Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive22

Why are these facts not allowed on the Bigfoot article ?

1. People will shoot at anyone,anything that is considered a threat. 2. Hoaxing a Bigfoot is not only a criminal offense, it can get the hoaxer killed. 3. Some people, especially those in Rural areas, don't like intruders and will kill them. 4. Three of the crimes committed by the hoaxer are Felonies. 5. Several states in the United States allow the landowner to kill tresspassers.

This has been removed by User:Dreamguy as being "nonsense", worse.

Any regulations exist that do NOT allow this ? I'm NOT trying to prove, nor trying to disprove the existance of this creature, just stating these verifiable facts. Martial Law 07:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So long as sources outlining the above are cited, that's fine. Policy tends to encourage the verifiable rather than the truth (Original research could, of course, end up being true). But all of that belongs on the article's talk page, not here. El_C 07:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you may also wish to place a notice at WP:RFC/SOC. El_C 07:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't cite specific police related incidents, since in the case of a Bigfoot hoax shooting, who wants to report that they've been shot committing at least 3 felonies, several misdemeanor offenses ?

Who answers these questions on WP:RFC/SOC ? Martial Law 08:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That page is designed for content disputes. Many editors have it on their watchlists or browse the page occasionally — they are the ones who read and respond to notices placed there (meaning, they respond on the respective article's talk page, and so on). Hope that helps. El_C 08:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Appreciate the info. Martial Law 10:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

These sort of questoins should be directed to the talk page of the article in question.... and were, and were answered there... the things you listed above are unverified, original research and biased. You can;t just assume rural people will shoot people and then try to justify that as a rationalization for why you think nobody hoaxes Bigfoot sightings, as that's a non-sequitar and wholly inappropriate. It's bad enough that you ignored explanations on Talk:Bigfoot and also my talk page (until I had to tell you to stop posting there for filling it up with the same questions and comments you already put on Talk:Bigfoot), but you shouldn;t be putting that kind of stuff here also. Stop wasting everyone's time with the same questions you didn;t pay attention to the answers to the first time around on. DreamGuy 03:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain why this was removed. According to the guidelines, significant deaths should be included. This is an extremely significant death in Australia. I have reverted, but as noone bothered to note why it was reverted on the talk page I'm posting a comment here in the fond hope that someone will be able to answer why it was reverted. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, it appears that Australia is not counted as significant enough in the global scheme of things. It will be interesting to see what happens to WP:ITN when Ted Turner dies. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, that was a pretty stupid thing for me to say. However, the whole rule that notable people who die should not be listed is pretty stupid, really. I'll leave THAT topic for the talk page of WP:ITN, however, as it's not appropriate for here. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It does look, in this specific instance, to be a good faith "no obit" revert. That said, I agree with what you struck out — that is, I agree with what you said, and I also think it was pretty petulant and you were right to strike it out :-). I wasn't aware of any "no obit" rule (given that I don't pay much attention to ITN, except to complain occasionally), but it's quite reasonable to have one. However, we've all seen extremely minor incidents in the USA given "airplay" while events of great importance elsewhere in the world were kept off the front page, and at first blush this looked like yet another case. It will be interesting to see what happens when Ted Turner dies ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ted Turner died in 1992. A robot has taken over his shell of a body. Ral315 (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But will we note it at ITN when the robot finally breaks down? :)--Sean|Black 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if we have a source. ;) --Syrthiss 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot find how to go about deleting a particular edit of an article, though I believe I've seen policy that says it's justified in this case; an anonymous editor posted what is purported to be a celebrity's personal cellphone number. It's been reverted but should not stay in the database and edit history, IMHO. Even if it's not really the number of the person it purports to be – it could be a prank to harass a third party with a lot of calls. If it's agreed here that it is justified to remove the edit, and if this is something that an admin can do instead of needing a bureaucrat or higher, I'll do it if pointed to the procedure; I'd just as soon not publicize the page and therefore the phone number here. — Kbh3^rdtalk 20:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found the procedure, where it states, "Situations where such a selective deletion might be warranted include copyright violations that occur only in certain revisions, or personally identifying information that has been deemed inappropriate by consensus." I'll take a couple of affirmative responses here as a consensus. — Kbh3^rdtalk 20:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm good with the removal of the cellphone number from the edit. --Syrthiss 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that as a consensus. ;-> I think that this is clearly the proper thing to do in this instance. I've removed the offending edit from the Ricky Ullman article. — Kbh3^rdtalk 21:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I do believe we have policy, or at least precedent, against inclusion of personal contact information, and for removing it from articles and history. Seconded. Radiant_>|< 22:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

From his page it's evident he's very much a staunch Irish Republican - I reverted his removal of "Ulster" from the {{User Ulster Unionist}} template as vandalism a week ago.

Now I have a message on my talk page from him with hate speech including a very nasty comment saying I "must have" sand in my vagina for disagreeing with him and calling me a "fuck up". -_-

Please, please, block him, or at least warn him.. Though I doubt he cares about the rules against no personal attacks if he knows he can get away with it anyway. :¦ --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just looking at his contributions and noticed, well, there aren't any.

• Special:Contributions/Anti-establishment

It seems he makes all his edits with account Escobar600ie:

• Special:Contributions/Escobar600ie

I guess this may be to make seeing his contributions harder, to confuse new editors or have a spare sockpuppet account in case his main one gets blocked. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He just removed "Ulster" from {{User Ulster Unionist}} again. It's obvious he has bad intentions here. I reverted him again but I bet he carries this on in a revert war.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Provide the diff please. You just reverted what appears to be a completely different user. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

They're both the same user and he admits this as no secret: User:Escobar600ie&action=history., that's not the issue here. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No. The change you reverted was from User:Andux.--Syrthiss 20:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No. You're wrong. The most recent one was though, I agree there, I made a mistake and misread who the editor was, thinking it was Escobar600ie/"Anti-establishment" again. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the one we were both talking about. Anyway he is being watched, Hopefully this one will resolve itself. We'll just keep an eye on things Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And as for your comment "WTF does sand in the vagina mean", it's a phrase originating from American slang, it's used commonly by femalehating males to mean "female who stands up to men", basically - and is pretty much accepted as misogynist except by the men that use it. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like he's also redirecting his user and user talk pages to ones of a user (Anti-establishment (talk · contribs)) which simply does not exist. IIRC that's generally frowned upon unless the target user exists and is the same person. --cesarb 20:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I warned him on the anti establishment talk page against NPA, and will try to keep an eye on him. --Syrthiss 20:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith here. I reckon he just wants to change his user name. I've advised him how to do it. Let's see how he responds. As for Mistress Selina. I'm not sure his intentions are bad. Perhaps he has a reason for removing the ulster from ulster unionist? And we don't block straight off for personal attacks even if they do mention rude bits. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can see why the actual Unionist edit might have been made. Ulster Unionist Party is just one party, but the link was to Unionist (Ireland), which could also includes supporters of the Democratic Unionist Party. Morwen - Talk 20:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bleh, I guess.. It's not really about the party though, not like for example the template for Green Party membership, it's about whether they believe in Ulster being in the Union or not. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Are there other parts of Northern Ireland apart from Ulster that a unionist might also include but an Ulster Unionist might not? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, as Ulster includes the entire Northern Ireland. Historically, though, there were unionists in the rest of Ireland, though they are now a tiny tiny minority. However, the point is that "Ulster Unionist" is a name of a political party, and is never used as the name of the generic movement, and DUP supporters would find the term strongly objectionable. The edit in the first place was good - the reaction to the reversion was very bad though. Morwen - Talk 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Political parties always have to ruin perfectly good words. Grrr. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but an administrator may want to take a look at this page. There have been several edits to this page blanking it or requesting it be taken down by the supposed parent of the child/the the person themseves saying Wikipedia doesn't have the right to have a page on her because she is a minor. I am no expert in law (yet), but as far as I know the info on her page qualifies her as a public figure which means it is perfectly acceptable to have a page on it, but someone should look at it nonetheless. An example is this edit and this edit. I think the second link is probably vandalism but the first looks like the user has made some helpful contributions which is the only reason that makes me think they might be serious. VegaDark 22:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well its a straight copyvio from the play website. Whether she is a good enough actor to qualify for an article I don't know. Secretlondon 22:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't notice that. I don't know if she qualifies as notable enough for an article either, I wouldn't be opposed to it being deleted via NN. I'd say it's borderline. That wasn't why I mentioned it here though. VegaDark 23:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see a comment from anyone at Wikimedia Foundation as to whether they have indeed received any legal documents regarding this, or comment from one of our lawyer admins as to their interpretation (assuming there are indeed such laws). The page can be rewritten to avoid copyvio, if consensus holds that it is a notable subject (if brought to afd), but until we have someone from either of my two cases above commenting I'd say the article stays...and that blankings should be treated as vandalism. I'd put a note on the talk page though reminding blankers not to blank. My armchair interpretation is that a minor who has starred in broadway plays and on tv is a public figure. Her name obviously appears on playbills for the play, and a name is quite different than personal information like address, SSN, or whatever. --Syrthiss 14:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:RPJ is obviously very interested and has a certain POV on this subject. I reverted most of his changes to the article, and reinserted his CIA addition. I don't think this will go over too well, but I did say my piece on RPJ's user talk, and on the article talk. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For disruptive edits (multiple removals of the {{rejected}} tag), Zen-master has been banned from editing Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights until 13 January 2006 (per terms of his probation). He may still edit the talk page. Carbonite | Talk 15:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Bobblewik has spent the last few days engaging in a rather prodigious one-$GENDER_SIGNIFIER crusade against years (and related items) which are wikilinked. I noticed this this morning when he/she edited Beer to remove all the wikilinking from years (and related items) in the article, e.g [[1067]] → 1067; [[800s]] → 800s; [[18th century]] → 18th century; etc. This change (a rather extensive one for an article the size of Beer) was flagged as a "minor" edit, and was accompanied by the wholly misleading edit summary "AWB Assisted cleanup". [1]

Looking over Bobblewik's contributions for the past few days, it seems that this is an ongoing issue. As near as I can tell, a significant chunk (and possibly even a majority) of the last 5000 edits (at least — I stopped counting after clicking "Next 500" 10 or so times) from this user involves imposing his/her particular view of what constitutes "overlinking" onto a plethora of articles.

