|
'''Bernard Marx''' is one of the main characters in the novel ''[[Brave New World]]'' by [[Aldous Huxley]]. Bernard is viewed as an outsider by his peers, and it is rumoured that the worker who was in charge of his bottle put some alcohol in it by mistake, owing to Bernard's abnormally short height and 'ugly' features.
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
Members of the higher castes are conditioned to dislike the shorter lower castes and this places Bernard in a grey area — he is an [[Alpha-Plus]], but is not quite part of the Alpha-Plus set. This has probably led to some of his other peculiarities. He does not enjoy the drug [[Soma (Brave New World)|soma]] or the "feelies", chooses to spend time alone, and is not promiscuous. In addition, Bernard harbours a kind of dissatisfaction with some aspects of the society and tends to be unsociable and aloof towards his more hedonistic peers. Despite his somewhat negative qualities, Bernard is profoundly intelligent and a bit philosophical.
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
It has been suggested that his name is a crude amalgamation of [[George Bernard Shaw]] and [[Karl Marx]]. To some extent he acts as the novel's [[false protagonist]], being the major 'outcast' in the novel until this role is replaced largely by [[John the Savage]]. After John appears, Bernard becomes accepted as a hero, and he attempts to become promiscuous and take soma, thus becoming more fully integrated into his society.
Also, Bernards's isolation is amplified early in the book when he attends a meeting for people to "become one." At this meeting 12 people take soma and become one with Ford (the man who started this idea of conformity, the book is set in A.F. 642, A.F. meaning after Ford). However, Bernard feels no effect from the soma and can only focus on one woman's unibrow.
==Peter McConaughey==
<br />
<br />
{{Brave New World}}
{{lit-char-stub}}
[[Category:Characters in written fiction|Marx, Bernard]]
Just blocked for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks after warning, after seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Zero-revert_rule&diff=prev&oldid=32134396 this edit]. Can anyone work out any possible way to bring Mr McConaughey back to the land of the living? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Brave New World|Marx, Bernard]]
:Now, it's not really necessary to put it like that. We have to bee civil too, ya know. I have been trying to urge Peter to exercise civility. I don't know what else can be done. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 22:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Fictional drug users|Marx, Bernard]]
::I think David was just making a play on words. But you can block him for incivility if you really want :-) --[[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]] [[User talk:Ryan Delaney|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Fictional characters who have been genetically engineered|Marx, Bernard]]
:::Well, I obviously missed the "play" of it. Maybe I missed something. Oh well... --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 22:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[[es:Bernard Marx]]
::::I was attempting to euphemise "batshit crazy troll", but anyway. By the way, has Mr McConaughey made any good edits at all, anywhere? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 11:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
::::*How about "chiroptera-poop mentally challenged troglodyte"? [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Hmm... I count about 10-20 good edits to articles other than conspiracy theory, 9/11, American terrorism, and related talk pages. I wasn't going in to look at all of those since the idea of POV there is too great to make any sense in a short check like that. Hmmm... an idea. BRB. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 14:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Where are they..? I'm sure there must be a few good edits in amongst the user's total edit count of 579, but I don't see any off hand. The proportions have some interest in themselves: only 119 of them are to article space, 123 to user talk alone. What stood out for me were PM's recent exchanges with two notably unflappable and polite editors, [[User:JRM|JRM]] and [[User:MONGO|MONGO]], on non-existent or nonsense issues, seemingly purely with the goal of somehow, by hook or by crook, needling those users into annoyance. (Unsuccessfully; well done, guys.) A ''lot'' of good-faith assumption has already been spent on this user, and has fallen on stony ground. I'm thinking RFAR rather than RFC, sooner rather than later, though perhaps not quite yet. Meanwhile, I advise only the coolest, most laid-back of us to try any interaction (me, I would be the very last). Mind that blood pressure. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Assuming good faith, here are the ones that I found. Caveat: I wasn't going near any of the talk pages, the POV pages (like American terrorism or conspiracy theory), or the Wikipedia namespace. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coving&diff=next&oldid=28694388] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stillwater_Township%2C_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=32009291] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Declaration_of_Independence_%28United_States%29&diff=prev&oldid=31682170] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapid_dominance&diff=prev&oldid=31619515] (Maybe)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shock_and_Awe&diff=prev&oldid=31617591] (Maybe too)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moab%2C_Utah&diff=next&oldid=31484457] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moab&diff=next&oldid=27853520] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moab%2C_Utah&diff=prev&oldid=31484457] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moab%2C_Utah&diff=prev&oldid=31483767] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moab%2C_Utah&diff=prev&oldid=31483484] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_comedy&diff=prev&oldid=31353314] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheeple&diff=prev&oldid=31331386] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Ritter&diff=prev&oldid=30836938] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UW&diff=prev&oldid=30773938] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Ritter&diff=prev&oldid=30372531] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stillwater_Township%2C_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=30075228] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betting_%28poker%29&diff=prev&oldid=29511761] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_bet&diff=prev&oldid=29510839] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_bet&diff=prev&oldid=29510248] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Haven%2C_Utah&diff=next&oldid=29349054] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loddon_Shire&diff=prev&oldid=29348790] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystery_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=29348561] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bragi&diff=prev&oldid=29190623] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_bet&diff=prev&oldid=29189742] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_hold_%27em&diff=prev&oldid=29072205] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_bet&diff=prev&oldid=29071931] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_bet&diff=prev&oldid=29028208] So, all in all, maybe 25-30 possible "good" edits. However, for every one good edit, there are a couple of edits, maybe not so good. I'm just sayin' is all. Phew... good thing I don't do this for a living, but it might come in handy if an RfAr is ever filed. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
In my interpretation Peter has been a very worthwhile contributor to wikipedia. Peter fundamentally grasps the concepts of true consensus and collaborative editing and I have a learned a lot from his [[WP:0RR]] guideline. I can give Carbonite the benefit of the doubt if he claims otherwise but I think it was reasonable for Peter to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Zero-revert_rule&diff=prev&oldid=32134396 conclude] Carbonite was trying to damage the acceptance of [[WP:0RR]], first by moving it to Peter's userspace over a header dispute, then after that mistake was corrected and the guideline was moved back, Carbonite proposed a merge of it to a fundmanetally different and perhaps less effective guideline. However, Carbonite continues to maintain the two guidelines are similar which apparently is easy to do as he fails to even acknowledge the evidence to the contrary. I ask all of Peter's detractors to please assure me they are not attempting to stack the deck against him to ease future discrediting of [[WP:0RR]] or any other guideline or proposal he might have? Please give Peter the benefit of the doubt and avoid statements such as the above "batshit crazy troll" that are out of line for an admin and portray him and his contributions way too negatively. The list of "few beneficial edits" above is likewise way too negative. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:Are you serious? Way too negative? Take a look at his contribs and find any more productive edits and diffs. I was trying to do PM a favor by pointing out he wasn't ''just'' disruptive. Remember also, I was only going through his main namespace edits in areas specified above. And some of my diffs are being generous by calling them productive. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 21:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
::: I have a tendency to disagree with Zen-master ;-) , but here I fully agree. I also appreciate Carbonite's openly stated attempt to group all <3RR on one page, but I can understand disagreement about it and coming from the 0RR page his actions may look a bit self serving and lacking openness. Apart of that, for an as yet unidentified reason some administrators seem not to understand Peter (see also the discussion with Voldemort on my talk page [[User_talk:Harald88#A & B's discussion and Wikipedia management]])... perhaps Texans and Dutch speak the same language? (I'm Dutch). Also, most of his edits and proposals that I saw on Conspiracy Theory were definitely good, helping to move in the direction of similar but already featured articles. BTW what did David Gerhard mean with "batshit crazy troll"? I did not understand that, thanks! [[User:Harald88|Harald88]] 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Oh and see also Mongo's comment on Peter's Talk page [[User_talk:Peter_McConaughey#Howdy]]
::What you have above is all about "portrayal", you aren't letting the evidence speak for itself. Creating a small list of "productive" edits by an editor already labeled negatively can have the effect of getting people to further unquestioningly accept your negative portrayal -- though I can give you the benefit of the doubt if you assure me that isn't your intention. Regardless, please let the evidence speak for itself and refrain from excessive or multi-layered portrayals. In my interpretation Peter's response to Carbonite's actions was completely reasonable (I give the benefit of the doubt to both parties, miscommunication and misunderstanding can happen). Please simply list any other edits of Peter's you interpret to violate any wikipedia policy, and how? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:::What are you talking about? [[User:Bishonen|Someone]] and [[User:David Gerard|someone else]] asked if he had made ''any'' good edits anywhere. I, trying not to condemn PM without looking at the edits, compiled a list of edits that show he ''has'' actually made some productive edits. Now I am beginning to think you do not assume good faith on my part. My list has '''absolutely nothing to do with Carbonite''' or their history together... notice I stayed away from the 0RR and highly POV pages. If you really want, when an RfC or an RfAr are filed (which is very possible, it seems) you will have a list of "bad" diffs. I was just creating a list of "good" diffs. If you can find any other diffs that might fit into a "good and productive" category, please feel free to list them yourself below. See you around, my friend. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 22:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
::::You did/do seem to support the notion Peter has only made "some" or a "few" good edits? That is a negative portrayal and I believe it is completely inaccurate. Perhaps Bishonen and David Gerard are the ones that may have portrayed PM excessively negatively, perhaps inadvertently. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, I interpret the possibility of a hastily made portrayal being excessively negative, perhaps inadvertently, and perhaps even within the motivation of finding "some good" edits. Focusing on some "good edits" of an already negatively portrayed editor can have the effect of switching around the burden of proof, which would be wrong and seems to have almost happened in this case. The actual burden of proof is on PM's detractors to give evidence of any violations, right? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 22:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
*Evidence of violations is plentiful on these pages. They're looking for evidence of good edits by Peter. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:*I've been following this page quite closely and seen no evidence of any "violations" by PM. Suggesting people look for a few "good edits" by Peter is a negative portrayal which I currently assume was an inadvertent mistake on your part? Please discontinue that either way. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 23:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:**You apparently haven't been following it all that closely, considering you are unaware that the suggestion that people look for good edits by Peter is actually a serious request by David Gerard, rather than an inadvertent mistake by me. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:***As I said above, requesting editors to look for "good" edits by an editor is needlessly prejudicial as it portrays them negatively, though, because I give you and/or David Gerard the benefit of the doubt that it was inadvertent I will simply ask you to refrain from doing that in the future. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::And I am not even sure why you are arguing with what I did. I was trying to ''help'' Peter here. There was a question of whether or not PM had made any good edits anywhere. I, looking for ways to not have him blocked outright, came up with a list of productive edits. That way, no one can say that he has never made a useful edit. I am trying to help Peter, and you are fighting me on it. Why? There are people looking to ban him indefinitely, and I am trying to persuade them to be nice and give him a shot. Did you even read my first comment in this section? I was trying to act in PM's defense. Yet you have already prejudged me as being anti-Peter. Please, continue to assume good faith on my part as I try to save Peter from being banned for good. See you around, my friend. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::I understand you claim you want to "help" Peter and I can give you the benefit of the doubt. However, what I am telling you is your "help" or someone else's question that you responded to actually has had the effect of an excessive and very unfairly negative portrayal of Peter. The notion that Peter has only made a few good edits is completely inaccurate and taints a fair consideration. What further concerns me is now you seem to be hinting that Peter should be banned for good, that is also completely incorrect. Where did you get the notion Peter should be "blocked indefinitely" from, it seems you are definitely against him now? This page only contains a negative fluff portrayal of Peter, the only evidence presented here involves Peter's supposed "name calling". However, in my interpretation Peter's comparison of Carbonite to a troll made sense given the abusive and stifling actions Carbonite committed, though I give both parties the benefit of the doubt that tensions flare and mistakes happen. But it is starting to seem reasonable a small group of editors are systematically trying to portray Peter negatively because they really don't like his [[WP:0RR]] or other posts for some fundamental reason. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::'''Please listen to me...''' First, I never said those were Peter's ''only'' good edits. I just wasn't going near the aforementioned areas. I was just showing that he was able to make productive edits. You fault me for trying to show Peter in a good light? Second, I never once said Peter deserved to be banned for good. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said there are "''people looking to ban him indefinitely, and I am trying to persuade them to be nice and give him a shot.''" What is so wrong with me trying to be on PM's side here? You want to be the only one? Third, let me say it again, '''this has nothing to do with Carbonite'''. Do you get it? Did you read what the first thing I wrote here was? Did you read any of this? See ya, Zen. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
LAURENS DEAD SEXY!
Responding to Lord Voldemort, you seem to have accepted as a given that Peter should be "blocked indefinitely" and I think that is a completely inaccurate portrayal given the evidence presented. You say "there are people looking to ban him indefinitely" but where did anyone directly state that (innuendo doesn't count)? I am not "faulting" you for anything as I can give you the benefit of the doubt, I am merely only pointing out what you claim to be "help" has actually had the effect of an excessively negative and unfair portrayal. It is true that it was David Gerard not you that was the one who asked the leading question above: "By the way, has Mr McConaughey made any good edits at all, anywhere?" which should be obvious to see was meant prejudicially, perhaps inadvertently, as David's preceeding sentence contains the phrase "batshit crazy troll"... [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 19:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
:So apparently the answer is no, you haven't been reading what I've been writing? '''Let me say this one last time, as clear as possible...''' I was trying to help [[User:Peter McConaughey]] from being indefinitely banned, by showing that he has made useful edits, and is not just a "batshit crazy troll". There are people looking to ban him indefinitely (You asked for evidence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=32235430&oldid=32235405 here's your diff]), and I was trying to stop them by showing PM has been useful. And in fact, I wasn't even responding to David Gerard's question, I was responding to Bishonen's question and comment, "''Where are they..? I'm sure there must be a few good edits in amongst the user's total edit count of 579, but I don't see any off hand.''" If you continue to assert that I am against Peter, which I never have been (show me the diffs for evidence of me being anything other than civil or helpful towards Peter), I will not discuss this matter with you further. Your continued lack of good faith on my part leads me to believe that you just want to argue, and don't care what has actually been written. '''Please, before you respond, make sure you read this entire comment.''' Thank you, my friend. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 19:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
::I've always given you the benefit of the doubt that you are not directly against Peter, but I separately can't ignore the overall excessively negative and unfair portrayal on this page. Your citation of David Gerard's suggestion of blocking Peter indefinitely is precisely my other point, where has David or anyone actually presented actual evidence and made a case against Peter (again innuendo doesn't count)? It seems you've been following all the various Peter sections on this page quite closely? The Carbonite "troll" comment is small potatoes and was reasonable given Carbonite's actions that were interpreted as being stifling and I've seen no evidence of Peter "wikistaling" him, if anything an opposite case could be made. The entire concept of "search for any good edits" by a negatively portrayed user further stacks the deck against them, perhaps you have inadvertantly fallen victim to that, though I can also give David Gerard the benefit of the doubt as cases and arguments made hastily can have, perhaps inadvertent, prejudicial results. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Listen... buddy... if you have a problem with David Gerard, take it up with him. Quit debating with me. I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth (here, and now seemingly on Peter's page). Why do you keep bringing Carbonite up? I will not argue with someone if you won't even listen. I won't argue with someone who seemingly cannot see that I am trying to save PM, not ban him. This is silliness. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Perhaps what you claim is my "not listening" to you is instead us simply disagreeing over whether looking for "good" edits is actually "helpful" or not in this case? I maintain that seeking "good" edits has the perhaps inadvertent effect of unfairly reinforcing a negative portrayal and characterization. I bring Carbonite up because the supposed "personal attack" by Peter against him is the only actual "evidence" on this page, but as I explained above I think that was completely understandable given the situation. What else, if anything, makes you think the case against Peter is so strong that redeeming edits must be found to "save" him? I do take issue with David Gerard's apparently hastily made portrayal that also lacks evidence, but I can give him the benefit of the doubt and need not follow it up with him if he refrains from repeating the same, perhaps inadvertent, mistake. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Listen carefully, I don't really give a crap about how Peter is being portrayed here. I don't give a crap the history between Carbonite and Peter. I don't give a crap if you can't or won't understand me. I DO give a crap about possible good users getting banned.
:::::You ask, "''What else, if anything, makes you think the case against Peter is so strong that redeeming edits must be found to "save" him?''" My answer: Someone said they were close to banning him! Honestly, at this point, I don't give a crap what the case against him is. Someone was close to banning him, so I thought I'd help him '''not get banned'''. If someone says, "Hey, I'm going to ban this editor unless someone can show he or she is useful", I am going to see if I can show them as useful. I provided quality diffs that show PM as something other than a troll (Again, I don't give a crap if this label was justified, '''that is not what I am arguing here'''. If you want to have that conversation, we can do that later, for now, ''please'' focus on this.)
:::::I don't know if you are arguing just to argue, but this time I really am done with you. You fail to assume good faith, you put words in my mouth, you don't seem to want people to try and help, this case is seemingly hopeless. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::So you unquestioningly accepted David Gerard at his word that the case against Peter was so strong that redeeming edits must be found to save him, and, you dutifully took it upon yourself to spend a significant amount of time searching for only that without considering the possibility there is no case, and, you have repeatedly made a point of insisting: 1) you have nothing to do with Carbonite, 2) or David Gerard, 3) and you are not duplicitously against Peter? Ok, I can still give you the benefit of the doubt. Going forward, if you really want to "save" Peter, as you claim, then be aware that focusing on "redeeming" edits to "save" him can, perhaps inadvertently, reinforce an unfairly negative portrayal, which is exactly what almost happened in this case in my interpretation. The case against Peter is actually slim to none, no where near having to search for redeeming edits to "save" him. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
So the apparent, perhaps inadvertent, effort to portray Peter as needing to be "saved" and the effort by other editors to "save" him has fizzled out as quickly as it started? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 16:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
:No, I am just done with you. He's still being watched closely. Don't worry. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 15:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
::You claim above you are trying to "save" Peter, why would he need watching? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 02:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Mmmm... that is some delicious looking bait you got there. Look, I'm not convinvced either way, so better to be safe than sorry. Possible trolls get watched. Simple as that. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::::It would additionally be inaccurate to portray Peter as a "possible troll", please discontinue your efforts to "save" him, they are way beyond counter productive. Those who would errantly and duplicitously portray people as "disruptive" or "trolls" get watched likewise. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 15:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion after a few repeated instances of nonsense from this user on the [[World Islamic Front]] discussion page. The nonsense is accompanied with a supposedly authoritative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Organization_layout.gif chart] that he only later in the discussion admitted was of his own creation. I haven't looked at his other edits but my sense on this page is that he is, as another editor noted above, needling people to try to pick fights over non-issues. It reminded me of [[User:Zephram Stark|another user]], who coincidentally stopped editing a couple weeks before Peter M started editing. It looks like at least two of Peter M's obsessions are the same as Zephram's were -- terrorism and the Declaration of Independence. When I voiced my suspicions, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Islamic_Front&diff=33029538&oldid=33023820 his response] was telling -- very much in the style of Zephram's writing. I may just be paranoid, and I don't want to make accusations, but I wanted to at least voice my suspicions honestly here where someone could look up IP addresses if necessary.-[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 22:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:Peter's image actually clears up confusion in my interpretation. Please cite individual examples of Peter's supposed "nonsense"? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::I did - it's all over [[Talk:World Islamic Front]] and of course that article's edit history. This all started when he insisted on the existence of an "International Front for Jihad against Zionists and Crusaders" that is different from the "World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," or "World Islamic Front," i.e. al-Qaeda. Peter, or Zeph, argues that there is a larger group with the former title that is different from the group with the latter title (somehow the Arabic words for the two different fronts are exactly the same, but he assures us that they should be translated differently in context). He then created a chart - gif linked above - to justify this bizarre interpretation, making the further bizarre and nonsensical claim that there are Jews and Christians who are part of the "International Front...." He continues to play bizarre semantic games like this. Other recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Islamic_Front&diff=33048372&oldid=33047697 irrelevant comments about my sex life] and further comments in his edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Islamic_Front&diff=33050636&oldid=33046630 seeming to call out Jews and Muslims in an inflammatory manner] provide more evidence to me confirming my suspicion that he may be [[User:Zephram Stark]].--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 00:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I briefly looked at the history of that article earlier and saw nothing but a vigorous content disagreement, not "nonsense". I believe you misinterpret Peter, I read [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Islamic_Front&diff=33050636&oldid=33046630 this] checkin comment as advocacy for harmony between muslims and jews. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 00:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::LOL, it's a call for harmony, yes, but the question is who are the Muslims and Jews? I believe he refers to myself and Random Element, neither of whom identified ourselves in terms of religious affiliation in this discussion. I believe he refers to a previous discussion between myself and Mr. Stark and I believe the only reason to call attention to our religious affiliation is to be incendiary. I think it's interesting that you ignore most of my specific examples above and simply focus on this one -- his link to the graphic and his arguments on that page are literally nonsensical. They do not make sense. I've explained this above. Finally, his comments about my sex life, on an issue totally unrelated, is reminiscent of Mr. Stark. Ah well, I guess if there were no Zephram Stark, someone had to (re)invent him....--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 01:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps Peter is referring to Muslims and Jews getting along generally? I interpreted his "sex life" comment to be hyperbole, as in "why do you keep insinuating Peter is someone else, you must care a great deal and/or miss who ever 'Zeph' is"? Peter's chart conveys the fact, that many people in the West are perhaps unaware of, that many Jews and Christians are actually against Zionism for various reasons, he estimates 35-40% of Jews for example. I do think Peter's chart is a tad misleading in that anyone not against Zionism isn't necessarily for it. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 02:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::I appreciate your generous readings of his posts, but you misunderstand my comments. His "Jews and Muslims" comment clearly referred to the "edit war" he was directly commenting on in that edit summary; not some abstract sentiment about Middle East peace prospects. My point is not that I am offended by these comments; I'm not; my point is that they are distressingly similar to the kinds of comments made by a known sock puppeteer who stopped posting right before Peter McC started editing wikipedia, coincidentally the same articles, picking fights with the same people that Zephram was in fights with. I'm commenting on a very similar writing style. I think it is very appropriate for such a user to be watched carefully.
::::::As for Peter's chart, "a tad misleading" is a ludicrous understatement. The chart was first presented as some kind of authoritative map of an organized "Front" that he claimed actually existed. He later admitted he made up the chart but he continued to defend the nonsensical claim that such a Front existed. The chart does not convey the fact that some Jews and Christians oppose zionism; it conveys the false claim that there is a significant number of Jews and Christians who have declared "jihad" against it. That claim is utter nonsense.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 03:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Peter's point is simple really, many have proposed and perpetuated an "us" vs "them" mentality, and using that "logic", anyone that is against Zionism, to any degree, can be labeled a "jihadist", even 35-40% of Jews and Christians. Peter's chart exists to show the illogic of binary thinking. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 05:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::That makes a lot of sense... if you're drunk. Seriously, that has nothing to do with anything he said or anything he was arguing against. I'm sure he can explain this better himself, but your claim about us v. them, which I agree with, has '''nothing''' to do with the discussion on that page. Peter was claiming that there was an actual group identifying itself as the IFJAZC (he actually called it that at one point) that encompassed non-Zionist Jews and Christians -- a claim that is demonstrably false. You are doing mental gymnastics to defend his position as a "simple point" about either/or thinking. It's a sporting gesture on your part, but the facts do not support your interpretation. --[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 11:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Then why did Peter include George Bush's statement that frames the world in "no neutral ground" and "good vs evil" terms if he wasn't trying to make a point about the problem known as tunnel vision or binary thinking? This binary thinking, that Bush perpetuated, had allowed the real powers that be to hide the existence of attrocities and war crimes from us the people, but not any longer. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:WTF? Why are you trying to bait me? I agree with you about Bush, about binary thinking, and about war crimes, but that has '''nothing''' to do with this dispute! The problem is not that Peter is against binary thought but that he is '''making shit up'''. Which would not be so bad if he wasn't insisting it be on wikipedia! Do you really think wikipedia should start listing organizations that don't exist as legitimate organizations in order to score points against binary thinking?? Why are you doing back flips trying to defend this behavior?--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::Peter is "making shit up" as you say to show the eventual result of binary thinking. I believe Peter created the image to show that the World Islamic Front and al-Qaeda are not the same thing. What specifically is he insisting must be in the wikipedia article that you believe is made up? I don't think Peter is saying an "organization" exists but it is a de facto coalition of anyone that is to even the slightest degree against "Zionists and Crusaders". It might be easier if you simply asked Peter for clarification. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 06:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:::What part of "making shit up" was unclear to you? Can you point us to the part of Wikipedia verifiability policy where "making shit up" is approved of or tolerated?
