I'm not sure how to take the contributions of User:Thereturned. Apparently, we blocked this user under a different name at some point, and now they want to "clear their name" by registering this new screen name, and have posted three times to my user talk page to this effect, as well as putting a message on their own userpage to the same effect. I smell a potential sockpuppet of a banned user, but I am hesitant to take any action about it because I have no clue who's socking or the rest of the backstory, or what the deal is otherwise. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would depend on who it was and why they were blocked. If their time limit is up, then we should probably AGF--but let the user know that people will be keeping a sharp eye for a bit. I'd be much happier if the editor used their original name, though; it's all well and good to make a break with the past and come back under a new name, but that's sort of made pointless when the person is saying "I used to be a jerk here!" [ roux ] [x] 01:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, considering that three of their four posts have been directed at me, I'm wondering if it's a sock of User:Johnjoecavanagh, who targeted me with nonsense posts for a long time, and who was community-banned for off-wiki harrassment. So that's why I see this as this a little more than just some wackadoodle. I wonder if it's this banned user coming back for more. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough evidence for a CU? I think harassment is a good reason to say "No, you can't ever edit here again." Something like vandalism, maybe not; depends if they can prove themselves. [ roux ] [x] 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I was banned, I was told to contact Schumin about getting back in. It is unfair, the man has no social skills, he just keeps reverting me. If a guy behaved like that in a bar he'd be punched, to say the least Thereturned (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name of the account that you were banned as, plus who told you yo contact Schumin? Theresa Knott | token threats 15:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember. I was corresponding with user:Bozothescary before I left. Thereturned (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnjoecavanagh, aka User:Orrelon, aka several IP addresses. A full accounting of the exchange between BtS and this user (operating under several IP addresses) is at User talk:BozoTheScary/Johnjoecavanagh. I don't think we want this editor back. Horologium (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wow... and I somehow doubt that s/he couldn't remember their old username. [roux » x] 18:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming back humbly seeking a reconciliation. As I have been trying for 18 months. Is enough not enough? Thereturned (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous issues include a lot of serious harassment of editors, with little indication in that discussion page pointed out above that there's a recognition as to why this is a bad thing. Your comment above - "It is unfair, the man has no social skills... If a guy behaved like that in a bar he'd be punched" suggests that the lesson hasn't been learned. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screw this. Thereturned isn't interested in building an encyclopedia, he's interested, after 18+ months, in continuing a dispute with Schuminweb, as evidenced by every single one of his edits with this account. I just don't see the point of dragging this out. This person will never change, so I'm blocking this account indef. If he wishes to prove me wrong, he can create an account, stay 100% completely away from editors he's had disputes with in the past, stay on the straight and narrow, and we'll never know he's here. If he isn't interested in doing that, then he will remain unwelcome forever. --barneca (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the Disney Vandal, aka User:Bambifan101, are continuing to be a daily issue, in which he pops in with a new IP, does a mix of "okay" and vandalistic edits to multiple Disney related articles, and talk pages. I report to AI/V as block evasion, and he's blocked, to return again. He is also vandalizing multiple other language Wikipedia's, including Simple English, Welsh, and Russian, Albanian, that I know of, and probably others, both under his IPs and his named socks. Attempts to have get help from Meta Wikipedia have pretty much been laughed off with the response that the individual Wikis have to handle him since I'm ignorant of the nuances of range blocks and made my request too broad. Frankly, having to deal with him pretty much daily is not something I want to keep having to do and despite what they say, our current method of dealing with him is just not working, much to his amusement[1]. (and yes, before anyone says it, my response was probably a little less than civil, but I'm tired of this brat showing us just how useless blocking really is)

At least 39 IPs socks and 30 named socks have been identified as him (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101). He primarily edits from Bell South IPs from Mobile, Alabama. Per a suggestion at RPP, I filed an abuse report to get it handled at his ISP, but its sitting unanswered for weeks while he continues his annoyances.[2] Range blocks have had very limited success, if any at all, due to concerns about collateral damage limiting the ranges to the ones he uses the least rather than those he uses the most. In his laughing at us message above, he claims he's been here even longer than I have been tracking, so he probably has even more that have gone unnoticed.

Some of the earlier reports/discussions: at AN/I, first SSP, second SSP, checkusers. This is getting pretty ridiculous, and at this point its obvious he is continuing to do it because he can, and just because he likes annoying us (and likely specifically me since I'm the main one who spots him and deals with him). He also has made it clear that he finds our current efforts extremely amusing. What else can be done at this point to actually shut this kid down here? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply interested in the responses to this, due to issues with a similar recurring sock. [ roux ] [x] 02:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to spill the beans here, but he actually went on a somewhat productive streak on the Simple English Wikipedia – that is, no discernable easy copyvios, but riddled with typos and complex language (this implies he wrote it himself, as copyvios wouldn't have typos, unless he intentionally did it to throw them off). The admins there assumed good faith until one of the users pointed out that the Touchpath (talk · contribs) account had admitted here (on the talk page, specificaly) that he was the Disney vandal, and at that point Majorly blocked him for it, and AFAIK he hasn't been back since. Are you saying that he's doing this crap on a daily basis? If we're going all Freudian here, I have no idea what turns him on or off, or what. Based on your mainspace reverts, he's striking a pretty large group of articles, and has desisted from his rather idiotic efforts to keep reverting the same articles over and over again. It was this slight change of modus operandi that threw the SEW admins off, as well. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latest contributions was at simple:Special:Contributions/Touchpath. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He says he is still editing Simple, though not sure under which named socks and/or IPs (and he may not have hit for awhile, since lately he's been hitting some of the foreign language ones the hardest because he goes mostly unnoticed there). And yes, he is hitting here on an almost daily basis (and every now and then, he hits 2-3 times in a single day). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he is also now hitting id.wikipedia.org[3] under one of his named socks that is blocked here *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is any different from the rest of WP:LTA. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, can he actually be stopped? We know his ISP, so can't he be stopped there? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without having any idea how we can stop this short of blocking the ISP, I wholeheartedly support Collectonian and this report. This editor has perfected the esoteric mix of "good edits" mixed with vandalism, and I'm convinced it's a game to them. Tan | 39 16:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently he's bored this weekend...second named sock today has already popped up. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. This sucks. My guess is that ISP is way too huge to care about this (but that may be wrong). What did the people at abuse reports say about giving bell south a call? Protonk (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been a response to the abuse report since I filed it weeks ago. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I just saw Wikipedia:Abuse reports/68.220.x.x and 70.146.x.x and 65.0.x.x digging around over there. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The question is; how many productive anon edits are coming from 65.0.160.0/19, 68.220.160.0/19, and 70.146.240.0/20? I know that's 20,000 IP addresses, but I looked at a random /24 from each of those ranges, and almost without exception, every recent edit from that source was from our friend. My inclination would be to put a time-limited anonblock on those ranges, and monitor what (if any) collateral damage is caused. Black Kite 17:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How did you do that, BTW? I've seen people announce that now and again and I'd be curious to see how you did it. Seems like a cool trick. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look in gadgets in your preferences. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't change anything in my gadgets without getting the "your password is 1 character" error that people reported about with the WMF banner gadget change. But I do see the CIDR contribution range thing there. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Aaaand fixed. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tool available from User:Franamax as well. It's a little more flexible in terms of what it looks for, but it's slower and doesn't go as far back in time. I find both techniques have their uses.—Kww(talk) 18:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The other question (now that I can check ranges), is how many of his IP's are outside those blocks? do we know how many named accounts are out there that aren't accounted for in the abuse report (what I'm checking now). Do we know how many other blocks are apportioned to bell south there? Protonk (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At one time, admin Alison said she had blocked some sleeper socks while doing some rangeblocks, but she never said what those specific ones are. Otherwise, we have the 32 named one in the cat above known of for sure. Most of his IPs are in those three ranges, with a few outliers (possibly when he's editing from school). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I am hesitant to support range blocks as large as this one would be ... but after having blocked a dozen or more Bambifan socks over the past month, I am convinced that a range block is the only thing that will stop this persistent vandal. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

)undent( I concur... The rangeblocks, if they really ARE only this guy, should be instituted ASAP. It would go a long way towards shutting him down, and it appears that despite their size, these would not result in much collateral damage... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. Make sure I didn't mess this up. I concur with Black Kite that there is some, though not large, collateral damage from these blocks. I also concur that long term semi-vandalism (of the sort that won't get caught by RCP) is a danger to the project and a drain on contributors. As such, I think that blocking the three ranges above: 68.220.160.0/19, 65.0.160.0/19, and 70.146.240.0/20 is appropriate. I've blocked those ranges for one month. My suggestion to Collectonian is that you take this time to compile a complete and human-readable abuse report and email bell-south in atlanta. We can let them know that we are trying to deal with the problem but that the current situation (possibly blocking many of their customers without explanation or notice) is not the preferable solution. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, let's see how it goes. I'd just point out that there appears to be a couple of odd IPs outside that range, but one I've just noticed is User:70.146.212.195 which is another Bellsouth but outside the range that was blocked. If he re-appears from that end of the range though, we can re-consider. I'm just hoping that BellSouth allocates blocks (like the ones blocked) to geographical areas and that they stay static, though, because their entire allocation is massive and effectively unblockable. Black Kite 02:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and crossing my fingers and toes! I sent an initial report to Bellsouth's abuse reporting email on Saturday, but thus far have had no response.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Belton House, which is an FA, I moved several images to the left because of a problem with formatting on wider screens. Upon saving, most of the images in the article (all those that were gifs) deteriorated badly in quality, breaking into squares. I checked them at their source (Wikipedia not Commons), and found they were broken up there too.

I have tried to simulate the problem by uploading a couple of gifs of my own and moving them around in a similar way, and although they are not as bad, one image is also very pixellated at anything other than full resolution. They are at the top of my home page.

Can someone possibly restore these images, or have I wrecked them forever? Amandajm (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG WTF What have you done!??!?!?!