The user is a long-term contributor, so I'm pretty firmly convinced that a block of any kind would be unreasonable, especially for such a nebulous infraction. But, on the other hand, this crusade to de-link years (and months and days) from articles seems to be a very close cousin to similar style crusades we've seen elsewhere, e.g. the ongoing footnote format shitfest between SEWilco and William McConnelly, or the ongoing BCE/CE vs. BC/AD contretemps. So I figured a notification here was in order. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a tricky question, and surely one that it would be "better" to have policy on than to arbitrarily change articles over. That being said, some of our articles are overly wikilinked, particularly to dates. The style rule I remember reading, which seems to be not honored, generally, is that one should only wikilink a year if it would be appropriate (and encyclopedic) for the given article to appear in the list of events that happened in that year. So it would make sense for 1066 to be wikilinked in the William the Conqueror article, but not to link it in the Beer article in a sentence like "...and in 1066, William the Conqueror drank a pint of beer to celebrate his victory." Nandesuka 15:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not understanding the harm done by linking single years within an article. I have certainly found such links enjoyable, useful, and edifying in my wikipedia tenure, and cannot fathom what makes them so damaging that they must be eliminated. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue is that when too many things are linked, it can make an article unreadable. That's the general principle I believe he is following. See the style guide Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context. Nandesuka 16:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that. However, I do not personally believe that linking individual years qualifies as "overlinking." See also: Slippery slope. That said, if I am in an obvious minority, I will withdraw my complaint and revert Beer back to the state of unlinked years. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That reminds me that I need to create a redirect from That's to That's. --Syrthiss 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I also understand that, but there is no harm in linking years. I've never understood why we delink them. Who came up with this guideline? Where is it written? Was there consensus to do this? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

One problem is that editors tend to overlink single years in an article. This leads to clutter and makes the relevant links stand out less. I agree with the Manual of Style, which states (about single years) "Generally, do not link, unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic." Carbonite | Talk 16:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He is applying the manual of style guidlines, and is being careful not to de-link dates that affect date preferences, he has a enough of support to do this. I note that when you reverted his changes User:ClockworkSoul reverted back to him, which you then promptly reverted again, and as he is following guidlines, in my book that makes you the style crusader. Martin 16:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Linking single years was standard style for a long time, well before user date-preferences appeared, and in fact was one argument for keeping "number" articles as referring to years (rather than the numbers themselves). The idea was probably to evenually allow the collection of some kind of meta-data /year indexing. I've no idea when the changes to the MoS were made that depreciated this, but I for one didn't know the changes were made, and have been following the old style. --Bob Mellish 16:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I remember seeing someone put in the dates into the Windows 2000 article, and they looked bloody awful, and almost killed the flow of text. IMO, it is worse to put in the user defined dates than it is to wikilinks dates! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I also support the removal of linked stand-alone months and years, because they're pointless (like wikifying the), and the overwikification makes pages hard to read. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a few things to clean up here. Firstly, Bobblewik is not actually removing them himself, he's using a bot to do it. And because it's an automated procedure, it removes wikilinked dates which are in useful places, such as in image captions, and in list tables. The dates there are highly relevant to the section and shouldn't be removed. I fail to see how it compares at all to wikifying the word "the". That is absolutely a straw man. No one's arguing to wikify every single word in a sentence, so please don't try and pidgeonhole people's comments in a box that small.

I'm also interested how overwikification makes pages hard to read. As far as I can tell links appear in blue rather than black if they are linked. This is a contextual encyclopedia taking advantage of the entire point of the web - links! If you don't like the way the links appear, maybe you should change your preferences. It's better to overlink than underlink in a website like this. I hate it when I'm reading a paragraph which is expanding on a point mentioned earlier and nothing is linked because someone has argued that it's "already been linked" a couple of screens up, so I can't go and get context about a concept. Remember, this is an encyclopedia for the readers' benefit - if we provide context, it helps more than if we don't.

Removing excess wikilinks from overlinked text is fine. But it's not something which should be automated, and I can't imagine that Bobblewik is spending time making sure that the bot he's using is not removing links where having it is useful at the rate his edits are being made. Spending time "enforcing" the Manual of Style's suggestions on date linking seems to me to be a complete waste with little benefit and there are lots more important things to help out with. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You just keep saying it shouldn't be automated without saying why not, and you've been asked several times. Can you answer please: what is the bot doing that a human being who was following the MoS would not do, apart from being faster? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Failing to exercise discretion. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But in what kind of situation, Kelly? I can't imagine when linking to 1999 will be informative, and if there really is something special about that year that's relevant to the article, it should be spelled out as part of the text. I hope Talrias will give just one example of when a bot would get it wrong but a human being wouldn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I routinely click on wikilinked years. I have certainly found such links enjoyable, useful, and edifying in my time here at Wikipedia, both as a casual reader and as an active editor. Yes, even 1999. Did you know that the Euro was introduced on January 1, 1999? I didn't, until I clicked that link. Please do not assume that since you find them useless, everyone else will (or should) find them useless as well. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 09:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You are fundamentally wrong, it is not a bot, it is a semi automated process, he checks every single edit before posting it. Martin 11:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that is possible. Looking through his contributions he is making, in some cases, 6 edits a minute. He could make a cursory glance at the changes the bot has made, sure, but I don't think that he can consider each bot's changes properly at all. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read some of the above and with the differing of opinions I think he should be asked to stop for the time being at least. I am worried about removing links from succession boxes, the ( ) containing a person's birth, image captions and other offset places like those. Those places don't ruin the flow of the article and the links have use. If we can assure that those won't be removed I'd be happy but I think before anyone starts wholesale change it needs more discussion. Like with British English vs. American English words an article should stay as it was originally created until a fully explanatory policy is made. gren グレン 04:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well there is a policy which bobblewik is following, but it is fair enough to re-affirm it I suppose. If you see Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please? where bobblewik has asked for a bot to do the job, there is strong support for the task to be automated, and all but a couple who opposed this (including myself) only did so on the basis that it should not be totally automated. Martin 11:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As I suggested before, it might be useful to divide complaints into those about:

• Manual of Style guidance
• edits consistent with the Manual of Style.

For example, Talrias complained about the removal of spaces in headings. He also suggested that dates in captions must have links. グレン suggests that links are required in succession boxes and birthdates. yakkity yak describes a scenario involving the euro and "1999" although it is not clear if this was relevant to the article, perhaps the suggestion is that there is insufficient understanding of the term 'relevance' in the Manual. These are all plausible criticisms of conventions used and promoted by the Manual of Style. There are many editors that act in accordance with the Manual of Style. If the Manual is changed, I am sure their actions would change accordingly. The talk page of the Manual of Style is the place to debate such things. I don't know why we are debating it here. Bobblewik 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that it should be done manually or the bot should be tweaked. Using a bot has led to edits like the current one on harvest moon. January was delinked but every other month is linked. -- Kjkolb 15:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has amended its ruling in Everyking 3 to include the following provision:

Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Wikipedia. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year.

Any adminstrator, other than Snowspinner, may enforce this provision. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on enforcement requested?--Tznkai 02:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is. We generally announce both there and here. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking for Kelly, which I'm positive will greatly please her, Phil should'nt be interacting with James, either. Not to imply he so intends. El_C 02:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom has not seen fit to so order. Kindly refrain from speaking on my behalf; I'm quite capable of speaking for myself. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I will not so kindly refrain! But I did not mean that as an order on your part, more like an advise to keep the peace in one piece. El_C 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What does that mean? You will not refrain or you will refrain but not do it in a kindly manner? And "peace in one piece" ? sounds like wiered verse to me - are you going all poetic? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its an overly clever way of saying everyone should shut the fuck up and stay out of everyone's way.--Tznkai 02:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I'm not very funny. :( El_C 02:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny in a clever sort of why. As opposed to funny in a stupid way which is what I aim for. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn03:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I assure you that I was aiming for stupidity! El_C 03:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

But try as you might, you never quite get there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thx! I am so smart, s-m-r-t! So, once I become a member, where do I pick my free drugs? El_C 08:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You are, the situation just manages to suck the fun out of it like a... I'd better not say anything--Tznkai 02:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I cut back El_C's dosage too much too soon... /me hands out free drugs to everyone. Tomer^talk 03:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's stop worrying about this now. Instead, let us now think instead of pancakes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, pancakes (are deliciousness!); anything to deflect attention from my vandalism correction of User_Free drugs!. Phew. El_C 03:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I love pancakes, but these are too small and the one on the top left is slightly burned. Are you sick of christmus yet because I still have some pud left over. It doesn't look like this - looks more like a dollop with a few nuts on a plate. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 03:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to make pancakes this weekend, if for no reason other than get a better picture than that one. Burned pancakes, poor composition, and poor lighting. Geez, people. Whatever happened to our quest for quality? Kelly Martin (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, you people are Not Sound on the issue of French Toast. In any case, yet another application of David Gerard's ArbCom Principle: "No, you can't do that, either." --Calton | Talk 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ruh-roh. Will this new ruling affect my ability to participate in dispute resolution with Snowspinner? At present I am planning on an Arb case against him. Everyking 05:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 05:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. Who's mad at who now? --Deathphoenix 03:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm mad at the people who foisted artificial-maple-flavored corn syrup-based "pancake syrup" as a substitute for real Canadian Grade-B Dark maple syrup. Years of my childhood, wasted, I tell you, WASTED. --Calton | Talk 05:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer Grade-A Light Amber, myself. --Carnildo 07:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What, no waffles? What's wrong with you people? :)--Sean|Black 07:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

El C hints at yet another problem here: why isn't there an equal standard? Why does it only apply to me? Everyking 05:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would assume because you have been judged by those who have something resembling perspective on the situation to be more likley to cause trouble and/or have a history of doing the same.--Tznkai 07:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. And who do you suppose instigated all this between us? Can you tell me the basis for all of it, what factors have caused our dispute to develop? Or one of these people with perspective could do it? How did it start, and what are the driving forces for it continuing? Who is generally on the offensive, and who is generally on the defensive? Everyking 07:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Answers for Everyking: You; Ashlee Simpson and Snowspinner's role in the RfAr that wrested control of the article away from you; Your utter lack of perspective and over-large sense of entitlement; No idea; See answer #2; You; You and Snowspinner, respectively. Hope that clears things up. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I in fact have not reviewed all the evidence at hand, but I would suggest this discussion is likley to make anything better for you, for him, or for the project. As an aside, I don't think it matters generally, or to most people, and especially to most adminstrators that it matters who started it, only that it happens and continues to happen.--Tznkai 07:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose, then, that you're saying the mere fact of the dispute indicts both participants equally. Shouldn't there thus be equal penalties imposed on both sides, then, if we're going to be just according to this line of logic? Everyking 08:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying you're wasting our time pursuing this, and that it doesn't matter who started it. Equal penalties exist for equal offenses, and unequal penalties for unequal offenses. This in no way implies that ignoring who started what automatically makes the offenses commited in the exchange equal. I do not know the specifics, so I can't judge in specific, but I understand the general guidelines.--Tznkai 08:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That is what is known as a fallacy. Perhaps, while both you and Phil have both shown poor judgment in continuing this affair, you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no self control in the matter, whereas Snowspinner's actions have not warranted such exteme measures. Participation in a dispute, even fault, does not necessarily equal arbcom restrictions, but your actions do. Dmcdevit·t 08:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that comments by Snowspinner towards you (trying to incite a comment from you) would be a similarly blockable offense. I'd interpret the ArbCom decision to give admins (not Everyking of course) the authority to make such blocks. Broken S 08:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose, then, that you're saying the mere fact of the dispute indicts both participants equally. Nice bit of chop-logic. How about, the mere fact you've been "singled out" -- multiple times, with no real opposition inside or outside ArbCom, over the last year -- indicates that the problem lies largely with you? Occam's Razor, least number of assumptions, yada yada. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I hinted on reciprocal conduct, not equale penalties - I consider that an absurdity in the face of the evidence. El_C 08:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we please redirect the discussion back to something other than a platform for rehashing the Ek/Ss dispute? I recommend returning to free drugs and pancakes, and would like to point out that it's the pancake in the upper right, not the upper left, that's burned...although, in Matrix parlance, perhaps it should be stated that it's the pancake in the upper other left that's burnt... Tomer^talk 14:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't get the matrix reference (I've only seen the film once and that was ages ago, don't all gasp at once, i've seen all the LOTR, and read the book, seen war games, seen all the hitchhikers tv episodes and the film and read all the book, read dozens of discworlds - so I'm safe) but obviosly I was talking about the gremlins point of view. Hey! GPOV to replace NPOV whole join me in drafting a policy proposal? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but what's GPOV? Gremlin point of view? Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hugely insignificant spoiler warning!

Neo is directed, while in the Matrix, to go thru a door to his left, whereupon he tries the door on his right, prompting Trinity to yell "Your other left!!!"