:::You're being disruptive again -- and it appears to be for no larger reason than that you can. Stop it. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Huh? I admit to being a bit confused by csloat and Peter's discussions [[Talk:World Islamic Front|here]] but how is that a "disruption"...? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::What part of "making shit up" was unclear to you? Can you point us to the part of Wikipedia verifiability policy where "making shit up" is approved of or tolerated? As for you being confused; well, ''quelle surprise''. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::The entire part of "making shit up" is and was unclear to me. Peter may in fact be inferring things, I don't believe he is making things up out of thin air. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 17:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:::LOL.... I did ask him for clarification, as you can see from the talk page on that article, and that is when he admitted he just made up the chart, and he continued to defend the existence of the organization until it was clear that he was full of shit about that too; then he invented a sock puppet -- a "terrorism expert" no less, but one who seems totally unfamiliar with standard literature in the field -- to try to push absurd arguments. I have no doubt any more that both these accounts belong to the same person who invented "Zephram Stark" for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 07:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Well, I (obviously) don't know all the details of Peter's position, I just passed along my initial interpretations, I am sorry you have not found them to be helpful. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
==[[user:Jonah Ayers|Jonah Ayers]]==
*{{vandal|Jonah_Ayers}}
*[[:Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jonah Ayers]]
*[[Wikipedia:Account suspensions/Sojambi Pinela]] (AKA Jonah Ayers)
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive40#Biff Rose-related sock puppets]]
This long time problem user has recently been making attacks by posting private information of other editors, in addition to his usual mayhem of sock puppetry and edit-warring at {{article|Biff Rose}}. (Though the information has been removed, admins [[user: SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] and [[user:Dan100|Dan100]] can confirm the attacks). This editor needs to be banned in all of his manifestations. I suppose that will require an ArbCom decision. I'll ask an ArbCom member to do a sockpuppet confirmation. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 00:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems very self involved for willmcw to be able to brand all those identities as mine without any real proof. I deny that any of those are my sockpuppets, and will say that I believe somehow willmcw is somehow related to User:Sojombi Pinola who is directly related to the article of note here, on Biff Rose.
i think it is a shame that when an editor has a disagreement with another editor that he can besmirch the other person, this is an administrator of wiki who is basically behving like a fascist using implication to fashion a noose around my neck. I demand retraction. he says I've done so many things, I have not!!! This most recent one is the worst. about the phone number. never!!![[User:Jonah Ayers|Jonah Ayers]] 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, I've personally collated a list of 13 different idioms this controller uses to vandalise various aspects of Wikipedia and other works I am involved in. — [[User:HopeSeekr of xMule|HopeSeekr of xMule]] ([[User talk:HopeSeekr of xMule|Talk]]) 21:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:Gibraltarian]] ==
I range blocked every IP he could possibly use, which is 212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255. We have no one else using any of those IPs. This is just for 48 hours. If it goes ok with no complaints, I'll make it longer. I know. It's drastic. But he just won't give up. We're up to 15-20 IPs he posted from. Just no other way. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 08:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts#Blocked_User:Gibraltarian|Here]] is the list of IPs G has used and it's not even inclusive. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 09:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::I note this probably means blocking all of Gibraltar. Now the pages in question are semi-protected is this needed? [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::: If it does it is a little counterproductive. We do need the Gibraltar POV in articles.. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
'''A locked out Gibraltar user comments:'''
I have politely explained twice to [[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']] that the addresses he has blocked are part of a dynamic IP pool allocated to users of Gibtelecom, the largest of two ISP's in Gibraltar. This has been posted to the discussion part of his homepage, he deleted it without comment. He has locked out 2000 Gibraltar users unjustly.
He does not want to listen, and when he says "We have no one else using any of those IPs." he is simply not telling the truth, I normally use part of that IP block and I am certainly NOT the user he objects to.
[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']] seems to have a campaign against Gibraltarians as a whole and is unworthy of the privilige of being an administrator - I request that this block is removed quickly and that his status is reviewed.
I have been updating the pages on Gibraltar for some time (see record) - nobody has complained about my actions, and I have tried to deal with the Spanish user who wants to rewrite things his way politely. [[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']] ignores this.--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
: So, what solution do you propose to sort out the [[User:Gibraltarian|Gibraltarian]] problem? Have you also politely requested [[User:Gibraltarian|Gibraltarian]] to stop his disruptive behaviour (the real source of this problem)?
: And BTW, I don't want to rewrite things my way, just introducing the Spanish POV, something that your compatriot [[User:Gibraltarian|Gibraltarian]] doesn't seem to even allow. Besides, your concept of being polite with "the Spanish user" is certainly rather strange: ''downright lies'', ''lunatic'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar&diff=prev&oldid=31671673], ''feel free to post as much false Spanish propaganda about Gibraltar as you like'' or ''I just rather hoped that there was an emerging intelligent generation in Spain who could treat Gibraltarians with respect and as friendly neigbours instead of wishing to engage in cultural genocide'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar&diff=prev&oldid=31457124]. And last but not least, Woohookitty hasn't tried the IP range address (as the last resort) because "he has been upset by [[user:Gibraltarian|Gibraltarian]] calling him a fascist" (as you state in [[User talk:Gibnews#December_2005]]) or because "he have a campaign against Gibraltarians as a whole" but because [[User:Gibraltarian|Gibraltarian]] has proven that he's not able to work in a place like wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence]]) --[[User:Ecemaml|Ecemaml]] 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::I'm alarmed that no Gibraltarian is now alowed to edit the Gibraltar page- unless he lives outside Gibraltar! While I agree user [[User:Gibraltarian|''Gibraltarian'']] has been rash, he's trying to make sure that the Spanish POV isn't dominant on a foreign page. Bearing in mind the hostile attitude some Spaniards have of Gibraltarians, no bad thing. Blocking all Gibraltarians is an over-reaction. I suggest it is lifted immediately, and a fairer way found. As a newcomer to WIKI, far for me to suggest what that is, but I'm sure you have more options than barring an entire country from editing their own pages. [[User:Rockeagle|Rockeagle]] 20:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
: No my friend, I'm afraid you're not totally right. [[User:Gibraltarian|''Gibraltarian'']] hasn't been rash, but definitely rude (you can see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence]]) if you want more info. And no, he isn't preventing the Spanish POV from "being dominant". He's simply attempting to remove it. And in wikipedia there is no "own" or "foreign" articles. There are just articles that, as wikipedia clearly states, '''everybody''' may edit. And this is not a forum like those of www.xsorbit3.com, where simply shouting louder or using the most crude insult makes someone "win". There are quite precise rules and guidelines ([[WP:NPA]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:V]]) that [[User:Gibraltarian|''Gibraltarian'']] routinely violates on the grounds of the "hostile attitude some Spaniards have of Gibraltarians", which, according to you, it's "no bad thing". That's the real problem. --[[User:Ecemaml|Ecemaml]] 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::'''Please Rant less, Quote more accurately, and remain on topic'''--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
being polite. --[[User:Ecemaml|Ecemaml]] 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
: Ecemaml, please don't bait me. I was trying to be a dampening influence on some of the comments made here, so was deliberately understating. I'm not saying that [[User:Gibraltarian|''Gibraltarian'']] isn't being unreasonable, some of his comments are. However, some Spaniards have a very warped view of Gibraltarians, and Gibraltarians don't much like Spain, so care is needed to make sure it is a NPOV. I think we can agree on that much. Alternatively, we could try two sections: a UK/Gibraltar POV and a Spanish POV. However, I have been working on the [[History of Gibraltar|History]] temp page, which I think is comprehensive and neutral, though maybe links to the Dispute page can be put in once we thrash out something for that page. If we can get the History page released, then perhaps we have made a start, and I can then focus on getting the dispute page into language we can both agree on, even if we don't like the points the other raises- because we probably won't. It IS a "dispute" page after all! So, are we going to edit, or just argue? [[User:Rockeagle|Rockeagle]] 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::I'm no longer doing anything involving these articles. You guys can revert Gibraltarian's comments yourself. Have fun you all! I did nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing. Not a single admin reverted what I did. Not a one. I don't even speak Spanish. I've never been outside of Wisconsin much less been in Gibraltar. I have no Spanish or Gibraltarian in my blood whatsoever. I've never read either of the articles this is about. But yeah. I have a grudge against people from Gibraltar. yeah. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
: It's a hard work to be an administrator. Sure. --[[User:Ecemaml|Ecemaml]] 09:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:: yes its hard work, and with it must come responsibility. Blocking 95% of Gibraltar users from access is simply unjust. Bad behaviour by one does not justify it by another; Less is more, so all other comments as irrelevent.--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, fortunately Gibnews is here to tell us what is relevant and what is not. --[[User:Ecemaml|Ecemaml]] 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a discussion about blocking, not an excuse for a rant and as such it does not affect you, unless you want to silence everyone in Gibraltar.--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:::There was nothing wrong with blocking that ip range for 48 hours. Gibraltarian has been constantly using ip addresses to vandalize, and this was meant to put an end to it. To claim that Woohookitty is partial to one side or the other is ''absolutely'' unjust—how long have you known him? Have you seen the disputes he works with? He is doing his best to be practical and deal with the situation according to policy. You are allowed to be critical of his actions, but to suggest that he is acting in bad faith is absurd, and I strongly suggest that you apologize. --[[User:Spangineer|Spangineer]]<sup>[[:es:Usuario:Spangineer|es]]</sup> <small><font color="brown">[[User talk:Spangineer|(háblame)]]</font></small> 17:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm looking at the board, not the players and stand by my comments.
if you have problems with one user thats what needs to be addressed.
I see a problem with an administrator; I also saw "If it goes ok with no complaints, I'll make it longer." The film '48 hours' had several sequels. There have been complaints.--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, you complained. So. I didn't do another range block. I saw one complaint in my email. I looked through the discussion board and my email. You complained once, not twice as you claim. If you can find the first complaint, let me know. And you know what? After you complained, I stopped. And I'd also like an apology from you. I want to see this bias I supposedly have against Gibraltar. Look at the entire web through google. Look up either Michael Lindeen or woohookitty. And also look at all 16,000+ of my edits on here and show me my bias against Gibraltar. The real issue here Gibnews is that, as you admitted on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGibnews&diff=33306246&oldid=33272340 your talk page], you basically agree with Gibraltarian. It is you with the bias here, not me. You make a comment that unlike us, you can talk to the ISPs in Gibraltar to get him stopped. Then why haven't you? You haven't because you think G is just and correct in his attacks.
:Another thing. Look at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence|this page]]. It is a list of evidence against G. Notice that the vast majority of it is not from me? I am point this out because on your talk page, you said "It seems that someone called user:Woohookitty has now locked out 95% of the users in Gibraltar as he has been upset by user:Gibraltarian calling him a fascist." Um no. He was originally blocked for the 135 offenses on the evidence page I cited. 135. After he was blocked, he starting using sockpuppets, which is completely against policy. So then I started short range blocks, which didn't stop him. So I did the longer 48 hour one. ANY ADMIN COULD HAVE REVERSED ME. Any admin. Admins get reversed by other admins every day. If what I did was so biased, why didn't others stop me? Because they knew there wasn't much else to try.
:And people wonder why I'm ready to leave the project. It's because people like gibnews can make wild accusations with no basis in fact and they get away with it. If he doesn't apologize, there isn't a damn thing I or anyone else can do. I have him accusing me of abusing power when he doesn't know a goddamn thing about me or my work here. I've been here for a year now. I have 16,000 edits. I've been an admin since June. Gibnews, yours is the FIRST complaint against me on this board. Doesn't that tell you something? There's no abusal of power here. I was trying to stop someone who has violated most of our rules from posting. I did the range block for 48 hours. You complained. I stopped. How the hell this has become "Woohookitty is abusing his powers" is really beyond me. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 08:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no apology to someone who blocks the entire ADSL pool of
Gibraltar wrongly.
You complain of abuse from ONE user of that pool, and slam 2000 IP's used by around 5000 users, including me.
I have told you the implication of a global block yet you ignore the advice.
I have offered to trace the user here in Gibraltar and resolve the problem locally, you do not reply to my email.
Despite which I have traced the user and am dealing with what you claim is a problem you cannot solve without killing everyone.
IF as you allege you have been subjected to repeated emails from the users, you can complain to the ISP or myself and it will be actioned but you do not.
You need to learn that with power comes responsibility and if you can't accept a polite and reasonable complaint against your abuse of authority, its time for you to consider your position.--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Oh please. Accusing an admin of bias and demanding his adminship is ''not'' polite. "''I have traced the user and am dealing with what you claim is a problem''" is patently absurd. This discussion has degenerated into an exercise in troll feeding and I suggest we end it here, and go work on the encyclopedia. Incidentally, I just blocked five Gibraltarian sockpuppets today... [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 20:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Amen, Woohoo is one of the finest admins we have, get over yourself Gibnews, sometimes drastic action needs to be taken against determined banned users. The only thought that should come to Woohoo's mind when he considers his position should be absolute satisfaction with his role here. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::Just to clarify something I said before, my decision on whether to stay with the project is not based on just this. It's been a long series of stuff that's got me dissatisifed with the project. Since December 2nd, I've had 163 headings on my talk page. It's just overload. And I'm being told every day that I'm things I'm not. In the last 2 weeks, I've been called power hungry, racist, a censor and everything else. I have a thick skin, but it gets to you after awhile. And then you have this. Gibnews, your first email to me was on the 2nd day of the 48 hour block. You completely avoided my question. Where are these other "warnings" and "complaints". I get up at about 4 am Wikitime. You wrote me the couple of emails you wrote me while I was sleeping. By the time I woke up, the block had expired. You make it sound as though you had been warning me for weeks. it's all just ridiculous. The block is OVER. Has been for 2 days now, as evidenced by Gibraltarian's socks. And "polite"? What do you consider polite. In your very first email to me, you told me that I should take time off and contemplate my role here. On a post on your talk page, you talked about how corrupted by power I was. How the heck is that polite? You don't even know me! You know how many admin things I do a day? 10-15. I do one thing that you consider wrong and suddenly, I'm just an awful, power hungry man. Again, where is this bias? Where are all of these other abuses of power? People make mistakes, gibnews. Anyway, I'm not saying anything else on this. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 01:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::: I've been on Wikipedia for a little while now (though less than a year, I admit), and I would like to put down a small observation on this. Woohookitty is a good admin. He has always attemped to be fair in dealing with those who would work contrary to what Wiki stands for; I've never seen Woohookitty act in a rude, condescending or otherwise inappropriate manner here. What we have is a single individual (Gibnews), who has felt apparently slighted and rushed to judgement without any thought to whether or not his accusations or demands were called for. They aren't, of course. Woohookitty did what he felt was neccesary in order to preserve the peace and sanity of everyone who contributes legitimately to the article in question. This is also why Woohoo's actions weren't overturned by higher authorities; because he acted appropriately. Gibnews has already (as was shown in this very thread) asked politely by other users to calm down and to discuss the matter rationally, but he merely seems interested in presenting his own side of things and not listening to what others have to say. It's extremely difficult to deal with an individual like that, because oftentimes rational logic will get thrown out the window in an effort to preserve "his side".
::: Woohookitty, please don't leave the project. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been remarkable and invaluable. I count you as one of the people that can be relied on to tirelessly, thanklessly work towards bettering the project despite seemingly constant attacks from individuals who don't get their way. I am asking you, please, don't let the small minority win. Don't leave.
::: Wiki needs you. [[User:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 04:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
::::Thank you, much appreciated! --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 05:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, 'people make mistakes' and one hopes they also learn from them.
You scorn any assistance from me is solving a problem you have not been able to address. I suggest you wait and see.
There has been a long history of trouble between 'Gibraltarian' and the Spanish, resulting in him being blocked, and I believe the whole Gibraltar IP pool, from editing the Spanish pages, these still contain defamamatory comments. That will be addressed.
In the meantime, as others say you are doing good work, please carry on doing so. I also intend to do just that. Less is more so don't go on about things ad infinitum, there are more serious things to be done.--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 10:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm on extended break as of now. And again. It's not just this. Read my user page. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 12:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Everybody needs a holiday and a rest from things from time to time; If you are spammed or molested by any Gibraltar users, feel free to email me directly, otherwise I will leave you alone. My complaint here was about blocking Gibraltar not [[User:Gibraltarian|''Gibraltarian'']] but you have reverted the heading and really we have said enough on the topic. This is why I drew a line and hoped others would take the hint. No, I don't know you, but there again you don't know me either so perhaps we should start afresh when you are back.--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 00:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
----
== User SqueakBox substitutes articles about [[José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero]] with redirects ==
The user SqueakBox has substituted the articles [[Zapatero's years as an opposition leader]], [[Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003]], [[Zapatero and the 2004 General Election]], [[Zapatero's foreign policy]] and [[Zapatero's domestic policy]] with redirects to the main article [[José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero]] although those articles taken together contain far more information than that in the main article. He has not provided any explanation about his behavior.
The main article had to be protected last month by the administrator Katefan0 because SqueakBox started an edit war by introducing repeatedly spelling mistakes he recovered once they were removed by other users. The page was unprotected two weeks after being blocked. SqueakBox did not explain his behavior although he was invited to do so in that period.
His attacks against the articles about Zapatero and against the users editing them have spread for a long time since May this year. [[User:Zapatancas|Zapatancas]] 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:I assume he was acting under the general tendency to merge information from small offshoot articles into main articles. That said, the main article is already generating length warnings - probably what needs to happen is some careful editing. I'll take a look at the articles later today and see if I can't identify some sections that are either overly hagiographic or just kind of excessive. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Zapatancas has been harrassing me for months, using sockpuppets such as {{vandal|Squealing Pig}} who appeared within an hour of me having a dispute with Zapatancas, and then appeared again as {{Vandal|SquealingPigAttacksAgain}}. I am getting sick and tired ogf being harrassed and insulted by this user, including as zapatancas endless false claims of vandalism against me and general insults. I don't see why I should have to tolerate this? [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
==[[User:128.42.7.170|128.42.7.170]] Talk Page==
My own talk page has been protected from editing by anonymous IP's. This is a ridiculous abuse of administrator power as the talk page *belongs* to an anonymous IP. The administrators responsible for the protection were engaging in hazing of me because I am a n00b. I have made mistakes and admit it, but I followed Wikipedia policy when archiving my talk page (as seen in the records), and I have a right both to comment on my own talk page, and to respond to comments placed there. This blatant violation of authority is unnacceptable.
:I suggest that "n00bs" will be treated much better if they don't come into this site with a chip on their shoulder and a major attitude problem. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 17:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:Talk pages and user pages ''attatched to IP addresses'' are not consider to "belong" to the IP in the same way as registered users are considered to "own" their talkpages. (Even then, asserting a "right" to control it is a bit further than most people go - there is a general understanding over how they are edited, but this is quite different).
::Ah the classic "You didn't know the ropes so we have a right to act like dicks" response. No sorry, wrong. Yes, I acted somewhat innappropriately. I am willing to take responsibility for my actions as such. This does not excuse the hazing I recieved.
:::Nor does it excuse you from the attitude problems you have shown in reaction to being (in your view) treated unkindly as a "newbie". No amount of wrongs make a right, and somebody at some point needs to show the maturity to break the cycle of rudeness. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Which is exactly why I have apologized and come here to discuss it, instead of writing you a nasty message about your attitude on your talk page. I've come here, I'm ready to start working things out. Why the hell aren't the rest you coming to the table? You're still hazing the n00b.
:::::In my case, I wasn't one of the people who did or said anything nasty to you in the first place; I'm just an outsider who stumbled on all of this arugment here, and added my own comments. I'm not the one you have a beef against. Anyway, you'll get much kinder treatment if you don't keep cursing and screaming, like you're still doing (with comments like "Why the hell..."). Given that some of your edits were vandalism, it's understandable that people weren't completely nice to you, but it's still possible to put it in the past by being cooperative and constructive, and not "hazing" the "oldbies" back. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::[[Hell]] is not a "curse word" unless you happen to live in the Bible belt or some such crap. It's an expression of frustration at the utter hazing frat boy culture of Wikipedia. I'm here looking for resolution if you're just going to mock and haze, please do so to some other n00b.
:::::::It isn't a curse word in Judaism. [[User:220.233.48.200|220.233.48.200]] 09:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:It is not ''yours''. You do not have a ''right'' to control it. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::I do have a right to edit it, and to respond to comments placed there, which is all I am asserting.
:::It does not currently seem to be protected. From the log:
::::01:23, December 27, 2005 Alkivar unprotected User talk:128.42.7.170 (unprotect) --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::And thanks to Alkivar for that, it still doesn't resolve the issue that it was protected in the first place.
::::::It's been unprotected. I have no idea why it was protected, but since it was unprotected ''yesterday'' the only reason you are here today is to stir up trouble. The matter is resolved. Please go play somewhere else. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 20:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::I come here to try and sort things out and this is the response I get? The matter is *NOT* resolved. Why was it protected? There is an abuse here that needs to be investigated. I am neither "playing" nor "stirring up trouble". Unlike you. I am here to resolve a serious matter.
:::I'm reading this and I'm like WTF. In my humble opinion, you're overreacting. But if you really want to know why it was protected, this is probably why. First edit, you vandalize Jimmy Wales. This does not give a very good impression. Editors here are very intolerant of vandals, and even less so of vandals that accuse editors of "hazing".
:::Fortunantely, you are not a common vandal, and you engage in discourse with other editors, particularly FireFox and Titoxd. First you go "What?" to Titoxd, and he points out your vandalous edit. Then you reply:
::::''Calling it as I see it boss, sorry if your kilt is all messed up. I'll cease. I thought Wiki was open for any edits.''
:::If I had been dealing with you, I would not have recieved a very favorable impression of this anonymous editor. Unfortantely, Titoxd didn't respond to your "smart" comment, but here is what the reply probably would have said.
::::''The wiki is not open for any edits. We are here to make an encyclopedia, and the wiki is a means to that end. Vandalism is unacceptable. Don't do it again.''
:::Now, from the following discourses, I can see where you got the impression that these people were ''hazing'' you. FireFox gives you another warning for the same infraction Titoxd had given you. It seems that they considered the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=32144192 infraction] quite serious. You engage with a talk with FireFox, and the conversation goes like this:
::::''Yeah so someone already told this to me... I'm just a dumb slashdotter trying out the Wikipedia. Didn't realize it was so territorial what with y'all peeing all over my carpet. Don't get your skirt out of whack, settle down, have a beer. We're just here from Slashdot to look around. Judging by the number of hilarious edits on the page in question... I'd say my comment ain't far off the mark.''
::::''What does rvs mean?''
:::::''RVS is Revert S.... The S is whatever you want it to be.''
::::''How am I supposed to learn the ropes of Wikipedia if you won't even talk to me? Is this community really this unfriendly? I'm trying to open a dialog and you're just ignoring me... thats pretty rude.''
:::::''Yes''
:::FireFox is somewhat exasperated by your flippant attitude and your accusatory manner.
:::The next edit you make is not much better. It's an addition of "It is quite possible people are seeking to vandalize it. Be aware and prepared to respond. Only you can help prevent vandalism!'" to {{tl|High-traffic}}. Curps reverts you, and you respond, in accord to your previous attitude and demeanor:
::::''I come bearing edits yet you rebuke me and disregard them like I was a can of spam on a grocery shelf with a $99 price tag. What wantest thou from us, the lowly unwashed slashdotters. Tell us Great Pooba! Tell us that our edits might please thee!''
:::Curps responds in a meaningful manner:
::::''As discussed on my talk page, your edit to [[Jimmy Wales]] was clearcut vandalism as you have admitted, and likely not your first vandalism of Wikipedia. It was reasonable to interpret your further edits as vandalism and revert accordingly. Be aware of the [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule]] in the future and seek discussion and consensus if you wish to modify a commonly-used template.''
:::And you respond:
::::'':"Likely not my first vandalism of Wikipedia"? Where does this come from? There is no logic behind this line of reasoning. I just started editing today and you're all peeing on my carpet. It was not reasonable to interpret my further edits as vandalism. I specifically asked for pointers from those doing the reverting. Guess what? Y'all fucking ignored me. So I did what was reasonable, I tried again using different language. In the absence of helpful comments from y'all how else am I supposed to get it right. Y'all should be blocked for bad stewardship and negative attitudes. What the heck is this? A members only club? You guys treat n00bs worse than Slashdot does, and y'all should be blocked for failure to help out the new guy.''
:::And add:
::::''BTW, what are you, some European facist scum? This is America. Guilty until proven innocent, trial by jury of your peers.''
:::Which you promptly revert. There are more responses:
::::''Referring to Wikipedia newcomers as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:High-traffic&diff=prev&oldid=32166586 n00bs] on a template which is visible from dozens of pages was reason enough for the 3 hour block, especially considering this was your ''fifth'' attempt to deface this template with "Leet" style nonsense. Under most conditions this would have earned you a 24-hour block, but since I saw some of your other edits were done in good faith, I chose a shorter block. Please keep in mind that this is not an online gaming chat board; terms like "n00b" and "0wn3d" are not welcome here, and trying to add them to official templates is clear vandalism.''
:::You revert war on {{tl|High-traffic}} several times, and at this point, all your good faith has been used up (as noted in the above comment).
:::Your edits continue, with several dubious edits that could have been construed as good faith if it hadn't been for previous vandalism, and some more clearcut vandalism to other users. You have a revert war on your own talk page, and eventually the admins get fed up and block the page.
:::Here is my verdict after this investigation: you are a Slashdot user that decided it would be funny to vandalize a Wikipedia change. When various other users reacted and told you to stop vandalizing, your attitude and flippant remarks prevented them from fully appreciating the "I'll cease." You offered early on.
:::You then went on to make some controversial edits (which could have been good or bad), and got reverted again, and by then, everyone was convinced you were a hard vandal. Then you got into an edit war on your talk page.
:::I have attempted to present the dialogues that led to these "injustices" in a neutral manner, and have come to the conclusion that if you had acted a little more humbly and a little less "smart-aleck," these people would have been more willing to help you "learn the ropes." Instead, you blew it with immediately controversial edits. Feel free to get a user account and ''seriously'' contribute to Wikipedia, but please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">[[User:Ambush Commander|Ambush Commander]]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">([[User talk:Ambush Commander|Talk]])</sup> 20:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
==Marsden Redux==
Since the previous discussion has become hopelessly stupid, I am lifting the block on Marsden. If he continues the trolling behavior that got me to put the block up in the first place, I am reinstating it at indefinite. My reasoning in this will be simple - Marsden exhibits behavior that has gotten many people banned before. He exhibits this behavior unrepentantly. He is, in short, more or less certain to get himself banned. Given the choice between a drawn out process that will result in a circus as he rants about the Injustice of it All, or quietly shooting him as the foregone conclusion that it is, I pick the latter.
If and when I reblock Marsden, I invite any admin to undo the block PROVIDED that they can actually give a substantive reason why the block is in error. That is to say, I do not care if it is against procedure - I want to know what's wrong with it. Procedure is not and never has been an end in itself on Wikipedia. But perhaps Marsden will take a lesson from the fact that he is so very close to the edge,and change his behavior - we'll see. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 16:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::Phil, I suspect I speak for not a small number of Wikipedians when I ask, who exactly do you think you are? You seem to imagine that you are some sort of savior for Wikipedia, breaking all the rules in order to ... well, it's not clear exactly what you intend. Why shouldn't someone shoot you rather than me, Phil?
::Your comment on unblocking me, Phil ("OK, let's give Marsden a happy 'one last chance' and then see what happens."), belies what I think is a perverted understanding of what Wikipedia is: ultimately, this is a ''charitable'' effort, manned by ''volunteers''. "One last chance," Phil? There seems to be a corrupt attitude among a lot of Wikipedians, especially admins (and cerrtainly not just you, Phil), that it is ''punishment'' to ban someone from Wikipedia. How long do you think the Red Cross would tolerate a volunteer manager who insisted that some other volunteers were unworthy of stacking sandbags against a rising river? And yet, isn't this pretty much the role you have tried to carve out for yourself at Wikipedia?