I don't know what's happened there, but it can't be anything you've done - moving images shouldn't break them. It's probably another problem with the image server (we lost loads of images not long ago) that will sort itself in a while. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 12:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem odd. Once the page loads fully, everything is fine (might consider removing some of the images to lower the page load time), but prior to that, there is a lot of artifacting/other stuff. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compression artefacts. Not your fault. It's the combination of the dithering and compression done when the image was scanned, and the scaling applied in article, that's causing this problem. Try changing the first image's width to 256 or 512 pixels to get rid of the squariness. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone upload a photograph as a gif anyway? Theresa Knott | token threats 20:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further; ...because what some folk may be unaware of is that 'gif' isn't a very suitable file format for a photograph - it's really better suited for icon.s and materials which use a smaller no. of colours than your average photo.. 'jpg' is probably the best way to save a photo - the way it saves the image is fundamentally different, and you'll get much better results :-) Tell your friends too, because unfortunately this mistake isn't entirely uncommon :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the first two to jpgs. There are a lot more that need doing though.To do it I opened the files in GIMP. blurred slightly, added a bit of noise then saved as jpg to try and get rid of the regular grid pattern of unnatural looking pixels that saving it as a gif caused. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GIF thumbnailing has been (hopefully temporarily) disabled due to some overloading of the image servers, suspected to have been caused by large GIF animations. This means that, instead of thumbnails, our image servers are now serving GIFs at full size and letting the browser scale them down. Most browsers don't do a very good job of this, hence the pixelation. It also tends to make the images load very slowly. While I hope that the scaling issues can be fixed soon, I also second Privatemusings' recommendation to convert such images to some (almost any, really) other format. About the only thing GIF is good for these days is inline animation, and, now that we have half-decent support for inline Theora videos, even that niche is shrinking. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indexed PNG is often the best substitute for GIF. For photos JPG is best, but for drawings or diagrams, PNG often gives crisper results. looie496 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why were they completely fine until Amanda moved them this morning? Giano (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, when the server creates a thumbnail, it caches it. You may have seen this yourself: if you add a large image to an article, it is often slow to render the first time you view it, but fast afterwards. Presumably moving the image invalidated the existing thumbnail. looie496 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens now, are the mages wrecked for ever, because they still look pretty horrible on my screen? I deleted the originals off my computer ages ago. More to the point why can't I at least edit any more? I wish people would just leave things alone and stop interfering, who moved the images so they can't be edited?Giano (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can still be edited. Try it again and let us know if you still have problems. Theresa Knott | token threats 13:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full-resolution images have not changed. At this point there are two possible approaches: either (1) get serving-side scaling for gifs turned on again, or (2) download the full-size images, reformat them (preferably as jpegs), and replace the originals with the modified versions. Since this problem is likely to crop up repeatedly in the future, the only really viable solution is (1). looie496 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does "get serving-side scaling for gifs turned on again", where is the switch and who turned it off in the first place? Giano (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Ilmari Karonen post again as he explians that it was turned off because of overloading of the image server. Hopefully it will be turned back on again but in the meantime converting the gifs to jpgs will solve the problem.Theresa Knott | token threats 13:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now just look at this Image:HdeR.gif some fool who does not know what he is doing, is going through Hannah de Rothschild tonight moving images to commoons and they are all going squared. I upload these images for a reason I do not want them deleted!Giano (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now some complete ignoramus has stuck an about to be deleted tag on them, and made them impossible to edit so one can't remonstrate, what the hell is going on here? I upoad images to suit a particular page, in this case an FA, not for some fuckwit to upload to commons so they cant be displayed properly. Giano (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It get's worse, how dare they say they are going to delete this page Image:MentmoreGandhall.gif when having moved it to commons they are incapable of dsplaying it? How many of othetr of the images I've upoaded has their stupidity ruined? Giano (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page they want to delete is about to go to shit anyhow. It only looks okay to you because there is a cached thumbnail at the size you are viewing it at. But that won't stay in the cache forever, and as soon as it expires, the Wikipedia image will look just as shit as the Commons image. "I don't want the cache purged" is a pretty crap reason not to move an image to Commons; I tell you what, I'll just purge the image for you now, so you don't have anything to complain about.... Hesperian 00:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, whoever it was who did that, they obviously thought they were helping. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they certainly weren't causing any harm.Commons is exactly where they should be seeing as they are public domian and don't contain any text. Moving them to commons isn't causing the display problems. That's caused by the combination of an inappropriate gif format coupled with the thumbnailing being turned off. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this user's back at it again. Like with this report and this one, this user is back to the same tricks again (vandalizing articles about Japanese animation companies to make it look like they're owned by American companies). Despite a block to the 118.137.x.x range, this user is getting around it. This time, they're on a different IP range:

• 61.247.11.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.247.11.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Further information can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/118.137.20.170. Is there a way to get this new range this person is working from blocked? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some strange vandals out there; very odd fetishs they do have. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User:61.247.11.0/24, which blocks the 61.247.11.0 - 61.247.11.255 range for a month. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's back as 125.161.63.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 08:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocked 61.247.11.0/24 for 1 month. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Article speedy-deleted under A7

The article Failcyclopedia.com was just recently created by User:Carbide20. I sent the article to AfD based on lack of notability, but when I went to google the website I found that google had removed the site from its listings, presumably because of complaints of child pornography! I went back and removed all direct links to the site and made a comment on the AfD. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to let the AfD run its course, or if this article needs to be deleted ASAP because of the child porn allegations, so I'm posting here for decisive action to be taken one way or another by an administrator. Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the site. It's a wiki with a bunch of copyvio material on it, but having browsed all ~80 images that have been uploaded to it, I saw no indication of child pornography (and only a small amount of regular pornography). I don't see any reason to treat this differently from any other non-notable website. Dragons flight (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to search for the child porn too. (That sounds a bit wrong, but... anyway...) I can't see any, but remember that Carbide20 and his mate probably have oversight privileges... they can probably remove it and have it deleted from the edit history. The entire content of the 'pedia is thoroughly objectionable, and some of it could be illegal in Australia (where we have laws against racial vilification). I think that the article is destined to fail on the basis of notability, regardless of the child-porn allegations. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was just speedied under criteria G7, but thanks for your input. Themfromspace (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an Encyclopedia Dramatica wannabe, but not as notable. Deletion on non-notability basis seems proper. It does concern me that Google apparently de-indexes sites based on mere accusations of child porn, even when they may be unfounded; can anybody get their enemies' sites deleted that way? If the McCain campaign reported Obama's site as "child porn", would Google de-index it first and ask questions later? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Abtract (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the site in google's listings. I think the removal was temporary. May I suggest we remove this section (I'm not sure anyone wants to have their site name near a "child pornography" accusation)? -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site has only had content for about 3 days, so I'm not surprised if Google has only just indexed it. As to the child porn allegations, we don't have enough information. I've emailed the IWF but haven't had a reply. Given the content of failcyclopedia, I would not be at all surprised if they had child porn. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violating his civility restriction here, by stating that I feel I own the page. Restrictions are noted here, specifically:

"Required to follow Strict civility restrictions on any and all talk pages and in edit summaries; the severity of and required action due to incivility, personal attacks, and/or assumptions of bad faith, to be judged by any uninvolved administrator."

Given that he has already been blocked once for violating his restrictions, and was the subject of another report here within the past few days, I would ask that an administrator take a look. Several administrators have told him in no uncertain terms that he should mind his p's and q's, and one even said directly: "That means that you would be very unwise to push the envelope, or even attempt to find out where its boundaries are by experiment." [roux » x] 00:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being uncivil, you need to grow a thicker skin Roux. If there's more to the story, then excuse me for being dense, but the statement you are linking to above is hardly worth a second read, let alone a block for incivility. My suggestion? Avoid contact and remove G2bambino's talk page from your watchlist. - auburnpilot talk 06:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a little more history to this AuburnPilot. While I agree with you assessment, neither party will leave one another alone. This is close to the 8th thread regarding this issue. I am really not sure how to deal with it anymore. If a totally uninvolved admin (thanks for volunteering AuburnPilot! :-) ) would like to look into the situation and offer some insight, I would really appreciate it! Tiptoety ^talk 06:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already blocked the editor for violating the agreement the two of them came to. Part of that agreement was not to assume bad faith about the other. Saying that roux was owning the article/template/whatever was a bit of a stretch and does not help matters. I have blocked G2bambino for 24 hours. Anyone may undo this block if they feel it is not appropriate, however I think it is appropriate given the restrictions the two of them agreed to. (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive174#Both_editors_accepted —— nixeagle 06:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also commented further at User_talk:G2bambino#Assumption_of_bad_faith and Template talk:British Royal Family#Width 2. Auburn, sorry for bashing in like this, but you posted after I made my choice and posted to these other two pages. —— nixeagle 06:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty sound to me. Tiptoety ^talk 06:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't realize this situation had gone so far. I was asked to look into it a few weeks ago (twice actually), but never had the time... Block seems reasonable enough. - auburnpilot talk 15:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little harsh, if I may say so... The reason the two parties won't leave each other alone is because they can't. They edit all the same articles...hence my confusion as to why they can't just get along! ;) I'd have them both indefinitely blocked if I weren't so fond of them both! :) --Cameron* 15:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, I'm fond of you too--but as you know I have left all of those articles due to G2's behaviour. I just hadn't removed that one from my watchlist. [roux » x] 18:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roux possibly violating restrictions

I raised this matter to Nixeagle while on my assumption of bad faith block. After discussing it with him, I'd like to present the matter here. I'm not pressing for action, but others may feel differently. Mostly, I just wanted it on the public record:

I did not initially pursue this because I tend to ignore minor insults. However, now knowing from my own recent experience just how strict the AGF restrictions upon Roux and myself are, I took a different look at the matter between he and I. This led me to see that Roux appears to have violated his AGF and CIVIL restrictions on Template talk:British Royal Family when making the following comments:

• [4] "I'm not getting into an argument with you. Mayalld explained, as did I, what the consensus on this page is. It is against changes. Bye," and,
• [5] "You know precisely what you were told and where... no change is required to this template. Period. Your attempts to override that... are beside the point; the overall view across this entire talk page is very, very clear: no change. None. Nada. Zero. Nothing. You have already been told this, and quite specifically, by Mayalld. I suggest you re-read his comments."

Further, he posted the following on my talk page while I was under block:

• [6] "Oh for crying out loud... Your continued insistence on doing that has gone way beyond difference of opinion into attack territory, and I won't stand for it any more. Stop... I will not be coming back here again. Bye."

There is an evident tone of sarcastic derision in Roux's words, violating his WP:CIVIL restrictions. There is also veiled accusation of my willfully ignoring a consensus in order to get what I want, as well as more direct accusations of my making attacks, violating his WP:AGF restrictions. As I said, whether or not this warrants further action, I do not know; I just felt it was worth consideration. --G2bambino (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop selectively quoting me. I've asked you before. There was no sarcasm or derision, so please stop projecting that onto me. I've asked you that before, too. There was no veiled accusation of anything; you were doing precisely what you had been expressly told not to do by Mayalld. Nixeagle made it clear that he--as the person enforcing restrictions--felt my statements were made in good faith, and I can absolutely guarantee that had he felt that I had violated the restrictions I have voluntarily agreed to he would have blocked me without a second thought. Please stop this. [roux » x] 23:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respected Nixeagle taking the time to discuss the matter with me in a rational manner, though I did disagree with him, and still feel he didn't understand the details well enough; he hasn't yet weighed in again, so I don't know. Perhaps his opinion is actually the most common one; that won't be known unless more opinion is sought, however. And I am as entitled to seek that further opinion as you were to post your accusations above. --G2bambino (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G2bambino, as we have already discussed indepth I'm afraid there is not much I can do further to continue discussion with you on this particular topic. You already know my position (see User talk:G2bambino around the bottom for others interested).

For other administrators, the major hubhub and where G2bambino got most of his quotes is from Template_talk:British_Royal_Family#Width_2. It helps to read the whole story in context. The sections above "Width 2" are also of interest as that is where the consensus formed against modifying the template or formed against roux's proposal... I guess it depends on how you look at it. The crux of the matter, and why these two got into each other's hair is their differing views on what that consensus meant.