Actually, it was Tank, not Trinity. God, am I that big a geek? --Calton | Talk 06:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

apparently :-) Tomer^talk 08:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

End big huge irrelevant spoiler!!! Tomer^talk 19:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I listed this for deletion, I expect vandals to remove or change votes. Can you guys whatch this one? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you please watch this closely? Also consider locking the category page as a user is removing the tags. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, newbie admin here. I speedied Paul Preissner then saw in the undelete logs that this article has been deleted three times since December 24 (once in December 24, twice today). Is this a candidate for {{deletedpage}} protection? --Deathphoenix 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact it was protected at 17:08 by Bratsche, so yes. :) --Syrthiss 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Most excellent. :-) --Deathphoenix 18:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents here: on the whole, use your own judgement: if you think that the page will continue to be re-created as nonsense, use the template and protect. If not, don't. (Pardon if that was a bit confusing...) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just remember to add it to the list at WP:PP. --cesarb 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And the other thing is that you need to add the deletedpage template and then protect the article. At first, I forgot that second part. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have received a number of messages from Admins and legal experts on the German Wikipedia warning me that the English Wikipedia is potentially violating German copyright laws with a number of its images and photographs. We have an automatically inserted Template (Template:GermanGov) that is currently undergoing a minor revert war about its language. The German users also argue that any images that do not clearly fall into the public domain should be probably be deleted. Many of these images come from the Nazi era and have some important utility however -- Nazi propaganda, WW2 photographs, and there may be different interpretations about the legal use of these materials in the United States and other countries. This seems like an important long-term issue that should be resolved (and perhaps a precedent has already been made and forgotten). Tfine80 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

While we must respect German copyrights, we are not required to respect the specifics of German copyright law, are we? The English Wikipedia is subject only to American and Florida law, IIRC. Some pediae choose to be stricter (Japanese). --Golbez 21:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You have to respect the copyright on works of authors from other countries in the same way it protects the copyright of its own nationals (Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works). --ST ○ 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That convention means that the protection offered by a signing country to work copyrighted in another signing country must generally get the same protection that native work does, not that foreign work must be protected in the same way that the foreign law would. There are also minimumn requirements, such as the Life+50 years term. (IANAL, but I do know something about copyright law). If there is a serious question as to whether we are or might be in violation of German law, a lawyer should be consulted. If this is a question of policy, I don't think we on the en wikipedia need to comply with the very specific restrictions in gernan law. Many of the images described above probably qualify for fair-use under US law, some may be PD. Of courxe, this must be considered case-by-case. DES ^(talk) 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why it needs to be established that each work is actually public domain in the United States. This hasn't been done in this case. This is different from some of the exceptions and issues we are familiar with regarding written work because many of these photos are only 60 years old. And no one is suggesting that every work by the German government is public domain in the United States if it is not in Germany. Tfine80 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the point. You can't treat the rights of german people by using US-law on that. PD means, this work is free all over the world, but it isn't. Lichtbildwerke are protected 70 years p.m.a. in the EU. --ST ○ 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The template says that there are pictures which are Public Domain according German Law. Right? We deny that there is really a single picture which falls under this exception. This has nothing to do with oru policy and the place of the servers. If en whishes to keep the pictures please tag them in another way! --Historiograf 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that. If you want to keep the pictures because they are PD or fair use according to US law, then tag them accordingly, but don't claim they are PD according to German law, because they are not. The current text in the template is a travesty - first it says this is a copyrighted picture, then it goes on to cite § 5 (2) UrhG, which says that Amtliche Werke (official works) are not copyrighted, but gemeinfrei (in the Public Domain). --Rosenzweig 09:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Making the hypothetical assumption that the images are going to remain on WP, and they are going to be tagged "GermanGov", what should GermanGov say? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we get some admins to sort through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Izehar 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've added {{backlog}}. But it's not that bad, only 43 articles. Radiant_>|< 22:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Woohoo! All cleaned out! Beer for everyone! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    

• 43? That's nothin'. :-) android79 23:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if this is the wrong page for this. I'd been having a fairly heated discussion on the France:talk page with this guy (about whether or not France won WWII), only to find that he'd gone to a page I've contributed heavily to (Kosovo) and reverted a whole load of revisions, referring to them as vandalism (check out the Kosovo:history page). The discussion section on his user page seems to sum up his approach. Thanks for listening! JDancer 00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This one guy keeps adding a link to Keira Knightley that everyone else keeps taking out. Maybe some admins should deal with it. Cookiecaper 04:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done my three reverts for the day. Someone else will need to take over. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Semiprotected. I have created {{semiprot}} to deal with that - or do we have other templates already? Radiant_>|< 10:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • {{sprotected}} is the one that's being used. I've redirected yours to it. Ral315 (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks Radiant. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 11:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Node ue deleted valid references

Vandal node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) strikes again. Now is not only Moldovan language or Moldovans or Moldova but Transnistria. He constantly deletes valid sources and references. Just look at Admin Ambi's description of node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [[2]] cite "I don't doubt that node has a strong agenda here".

To Moldova this [3] is for him minor changes. He deletes an example of the constitution of Moldova. That's official document. -- Bonaparte talk 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo deleted valid definition and makes revert war

Vandal ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted valid definition and makes revert war on Anti-Romanian discrimination . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Romanian_discrimination&diff=33243234&oldid=33243173 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Romanian_discrimination&diff=33243430&oldid=33243295 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Romanian_discrimination&diff=next&oldid=33243544 . Someone block the page or the user. -- Bonaparte talk 12:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

New defamation? Haven't you been blocked enough for this sort of delations? Go away, troll. --Ghirla | talk 12:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"This piece of trash" ???? this is what you Ghirla said??? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Izehar&diff=next&oldid=33244436 ???

And is not Anto-Romanianism but Anti-Romanianism. Bonaparte talk 12:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I will add this proof [[4]] to your existent RfC Ghirla! Bonaparte talk 12:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

These comments have no place here - at the head ofthe page, it reads:

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we're not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be paraphrased and, if reinserted, will be deleted.

Izehar 12:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Travb (talk · contribs) left the comment below on User talk:CJK. In it he calls CJK a "little Eichmann" and compares him to a Holocaust denier:

CJK, throughout history their have been people like you, extreme ideological jingoists who will downplay and deny their own country's attrocities. I see you in the same leagues with Jewish Holocaust Deniers and those who deny the attrocities of Stalin and the Gulags. These are the attrocities that America demonizes, and most familar to Americans, but added to the list are less known attrocities: Japan's attrocities in China, Frances attrocities in Algeria, the first genocide of Armenians against Turkey, Colonial attrocities, etc. All of these attrocities have something in common: their are always "little Eichmann's" like yourself, who deny and downplay these attrocities. As long as their are people like yourself, their will always be genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I have no respect for you and your ilk. None. I cannot adequately express in words my disgust for you.Travb 05:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC) [5]

For those of us whose families were annihilated by the Nazi genocide, no attack can be more extreme; and when such an attack is lodged for reasons as trivial as a Wikipedia edit war, the impact of the attack only serves to trivialize the Holocaust. Although I have had some disputes with CJK myself, I will not feel comfortable editing Wikipedia today unless TravB is blocked for at least 24 hours for violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks in the most extreme way any individual can violate it. I urge an administrator to block Travb promptly. 172 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

TravB's comment was way over the line and I've blocked him for 72 hours for violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Carbonite | Talk 17:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks. 172 17:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I went to do the same, but Carbonite was ahead of me. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Seconded. Radiant_>|< 18:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would support such a block as falling withing the "disruption clause" of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Izehar 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm just a casual observer here, but even I am deeply offended by his unprovoked hate speech, does anyone else think an indef ban is in order here if he doesn't show significant improvement upon his return--Petral 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • indef - never. Secretlondon 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Banning policy - it's not easy to ban a user indefinitly. Izehar 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd suggest escalating blocks for remarks that are this offensive. The next one is a week, the one after that is a month. After that, we can probably talk about 'banned indefinitely by community consensus'. While I doubt that someone who would write such a thing is ever going to be able to work within Wikipedia's civility policy, the usual process seems to require that we let him demonstrate it conclusively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - personal attacks are widespread, as we all know. I think that they should be dealt with something like test templates ({{test}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}} and {{test4}}). If a user makes a PA or an uncivil comment, then you give him/her a level 1 warning. If he/she makes another then he/she is given a level 2 warning and so on. If he/she makes PAs or uncivil comments after the fourth warning, then he/she can be blocked for up to, say, 12 hours. The problem is how to define a PA or an uncivil comment. Izehar 20:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So basically, 4 strikes and you're out for a short period of time? It is okay to be a little more blunt than that. After one or two warnings, it will be obvious that they know what they are doing is wrong. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Test templates are fine for edits that only affect an article. If someone add "Bush is a idiot!" to an article, a warning is entirely appropriate. However, when edits are aimed at editors, this is far more serious and requires immediate attention. Personal attacks are disruptive and may lead to blocks without warning. Depending on the severity of the personal attack, a block ranging from 3 - 72 hours might be warranted. Carbonite | Talk 20:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Which policy allows that though? Izehar 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO liberal interperetation of "disruptive" could be abused. Izehar 20:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks are almost always disruptive and thus have policy basis for blocking. Most of the time an attack is mild enough that a warning will suffice, but some personal attacks are so offensive that the user is blocked immediately (as in the case of TravB). With 700+ admins, abuse of the blocking policy will be noticed very quickly. Should any admin believe that the block shouldn't have been placed, they can unblock (although it's usually polite to discuss with the blocking admin first). Carbonite | Talk 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Shameless plug for WP:PAIN. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, Ral315 full protected well over 100 templates. I'm wondering if we want this. Many of the templates hadn't been touched in months and months, but it's my opinion that we should not be pro-active with protection as it is unwiki. I'm not criticizing Ral (in fact Ral wants input on this as well). Just wondering what others thought. I just think it's a bad precedent. But I can see some merit in it since these are high profile pages. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As above, I did it mainly because they were high-profile pages. I wouldn't mind unprotecting them if others think my actions went too far, but I believe that all copyright-related templates, as well as any being used significantly as meta-templates, should be kept protected no matter what, for obvious reasons. I'd appreciate some input on this. Ral315 (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest using semi-protection instead. Of course, one could argue, being so "high profile", it's highly unlikely that vandalism to them would go unnoticed. With that in mind, if it's possible to just semi-protect pagemoves, that might be a good idea. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at a random few of those templates and they do not seem to be the target of any vandalism at all. I think that we should embark on the odious task of unprotecting them as their protection seems to be pre-emptive. While I'm sure that Ral315 meant well, IMO this will get in the way of editing them if they do need to be edited. Izehar 12:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think preemptively protecting them is a good idea. Most editorial templates (as opposed to series boxen, for instance) do not require a lot of editing ever. Protecting them prevents 1) server load whenever someone modifies them, and 2) the possibility that we get a template vandal at some point. The Wiki standard that everything must be mutable applies primarily to articles, and less so to meta-pages. I believe most templates aren't watchlisted very much, judged by the fact that the average template talk page never yields a response to queries. Radiant_>|< 12:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(ed conflict) Full protect is a good idea, imagine a vandal puts a large pornographic image (or large amount of text etc.) on to a lot of these templates, we suddenly have thousands of articles with porn in, and server meltdown. Plus of course there is the fact that they rarely get editted anyway, and when they are editted, the edits should always be discussed first. Martin 12:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• What I'd like to know is how can these protections be reconciled with the Wikipedia:Protection policy. Izehar 12:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • By modifying the protection policy, obviously. What we're asking here is if this is a good idea, not if we've done it before or if it fits the letter of policy. Radiant_>|< 13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, two or three large templates - {{bio-stub}}, {{redirect}}, {{user-en}}, a couple others - were hit by an image-substitution vandal back in August, causing a lot of hassle. The first two have been protected indefinitely since then; I assume there are others. I would feel there is a very strong case to be made for protecting all templates transcluded in, say, more than 1-200 articles. Redirect is used in ~320; {{POV}} on ~1200, {{wikify}} ~1900... and I gave up counting {{disambig}} at twenty thousand! I don't want even to imagine all the talk-page ones, like test-templates... Protecting high-visibility transcluded templates is a good idea; vandalism to a page using these is much harder to notice by normal means. Shimgray | talk | 15:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Using my program I can tell you Template:Disambig is used on 39,503 pages, all the test templates are used a total of 36,585 times. Martin 16:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If protection is seen as too drastic, I'd support semi-protection. I think template vandalisms are less likely to be spotted through watchlists. This was vandalized during my RfA and I didn't notice any change to my user page until I just happened to look at it. And it must be so pleasant to get back from a wiki-break and discover that this was on your user page in your absence! AnnH ^(talk) 12:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Umm => Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy: Is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized. Izehar 12:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And honestly, generally, we don't full protect pre-emptively either, even though it's not in the official policy. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• • What we're asking here is if this is a good idea, not if we've done it before or if it fits the letter of policy. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Just because we haven't often done this before doesn't mean it's bad - please argument on the case, not the legalistics. Radiant_>|< 13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Full protection is bad, even on templates where full protection is currently in use (such as {{welcome}}). I strongly suggest taking some of these permanently protected pages and considering just permanently semi-protecting them instead. As for these 100+ templates, I don't think it's a bad idea to semi-protect them. It'll keep the casual vandal from doing something that'll be widespread (and if WP:AUM is to be believed, may harm server performance). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • As above... no, this isn't contemplated under semi-protection policy. However, it isn't contemplated under protection policy either. I can't imagine that people who are skittish about 'restriction of editing' would prefer the current 'admins only' situation to 'admins and users who have been registered a few days'. I'm not advocating switching the main page from protection to semi-protection, but there are plenty of other pages where this would be appropriate. Unprotecting them in full might also be appropriate for many. On meta-templates... I'd actually like to see alot of these unprotected so they can be worked on. We've got a directive to reduce the usage of them, but now they are protected... which prevents 99.99% of the people who might make the necessary adjustments from doing so. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I fully agree with Radiant, this is a good idea and I've actually protected a number of high visibility templates myself (mainly the "test" templates). If a template rarely changes and is present on hundreds or thousands of pages, it's quite reasonable and prudent to limit editing. Even protected templates can still being edited by 700+ admins, so it's not as if they can't be updated when necessary. Carbonite | Talk 13:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If posible Protection should never be used unless absolutely necesary, lots of protected pages snould be semi protected so they are editable. There is nothing wrong with that. Furthermore we should semi-protect pages such as language templates as its not like they are going to change. Templates are not subject to change, much --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You should never fully protect an article or template except in extreme circumstances. I think it would be much better to, if some form of permanent protection is desired, semi-protect these pages. This at least allows non-admins to work on them, and only rejects the group most likely to vandalize (anonymous users and new users). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        • For an article, it's true that protection shouldn't be used unless necessary. However, we're talking about templates here, especially highly visible ones. Vandalism on one article only affects that article. Vandalism on a template can affect thousands of pages. This type of vandalism can also be much more difficult to identify. Carbonite | Talk 13:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Templates that were likely created by non-admins, and that now fully protected, can only be improved upon by full admins. I think semi-protection of these high visibility templates makes a lot more sense; it forces a would-be vandal to sign up, and then makes it easier to block them (no issues with dynamic IP's unless the vandal wants to sign up a new account). It would also allow regular editors to continue to contribute without being forced to run and find an admin for every minor (or major) change. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
            • No one is suggesting that we protect all templates, just ones that are highly visible and seldom changed. Anything that can affect thousands of other pages should only be edited by trusted users (ie. admins). Any changes to these templates should be discussed, so there's no reason why a non-admin would need to make the actual edit. Semi-protection is insufficient because it allows non-trusted users to edit what are essentially "system administration" pages. I'm just having a hard time seeing why some users think these templates need to be open to editing by almost everyone. The "open" part of the tagline refers to the actual encyclopedia (article namespace), not every single mechanism that's used to keep Wikipedia running. Carbonite | Talk 14:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Changes to high profile templates should always be discussed first, so it is really academic whether a non admin can make any changes that are agreed upon. Martin 14:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
              • This is the key point to me, so I'm fine with protecting all high profile (by any reasonable definition) templates so they can't be used to cause problems. Adjust the protection policy as needed to accomodate that. - Taxman ^Talk 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(pulling back all the levels of indent) While I think it is academic really (like WHK said, these templates have mostly been untouched), I don't see why this cannot be covered using existing watchlists (after all, you don't often see a template appear on the recent changes list, I'm sure people would inspect it pretty quickly). novacatz 14:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