::Whenever Wikipedia drives away another editor of good faith, that ultimately is a loss for Wikipedia. Sometimes it no doubt is necessary, but to relish doing it, as you seem to do, frankly suggests some significant moral defects.
::My participation in Wikipedia became relegated to trying to counter what I see as part of its systemic bias. This wasn't by choice, and anyone who thinks I enjoyed it should take a look at the early work I did make glacially paced changes at the [[Zionism]] article, and explain for themselves how ''anyone'' could enjoy that.
::But in doing this, I encountered an obstruction of reliable methods of inquiry from a couple other editors here: circular objections to changes, and the revert warring that sadly is ultimately what decides what stays in Wikipedia. It was not me, between myself and the group of editors that I have had conflicts with, who first abandoned discussion and reason in deciding what should be in Wikipedia.
::But the regime is very strong. I don't know the extent to which different editors are consciously promoting propaganda as opposed to just reflexively attacking any threat to an establishment that they see themselves as a part of, but at this point Wikipedia systemically makes unwelcome (to say the least) anyone who questions certain aspects of the project. That sort of attitude inevitably leads to a spiral descent.
::[[User:Marsden]]
:I smell jasmine in the air...ah, the sweet seductive scent of eternal optimism. :-) [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk</sup>]] 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Marsden has been blocked indefinitely by Jimbo. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:With the comment that "Snowspinner was right", but as far as I can see, no other contribution to the debate. Great - doesn't he have better things to do than randomly over-rule community discussions? And more generally, what broader conclusions do we draw if Snowspinner's actions were entirely 100% correct (including failure to notify anyone of an indefinite ban, never mind justify it with anything other than block summary "hopeless troll" and WP:AN remark "Wikipedia does not need trolls with nothing better to do than accuse Jimbo of stacking the arbcom with Zionist Randroids.")? How long before users can be banned permanently by any of 1000+ admins (not there yet, give it time) for being persistently annoying or strongly backing a POV an admin disagrees with? This is a dangerous precedent, IMO. It's a slippery slope when you prioritise ends over means; product (user getting banned for bad behaviour) over process (proving that behaviour was bad enough to deserve it, and that ban has nothing to do with content dispute). Frankly, in circumstances where the user accuses editors of bias, we should be ''more'' careful about process not less, for reasons that should be obvious. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 00:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Count yourself ahead, rd232. It's Wales' project, and no one has any right to demand anything from it. But now at least you have a better idea of what the deal is. [[User:Marsden]]
::''How long before users can be banned permanently by any of 1000+ admins (not there yet, give it time) for being persistently annoying''. Hasten the day. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:First, I am part of the community process, not overruling it, and acting in this instance perfectly in line with our longstanding norms and traditions. Second, I'm quite sympathetic with concerns about slippery slope problems and the importance of process over results.
:In this case, in line with longstanding policy, Snowspinner made a block which not one of our hundreds of admins was willing to overturn -- to me, this suggests a very strong consensus that could be formalized with a poll or something but to be honest, why bother?
:Indefinite in this case does not mean infinite. If you'd like to start a poll or something as to whether he should be let back in, or start an arbcom case requesting the arbcom to consider letting him back in, I won't stand in the way. But, I think you can guess what the result would be.
:There's another slippery slope to worry about, and this is that good people, thoughtful admins who care about quality, are frequently burned out by our excessive tolerance of nutcases. This can lead to a tendency over time toward having increasing tolerance of trolls and increased influence of trolls over policy. A very important counter-measure towards this race to the bottom is for us all to step back now and then and say, right then, this kind of thing is simply not welcome here, end of story. If I had the time to really thoroughly investigate several pending cases, I'd indefinitely block at least 20 more like him tomorrow.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 23:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::#"I am part of the community process, not overruling it" - AFAIK, you didn't contribute to the discussion prior to your action, which was what I was referring to when I said "over-rule community discussions" (''not'' "process"). The result of those discussions was that Snowspinner changed his mind (albeit mostly to get shot of the issue) and gave Marsden one more chance, unblocking him. You then overruled Snowspinner's change of mind with the comment "Snowspinner was right", and no other explanation. Frankly that strikes me as an odd and illadvised thing to do, unless you saw something inappropriate in the single contribution (comment above) Marsden made in the intervening period.
::#"Snowspinner made a block which not one of our hundreds of admins was willing to overturn" is incorrect: after the ban was brought to community attention (a week after it was done), and some discussion, I overturned it in favour of a 1 month block, and after that was reversed another admin overturned it again in the same way. And I recall a comment that a third would have done it if he didn't have Arbitration issues to worry about.
::#"Indefinite in this case does not mean infinite.". Really? Then what is the process by which indefinite is turned into definite? Is appeal to Arbcom really the appropriate means for dealing with all such concerns? (If there's another means, what is it?)
::#If "tolerance of trolls" is a problem we should define banning policy in a way that possible trolls can be warned of behaviour to avoid, and that admins considering such bans can use as a reliable yardstick (or at least a guide). "Trolling" is far too subjective a notion for as large a community as ours to allow individual admins to ban people on the basis of accusations of trolling without any attempt to prove it or to gain second opinion from others to support that judgement. That doesn't require the formality of Arbcom, but it requires ''some kind of process''.
::#Failure of other admins to overturn a ban doesn't constitute process, because (a) we don't know the number of admins we can plausibly expect to ''notice'' a ban (even when it's announced properly, which it wasn't in this case) (b) we don't know the number of admins who'll serious consider evaluating the case; (c) the respect admins generally pay to other admins' decisions, mostly for reasons of practical efficiency (we'll generally assume there are aspects of a complex case that aren't obvious, and rely on others' judgement). In other words, the failure of anyone to overturn a ban cannot reasonably be taken as an endorsement: only explicit statements of support can be counted on. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 21:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::#"If I had the time to really thoroughly investigate several pending cases, I'd indefinitely block at least 20 more like him tomorrow." Which cuts to the heart of the problem: if we had a policy which was well-defined enough to deal with this sort of behaviour consistently, the risk of appearing to arbitrarily exercise these powers would be rather less. Perhaps you could suggest some changes to [[Wikipedia:banning policy]] to help clarify these kinds of situation in future. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 21:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Rd232, you're confusing banning with blocking. Marsden is blocked indefinitely, in accordance with the blocking policy, for disruption and excessive personal attacks. As for your prioritizing process over product, you might want to consider being consistent in that regard, as you yourself recently blocked a user you were involved in a content dispute with, someone who thoroughly deserved the block, but had you been following process, you wouldn't have done it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARd232&diff=33425236&oldid=33026441] [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm not confusing blocking with banning. Marsden is banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, which ban is enforced by an indefinite block. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::::I was ''not'' "in a content dispute". I came to the page via [[WP:RFC]], made a remark agreeing with the majority, and participated in some discussion in an attempt to clarify the issue. I did not edit the article (except, after the block, to undo the excessive reversion after the user's severe violation of 3RR). [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::I notice that (above) you link (via a diff) to your comment on my user talk page, thereby excluding anybody who follows it from directly seeing the reply I'd already made there long before you posted the above comment - and which reply you'd evidently seen because you'd just replied to it. I'll assume that was just an oversight. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 12:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::The point I'm trying to make is that you seem to prioritize process when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. The blocking policy says that we can't block where we're involved in the content dispute. You made a comment on the talk page shortly before the block that directly opposed the position RJII was reverting over, thereby involving yourself in the dispute, so strictly speaking you should not have blocked him, especially when the first admin to deal with the violation had decided not to. That's my only point. I agree that process should not be prioritized over product, I agree that RJII deserved a block, and I personally have no problem with you doing it. I'm only asking for consistency. Just as you're asking people to trust your judgement as an admin regarding RJII (even if strictly speaking the block may have been a violation of the blocking policy), so other admins were asking you to trust their judgement regarding Marsden. We do have to trust each other's judgement, even on occasions where we may not agree with it. If we don't, the result is these very harmful block wars. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 12:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I've explained that I did not consider myself ''involved in the content dispute''. (I've also explained - on my talk page discussion with you - why I took action when another admin didn't: inaction was driving editors away.) Now others may disagree as to whether I was involved or not, but I object to what amounts to an accusation of hypocrisy, that I will preach on process but ignore it myself. As to the block war: yes, that was exceedingly silly, since the discussion was ongoing and there were over two weeks left on the 1 month block I instituted: i.e. no pressing need for anyone to pre-empt ongoing discussion as to what the appropriate length was, and the resulting to-and-fro about indefinite or 1-month blocks. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
== repeat willful violations of image rules ==
Just wanted to note here that I have locked the userpage for [[User:Gateman1997]] since he is willfully violating fairuse guidelines and image guidelines. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 19:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
*I counter that my page is being willfully vandalized by [[User:Jtkiefer]] because he has a less then accurate view of the fairuse rules and logo rules. Especially with regard to Mozilla Firefox who have licenced their logo for uses such as Wikipedia. I would ask any admin with half a brain to unlock my page at once.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 19:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
*Also please note this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gateman1997&action=history which shows his less then par attitude for an admin. Can someone direct me to the nominations for de-admin page?[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 19:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
**The [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair-use rules on Wikipedia]], which you refer to, state clearly that ''Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages''. HTH. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
***Then why does [[Wikipedia:Logos]] counter that?[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
****It doesn't, as far as I can tell. Note "'''Therefore, their use must also conform to Wikipedia's fair use guidelines.'''" [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:[[User:Jtkiefer]], are you going to do the same to everyone that is using [[:Template:User democrat]]? [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have rasised the matter on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use]]. It seems to me that given the promotional tag, this use is reasonable. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
*Thank you. Can we get the block raised while this is under discussion. I'm reasonable and will refrain from readding it until the matter is resolved.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 19:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
**On that basis, I will lift the block. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
***Thank you. I'd also like to apologize I may have gone against [[WP:CIVIL]] at. I get very defensive when people edit my userpage.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 19:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
**Done. I agree fair use tag is reasonable. Let's be sensible about this, the image is being used to promote firefox, it is small, it is a logo. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 19:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
***Yes, however fair use only allows direct use on articles and even then only on certain articles that directly pertain to the topic. Unless Mozilla Foundation is willing to license the image under a compatible license or release it into the public ___domain our image guidelines state that we cannot even upload the images except in this case as fair use for articles. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 19:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
****Then our guildlines need to be changed because this is plain daft. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 19:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
****The policies make good sense, in the sense that we can use fairuse images on articles directly pertaining to the organization of the image but fairuse doesn't stretch any farther than that and userboxes are way beyond the scope of fairuse in the conventional sense. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 19:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
*Just for reference, here is Mozilla's (Firefox's owner) official logo policy. "You may make t-shirts, desktop wallpaper, or baseball caps with Mozilla logos on them, though only for yourself and your friends (meaning people from whom you don't receive anything of value in return). You can't put the Mozilla logo on anything that you produce commercially -- at least not without receiving Mozilla's permission. Of course, Mozilla owns and operates the Mozilla Store, which sells a wide range of CDs, Guidebooks, T-shirts, and products with Mozilla software and logos. That's how we make some of the money that keeps us around.There are two additional broad categories of things you can't do with Mozilla's logos. The first is to produce modified versions of them. A modified logo also would raise the possibility of consumer confusion, thus violating Mozilla's trademarks rights, too (remember the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing?). The second concerns high-resolution copies of Mozilla logos, which you cannot have or use. If you've a very good reason to seek an exception to the rule against having and using high-resolution copies of Mozilla logos please contact the Trademark and Licensing Team."[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
**As you can see a userbox logo does not violate their logo policy and shouldn't violate ours either in this case as a low resolution image may be used for ANY non commercial purpose.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 19:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::The issue never was and never will be Mozilla policy, the issue is that even though they give up certain uses they aren't licensing it in a way we can use except for fair use which allows certain rights. If you want to change the way they license their images feel free to ask them to release it into the public ___domain but I doubt they'll say yes. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Well then maybe it should be. I find it absurd that Mozilla has licensed this for us to use but we create a new rule that prevents us from using it?[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Also if this is the case perhaps a new licensing option is in order as fairuse is overly contrictive in this case if we are to follow your interpretation of it.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 19:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
*Also here is their FAQ specifically about using the Firefox logo on a website. "Can I put Firefox or Thunderbird banners on my website? Can I link to you? Thanks for your support :-) Of course you may. We have button programs for exactly this:
:::Also non commercial use is another issue since images should be able to be used if we ever get around to releasing a DVD version of Wikipedia but that isn't the main issue at the moment. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
"We" as Wikipedia aren't using it. Individual wikipedians are. Mozilla is happy about it therefore we change our rules. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 19:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:Like it or not as terms of the way we license our content Wikipedians and Wikipedia become one and the same once stuff gets posted up here. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 19:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::User namespace and article namespace are different. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 19:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Gateman, what Jtkiefer is trying to get that while the Firefox logo has been granted, by them, for use on our website, we still need to realize that their logo is their logo and they still have some rights for it. And, since it is a logo, it falls under the fair use rules that we have at [[WP:FUC]]. And, one of the fair use rules for images that was created was that fair use logos, icons or photos of anykind should not be used in templates and should not be used anywhere outside of the article space. While I think that the Firefox guys are glad that we love and support their browser, do understand that we are serious about copyright violations and try to follow and understand them next time. While this is not related to you Gateman, if you think other templates are violating the fair use rules, just change the icon and null edit every user page that you can. That will be a whole lot easier. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::Why are we serious about copyright violations? Spell it out. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 20:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::: Because copyright violations could get Wikipedia sued just to name one reaason. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Because what Wikipedia is content, full of words, pictures and sounds. And, in order to keep the content for all, we need to make sure that we follow all relevant copyright laws that apply to us. If not, our goal of "making the Internet not suck" cannot happen. Also, copyvios can bring legal liability to Wikipedia and I know on a few occasions that Jimbo himself has not only blocked people for copyvios, he also single handedly change various ways that we deal with copyright violations and about no source images. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::Which certainly is not going to happen here is it seeing as they have given permission.[[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::Firefox is one of few who said "here, use this." Many others have not done this for us, so that is why we have our policies. [[User:Zscout370|Zach] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 20:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::So we create a new cat of image - [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 20:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::True but why do we have to ignore the rights they've granted us with regard to it? If anything we need another version of fairuse for this then since it doesn't fit the fairuse guideline as that is too contrictive, yet it also doesn't meet PD either.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 20:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::All we need to do Gateman is get a Firefox logo that is under the GFDL/CC/PD licenses and just use that as the icon only for that template. That is all we are asking for. For the Firefox article, we can still use the standard logo with no problems. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::The other, more appropriate, license here would be non-commercial-use-only. Unfortunately, we have an explicit "no non-commercial images" prohibition. [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html]. You are, of course, welcome to go argue the toss with Jimbo, but it's his server... [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 20:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::How sad. If that's the case Jimbo eventually intends to use Wikipedia for profit.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::He doesn't own the servers. And he doesn't intend to use Wikipedia for profit. The GFDL allows commercial use. Wikipedia can be copied and reused by for profit organisations. That's why we don't allow non free licences. However commercial organisations are highly unlikely to use user pages. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::That point aside, we still can't use not for commercial use images. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::I also agree that non-commercial images should not be used anywhere on the Wiki. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::The problem is that licensing Wikipedia content as "non-commercial" produces a surprising amount of problems - it means, essentially, that producing hard-copy versions (a massive success story for de.wikipedia) becomes financially impossible. There are very good reasons for wanting everything to be commercially reusable, especially when you start considering the long-term goals of penetration into the third-world and other, mostly offline, areas. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 20:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
*Back to the heart of this however. I would like to point out that [[WP:FAIR]] is only a guideline... not policy. I think there needs to be alot more discussion before any users go around deleting images from users pages simply because that is their interpretation of a guideline or until it becomes policy.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 01:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
**While this is not policy, per say, if you scroll down, there is a list of agreed upon uses that are acceptable for FU images. This is what I have been pointing to this day: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)." So, all we want to do is limit the amount of FU images, and also limit on how they are used. If the picture is used for an article, fine, but if the FU, all it's doing is decorating a user page, has no need to be on Wikipedia servers. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 01:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
***A question then if I may. Please look at [[New England Patriots]] specifically the template and it's use of the Patriot's symbol. If you were to follow the strictest interpretation of the Fair Use guideline, would this not be a violation of the policy?[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
No, that's fair because it relates to the article. Back on topic: even if it is guideline (''not policy!'') says that use outside of the encyclopediac (sp?) context is illegal, that gives you '''''no right to abruptly change dozens of userpages without warning'''''. This admin has abused his powers, if even with the right intentions, and should be blocked for some period of time. If you are going to make abrupt changes like this, tell us first. give us time to change it. And ''allow the average user to participate in interpreting the policy''. This user broke [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|pillar]] four (writer's rules of engagement) and five (no other firm rules) in pursuit of a nuance of pillar three (free content). Let's talk this over, not go about changing hundreds of pages without warning.
Also:I don't know who deleted [[:Image:MozillaFirefoxLogo.png]], but somehow it is no longer part of the wiki. We have to go to Mozilla for this one; my copy has some sort of copy protection that keeps me from getting a good quality image. Even it was being (ab)used in userpages, ''there was no reason to irreversibly get rid of an image that could be used for encyclopediac purposes''. I think we all lost our cool on this one.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]]) 02:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Lots of Wikipedia mirrors sell ad space, and they copy User pages. Doesn't that make them commercial sites? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 03:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You deleted the image from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Macintosh|WikiProject Macintosh]] templates! An image that was [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Macintosh#Template images|voted]], justly, as the project image! You'll never hear the end of this, Jtkiefer. The entire Wikiproject will be after you, and perhaps multiple WikiProjects (who knows how many logos you got rid of?). This is policy violation in that you did it suddenly without consulting anyone else. Action needs to be taken aginst this (ex?)admin.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]]) 03:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
*I have to admit that is part of what is rubbing me the wrong way about this. Not only the questionable interpretation of policy but the unilateral action being taken by one or two users over a broad spectrum of pages, user or otherwise.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 04:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
**When legal concerns are involved, that is necessary and appropriate. For what it's worth, I agree with Jtkiefer's analysis of the relevant laws/policies, and oppose the proposed changing of the rules to allow this. Fair use is one of those things we need to be especially careful with, and this falls outside the bounds. We cannot use special-use licenses that the mozilla foundation would grant us because they would not transfer to (possibly commercial) project mirrors. Fair use is the only acceptable use of the relevant logo, and use on userpages falls outside that scope. There's no way around that, and if this argument holds, it is necessary to remove the image from user pages for legal/policy reasons, regardless of how many users would like otherwise. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 06:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
***Yes, true. But if this has to be enforced, give us a deadline to find or create new images to replace the fair use ones. To go around and delete images off hundreds of community pages is simply unacceptable. It's a violation of the trust that outside of typos userpages are the ___domain of the user. About the Firefox logo: wouldn't that be promoting firefox on the mirrors and thus acceptable? Regardless, I propose, as mentioned above, a '''deadline that is not immediate''' for the users to remove fair use images from their own pages and find substitues. Before hat happens, I also suggest that '''the entire community take part in this discussion''' to increase awareness of this major change and also give people a chance to fight it. Even if they (i.e. we) wind up losing, they'll (we'll) be much happier about it if they know why they have to change and have time to do it.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]]) 13:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
****If it is illegal or against policy, it would be inappropriate to give a deadline (especially in the illegal case). Userpages are generally considered ___domain of the user, but illegal things and things against policy are and always will be candidates for removal, without necessarily warnings or the like. The "entire community" cannot decide to ignore the law -- '''that''' is not open for debate. This is not a major change, it is applying existing rules. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:*Re: Project mirrors... I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but how are copyright violations on mirrored pages a Wikipedia problem? If the images can be used fairly in the user namespace at en.wikipedia.org, but not at mirrored sites such as answers.com, why should that effect what the user namespace can do? It seems to me if the copyright holder wanted to sue someone, they would have to go after the servers that are using the content illegally, not Wikipedia. Is this interpretation wrong? It may be Wikipedia's content, but how is it Wikipedia's responsibility to make sure the content is used correctly even when it is copied off the site where they no longer have control over the content? [[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:Psantora|T]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit&section=new +]</sub></small> 14:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:**Agreed. Besides, everyone should have {{tl|userpage}} on their userpage anyway.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]]) 14:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:**They would not be a Wikipedia problem, except we have decided that allowing (and keeping legally permissible) mirrors is an important thing to do, and there thus have for many years been mirrors. This is why we have never accepted content which is granted license specially to Wikipedia -- we have always treated such content as if there is no special license granted in the name of keeping our content as unencumbered as possible. Besides, HereToHelp, I don't have the userpage template on my userpage, and I don't think I'm missing much. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::*I'm not saying the mirrors themselves are a problem, I think it is a good idea to have the information on Wikipedia available to as large a user base as possible. But, the user space isn't exactly encyclopedic. The fact that the mirrors copy that information anyway shouldn't be a reason to prevent fair use images (when used correctly on the en.wikipedia.org ___domain) from being used-especially if there is no liability to the Wikipedia project. [[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:Psantora|T]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit&section=new +]</sub></small> 15:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::I think the userpage template is good to have, but I won't edit your page against your wishes for something trivial. I agree with the above user: even is we allow mirrors, there's no reason for userpage mirrors. Besides, (in the case of the firefox logo) it's still promoting Firefox, so that shouldn't be a problem. I'm not even sure that that should be fair use. --[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]]) 15:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I seriously don't get why being eable to use unfree images on theyr userpage is such a huge deal to some people. This project is about creating a freely redistributable free licensed ensyclopedia. In exactly what way does allowing people to stuff theyr userpage full of unfree images benefit that goal? Use of unfree images should be kept to a minimum, and all recent policy changes with regards to images are moving in that direction, first getting rid of non-commercial and used with permission only images, then trying to get to grips with the mountain of untagged and unsourced images, and lastly putting the tourch to all fair use images that are not used in articles. Suddely allowing fair use on userpages just to acomodate users who would like to promote theyr favourite organisations and corporations seems like an odd direction to take the policy considering all the efforts that have been made so far to reduce our use of such images. If there is one place we defenently don't ''need'' to use unfree images it's on userpages. If the price for keeping the use of copyrighted material to a minimum is that a couple hundred users have to do without the logos of theyr favourite "causes" on theyr userpage then that's hardly a national tradegy. It doesn't limit theyr ability to anounce theyr POV to all who care to look, and it doesn't limit theyr abilities to participate in the comunity or contribute to the project, so I'm sure they will surive. Many of the other language Wikipedias get by just fine without allowing fair use at all after all. Remember we primarily here to make an esyclopedia, not promote web-browsers or political parties, that stuff is strictly secondary, so I see no reason to reshape copyright policy around what people would like to be eable to do on theyr userpage.</rant> --[[User:Sherool|Sherool]] <span style="font-size:75%">[[User talk:Sherool|(talk)]]</span> 19:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
*I think people are bent out of shape because userboxes are a LONG time thing. And suggesting replacing the images with PD etc images doesn't work in may cases because no PD equivalent exists or will exist. And frankly the reasoning behind keeping it all free is absurd. We're protecting people who copy Wikipedia as mirrors? Why?[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 21:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
**It does not even have to be PD, the image has to be under a fair license, which includes GFDL, Creative Commons. And, if that is not possible, then you can seek out Wikigraphic-designers (ahem) and they are willing to help you design a logo for the icon. Examples: with the Coke/Pepsi templates, all someone needs to do is take a picture of the soda cans or find an add that is older than 1934 (I think) and that should be no problem. Eagle Scouts: just find a picture of an bald eagle taken by the US Government. I managed to find photos of some gaming systems on the Wikimedia Commons, a huge depository of freely licensed images. And, the amount of templates that have FU images is very, very small and one just has to look at the Commons or Google to find a PD image. If Hedley was still around, I had a PD image he could have used for his Sealand template. As for "are we pretecting the mirrors," I do not think so, we are protecting ourselves. Most mirrors say that information came from us, so people will find us and tell us about the mirrors, so we could purge the history later on. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 22:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[[Image:OaklandAthleticsIcon.png|right|]]
***OK, I find your proposal intriguing. As a test create an icon/logo for the [[Oakland Athletics]].[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 22:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
****How's this. I stuck with the team colors, but I decided to change the script and also drop the small S next to the signature. What do you think? [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (from my talk page)
*****It could work. Might need a little more old english for the "A" or the return of the "s". Right now I think it's a little TOO generic.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 23:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
******I intentially did not use the old English font because that would have looked like the A's logo. I tried to bring some elements, such as the gold border on the white lettering and the green background, but it could work for the meantime. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 23:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
== Bobblewik ==
I've blocked {{user|Bobblewik}} for 3 hours, for making rapid edits (in some cases up to 10 a minute) for a bot he does not yet have permission for. It is policy to block bots indefinitely until the bot owner explains himself satisfactorily, however since this is his main account I have only temporarily blocked it. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:I doubt Bobblewik is using a bot. He's almost certainly using [[WP:AWB]] manually, which can enable a user to make several edits per minute. I'm not going to unblock right now, but I will if he states that he wasn't using a bot. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 20:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::AWB can in theory be used in conjunction with a bot but I'm not sure if that's the case here. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure what you mean "can in theory be used in conjunction with a bot" as all bot functionality in it is disabled. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 21:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:: I would argue that it is a bot (or it effectively is at least how he is using it). He is making edits at a phenomenal rate, as I mentioend above up to 10 a minute. I believe the AWB requires the running user to verify the edits themselves, I'm not sure exactly how this works but Bobblewik can't be taking more than a cursory glance if he is making one edit every 6 seconds. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
: I don't think he's running a bot. He's been using AWB, which lets him edit stuff really quickly to get rid of unnecessary links. He's fighting the good fight! --'''[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]''' <sub>[[Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool|vote]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">[[User talk:Cyde|talk]]</span></sup> 20:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:: Maybe he's doing something which is improving the encyclopedia (of course, this is up for debate at this very moment), but the fact remains that he hasn't got approval for the edits he is making through this automated system and he is making them incredibly quickly. Both are grounds for a block until the bot's owner explains himself satisfactorily per [[Wikipedia:Bots]]. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
: AWB, which I am also using, is not a bot -- a user must manualy accepet every edit, and a user should (and I do) reveiw the effects of every bedit before approving. I might also add that at [[Wikipedia talk:Bots# Bot permission please?]] The majority of the comments were supportive, I think it might be argued that if this were considerd a bot permission has in effect been granted. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:: I just tallied up support/oppose to get a rough idea of the consensus, and I make it 21 supports, 10 opposes. I don't consider that consensus for the bot to be used. Your point about accepting every edit is valid, but I have argued above that at the rate Bobblewik is making edits, he cannot be giving the articles more than a cursory glance. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 21:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::If you bothered to follow the link in his edit summary you would read the first line "''This is not a bot...''", he does check every edit, the software makes this very easy. I am going to unblock him now, but ask not to carry on with this particular task until any controversy is cleared up, he is very reasonable and I have no doubt he will be more than happy to comply. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::All but 2 of the opposes are purely against a bot doing the task (I am one of those opposes). I therefore make that a clear consensus. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::The rules state that you cannot run a bot unless you have permission, AWP is not a bot and therefore he shouldn't be blocked no matter how fasts his edits are unless of course he is using a bot in conjunction with AWP which is a possibility but a remote one. I am going to unblock again. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::What do you mean about a bot in conjuction with the software? [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 21:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::In theory he could be using a bot to click the save bntton every 5 seconds to do it but I doubt that's the case here. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::: The bot proposal Bobblewik has drafted says he will carry on using the AWB in exactly the same fashion as he currently is, except under a different account and with a bot flag. That makes it pretty clear to me that not much will change when he decides to use the bot account he has asked for. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::He is requesting an automatic bot to do the task hence him saying "''It is a huge slow task (for me anyway) and I would rather do something else.''". At the moment it is not automatic, he checks every edit. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 21:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::: It is automatic, he just approves the changes suggested to him by the AWB. If this is not true, I would expect there to be an example where Bobblewik has rejected a suggested change by the AWB. If this is not the case, then for all intents and purposes, Bobblewik is running a bot. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::The program shows him the changes he has made, he can then make any further changes he wants, or reject it altogether. It is of course impossible to show a time when he didnt make a change. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::: Obviously it's impossible to show a diff of an edit he didn't make, but it is indeed possible for him to mention an article and hopefully the rough time AWB scanned that page, suggested edits, but Bobblewik decided were not appropriate. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Even before the existence of AWB, I became familiar with suggestions that I am a bot because of the speed of my edits. If you look on my talk page, you will see an old section titled 'Are you a bot?'. Other such questions are in various discussion pages and archives dating back some time. I am not now, nor have I ever been a bot, nor has any bot run on my behalf.