To G2bambino, one further note, I suggest you follow my advice at Template_talk:British_Royal_Family#Width_2 and specifically ask the rest of the folks on that template talk what the original consensus meant. —— nixeagle 03:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, nixeagle. Can you please confirm for me whether or not I was correct when I said "Nixeagle made it clear that he--as the person enforcing restrictions--felt my statements were made in good faith, and I can absolutely guarantee that had he felt that I had violated the restrictions I have voluntarily agreed to he would have blocked me without a second thought" ? Thanks. [roux » x] 03:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roux, first off I believe your restrictions means that anyone can block you for violating them, which is why G2 is asking here for someone to double check my reasoning. This is fine. You are correct in your belief that I would and will block you should I believe you violated those restrictions, with G2 or with others. I'm really hoping that for both of you these restrictions will force you to think twice and after they expire.. they might just teach you a thing or two.

As far as the situation at hand, you are not entirely blameless, when citing the existing consensus you could have linked him to the section above, and explained to him that you felt the discussion on your proposal about "no changes are needed", "leave it as it is" meant no changes whatsoever, including changes to the width of the template (quotes may not be exact see here at the bottom). Now, will a second administrator please evaluate G2bambino's assertion? —— nixeagle 04:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gah I hate double posting like this, but roux I need to point out that your use of language like this: Oh for crying out loud... is not productive. Its bordering very close to what I consider meets your civility restrictions. To be honest the majority of your post has no meaning to it other then to say that you won't be posting to his talk page anymore... which really does not need to be announced (I think you said elsewhere you were not touching the template). I've never really considered sarcasm to be a civility issue, however roux if you keep using the tone you used in that message... I will be blocking you.

Again so it does not get lost, I would appreciate it if a second administrator looks at the situation, note that roux's comment came after I blocked G2bambino, the context for that comment can be found here. —— nixeagle 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine how "oh for crying out loud" is enough to draw a block, even for someone on a civility restriction. Are you familiar with the history in the last year of civility blocks? I'd strongly advise against even considering or lightly foreshadowing a block on the basis of comments like that. Avruch ^T 05:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that under advisement, though you should read the rest of the comment. —— nixeagle 05:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, User:7876 ann arbor street (likely a Conservapedia editor based on the link on his userpage) and User:JoshuaZ are continuing to revert to a rewording of the article's mention of RationalWiki, inserting a claim that Dr. Peter Lipson, the founder of RationalWiki, and those who founded the site with him personally orchestrate vandalism of Conservapedia, using this LA Times source as evidence. (See these diffs [7] [8], in the second, JoshuaZ also discreetly removes the article's internal link to the RationalWiki article without mentioning this in the edit summary). Here is the quote from the article that he is using to support this claim:

" After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia. And – by their own admission – engage in acts of cyber-vandalism."

As the article does not elaborate on any specific admission or include any quotes by Lipson that he personally orchestrates vandalism of Conservapedia, nor does it include any from the other editors who founded the site with him (or even mention them by name), this statement in the LA Times article seems much too vague and unverifiable to be included in the article and presented as fact. This seems like a violation of WP:BLP on the part of a Conservapedia editor who is attempting to insert an anti-RationalWiki bias into the article. I would like help in resolving this.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this is at AN. It is a pure content dispute. If it had to go anywhere it should be WP:ANI or WP:BLPN if anywhere at all. I've explained my actions in detail at the relevant talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that ParisianBlade appears to have violated 3RR, too. looie496 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have. I've made exactly three reversions today, and I made one reversion of the same content yesterday.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I'm only counting three reversions. In any event, Tznkai protected the page so no need to block anyone. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its an edit war! Page protected for 3 days, other admins are invited to override if and only if they want to help sort it out.--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me this issue deserves being discussed on the admin noticeboard as potentially libelous content is being inserted into the article. The LA Times source is also libelous in my opinion as it does not contain a quote by Lipson or tell when and where he made the quote that he personally organizes vandalism of Conservapedia but simply makes a generic statement. WP:BLP comes to mind.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the quote says that he personally organizes vandalism and there's no reason you would think so from reading either the LA Times article or the Wikipedia article. And I already tried to explain to you, neither of those is a reason to be at WP:AN. The proper places for such concerns would be WP:BLPN or WP:ANI. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RationalWiki seems to be Conservapedia's Wikipedia Review, complete with an apparent BADSITES policy on Conservapedia that suppresses links to it. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote specifically says "From there (RationalWiki) they (Lipson and several other editors) monitor Conservapedia, and by their own admission, engage in acts of cyber-vandalism." It does indeed state that Lipson admits to personally vandaliing Conservapedia yet cannot provide any quote by him in which he has (and I've yet to find one on a Google search). If you think this should be moved to WP:ANI, feel free to do it.--ParisianBlade (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parisian, please discuss this on the relevant talk page and stop cluttering up AN. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced there is a serious "outing" issue regarding the "people who want to destroy us" quote. The young lady to whom this is attributed in Stephanie Simon's report has been editing Conservapedia for two years and holds the rank of bureaucrat, so I'm certain she realizes that her username can be easily determined from the edit history of the Irish dancing article of which Ms. Simon credits her as the author.

I much more concerned about the username of the other user. At first I supposed the address was probably that of the headquarters of one of these feuding organizations, but instead I found that it clearly belongs to a suburban residence in Dexter, Michigan. According to Google Maps (the second-best web site ever...) it is a unique address, requiring no "disambiguation" as us Wikipedians would say, see [9]).

Now I don't know or care who lives there and I can only speak for myself, but hear me out: My assumption of good faith is heavily outweighed by my assumption that nobody in this post-modern, post-Ted Kaczynski, post-Tommy Tutone world is foolish enough to post their own home address (much less register it as a username) on this or any other internet site, thus I am almost certain it is that of an unsuspecting victim.

For this reason alone I propose an indefinite block and an involuntary renaming for the above-mentioned user. Feel free to courtesy-blank this thread if and when this is done. — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree 100% with username block, possibly with a renaming to follow, if that would help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, according to the user, Milo Radulovich lived there 55 years ago, but he obviously doesn't live there now, and I doubt it's vacant. I can't tell exactly which house it is from the satellite photo but most of them have cars parked nearby… — CharlotteWebb 19:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did an unwarned block on this user based on this edit to his user page. It's the user's only edit. This is an area in which I recognize I have less patience than usual, so I wanted to let others chime in. Anyone who wishes to unblock should feel free. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good block. Presumably meant as a stupid joke, but they must have known it would be totally unacceptable here or anywhere. DGG (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to this; even if it was an established account a block would be in order. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good block; zero tolerance for anyone who believes that such comments can be excused as "humour". LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been engaged in disruptive editing of the Janelle Pierzina and Will Kirby articles. Said user has returned from a one month ban from WP, and is continuing where xhe has left off. At least 4 reverts of each of the above have been recorded this morning, taking over from suspected sockpuppet 71.200.54.6 (talk · contribs), who made 10 reverts earlier today. HairyHannah was served with a WP:3RR warning, but deleted said warning from talk page, and continued to edit disruptively. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the block, Ricky81682. Hopefully, sanity will be restored. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Could an administrator with some spare time on their hands check out Aiv [10]? There are 2 reports which require admin attention. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 12:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying IP already blocked on the first one (he logged out to continue the WP:POINTiness); second one is a content dispute at heart and is nothing to do with AIV. All cleared. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this bio as a obvious WP:BLP violation, as attacky as it could be with the sources include PRwatch, bio been like that for almost three years (early 2006). Just commenting here as I'm mostly inactive in this project now, and the deletion could be contorversal from some. Thanks Secret ^account 18:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, PRWatch doesn't look like a great reliable source, and the other sources are all to an animal advocacy group website... BLP issues galore... yeah, probably a good deletion there. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I suggest before discussing, if you haven't already read this thread, then you should now. I am starting this because I do not feel that whether or not BBHS gets a second chance or not should be at the discretion of one sysop. I think it should be a general consensus, because of the differing opinions on this case. This will likely satisfy more people. I'll start with my personal opinion:

• Keep Blocked - I think he really deserves one last chance. People can always change, and we should always assume good faith. It's not like it is impossible to reblock him if he turns out to be a complete liar just looking to harass more and more people. And, if he wanted to harass more people, why wouldn't he be doing it from his talk page, where he is now allowed to edit? I think he has changed. However, I do think he should issue personal apologies to everyone he has harrassed. _David^WS _(contribs) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, per the below votes, maybe he isn't to be trusted just yet. _David^WS _(contribs) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep block Permanent ban - socking around scant hours before asking to be unblocked? No good. I would support the restrictions posted on his talk page, except that we can't (yet) trust that he won't create more socks. I suggest running a CU to root out the entire sock farm, and if he can spend three months without creating another one, he can come back with six months of severe restrictions. [roux » x] 20:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Per my comments below, this was a second-chance account, and he blew it. [roux » x] 02:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep blocked The standard procedure, which has been used successfully before, is that the user who has been blocked for any issue has to convincingly show he will not commit the offense again. This guy has to prove that they really intend to stop socking. If this user refrains from creating any more sockpuppet accounts for say, a month or so, I would be willing to revisit the issue. But this is to close in time to his most recent socking. So in summation: if he refrains from creating any more accounts OR from using anonymous IP addresses to avoid the current block for 1 month or so, I would support an unblock, but its too soon now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair enough, but I am going to once again go back to WP:AGF. I know he has in the past been dishonest and made socks (yes, even just a little while before the unblock request, but I'll discuss that later if you'd like), why wait one month? I would, at most, wait a week. My reasoning is that (at least to my knowledge) he has never before submit an unblock request, acting honest, and then come back and violate policy again. If so, then my argument for not waiting is void. _David^WS _(contribs) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to the idea of AGF here, so soon after multiple socking abuses, is that I am not so much green as I am cabbage-looking. We don't have to assume good faith when it's been proven that there isn't much to be assumed. The ideal is good, and kudos to you for doing it, but it's like not arresting someone who promises they won't break into your house again and PS here's the radio they took five minutes ago... [roux » x] 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my response: that's an okay analogy but, again, Wikipedia is different. Now, what about if we unblock him, keep him to a 1RR handcuff, AND prevent account creation from any IP he has ever used, just in case he's being dishonest. Maybe we should wait a while, but still, I really think he is truly sorry. Anyway, we'll see, I guess. I think it should be discussed by multiple sysops. I'm now sort of leaning towards Very Weak Unblock, not Unblock, as I see both sides. _David^WS _(contribs) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this edit from one of Be Black Hole Sun's weekend sockpuppets.[11]. I think the edit summary speaks volumes here. "give up". This is a user with an attitude that is belligerent... who has no respect for Wikipedia policy at alll... and their non-sincerity in promising to be good has long since stopped fooling anyone around here. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that edit summary makes me lose faith in, well, his good faith. If he had done that today (I'll look) then I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY change my opinion to keep blocked. However, if he has not, you might say that that was enough time to change. However, he needs to understand "discuss to gain a consensus". Yeah, I'm really thinking more negatively now... _David^WS _(contribs) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep blocked unless the editor is willing to commit to a strict 1RR handcuff and agree to a topic ban of 1 full year on all music related articles. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep blocked PERMA BAN (As per below, I didn't know that BBHS was his last chance account) - I spent so much time hunting down this guys socks. Honestly, if I was in trouble too, then I'd apologise. Would you? He's taunted me, attacked me, and generally made my life difficult as I blocked every single one of his socks. He was socking just one hour before requesting his first unblock. No way. If anyone unblocks him after he's done something like that then I will be having words with that admin. He's had so many second chances. He knows that socking is wrong, yet, he still does it. Many, many, many times over. He needs to stay blocked for good. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep blocked - if only he didn't sock an hour before requesting unblock - I might think differently. iMatthew 21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Would support unblocking if he accepted some voluntary restrictions and also took on a mentor. I should also point out that until earlier this morning, he was locked from editing his own talk page, so he had no other way to contact someone and ask about unblocking except by creating another account. –xeno (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than Special:Emailuser, unblock-en-l and arbcom-l, of course. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but I don't think the user was familiar with those processes. –xeno (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he has created dozens of accounts and used IPs to evade his block and not once did he attempt any sort of contact with any of the numerous administrators who have blocked him in the past to try and plea his case for re-instatement. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? –xeno (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that "attempt" this morning, he still had hundreds of opportunities to attempt to contact an admin regarding unblocking. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep blocked This guy was yesterday creating socks at a rate almost too quick to keep up with; only by watching Special:LogNew/users was there a hope of monitoring the situation and reacting effectively. Today's contrition may be genuine, or it may not, but my preference would be to leave substantial time to elapse with zero socking before this editor should be considered to have reformed. --Rodhullandemu 21:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep blocked - Socking less than 12 hours ago? I don't think so; I can't believe we're even discussing this. AGF isn't a suicide pact. Mr.Z-man 22:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep blocked - A 1-year ban should be considered. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep blocked and I would support a one year ban. This user has shown no reason for the community to accept him or her back. Enigma ^message 01:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time frame for unblocking