High profile templates should be on watchlists and should be protected so that users can see discussions on the template talk pages. Since all changes should be discussed and there over 700 admins, there's really no reason why all users need to be able to edit high profile templates. On the other hand, there's several reason why these templates should be protected. It eliminates vandalism, prevents inexperienced users from making a harmful (but well intentioned) edits and encourages discussion (non-admins have to discuss and admins get the "protected page" warning). Carbonite | Talk 14:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I was talking to Freakofnurture on IRC and he gave me one reason for why these high-profile templates shouldn't be easily editable: WP:AUM. For that reason, I guess I withdraw my complaint. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that, especially for templates with a high rate of use, any changes should follow the path sandbox → talk page → actual edit. Thus I'd support semi-protection of templates used on more than N pages, and full-protection for all meta-templates. This would considerably reduce the incidence of edit warring, database locks, and "broken" coding. I don't agree with the statement "permanantly protected = should be deleted". Meta-templates like {{qif}} and {{switch}} for example, would ideally be built-in features. Perhaps <noinclude> and <includeonly> could, in some distant future, be expanded to <includeif ...> etc. or maybe I'm just dreaming. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:33, Jan. 1, 2006

In the case of meta-templates, this should be seen as a stopgap measure while we deprecate them. Vandalizing these templates - and by vandalizing I mean changing in any way - is likely to cause a brief database lock. For this reason, they ought be protected. Because they ought be protected, they ought be deleted, because the nature of Wikipedia is that we don't like creating pages that we absolutely have to permanantly protect. Phil Sandifer 16:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I think a lot of these comments miss the point. Perhaps it's okay to protect meta-templates preemptively, but look at the list. These are stub templates and cleanup templates. Honestly, I was kind of irritated when I saw that huge accmulation of protected templates a while ago too, but I didn't realize they had all been protected so recently in one go. That's senseless. Most vandals wouldn't know how to find them, and if they could, the chances of them finding a particular one of out of 100+ is so slim. Let's say I look at the histories of 4 random templates there, [6], [7], [8], [9], (this is true, these are the first ones I randomly picked), I find that the last edit before protection in each of them was a productive non-admin one. And I see almost no vandalism in those for histories at all. The fact that {{opentask}} was protected, which is regularly updated by non-admins (I used to do it before I was one, too), makes me think this was done blindly. I'm all for unprotection of most of them. Not that I'm saying we should unprotect blindly either, because some of them should surely remain protected, but not most of them. Dmcdevit·t 19:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. Stub templates and cleanup templates are (1) frequently used, and (2) hardly ever changed. Any changes, as indicated before, should (1) be discussed first, and (2) if implemented will invalidate a large amount of page cache. I'm glad to hear we haven't had a template vandal yet, but nobody ever thought of large-scale page move vandalism either before we met Willy. And template vandalism would be less annoying to clean up, but far more straining on the server. Even a well-meaning newbie that changes the layout on a bunch of templates causes database strain. Hence, it makes perfect sense to protect just about any template that is editorial (e.g. "cleanup") rather than content (e.g. series boxen). Radiant_>|< 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe something of a precedent, although not exactly the same thing: In this discussion, we talked about protecting the highly-visible templates of the Babel project. Obviously, we were faced with the same dilemma of whether or not to protect anything preemptively on Wikipedia. We settled for the compromise of protecting immediately the en templates, which were by far the most visible and which had already been vandalized before. As for the others, they were to be protected only when/if they were attacked at least once. On this particular instance, my vote would be for semi-protection. Redux 00:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What you and many editors seem to be forgetting is that thanks to the extremist editors involved in the project, the useful semi-protection feature can only be used temporarily and never as a preventive measure. So you should simply disregard the existance of this feature 99% of time. Would it be a good solution to this issue? Yes. Are we able to use it in this manner without having desysop motions started against us? Not really. --Sn0wflake 02:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I supported SP and I am not extremist thank you. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, look at what I found, a sock puppet. At least this time it's not Mcfly85.

This time it involves a user name Captain Spinkicker and OSJ. I belive OSJ created the sockpuppet, Captain Spinkicker. Evidence is in the history of Captain Spinkicker's user page as OSJ is the only editor to edit it. More evidence shows as Captain Spinkicker edited my talk page and went back and edited it as OSJ.

Further evidece is OSJ, on his user page, says he's from Utah and the only edits provided by Captain Spinkicker is on the Removal of the ACW-Utah Page and complaints about user Chadbryant. Could someone do something aout this? — Moe ε 22:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually upon looking, OSJ just created his page today and could possibly be a sockpuppet for someone else. — Moe ε 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My first instict is to block the confirmed sock, but I'm afraid I make a mistake (I'm a newbie admin), so I'll leave it to someone else: link. Izehar 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, more evidence, sort of. OSJ vandalized my subpage. If anyone wants to anything about OSJ heres the link to do it.. — Moe ε 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you, Moe Epsilon. Yea, you -- the bimbo with the baby. I did NOT "vandalise" ANY of your sub pages. I simply responded IN KIND and WITH HUMOR to your fake "new message" page. If you don't want people responding negatively towards that, then remove it. I think any Wikipedia administrator on here can take a look at your subpage for that and judge that it may be have the potential for trouble or vandalism; anyway, my point is that I don't consider what *I* did as vandalism. I considered it to be in jest, the same as yours originally was. How can you have such a one-sided view of the subject? You can't keep one eye open and the other closed if someone is about to punch you in the face. It just doesn't work that way. OSJ 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Gee, I don't know when you type in:

Why would I take it personally? Just because I keyed FUCK YOU into the hood of your car and put the burning corpse of a kitten on your front doorstep doesn't mean I'm taking it personally or anything.

Some people tend to think it's vandalism. — Moe ε 23:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should re-evaluate your sense of humor? I didn't find your fake "new messages" page very funny myself. Why do you think others would not have the same reaction? Thar She Blows 03:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there Moe Epsilon, Captain Spinkicker is no sockpuppet. Please cease and desist with your libelous claims, or I'll do a Chad Bryant on you and spinkick your arse ten feet clear of your ISP. Captain Spinkicker

Oh please! You are SO Pedorelli. No, wait! You're Dink! Yea, that's it! Or maybe you're Crockboi...he sometimes hangs around here. Oooh! Oooh! I know who you are! You're that pornography-purveying pedophile puss Slobby Barnutt! Thar She Blows 03:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The above users, OSJ, Captain Spinkicker, and Thar She Blows, have all been indefinatly blocked. Ya know, I like dealing with the vandals and sockpuppets. To bad I didn't make admin! :-D — Moe ε 04:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why so many violations of WP:CIVIL on the Admin noticeboard? They were asking to get blocked, socks or not. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 08:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the thing: it's immediately obvious who they are, and they come in here guns-a-blazing and expect to get away with it. Sad, really.--Sean|Black 08:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• There seems a lot of confusion over sock-puppets. They can only be blocked if they have violated policy, not just "because" they're socks. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy (which all new admins should read) and m:ChecUser policy. Dan100 (Talk) 12:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it matters that they were socks in this case. They all (socks or not) were being disruptive and violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. But yes, normally, sockpuppets area allowed unless they are blowing up AFD's and such. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 14:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they have all violated the policy of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in this case as my talk page has been vandalized 3 times today and Chadbryant's user page has been vandalized numerous times too. And by the style of editing this guy shows, it's clearly the same person. — Moe ε 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is stirring up trouble again, this time on rfa, voting oppose over an hour before it was even put up...[10][11] If that's not good enough evidence that he's reduced himself to little more than trolling my contribs, you can just take a look at his. Other than a few small edits to Belle & Sebastian, every one of his last 50 edits has been some kind of troll comment towards me in some way. karmafist 16:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that excuses this. He's still entitled to his vote. David | Talk 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've restored his vote. Karmafist, you need to work on your SEP field. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting on RFAs early is not 'stirring up trouble'. It happens all the time. Including the (non-nominator) who voted support on that RFA before Pigsonthewing. As to his 'last 50 edits'... yes, most of them are just links showing instances where you have insulted him. Maybe you ought to stop doing that. I believe there was an arbitration ruling to that effect. Not to mention something called civility. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

