilized behavior, no exceptions for being rich and famous. Friday (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree.Proabivouac 22:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote most of the initial Workshop proposals and orginally proposed a site ban, a topic ban and probation for Merkey, and I specifically noted that probation was my first choice. I agree he is potentially a good contributor, and had been baited. However, his subsequent behavior on the workshop and proposed decision talk pages was beyond the pale. He accused Arbcom of colluding with gays who objected to his opposition to homosexuality, rejected the authority of Arbcom and Arbcom's right to exist, demanded to know the addresses of the arbitrators so he could personally sue all of them, and eventually concluded that the whole operation was intended to silence him because he knows dark secrets about the Foundation's finances. What are we supposed to say? "Oh that's just Jeff playing silly buggers, never mind him"? Thatcher131 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 & Viridae hit the nail on the head. Jeff was trolled, but he got blocked because of his appalling behavior at the Arbcom proceedings. I have a very hard time feeling any sympathy for him after his performance at the Workshop.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nods. Durova^Charge! 21:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I can only agree, Thatcher131, that JVM's behavior during arbitration was ridiculous and is impossible to defend or excuse. A ban of some duration was appropriate to demonstrate that he is not above WP's expectations and procedures, and to re-assert that legal threats will get him nowhere.Proabivouac 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, legal threats can get you here or here. :) Seriously, I agree with Thatcher131. Being a subject of an article does not excuse behavior deviant from our longstanding policies. —Kurykh 22:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a legitimate side issue about what to do when an established Wikipedian is getting baited and starting to take the bait. Different people have different tolerances for that, and as a project we're better off if we can either help pull them back from the edge or identify the ones who are prone to baiting before or during RFA. Being a sysop at this site requires a good wardrobe of flameproof suits. Although we do our best to downplay it, the mere fact of getting a few tools makes one an authority figure in some people's eyes and the trolling factor increases by an order of magnitude. Some fine editors just aren't cut out for that. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we're seeing a consensus evolve that responses to baiting can go beyond the acceptable. I agree that we're not structurally good at defending people right now... which sucks... but we may not be able to solve that. Some people respond to mild attacks with equal or worse responses, or act in ways that are attractive nuisances to trolls. We can't just go banning everyone who pokes at them a little bit, and once the fur is flying, "who started it" becomes somewhat immaterial, even if one participant is generally positive and a longterm editor and one's new.

Setting policy off examples like this is bad, because bad muddled cases make for bad precedent, but we have what we have. Georgewilliamherbert 03:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Some behavior I won't defend. I can't or I'd be talking out of both sides of my mouth. But I like to touch bases with good editors and sysops when it looks like something's getting under their skin. Help them laugh, let them vent (privately) - whatever's helpful. I don't know that there are or can be formal systems for this. It's about treating editors as human beings. Durova^Charge! 04:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

From experience, it took me 18 months to get rid of a troll/vandal on the Freemasonry article. It would have been easier to revert him to death and get 3RR blocked myself, or argue pointlessly about the fact that the "critical" material was unreliable and often simply wrong per verifiable sources, but instead, we the editors went through process. It took a very long time, but the end result was that now we have established MO for the vandal, and he's usually blocked on sight. So, while the process took longer than I would have liked, there were appropriate and inappropriate responses that could have occurred, and if I or anyone else did the latter, we should expect to receive the same punishment as the troll. If JVM had supported his argument with proof (which he did not), that's one thing. Instead, he made vague legal threats, which we do not permit. It was his choice, and if he chose to react with threats instead of following process, then he's just as accountable as the trolls/critics are. MSJapan 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merkey was never potentially a good contributor. It wasn't trolls who made him put up his hate site [69] after his last ban. It was the fact that the user in question has personality issues which cause behaviour fundamentally incompatible with working with others in this kind of environment. 81.231.133.141 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The above user has no edits outside this discussion. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

SCOX troll is letting you know theres an apology and some coments at User_talk:Pfagerburg.