Since it appears it's snowing, do some of the people who want him to remain blocked want to set out a time frame and also perhaps offer BBHS some advice on how he can re-earn your trust? It does appear he wants to reform and return to building the encyclopedia in a hopefully collegial fashion. –xeno (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd propose the following, adapted from Libs' statement:

• 1 month block; talkpage unblocked and may use talkpage for proposing changes to articles
• After 1 month, if no socks have been created in that time as confirmed by CheckUser (he has freely admitted which IPs are his, and I'm guessing can give permission for a CU to be run on himself), unblocked with a soft topic-ban on music related articles; must propose changes to mentors and implement only if approved. To last for three months.
• Held to strict 1RR on all articles for three months after unblock, broadly construed.
• After three months, all restrictions lifted, but held to 2RR for three months, broadly construed.
• Any socking results in an immediate and permanent ban.
• Is required to take on two mentors and abide by their advice for six months following unblock.

Thoughts? [roux » x] 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Masters deserve 1-year bans. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can AGF, but I say:

• 3 month block
• If sock-free then he can edit with a hard-topic ban on music articles to last for a full 6 months. If no incidents he can move down to a soft topic ban for another 6 months.
• Held to a strict 1RR for 3 months following re-instatement followed by a 2RR for 3 more months if first 3 months are incident free.
• Any socking/breaking these rules=permanent ban from Wikipedia.

He has earned the ball and chain. Must work hard to have it removed. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c.) If this is to be passed, I would prefer it if he was also placed on a seriously strong civility parole, to the extent that if he says anything that can be construde as rude, then he would also be permanently banned for that. He's been blocked for aggressive editing (i.e. "Shouting" in edit summaries etc.) and I think this should be reflected in the community sanctions. Also, I think a 1 month straight block is too short; he's probably fuming, so he'd probably want to take out his anger at certain people (probably myself included), so I would recommend keeping him blocked for longer as a preventative measure. (Re above: 3 months would be okay) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, for all my advancing years and physical decrepitude, I can see where BBHS is coming from. He has shown himself to be a competent author, taking articles to both GA & FA. In some senses, he reminds me of me at his age (and I can only pitch in general terms what that might be), that is, competent but impatient. Certainly, some block for him to get over his behavioural issues and realise that he is in a cooperative environment might be beneficial both for the project (which must take priority) and himself. Three months at his age is a long time, and likely to be seen as punitive rather than rehabilitatitve. One month might be enough here, I feel, as long as it's a very, very clean month, especially with respect to civility. He should learn to count to ten. One step out of line should, in the current circumstances, be the final straw. --Rodhullandemu 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I was 15 it was the peak of the disco craze and the Bee Gees were on every AM radio station... but I still knew how to calm my own anger issues at that time. I can agree to a compromise of a 6 week complete ban... followed by all my earlier proposed restrictions. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we keep him blocked and see what he does? We tell him the smartest thing to do is wait and request an unblock without socking. He can make up his mind as to when. If he wants to play and request unblock within a day, I'm not unblocking him (and I doubt anyone else will). He should be smart enough to realize when he wants to request an unblock. I'd say a few months and nobody should be playing the "he's too young to be mature enough to handle waiting." If he can't wait to be given the permission to edit freely, he doesn't deserve it; if he's too immature (doesn't matter about his age, we have plenty of adults who are ridiculously immature) then he doesn't deserve the privilege of editing here. If he's remotely serious about wanting to help, he can use the talk page and {{helpme}} requests to prove he is willing to be useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, it was a tough decision for me to indef block BBHS. I've worked with him on a number of things, mostly at WP:FLC, and I've seen what good he can do; however, when I saw he was violating WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK after being given a second chance on en:WP, I felt that there was no other option and put my personal feelings aside.

If the community feel that he should be unblocked then I am happy to go along with that, although considering he has a history of such behaviour (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wellwater Conspiracy, no:Kategori:Mistenkte sokkedukker for Gaius nepos, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wellwater Conspiracy) and that this is his second chance account, and then went and committed the same offenses (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Be Black Hole Sun and Block log of User:Be Black Hole Sun), if it were up to me alone I wouldn't unblock. Despite his good contributions, it is my feeling that they are outweighed by his bad contributions.

If he is unblocked, I think some of Roux's and some of Wiki libs' suggestions should be implemented:

• 3 month block, starting today - time served does not count because the reasons for blocking continued
• talkpage unblocked and may use talkpage for proposing changes to articles
• After 3 months, if no socks have been created in that time as confirmed by CheckUser (he has freely admitted which IPs are his, and I'm guessing can give permission for a CU to be run on himself), unblocked with a soft topic-ban on music related articles; must propose changes to mentors and implement only if approved. To last for three months.
• Must only edit using the User:Be Black Hole Sun username. No IP edits, no sock edits.
• Held to a strict 1RR for 3 months following re-instatement followed by a 2RR for 3 more months if first 3 months are incident free.
• Any violations of WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK (the original blocking reasons) will result in a permanent WP ban, with absolutely NO MORE CHANCES

I've seen editors blocked for longer than a month for doing less that what BBHS has done, so if it is decided to reduce the indef block, a three month block sounds better to me. But, whatever block is decided should start from today. From the day I blocked him through to today, he has continued to edit under IPs and socks. In fact, he was socking prolifically over the weekend and continued his MO of incivility, reverting, edit warring and vandalism. Time served should therefore not be included into any new block of a period of time.

During the blocking period, he must not create a single sock account or edit using an IP. A block is a block. After being unblocked, he must edit under his account only, and mustn't make any edits with an IP or sock account so that his edits are visible and be watched. I think the idea of 1RR is good, considering how many times he's done it, and how many times he's been blocked for it. I also think that a soft topic ban would be better than a hard topic ban, considering that's where his good edits are focussed. His good edits are good when he keeps a cool head, it's just that the problems arise when that level-headedness is lost. Mentorship is also a good idea, I would strongly recommend him seeking mentorship, and possibly Editor review.

That's my 2c on the matter, at the moment. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea this was a second-chance account. I retract all of my previous suggestions in their entirety; permaban. [roux » x] 09:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I didn't exactly know either. I'd heard of the Wellwater conspiracy accounts but, wow, I had no idea there were that many accounts involved. I agree with roux. Someone who agreed to stop socking a few months ago, and then went on a giant sock rampage just recently, should be banned. Sure, he can contribute positively, but for someone who has such a blatant disregard for our policies, he should be permabanned. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he lied here. He's been around long enough to know our core policies. He has received warnings for incivility, vandalism, sockpuppeting, 3RR, and he has also received welcome templates on his talk. Naturally through the learning curve, everyone learns of our policies. There is no chance that he went through his Wiki career and did not learn anything. In my view, he's simply playing ignorant to appear in a better light. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I didn't notice that one. Admins, please give this charming fellow a permanent invitation to the world. [roux » x] 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't see that either. He obviously knew the policies at that point. Wow, that is really annoying. I'm thinking along the lines of BANHAMMERING him, now. _David^WS _(contribs) 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBHS has agreed to take a 1-3 month break from wiki (no socking) and we'll revisit this at that time. People can change. –xeno (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. _David^WS _(contribs) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He was given a second chance; presumably that second chance included a strict 'don't you dare sock' clause? He deserves at least a year off, if not a permanent ban. [roux » x] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. –xeno (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added legitimate and sourced information, explaining that the views of a prominent member of that group's executive committee belonged in the article, and User:Freshacconci censored me by reverting me twice. [12] He is at 2RR and so am I. I was about to revert him again but decided to come here instead. This kind of censorship and bullying from a self-proclaimed republican like him needs to stop. He also needs to be reminded to properly label his reverts. He doesn't even bother discussing bother reverting. If you look at the articles history he reverts seconds after I post the information. He reverts me one last time, informing me on my talk page that he will revert to try to lure me into 3RR [13] and then says I should discuss. This user should read WP:OWN.

All my edits had summaries. I asked this editor to take this to the talk page rather than edit warring, as seen here. He eventually did, but still reverted my edits once more. In any case, the discussion is now on the talk page. freshacconci talktalk 00:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after reverting me again [14]. This is not civil behaviour. He is clearly trying to WP:OWN the article and have his way. Laval (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore his summaries were evasive and not labeled as reverts. If anything he should be blocked for his behaviour. Again, he reverts seconds after I made my edits and then tells me I should discuss, after he has reverted me. I am not going to be able to work productively with this user because I am adamant on including this information because it is valid and belongs there and I am sure he will keep reverting me in the days and weeks to come. Laval (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly trying to WP:OWN the article and have his way. Laval (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore his summaries were evasive and not labeled as reverts. If anything he should be blocked for his behaviour. Again, he reverts seconds after I made my edits and then tells me I should discuss, after he has reverted me. I am not going to be able to work productively with this user because I am adamant on including this information because it is valid and belongs there and I am sure he will keep reverting me in the days and weeks to come. Laval (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as I can see, he he has bothered responding to me on the talk page of the article. For this user, the matter is not open to discussion. He just doesn't want the information there because he doesn't like it. Amazing. Laval (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article-in-question is currently under AfD. This edit war may turn out to be pointless. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true! freshacconci talktalk 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the user in question. He reverts me mere seconds after I make my edit. That's lame. Laval (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If admins don't sanction this user I am going to revert him one last time because he cannot be allowed to get away with this. He cannot force users to discuss after he reverts and then tempts me to revert him. Laval (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I've said what I had to say on the talk page. Both Laval and I crossed the line with edit warring. For that I apologize. I consider this matter over. freshacconci talktalk

Thats very convenient since he has used up his 3RR and has his version active right now. Laval (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also accused me of making a "bad faith edit" [15] when it was entirely in good faith. He didn't assume good faith at all from the beginning. Laval (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't revert each other anymore. Let's hope that article doesn't get locked. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a better idea. HalfShadow 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laval, why the need for second section below? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reviewed Laval's contributions and agree that they are problematic. Most of what Laval writes, reads as personal opinion and is euther unsourced or sourced to primary sources, see the section "non-American union" added here: [16], sourced from YouTube videos and activist websites with no intervening filter of reliable independent analysis. I can quite understand why many of these changes are being reverted or significantly revised. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No admin action needed, WQA thread is the place for this, so closing the AN thread to prevent discussion bifurcation. --barneca (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent discussion about User:Silly_rabbit on that page. The dispute does not seem to be resolved (going on for quite a while). Although silly rabbit is a respected editor, someone has accused him of incivility. Could an admin please participate in the discussion and take the most appropriate action against silly rabbit (if any) (User:LowKey accused User:Silly_rabbit)? Silly rabbit was blocked by an admin (prior to the dispute) for WP:3RR (incivility in edit summaries (see the history of Fidel Castro)) and has continued this abuse (according to User:LowKey the problem is now more 'incivility').