::::::::I am responsible for all the edits that I make. I am confident with what I do and if you look at my talk page, I try to explain myself in good faith. Naturally, somebody with a different editorial policy might interpret my edits as 'not checked properly'.
::::::::As far as rejecting AWB suggestions are concerned: yes I do reject some in accordance with the Manual of Style. All editors are flawed. As long as the number of good edits (whatever that means) exceed the bad edits, then that editor is improving wikipedia. I flatter myself that my good/bad ratio is much higher than 50%. [[User:Bobblewik|Bobblewik]] 22:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::: As far as I can tell an anonymous editor asked if you were a bot because you were converting measurements from one standard to another. I fail to see how that's relevant to this discussion. Could you give an example of an AWB suggestion which you have rejected, please? [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I quote AllyUnion:
:''Yes, as I mentioned above before to Martin (Bluemoose), that his tool at that speed would in effect qualify as a bot for anyone who uses it. Users who wish to use his tool beyond the recommended limit must apply for a separate account, and run any high speed edits under a bot flagged account.''
Making 10 edits a minute like this needs a separate bot account, and as such, the block was valid. I'm not going to reinstate it, but I fully believe that this is a block-worthy offense. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 21:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
: OK, this may be right, but it is a technicality, the point is whether it is automatic or manual, clearly it is manual. The next question is whether the edits have community consensus, and as far as I can tell at the moment it does very much have consensus, although it may need to be opened up to debating, I dont feel strongly on the issue so I don't really want to get into details. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:: What do you mean it has consensus? The bot proposal currently has just over a 2:1 support:oppose ratio. 66% has never been considered consensus on Wikipedia. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 21:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::As I said above, all but 2 (3 now Ral315 voted) opposes are against it being done automatically, and 29 support to 3 oppose (or 21 to 3 if you count the others as neutral) is a good consensus, but like I said, I dont feel that strongly on the issue. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 22:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::: It's hardly surprising that people are voicing opposition to it being done automatically because that's what the proposal is. Some people might expand on their beliefs on the opposition (like Ral315 did) while others might just reply to whether they think the bot proposal is a good idea. I don't think you should read any more than that into it. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::''66% has never been considered consensus on Wikipedia.'' FWIW, [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] indicates that in some cases it is (although this admittedly something of a distortion of the meaning of consensus). For approval of a Bot only a "rough consensus" is needed, which is often interpreted as being about 66%. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]≠[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 22:06, 29 December 2005
::As someone who has expanded year articles, I am strongly opposed to unconditionally (or nearly-unconditionally) unwikifying years. Even if a consensus is reached to unlink a lot of years, the benefit of doing so on a mass-edit basis would be small compared to the possibility of making bad edits. [[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 22:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Having been blocked for his campaign the user in question then opted to come on using an anonymous IP to continue the campaign. That I think is overstepping the line. I have blocked that IP and reverted the edits he was doing using it. Frankly Bobbywik's campaign is really annoying me at this stage. I see no evidence that he is taking any care to only remove unnecessary links and instead seems to removing all links but one irrespective of whether a particular other link may be necessary. So yes, Martin, I too oppose it and so do a lot of others I suspect. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 22:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:Please dont address these comments to me, I have repeatedly said I dont care that much about it, I just dont want people to think my software is a bot, plus I have felt obligated to point out obvious facts, maybe we should a centralised discussion on the issue ( of which I will take little part). [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 22:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:p.s. what ip did you block, I would be disapointed to find out he carried on editting even after he was asked to stop. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::I have blocked his username as well for 24 hours for his date link campaign even though I don't think AWB should be classified as a block and that had nothing to do with the reinstatement of his block. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 22:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I don't particularly understand why Bobblewik is doing this, but Talrias was in the right here while we figure out things. However this seems like more of a triage unit, this conversation should be moved to [[WP:BR]] or [[WP:BOTS]] or where have you from here on. [[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::No, it should be discussed [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|here]] first, then we can decide whether we want a bot to do it. thanks [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Though it's a bit late, I also agree that Talrias was in the right here. Get consensus first, ''then'' act. Bobblewik's answers on this page are hardly satisfactory, either. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 00:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If you are refering to the edits at [[User:66.24.251.76]] those were NOT made by Bobblewik, they were made by me. I was not trying to evade a block -- I had not been blocked. My login cookie apparently expired without my being aware -- as soon as I notice I logged back in. I might add that I have been using AWB for date link removal, but I have been significantly examing each such edit, in several cases I have restored a datge that AWB would have removed, in a number of other cases i have added birth/death category links, in yest others I have done minor manual cleanup edits. Whatever may be said of Bobblewik's edits, i deny that my edits are in any way those of a bot, and I do not feel the need for a bot flag to make them. Indeed I have previously made similar edits with similar levels of scrutiny on a purely manual basis. I also suggest you note the alphabetical list in my edits just befofre and after those of [[User:66.24.251.76]] as evidence that these edits were mine. Perhaps ssuming that Bobblewik was evading a block (IMO an invalid block) does not quite squarte wiht [[WP:AGF]]. Did anyone ask Bobblewik if those edits were his? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 03:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
: Is that the case? I find the fact that you have been doing exactly the same kind of edits that Bobblewik got a block for, when he was blocked, incredibly disruptive and not at all helpful. We're trying to resolve a situation here to come up with a consensus for how to act. If people carry on making edits which there is currently clear disapproval of, I personally find that inconsiderate and rude. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 15:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::I understand that you and some others disapprove of these edits. They are exactly the same types of edits I have been making on this issue long before the AWB tool (not a bot) was created. I see no consensus '''against''' such edits -- indeed i belive that there is an exizting consensus, represented by the MOS page, in favor of them. I understand that soem people want to change that, but IMO they are a long way from gaining vonsensus for that change. When i have been using the AWB tool for date de-linking, i carefully examine every proposed change. I have on several occasions not accepted proposed changes, and i have fairly often added manul changes -- particualrly adding proper year-based categories. i have not been editing with the same speed that Bobblewik was using. I will, of course, stop such edits if a consensus to link years or not to unlink them developes -- tha has not happend yet and i will argue againsat it. I do not think year links add anything of value in the vast majority of cases, and they reduce the signal-to-noise ratio IMO. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Complaining about and/or blocking editors that act in accordance with the Manual of Style is not productive. Some of the complaints are of the type ''a year must be linked in circumstanceA'' or ''a day of the week must be linked in circumstanceB''. These are easy to turn into Manual of Style guidance. I am begging the complainers to make a proposal for change instead of criticising editors that follow the Manual of Style. [[User:Bobblewik|Bobblewik]] 10:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Have you considered that perhaps the decision on when to link is best made by the people who are writing the article, rather than by instruction creep? [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>1</sup>]] 11:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Yes I have considered that. I do not want more constraints in the Manual of Style, it seems fine to me. But some editors complain about and block the acts of other editors and quote undocumented constraints as applicable. Some of the constraints quoted are specific and auditable. If such constraints are to be imposed on editors, then they should be documented in the Manual of Style. If editors stop complaining/blocking and stop asking for more constraints, then that is fine by me. [[User:Bobblewik|Bobblewik]] 16:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
== Revealing personal information ==
{{User|DannyWilde}} has been revealing personal information about {{User|Antaeus Feldspar}}, in particular Antaeus's real name ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=prev&oldid=33121204], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zordrac&diff=prev&oldid=32966805], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zordrac&diff=prev&oldid=32960610]). Antaeus tells me that Danny's information is in fact wrong, but that's hardly the point. Users have the right to pseudonymity on Wikipedia, and I feel it is very inappropriate to expose others. I believe a block is in order, but would like a second opinion. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 22:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:This is no better than what various users have been doing to Jimbo. I agree with a block. --[[User:Merovingian|King of All the Franks]] 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:He also used the edit summary "''fuck off, feldspar.''". block of 24 hours minimum. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:A block seems to be in order, if that's the only way to get his attention. I suspect that we will be accused of being part of the cabal, however. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:I also agree with a block. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 22:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
*Considering that in addition to the above, he had been making personal attacks and already had a vandal warning on his talk page as well, I've blocked for 48 hours. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:*Has my support - such behaviour IMO falls under the disruption clause of the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. [[User:Izehar|Izehar]] 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
No. The information is straight off [[User:Daniel Brandt]]'s page here http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html and quotes to Antaeus Feldspar's own blog. So all that he is doing is repeating Brandt, who in turn is repeating Feldspar. Quoting web pages shouldn't be bannable. Besides which, Antaeus is a hopeless stalker, and this was a way to try to combat this. Banning him is a green light to Antaeus to continue his abusive behaviour. [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]] [[User_talk:Zordrac|(talk)]] <small>[[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD|Wishy Washy]] [[M:Darwikinism|Darwikinian]] [[M:Eventualism|Eventualist]]</small> 07:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:Of course, if anyone checks, they'll see fairly plainly that Antaeus's website doesn't mention his name, be it "Joseph Crowly III", "Smoggy Fancypants", "Dr. [[Blackula]] Rodriguez", or anything else.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 08:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yet again I'll make my proposal regarding this sort of harassment: ''Anyone using Wikipedia to divulge another person's personal contact information without their consent thereby elicits a permanent ban.'' Posting the contact information of "enemies" serves ''no'' other purpose but to facilitate physical, real-world harassment and violence. There's a vast difference between online name-calling "harassment" and the sort of harassment that involves inviting thugs to abuse the "enemy" in person. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with you in principle - intentionally revealing the personal contact information of editors who do not publicize their identity is a dangerous form of harassment which serves no useful purpose. However it's like blackmail, in that the victims may not wish to draw further attention to the posting by bringing a case. A formal proposal might adress that problem. I suggest that, aside from any formal policy, we as administrators should be vigilant about removing personal information quickly and even deleting it from the edit history. Editors shouldn't have to make a big noise in order to get personal info erased. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
*''"Quoting web pages shouldn't be bannable."'' is a rather silly straw man. Your actions on Wikipedia can in some cases be bannable, and it doesn't matter if they come from some webpage. For instance, we will ban people spouting nazistic comments, but there are quite some webpages where they may have been quoting it from. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 10:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I am all for stopping stalking, but we have to make sure we are stopping the stalker, not the stalkee. Given what Antaeus has done to me, I am in no doubt who is the culprit in this case.
Oh, and his web page *DID* say his true name, as you can tell here [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=%22antaeus+feldspar%22+%22joseph+crowley%22&spell=1]. He's just wiped it.
But the point of the matter is that this guy didn't start the revelation, Daniel Brandt did. So punishing someone for repeating that would be as good as punishing anyone who was involved in the editing of [[Daniel Brandt]], since a simple click on to the hivemind page reveals details like that. That is the point here.
If this guy was presenting his personal details by himself, then sure, he's done the wrong thing. But he's quoting Brandt, which in turn is quoting off Wikipedia, so he's done nothing wrong.
And you should not, no matter what you do, excuse Antaeus' behaviour, and Antaeus did stalk this user. So if you ban the user, you are effectively saying to him "Banned for being the victim of stalking" which is entirely the wrong message. [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]] [[User_talk:Zordrac|(talk)]] <small>[[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD|Wishy Washy]] [[M:Darwikinism|Darwikinian]] [[M:Eventualism|Eventualist]]</small> 12:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
*Get your facts straight. I did not ''ban'' Danny for anything. I ''blocked'' him because he was harassing Antaeus. That does not imply I condone anything Antaeus did; if you believe Antaeus has behaved badly, please provide '''evidence rather than allegations'''. [[FUD]] doesn't cut it. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 13:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
**As a matter of fact, it is Zordrac (in addition to Danny, of course) who has been harassing me. He has been telling numerous lies about me, and then screams that I'm "stalking" him if I post the truth on a page where he posted lies about me -- such as that I supposedly violated 3RR with 15 reverts in 24 hours, a claim he makes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu&diff=prev&oldid=32251828 here]. If he actually believed that I committed this violation, why did he post no report of it to [[WP:AN/3RR]]? Zordrac had earlier tried to make trouble for me by sending an e-mail to [[Daniel Brandt]], giving Brandt his own lopsided interpretation of an edit I had made; Zordrac describes it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=31878088&oldid=31876306 here]: "you were trying to imply that he was a hypocrite, by using weasel words in an underhanded way to discredit him, something which I advised him is defamatory of nature. Just so you know." Now he is claiming, incredibly enough, that I '''requested''' him to be my go-between to Brandt and 'explain' my edits to Brandt in that fashion! ''Why'' on Earth would I have asked that? And why on Earth would he have accepted, if it was true what he ''now'' claims, which is that "before we had communicated, he threatened me on the Daniel Brandt talk page, and made wild accusations about me, claiming to have been "watching me""? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zordrac&diff=prev&oldid=32624419] As Zordrac (ironically) says, "we have to make sure we are stopping the [harasser], not the [harassee]". When I say I have been the victim of Zordrac's harassment I can back it up with the diffs; Zordrac's claims contradict each other and are contradicted by the facts. For instance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&diff=31732583&oldid=31718778 this] is the only edit that ''could'' match Zordrac's description of me posting on [[Talk:Daniel Brandt]] before ''he'' initiated communication between us by posting on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=31739851&oldid=31670032 my talk page]. Does it contain ''any'' of the threats or wild accusations or claims of "watching him" that he has accused me of? -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
**Please advise me if it would be appropriate to start the RfAr against Zordrac at this point. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 17:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:Incidentally, that link, if you look at the cache, tells us "These search terms have been highlighted: ''antaeus feldspar''. These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: ''joseph crowley''". Try again... [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 13:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
After a recent dialog with DannyWilde, I've blocked him indefinitely for continued use of what he thinks may be Antaeus' real name. Feel free to shorten the block if you feel it's too long, but it's obvious that he's only here for some sort of weird revenge and doesn't care about making any meaningful contributions. IMO, if someone doesn't want to edit the encyclopedia, they don't need a working account. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 08:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Oh, and someone else will need to remove that personal information from [[User talk:DannyWilde]]'s history, if that is desired. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 08:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
==Persisent vandals==
I know I posted this at various spots at Wikipedia but I thought I would repost it here. There has been a, or some, persistant vandal(s) lately at the talk pages of [[User talk:Chadbryant|Chadbryant]] and [[User talk:SWD316|SWD316's (mine)]]. I would like someone to monitor the situation there as a user(s) have been creating numerous accounts to vandalize and make [[WP:NPA|Personal attacks]]. I'll start listing users that he has been creating here so everyone can be on alert.
# {{vandal|OSJ}} (blocked)
# {{vandal|Captain_Spinkicker }} (blocked)
# {{vandal|Ham_Kazerooni}} (blocked)
# {{vandal|Mister_Marbles}} (blocked)
# {{vandal|Thar_She_Blows}} (blocked)
And since the latest vandal, Mister Marbles just posted:
''You've obviously decided to bed down with Chadbryant. Let the fun and games begin!!!''
Im sure he's going to create more socks. [[User:SWD316|<font color="FF0000">S</font><font color="EE0000" >W</font><font color="DD0000">D</font><font color="CC0000">3</font><font color="BB0000">1</font><font color="AA0000">6</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:SWD316|<font color="0000FF">talk to m</font>]]</sup><sup>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="00FF00">e</font>]]</sup> 05:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
===List of unblocked vandal accounts===
As before I posted there is a persisant vandal on my talk page if someone wants to block him feel free to do so as this is just a sock puppet used for making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] and vandalism. [[User:SWD316|<font color="FF0000">S</font><font color="EE0000" >W</font><font color="DD0000">D</font><font color="CC0000">3</font><font color="BB0000">1</font><font color="AA0000">6</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:SWD316|<font color="0000FF">talk to m</font>]]</sup><sup>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="00FF00">e</font>]]</sup> 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
# {{vandal|The_Jiggler}}
==Sock puppet detected==
What do I do when I detect a sock puppet? Is there a dedicated noticeboard? Anyway, I'll link the [[User:Dijxtra/Sock|evidence]] here for now --[[User:Dijxtra|Dijxtra]] 15:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
*Show the evidence to the arbcom member and ask them to do a technical sockpuppet check to be sure. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
==please unblock 83.104.44.219==
not on list. Please unblock. [[User:Bobblewik|Bobblewik]] 16:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks to Duk for removing this unlisted block. I have asked a question about unlisted blocks on the talk page of this article. [[User:Bobblewik|Bobblewik]] 17:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
==SpongeBob vandal==
Please block {{vandal|67.38.2.90}} as the user is promoting his bullshit again. [[User:Apostrophe|<small><b>'</b></small>]] 16:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Attitudes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3A67.38.2.90 differ]. [[User:Izehar|Izehar]] 17:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
==Free Republic proposed invasion==
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
<code>"Here's the homepage of another major wikipedia administrator. The very first thing on it is a giant picture of Che. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C "</code> – they say approvingly! [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Believe it or not, there are a few Voices of Reason™ in there. It's the conspiracy theorists ("Wikipedia is run by liberals!") that we need to be concerned about. How stupid would it be to post there and say, "Hey, I'm an admin, and I'm not a liberal!" I was ''this'' close to doing it... [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
==[[User:Marvelvsdc]]==
Back in March, [[User:Marvelvsdc]] did a copy and paste copyright violation into the [[Eclipso]] article, which was not caught, and many edits have been made since. The copyright owner contacted the Help Desk mailing list and asked us to remove the copyvio, whcih I have done. I asked Marvelvsdc on his/her Talk page if they had made any other copyright violations, and he/she has not responded, even though they've made more edits since my request. Can I suggest a brief block on this User till they respond to my question? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
*Normally I'd say no, but given Jimbo's recent activism against copyvios this may actually be reasonable. But let's give him a day or two, at least. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
== Nixer ==
For over two weeks now, [[User:Nixer]] has been unilaterally warring to write "Ioann the Terrible" rather than "Ivan the Terrible" in [[Age of Discovery]]. He hasn't quite crossed 3RR, but he has now reverted over 10 times in two weeks and has, in turn, been reverted by at least three different people, nyself included. ("Ioann" exists—our article [[Ivan IV of Russia]] acknowledges it as the Church Slavonic form of his name—but I gather that it's pretentious even in Russian and almost unknown to native speakers of English.) Anyway, the consensus is clearly against him, but do I understand correctly that there is nothing we can do if he does not actually cross the 3RR boundary in 24 consecutive hours? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 19:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:Ah, I see Nixer is back to gaming the 3RR - don't bother waiting for him to violate it, he won't - he'll just keep on reverting for the rest of eternity. [[User:Izehar|Izehar]] 19:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:Judging from his persons talk page he frequently breaks the 3RR rule, if he does continue warring after being warned he could be blocked briefly for disruption, even if it doesnt break the 3RR, but make sure he is warned. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 19:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::For those who don't know, Nixer fights "3RR-aware" revert wars. At any given consecutive 24 hour period he will have reverted exactly three times. He only gets blocked if he makes a mistake. [[User:Izehar|Izehar]] 19:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Rule-gaming is irritating and unacceptable; he's been warned plenty of times and knows very well what he's doing. I've given him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User:Nixer a week] to reconsider his methods. — [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|talk]] 19:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:Oh - I thought it would be more appropriate to protect the page in question (in [[m:the wrong version]] from Nixer's point of view). [[User:Izehar|Izehar]] 19:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:IMO a week is too much - do you mind if I reset it to say, 24 or 48 hours? [[User:Izehar|Izehar]] 19:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::For a serial 3RR-gamer? A week sounds fine to me. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::He's the only user in the wrong here. Protecting the page would inconvenience everyone attempting to edit it; there's no need for that. Shorten it if you wish, but he's been blocked many times before and clearly is not getting the message. — [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|talk]] 19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:::A week is good, let him know we mean business, as he clearly hasnt got the message before. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 19:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Meet you half way - half a week (84 hours)? A week long block is a click of a button for you, but it's days of inactivity for him. [[User:Izehar|Izehar]] 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::Just pointing out that this is his 12th block - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Nixer log] --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but he is now blocked for ''a week'' - I still think it's too much. What we need is an ArbCom decision limiting his reverts to one each day or something. [[User:Izehar|Izehar]] 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:That's hardly necessary in such an obvious and uncomplicated case. I maintain that a week for his repeatedly disruptive behavior is entirely justified. — [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|talk]] 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, at least someone should have told him on his talk page why he is blocked (and direct him to the <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> in case he decides to turn over a new leaf early). [[User:Izehar|Izehar]] 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:The block message fulfills the former requirement quite nicely. I'm not familiar with the unblock template; feel free to inform him of it if you feel it's important. — [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|talk]] 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
== Rocky Day ==
A user, Projects (also known as Vesa and many others) is repeatedly removing the templates I have added asking for sources to be cited and for it to be copyedited. I have discussed the issue with the user and they are not budging on it. They are stating that they are a historian but will not state any references. I have put 3 warnings on their talk page but they are not paying attention - instead reverting to being aggressive/childish. If I alter the page again I will be breaking the 3 revert rule - I think this user has done that already. -[[User:Localzuk|localzuk]] 22:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
== Death threats? (Jimbo) ==
What's our policy on these? Do we followup with the ISP? Cops?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imagism&diff=prev&oldid=33306368 Here].
-- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
*Wow, that's messed up. I'd seriously consider the cops in this instance as that is illegal in all 50 states, even jokingly.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 22:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) What a nutter. I suppose the best thing would be to let jimbo know so he can decide. It would be great if he decided to follow it through and track this guy down, though I doubt it would happen. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
**The "is communism" makes me think it's a joke, but [[WP:BP]] has a provision for "personal attacks that place other users in danger". If it looks serious, then ISP all the way.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 22:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
***I blocked the user for indef, and I copied Crups post at Jimbo's talk page. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 23:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I once talked to a policeman about the issue of death threats. He said that a threat that even hinted at something like that, even if probably was a joke, '''must''' be reported in all cases to the police. The reason is straight forward. If it is reported then it is on record so if anything was ever to be attempted that in any way compromised the safety of the person targeted, even if didn't amount to much, there is something on file for the police to look back on. Having something on record is vital. In addition ''they'' have experience in accessing these things. Something that us might seem just a sick joke might to them, from their experience, not seem so innocent. A friend of mine, John, once received a death threat. It looked like a joke but to be safe he reported it. The police weren't as convinced as he was about its innocence and checked it out. The managed to find out who had found it and found that the sender did have a habit both of stalking people and of becoming violent when his victim challenged him about it. What seemed like possible joke turned out not to so innocent at all. Even if the sender did not at the time intend it as a threat, his past behaviour meant that if he was interested enough to send something, he was likely at some stage to start stalking and could have become violent. Reporting it nipped the threat in the bud. He was severely warned off by the police but John was warned to keep an eye out for the individual and shown a photograph of him.