And maybe Andy can be grown up enough to explain himself without relying upon you to make excuses for him. --Calton | Talk 03:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I must agree with Calton...it's rather bizarre to have an oppose vote posted BEFORE it is listed...not sure it was made in good faith.--MONGO 03:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I've blocked Karmafist for 12 hours for removing Pigsonthewings vote from the RfA page. I'm not happy. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Warcryer. I've blocked him, but somebody will have to massacre these images.--Sean|Black 23:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Nuked. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.--Sean|Black 23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I was on it since you blocked the dude, it showed up on the CVU's IRC feed. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I've gone a bit paranoid, but I've been thinking about the relationship between the accounts PeterZed (talk · contribs) and CelebritySecurity (talk · contribs). This is what I noticed so far:

• Both accounts use the userbox {{User HigherStandards}}. This alone means nothing, but is what made me start looking.
• The PeterZed account first edited at 21 August 2005, and after three edits (that I can find, Kate's tool seems to be broken again) on that day disappeared until recently.
• CelebritySecurity started editing at 1 December 2005 and edited somewhat irregularly from then on. There is a four-day gap starting at 23:36, 26 December 2005.
• PeterZed started editing again at 28 December 2005, in the middle of the four-day gap of CelebritySecurity's editing.
• There's a little less than three hour gap on PeterZed's editing, from 00:10, 30 December 2005 to 02:56, 30 December 2005. Fitting exactly within that gap, CelebritySecurity edited once more (from 00:18, 30 December 2005 to 02:13, 30 December 2005). These are the only edits from CelebritySecurity since PeterZed started editing again on the 28th.
• Both accounts use identical edit summaries when creating new templates ("creation").
• Both accounts have somewhat similar interests (as can be seen by their wikiprojects).

I know it is a very weak set of evidence (if it can even be called that), but I would like for more experienced admins to take a look. --cesarb 23:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm no admin but I don't think theres a problem. Even if he did create a sock puppet, it's not doing any harm by him having it. I think this sorta ties in with the section, Hey look, Sock puppets, above. But here it's different, since his sockpuppet is following Wikipedia policy, I think it's alright. As Dan100 said, "They can only be blocked if they have violated policy", not just "because" they're socks. — Moe ε 02:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest dropping a polite note for a confirm or deny if it concerns you. Quoting WP:SOCK

"Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. But you must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual."

This is not required however, just encouraged. The sockpuppet itself is not a problem, abusing sockpuppets is the problem--Tznkai

Well, the user in question has just been blocked for disruption, as I sort of expected would end up happening... That's why I thought this would be relevant to the noticeboard. --cesarb 04:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that both users are the same, I don't see evidence of misuse of sockpuppets. Make a case for sockpuppet abuse (for example, using a sockpuppet while blocked) and we'll talk about CheckUser results. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about checkuser? I posted this info only so that the admins dealing with one account would keep an eye also on the other account. I agree that checkuser would be really premature, since the CelebritySecurity account has not done anything wrong. --cesarb 05:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with cesarb that they are likely the same user. I did block User:PeterZed, although I expect it to be temporary while we work on establishing a dialog. I consider blocking a last resort; however, in this case, it seems to me the best route for getting matters back on track. If you feel this block to be in error, please let me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that a thread at right-wing web forum Free Republic has recently solicited contributors there to show up and astroturf Wikipedia:

I suggest people sign up (free and anonymous) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin) and start politely editing. Once there, to gain "credibility" I suggest you look around and then for the first few days edit only uncontroversial articles for grammar or choppiness or poor citation - you will then be seen as a neutral editor (everyone is an "editor"). I suggest using a different screen name than you do at FR. (see [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts])

While of course I'm excited at the prospect of an influx of new editors, I do hope that people keep their eyes open for POV pushing. Perhaps I'm just being negative, though. Nandesuka 03:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Bit Oh well, atleast they suggested politeness--Tznkai 03:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No one's shown up at George W. Bush yet. I don't think this is going to materialize. android79 03:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh. I think Abortion may already have gotten hit, but I'm not sure. Keep a look out, turfing from any POV is a serious headache.--Tznkai 04:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We've got atleast one problem user that follows the pattern pretty accuratly.--Tznkai 08:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In what I think is the most appaling thing I've ever seen at Wikipedia, Several administrators ran across unprecedented levels of campaigning from an America Online user that is trying to force voters to change their support votes on Quadell's RFB: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

This is obviously entirely inappropriate, but since I'm not voting in either direction, I just wanted bureaucrats and other admins to know about this. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I can only imagine it's some kind of guerilla support campaign! It's probably brought a lot of attention to the vote, and having an IP hate you is the surest mark of being a good editor! :-) Dan100 (Talk) 09:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please get this guy to understand he is testing my patience with his disruptive behaviour ([32], [33], [34]). --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Does not seem out of the usual for SPUI. Tell us if he continues after your message asking for him to stop (the one next to the last diff you posted). --cesarb 13:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Friends, could someone with magic power please switch the main page Recent Deaths link from Deaths in 2005 to Deaths in 2006? I have tidied up both pages to make everything smooth, but I cannot complete the one tiny step. Thanks and Happy New Year, Xoloz 01:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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. --- Charles Stewart 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I asked Nandesuka for a second opinion on this, but haven't heard back yet; explanation of what happened is at User_talk:Nandesuka#Islamofascism_.28term.29. If another admin could take a look instead, that would be very helpful. I'm also going to post this on WP:AN/I. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's my opinion (I'm copy and pasting this everywhere...)

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. Nandesuka 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not know if this is the correct place to discuss this, but something odd happened. An IP address was blocked but nobody seemed to be aware that it was. It was not listed.

Attempts to use the IP were met with: You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link. Your IP address is 83.104.44.219. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jtkiefer. The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Bobblewik". The reason given for Bobblewik's block is: "date delinking despite being warned not to due to lack of consensus on the issue". You can email Jtkiefer or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. You may also edit your user talk page if you wish. If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If you would like to know when the block will expire, please see the block list. If you need to see the wiki text of an article, you may wish to use the Export pages feature.

It caused considerable inconvenience until it got unblocked and it was very difficult to get unblocked. Can anyone explain why this block was not like other blocks and what can be done about it? Bobblewik 17:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Bobblewik (talk · contribs) talk page:

Autoblocked IP addresses (IP addresses of users blocked) automatically get removed after one day. The record does not show up because then it would be possible to determine the IP address of a pseudonymous contributor which would be in breach of the privacy policy.

Talrias (t | e | c) 17:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. Now I would like to know if this is documented somewhere. Bobblewik 17:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's written somewhere, it'll probably be on the Wikipedia:Blocking policy page. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I moved this from the talk page as this is a more appropriate place to put it. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it in the appropriate place. Autoblocking is mentioned on that page but it does explain why it continued to apply after the original block was removed. Surely unblocking should be the mirror image of blocking. Bobblewik 19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not a mirror image. For instance, blocks last as long as was specified by the admin, autoblocks last always 24 hours. Usually, when an admin unblocks a user, he also looks for associated autoblocks and remove them. --cesarb 20:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

edit conflict - It is an automated process. When we block a user, we don't have to do anything further to unblock them when the time is up. I assume its something as simple as checking whether the current time is later than the block flag in the user database. So... I don't have an explanation as to why it didn't autounblock the ip when the user went off block. Perhaps someone with more understanding of the software can explain better how it could happen, and/or point out where we can document this for investigation by the developers in case it is a bug. --Syrthiss 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason probably was because the autoblock is always for 24 hours, even if the user only has 5 minutes left on his block. It's a known "feature". --cesarb 20:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the original block and failed to look for and remove related autoblocks. My apologies. DES ^(talk) 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that DES. As Syrthiss says, I would like the automation to work both ways. Is it possible? Bobblewik 10:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You would have to ask the developers, I assume it would be fairly easy to change. I have never understood why it functions how it does as it seems illogical. Martin 10:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

How do I ask the developers? Bobblewik 16:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a deterrent to punish people who try to evade their blocks. Dan100 (Talk) 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean that cesarb, Syrthiss, DES, and myself are wrong? Bobblewik 17:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to here from as many people as possible on this - what have people found to be the most successful tactics against users are trying to promote certain points of view within articles over others? Dan100 (Talk) 20:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Only you can prevent forest fi... sorry. My strategy is to ignore their POV, don't talk about it, and focus tightly on the edits and why they're a problem, not the editor. Harrasment is a far greater problem than someone with a strong POV.--Tznkai 20:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dan, did you ask this in multiple places? I seem to remember answering you earlier today, but I see my answer isn't here. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked on WP:VP too! Sorry if that confused anyone, I just suspect the two pages have slightly different audiences. Dan100 (Talk) 16:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[35] could the admin own up? NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No reason to assume it was actually an admin. For that matter, lets not have a witchhunt please? They tend to be demoralizing--Tznkai 02:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody can claim to be an admin. Anybody can claim to be an editor. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, I just have a feeling. I may be wrong, but it won't hurt to know who exactly it is. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And how do you propose we find out...? Whoever it is won't reveal themselves unless they want to. android79 02:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Worse thing to do to someone feeling like there are cabals is to give them reasons to believe their being persecuted.--Tznkai 02:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would we want to let a troll drive us into a witchhunt? Off-site kvetching about Wikipedia is nothing new. This one isn't making any direct personal attacks or legal threats. Nothing to see here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If I'm right, it's not actually that hard to guess who the complainer is. But, like TenOfAllTrades says, this isn't a big problem. Why should we care? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What appears on other websites is very rarely any of our business. WP:NOT a censor. -Splash^talk 14:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it was an admin - any experienced user, especially admins, know they have nothing to fear by criticising the project on their user page without any retribution - I do it, other admins and users do it... There is nothing new there, and this seems like someone trying to create a witch-hunt. Ignore at will. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Every time I read these "Wikipedia watch" type thingies I get jealous because they're never about me. — JIP | Talk 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR! NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 11:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Happy new year! (from a timezone which is already there ;) -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  Europe, Asia? Or perhaps you are one of those accuresd New Zealanders :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

After several incredibly condescending attacks against me by users who do not follow regulations , I requested my user and user talk pages be deleted, as CLEARLY allowed by the speedy deletion policy. User:Woohookitty, a liberal who appears to not follow regulation often when s/he does not like a person, removed my requests. I would like someone unbiased who will follow the regulation to delete my pages, and allow me to free myself from association with this website. See my comment on his/her talk page as well. I regret it has come to this. Have a happy new year. JG of Borg 14:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't find the bit in the speedy deletion policy that allows userpages to be speedily deleted upon request. It only talks of user sub-pages. Am I missing something? Morwen - Talk 14:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Morwen, that section also says that user pages may sometimes be speedy deleted, and refers you here for more information. Joyous | Talk 14:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you - just was about to post the same thing. Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F Please notify me when you have done so. Thank you, and Happy New Year! JG of Borg 14:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User pages and user talk pages may be speedily deleted at the request of the user if there is no administrative need to retain the page (say, for evidence to be used in an ArbCom hearing). As I cannot find any obvious administrative need to retain these pages, they have been nuked.

All the best.