Thanks for your help.

Topology Expert (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really starting to feel a bit baited by this whole affair. Lowkey got all worked up over a stupid edit summary, perhaps ill-advised, but certainly not as incivil as all of this seems to make it seem. My earlier block was because of an accidental WP:3RR violation because of a single-purpose account who was pushing some POV into the Fidel Castro article. I gave the blocking admin a piece of my mind over the affair, and came within epsilon of retiring because of it. Now this Lowkey business is totally without any merit, and I have no idea why Topology Expert is lobbying to have me censured over it. But if the community has it in for me, then I can make it easy for everyone and retire, since I was considering this course of action anyway. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely was not 'lobbying to have silly rabbit censured' over the dispute. I was in this dispute 'for silly rabbit' until LowKey tried to convince me to be 'against him'. The evidence was convincing (to someone who does not know anything about flood geology (I still don't understand what the name means!)) so I went 'neutral'. I only bought it up here 'on behalf' of user LowKey (and this in now way meant that I supported him).

It would certainly be a great loss to Wikipedia if silly rabbit retired since he is definitely a valuable contributor. Now as far as I understand, LowKey bought up the issue over just one edit summary. The only reason why I 'supported' LowKey was because I did not understand the dispute fully (if at all). Now I do, and I think that LowKey was wrong to bring up a dispute over just one edit summary and could have handled it in a less 'public' manner. Hopefully this dispute will be closed and we can get back to normal editing (I now understand the fidel castro issue properly and I was wrong to make that summary).

Topology Expert (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topology Expert,

1. Your summary of Silly rabbit's block history/rationale is inaccurate. It was a 3RR block, recinded 1 hour later by the blocking admin.
2. The discussion at Wikiquette alerts (God, what a stupid name; can't we do better?) seems to have been going on, not for quite a while, but for a little less than a day.
3. An admin, User:dave souza, has already commented on the thread there.
4. This certainly seems to be a mountain out of a molehill.
5. Above, Silly rabbit calls his edit summary "ill-advised", which is certainly enough for me; it was fairly minor, wasn't directed at anyone in particular, no one has presented any diffs to show it is a pattern, etc, etc.

Since you've asked an admin to chime in at WP:WQA, and one already has, and since no admin is going to take action against Silly rabbit for one isolated gruff edit summary, there's no reason to keep this WP:AN thread open. For those who wish to chime in, the WP:WQA thread is a better place, but I'd consider it closed, myself. --barneca (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm sure SR is aware by now that someone was miffed by the comment, but I don't see that they intentionally attacked a specific editor, nor do I see a pattern of problematic comments here. If this isn't an ongoing problem, I should think that moving on in a spirit of cooperation is the best way to go. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out!

The title reads Creating the Bosniak/Croat/Albanian/Montenegran/Macedonian/Hungarian/Turkish Lobbyist group which will oppose the SerboGreek aggression on Wikipedia

Lobbyist group? This thing started by User:Bosniak Atheist, and openly supported by User:GriffinSB and User:Cradel is quite... well, how do I put it... racist, anti-Greek, anti-Serb, anti-Wikipedia. I mean, seriously, lobbyist group?! What is this, an encyclopedia or a place to spread political, ethnic and who knows what other interests!

I urge the Wikipedia administrators to take some action to contain this. I know that you will make the right decision and hope that we build Wikipedia on good faith, not.. lobbyist groups. Thank you, --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform for political agendas. This BCAMMHT thingy, doesn't look good. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.. but what can be done? --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Bosniak Atheist posted this on his user page: "Please sign in here if you want to join the Bosniak Wikipedia Lobby group" --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His own page essentially states he's a single-purpose account. That's a blockable offense. HalfShadow 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "lobby" thing from the user page, and left him a long note/warning on the user's talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bože pravde and ARBMAC

Ok, very convenient. I would like to request the community to scrupulously examine the behavior of Bože pravde (talk · contribs) against the provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia (take some random diffs). The editor has long been aware of the sanctions: [17]. Colchicum (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent many hours discussing things on the Talk:Kosovo page, but no matter what consensus is reached, Albanian editors on Wikipedia keep changing the many articles to their own anti-Serb, anti-Greek bias. This is done especially by User:Cradel, who is part of the Lobbyist group listed above. I do revert his edits from time to time, as well as edits by users who write nothing on any Kosovo-related talk pages. If people read the Talk:Kosovo page, they will see that I do give my reasoning and that it is supported by other editors on Wikipedia. However, there is an endless number of single-purpose user accounts, biased editors and those who tell me and other editors to "accept the facts", while they really want us to accept their interpretation of the facts. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the administrators still feel that I was wrong in my approach, I will accept it and apologize. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a newbie, however. Could you please explain how a move from Brezovica, Kosovo to Brezovica, Serbia [18] or change from Kosovo to Kosovo, Serbia [19][20], make Wikipedia more neutral? It is a fact that Brezovica is in Kosovo, regardless of whether Kosovo is independent. Whether Brezovica and Kosovo are in Serbia is a matter of POV. And such are most of your contributions, as far as I see. Colchicum (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a good advice to read Talk:Kosovo. Somebody needs to step into the mess, as the article is (in theory) under probation. Colchicum (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is edit-warring against the established consensus. Not a single line from you on the talk page. Colchicum (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted this was put to AN. I'd be very happy if some more users could monitor the article Kosovo and the talkpage. Sometimes it needs some neutral involvement. It has already been put to arbcom's probation but nobody enforces it. --Tone 09:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [21]. He is still leveling false bad faith accusations at me and reverting my edits. Please tell this user to stop harassing me and stop deleting my info without bothering to discuss. He has already reached 3RR on one article and is posed to do the same here. A pattern is emerging here. He is literally trolling blatantly now. Laval (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I'm not permitted to edit articles that I choose? I am editing clear violations of WP:BLP which is a serious issue. I am not edit warring and did not revert anything. I removed information that was also removed at a different article by a different editor. I do not appreciate these uncivil accusations on Laval's part. I am making good faith edits to a number of related articles. That's all. Please judge for yourselves. freshacconci talktalk 05:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is really getting tiresome. He clearly has a fundamental misunderstanding of guidelines and uses them like a stick to beat me with. He makes all sorts of accusations, accusing me of bad faith and then at the same time telling me I should assume good faith in him! He edit wars without discussion, claims that there is no consensus when discussion hasn't been engaged, and continues reverting while at the same time accusing me of being the problem! Laval (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the above user justify reverting another editor mere seconds after an edit has been made? Laval (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a novel idea: both of you go edit other pages and avoid one another. Easy fix to the problem. Having said that, Laval, your edit to Charles Roach was in fact problematic under WP:BLP; the same information was quite rightly removed for a similar reason from the Citizens for a Canadian Republic article here. I'm going to suggest to Freshacconci not to mess with your edits, but to discuss them on the talk page; in return, I suggest that you avoid adding information that isn't properly sourced. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to abide by all of this. I do expect an apology for being referred to as a troll and claims about my "fundamental misunderstanding of guidelines", since I've been proved correct here. But I won't hold my breath. As for the Citizens for a Canadian Republic article, I've mentioned on the AFD discussion that I've found a great deal of sources that I wlould like to add when I have time, some time tomorrow. Other than that, I have no intention of dealing with Laval in any capacity after this. Life's too short for this nonsense. freshacconci talktalk 05:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will never apologize to you. Your behaviour is rude and condescending and you revert edits seconds after a person makes them. Your behaviour clearly reveals trolling habits. Notice how nobody disagrees with at least that part of my argument against you since you obviously stalked me from article to article. Laval (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One would assume that when the member of the executive committee makes a statement about another member of the same executive committee of the same organization, that this information would be legitimate. I disagree with this interpretion of the guideline. In certain cases such as this, blogs should be valid. Laval (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [22] - the fact that a member of the executive committee would make such statements about another member of the same organization in my opinion should be allowed, otherwise the whole truth is not being made available to the public. Laval (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truth isn't the issue. Verifiability is. You have a random blog by "J.J." and you are taking a whole lot out of that. Agree with Tony, this isn't sourced remotely well. Get some actual press about the dispute or otherwise drop it. It's giving way too undue weight to McCullough's view. If you want to continue this, go to Talk:Charles Roach. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'kay, for general information, I've asked both editors to saty away from one another; I've informed User:Laval that blogs are not valid sources for BLPs (and if that's not good enough, he's going to have to take it up by trying to change the BLP policy or the reliable sources guidelines, really), and if this sniping continues, I'm going to start being a cranky fox, and cranky foxes with block buttons are not your friends. =P Hopefully, this defuses the situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx3) Freshacconci has acted quite correctly per BLP and should not be advised to "steer clear". He should be encouraged to keep up his vigilance. Any negative comment about his action is totally out of order. Ty 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ty. I admit I get a bit hot under the collar at times (and did admit to the first bit of edit warring mentioned above), but this has gotten out of hand. I know this is out of your area of interest (I mean, Canadian politics!) But if you could have a gander at the AFD discussion at Citizens for a Canadian Republic and see if I'm being out of line here or not with some of the issues (including WP:V and WP:BLP). freshacconci talktalk 05:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked that if he sees an issue that he brings it up with a neutral party, such as myself, to try and bring the war down to a manageable level. Quite appropriate, I'd suggest. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. Ty 05:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a note for Laval pointing out that if he wants to avoid trouble he should use reliabel independent sources rather than blogs, activist websites and YouTube videos. The major problem here is that what Laval writes looks very much like his own analysis, and any editor is likely to revert this kind of thing: [23], and edits that quote blogs as calling article subjects "dumb" are unlikely to be accepted as sources either. I think Laval should steer clear of any articles related to CCR unless he can show that he can edit in a neutral manner compliant with policies; in my view he has violated WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV with some of his recent edits, and I don't think that's a good sign. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I was surprised to see Freshacconci's name here as I am familiar with his history as a good editor. It is problematic when an editor like him addresses unacceptable content and is then attacked. I hope Tony Fox's suggestions will act as a buffer. Ty 01:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we've always had the ability to link to somewhere other than the image description page (using various hacks), it's now possible to do so using standard image syntax. For example: [[Image:Foo.png|20px|link=Main Page]]