The threat above probably is just a sick joke, but to be safe it is important that the police are informed of it. They are the people who can form a professional judgment on how innocent or threatening it really is. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 23:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:Indeed. We're lucky enough that it doesn't happen often, but when it does, block them immediately, no questions asked, and inform those in the Foundation who can deal with such matters.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 23:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:The thing is that Jimbo has a lot of personal information online at various websites (some of it is ours), all someone has to do is look for the right information and they pretty much they know where Jimbo is. So this is why some of us feel that this should be seriously looked at. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 23:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The user claims it's a joke; see [[User_talk:Yankee Hater]]. I'm not suggesting for an instant we unblock him, but FYI. I will leave the decision on whether to track him down, or just leave him indef blocked and forget about it, to wiser heads than mine. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Death threats are a banning offense, have been since Mr. Treason, will remain so as long as I've got a mop and a bucket. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 00:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
: Most certainly. But do we do a sock check on the IP to keep the ''person'' out of Wikipedia forever, or just permablock the ''account'' and forget about it? -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 01:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::If I had checkuser, which I don't, I would not sockcheck until there was a suspicion of puppetry, rather than a fear. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 03:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::The question was more do we keep poking around to see if we can find suspicion of sockpuppetry, or just let it go completely? -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
*Personally I feel anyone who makes a death threat, even jokingly, should be instantly blocked, for at least several weeks, if not permanently. — [[User:JIP|<font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
** Oh yeah, the account is permablocked. No question of that. What Snowspinner said above about "death threats are a banning offense . . . as long as I've got a mop and bucket" goes double for me. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 00:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Fplay]]==
I hae blocked {{user|Fplay}}. I don't know what he/she is doing, but they seem to be using an unapproved bot to do it. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:Fplay's no vandal. (S)he probably tried to do something reasonable (although I can't figure out what either), but didn't realize (s)he had to get the bot approved. I've offered to unblock if the bot is turned off until it's approved. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 23:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::I have no problem with that. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::After failing to recognize what was happening and taking intrusive action, Zoe says nice words but fails to actually undo her block (which she did with no discussion whatsoever), as Fplay is still blocked in an infinite manner. -- [[User:Emact|Emact]] 01:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Fplay still hasn't indicated his bot is turned off. That's what this block was needed for; Fplay was running an unauthorized bot, doing something possibly unnecessary, and using quite a bit of server capacity to do it. Nobody's saying Fplay is a bad person, but Zoe did the right thing. I, or any other admin, can (and will) undo the block as soon as it's warranted. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 01:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, SCZenz. I don't know why Emact thinks we should unblock him when his bot is still running. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 01:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::It would be interesting to note that Emact and Fplay [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Emact&diff=31934648&oldid=30765952 are the same user]. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 03:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Remind me not to feed the troll next time. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
"...his bot is still running". What evidence is there of that? -- [[User:Emact|Emact]] 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Nope. But all Fplay has to do is say on his userpage that it isn't, and the block will be undone. Since the block isn't punative, or indeed a judgement on the user of any kind, there's no need for the innocent-until-proven-guilty logic you're alluding to. It's really all about avoiding further accidental waste of system resources. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 02:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:: You are jumping to conclusions. I do not assume that Fplay is innocent. I am pointing out that Fplay has had a new requirement thrust upon him due to Zoe's inability to recognize what was happening, despite her have admin priviledges for more than a year now. I am pointing out that Fplay's edits have not been active since reaching the letter "Z" (as any person of meaningful experience would recognize). I will now ask on the page: What is Zoe waiting for? -- [[User:Emact|Emact]] 02:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::What are you talking about? He hasn't yet said anything on his talk page or emailed any admins (presumbably), so he remains blocked. What's the problem?--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 02:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::I am noticing a trend here. Zoe is failing to respond while others interfere with the communication process. A familiar story. I am waiting for Zoe to respond. She is responsible for her actions. What is she waiting for? -- [[User:Emact|Emact]] 02:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::She seems to have stopped editing, since about a half-hour ago. If this was a problem for Fplay, s/he'd leave a message on [[User talk:Fplay]]. Any admin can undo the block, but there's no need to yet. If you've got an axe to grind with Zoe, grind it elsewhere. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 03:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::It would seem that Zoe has gotten the point: Fplay is now unblocked. -- [[User:Emact|Emact]] 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Err, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Fplay no]... [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 03:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::You are so right. 50-at-a-time does not quite cut it to monitor blocks. The list grows quickly. -- [[User:68.164.245.60|68.164.245.60]] 03:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
"...his bot is still running". Thre is no evidence of that. What is Zoe waiting for? -- [[User:68.164.245.60|68.164.245.60]] 03:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:We wouldn't know if it was, ''because he's blocked''. This seems to matter much more to you at the moment than it does to [[User:Fplay|Fplay]]. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 03:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::Note that others are interfering with the communication process in lieu of Zoe responding, undoing her actions or some other admin undoing Zoe's actions on her behalf. -- [[User:68.164.245.60|68.164.245.60]] 03:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::"interfering with the communication process"... no idea what you're getting at. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 03:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
To explain what he was doing... on [[Special:Wantedpages]] there is a [[Votes for Willys]] page which still has over a thousand red-links to it. This was apparently some kind of predecessor to 'Votes for Deletion' (now split into the various AfD, TfD, IfD, et cetera pages). Fplay was running the bot to make null edits to pages linking to that old article so that the old links would update to 'Votes for Deletion' and 'Votes for Willys' would no longer be listed so high up on the Wantedpages list. Or so I surmise from his edit summaries / actions. There's a more detailed explanation of it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASpecial%3AWantedpages&diff=14150440&oldid=13586726 here], which is probably where he got the idea. Looks like the bot had finished running by the time he was blocked. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big><sub>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|☎]]</sub></big> <sup>[[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|✉]]</sup> 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
: Yes, Fplay better use better edit summaries, and I truly wonder if it is worth touching user talk pages. That seems silly to me as it basically sends messages to a lot of people.
: Also, making around 800 touch edits from one's own account greatly inflates one's edit count. Not that it matters much, but it would be wiser to get a specialized bot account for that kind of things. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::Touching doesnt involve making any edit at all. It is essentially like clicking save without making any change, it will never be seen in the history. If people want bot work done it should be taken to [[Wikipedia:Bot requests]], and someone can do it properly. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 01:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Templates will update with a null edit, which does not appear in the article history or count as a user edit. This bot is defective and should not be used. Period. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 01:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Believe it or not, some of us do have lives outside of Wikipedia. And if Emact and Fplay are the same person, and Emact is trying to make it out like I did something wrong without explaing what he was doing and why he won't stop doing it, then I see no point in unblocking Fplay. I was only planning on blocking him till he stopped his bot, but now it appears he's intentionally disrupting Wikipedia. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 04:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
ZOE: Your logic is flawed. Trying to retroactively saddle Fplay with "intentionally disrupting Wikipedia" after YOU disabled his account. He was not bothering anyone. Your approach is revisionist and hypocritical. Did he taunt anyone or ask for this trouble? No. Why did you disable his account? Because you did not understannd. In your ignorance, you made a rushed decision. Truly responsble people are ready to admit when they are wrong. But you are not making that admission. That is the problem. -- [[User:68.122.124.33|68.122.124.33]] 09:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:I still have hopes he'll realize his mistake, indicate on his talk page that the bot won't be used anymore without going through proper channels (see [[Wikipedia:Bot requests]]), and get unblocked. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 04:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFplay&diff=33325669&oldid=33321144 this edit]. I'd love to know what Emact means by "of a certain demographic". [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 04:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe he ment "people like Elizabeth Morgan". A lot of people around her got pretty badly damaged, but she managed to muddle through somehow and turned back to say: "What? What's the problem? I am happy. Why are you not happy?" -- [[User:68.122.124.33|68.122.124.33]] 09:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
: Fplay/Emact has ''stated'' that both accounts belong to one person [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AEmact&diff=31934648&oldid=30765952], so that edit is pretty weird. My hopes are dwindling, but I'm gonna leave a little message for both accounts with one more appeal. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 04:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::Note that Emact deleted that ''just'' prior to coming here to complain. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 04:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Also keep in mind [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet#Deception and impersonation]]. "Talking to yourself" isn't mentioned, but this sort of behavior should not be encouraged. [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 04:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::It's such a bizzarely bad job of deception that I'm tempted to let it go (if possible). Anyway, I've left them "both" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emact&curid=3372991&diff=33340952&oldid=31934433 a message] to stop playing games; I hope my advice will be taken. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 04:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::: I have warned FPlay/Emact that I will consider further edits trying to get Zoe in trouble on this page to be vandalism. I suggest others do the same, complete with rollback buttons and vandalism warnings. This is getting really silly, for no reason. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 05:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention as a point of curiosity that he/they has/have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=50703&diff=33343764&oldid=33337670 pestered Jimbo] about this now. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 05:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Oh, I'm sure that the Benevolent Dictator will come down hard on Zoe for blocking Fplay. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 14:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::It is very foolish of you to be so sure about that. History shows that when privileged individuals of a certain demographic get their way without the constaints of fairness or logic (let alone a consistent set of rules), that, once those individuals get their way, there is a maniacal obsession to maintain the status quo. Zoe got her ignorant way: another Wikipedian's "edit count" has been reset to zero (again) and no one dares to undo what she has done, least of all, quite sadly, Zoe herself. -- [[User:199.33.32.40|199.33.32.40]] 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::History also shows that Jimbo doesn't really care that much when one of our best admins rightfully blocks someone who then proceeds intentionally disrupt Wikipedia.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 19:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Sean: The log now provides abundant evidence of Zoe's popularity among a certain, other demongraphic of Wikiepdian admin; evidence that even Jimbo could not deny. There is an inconsistency in your words and actions: If Zoe is such a wonderful admin, then clearly she can handle this herself. You input has only increased the volume of the log and obfuscated Zoe's true nature. Try to find the discipline and maturity to recognize the fairness, relevance and validity of that logic and, then wait and see if Zoe has anything else to add. -- [[User:68.164.245.60|68.164.245.60]] 20:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to review: Is does not matter was Zoe digs up after the fact about Fplay. The fact that she is attempting to dig up anything about Fplay after the fact indicates a problem and a weakness in her reasoning. What matters is what she knew when and what she did with her admin priviledges. By the account in existed only for a moment in this log (before one of her supporters removed it), but still resides in Jimbo's talk page, she acted hastily and, apparently, overreacted. Let us now see if Zoe cares to respond to this assessment. -- [[User:68.164.245.60|68.164.245.60]] 22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
== {{User|Thegame05}} ==
As much as I can't abide racism, I also can't abide people falsely accusing others of racism just because they can't have their own way. This is why I blocked the above user indefinitely earlier this evening: I'm making a note of this here because I'm off to bed and they might well come back on another IP complaining about the block. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 01:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:<s>Even given the above, an indefinite block is pretty harsh. On top of that, it seems bad form for admins to block those they appear to be having disputes with; they should ask for other admins to help. That being said, I agree with ''a'' block for the user, so I am lifting the indefinite and reblocking for 48 hours. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 05:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)</s>
::I retract the above; I thought it looked like a content dispute from the talk pages, but I've just noticed that there isn't even one decent edit in his contribution history. Leaving as is. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 05:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Sorry I forgot to point that out. This user's entire edit history consists of adding nonsense to [[Cranford, London]], vandalising/blanking articles, making legal threats and accusing people of racism. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 02:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] In Violation of Arb Probation ==
[[User:SchmuckyTheCat|Schmucky]] was [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#SchmuckyTheCat_placed_on_probation|placed on probation]] concerning edit warring of articles related to China. He's gone out of his way to start an edit war on [[Guangshen Railway]]. I must also note that [[User:Instantnood|Instantnood]] was also put on probation (and was an [[WP:AMA|AMA]] client of mine) but a look at the article history shows that Instantnood started this article innocently enough, all was well for two weeks and then Schmucky fired the first salvo on the edit war over issues precisely handled in arb [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guangshen_Railway&diff=33036904&oldid=33024535]. I think Schmucky should be banned from editing this article, it would be unfair to do likewise to Instantnood as he started the article and there weren't any issues until Schmucky started the edit war, caused the article to be protected and even provoked a 3RR ban on the page in a matter of a couple of days. When notified of the case another administrator chose to "pretend the case doesn't exist" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat&diff=33157962&oldid=33155429]. --[[User:Wgfinley|Wgfinley]] 05:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry, but one of the proposed decisions (which only didn't pass because one member changed a vote) is that "Instantnood sometimes insists on using the phrase "Mainland China" in contexts which seem incongruent with the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China." So how is it inappropriate of me to correct exactly that when he insists on using "mainland China" when China or PRC is more correct? If I'm "editing inappropriately" (the requirement for me to be banned) then YOUR CLIENT needs to quit putting forth the kind of BS that needs correcting. I'm the one there adding more information to a translated article. I'm not the one that went past 3RR. I'm the one driving the talk page to try and find what compromises there can be. All 'nood can do is play revert games. He hasn't once put forth a defense of the use of that term other than that was the term in the translation. So who's editing inappropriately?
:In the meantime, he's banned from proposing multiple renames and page moves in a week, and I detailed half a dozen to ArbCom for clarification of just what the enforcement mechanism is. Maybe instead of asking for me to be page banned, you should advise 'nood on how to actually comply with his much more restrictive probation. Are you just playing tit-tat for him? [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 05:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::Assuming if any of what you say is true how could one ever figure that out given the blatant hostility? As I said, you came into the article, an edit war ensued, the article had to be protected, it's a continuation of the exact same behavior that got you both put on probation, it needs to stop and you don't seem willing. --[[User:Wgfinley|Wgfinley]] 06:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Don't seem willing? I'm playing by the rules. If I have any question that my actions are a violation of the ArbCom probation I use talk, I ask others to contribute, I make sure my edits aren't reverts, I ask for verifiability, I ask for NPOV, I do reference checks, and finally I go to the ArbCom to ask for clarification.
:::And yes there is blatant hostility. For over a year now Instantnood is trawling Wikipedia and changing references to China to "mainland China", placing Hong Kong as an independent country, creating POV forks, and etc, and it's still going on, he's still at it. On some articles he does the same edits that he did ''months'' ago and got smacked for it. Why? Does he think nobodies watching? No, it's because that's the kind of subterfuge he wants to use to push his agenda - over and over and over. I'm going to call him on it, and it's a game to him, but at least I'll play by the rules. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 06:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::If what I've done ''were'' trawling, changing ''every single'' reference of ''China'' or the ''People's Republic of China'' to ''mainland China'', and placing Hong Kong as an independent sovereign state, then what are the English-language newspapers in Hong Kong doing? Should they all be sued and shut down? Wikipedia is a neutral and actual reflection of the real world, not something you yourself believe. — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Without expressing an opinion on their editing, either one or both may be banned from an article if they "engage in disruptive editing". Any administrator willing to look into the situation may make that determination, if the facts warrant it. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 13:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Come on, I know there's an admin brave enough to take a look at this, the warring continues on the the article. --[[User:Wgfinley|Wgfinley]] 19:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
== Something going on @ [[Republic of Moldova]] ==
Multiple reversions by 2 editors. Don't know if it's vandalism or a revert war. Either way one or both ppl is probably up to blocking level by now... [[User:68.39.174.238|68.39.174.238]] 10:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:See also [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Serhio]], one user and two anons blocked for 24 hours -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] | [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 14:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
== Gay and Lesbian Kingdom ==
Dear Sir/Madam,
The information published on your web site regarding The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom is not true and incorrect. The author was an ex member of the Gay Government that was sacked and has used your web site to promote his lies and rumour. The article has been printed and i am seeking legal advice as much of it pertains to me (Dale anderson) I ask that you remove the article from your site and all referance to Me (Dale Anderson) the author has made the site so that it can not be edted nor changed and has no source to back up his lies.
Thank you for your understanding in this matter
Dale anderson
:I reformatted this letter content so it would read properly. [[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|™]][[Image:Radioactive.png|18px|]] 13:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::After checking I find no article named "The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom" and the article for "Dale Anderson" was a nn-bio/band vanity I speedied. Perhaps someone else knows what this guy is talking about. [[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|™]][[Image:Radioactive.png|18px|]] 13:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::He's talking about [[Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands]]. [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 13:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Also check out [[Gay and lesbian kingdom]]. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:Peter McConaughey]] blocked as sockpuppet of banned [[User:Zephram Stark]] ==
I have just indefinitely blocked {{Vandal|Peter_McConaughey}} as a sockpuppet of banned user {{Vandal|Zephram_Stark}}. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark|Zephram Stark's ArbCom case]].
Here is the evidence that links them:
* Zephram Stark was banned on 12 November 2005 (for six months). Peter's first edit was on 23 November 2005.
* Both editors focused on terrorism (Zephram on [[Terrorism]], Peter on [[American terrorism]]), [[Declaration of Independence (United States)]] and [[Inalienable rights]]. Taking a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inalienable_rights&action=history history] of [[Inalienable rights]] shows very similar edits and edit summaries on this low-traffic article.
* Both editors are extremely vocal about alleged administrative abuse and are prone to Wikilawyering and long diatribes.
* Both editors have used original diagrams to illustrate their points. Peter [[:Image:Organization_layout.gif]] and Zephram created [[:Image:IAR.gif]].
* Both editors have entered in conflicts with many of the same users. Besides myself, Peter has also been in conflict with [[User:Commodore Sloat]], even denying that he was Zephram with the same use of sexual innuendo [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Islamic_Front&diff=33048372&oldid=33047697] that Zephram commonly used. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 13:29,
30 December 2005 (UTC)
* Any doubt that Peter is not a sockpuppet of Zephram should be put to rest with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coving&action=history this evidence]. On 10 November 2005, Zephram created [[Coving]]. This obscure article has only been edited twice more, most recently by Peter McConaughey on 20 December 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coving&diff=32153483&oldid=28694388].
* "Zephram Stark" has also been active on other web sites. On a Seattle Press message board [http://www.seattlepress.com/article-10116.html] "Zephram Stark" from Dallas, Texas commented "''Have we given all of the power of the legislative and judicial branches to the executive? This is not the definition of a democracy or of a republic. This is pure despotism and the Declaration of Independence has told us what to do with despotism.''" Here on Wikipedia, "Peter McConaughey" from Texas (see his User page), makes constant comments about despotism and references the Declaration of Independence [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_McConaughey&diff=prev&oldid=33290399] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_Bill_of_Rights&diff=prev&oldid=33286874] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_McConaughey&diff=32385767&oldid=32377087].
* Peter has commented [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_McConaughey&diff=32372655&oldid=32306304] about CheckUser:
"''The Cabal is hoping that vague innuendo will be enough to create an official case. After they gain the legal right to snoop my personal information, they will be free to reveal what they already know. Don't be surprised to hear something along the lines of, "We had no idea about this before the case opened, but look what we have discovered now that we have a legal right to investigate the personal information about this editor!''"
''Of course, none of the information they reveal will be direct or a threat to Wikipedia in any way, but it will be enough to hang me in the court of public opinion. We all have skeletons in our closet.''"
Though this comment seemed like paranoia when I first read it, it makes much more sense due to his status as a sockpuppet of a banned user. ''Note: CheckUser will not turn up data because the Zephram Stark account has not been used since 11 November, and CheckUser only contains Recent Changes data.''
It's still unclear whether one of these identities is a real name or both are made-up. In any case, bans apply to people, not user names and the person behind these accounts is clearly not allowed to edit any under name. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 15:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:The case against Peter being a sockpuppet is circumstantial at best, is it possibly you just don't like what other people point out? More than one person is likely to have similiar opinions to both Peter and this "Zephram Stark". If I take up Peter's cause are you going to accuse me of being a sockpuppet too? The Zephram Stark arbcom evidence page actually lists quite interesting evidence that some admins often claim "sockpuppetry" against groups of users that have very geographically distinct IP addresses and in every case one or all of the users directly challenged the admin's interpretation of an article's content or sources. This seems like a case of admin retribution after protracted POV disagreement. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::I didn't block Peter for having similar opinions to Zephram, I blocked him because he ''was'' Zephram Stark (who was banned by the ArbCom). Over many months I has the unfortunate experience of becoming an expert on Zephram's behavior. I've strongly suspected that Peter was Zephram for some time now, but wanted to wait until I was 100% confident before blocking. As a side note, I am also quite sure that you are '''not'' a sockpuppet of anyone. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 16:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::How can you possibly be so sure Peter is Zephram Stark? Is it possible your frustration over the Zephram Stark case has clouded your judgement? Though I've been looking over the Zephram Stark arbcom case and I can't seem to find a justification for that original block, certainly 6 months seems exponentially disproportional of a punishment. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 16:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Read the evidence above. Does it seem reasonable to suggest that someone who joined days after Zephram was banned, and edits the same pages with the same edit style and happens to be from the same state and gets into conflict with the same editors and makes the same rants (on and off Wikipedia) is ''not'' the same person? I wouldn't have blocked if I wasn't '''100%''' sure they were the same. As for Zephram's original block, I believe it absolutely was deserved, but that's a matter for the ArbCom. However, the six month ban will be reset since he never actually stopped editing. Bans are per person, not per account. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 16:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::I saw Zephram Stark's personal attacks but I wonder if he himself got frustrated over being censored and mislabeled? Does wikipedia policy allow an admin to block a user with numerous edits as a sockpuppet merely if they are 100% confident? Surely a committee should decide, perhaps the arbitration committee itself? Allowing one admin to block an editor, who I believe has contributed significantly to Wikipedia, is way too dangerous of a power as it has too much potential for abuse. It is obvious you and Peter have disagreed over many issues so perhaps you should have asked a neutral admin to investigate your belief of sockpuppetry rather than block him yourself? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::I'm not going to debate Zephram's original block; that's a matter for the ArbCom. If the ArbCom wants to review the evidence, they're more than welcome and in fact I posted a request for a CheckUser there before it was brought up that the data only goes back a week or two. If an admin reviews all the evidence about (and that provided by Commodore Sloat [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=33304989&oldid=33303923]) and ''still'' truly believes that these two users are ''not'' the same, then the ArbCom should look into the case. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::My point is: complete and indefinite blocks of a user with significant contributions to wikipedia is not something that an individual admin should ever be allowed to do, the burden of proof should be on you to prove to arbcom that Peter is Zephram rather than the other way around. Basically, the fact you and others have had multiple disagreements with Peter taints any possibility of your appearing neutral on this issue. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 17:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I did not get much out of checkuser, Zephram has not edited for a very long time. I have not seen enough evidence to be sure, but I am busy doing other things. I feel comfortable with Carbonite's decision but there is always some small doubt. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 17:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
*The evidence seems kinda good, but Carbonite has had the pleasure of studying ZS's style in more detail than I have (my mind tended to blank after just a few sentences of his blathering, so I'm not sure I ever finished any of his longer rants.) For me, the graphic evidence (use of graphics, that is) is quite strong; annoying as ZS is, his graphic skills are very good; it galls me a bit that some of his more complicated stuff is done using software I worked on for a decade (AutoCAD), and he does a good job of it. He explained his process on some or another page. Quite talented; it would be wonderful if his energy could be harnessed for good. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 18:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
*: I'm satisfied with the evidence and consider this a righteous block. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Users with significant contribution to wikipedia should not be blocked by an individual admin (even if admin friends of them concur), only the arbitration committee should decide indefinite blocks for alleged sock puppetry. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Fred Bauder and Kelly Martin ''are'' members of the arbitration committee. If you can find another member of the ArbCom who would like to formally evaluate the block, then further discussion might be fruitful. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::I'm a member of the arbitration committee, and (in hindsight) the sockpuppeting is obvious. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Supporting Carbonite's block of Peter after the fact is very different than Carbonite having to make a formal case for sock puppetry to arbcom. A formal case should indeed have to be made, especially for a user with significant contributions. Also, if such a arbcom case were attempted Fred would likely have to recuse himself because he Zephram and him had their disagreements it seems, so this all goes to show the apparent bias here. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 19:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::I support having this go to ArbCom, but only for the sake of being thorough...I have had overall pleasant relations with Peter McConaughey and am not familiar with Mr. Stark...however, the similarities of edits seem to indicate that Peter is Zephram and has indeed evaded his ban by creating a sock account.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::The evidence that this is Zephram Stark is very strong. Thank you to Carbonite (who unfortunately had the opportunity to become an expert on Stark) for spotting it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
== Harrassment and Threats ==
I know lately you have been hearing alot from me. I am not a complainer by nature but I have a problem that needs your attention. a "new" user by the name of {{Vandal|Quirkywiki}} has been harrassing me with constant threats, going as far as calling me a pedophile. This all stems from a page i mistakenly created for Mandy Moore. I was told that Ms. Moore's new album will be called Once Moore. I later found out that the information i got was false. I aided in the destruction of the article. But for some reason, a user named Extraordinary Machine created the article and mereged it with an already existing article. I didn't even know this user until later. But Quirkywiki claimed it was me or we were one and the same. And went to every user she could find and spammed them with lies, talking about the Mandy Moore forum (which has nothing to do with this site) to my book (which is also irrelevent). She tried to blame me for her getting banned. I did request it, but i didn't place the banned. I haven't the power. Quirkywiki has many sockpuppets, 206.170.104.27, 206.170.106.42, 206.170.106.48 just to name a few. People have warned her constantly but she refuses to listen. She thinks because she is on a public computer, she won't get banned. She needs to be proven wrong... again.
-[[User:Parys|Parys]] 16:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
==[[Carlisle]]==
Please protect this article, it will become another [[Bogdanov Affair]]. --[[User:Glenzierfoot|Glenzierfoot]] 16:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Protection should be requested at [[WP:RFPP]] instead of here. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
== [[User:Projects|Projects]] sockpuppets ==
Usernames:
*Projects
*Vesa
*Gildyshow
Repeated attempts to calm person down by some other editor, which turns out was in vain. Keeps being generally, well, annoying. Keeps removing sockpuppet boxes, which just made it obvious that they are the same, as all 3 userpages blanked within 2 minutes. Not sure if I'm supposed to revert when people remove sockpuppet boxes, or what, but based on the work the other guy has done to calm PVG down, seems like he's still being disruptive. I think a block of at least a week is in order, considering how long this has been going on. 24 hour blocks are useless, anyway, but of course, your discretion. I'd just like to see something done. Thanks [[Image: Pentacle-circumscribed.png|20px]][[User:Search4Lancer|<font color="red" face="Courier New">Search</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Search4Lancer|<font color="black" face="Courier New"><b>4</b></font>]][[User_talk:Search4Lancer|<font color="red" face="Courier New">Lancer</font>]][[Image: Pennsylvania state flag.png|25px]] 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
*Right, I have tried to work with this user but progress is just too slow, it taking an great deal of time, and now I he is angry at me also. Also he ''will'' not sign his posts despite re-peat-ed requests and help, and I have told him I can't talk with him anymore if he can't agree to do that. So I don't know what more I can do. I have asked him to get an advocate, and quick. I have looked for signs that he can be turned around but I haven't seen a single good edit yet, just insults and blind determination.