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've redeleted it. An anon IP left a note on User_talk:Woohookitty pointing to this conversation, then left a welcome note on User_talk:Jgofborg. Since Jgofborg has made it clear he is leaving a welcome message serves no good faith purpose that I can see. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the link is broken; there's a typo which should actually link to wikimedia's Personal Appeal. Can someone change the link? -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• So it was already changed? Never mind then. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Would that be a Juan Peronal appeal or an Eva Peronal appeal? I'm not sure which image of Jimbo is more amusing. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is a specific amount of money that the foundation is hoping to raise with the fundraiser? If it is currently far short, people are more likely to give if they know. Also, the more specific the description of what the funds are to be used for, the better. -- Kjkolb 03:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Although there is no official goal, Wikimedia CFO Mayer has stated that US$500,000 is the amount they would like to raise. The diagram in the site notice is drawn up to half a million. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Flcelloguy. I also found this page. 500,000 seems overly optimistic since $136,473 was donated in all of 2004, $94,650 was donated in the first quarter of 2005 and $243,930 was donated in the third quarter of 2005. 300,000 seems like a more reasonable goal based on the donation history, though it looks like the total will be about 225,000 based on the current total and day by day spending. -- Kjkolb 07:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The (frankly pathetic) turnout in relation to The Foundation's rather lofty goal is likely the reason for the "personal appeal" from Jimbo. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The {{categoryredirect}} feature has been disabled due to recent abuse. NekoDaemon unintentionally violated the WP:3RR on Childlove movement due to Darwinek adding the tag on Category:Childlove. Therefore, I will be making security upgrades to NekoDaemon, to be completed hopefully by the end of the weekend. This security upgrade requires the categoryredirect template tag to be added last by an administrator, and the last edit to be an administrator. As a result, any administrator using {{categoryredirect}} is advised to protect the category after applying the template. Additionally, a bot assisted move template will be created using the same script once the security upgrade in the category redirect script is done. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Script upgraded. See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion#NekoDaemon_upgraded for categories affected by upgrade. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this the place to call attention to certain pages, because there are a ton of entries without articles on the World War II weapons page, and I don't think I can handle them all. I'm sure that with all the people out there visiting this site, we can fill it up with entries. Ctifumdope

See above - Dan100 (Talk) 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, but if they abuse this their user page can be protected. Radiant_>|< 12:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? I was under the impression that blocked editors can edit their talk pages. Not their user pages. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM IN PROGRESS WARNING

The page Half-Life 2 mods has been linked from a news message on Steam. This news message pops up automatically when the Steam client reconnects to the server for the first time since the message was put up. The news message includes a pop-up list of more resources for Half-Life 2 and the first selection, selected by default, takes you directly to Half-Life 2 mods. This means that this page is going to be visible to over a million people (everyone who plays Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Day of Defeat, Counter-Strike, etc.) over an extended period of time, several days at least. I highly recommend people add this to their watchlists and watch it carefully because already we have experienced very large amounts of vandalism. I wouldn't recommended protecting this page, though, as it should serve as a good introduction to all of those newbies coming here. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• um, you know there is a whole page just for vandalism in progress warnings-—the preceding unsigned comment is by anon (talk • contribs)
  • That page is for vandalism in progress by a single user. This does not fit that bill. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 17:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, there's a section "Current alerts → Pages" for that purpose. (It's numbered "5.1" if you have that enabled). r3m0t ^talk 23:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a lovely way to start the new year. Please see WP:AN/I#Votestacking FAC sockpuppets: Hollow Wilerding for context. It appears that the featured article candidate discussion for The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask was the target of egregious, extreme, and successful fraud. I have therefore stripped it of featured article status. Note that technically, doing this is out of process: the WP:FARC page requires two weeks of consensus discussions before an article is de-feature-articled. Those rules don't really account for the level of fraud that was occurring here, though, and so I've decided to be bold. If the consensus here is that I've overstepped my bounds, I won't object to it being put back the way it was. But I would claim that when fraud like this happens, we have a duty to act swiftly to make things right. Nandesuka 16:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion on WP:AN/I, its featured status was restored, but the FARC continues, per Raul654. Ral315 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, someone created a username similar to mine and copied my userpage verbatim. I'd like to request its removal, thanks. nyenyec ☎ 18:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Beckjord has indicated that he is seeking one or more mentors. Martial Law 21:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Whats the sitch?--Tznkai 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are being used to make jokes about and poke fun at and make sarcastic little quips about Christians, Creationists, and people who believe in Intelligent design. All that is needed is an enforcement of policy, particularily with respect to WP:EQ, WP:TP, WP:TPG, Wikipedia:Rhetoric. No need to get involved in the discussion. I have tried to do it myself, but have been faced with accusations I'm "playing wiki-cop" and absurd rationalizations of their behaviour. I also think some people there are really bending the truth when confronted with their antagonism and passive-aggressive attacks and insults.

For example, a comment about one pro-ID editor which noted how he frequently edited the Chronicles of Narnia page (on the Internet it is a hot-point in cultural religious controversy), was met with another user's sarcastic response "Onward Christian Soldiers." When I pointed out that this was inappropriate, another user explained how "The 'onward christian soldiers' comment, to me, was a general call to action, though I understand that you could feel it was pejorative and over the line." and "In my frame of reference, 'onward christian soldiers' has never had any specific connotations. I have never heard the phrase to mean anything negative or offensive, and have always seen it as a cute way to edge people on. Onward .. Charge .. Arriba arriba .. So forgive if I am that naive [ed. note I called him naive for his first comment], but when I initially read the comment I didn't see anything wrong with it, and didn't respond." Now, a very small number of you may not get the joke if you are unfamiliar with religious controversy, though its use as a pejorative is pretty obvious in the context, which even this user admitted. It is an extremely common joke to call pro-ID people, and indeed the entire "religious right," "Christian Soldiers" as a pejorative [36], and anyone familiar with the controversy knows this (See the first result in a Google search for "onward Christian soldiers" "intelligent design"). This is the sort of thing that goes on on that page.

There are 4 admins who frequent the talk pages, Duncharris, RoyBoy, FeloniousMonk, Guettarda, and occassionally a 5th, SlimVirgin. None so much as mentions anything to these people. In fact, these admins are actually quite frequently the perpetrators. The editor who was called a "Christian Soldier" said the ID article had an atheistic slant. He was immediately pounced upon by these admins as making a "religious attack" and was threatened with a block.

The caustic sarcasm, jokes, and insults and attacks are getting out of control, and the users frequently "play dumb" and pretend they did not mean any offense. Granted, communication in a text-medium can be dodgy at times, but anyone remotely familiar with this style of flamewar/USENET discourse will know exactly what these users are up to when they say things like "Onward Christian Soldiers" or start a discussion on whether or not one can "Sue God" (currently on the Talk Page). If you think you can help, please just jump right in, but I hope you have a law degree or something because these people are extremely good at hiding their intentions--as indicated recently in an RFC against Duncharris for constantly telling editors to "Fuck off" which was explained away by most of these same editors as "Simply telling them to leave, but using profanity. It is not a personal attack and the only thing that should happen is that he should "not get a cookie tonight." (Of course, Jimbo Wales disagreed and said he "should be de-sysopped immediately." One user on the RFC even said he thought was Jimbo was just being sarcastic when he said that.)

One last thing, since sadly I have come to expect this: Please do not tell me why I am wrong. If you agree, please help out. If you disagree do not tell me. I do not want to hear about it. Discuss my concerns with other admins if necessary, but not with me. I will not respond, and your only audience will be the one in front of your soapbox. Also note that one of the above admins will probably bring up my history in which I got frustrated and started simply calling these people assholes instead of playing their games and being subjected to their insults, accusations and complaints that I want to introduce bias into the article, and sarcastic remarks. I am only making a request for someone to help, I do not want to make my arguments about why I want someone to help the issue. Help or don't help. The only thing you need to do is fairly enforce the guidelines, policies, and help Wikipedia spirit by reminding these users when their actions are inappropriate.--Ben 22:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I slogged through this rather quick and while Ben is clearly ranting, he does have legitimate concern, as the ID article is a place full of subtle and not so subtle jabs at people of various beliefs. That having been said, this is in fact a rant, and I think the vast majority of his personal accusations are off the mark.--Tznkai 22:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I actually thought this was sincere until I got to "Please do not tell me why I am wrong...If you disagree do not tell me. I do not want to hear about it." — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Any Admin.s familiar with Native Americans' culture and other matters. I am NOT being offensive. Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 01:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Need advice on this as well. Martial Law 01:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you give us some more information? Like a page or article where there is a dispute? Thanks. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 05:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue is User:Bumpusmills1 - a new user who quit but seems to have returned - and his article Native American spirituality. jnothman ^talk 07:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Matter resolved by User:AlabamaBoy. Appreciate the help. Martial Law 07:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we've all been following the ongoing train wreck that is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. I have not yet expressed an opinion on the substance of the debate. One user, User:Endomion, was solicited to vote on the AfD. When she or he voted to delete, noting that they themselves were Catholic, they were rewarded with this lovely comment on their talk page[37]:

 **Comment, from what I can see of your user page you hardly qualify as a devout catholic.
  Chooserr 19:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems as though every time I turn around User:Chooserr is throwing his weight, such as it is, around, trying to browbeat editors into supporting his worldview. Spirited debate is one thing. But leaving insults about people's religion on their talk page is, for me, the straw that breaks the camel's back. It is rude, it is incivil, it is disruptive, it is absolutely unacceptable, and by God I have had enough of it. I have blocked User:Chooserr for a week for this edit, as part of his continuing and ongoing pattern of disruptive and incivil behavior. Nandesuka 23:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

One week seems excessive. I know he edit wars and doesn't conform to NPOV, but he wasn't aggressive or obscene. I have seen far worse comments from other people that have been left completely unrebuked. And I have noticed for some time that people are following him around Wikipedia, reverting him unnecessarily, with snide remarks,[38], sneering at him[39] etc. On three occasions, when he left a message on my talk page, other people who would certainly not have had my talk page on their watchlists followed him with comments. It's late at night in Ireland, so I'm not going to hunt out diffs; I'll just say that I've noticed this going on for quite some time. I can understand that people have to revert some of his extremely POV edits, but they don't have to revert edits about cow tipping; they don't have to sneer; they don't have to be insulting; they don't have to harass him – and he has definitely been harassed.

With regard to his remark on Endomion's talk page, I don't condone it at all. It was ignorant, and unnecessary. I have already commented on it at Chooserr's talk page[40]. However, to claim that it was an insult is to claim that it is bad not to be a devout Catholic. Chooserr didn't tell her she was a bad person or a horrible person; he (rudely) suggested that she was not a devout Catholic. Now, since she openly has information on her user page (that she has a girlfriend, and that she identifies herself as a "lipstick lesbian") which implies a contradiction with the teachings of the Catholic Church,[41] then she left herself open to such an opinion, though it was still completely out of line (and stupid, in my view) to voice that opinion on her talk page. But it wasn't an appalling insult, unless, as I say, we take it that not to be a devout Catholic is a very bad thing. (I'm sure lots of excellent Wikipedians are not devout Catholics.) If I had put a user box on my page saying, "this user is a vegetarian" and another saying, "this user eats meat", and someone made the comment that I hardly qualified as a committed vegetarian but did not say that I was a bad person for eating meat, I doubt if that person would get blocked for a week.