Has there been discussion about when doing so would be appropriate and when it would not be? I imagine we would always want non-free content to link to the image description page, but what about other images (icons, logos, etc.)? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My quick take on this is that if an image looks like an object (like a button labeled "instructions"), it could have different destination than the image page. In such cases the expectation is that the object should do something when clicked. If the expectation is that you would want to know about the image, or see a larger version, it should not. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My quick take on this is that you should only do it with PD images or images not requiring attribution. Otherwise we risk being in breach of the licenses. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to object to the creation of freer-than-free public domain alternatives to any already free GFDL icon art we might currently use—honestly, who could say no to more free stuff (both in quantity and degree of freeness)…? On the other hand I just noticed when I click on the upper-left logo, I'm taken to Main Page, not to the description of Image:Wiki.png, an image which is far from free… — CharlotteWebb 14:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current possibilities

There is currently a request to enable the image links at a few Wikimedia project related templates. They are Template:Wikibooks, Template:Wikinews, Template:Wikiquote, Template:Wikisource, Template:Wikispecies, and Template:Wiktionary. Thoughts on these ones specifically? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did that on {{Commons}} a couple of days ago, no screams of horror so far. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – AfD closed as delete

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at this AfD for the International Gaming Tour? It's the target of a rather persistent IP sock (case detailed here). I see three possibilities: 1) Do nothing. The closing admin probably would see through the BS, but in the meantime, we have a mess of a page and it might unduly influence any naive !voters. 2) Protect the page. Probably the most obvious choice; is it worth not letting other IPs have a say? and 3) Close it early as an obvious delete (this pretty much meets CSD A7), and be done with it altogether. Thanks for any opinions. Tan | 39 16:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some digging...the article creator was ZeroFanMission (talk · contribs)...who just so happened to have signed this AfD (closed last year) as Xgmx (talk · contribs). If one looks at User talk:Xgmx, there's an awful lot of block notices, including an autoblock notice for 4.245.73.33 (talk · contribs) -- remarkably similar to 4.245.74.168 (talk · contribs), 4.244.3.216 (talk · contribs), 4.245.21.242 (talk · contribs), & 4.245.73.195 (talk · contribs), the IPs that keep showing up to "save" International Gaming Tour. Time to hand out some blocks... — Scientizzle 16:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't do all that without first clicking the sock report I linked to above. Blocking will do nothing, IMO. Tan | 39 16:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss your 2nd link, but all this took ~1 minute to find, so I don't feel that bad. As for the AfD, it's closed. — Scientizzle 16:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 it is. Thanks Scientizzle. Tan | 39 16:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Prior ANI threads and resolutions attempts:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_review_this_case (and older archived threads - feel free to add 'em as you find 'em))
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive157#Cold_fusion
  • Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Cold_fusion (and subpages)
• Recent diffs cited as troublesome: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#diffs_just_from_November

• Proposal: User:Pcarbonn is banned from Cold fusion and related articles for six months.

Executive mini-summary

Pcarbonn is alleged to be a single purpose account, to edit with a conflict of interest, to have repeatedly violated WP:NPOV, and to have boasted off-wiki of his success at altering Wikipedia's coverage of cold fusion in order to present it in a more positive light.

Question of jurisdiction and rationale for this proposal

There has been some confusion about whether this issue should be handled under arbitration enforcement, but the majority of editors contributing to this straw poll were of the opinion that cold fusion is better described as "pathological science" or "fringe science" than pseudoscience, in which case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience may not be applicable. Hence this proposal: that question of jurisdiction will be irrelevant, however, if the community can agree on a ban here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You are making a bad assumption here that folks seeing this on AN know the full details of your particular case. Please give us links to all relevant items, and a short description of why you want this topic ban and what you guys have tried prior to requesting this. —— nixeagle 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the threads that SheffieldSteel has linked above. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair criticism; I've added a little more information. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban per previous thread discussion here. The poor attitude displayed is a contributing factor to my support. Verbal chat 17:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am most troubled by the statement Sourcing to NewEnergyTimes (where he was published congratulating himself on getting Wikipedia to promote cold fusion) after consensus was it is not reliable. I can see the reference, but can someone elaborate on what the statement in NewEnergyTimes was?—Kww(talk) 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the second diff here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's clear enough to demonstrate that he has a stated agenda contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia. Support topic-ban.—Kww(talk) 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I looked through the diffs presented in the above thread. I've also looked through the article. ScienceApologist said that Pcarbonn cited the NewEnergyTimes, yet the diff shows him bringing it up on the talk page.[24] The rest of these diffs leave me very suspicious of SA's honesty; they're mainly of Pcarbonn on the talk page, stating substantive points and citing substantive research. Two are in the article space. For one, ScienceApologist cites Pcarbonn "insisting that two-thirds is not a majority" for this diff, when Pcarbonn doesn't seem to dispute the mathematical fact but rather increases the precision of the statement by substituting the word two-thirds in for the word majority. I try for precision whenever possible. That looks like a good edit to me. Keep in mind that if a physicist is a well-published academic, then citing articles by that physicist from places like the NewEnergyTimes might be appropriate. Yes, Pcarbonn says that publications acknowledge a growing controversy over new research in cold fusion. For example, a 2008 article in Nature India is titled "Cold fusion hot again". I see that there are talks in these threads of wiping out all of these fine sources and going back to the 2004 version. How can you justify eliminating articles from things like Nature? Why react to this article as if one's entire worldview revolves around cold fusion being reflected as pure pseudoscientific garbage. Why does it matter so much? Recently a professor at Osaka University in Japan unveiled what he calls a working cold fusion reactor.[25] This used to be in the article, but it has been deleted. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. Are we trying to "save people" from hearing about the latest news regarding cold fusion? Why? If a professor claims to have a working CF reactor, that is news worthy of an encyclopedia. It is not our job to fact-check it or ensure that readers know that this is just an announcement, not necessarily a confirmation. As a reader, I come to Wikipedia because, unlike textbooks, it does not censor the latest breaking (encyclopedic) news, or shy away from the most in-depth details. II | (t - c) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive read and re-read the above post and cannot work out who "you" is meant to refer to. Please clarify whose honesty you doubt, if nothing else. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. For some reason I thought the "diffs" thread (which is the only one which really matters) was started by you, but it was started by ScienceApologist. So I doubt his honesty, which isn't surprising to me. It says something when the best diffs you can come up with start with "[the user] pontificating on the talk page". What do you think of those diffs, and what do you think of the more recent third-party sources? II | (t - c) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the AN/I discussion, the delisting discussion (which arguably would not be necessary if PCarbonn adhered more scrupulously to the weight of sources), and years of usually civil insistence that NPOV and should be superseded by advocacy. (Note that I am occasionally involved at Cold fusion, but generally lack the time or inclination to fight over every point I try to research and add). Reverting to a few years back might be a bit extreme, but WP:DUE must be respected. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. In my perception, based on a very brief stay at the article, this is how Pcarbonn is compromising WP:DUE. Consider the facts: 1) There are over 50,000 papers indexed by ISI each year on Applied Physics / Condensed Matter Physics, which all ignore this revolutionary anomaly. 2) Britannica has two paragraphs about Cold Fusion in their article on fusion, completely ignoring the five or so recent papers. 3) Sourcing policy only considers reliable sources about the topic in question, not the extend to which most reliable source don't even bother refuting it, therefore, the presentation is vulnerable to attack. This vulnerability is masterfully exploited by Pcarbonn.

  In any case, surely there are editors without vested interest in cold fusion, who cold oppose the Britannica POV, if that is indeed too conservative; but Wikipedia's inability to deal with non-well-established-knowledge pushing is the worst aspect of this project, so I hope something is done about it. Vesal (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources which acknowledge a controversy from Wired and Nature India. For example, a 2008 Wired article states that "verification of these controversial results is not the problem".[26] There is also an article on it I'm not seeing how the amount of mainstream physics work published is relevant to what is included in the cold fusion page. Am I reading you correctly in that you advocate removing most of the now-considered acceptable sources on the subject, such as the Nature India article, Wired article, and the cold fusion research articles because mainstream physics ignores cold fusion? I would oppose the Britannica POV (or, more accurately, their article, which is likely short because of lack of resources), but I don't have the time or the interest to learn about cold fusion, especially since I would then have to have edit-wars with SA and others concerned that CF isn't being presented negatively enough. II | (t - c) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as I said in the AN/I discussion, our goals should be to improve the encyclopedia, not advance a particular viewpoint. If PCarbonn is interested in contributing here, it needs to be on areas unrelated to Cold Fusion. Shell ^babelfish 22:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Shell; tendentious editing drives away too many good editors Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think Pcarbonn's editing has been borderline at best, and their off-wiki comments are troubling in that they reveal a desire to spin the article. Wikipedia has more than 2 million articles. Banning somebody from a handful is not a very strong sanction. On balance, I think this ban makes sense, but it is a difficult call and good faith editors may disagree and this diff seems to provide a solid justification. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC) and 23:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a ban/block on Pcarbonn for the reasons mentioned by SA, Verbal, and many others. There is clearly a conflict of interest and some serious and unrelenting POV pushing. He is more than willing to wage a war of attrition allowing more NPOV edits to be added and stand for a time before working the text back to his position.--OMCV (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support ban mainly per Shell and Kww. If Pcarbon proves himself able to contribute productively to other areas maybe we can revisit this ban at some point in the future. I hope that he might grow to appreciate NPOV more if he became more involved in other topics. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. Pcarbonn's stated intent[27] is to "win the battle" over cold fusion. Crowing about his victory on his blog[28] is, in my mind, the final straw. Skinwalker (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unless I am mistake,m that was back in June, and refers to the result o fa mediation which he says supported his approach to the article. And, to a certain extent, so it did. It think it ridiculous that someone should be topic banned because he accepted a mediation DGG (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out, that mediation was a bungled mess, handled by a mediator who alienated a number of editors who were much more familiar with the science. I received the rudest e-mail of my life from that "mediator" who then essentially told me he would ignore me for the rest of the mediation. Since then, that mediator has driven an excellent editor off Wikipedia and has continued a low-level campaign of harassing editors with science backgrounds. Sometimes, more often than we'd care to admit perhaps, mediations go wrong. This is one of the classic examples I turn to. It's why I no longer participate in mediations, in fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban per nominator Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose topic ban. I totally disagree with him on the underlying subject, and I am not sure i agree with many of his edits, but i regard his work as fair, or at least fair enough to avoid banning. This is an attempt to win at AN/I what could not be won at the article or the medation. The place to try this if people insist is at arb com. FWIW, I don't think I have ever involved myself with the article itself. But I do know this is not the place to discuss article content. DGG (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with content. Its an issue of COI among other things.--OMCV (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose topic ban. I am not involved in this article but looked at the diffs and evidence presented against Pcarbonn.I don't see policy violation. 2/3 for example is not a weasel word. "Most" is. What exactly is pontificating, self-congratulation.[29] These words are judgments based in opinion and not policy violations. I don't see either of these things as accurate descriptions, but if I did when did these add up to a policy ban. I could go on, but what I see is a discussion that should go back to the article where it belongs; editors with differing views but discussing reasonably, and an article that had FA status. I note as well that this is another try at having an editor banned, a concern. I would suggest that such an article requires patience and lots of discussion rather than a ban that prohibits an expert in the field from editing given that although he certainly may have a certain slant on the information so do many of the other editors there. Discuss rather than eliminate and punish.(olive (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Support topic ban. This editor doesn't seem to understand or accept the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose is to be a user-edited encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia edited by those user whose views i happen to support. DGG (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting RfC is ongoing about the actions of admin Slrubenstein (talk · contribs), who overturned a block of one of his allies, Mathsci (talk · contribs), without consulting with the blocking admin, Charles Matthews (talk · contribs). Specific questions being covered:

• Should an admin be required to consult with the blocking admin, before overturning a block?
• Is it acceptable for an admin to use tools in support of an editor, if that editor is one of the admin's regular allies in other editing disputes?