:I hate to seem him blocked. He's not a kid. It's cold in Chicago now, and a long way from Serbia. And George Reeves still lies in his grave unavenged, forgotten. To be unavenged, forgotten... that is a terrible thing, and perhaps a fate shared by a man in Chicago.
:But.
:The thing is, he is editing from the Chicago Public Library, according to my DNS reverse lookup. I wonder what the procedure is for that? Is it possible to block the Chicago Public Library? It would not be necessary to contact the library to pinpoint this user, would it? Because if that is so he must surely be warned.
:At [[User:Vesa]] user page is a list with links of known dames and IPs used. There is also an entry in the vandalism page under Minor RU, Minor IP, and Pages. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
While I suspect that the above is largely true, [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Reeves&diff=33358683&oldid=33319226 claims that I am also one of the sockpuppets]. (If anyone thinks he might be correct, I suggest that they examine my contribution list.) So people may want to approach the sockpuppet accusations with some caution, at least if that is the source. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 22:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
*Jmabel, you are clearly NOT one of the sockpuppets. The list and evidence is maintained at [[User:Dijxtra/Sock]] by Dijxtra who first discovered this user. You haven't been put on the list, and you haven't had a warning tag put on your user page, and nobody ever considered that. It was just an off-the-cuff remark by Wahkeenah, probably made in the heat of fighting off real sockpuppets. These things happen, but you're right, he should NOT have said that. But nobody thinks that about you or questions your edits. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 05:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
==Assistive technology==
Apologies for bringing this here, but I've gotten no attention on [[WP:VIP]]. A persistent spammer is editing [[Assistive technology]] from a variety of IP addresses, repeatedly adding a commercial link, often removing legitimate links to non-noncommercial resource lists in the process. I seem to be the only person reverting. I suppose spamming is not absolutely blatant vandalism, and I see that, without noticing, I just reverted for the fourth time in just under 24 hours. I hope no one will consider this a [[WP:3RR]] violation on my part, but I request that someone else please watchlist this article, since it is beginning to look like I'm edit warring, which is really not my intent. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 22:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Watchlisted, for now.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 22:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::TNX. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
==[[George W.Bush]]==
Can we unprotect it?
Semi-protection is a bad idea, an article should be protected or not at all - not halfway, as semi-protection is.
Maybe deleting and restoring the article is a solution to the problem. --[[User:Whitewalls|Whitewalls]] 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Semi-protection is Wikipedia policy, and if you want to oppose it, go to [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection]] and discuss the issue there. In the meantime, if you want to edit the article but cannot, go make some constructive edits on other articles to give us some evidence you're a legitimate contributor. — '''[[User:Philwelch|Phil]]''' ''[[User_talk:Philwelch|Welch]]'' <small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|Katefan's ridiculous poll]]</small> 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
==Closure of [[WP:RM]] vote on [[Islamofascism (term)]] -> Islamofascism by [[User:Marudubshinki]]==
(copied from WP:AN) [[User:Slim Virgin]] has already raised this issue on [[User talk:Marudubshinki#Islamofascism]], where that admin closed the move request by counting participants in the neutral discussion together with those who voted move in order to arrive at a consensus to move. Comments by experienced admins on closing WP:RM discussions and assessing consensus on the talk page appreciated. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:I asked Nandesuka for a second opinion on this a few days ago, but haven't heard back yet, so if another admin could take a look instead, that would be very helpful. In summary, Islamofascism (term) was moved to Islamofascism after 54 per cent voted in favor, whereas [[WP:RM]] suggests a minimum of 60 per cent. Full details at [[User_talk:Nandesuka#Islamofascism_.28term.29]]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::I asked Nandesuka for a second opinion on this a few days ago, but haven't heard back yet, so if another admin could take a look instead, that would be very helpful. In summary, Islamofascism (term) was moved to Islamofascism after 54 per cent voted in favor, whereas [[WP:RM]] suggests a minimum of 60 per cent. Full [[User_talk:Nandesuka#Islamofascism_.28term.29|details here]], and see [[Talk:Islamofascism#Requested_move_.28closed.29|here for the poll]]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll take a look and give Maru my second opinion. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
: (Copy and pasted from elsewhere. Sorry for the delay)
: SlimVirgin asked me to look into this issue as an uninvolved party and offer my opinion. Without getting in to the specific merits of whether or not I personally think the page "should" have been renamed, I think this is a case of biting the oldies. Page moves are typically doable by anyone, and the 60% guideline on [[WP:RM]] is phrased somewhat loosely. The whole point is that if you end up on [[WP:RM]], the move is controversial. The stakes are, frankly, low here — the substance of the article is unchanged — and getting worked up over a few percent one way or the other seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees. It seems wrong to me that we should give an admin less discretion in deciding how to close a page move discussion than we do when closing an article deletion discussion.
:I think Marudubshinki should be encouraged to close out the discussion however he thinks appropriate, and people should be encouraged to redirect their energy into improving the article and making sure it stays properly focused, rather than fretting over the semiotics of whether or not a parenthesized word appears in the article title.
: Hope this helps. Looking forward to the hate mail. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 23:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, some day I'll make a list of things you generally shouldn't do on WP:RM. Like moving a page against a WP:RM descision when ''you were involved in the debate'' just a couple of days afterwards. Arg!
And well - there a lot of simple moves on WP:RM like:
#Normal page moves
#Cut n' paste fixups
#History merges
#Simple mispellings by authors
#Plainly obvious uncontroversial moves, usually changing a case of a letter for updates in the MoS.
#Sometimes some minor merges, but those are rare
<small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 23:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Was it [[User:Marudubshinki|Marudubshinki]] who was involved in the debate, RN? Anyway, regarding the title, it seems to have been settled; thank you both for your input. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 23:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The user, BrandonYusufToropov, who moved it back to the current state was involved in the debate. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I finished taking a look over the thing. My personal descision would have been no consensus (the version with the term added to the end). <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks, RN. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 00:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
== [[Template:Help Wikiboxes]] ==
This template was created shortly after an [[WP:RFC]] was filled against adminstrator [[User:Kelly Martin]] over the issue of her deletion of [[WP:UB|Userboxes]]. While Kelly has been told of this RFC, I believe it is highly inappropriate for this template to be used in order for an RFC to take place. Not to mention, some of the wordings of the template have attacked Kelly and does not follow the RFC's rules of displaying a neutral report. I ask that this template should be seriously considered for speedy deletion under the guideline that its only purpose is to attack a user. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:Just want to add that I changed the text to a more neutral tone and it's been been reverted back to more alarmist and POV wording by several editors. Please watch and at least keep it neutral if nothing else. thanks [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 00:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::I don't think it's at all possible to "keep it neutral" as it is a pure call to arms. Now nominated on [[WP:TFD]]. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I certainly agree and am glad to see it gone. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 07:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Speedy deleted on TFD, I tagged it as deletedpage. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 05:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have respeedied this as a horrific abuse of the template namespace, blocked all those involved in its creation, and closed the TfD. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 16:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*Both the deletion and the blocks are a gross violation of [[WP:BP]] and [[WP:DP]]. [[User:Firebug|Firebug]] 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
**That's nice. The template, on the other hand, is an abomination to everything that Wikipedia stands for, and that trumps pretty much everything you can come up with here. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 17:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
***I am certainly opposed to the blocks. Neither misusing the template namespace, nor soliciting assistannce with a silly problem, are blockable offenses. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 17:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
****Ok, this is going to [[WP:RFC]]. [[User:Firebug|Firebug]] 17:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*As the deletion is clearly out of process (this is not an attack page, it discusses actions and invites comment), I have undelted. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
**how is Template:Help Wikiboxes not an attack page? It's clearly aimed at gathering a lynch mob. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 17:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked two of the three users that Phil blocked; the third was already indef blocked for other (albeit related) reasons by another admin. I won't re-unblock, but I think some concrete explanation needs to be provided for blocking them. Using [[WP:IAR]] to delete inappropriate pages/templates is one thing—using it to block substantial contributors is quote another! -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 17:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*In my view they are they same thing -- totally inappropriate, and highly damaging to the project. But I do agree that out-of-process blocks are even more clearly against policy and more damaging to the project than out-of-process deletions. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
**Process is a means to an ends. This template was an active attack on those ends. It is perfectly clear which of those needs to win out. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 17:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:Bullshit. I'm reinstating. We do not need a meticulous and exhaustive masturbatory discussion of this. Every part of this template is an insult to the community. It is a wholesale misunderstanding of everything that Wikipedia is. No policy, no rule, and no guideline exists that can possibly outweigh how monumentally bad this situation is. The message that this is wholly unacceptable needs to be clear and draconian. I am reinstating all the blocks and the deletion, and will continue to do so. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 17:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:: I am willing to accept the deletion of the template. The blocks are grossly inappropriate; no justification other than "this is a bad situation" has been given. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 17:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::The justification is this - blocks are enacted when people do very bad things on Wikipedia. This template was more harmful than anything Willy on Wheels ever did. Ergo a 48 hour block for its creator and 24 for anyone who edited it to strengthen it is wholly appropriate. Because we construct electric fences with clear "Never do this again, EVER EVER EVER" messages when we have to. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 17:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::Agree this template should be deleted, but how on earth do you justify blocking those users? [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 17:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::What other methods do you think were appropriate of notifying userbox contributors of the ongoing out-of-process deletions? There is '''no evidence''' that '''any''' of these deletions ever reflected community consensus, and, indeed, the comments at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin]] make it clear that most users did not want these boxes deleted. We have a perfectly clear process ([[WP:TFD]]) for deleting templates that are felt to be unneeded or destructive. These actions show contempt for this process, and for the Wikipedia community. [[User:Firebug|Firebug]] 17:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Contempt for the process is increasingly well-deserved, as the entire aftermath of Kelly's actions demonstrates.
::::"The message that this is wholly unacceptable needs to be clear and draconian. I am reinstating all the blocks and the deletion, and will continue to do so. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 17:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)"
:::::# You're banning people permanantly from Wikipedia for linking to an RfC.
:::::# You're very much in support of Kelly Martin's abuse of admin
:::::Bias much? Someone else should be handling this, not Snowspinner. And if Snowspinner's going to go on a personal vendetta against people that dare link to a valid RfC that happens to criticise his friends, maybe he needs his sysop privileges removed.. --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;text-decoration:underline">Mistress Selina Kyle</span>]] <sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">Α⇔Ω</span>]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">⇒✉</span>]]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''</sup>'' 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Kelly's my friend? Aww, man, I would have sent her a Christmas card! [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Actually they're only 24 (or maybe 48) hour blocks. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 17:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::hmm. Last time I looked it said "indefinite" - the blocks made by [[User:Cryptic]] and [[User:Neutrality]]
::::::::And in any case Snowspinner here just vowed to "continue to reinstate the blocks", presumably indefinitely. --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;text-decoration:underline">Mistress Selina Kyle</span>]] <sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">Α⇔Ω</span>]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">⇒✉</span>]]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''</sup>'' 17:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::So, Snowspinner, you think you should be able to delete anything you please, and community consensus be damned? If this is the case, it's clear that you can no longer be trusted with administrative powers. [[User:Firebug|Firebug]] 17:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::So remove them. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::And where exactly is [[Wikipedia:Request for de-adminship]]? AFAIK only an arbcom action or a decreee from jimbo or a self-request can de-admin anyone. It might be argued that that should not be the case, but so it is at present. if I am mistaken, please tell me. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship]]. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>1</sup>]] 17:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::[[Template:Help Wikiboxes]] is clearly an attack page and anyone who continues to create them is blockable. We don't tolerate attack pages anywhere else, we shouldn't tolerate them in this case either. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 17:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::How is it an "attack page" to say that templates are being mass deleted out of process and advising users where to comment if they disagree with this? [[User:Firebug|Firebug]] 17:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::They are clearly aiming to gather a lynch mob together, look at the various versions and the wordings. This is not an "advisement". It's aimed at gathering a group of like minded users to go to the RFC and attack a user whether by signing a view or by creating one of their own. Either way it's not a balanced and neutral message. When I tried to NOP it people kept reverting to a more alarmist version. That says it all right there. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::*I second Strangelove's words. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 20:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
==Indefinite block of God of War==
[[User:God of War]] was indefinitely blocked by [[User:Neutrality]], who gave "trolling" as the reason. Certainly, some edits of God of War warrant a block, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brokeback_Mountain&diff=prev&oldid=33359122], but I question whether the block should be indefinite, and I don't see a pattern of warning edits on GoW's talk page leading up to the block. I have raised this on [[User talk:Neutrality]] but have not yet received a response.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 05:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*I see that Neutrality has unblocked him. Never mind.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 05:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*In my opinion, this comes close to warranting a {{tl|usernameblock}}. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
**Why would we block that and not block {{user|Mars}} and {{user|Ares}}? [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 00:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
== Call for edits to Bigfoot page. ==
My name is Beckjord, and I have NOT called for vandalism, despite some paranoid
responses I have seen.
Editing for the betterment of the page is not vandalism.\\
beckjord[[User:Beckjord|Beckjord]] 07:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:The only problem with editing for the betterment of a page, is that betterment is a very subjective concept. It's hard to use "betterment" or "fair" (such as that proposed group of yours, WAFE) since what may be "better" or "fair" for one group, is not necessarilly true for another group. The best compromise I would suggest, is trying to edit to [[WP:NPOV]], which is a neutral point of view. I think that while it's possible Bigfoot does exist, portions of me don't think so. The best way to present that information is to not make any significant conclusions regarding the sides of a subject, and letting a reader guide him or herself into drawing thier own conclusions. Just my 2 cents.--[[User:Toffile|Toffile]] 08:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:Calling anyone who disagrees with you "amateurs", and saying you don't care about trying to find consensus with "amateurs" shows that you really don't have any interest in "bettering" the article, but only in imposing your own personal view on it. If you want to retract that comment, then we can talk. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
==protecting page, edits and push POV of [[user:Mikkalai]]==
Hello, please can you unblock [[Transnistria]] page? It seems that this bias Admin [[user:Mikkalai]] had some large edits there, then he blocked the page. I don't agree with him to removed so much refereces including very neutral from BBC.
He was warned one time by Admin [[user:TSO1D]] "rv vandalism -Miky stop
" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33437730&oldid=33426842) [[User:Bonaparte|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> Bonaparte </font>]] [[User talk:Bonaparte|<small>talk</small>]] 10:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:The page was unlocked by another admin, since what was going on, to that admin, was a content dispute, which is not considered vandalism. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 10:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, thanks to another Admin it was solved, however this was not the first time when he did this. And yes, he did this before to [[Moldovan language]]. He always edits the page first, then he blocks the pages on reasons of vandalism. We may delete now this post, since it's solved. But I doubt that he will refrain himself in future from doing this kind of edits. [[User:Bonaparte|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> Bonaparte </font>]] [[User talk:Bonaparte|<small>talk</small>]] 10:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::The post will be archived in due time, but, I strongly suggest you sit down with Mikka and trying to find out what issues you both have in this article, submit the both of yourselves to mediation or just not work on the articles for a period of time and just cool off and relax. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]]</sup> 10:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::If we have similar problems can we come to you to tell you? --[[User:Bonaparte|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> Bonaparte </font>]] [[User talk:Bonaparte|<small>talk</small>]] 10:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Bonaparte a word of advice - Don't revert. The moment I removed the vprotected notice you reverted - this will achieve nothing in the long run. Edit the article and cooperate with those who have opposite views. This is the only way to achieve a stable and neutral article. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 10:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::I will not revert Theresa. But look http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33468672&oldid=33468577 another russian friend push the POV fork again. These guys don't want to cooperate and discuss on the talk page first. So much to tell about their democracy...[[User:Bonaparte|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> Bonaparte </font>]] [[User talk:Bonaparte|<small>talk</small>]] 10:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed he's also been rolling back the deletion of [[:Category:Soviet repression structures and people]], which had a valid CFD. I'm rolling those back to comply with the [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_15|CFD decision]]. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:I also redeleted the Category. May need to slap a {{tl|deletedpage}} on it if it gets recreated again. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 11:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
==Votestacking FAC sockpuppets: Hollow Wilerding==
Sockpuppet suspicions against [[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] expressed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hollow_Wilerding&diff=27652160&oldid=27585545 by Mel Etitis] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hollow_Wilerding&diff=33338735&oldid=33338654 Bunchofgrapes] have now been confirmed through a CheckUser check by [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=33438746&oldid=33429460] The sock accounts, [[User:Winnermario|Winnermario]] and [[User:DrippingInk|DrippingInk]], have been used to support and argue for HW's [[WP:FAC]] nominations, creating a false impression of community support for her Featured Article candidates. The most recent such sock support is for [[The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask]], which became a Featured article on December 19; see [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask|Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask]]. At her recent [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hollow Wilerding|disastrous RFA]], HW protests her innocence of the puppeteering allegations,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hollow_Wilerding&diff=33380929&oldid=33380889] claiming that Winnermario is merely a friend from another website and DrippingInk a neighbor. From the discussion at the RFA, DrippingInk might alternatively be a meatpuppet sharing the same computer—something that's denied by HW, however. The socks have been elaborately buttressed by complimentary and apparently fake dialogue with HW on the respective talkpages and at [[WP:FAC|FAC]]; compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hollow_Wilerding&diff=33402626&oldid=33401575 this recent comment by Bunchofgrapes].
<br>If nobody objects, I will ban the socks indefinitely and block Hollow Wilerding for two weeks for abuse of the FAC process. I'm also considering banning her indefinitely from [[WP:FAC|FAC]], since she has egregiously misused it. Any thoughts? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 11:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC).
:From a brief look at the archived discussion, Majora's Mask probably wouldn't have passed without the puppets' support. If we're satisfied that they are puppets, then something should be done about that (summary removal? FARC? probably best to enlist Raul). [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>1</sup>]] 11:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::Sure. Raul has a nice link to this thread on his talkpage to start the new year with when he wakes up. As for satisfied, well, I don't rate a personal opinion, but if we trust CheckUser, it seems they are.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=33438746&oldid=33429460] Anybody who's interested should also click on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hollow_Wilerding&diff=33402626&oldid=33401575 Bunchofgrapes' telling comment here]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 12:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC).
:::I fully support blocking the two sockpuppets. :) [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 12:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Lucky Raul! I also support blocking the puppeteers immediately and indefinitely. [[User:Sam Korn|<nowiki>[[Sam Korn]]</nowiki>]] 12:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::The puppets have to be excluded. On reflection, the block of Hollow for a week is at least a start. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Oh, yes, I have blocked the puppets indefinitely; the only question is the Hollow Wilerding account. Only a one-week block, say you, Geogre? Maybe that's enough. I hope to get Raul's input on the question of a FAC ban that I raised. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 13:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Blocking the Hollow Wilerding account does raise the problem that AFAIK, blocks are intended to be for preventing harm rather than for punishment. I wouldn't shed too many tears for her, though. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>1</sup>]] 14:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You're right, we're ''not'' going to block in revenge for the harm she has done to the FAC process (even though besides the puppetry it includes general disruption, see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hollow Wilerding|comments and links at the RFA]]). Perhaps a ban from FAC, with blocks as appropriate in case the ban is ignored, would be enough. What a business, though. :-( I wonder if anybody has ever been banned from FAC before. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 14:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I now understand that the entire community has been against me since the day I signed up here. This displeases me greatly. Okay, I have some stuff to tell you people. [[User:DrippingInk]] and [[User:Winnermario]] and myself, [[User:Hollow Wilerding]] all share the same computer. '''They are not sockpuppets of mine, they are merely a sibling and a friend who is living with me'''. If you choose not to believe this, that is your loss, and your problem. Not mine. I was hiding this from you because I believed that if it had been revealed then I would have been blocked for inappropriate usage of Wikipedia. User:Winnermario no longer accesses Wikipedia because she is busy — she is currently studying English literature, and User:DrippingInk logs on occasionally as he is an artist. I am mortified to know that the entire community has been against me because I am different, as some of my contributions have been truly genuine, especially [[Luxurious (song)]], [[Shakira]], and [[The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask]]. And no, Majora's Mask would have definitely passed even if they did not vote on the FAC, as it had five other support votes, and an object or two or something withdrawn. If I am blocked for misuse of Wikipedia, which actually is not misuse, I will be filing an RfC. It is not fair for us to be blocked because we feared we would be treated as sockpuppets of each other because we all share the same computer. That is why we kept it a secret. I apologize for any harm I've caused you, but this is the real me. I would appreciate it if I just edited the encyclopedia the way I want to — I'm disappointed, I must say though, as this is a ridiculous way to start the new year, but hey, this is Wikipedia. —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 15:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:What makes the three of us so special? We were unable to edit on the Wikipedia community without several users lashing out at us. I did ''absolutely nothing'' to get to this position today. DrippingInk did not do anything either; Winnermario did, but we're going to exclude her from this conversation. I contribute to Wikipedia almost everyday, and have been attempting to elevate numerous articles to substantial quality. I do more than some users who have been on this site for two years have. Yet I am still treated as though we're all sockpuppets of each other. Have any of you read [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]? I was only doing my best to make some articles become excellent, and never intended to stir any controversy. Actually, if I might say, it was all of the other users who stirred the brew. —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 15:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::Hey, ''that's'' what I was looking for! This whole thing really is quite a shame, as you are such a good editor. Although HW has done some... questionable things, during her time here, I think this is the real deal guys and gals. If you talk to her only a little bit you'll find that all those quotes that are spread around of hers aren't an accurate representation of who she really is. And if her roomies do nothing but support her in everything she does on here, how is that any different than a lot of the voting that goes on in this place anyway? [[Image: Pentacle-circumscribed.png|20px]][[User:Search4Lancer|<font color="red" face="Courier New">Search</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Search4Lancer|<font color="black" face="Courier New"><b>4</b></font>]][[User_talk:Search4Lancer|<font color="red" face="Courier New">Lancer</font>]][[Image: Pennsylvania state flag.png|25px]] 15:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I feel like for the first time on Wikipedia I can show my true colours now that everyone knows who DrippingInk and Winnermario are. If people want to see the real me, then [[User:Search4Lancer]] is right: I can do it now! Perhaps I should have announced this a little while ago. I was bottled up from the community because I feared for my life on this website (does that sound just a bit unusual to be saying)? I hereby request the unblocking of [[User:DrippingInk]], as he did not do anything to deserve this. Actually, he currently is unaware that he is even blocked; [[User:Winnermario]] can remain blocked, as she no longer accesses Wikipedia, but ''please'' remove the notice saying that she is a sock puppet. She is not! I just want to help the community, but it seemed as though everyone was attempting to prevent this. I will ensure that DrippingInk no longer votes on any of the FACs I nominate. —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 15:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::[[User:Bishonen]] really despises me. I have been finding messages posted by him regarding [[User:Winnermario]] and myself in several places around Wikipedia. A grudge can only be held for so long. —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 16:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::I may just be more cynical than you, Lancer, but this was hardly a heat of the moment denial. Hollow and "DrippingInk"'s [[User_talk:DrippingInk#Blueberry_response|bogus conversations]] indicate a quite impressive level of deviousness. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>1</sup>]] 16:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Bogus? No. Those conversations were the two of us socializing in an attempt that our IP addresses would not be discovered. You have to understand that we brought no harm to Wikipedia, as a matter of fact, it is you and the other group of Wikipedians inflicting the harm by throwing ''every specific detail'' at us, regardless of what it is to ensure our blocks. —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
* I have [[WP:BOLD|been bold]] and stripped this article of its featured article status, since it achieved that status through outright fraud. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 16:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:*Your effort is futile. It received enough votes to become featured, and I spent a lot of time on it to ensure it achieve featured article status. Should it be stripped, I will be taking extra measures. —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:**The article, discounting the two support votes from DrippingInk and Winnermario, received 6 support votes and three oppose votes, roughly 67% support. I'm not familiar with the percentage required to become a FA, but this seems borderline to me. There really aren't any "extra measures" you can take, AFAIK, except to resubmit it — which, if it is as good as you say it is, it should pass with little difficulties. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]][[User:Hermione1980|rmione]]'''[[User talk:Hermione1980|1980]]''' 16:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:***Exactly! If the article is removed of its FA status, and I get blocked permanently, what kind of an example is Wikipedia setting? "You can accomplish something, however because you are afraid of an IP-sharing issue, we're going to remove your hard work, and remove you as well". —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 16:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:** Such as what? [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 16:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:*** I will file an RfC. It is not fair to remove these pages of their statuses until this situation is resolved, because it makes the rest of Wikipedia look like a powerhouse that insists they are always right. The subject in general—me, in this case—looks helpless and has no chance of saving herself. Anyway, next case to ensure my block. —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 16:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:**** OK. I have stripped [[The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask]] of it's featured article status, and posted a message on [[WP:AN]] indicating that I have done so, and why. You can go ahead and file an RFC if you wish. My personal opinion is that you would be better served by apologizing to the community and help the article pass the FAC process legitimately than by filing an RFC complaining that I have undone what you accomplished through fraud. But you have to make your own decisions. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 16:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:*****''Exactly! If the article is removed of its FA status, and I get blocked permanently, what kind of an example is Wikipedia setting? "You can accomplish something, however because you are afraid of an IP-sharing issue, we're going to remove your hard work, and remove you as well". —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 16:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)''.