I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I don't condone Chooserr's remark. However, in my time on Wikipedia I have seen far worse attacks that either did not incur blocks, or got shorter ones. I have seen a lot of harassment of Chooserr, which must make it very difficult for him to contribute calmly and constructively. I don't think that leaving him blocked for a week is going to help him to be less extreme in the way he edits and interacts with others. Nandesuka, I'm not going to overrule you and unblock, but I'd like you to consider shortening the block on the grounds that Chooserr has been the target of some very nasty comments and that when people are bullied and harassed they tend to hit back, or even to hit at others. AnnH ^(talk) 02:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like this needs to head to dispute resolution then Ann.--Tznkai 03:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think your analysis is not quite right: specifically, "to claim that it was an insult" is not "to claim that it is bad not to be a devout Catholic". The insult is to tell a Catholic that she hardly qualifies as a devout catholic on the basis of her sexuality. That's not only an insult, it's a very personal insult. ChoosErr may have the point of view that being gay is incompatible with being a devout Catholic, but he's not entitled to push that point of view by insulting Wikipedia users. - Nunh-huh 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, attacking the strength of someone's faith, especially their own self judgementis very personal, and very insulting, no matter however accurate. Clergy have a hard time getting away with it, nevermind the rest of us--Tznkai 03:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

1 week is to little, the person hasn't learnt what he/she has done is wrong. By the very fact he/she is disputing it as unfair and says that is fair for him/her to make a personal attack because it is his/her POV. 220.233.48.200 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on Chooserr's talk page, while I agreed to unblock him under date-range parole a bit ago, this block is quite fair. He needs to take some time out from the edit button to think about his editing style and the way he interacts with other editors, because, in the long run, what he's doing is not going to get him anywhere but the ArbCom or a consensus ban. FCYTravis 11:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear from messages that I have left on Chooserr's talk page that I agree with the fact that he was blocked, but consider that one week is too harsh (even taking into account the fact that people get longer blocks if they have a history of being disruptive).

Nunh-huh. I'm not sure whether by "sexuality" you mean sexual behaviour or sexual preference. Since the Catholic Church forbids homosexual activity, it is simply not possible to be an obedient Catholic and to be homosexually active. To say that the Catholic Church forbids such acts is not expressing a POV; it is stating a fact. If you don't believe me, please click on the link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I supply here (scroll down to Section 2357). To say that the Catholic Church is right or wrong to forbid such acts is, of course, to express a POV, and is also an misuse of Wikipedia server space. I would very much like to avoid such a discussion. But I repeat that the severity of the insult does depend on whether "not being a devout Catholic" is seen as a very bad thing. I would like you to consider the following: If a hypothetical user put two user boxes on her page, one saying "This user is a Muslim", and another saying "This user eats pork", people might think that she didn't qualify as a devout muslim. If someone pointed that out, would you say, "The insult is to tell a Muslim that she hardly qualifies as a devout Muslim on the basis of her taste buds?" I don't want to dwell on this, because I think that Endomion could quite reasonably feel indignant to discover that her sexuality is being discussed at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Chooserr had absolutely no right to make the remark he did, but I think that part of the reason we're shocked is that sexuality and religion in many cultures are very private, personal things. Most Wikipedians do not put such information on their user pages. If they do (as Endomion does), then they are implicitly stating that these things are not completely private, though of course they still shouldn't be treated to the kind of comments that Chooserr made.

I may be wrong on this, but as far as I can tell, the only administrators, other than myself, to have expressed concern at the fact that Chooserr was being harassed by other users are FreplySpang[42] and GTBacchus[43]. I would like to see some sign that those who criticize Chooserr do not condone it when other users sneer at him, revert him when it isn't necessary (and I know it often is necessary!), call him a "mindless troll", etc. He seems to be rather naive (note how he self-nominated for adminship when he was new and had about a hundred edits, presumably in controversial articles). I really don't think that blocking him again and again and leaving unrebuked those who make snide remarks about him will help him to become a better Wikipedian. AnnH ^(talk) 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

...the fact that Chooserr was being harassed' Look up "beg the question" next chance you get, will you, before you float your next set of excuses for Chooserr's bad behavior. Reversing bad edits one comes across is not "stalking" and having to explain -- more than once -- why they are bad (POV, original research, unverifed, and plain illogical) is not "sneering", it's frustration. Looks like the starting point for your application of AGF starts off at different places for different people (Chooserr naive, opponents evil): why does that seem to be so?--Calton | Talk 00:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Calton, I did not use the word "evil", and if you can solemnly assure me that some of your more insulting messages and edit summaries are a result of naivety rather than ill will, then of course I will accept it. In any case, I consider Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused's behaviour to have been worse than yours. AnnH ^(talk) 23:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, Ann, when I referred you to "begging the question," it wasn't for you to pick up tips on employing it, as your last sentence seems to imply you've done. And as for your first -- and trivial -- point of your non-use of the exact word "evil", as long as you've got that dictionary open, look up "paraphrase" and "imply". Oh, and nice dodge of everything substantive in my post, by the way. --Calton | Talk 09:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Rebuke the rest then. Harrasment is an unacceptable behavior, isn't it? And again, I think the focus is/should be on the uninvited insult on the strength of someone's convictions.--Tznkai 16:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to, Tznkai, but I haven't got much support, and I am appealing for help from all the administrators to ensure that snide remarks and harassment, even when directed against problematic users, are discouraged. AnnH ^(talk) 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Musical Linguist, thanks for clarifying that you share ChoosErr's point of view on homosexuality and Catholicism. While you argue your point less offensively than ChoosErr did, you are arguing your points, not the ones he actually made, and it's those that are pertinent. ChoosErr made no practice/orientation distinction, btw, and would in any case have no basis for presuming the former rather than the latter. Regardless, as far as I can tell, while there is Catholic doctrine specifying certain sexual acts as sinful, there is no Catholic doctrine that specifies that devout Catholics do not sin. There is no Catholic who does not sin. Even the devout ones. No, putting information on one's user page does not invite insults based upon it. Yes, I think unsolicited opinions on one's devoutness are improper, and that Wikipedia is right in forcefully letting those who make such comments aware of their unacceptability. - Nunh-huh 17:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nunh-huh I don't think I ever said that I shared Chooserr's point of view on homosexuality and Catholicism. For the record, I accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church. Chooserr may well hold to more extreme views; I have not examined all his contributions. However, I see no reason to discuss my beliefs (or his) here. You are quite correct in saying that there is no Catholic doctrine specifying that devout Catholics do not sin. Catholic doctrine, however, does distinguish between venial sins and mortal sins, and also between those committed out of frailty and repented of, and those that one has no intention of giving up. That's why the Church does not allow respectable, law-abiding, divorced-and-remarried Catholic to receive Holy Communion, unless they either separate or agree to live as brother and sister — since it is impossible to be a "devout Catholic" while having no intention of giving up something that the Catholic Church considers (rightly or wrongly) to be gravely sinful. However, this is rather straying from the purpose of the Administrators' Noticeboard, in my view. If you have further comments, my talk page would be a better place. I came here to discuss the possible harm done by a severe punishment for Chooserr combined with what must seem to him like a condoning of the behaviour of those who follow him around with snide remarks. Please do not say that I share his POV. First of all, it's unlikely that I do, and secondly, I have tried to keep my POV out of this. And while I agree with you that putting information on one's user page does not invite insults based upon it, and that unsolicited opinions on one's devoutness are improper, you have not given any indication of agreeing with me that Wikipedia should discourage users from following other users around and calling them "mindless trolls". Isn't there any administrator who agrees with me that people can start behaving worse when they are treated abusively, and that we are failing such users if we do nothing to help them? AnnH ^(talk) 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, one way to avoid having your beliefs discussed is to avoid discussing them<g>. So I shan't elaborate on venial and mortal sins and the nature of automatic excommunication, except to note that none of them are germaine to ChoosErr's comments. I do agree with you that people can start behaving worse when abused, or even when simply disciplined. And I agree with your implicit statement that abusive epithets are inappropriate. There are, I believe, mentoring options available for ChoosErr, should he either [1] wish to make use of them upon his return, or [2] act so badly that he is required to make use of them. As for following users around, unfortunately some users make that necessary, and it would be good if they learned to comport themselves in such a way as to make it unnecessary. Our mission here is to build an accurate encyclopedia. If rehabilitation of abusive users can achieve that, that's fine, but the primary objective is the encyclopedia, not "helping users". It seems clear that (besides being abusive of users and process) ChoosErr was not helping build an accurate encyclopedia, but rather distorting its content to suit his point of view. I would hope any mentoring would also address this facet of his behavior. - Nunh-huh 18:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly feel that people will behave worse when treated abusively. If people have a problem with a user, they themselves need to remain civil. If civility and offers of assistance are met with hostility then they should escalate to an RfAr, not escalate with hostility. Note that these comments are in general... I haven't been following the entire Chooserr harassment / harassee thing. --Syrthiss 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think theres a pretty simple thing to address here.

1. Correctly examined or inncorrectly examined, an uninvited negative judgement on the strength of one's faith is definatly a breach of WP:Civility and probably WP:NPA
2. Harrasment of any kind is intolerable. Being harrassed is not an excuse
3. Punishment/corrective action should be tailored to be effective, proportional the offense and mitigating circumstances and definatly not make the situation worse

Thus the questions asked are:

• Did ChoosErr commit sufficient breaches of Civility to warrant a block?
• Does the harrasment of ChoosErr exist?
  • Does the said harrasment constsiute mitigating circumstances for the length of the block?
  • Have those who have harrased ChooErr been properly punished/corrected?
• Is any and all of the previously mentioned corrective action likley to exaserbate the situation?
• What is the long term solution?

Thats my two cents and then some. I'll let the admins sort the rest out for now--Tznkai 19:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Back online after a couple of days in the world, I'm not quite prepared to dive into this conversation (I will in a couple of hours), but I will ask this question now - why did Nunh-huh and Tznkai start spelling Chooserr's user name with a capital 'E' in this conversation? It seems to highlight the word "Err". That's not how Chooserr spells his name, why would you do that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Um... because I thought that was the correct orthography. Some trick of mind, I suppose, as I tend to think of it as (Choos-(e)-rr). I think there are more important issues here than capitalization. - Nunh-huh 02:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100%, Nunh-huh, I was really just curious. Dealing with the actual issues involved here will take more than the 30 seconds it took me to ask "what's up with the spelling?" I've gotta put someone to bed right now, but I'll be back in a few minutes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't intentionally getting someone's name wrong in order to make some kind of immature point. Rush Limbaugh already has that gig<g>. - Nunh-huh 04:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I follwed him like a blind sheep--Tznkai 05:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, sorry for the orthographic digression. I especially apologize for seeming to compare Nunh-huh to Rush Limbaugh - I have no desire to tar anyone with that brush. Maybe I was being over-sensitive, but this is a touchy situation.

Now... I just accidentally closed a tab and lost an hour's worth of work here, so I'll try to recall and summarize. In fact, I'll just answer Tznkai's questions. Some little bit of background first - I've been watching Chooserr closely for about 2 months, and observed most of his edits and interactions here. Also, in the interest of putting my bias on the table up front - I vehemently disagree with Chooserr on almost every issue about which he's expressed a POV:

• Did Chooserr commit sufficient breaches of Civility to warrant a block?

  Yes. He's been warned before about WP:CIV, and although I really don't think he thought he was being rude, this is a good way for him to learn something about how not to talk to people about their religion.

• Does the harassment of Chooserr exist?

  Absolutely. Ann provided some good examples above, in the form of remarks by Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused and Calton. The former user in particular (whom I've also been observing) has been on a sort of crusade against Chooserr since December 5, it seems. His history here spans two different accounts - check out this edit history and then this one. Spend some time going through those edits, and you'll find a pattern of behavior that includes following Chooserr around Wikipedia, telling Chooserr to stop welcoming new users and reporting him for "spamming" when he didn't, edit warring with Chooserr on many articles, gaming the 3 revert rule in those edit wars, characterizing Chooserr's good-faith edits as "vandalism", nominating Chooserr's new articles and templates for deletion (sometimes warranted, sometimes not), writing insulting messages to Chooserr in his edit summaries, and leaving rude and imperious messages on Chooserr's talk page. He seems to have taken it upon himself to make Chooserr's experience here difficult, with very little regard for whether he attacks fairly or not.