Comments and opinions are welcome at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII. --Elonka 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that these editors are "allies" is an issue being discussed in the RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm pretty familiar with the case, I think the word is appropriate, and I'm happy to provide dozens of diffs if there is a question on this point. --Elonka 17:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was the word you used in your comment in the RfC and that view may be endorsed by other editors in the future. However, I thought it would be helpful for people not familiar with the issues to note that this is presently one of several viewpoints under discussion, not an uncontroversial "fact" accepted by all parties. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not neutrally worded and should be amended, please. Verbal chat 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that Elonka's view (claiming that Mathsci and Slrubenstein are allies) hasn't yet been endorsed by any other editor, and has been in fact denied by one of the parties[30].--Ramdrake (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blah reading the RFC, the problem looks like it was just a misunderstanding (those are the opinions with the most supporting them). There is already a bit in the admin policy about making sure to put any extra info in the block reason. —— nixeagle 17:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That bit of policy was added after this situation occurred because we realized that the documentation was not as clueful as it could be. Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we can put that in as a requirement, since it may not be possible to contact the blocking editor. It's a good idea to do so, of course, but if the blocking Admin doesn't reply, that shouldn't be a reason to unblock. As for using Admin tools, so long as they are used correctly, there's no problem is there? And if they are used incorrectly, that's the problem, the incorrect use. 'Allies' doesn't have to come into it. dougweller (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, please discuss it at the RfC, not at AN? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In an earlier version of this RfC, Charles explicitly stated that "As I mentioned above, the block itself will be looked at under policy by the ArbCom, and this RfC is absolutely not about the conduct of User:Mathsci. I will take very badly any attempt to divert this conduct RfC to that matter." I confirmed privately by email with Charles 2 days ago that this still applied, with particular reference to Elonka. However, Elonka's contribution to the RfC seems to be exactly of that nature. Although I don't really feel I can make any comment on allies, whatever that means, I think I could make a very clear statement about enemies. Mathsci (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Disclaimer: I haven't looked at the RfC and I am not familiar with the involved editors there. I do think that Elonka should be cautioned not to leave such biased invitations to discussions in the future. (Is she an involved party in the RfC?) WP:CANVASS#Campaigning seems pretty clear on this. Cross-posting a biased announcement to high-traffic locations (including here and the Village Pump: [31]) is not a good way to get impartial participation from neutral editors, nor is it likely to aid in calming and resolving any disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Came across a suicide threat here [32]. Definitely not something I feel comfortable handling.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it from the page history. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're now dealing with suicide threats by deleting and ignoring? Serious question; I'm not being sarcastic. I typically file a CU request to get the IP... contact the ISP... etc etc... Tan | 39 17:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SUICIDE. The edit came from an IP in Pakistan. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with that essay, and several times I have reported suicide threats to ISPs around the world. WP:SUICIDE states, "Once noticeboard threads have been responded to by appropriate parties, consider blanking them, possibly leaving a link to the last version of the thread for reference as needed." (Bolding my own). While I don't have a huge issue with what you did, I'm trying to determine if I've been going way out of my way for nothing. The gist of the essay is that we do not ignore suicide threats and take them seriously - or so I am interpreting. Tan | 39 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I just realized that that was talking about blanking this thread, not deleting the threat itself. Trying to work and Wiki at the same time. Anyways, I just always thought we take more action than merely deleting. Examples of my previous actions: [33](I was the one to contact the ISP in this oneTan | 39 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. You are, of course, more than welcome to pursue further action if you'd like, but no one is obligated to do anything specific (other than revert it). John Reaves 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone can take whatever further action they think fit. Mind, WP:SUICIDE, which is indeed only an essay, says: Threats or claims should be removed from any relevant pages, and are frequently deleted from page history, which is what I did, since I can see no need for it being there (admins can see it as needed). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I wasn't trying to cause a ruckus; I was curious as to other people's mindset on this. Thanks for all your input. Tan | 39 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Tan, none of this is to say you've been going out of your way for nothing, it's wholly up to you, please carry on doing what you think is most helpful. Truth be told, I do think 9 out of 10 or more of these are hoxes and idle (yes, maybe sad) teens trying to see what gets stirred up. If I saw one I truly thought was worrisome, I'd likely do something. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why in the world would the revision be deleted from page history before it has been assessed and perhaps reported to the authorities. Indeed it should not be deleted in the case that the authorities need to see the revision in order to get the contact info from an ISP. Deleting a revision of intended threat or suicide at all is unwise but deleted it before it can be tended to is terrible. Bstone (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is it just me? My attitude has always been "fuck 'em. I don't care" . I seriously don't understand why anyone bothers with this kind of attention seeking vandalism. I'm not quite at the stage of actually goading them into doing it but I'm not that far off it. If they need help this website is not the place to go looking for it. But then maybe I'm just a horrible person. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm essentially right behind on that. Of all the threats, suicide or otherwise, I've seen (note they seem to have proliferated over the past year or two), only one has seemed anywhere near credible (and when I saw that one I called the police, was on the phone for several hours, got some lucky kids out of school for a day and one unlucky one arrested). John Reaves 21:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen over the years, most of them are hoaxes or distraught but hardly suicidal teens stirring up the worries and fears most of us have about this kind of thing. I remember what it was like at that age, one way or another, they want to see what happens. I say follow the essay and delete the threats altogether (again, admins can see them anyway). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not quite at the stage of actually goading them into doing it but I'm not that far off it." Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan are thataway...please peruse Suicide#Suicidal_gestures_and_attempts and leave your bit at the door on your way out if you decide to go for it. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS- if this geolocated to Pakistan I wouldn't have bothered reporting either. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, most of them are hoaxes and stir ups. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are. It's like a kid pulling a fire alarm; if it's real, the authorities are summoned and life is saved. If not, the authorities are summoned and the kid gets told, hopefully by the police, that crying wolf is unacceptable. Or you could simply RBI. Either option is a far cry from "goading them into doing it" for your own perverse amusement, which, like I said, is the mindset of an ED/4chan troll. Except now, since Megan Meier, if you successfully goad a child into committing suicide, you'll likely be arrested and prosecuted. Per WP:AGF, I simply assumed Theresa, as a long-time and valued administrator, was making a sick joke and would not consider actually trying to goad any Wikipedia editor (IP or otherwise) into committing suicide. It might be good if she clarified or redacted. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my eduction, Bullzeye, I noticed you and Gwen Gale both mentioned the IP being in Pakistan. Why does this make a difference? Not being snarky, just trying to learn. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Maybe it's just too hard to make contact with Pakistani authorities. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 01:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it was a college or business IP, there's zero chance of inducing any kind of intervention. The guy's boss or teacher might care, but I seriously doubt the Pakistani national police would have any time to spare for this, for about 10 different reasons. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also doubtful about the likelihood of doing anything useful about a suicide threat from Pakistan, but concerning suicide threats in general, I'm going to repeat what I wrote in an earlier related discussion. If you don't feel like doing anything about a threat, don't do anything. But don't act in a way that prevents other people from doing something. If you aren't going to help, just stay out of the way. looie496 (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe what I'm reading! If this is a cry for help (we can't view the threat now) it must be responded to. If it vandalism or a sick prank, that's life! But if its serious, we may be the last community he has contact with! Admin needs to disclose this person's identity!--Gazzster (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't know his IRL identity any more than yours or mine. All that could be done is a call to the Pakistani authorities, and if you'd like to give it a try you are more than welcome. It would probably help if you spoke Urdu. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 03:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a simple way to get the attention of people who create sockpuppet categories. I want to ask/remind them to include {{Sockpuppet category}} when creating these pages, because doing so will keep the category from showing up on reports such as Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories. Any advice? - Stepheng3 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try posting to WT:RFCU and WT:SSP. MBisanz ^talk 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done this. Thanks! - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some admins sign the blocks they place, but others block anonymously (of course the identity of the blocking admin can be found in history). The blocked user can normally place an unblock request on his talk page, unless the blocking admin protected the talk page and cannot post on the blocking admin's page. What are the pros and cons of signing a block? Edison (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only posts or templates (of any kind) I don't sign are uname blocks. I'm not speaking for anyone but myself though. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case one will get a "your username or IP has been blocked by so-and-so" message if they try to make another edit, which will contain the pre-filled code for the (goofy and unnecessarily complex) unblock template, so anything on the user's talk page would be almost entirely redundant. If they never try to make another edit (as would be the case with throwaway vandal accounts) the point is moot. If you mean that people are leaving unsigned "you have been blocked" comments on talk pages, but if so I agree that this would as a general practice be poor form, but onlookers would be the only ones confused by it. Habitually not signing these may cause someone to forget to sign more important comments elsewhere, however. — CharlotteWebb 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even leave a message (for vandalism blocks) unless it is indef, and that's only so the page will get deleted eventually. John Reaves 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always leave a message. It ups my edit count. Especially the user talkpage count. Makes me look like a nice caring sysop. Heh heh heh heh. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only ones I tend not to sign are schoolblocks and ublocks, where a talkpage message gets left anyway. Black Kite 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a message is a good way to game subsequent unblock requests when one is unsure the block reason will stand up. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that dates are often overlinked, but sending in a bot to unlink each and every wikilink to a date article is pretty radical. What happened to our healthy suspicion of bots doing the work of human editors? The relevant guideline, at Wikipedia:CONTEXT#Dates, has

such items should be linked only when this is demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic

now if somebody has written a bot capable of making that call on a reliable basis, I suppose we can announce the Turing Test has just been met. Meaning, I don't think so. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read all three of the discussions that are linked to from the 'bot's user page, especially the third? Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbot should not be unlinking any dates as understand it. BJ^Talk 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back, why was that approved again? It is just as bad as removing all autoformatting which got denied.BJ^Talk 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that instances of a link that is "demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding" are sufficiently few as to make this bot good value, providing it can be reverted once and forever when an inappropriate delinking is detected. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For instance we already have bots removing certain links (of the myspace, youtube, blogspot type) on sight based on whether or not the editor adding them is autoconfirmed. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking a bot

I'm not sure if this is the right place or not. If it isn't please point me in the right direction. I would like to request that User:Lightbot be blocked. At least temporarily. If you view the operator's talk page, there are at least 2 sections (here and here) where other editors have pointed out that the bot is acting contrary to consensus, and the bot operator appears to refuse to stop the bot or change it. One example of this, is how the bot is changing text that breaks the depreceated autoformatting ([[July 4]], [[1976 in radio|1976]] for example) to "[[July 4]], [[1976]]". It is removing a useful link. More details of the problems with the bot can be found at the 2 sections linked above.--Rockfang (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like autoformatting but there are many articles that contain broken autoformatting due to these concealed year links. All the bot does is fix the error. I don't expect thanks for fixing the errors caused by other editors, but I don't expect to be attacked for cleaning up the mess and explaining how autoformatting works. Lightmouse (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, your bot is removing a useful link under the color of "fixing" broken autoformatting. While your stated dislike of piped "year in subject" links is clear, the consensus is that they are both permissible and useful. Your bot has been removing these links and replacing them with bare "year" links which leaves the autoformatted date links you purport to be removing while stripping hundreds of articles of a useful, on-topic link. I have requested a temporary halt to this behavior which is both destructive and against consensus but you have not only refused but at one point concealed the mechanism for halting the bot after restarting it. - Dravecky (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually on my way here to begin this exact discussion when I saw that it had started without me (and now I've been edit conflicted - urgh!). Luckily, we seem to have reached a detente on radio station articles, at least for now. However, that's not to say that I don't still have concerns.