:*****I posted this message above your comment. As you stripped it of its FA status, I am going to be restoring it, as you have exhibited a disgusting attitude toward this website. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]][[User:Hermione1980|rmione]]'''[[User talk:Hermione1980|1980]]''' made a comment that it would have passed anyhow, and I have decided that it would be best for me to take serious actions. '''Never''' remove someone else's hard-earned work because they committed "fraud", which was not believed to be so. Wikipedia is going to be the end of itself since it has users who are arrogant due to a hierachy that was formed by the people who materialised the site; admins, which should not be existing on this site. Starting off the new year by hurting my presence on Wikipedia is going to be regretful. —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 16:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:******Please do not put words in my mouth. I '''never''' said that it would have passed anyway. I said that it was ''borderline''. I also said I wasn't familiar with the guidelines for FAC. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]][[User:Hermione1980|rmione]]'''[[User talk:Hermione1980|1980]]''' 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:*****Yes, you are right, and therefore, I apologize. Please forgive me. —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:******Apology accepted. No problem. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]][[User:Hermione1980|rmione]]'''[[User talk:Hermione1980|1980]]''' 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the FA status of this article. The general rule has nothing to do with the number of support votes, and everything to do with whether objections are being met. Sockpuppeting in support of a FA is thus a kind of useless procedure - unless Raul has dramatically changed his evaluation procedure, what he does is look at the objections and see if they're actionable and substantial. If not, the article gets promoted. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 16:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
*Mark this date down: I agree with Snowspinner 100% here. FAC is not a majority or supermajority case: it is a unanimity case. There can be no substantial objections. Thus, it possibly shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. Further the "extraordinary measures" threat, along with the "the whole site is organized against me" (should that have been "we?"), indicates some very unhelpful attitudes, attitudes that don't belong on Wikipedia. Deception is never a good policy, and achieving your goals by lying is evil. The blocks are in place for lying, at least three times, and attempting to avoid the first block by setting up a new account. Setting up yet another account, as appears to be taking place, is only going to result in wider blocks, as well as attempts to actually contact some of the people this user is pretending to be. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 20:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
What strikes me about this mess is that, taking him at his word, from the get go, [[User:Hollow Wilerding]] was aware that the activities of himself, [[User:Winnermario]] and [[User:DrippingInk]] could be taken as sockpuppet activity, since they shared the same IP. And yet, instead of coming right out and saying, "Okay, we got three people here sharing the same computer - we are not sockpuppets, we are just two siblings and a roomie," they go to great lengths to actively '''conceal''' this information. Real conversations or no, those conversations were done in an effort to deceive. If the three of them had come clean from the beginning, and perhaps promised not to act on the same things to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, it could have been worked out. Instead, they opted for skullduggery. This does not engender trust at all.
My suggestions: Strip the article of FA status with leave to resubmit for FAC by someone else. Next, and this is the most generous thing we should do: remove the sockpupper notice from [[User:Winnermario]] and unblock both [[User:DrippingInk]] and [[User:Hollow Wilerding]] on the condition that the two agree not to vote on the same actions, or have their votes invalidated (and notices on their user pages to explain the shared IP situation). --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 16:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, we never told anyone because when you think about it, it isn't really any of your business. This is Wikipedia, and some of its users could be living in New Zealand or Europe or South America for all we know; we don't have to reveal our mundane identities. The article should remain with its status, and this account I am currently operating, [[User:Hollow Wilerding]], is going to merge with [[User:DrippingInk]] so that the controversy can be placed aside. A new account, [[User:Siblings CW]], is being created today for a fresh, clean slate. And also because today is the beginning of the new year. ;) —[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::To quote you above: "It is not fair for us to be blocked because '''we feared we would be treated as sockpuppets of each other because we all share the same computer. That is why we kept it a secret.'''" (my emphasis) So to take you at your word, you hid this from everyone because you knew that sockpuppeting accusations would be leveled if people found out. And so they have. Like I said, the most sensible thing would have been to be upfront about it right at the start, but you chose badly, and have damaged your own credibility as a result, regardless of how good your edits are. I would suggest that [[User:Siblings CW]] have a notice on their user page about how it is a shared computer, and also stay away from voting on the same articles, or I fear that this will blow up again. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 19:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::A notice on their page saying it's a shared computer? What's the point of that? Plenty of us have let someone else use our computer from time to time, and you don't see us roaming around with such a sticker on our foreheads. And they can't bloody well vote on the same things now anyway, as they're now sharing a username. [[Image: Pentacle-circumscribed.png|20px]][[User:Search4Lancer|<font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Search</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Search4Lancer|<font color="red" face="Courier New" style="background: black;"><b>4</b></font>]][[User_talk:Search4Lancer|<font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Lancer</font>]][[Image: Pennsylvania state flag.png|26px]] 19:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::I was speaking of [[User:Siblings CW]], not the shared account. That will still appear to come from the same IP and look like a sock. My suggestion is to pre-empt further accusations in future, rather like the shared IP notice on various anon-IP pages. That is, if they want to prevent this periodically flaring up every now and then and go through all this again, they should be up front about this from the beginning. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's what we're going to do about the article. I am leaving it on the featured list for the time being, along with its featured tag. The FARC will continue, with the probable result being to remove its featured status. Assuming that happens, Hollow will then have the opportunity to renominate it to the FAC. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 18:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:All right, here's what I'm going to do about the editor. I deduce from Raul's message that he's against banning HW from FAC; therefore, I will instead block the Hollow Wilerding account for one week for disruption, abusive sockpuppetry, and inveterate deception. I'm sorry, but [[User:DrippingInk]] will remain indefinitely blocked, since I can't postulate that HW has any credibility at all, after all her twists and turns, always with the word "honesty" in her mouth. I have also blocked the new sock account [[User:Siblings CW]] indefinitely. To Hollow Wilerding: if you have any interest in continuing to edit this site, '''don't evade this block by creating any new accounts whatsoever during the block'''. If you have any more sock accounts already established, don't use them while you're blocked. Note that during the block, you can still edit your own talk page, and people will be watching it. You can also e-mail any administrator, or e-mail the [[Wikipedia:Mailing list]], if you wish to protest the block. I'm cross-posting this message to [[User talk:Hollow Wilerding]]. Any objections, comments? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC).
===Further input requested: Wikipedia is not a battleground===
Well, I don't know, I really don't. HW's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hollow_Wilerding&diff=33525583&oldid=33522694 response on her talkpage] to my block, see previous message, contains among other things a legal threat (though admittedly a pretty ridiculous one—" I may even go as far as suing the Wikipedia Foundation for misuse of allowing its users to block innocent victims") and a promise that "when I come back, it isn't going to be pretty. A new account is once again going to be established for DrippingInk and myself to use come our return." IOW, a new multiuser (that's not allowed) sock (not that, either) account to replace the one I blocked a few hours ago. Going by past edit warring on [[WP:FAC]] and recent activities (see her [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hollow_Wilerding contribs] for reversions of FAC, FARC, and sockpuppet templates today before she was blocked), I don't suppose it ''is'' going to be very pretty. I really don't know. Is there any point in keeping this user around at all? Wikipedia [[WP:NOT|is not a battleground]]. She has always treated it as one, very much including when she edited as Winnermario. Should the present block be lengthened, in the hope of making the user more aware of realities before an RFAR becomes necessary? I won't do any further blocking myself, since, for one thing, HW is increasingly claiming the whole thing is a Bishonen grudgefest. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:I think a cooling off period for HW is definitely warranted. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 00:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::One that's infinitely long, I hope. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Since input was requested... I think the whole thing is just weird, and agree that HW needs to cool off, and any new accounts created to eavde the block should be blocked. I don't really take the legal threat seriously here. Do agree strongly with WP:NOT a battleground, and would like to see constructive edits from HW afterward that take this into account. [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 00:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::Can we turn legal threats into grounds for permabanning?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 01:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Wikipedia's not a battleground? Tell [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin|them]]. On-topic, though: I think perhaps He/She/They should get to keep editing at one account, but make it their choice: if it's the new [[User:Siblings CW]], so be it, as long as HW is then blocked indefinitely. If that lets him/her/they feel like it's a "fresh start", all the better. I feel like we already have all the evidence we need that this user should not be allowed to run multiple accounts, though. A corollary of that seems to be that as long as HW maintains that "a new account is once again going to be established for DrippingInk and myself to use come our return", the main account should remain blocked. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::No matter what side of [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin|that]] you fall on, 142kb of bitching is inexcusable--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 01:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::Excellent trolling there! I give it an 8 out of 10, but I'm the East German judge on these things. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 02:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I'll admit to slight confusion of what your definition of trolling is here. Care to explain?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 02:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Bringing in a totally off-topic issue as an ad hominem attack. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 03:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Tabling the impending discussion on whether accusing someone of trolling is an attack, ad hominem implies "against the person". Exactly ''who'' is being attacked here?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 04:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Okay, but that's not really helping anything either, you must admit.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 02:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with Bunchofgrapes that this user shouldn't have more than one account. But I'm very much against the "sibling" account notion also, as confusing, and a bypass of the normal way of changing one's username (which is to ask a bureaucrat to... ''change'' one's username). It seems to me to be a blatant attempt to obfuscate the sockpuppet issue. And with (supposedly) two people using one account, which of them is [[Wikipedia:Accountability|accountable]] for what the account does? It's not desirable to provide problem editors with extra opportunities of blaming others for their actions, and that's why such accounts are discouraged. I've blocked [[User:Siblings CW]] and reverted the redirects to it of Hollow Wilerding's userpages. Any admin can unblock the siblings account, but I'd like to be on record that I'm ''against'' it. I won't unblock it. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::Well, since they've just been blocked for using two accounts under the same IP, it seems illogical to disallow one account for them. This way, at least vote-stacking or similar antics won't be a problem. Also, "accountability"? If there's any serious problem, we have no more hard facts than the IP anyway. When they share one, they just have to take the blame for each other's actions, but that's life. --<span style="font-family:monospace"> [[User:Grm_wnr|grm_wnr]] </span>[[User_talk:Grm_wnr|<span style="border:1px solid;color:black;font-size:9px;padding:2px 1px 0px 1px">Esc</span>]] 02:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Since when weren't sockpuppet accounts allowed? They are discouraged, but they certainly aren't disallowed. Furthermore, nowhere, '''absolutely NOWHERE''' does it say that you cannot have a multi-user account. Bishonen, you obviously have some reading up to do. You are pulling policies that don't exist out of your ass just to block HW, and that is completely unacceptable. [[Image: Pentacle-circumscribed.png|20px]][[User:Search4Lancer|<font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Search</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Search4Lancer|<font color="red" face="Courier New" style="background: black;"><b>4</b></font>]][[User_talk:Search4Lancer|<font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Lancer</font>]][[Image: Pennsylvania state flag.png|26px]] 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Search4Lancer, that's a lot of ignorance and bad faith you impute to me, and quite a tone you use to express your certainties in. Sockpuppet accounts used for votestacking or for creating an impression of greater support aren't "discouraged", they're outlawed by official policy: please see [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]]. Public accounts are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocks#.22Public.22_accounts disallowed]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 03:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yes, sockpuppet accounts used for votestacking et al ''are'' not allowed, but that is not what you said. You said sockpuppet accounts aren't allowed. In addition, it says nowhere in the policies that public/shared accounts are not allowed. Fine and swell if you're going to point me to some other page, but if it's to be considered a policy, it needs to be on the policy page. [[Image: Pentacle-circumscribed.png|20px]][[User:Search4Lancer|<font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Search</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Search4Lancer|<font color="red" face="Courier New" style="background: black;"><b>4</b></font>]][[User_talk:Search4Lancer|<font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Lancer</font>]][[Image: Pennsylvania state flag.png|26px]] 07:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::Public accounts are disallowed (that's an account where the password is broadcast or widely shared), but shared accounts do fall into a grey area: isn't [[User:Hydnjo]] two people? (I could be confused there.) There's no policy that I know against it, though it's not a good idea. As for holding such an account responsible, whatever one does, both are responsible for. All with a big grain of salt as far as believing that this actually ''is'' two people.
::Bishonen is spot-on regarding both sockpuppet policy and Search4Lancer's incivility. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to be in any way rude here, and the only effect being rude is likely to have is to make other people discount your opinions. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Bunchofgrapes - It is very difficult to please everybody with 'civility' when such blatant idiocy is rampant. I really don't care one way or another what people think of me. [[Image: Pentacle-circumscribed.png|20px]][[User:Search4Lancer|<font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Search</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Search4Lancer|<font color="red" face="Courier New" style="background: black;"><b>4</b></font>]][[User_talk:Search4Lancer|<font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Lancer</font>]][[Image: Pennsylvania state flag.png|26px]] 07:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::[[User:Hydnjo]] is, indeed, a husband-and-wife team of editors. While that's not made clear by any sort of disclaimer on their user page, the photo captioned as "Heidi & Joe" is probably sufficient... [[User:Android79|<span style="color: green">android</span>]][[User talk:Android79|<span style="color: purple">79</span>]] 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I think it's best we tread with caution. It is not impossible what Hollow's saying is true, so I will be unblocking the siblings account. Hollow still not use this account for the duration of the block against her main account, however. <font color="darkred">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> <sub>(<font color="teal">[[User_talk:NSLE|T]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]]</font>+[[WP:CVU|<font color="grey">CVU</font>]])</sub> 02:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I have taken the following from [[User:Hollow Wilerding]]'s user talk page:
''...Wow. I am devastated. So multi-users are not allowed, are they? Then we have a '''''huge''''' issue. If multi-users are not allowed, why have [[User:DrippingInk]] and [[User:Winnermario]] been blocked? If we can't have a shared account, then we have no choice but to access individual accounts, and as it stands, that's going to be under the same IP address! Yet for some peculiar reason, both of the accounts in mention above have been blocked! That means both William and Mariah will have to create new accounts, yet I am positive User:Bishonen will block them again because (s)he will assume that they are sock puppets all over again! What a terrible issue this is! I hereby demand myself to be unblocked so that I can file the RfC right now. You seem to have cut a thread.''
#''You never told me that a multi-user account was prohibited, so therefore, you call it "another sock puppet account".''
#''You continue to believe that User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario are sock puppets.''
#''You have failed to register [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]].''
#''It doesn't appear as though you read any of my responses and comments at the administrators' board. Does this indicate you wanted to ensure my block?''
#''It was my decision not to tell the entire Wikipedia community that we shared a computer. Therefore, you cannot assume bad faith, yet you never assumed good faith either.''
#''[[User:Bishonen]] has abused his/her sysop abilities, and should be stripped of them immediately.''
''—[[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] . . . ([[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|talk]]) 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)''
I agree with the user who has been blocked; 1) she seems to have been blocked in an attempt to exclude her from the conversation at the administrators' board in order for her to receive punishment without any objections or responses; 2) everyone believes the other accounts to be sock puppets which indicates that no one is following [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]; 3) is there a reason that User:Hollow Wilerding be punished for this in the first place? If there really are three separate users accessing the same computer, there is no reason to block all three of them because they did not want to speak the truth. This entire accusation is a form of abuse and also an example of over-powered admins whom have the ability to taunt oneself a bad name. Since no sysop has ''verifiable'' references or sources that User:Hollow Wilerding is one person, this block is unacceptable. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. [[User:64.231.128.57|64.231.128.57]] 14:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
===Hollow Wilerding's block extended for block evasion===
[[User:64.231.128.57|64.231.128.57]] immediately above is according to Kelly Martin's CheckUser check '''probably being used by Hollow Wilerding'''. It's in the same dynamic address range as the IP Hollow Wilerding posted from before she was blocked; it could theoretically have been used by another customer of the same ISP. But I don't believe that for a moment. (And no, [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] actually ''doesn't'' mean "pretend you're stupid"; it means ''assume'' good faith, and if the assumption is disproved, so be it.) Here are some curious coincidences besdies CheckUser:
# The newbie anon is a wholehearted supporter of HW, which, not to put too fine a point on it, is a very unusual attitude outside of the small flock of users who live in HW's computer. No single user voted Support on HW's RFA.
# HW has specifically expressed frustration at not being able to post to WP:ANI, and the anon has remedied that by moving a selected post from her talkpage here. The anon also actually raises the same point. Another similarity is that they share the same obsession with [[WP:AGF]], perhaps the only policy "they" know the name of, yet probably not the first that most people would refer to in a case like this.
# After posting here, 64.231.128.57 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.231.128.57 went on to edit] several pop music articles, which is HW's great interest on Wikipedia. ''Please note especially that the anon edited two articles, [[Garlic]] and [[Mariah Carey]], that have nothing in common except the special interest HW takes in bringing them to FAC quality'', as shown on her talkpage (now deleted, but see the history).
# 64.231.128.57 talks like HW. Some people may consider this a subtle point, but I'm confident they'll know what I mean if they've read HW's articles before copyediting, or her input on talkpages. HW's writing style is very characteristic. Consider for instance the anon's phrase "over-powered admins whom have the ability to taunt oneself a bad name".
IMO these points together easily amount to 100% certainty. I've blocked 64.231.128.57 for 8 hours only, on Kelly Martin's advice, to minimize any risk of collateral damage. I have also extended Hollow Wilerding's block to two weeks, starting now, for egregious block evasion and the attempt above to falsely insinuate support for her position as expressed [[User talk:Hollow Wilerding|on her talkpage]] (go read it, folks!). If any more IPs from the same range should appear to edit HW's special-interest articles and/or support her position, I encourage admins to block them on sight. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Appears entirely conclusive to me. I support the actions. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks, Bunchofgrapes. Hollow Wilerding implicitly admits the deception [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hollow_Wilerding&diff=33651946&oldid=33632583 in her reply to my block notification]. Perhaps more startlingly, she vows to continue to evade her block: "I will continue to log on to separate IP addresses as long as I am capable of in order to boycott this notorious situation." I ask again: is this a user we want to keep around? Take a look at her talkpage for assorted vague threats ("Prepare yourselves for hell"). [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 23:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Getting worse: Concrete legal threat now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hollow_Wilerding&diff=33654980&oldid=33654177]. Hollow is doing everything (s)he can to make sure the answer to Bishonen's last question is "no". —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::: What's the appropriate response to persistent legal threats? Blocked indefinitely, and protect the talk page? [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 00:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
:::: Doesn't say who she's filing a lawsuit against, so can't be considered a legal threat, as you don't know. Maybe she got hit by a drunk earlier, and is filing a lawsuit against him for pain and suffering? You don't know. This is a good editor that you're just doing everything in your power to hammer away at. [[Image: Pentacle-circumscribed.png|20px]][[User:Search4Lancer|<font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Search</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Search4Lancer|<font color="red" face="Courier New" style="background: black;"><b>4</b></font>]][[User_talk:Search4Lancer|<font color="#33ff00" face="Courier New" style="background: black;">Lancer</font>]][[Image: Pennsylvania state flag.png|26px]] 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Per Bishonen above, AGF =/= PYS (pretend you're stupid). [[User:Sam Korn|<nowiki>[[Sam Korn]]</nowiki>]] 00:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
== Userpage [[User:ThomAsFISH]] ==
Please read the user page [[User:ThomAsFISH]]. Most of his edits are vandalism, and this user page seems to be a catalog of his vandalism. I Don't know if he has gone on to be another person or what, but I don't want to remove his page myself. [[User:Dominick|Dominick]] [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(TALK)</sup>]] 13:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:Blanked the page save for the vandal block notice. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 14:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
== Porn box covers ==
I'm a bit concerned about this one. Firstly, though, let me state for the record a few things to get them out of the way:
* I find porn to be vile and exploitatious (if that is indeed a word - you know what I mean however)
* I find fairuse images to be... not so good, should we say?
Anyway, have a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Tabercil&page=&limit=500&offset=0 this user's uploads]. Basically, they are all box covers of porn DVDs, all tagged as fair use. Don't you think we are skating on thin ice here? Don't we frown on fair use images? There seems to be a hell of a lot of them on DVD box covers. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 14:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:The ones that are orphaned clearly can't be fair use, and so should be listed for deletion (it's only fair to give the uploader the opportunity to attach any that he's missed to the appropriate articles). But other than that, ones like [[:Image:Minka vhs 98235V1.jpg]] do seem to be pretty good fair-use candidates:
:* they're web-sized (we might want to downscale a few to the size called for by the infobox, but I've found none that are big)
:* they're intended for publicity
:* free images of the subjects are very difficult to obtain (although not impossible, as the comparable [[:Image:Tera Patrick 2.jpg]] shows)
:* they represent a tiny proportion of the overall work concerned (the DVD movie), and no loss of income for the copyright holder is forseeable (who buys a DVD just to look at the cover?).
: It would be better if the DVD cover images were used for the articles corresponding to the DVDs themselves (gosh, I hope we never have a bunch of those), but I think it's not unreasonable to use a DVD cover showing the star of a film on the star's page. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 14:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::The ones I've looked at don't seem to be very graphic (and no more graphic than you'd expect for articles on porn stars). There seems to be a widespread practice of using album covers to illustrate musicians' articles (not just articles on the albums themselves); I can't see any difference between that and using these to illustrate articles on porn stars. Quite why we have articles on porn stars I don't know. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>1</sup>]] 14:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::It relates to Wikipedia's definitions of notability; the Hebrew Wikipedia, for example, purged those out. Back to the images, [[:Image:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.jpg|this]] type of format seems to offer more detail, fairuse-wise, but I'm unsure whether that makes a difference or not, legally. [[User:El C|El_C]] 14:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Oh wait, that's the book! [[User:El C|El_C]] 15:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:In the meantime, [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.]] has listed these images for deletion, saying "Unfortunately, while fair use is claimed, they are not used to illustrate the DVD in question (but rather the subject featured on the box cover), which goes against [[WP:FAIR]].". Anyway, this discussion doesn't belong on AN/I: it's an unexceptional fair-use/IFD matter. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 15:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::Sure it belongs here: my question was a specific call for advise on a particular matter. That's what I established [[WP:AN]] for. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:For the record, it's "exploitative" :) — '''[[User:Philwelch|Phil]]''' ''[[User_talk:Philwelch|Welch]]'' <small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|Katefan's ridiculous poll]]</small> 05:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
==[[Arabic numerals]] (page content)==
After some wikipedians had trouble accepting the WP:RM (see above [[#Arabic_numerals_requested_move]]) and started [[Talk:Arabic numerals/naming]] as "disgruntled users spin-off", but more or less "controllable", protracted '''edit warring''' on the [[Arabic numerals]] page itself has far from stopped.
It appears extremely difficult to direct users who want to impose either the "arabic" or the "hindu" POV in the page towards the ongoing discussions at [[talk:Arabic numerals]], prior to proceeding with major swaps/"cultural superiority"-type intrusions in the article.
OK, so far, but now [[user:DPSingh]], whom, as far as I know, just comes out of a week of block, gives it another go: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabic_numerals&curid=1786&diff=33478925&oldid=33420813 diff]
This is not 3RR (one of this user's first edits after a week of block), yet "mildly" disturbing, on top of all the other disturbance going on.
I post this here, while:
* Blocking the ''article'' would not solve anything in this stage IMHO;
* Sysops keeping an eye on this might be beneficial (I think several of you do this already: thanks for your patience and efforts!)
* Maybe act very strict on disturbing behaviour: help users see, that whatever the cultural differences, it's best to tackle differences on the talk page, and not by POV-pushing/slow revert warring directly on the article.
Anybody any ideas? --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 14:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
==[[Obesanes]]==
Please can someone help out with this particular article? --[[User:Blackwhick|Blackwhick]] 16:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like a relatively routine [[WP:AFD|AFD]] debate to me. It's not an attack page or damaging anyone, let's just see if anyone comes along to claim it's real. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
== Sockpuppetry on [[Islamist terrorism]] ==
{{vandal|64.229.170.117}} is a sockpuppet of either [[User:Yuber|Yuber]] or [[User:Farhansher|Farhansher]], see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&action=history article history] - other users have been banned by {{admin|SlimVirgin}} with much less evidence than this (blocking two friends of mine permanantly with no evidence or check for edit-warring with these two same users) so yeah.
IP has no contributions other than reverting on that article using edit summaries that suggest it's an existing user, and only appeared a short while after Yuber got to his maximum 3 reverts on the article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&action=history history]) --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;text-decoration:underline">Mistress Selina Kyle</span>]] <sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">Α⇔Ω</span>]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">⇒✉</span>]]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''</sup>'' 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, I haven't used up my 3 reverts on the article. My 3rd edit was to comment out the paragraph and ask for another source, so I still have one more revert left if I choose to use it. Also, if you look at the contribs of that anon, you'll see I made an edit to the talk page 2 minutes after he or she did, and the address doesn't seem to be an open proxy anyways. <s>I suspect it's just Farhansher editing while logged out.</s>[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:: You don't "get" 3 reverts. That's just what it takes to get blocked under [[WP:3RR]]. Stop revert warring now, or I will start blocking parties on ''both'' sides for revert warring. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::I dont think 64.xxx IPs are available in my country . And I wont travel thousands of miles to revert one article . Cheers [[user:Farhansher|<font color="blueviolet">'''F.a.y.'''</font>]]<sup>[[user talk:Farhansher|<font color="darkorange">تبادله خيال</font>]]</sup> <small><sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Farhansher|<font color="slategray">'''''/c'''''</font>]]</sup></sup></small> 22:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have semi protected the article until disputes are resolved. If the edit wars continue I will protect it comepletely. --[[User:Eliezer|Eliezer]] | [[User_talk:Eliezer|<small>£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€</small>]] 01:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Please read the semi-protection policy more closely. ''Do not'' semi-protect in the case of edit warring simply to stop the anonymous editors. Semi-protection is only for severe vandalism. It's unprotected now. And never protect ''after'' the edit warriors are already blocked for 3RR. Protection is harmful. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 02:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::In this case, it wasn't just edit wars it was anonymous editor who were accused ob being sockpuppets who were violation the 3rr rule, which that would be considered vandalism. --[[User:Eliezer|Eliezer]] | [[User_talk:Eliezer|<small>£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€</small>]] 02:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Violating 3RR ''is'' edit warring, not vandalism. In any case they were already blocked and have not come back. Please be more careful. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 02:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::From [[WP:PPol]] "''A temporary protection is used for: Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request.''" There were at least e different anon ip addresses which violated the 3rr rule, the protection would have been justified based upon the above rule even if they hadn't violated the 3rr policy, but in this case that the anons were showing a disregard for the rules of wikipedia it was definitly justified. --[[User:Eliezer|Eliezer]] | [[User_talk:Eliezer|<small>£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€</small>]] 02:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::My point is that 1) considering they were (and are) already blocked, there is no edit war to stop, and 2) ''[[WP:SEMI|semi-protection]]'' is not to be used for edit wars. It is ''only'' for severe vandalism. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 02:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::My bad, I was looking at the Full Protection policy, and then applying it to the Semi-protection policy, In that case I should have fully protected it, as semi protection is only for vandalism and full protection is for edit wars. However since there was a large number of anon users, it looked like that after those 3 were banned that more would come. But either way it looks like they are gone. --[[User:Eliezer|Eliezer]] | [[User_talk:Eliezer|<small>£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€</small>]] 03:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
64.229.170.117 is neither Yuber nor Farhansher; the technical evidence is conclusive. Nor do I see any evidence of malfeasance on the part of the individual editing from that IP address. Please refrain from making wild accusations of sockpuppetry. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
==Admin out of control on [[Islamist Terrorism]]==
Some admin unlocked [[Islamist Terrorism]] where a group of islamist editors had gotten it locked; instead of discussing openly, they waited until now and are now revert warring it again.