  • Does the said harassment constsiute mitigating circumstances for the length of the block?

    Yes, see next question.

  • Have those who have harassed Chooerr been properly punished/corrected?

    No. Aolanonawanabe/Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused has been repeatedly warned to stop riding Chooserr's back, and when he's failed to heed those warnings, and continued to violate WP:CIV with Chooserr, he's never been blocked for this behavior. This selective application of the rules sends a terrible message to Chooserr, and I think we need to stop sending that message. I think that Chooserr's block should be reduced from a week to 4 days, and that Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused should receive a comparable block if he attacks Chooserr again. More generally, those who are uncivil to Chooserr should be warned, and if they continue, blocked. (Surely that should go without saying?)

• Is any and all of the previously mentioned corrective action likley to exacerbate the situation?

  Well, the message that we're currently sending to Chooserr: "You get the book thrown at you, while those who attack you get winked at" is very unlikely to result in much improvement. If a system seems blatantly unfair to you, what motivation is there to follow its "rules"? Why shouldn't he game the system, when it works so well for those who disagree with him?

• What is the long term solution?

  Per the previous couple of answers, I'd have to say that a more equitable application of rules would be a start. Something like a restraining order between Chooserr and Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused might be a good idea, too. The fact remains that Chooserr has some learning to do about how Wikipedia works. He's made some progress already, but he's likely to make much more in an environment that he can see is fair. Once that's established, or perhaps as that's established, I think something like mentoring might be a good idea. I think that Chooserr has shown that he's willing and able to learn to work within Wikipedia's guidelines, but that he's not all that quick about understanding how this place is supposed to work. Given the behavior that he's had a chance to observe from others, I'm not all that surprised. I am confident that a combination of more interactions with fair-minded and civil Wikipedians, and fewer interactions with hot-headed and antagonistic Wikipedians will bring out a much more productive side of Chooserr, and that Wikipedia will benefit from that. This opinion is based on interactions I've observed (and sometimes participated in) in which he's reacted much better to polite, patient explanations than he's reacted to insults, bullying and sarcasm. Kind of like... any of us would. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, GTBacchus for those very thoughtful answers to Tznkai's questions, which must have cost you some time to produce. (Excellent questions, by the way, Tznkai!) I agree with all your points, especially that Chooserr has reacted better to polite explanations than to insults and sarcasm, and that a more equitable application of rules would be better. I would strongly support reducing Chooserr's block to four days (and of course, re-blocking if he violates WP:NPA again). I would also support blocking Aolanonawanabe/ Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused if he taunts Chooserr again, and I think a note to his talk page warning him of this before it happens would be in order. I have promised Chooserr to watch out for people attacking him, and since I am on a wiki-reduction (gradually turning into a wiki-break) until the middle of January, I would request that other administrators would watch for that as well. Although I'm not British, I've always been deeply impressed by the British idea of not kicking a dog when he's down. If we have a WP:BEANS page, maybe we should also have one for WP:DOG! AnnH ^(talk) 11:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This[44] is absolutley appalling and easly qualifies as mitigating circumstances. I think his block should be removed (as a reducted penalty), and if I could I would myself. This kind of treatment is pretty appalling--Tznkai 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Tznkai, that's just one of many examples. AnnH ^(talk) 23:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Once I've had a chance to discuss the current situation with Chooserr (and assuming no further issues arise here), I think I'll feel good about removing his block a few days early - I don't expect that to happen tonight, as I'm off to bed in a minute, but within a day or two. Naturally, I (and certainly several other admins) will continue to keep an eye on the situation, and will be perfectly willing to block either Chooserr or Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused for WP:NPA violations. Thanks to everyone who's taken the time to wade through any fraction of the backlog and weigh in with opinions and suggestions. I really believe that a positive resolution of this situation is possible, and that it will result in a better Wikipedia for all of us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, if one person told me that I hardly qualified as a devout Catholic, and another person called me a "mindless, incoherent troll" [45], I would find the second person far more insulting. GTBacchus has said that we're sending a terrible message to Chooserr by blocking him for attacks and not blocking those who attack him. I'll go further than that and suggest that we've been sending a terrible message to Chooserr and to Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused, which is why, this evening, I sent a message to the latter warning him that I'll start blocking him if his pattern of abuse continues. Chooserr, while blocked, has posted a few messages to his talk page, allowing me to remove from his user page a list of users he was watching, admitting that what he said may have been a personal attack, and probably wasn't nice, but stating that he didn't mean it in a grave evil way, and that he might agree with someone who said that he wasn't a good Catholic. He has also said that he will try to be more careful in what he posts on people's talk pages, and that if he does post anything "controversial" he'll be sure to do so respectfully.

Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused has not contributed in the last few days, and may be on a wiki-break. I hope that some admins will find time to check this situation from time to time, as I'm already reducing my time here, and may be taking a complete wiki-break for the first two weeks in January. AnnH ^(talk) 23:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• my comment It's nice to know that you're willing to rally to the defense of someone who has yet to make a non-vandalistic edit in the 2 months since he's registered his account, and whatever he's done to earn your loyalty, good for him, if I'm the scapegoat that you need to somehow turn this vandal into a valid user, than so be it--Aolanonawanabe 04:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Having an opinion that LIFE doesn't need to redirect to Life magazine isn't vandalism, its an edit that is incorrect to most people This is quite diffrent.--Tznkai 05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Aolanon, I'm the guy who blocked Chooserr for a week because of his personal attacks. Consider this notice that I'll be more than willing to block you also if you don't back way off. Wikipedia is not a web forum for children to squabble on. If the two of you can't be civil to each other, then either learn to ignore each other completely and get on with editing the encyclopedia, or find some other place to have your willy-wagging contest. For the record, I still think that the block was appropriate, and I note that Chooserr has shown no sign of acknowledging how deeply offensive and disruptive his behavior has been. I have said before, and I'll say again, that I think that cutting slack to someone who has been blocked this many times in less than a month sends exactly the wrong message. But if another admin wants to reduce the block, I won't stand in their way. Nandesuka 05:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Aolanon, hi. I would just like to add this to what others have said. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Vandalism. It turns out that word does not refer to edits that you disagree with, even to extremely misguided POV edits. Chooserr has some ideas about what an encyclopedia should say that you and I and others disagree with, but that does not make him a vandal, and I consider your calling him a vandal, or a troll, to be not only incorrect, but an insult and a borderline personal attack. Neither of the two of you is in a position to be making remarks anywhere close to that borderline. Several people are watching Chooserr who are capable of doing so with maturity - policing his edits is not your job. I suggest you give Chooserr a wide berth if you can't consistently apply basic courtesy to your interactions with him.

  Nandesuka, as far as reducing Chooserr's block, I'm willing to take responsibility for my actions, and if this turns out to be a mistake, then I'll be the first to say you were right. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The following was composed while GTBacchus was posting his message, which I have just seen. I'm going to go ahead and post what I had written, regardless, as I think it's relevant to the whole discussion, but what I wrote about unblocking Chooserr won't be valid, as I assume GTBacchus will have done so.

Thanks, Nandesuka. I realize that I'm treading on very thin ice in defending him, as he did say something that was offensive. However, I think (and GTBacchus and Tznkai agree) that there are some mitigating circumstances. Also, while he's not as contrite as we might wish, he's not completely unrepentant. Note that he said here: "I guess I deserved this block", and "Maybe it was a personal attack, it probably wasn't nice any way, but I didn't mean it in that grave evil fashion you seem to think I did. If someone said I am not a good Catholic I might even agree with them to some extent." Now, if that's not enough, it's still something. It's more than he acknowledged immediately after the block, and I doubt if he will become more contrite by being blocked for an extra three days. As I understand it, Wikipedia blocks are not meant to be punitive — your offence was so serious that you must be punished by serving a full week — they're intended more as a cooling-off period. GTBacchus suggested shortening it to four days. Now if the three extra days are necessary because "he's not as repentant as he should be", there'd be no grounds for unblocking him after a week either, or after a month, or after six months. I have explained to him that it will be very embarrassing for me if he gets into trouble again straightaway after I unblock him or persuade someone else to do so, and he has promised to do his best not to embarrass me. It will be very embarrassing for me if he re-offends, because every time I try to defend him, I am laying myself open to suspicions, or even insinuations, of condoning his remark.

I warned Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused last night of the possibility of a block for him if he continued his pattern of harassment, which included false accusations of vandalism. One of his first acts after that warning was to write (here) that Chooserr "has yet to make a non-vandalistic edit". I think we all know that that is not true, whatever we may think of Chooserr's POV. I consider that such a remark is in violation of the warning, and increases the injustice we have allowed in constantly blocking Chooserr while simply asking Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused to leave him alone. I'm not going to block Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused now, but I think it will be quite good for him to realize that his behaviour has contributed towards the shortening of Chooserr's block.

I hope this reduction in Chooserr's block will not cause any bad feeling. I fully respect Nandesuka's right to block for that remark, and I know that he does not agree with the reduction of the block but will not oppose it. (Indeed, I would not unblock if he were vehemently opposed, because it was not an undeserved block.) I know also that GTBacchus and Tznkai support a reduction. I know I'll come out of this very badly if he does something to get himself reblocked, but I'm hoping that after four days of reflection he won't. And he has promised me, "I'll try to be more careful in what I post on peoples talk pages, and if I do post anything "controversial" I'll be sure to do so respectfully."[46] AnnH ^(talk) 23:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate my support based on mitigating circumstance. The fact is, if we're wrong, its not like its hard to block somebody again. If we're right, we've given Wikipedia three more days to get a better editor. I think its worth the risk of minor disruption. Allow me to reiterate as well, that open season on Chooserr, should it ever have existed, is over. People are now watching over him like a hawk, but we're also watching for people targeting him unfairly. This is a blade that cuts both ways--Tznkai 02:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment I do not see anything insulting in that statement. I how on the otherhand have seen truly insulting statements regarding peoples religion thrown around and I notice that these people are not blocked. Lies, accusations and insults have been thrown my way too. I feel that Chooserr is being singled out because some people don't like his beliefs. Which is wrong. Dwain 12-30-2005

Perhaps you and Ann would not feel insulted. But I think its patently obviously that its easy to interpret that as a personal attack, even while assuming good faith. For the center of the bell curve here, I would say most people who consider themselves religious, would have a problem with their faith called into question, especially by a total stranger.--Tznkai 02:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

(Please remember that I did not say I wouldn't feel insulted. I said I would find it more insulting if someone called me a "mindless, incoherent troll". AnnH ^(talk) 00:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

Chooserr has not been editing today (he mentioned that he'd be going away), but I'm happy to say that after he was unblocked last night I noticed friendly communication between him and another editor with whom he had been in dispute. I notice also that User:Aecis has just left him a message saying that he's pleased about the unblock, because "what Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused (talk · contribs) has been doing to you is worse than what you have done on wikipedia". AnnH ^(talk) 00:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Chooserr is at it again. Removing images he thinks are offensive where it says that removals are not welcome, and now spamming user talk pages to gather support for his edits. I don't think he learned enough on his break. Jwissick^(t)(c) 05:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs?--Tznkai 06:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ya want diffs of the image removal or the spam messages? Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's one where he is censoring Wikipedia for the protection of minors, presumably. No discussion on the talk page from him that I can see, just an edit summary that he is "removing offensive image." I'm not going to get involved in this round, but each edit I see from him is more trollish than the last. Nandesuka 06:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll field this one until Ann gets off break if thats ok with everyone.--Tznkai 06:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please rename Zionist polical violence (+talk) into Zionist political violence.

User:-Ril- renamed it into Zionist terrorism. Having that title along with Palestinian political violence screams bias. I misspelled the proper title in my attempt to rename it back. It requires admi powers. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Sean|Black 07:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If so and anyone can help me out here, thanks --85.12.17.26 07:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)