Muslim admin Svest [[user:FayssalF]] (side comment, that's a lousy thing to do, signing some other name than your username) jumped in and blocked two users who were standing in the way of the islamist POV pushers, while letting editors like Yuber (who is under RFAR sanction not to be a disruption on islamic topics) get away scot-free and refusing to block any of the islamists who were edit warring.
I've now used two reverts and been accused of being a sockpuppet. This is beyond control. Request re-locking to the version from Phroziac.
:Also appears user Snakes is possibly a Yuber sockpuppet. Low number of edits, similar topics, edited talk to put in a Yuber comment.
::Ask on [[WP:RFPP]] and stop calling people names. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Second report: As a response to my reporting here, [[user:FayssalF]] instituted a retaliatory block. I make my apologies for what will likely be termed "block evasion" but his conduct in blocking me for reporting here, and then placing a report on his talk page demanding I provide evidence (which he knew I could not do) of Yuber's violations is bullshit.
===Statement by [[User:FayssalF]]===
I was on a spritual break when I noticed on my watchilst [[Islamist terrorism]] popping up and bouncing non-stop. I went to have a look at its hist page and noticed the 3RR being neglected and kicked off like a football! I set the [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule]] on fire:
====[[User:66.69.139.191]]====
* First kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=33527318&oldid=33526107]
* Second kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=33527563&oldid=33527434]
* Third kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=33527893&oldid=33527766]
* Fourth kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=33528402&oldid=33528158]
=====Action=====
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A66.69.139.191&diff=33528861&oldid=33528032 User being informed about the matter]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist?action=search&limit=100&ip=66.69.139.191 Ipblocklist]
====[[User:66.246.246.254]]====
* First kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=33519609&oldid=33518862]
* Second kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=33522151&oldid=33520672]
* Third kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=33525624&oldid=33523138]
* Fourth kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=33529615&oldid=33529445]
* Fifth [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=33529311]
* Sixth [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=33527710&oldid=33527622]
=====Action=====
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A66.246.246.254&diff=33529750&oldid=33529653 User being informed about the matter]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.246.246.254&diff=next&oldid=33529750 User already banned reverts with a sneaky comment]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist?action=search&limit=100&ip=66.246.246.254 [[User:Jayjg]] blocking proxy]
====[[User:Snakes]]====
* First kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=33527434&oldid=33527318]
* Second kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=next&oldid=33527893]
* Third kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=next&oldid=33529311]
* Fourth kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=33529615&oldid=33529445]
* Fifth [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=next&oldid=33529707]
=====Action=====
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASnakes&diff=33530097&oldid=33530079 User being informed about the matter]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snakes&diff=next&oldid=33530097 User questions why]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist?action=search&limit=100&ip=Snakes Ipblocklist]
====[[User:66.69.131.124]]====
* First kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=33529707]
* Second kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=next&oldid=33530488]
* Third kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=next&oldid=33530824]
* Fourth kick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=next&oldid=33531468]
=====Action=====
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.69.131.124&oldid=33533772 User being informed about the matter]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist?action=search&limit=100&ip=66.69.131.124 Ipblocklist]
I didn't want to get this homework! Seriously! It was up to the notifier to bring the board their justifications on why this ''islamist'' [[User:FayssalF|Godzilla]] (and all the names on my talk page that never bother me - cool beens!) admin who shut the doors to the angels, the lovely flying birds, at their face! But, anyway, for the sake to get rid of the <font color="red>'''''ist syndrome'''''</font>, I decided to state that this time will serve as a testemony and I'll be tolerant as I am judging on a per case basis. I also has to add that tolerance is too much in demand and risking having a [[Economic bubble|an eco bubble]] burst would be no good thing. I hope I presented my stuff clearly and happy to answer any reasonable question whatsover! Cheers -- ''[[User:FayssalF|Szvest]] 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)'' <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: orange"><sup>''Wiki me up™''</sup></font>]]</small>
== Sockpuppeting - DisposableAccount , Paulcardan, Llbb, Bbll ==
The technical evidence indicates that [[User:DisposableAccount]], [[User:Paulcardan]], [[User:Llbb]], and [[User:Bbll]] are all the same editor. I've blocked Llbb and Bbll, but I wasn't sure which of the other two to block, since DisposableAccount is the older one, but Paulcardan appears to be the real one. They should both be blocked, one permanently, and one temporarily to discourage sockpuppeting; I leave it to other admins as to which. Also, I've permanently blocked [[User:Marx marvelous]]; though the technical evidence tying it to the others isn't strong, it's still obviously a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
: Multiple accounts belonging to the same person is not the same as these accounts being sockpuppets, and is not cause for blocking. Sockpuppetry is ''abusing'' multiple accounts to create the illusion of agreement, not simply owning several accounts. As the blocking admin, the onus is upon you to demonstrate this deception has been undertaken; technical evidence alone is not evidence of sockpuppetry. [[User:Bbll]] appears to have no edits at all. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 00:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
See [[User talk:Jayjg#Check user request]]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
: Thanks. In future, when you're posting to say you've blocked someone, and you have both technical and circumstancial evidence, please provide links to the latter in your post telling us about your blocks. If you'd done so in this case, I wouldn't have wasted the last ten minutes looking through their contribs. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 00:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::Finlay, with respect, the sensible thing would be not to comment until you know the facts. Perhaps you could ask a question in future, rather than weighing in with an opinion. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::That's not how things work, at least not how they should. When someone blocks an account, they need to explain their reasoning. They shouldn't wait to be questioned, and its not a respectful use of others' time to have that evidence, but not to bother presenting it in the forum where they announce the block. The burden of proof lies entirely with the blocking admin. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Bobblewik]] and [[User:Talrias]]==
Would an uninvolved admin please review [[user:Talrias]]'s blocks of {{User|Bobblewik}}? Talrias is involved in a content dispute with Bobblewik over the latter's delinking of stand-alone years (like [[2006]]), and is arguably leading the opposition to it. He has also several times tried to delete the section of the MoS that Bobblewik is relying on; yet despite that involvement has blocked Bobblewik twice (the latest for a week) for following what the MoS currently says. I have unblocked Bobblewik because I feel Talrias is too involved. I did this only with a view to restoring the ''status quo ante'', but in general I dislike undoing other admins' blocks and do it only rarely. I've also expressed a view on the Bobblewik issue and so feel uncomfortable being involved. It would be very helpful if someone could take a look with fresh eyes. I left a note for Talrias [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATalrias&diff=33547547&oldid=33485826 here]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
: Let's clean up a couple of misconceptions; I haven't blocked him twice for "what the MoS currently says", I have blocked him firstly for what I saw as bot edits despite not having permission to have a bot, and secondly for ignoring pleas to stop his edits given the significant opposition to them. Do you actually disagree with the reason for the block, or do you just disagree that I should have blocked him? If it was the former, you should not have removed it but asked me to explain my reasoning (which I would of course be happy to do), but if it was the latter, you should have unblocked him and reblocked him yourself. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 03:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:: I object to you blocking in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute: not just a dispute you're involved in, but one that you are leading (and may even have started). I am tired of admins being accused of being "involved" over every irrelevant interaction with a user, and equally tired of admins undoing other people's blocks, so please believe me: this is uncharacteristic of me. However, this is a crystal clear case of an admin being directly and deeply involved in the very content dispute that triggered the block. Please don't block Bobblewik again over this particular issue. In fairness, I should add that I agree that it may be inappropriate to use a bot to make contentious edits. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 03:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::: Wow, I can't believe you figured out my (admittedly shallow) motives so quickly! I of course blocked him so I could gain advantage in a discussion, and not because he had previously ignored a number of requests to stop his edits, nor that there was significant opposition to the section of the MOS in question. Come on SlimVirgin, your accusations are ludicrous. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 03:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
: I've reblocked. There is a lot of dispute at the moment as to that section of the MOS, which was slipped in with minimal input; it's very clear that, at the least, there is no consensus about what do with linking dates. This means that someone should not be running unlinking them at rapid-fire speed with what amounts to a bot. Bobblewik has been asked to, at the very least, stop making mass edits until this is worked out, and had previously agreed to, before silently beginning them again this morning. If he wants, he can create a seperate account for his bot edits (or bot-like tool edits); else I feel we have little option than to block his main account until this is worked out. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 03:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:: I think the word you were looking for is "option"--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Eeh, my grammar not so good this morning... [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that firstly, users should only ever make large quantities of style-based changes if it is absolutely necessary to do so, because really it would be best if they were fixed in the course of ordinary editing; moreover, making masses of changes to what are essentially minor wikisyntax issues, but cause a big difference in the method of page linking, seems to me to be an unwise thing to do. If there was consensus for both this change and Bobblewik's bot/bot-like tool, and he was using a separate account for the edits, then I suppose it would be OK. But he is using his main account, which is not generally in accordance with Wikipedia norms ([[Wikipedia:Bots]] etc.) and performing a change which does not have consensus. Thus Talrias was perfectly correct in blocking him, since he had been warned - as his talk page indicates - and had clearly not heeded the warnings given. Bots are quick to run, but a pain to revert, due to the large quantity of edits. There was thus no other approach that Talrias could have taken. In addition, the accusations of Talrias' involvement being the sole origin of his intervention is a ''non-sequitur'' at best, and an attempt to claim fault by impugning ethics and motives at worst. Regards, --[[User:NicholasTurnbull|Nicholas'''Turnbull''']] | [[User_talk:NicholasTurnbull|(talk)]] 03:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed, but I do think that Talrias was at least somewhat involved- not to the extent that s/he shouldn't have blocked Bobblewik, though.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::I'd like to move that the term "involved" be banned from all discussions of admin conflict of interest. Can I get a second? :-P --[[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]] [[User talk:Ryan Delaney|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 07:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::[[Leap second|Here you go.]] — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 07:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) <small>(who has not been following the discussion)</small>
:::You've got a point, actually—but then everybody would say "in conflict", "connected", "currently married to", and so on :).--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 07:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Random thoughts: I fully agree that it was right to block Bobblewik for making large-scale changes without consensus (when will people learn that others get pissed off by that?). However, [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used|users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article-editing conflict]]. I've long felt the lack of a simple "request for help"-type page where we could call for assistance, without the rambling discussion that this page always fills up with. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>1</sup>]] 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:WikiCritic]]==
I have indefinitely blocked {{user|WikiCritic}} as a troll and an account created solely to disrupt Wikipedia. He is the creator and sole editor of the ridiculous crap at [[WP:LEGAL]], and those are the only edits he has made. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 05:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
* I support this action. Obvious role account with no article-space edits whatsoever. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 13:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:RJII]] ==
Having been blocked for 48 hours for disruption, RJII commenced the exact same behaviour on his return at [[economics of fascism]]. He refuses to discuss edits on the talkpage and has made the article very difficult to edit. This behaviour has scared off other editors. He is also agitating to have a page unlocked with the aim of creating a POV fork, which was one of the actions that had him blocked in the first place. The consensus on talk was clear that the article needed fixing, and the first step was to change its name. RJII insists that this contravenes the vote on AfD, because the latter did not call for a redirect. However, the content of the article is largely the same and a redirect has not been created, only the title changing. I've asked him to discuss edits on talk and his response was to tell me I was "disruptive". [[User:James James|James James]] 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:I've left a note for him. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 06:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
== Brazil4Linux again ==
Looks like [[User:Brazil4Linux]] is avoiding his 1 month block for gaming his 3RR block with sockpuppetry. Can I get someone with Check User to verify that this is indeed one more sockpuppet? User in question is [[User:Dungeon Siege]] / [[Special:Contributions/Dungeon_Siege]]. I think if this is proven to be him going around his 1 month block I think its time to make it indef. Thanks in advance. [[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|™]][[Image:Radioactive.png|18px|]] 12:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Oh and while your at it could you also verify that [[:Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Brazil4Linux|these]] are definately him (they all had too much in common, but i'd like definitive confirmation). [[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|™]][[Image:Radioactive.png|18px|]] 12:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:If it's not a sock, he should be looked into anyways for repeatedly posting copyrighted material to [[HD DVD]]. (And, if you look at the history of {{article|HD DVD}}, you'll see some other IP's have also restored the copyrighted material; could also be him). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 15:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:: My two cents- I am absolutely convinced that it's a sock, and the evidence that the others are socks too is overwhelming as well. It's just such an obvious pattern of behavior, especially with the individual's use of logged out IPs. Even if you remove the completely identical speech patterns, calling everyone else "vandals" and attacks against Microsoft and the US, we have the IP patterns-
::User will make edits with his account. User uses up his 3RR or gets banned, which is when the user will follow up immediately with logged-out edits that directly enforce their page version. Those logged out edits trace right back to the veloxzone.com.br or dialuol.br ISPs that Brazil4Linux uses.
::Brazil did it-
::Brazil4Linux uses up his 3rd revision-
::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Kutaragi&oldid=30329737
::02:48, 6 December 2005 Brazil4Linux
::So he starts using IP 200.147.61.151 to enforce his version of the page against the group consensus. Repeatedly.
::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Kutaragi&oldid=30400785
::200.147.61.151 traces to dialuol.com.br
::Quackshot did it-
::Quackshot uses up his 3rd revision-
::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nintendo_Revolution&oldid=31623947
::So he starts using 201.29.35.148 to enforce his version of the page against the group consensus. Repeatedly.
::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nintendo_Revolution&oldid=31719324
::201.29.35.148 traces to: user.veloxzone.com.br
::ForeverWatch did it, Oddie did it, CoreSystem and BreakingRules did it (mostly to try and repeatedly replace my userpage with a picture of a donkey),
::And now Dungeon Seige is doing it.
::Dungeon Seige makes his last edit-
::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neowin&oldid=33584843
::And he uses 201.29.59.5 to enforce his edit.
::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neowin&oldid=33602573
::201.29.59.5 traces to: user.veloxzone.com.br
::He's created himself a paper trail. [[User:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 18:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
:::
On [[User Talk:Jimbo Wales#About the Personal Appeal]] [[User:Dungeon Siege]] complains about Wikipedia's abusiveness but all of his "proof" is about [[User:Brazil4Linux]]. [[User:Jedi6|Jedi6]] 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
==[[Mazda Levante]]==
Can someone please help with this article?? --[[User:Sunfazer|Sunfazer]] 14:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
== [[George A. Economou]] ==
See the [[Talk:George A. Economou|talk page]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George A. Economou|orphaned afd]] (which I didn't list); apparently a request for selective deletion of vandalized revisions. No idea if it's warranted; my lunch is ending and I don't have time to look into it. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 15:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
==Dealing with vandalism==
If you see any vandalism, copy it into here:
[[User:Sunfazer/Vandalism]]
:- and quote the user who did it! The page is an archive of various vandalism types, and is useful for the CVU. --[[User:Sunfazer|Sunfazer]] 15:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::''That'' is going to be a big page. If you're looking for a way to collect records of vandalism, you can collect a bunch quite quickly by watching Recent Changes for admin reverts. (Look for any edits with the summary ''Reverted edits by JoeBlow(talk) to last version by JohnSmith.'') The preceding edit(s) are almost always vandalism or user tests; check to be sure. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It's for the [[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit|CVU]] to see examples of persistent vandals. --[[User:Sunfazer|Sunfazer]] 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Try watching the block log, too—there's usually a good supply of vandals there. Running through the list of old ArbCom cases would also give you some hits. Are you looking for persistent vandals who haven't been blocked...? I'm curious about the ultimate purpose and use(fulness) of the list. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 18:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:I think CVU should be able to recognise vandals by now. If not, one must wonder what on Earth they think they've been doing all this time ... [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 18:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Oh few examples are ok, hence the word ''example''. You do not need to log all vandalism. There are plenty examples generated in the past 60 seconds at any given time. CVU ment to lure more people to RC patrol and assist them in identifying vandalism. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not for routine vandalism.... but '''''wacky''''' vandalism! --[[User:Sunfazer|Sunfazer]] 21:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
== Thanks for all the hard work ==
I, as a returning student trying to finish my degree, BA, have come to rely upon your web site for relevant info for topics of discussion at school,
[['''So A Big Thanks For All Your Hard Work!!!''']]
What, may I inquire, is ''this'' doing here..? -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 21:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
=={{Vandal|MARMOT}}==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj&curid=3554293&diff=33613609&oldid=33505684 Such] behavior is generaly adequate for a block as it falls under trolling. Do not begin about it being 'minor'. Similar behavior is visible on his contributions. He is supposed to be on his best behaviour, he should be making an effort to at least try to be an exemplory editor for people like me to even consider "forgiving" his earlier behaviour.
He has shown ''great'' improvement over the time since he has been unblocked. We did not have vandal bots causing havoc. I guess one can call that improvement. People should write vandal bots and then be forgiven. No one minds their 'minnor' annoyance otherwise would get them blocked.
Why do wikipedians such as myself as well as many others have to tollerate the nonsense he posts here and there every so often?
--<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
* You don't. Just don't read his comments. Quite simple, really. -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
**If his comments arent worth reading I do not see why he should be allowed to contribute, this guy vandalised my userpage over 400 times (nonstop with vnadalbots 5 waves) alove --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
== Bad article, undisputed because of big following - Sockpuppets? What to do? ==
Could somebody help me here? I found an article that seems to defy any definition of a "good article" (it's extremely biased, outragious claims are made, and the sources used to back up those claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets that are blown up out of proportion to make the subject sound like the second coming of the christ). So far, so easy, but there is a devoted following of wikipedia users that seems to prevent any sensible editing or removal of the article. What should I do? Article here: [[Aladin]]. Is there a way to look for sockpuppets in the article history and the currently running vote for deletion ([[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aladin|here]])? Any help (and votes) would be greatly appreciated, thank you. [[User:Peter S.|Peter S.]] 21:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Well, you've listed it in AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aladin|here]], and an overwhelming number of editors, with no prior relation with the editing of the article, have voted for Strong keep (10 keep and strong keeps vs your single delete vote). Just because you have been thoroughly defeated in your nomination doesn't mean you have to go after the voters. And also, I strongly object to your accusation of the word '''sockpuppet''' here, people have voted according to their own judgement, which CAN go against your nomination. What you can do is to refrain from false accusations and [[WP:NPA|Personal attacks]] like this. Thanks. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 21:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:: Well I've never heard of him - but I'm not into magic. I don't think having worked for the GLA is worthy of a wikipedia article - and he took time out from his magic career to do that so he's not that great a magician. I smell a rat tbh. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::That's why we have [[WP:AFD|AfD]]. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 22:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::::*Indeed we have, we are in the middle of it. [[User:Peter S.|Peter S.]] 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:*Hi Ragib, you see I was *asking _if_* there are sockpuppets there. I never did any accusations, that's solely your interpretation. Like Secretlondon, I really smell a rat here. [[User:Peter S.|Peter S.]] 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::You can check out the contributions of the users. Sockpuppets tend to be created solely for ballot stuffing. Lack of contribution histories indicated the existence of sockpuppets. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::*Actually, there are some forms of sockpuppet-checking that are reserved for administrators ([[WP:SOCK]]: "If there is doubt, a developer or checkuser user can check to see whether accounts are related"), which is what I was requesting, amongst other things. I'm sorry if my writing induced disrespect in you, I didn't mean no harm, as long as we both try to make wikipedia a better place. [[User:Peter S.|Peter S.]] 22:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::mCheckuser is only available to ArbCom members, and used sparingly to protect user privacy. As I said, usually, the lack of prior contributions is the first way to detect sockpuppets. Thanks. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe nominating it for deletion was not the best way to deal with the nauseatingly promotional text. Why not try making the tone encyclopedic, paragraph by painful paragraph? It might actually make it better, or at least will force his devotees to admit their inability to recognize and reject blatant advertising material. [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:*Hi, that's what I tried in the past 3 months - didn't work out (check the talk page and the history). But then again, if you remove all the promo-stuff, all that is left is an article about a unnotable person (abstract of aladin: he performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the City of London, that's all), so that's the reason why I nominated the article for deletion. [[User:Peter S.|Peter S.]] 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
**Or a dude who was International Magician of The year 1991 [http://insidemagic.com/printer_515.shtml] but I've mentioned this on the delete page. All the users who have taken part can't all be sock-puppets. [[User:Englishrose|Englishrose]] 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::*Englishrose, the organisation behind "International Magician of The year" doesn't even have a website, how notable can this award be? There are thousands of such smallish awards with grandiose names. Bottom line is, Aladin performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the London gov, so I really really can't see how he's notable. [[User:Peter S.|Peter S.]] 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::*[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22International+Magician+of+the+Year%22&meta=] Over a 1k google hits for the phrase. But this needs to be mentioned on the afd page. Lots of others disagree with you. By all means check if they're sock-puppets but if they're not then let the vote stand. [[User:Englishrose|Englishrose]] 23:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*That's more like 123 hits: [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22International+Magician+of+the+Year%22&hl=en&lr=&start=130&sa=N] Google is very bad at estimating hit numbers for rarely asked queries. Compare those 123 hits to Academy awards [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22academy+awards%22], where you get 4+ million hits, and it's obvious that "International Magician of The year" is a very small show. And as I said, there is not even a website for it. I cannot see how he is notable, sorry. [[User:Peter S.|Peter S.]] 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me point out that many of the claims in notability in the article are highly deceptive. It, for example, quotes Inside Magic as having called him all sorts of great things, but actually reading the source shows that the editor of that publication had never even heard of the guy and was simply quoting a student newspaper, one that may have gotten information wrong or simply quoted from a press release supplied by the guy himself. The article in Inside MAgic was polite, but questioned the qaccuracy of one of the claims that magician made (to having allegedly quitting a society that didn't admit women, when he knows several women in the society). This whole article stinks to high heaven. Google results on this guy are practically nonexistent. There is no evidence of this person having ever actually won an award other than third hand info and the guy's own self-promotion, and the award certainly is not very ntoable in the field.
We need more editors to take a look at it, as it looks like a combination of spam/hoax going on here. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 23:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
: The guy seems like an indefatigable self-promoter, but he IS featured in an up-coming National Geographic television feature [http://www.ngcasia.com/watch/SeriesSchedule.asp?Seriesid=385]. I don't think they would have featured him if he were a complete hoaxer. Just clean up the article and don't try to delete, OK? If he's going to be on TV, people are going to be looking for him on Wikipedia. So, let them get a straight look without hype. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 23:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:*TV stations have been duped before, Zora. Your linked program is about refugees, he was portrayed as a refugee. There are 100+ Million refugees in the world, not every one of those needs a wikipedia page (although they need shelter, food, money, peace and justice restored). The article claims "He performs from bombay to las vegas and has appeared on National Geographic", which is clearly a misleading statement. As I said before, once you cut through all the promo language, you end up with a boring person that doesn't warrant an entry in the wikipedia. Those are my reasons for delete. [[User:Peter S.|Peter S.]] 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::*Any admin able to tune into this station and watch the program? Would come in helpful to settle the argument. [[User:Englishrose|Englishrose]] 23:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*Aren't you convinced by reading the summary on that website? The description clearly doesn't state "Tonight appearing: Aladin, the great magician". It talks about refugees, and refugees only. [[User:Peter S.|Peter S.]] 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of everything else said above, I'm concerned about this issue because 30 hours after Peter S. listed this article on AfD, the discussion was closed as a "'''Speedy keep'''". Aren't we supposed to keep these debates open for seven days? Doing so would not harm the article (it's not going to be deleted ''until'' it gets a lot more votes for that). I just heard about this article, & I feel that this premature closure of the matter will only harm this discussion over the article, & lead to another listing on AfD almost immediately! -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:Delonnette]] ==
Is repeatedly inserting unformatted images into articles, despite requests from other users to read the appropriate tutorial pages, considered vandalism? Because that is exactly what {{Vandal|Delonnette}} is doing. Note that he/she has been asked countless times to provide source and copyright information for the images that he/she uploads, and continues to upload unsourced images and dump them unformatted into the article namespace. He/she has already been blocked for vandalism, previously uploaded unsourced images and violating the 3RR on {{article|Michelle Ryan}}, and has only left one comment on his/her talk page (a response to why she uploaded identical images under different filenames). What do the policies and guidelines say about this type of behaviour? [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] 23:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Inserting unformatted into articles, isn't really a problem, but repeatedly uploading images without copyright tags is. I've come across this behaviour before with another user about a year ago. I don't think there are any definite policy guidlines on it. In the end we had to use common sense and simply delete any untagged image as soon as it was uploaded. It was the onl7y way to get the message through. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 23:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Per the warning Extraordinary Machine gave on Delonnette's talk page, I'd suggest waiting two days for source information on the noted images, then delete them if none is forthcoming. In line with Theresa's comment above, I'd say that any additional unsourced uploads should be shot on sight until the user gets the hint. (If ''that'' doesn't work, then escalating blocks may need to be applied; I hope it doesn't come to that.) [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 23:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Jimbo has said, not too long ago, that it's OK to block users who are uploading unsourced images repeatedly even after warning. This is a real threat to the project and must be stopped. As far as unformatted, just fix it. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] <sub>.</sub> <small>o</small> º<sup> O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]])</sup> 00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
:I've been watching this user closely and trying to communicate with them, and get the distinct impression from their edits and uploads that they are quite young and probably don't fully understand the ramifications of what they're repeatedly doing. I think any future communication with this user needs to bear that in mind. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
::If you block them. They may very well simply come back under another username. Whereas if you delete their "work" they will probably get the message. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
:::This hasn't worked in the past: on at least two occasions in the last month I have had cause to delete a whole load of images uploaded by this user that had been tagged appropriately and not actioned. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm not suggesting tagging them for deletion.I'm suggesting deleting the moment they are uploaded and then going to her talk page and stating that you did it and will do it again and again until she either stops uploading or starts tagging the images correctly. 00:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Hollow Wilerding]]==
I have blocked her indefinitely for repeated block evasion, sockpuppetry, disruption, personal attacks, and the whole general "Don't be a detriment to the project" package we do occasionally. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:Don't forget the legal threats [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hollow_Wilerding&diff=33654980&oldid=33654177]. I support this. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
| 