The task approval for Lightbot is very broad with regard to dates, as follows:

I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing dates in a variety of forms.

A 'date' is any sequence of characters that relates to time, chronology, or calendars. This includes but is not limited to seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, fortnights, months, years, decades, centuries, eras, and can be in any sequence or format.

Edits may add, remove or modify the sequence or format of dates.

Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve dates.

Edits may add or modify autoformatting. Edits may remove autoformatting where it is invalid, broken or itself breaks a date for readers.

Edits may add, remove or modify links to dates.

In that regard, the edits that are causing concern are within the bot's scope, per its broadest interpretation. So, at this point, I think it's the approved scope that needs to be questioned. Given that the current state of WP:MOSNUM is that autoformatting is deprecated, why should any bot be adding autoformatting to articles or, as has been happening here, fixing autoformatting that is broken? Why should broken autoformatting be 'fixed' at this point, particularly if the links being 'fixed' point to valid contextual information?

Lightmouse, for what it's worth, I will say thanks for the explanation you've provided about broken autoformatting. As I've told you before, I also think it's unfortunate that you've taken all the flack that you have for removing autoformatting from articles, whether via your bot or via script through your user account. Some of that flack has been rather personal, which is particularly regrettable. However, I don't believe that this discussion has contained attacks against you, and I know that I certainly haven't attacked you. If that's how you're perceiving it, then I'm sorry for that. What I have done is raise what I believe to be valid concerns about your bot's edits as it concerns existing policy and as it concerns the deletion of useful links. Now that you've stated you've tweaked the bot to steer around the radio station articles, we'll hopefully be able to get some third, fourth, etc. opinions.

So, here's the question I'd raise. I think it's a reasonable assumption that a piped link - whether it takes the form of [[October 5]], [[1976 in radio|1976]] or simply [[1976 in radio|1976]] - is intended to point toward contextual information. As such, would it not make sense to build logic into the bot to have it skip past piped date-related links? Mlaffs (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I felt the request was too broad at the time, and, I think that this carte blanche type task is beginning to cause problems now. However, for the time being, the bot appears to have stopped. SQL^{Query me!} 21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the bot has stopped is becuase of this.--Rockfang (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I saw that the bots owner and another party were having a bit of a fight over that page. SQL^{Query me!} 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now the bot is running again, even while this discussion continues. - Dravecky (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - to clarify, while there may be links such as these in various spots within an article, the particular ones that I'd like to see retained are those in the infoboxes. Other editors' mileage may vary ... Mlaffs (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links like that are not good, since people will think they're year links and not click them. See WP:EGG. However, that link does suggest an alternative that might be able to be done by bot. --NE2 20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it might be a useful task for the human bot-net which has been doing most of the de-linking. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That page notes explicitly that "piped [year] links may be useful in places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists); and in the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as is often the case with sports biographies that link to numerous season articles." –xeno (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True but auto-formatting concerns would not apply to a table cell containing

| [[1998 NBA Finals|1998]] || [[Chicago Bulls]] || [[Utah Jazz]]

or whatnot, so hopefully these links would not be affected by Lightbot. I agree that year links (and most others) should be de-obfuscated in prose context. As a rule of thumb I would say try to make the links point where they appear to if they are part of a complete sentence or part of an index which is expected to list articles by title rather than by function, etc. — CharlotteWebb 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot will not touch the example given by CharlotteWebb where the concealed link is on its own. It is only where the concealed link is preceded by day+month. You can't have autoformatting AND concealed links together. I did't make the rules for autoformatting and I think Wikipedia will be a much better place for readers when autoformatting is gone. If somebody adds a concealed year link to an autoformatted date, I have simply been undoing that error. If the consensus is that people want the bot to remove the day+month link and think the wording of the bot approval supports it, then I will remove the day+month. I just hope you guys are around when somebody complains about that. If the supporters of autoformatting were more active in making it work, perhaps we would not be having this discussion. Sigh. Anyway, which do you want:

• removal of the link to the concealed year
• removal of the day+month link

Lightmouse (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using my first example in this subsection, if the bot changes anything, it should only be to delink the [[July 4]] and leave the in "year in radio" link alone. If the bot cannot delink it, it should leave both parts alone.--Rockfang (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As autoformatting is apparently deprecated by some consensus while the "year in radio" links and their ilk are explicitly permitted in most contexts, if some change must be made automatically then I feel strongly that the link to the useful content be preserved and the date autoformatting be defeated by removing the link to the month-day pair. - Dravecky (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped the bot's operation via the normal method again. If it resumes prior to a resolution of this discussion I will block it. I would also encourage the participants in this discussion to take into consideration the reams of discussion at WT:MOSNUM and see if some kind of real consensus can be generated regarding this recurring issue ... Shereth 22:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am astonished that I am being threatened with a block for fixing a defect. I have complained about these defects before but they lay unfixed and we would not be discussing these defects now if I had not started fixing them. If you like these errors so much, keep them. I am hereby making a formal complaint about abuse of administrator powers by Shereth. What is the next step in the complaint process? Lightmouse (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I threatened to block the bot, not you. I never have threatened any administrative action against yourself, Lightmouse, only to block the bot if it continued editing in the midst of a dispute over its use. Anyway, if you insist on crying foul, here or AN/I are as good a place as any. Shereth 23:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse has once again started the bot with an edit summary of "see user talk page" but no apparent explanation on that page. - Dravecky (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby declare now that Lightbot not fix these errors anymore. The errors will remain concealed. That is a resolution of the discussion. I will restart the bot on the assumption that you have got what you wanted. Lightmouse (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sareth, I’m just dropping in and haven’t read hardly any of the above. You are in the thick of this and are familiar with the details. But I do notice that you have written of “continued editing in the midst of a dispute over its use.” As you already know, disputes very rarely completely end on Wikipedia. Most issues are never free of controversy. We need Lightmouse’s contributions here on Wikipedia. His Lightbot is extraordinarily prolific and does more work than a hundred ordinary editors. Further, emotionally, blocking Lightmouse’s bot would—from Lightmouse’s point of view—be received as if you blocked Lightmouse himself. I’ve always seen that Lightmouse has been extraordinarily quick to respond to any reasonable request. I encourage you to afford him the greatest possible latitude to determine on his own whether a general consensus exists for some policy and to revise his bot to implement the desires of that general consensus. More than most other editors, Lightmouse shouldn’t have to continually be looking over his shoulder just because a couple of extra-vociferous editors are willing to climb the Reichstag over some issue. Greg L (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa

Lightmouse, first off a block on a bot should not be perceived as a block on yourself. Any admin can should block a bot if it is misbehaving, and you as the bot operator needs to discuss the concerns without running the bot during the discussions. So what if the bot is delayed by 24 hours. This nonsense about a block on the bot being a block against yourself is just totally incorrect and goes against the point of WP:BOT. I'm telling you this as a past bot operator and as someone that has several scripts on toolserver.

Now, is this problem solved solved to the satisfaction of the general community? If it is not I urge any admin to block the bot in question until all issues are resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks. —— nixeagle 03:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This anon, presumably a sock puppet of someone, has taken to posting incessant criticisms on my talk page without saying what he is complaining about. While I could block him myself, I would be grateful if another admin could do it for me so it doesn't look like I'm just shutting him up. Thanks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left them a note for now, will keep an eye on it in the meantime. Block(s) forthcoming if they don't calm down a notch. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports is essentially a better, actually updating version of the special pages list. There are also several reports that the special pages list doesn't include.

• Broken redirects - Most of these need to be deleted
• Cross-namespace redirects - Many of these need to be RfD'd
• Empty categories - Most of these need to be deleted as C1
• Indefinitely fully-protected articles - Mostly for informative purposes, perhaps the older ones should be evaluated for unprotection
• Indefinitely-blocked IPs - Most of these need to be unblocked
• Polluted categories - Need to remove user pages from mainspace categories (and, occasionally, vice versa)
• Self-categorized categories - Need to remove categories from themselves
• Uncategorized categories - Need to categorize
• User categories - Mostly just a list for me to make it easier to find categories to bring to UCFD, but if you can find another purpose, go for it

--VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user was confirmed to be a sockpuppet in this case. Sockpuppet templates were placed on the sockpuppet pages alerting people to that fact. User filed an unblock request that was denied. His reason was that he had no idea who these people were and that he 'suspected' that individuals at his place of work were contributing. However, checkuser and sockpuppet cases established that there was significant overlap on areas of interest, including styles of writing. After user said that he had no idea who these sockpuppets were, user comes back and removes the sockpuppet tags and says that the sockpuppets retired 'at his request' (even though he doesn't know these people). After the templates were placed back, user removes them again and this time says that if we assume he IS the puppetmaster, then he has the right to remove the templates from these pages. This was the second time he was accused of being a sockpuppet. In an earlier case he again claimed that he was using a shared IP and that he 'suspected' that people from his office might have edited the same articles. I've told him that he shouldn't remove the templates since those users were confirmed to be sockpuppets. He doesn't want to listen and asked me to take the case to ANI. --vi5in^[talk] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old issue and User:Vivin too was accused of sock (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vivin) & reached inconclusive. See User_talk:Vivin#Your_sockpuppet also. It is sure that I rmd that tag as it looks odd to me. However, the tag is in place with my comment. I think this issue is over, but still wondering why vivin started this thread? Also reporting Vivin's edit war & uncivil discussion at User:harjk user page & talk. --Avinesh  T  04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff, vivin rmd my comment, should be severely dealt with. The user still keeping bad faith & edit warring. --Avinesh  T  04:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why the title of this article appears to start with a non-capital letter? I tried moving the article to Time and date move then back to Time and date but even the page, once moved, appeared to not have a capital letter, and when moved back. --{{User:Belinrahs/sig}}{{time}} (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has {{lowercase}} on the top, which makes the article title display without capital letters. The title appears in the database with the first letter capitalised. I've deleted the "Time and date move" redirect. Graham87 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm trying to take advantage of the wonderful new categorized archive of past RfAs to collect statistics.

My collection script hangs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rschen7754, a page which doesn't exist and which is apparently on the blacklist (I can't tell at all what regex it's matching). I'm not trying to create that page, but pywikipedia hangs when it encounters that page because there's a "you can't create this" message where there should be a text area. It concludes that Wikipedia is down and goes into a waiting loop.

Certainly there are ways to work around this (such as having the script log in as me -- no don't panic it's a read-only script don't call the adminbot police -- or skipping that particular name and hoping there aren't others like it). But the fact that this page is blacklisted is probably a bug in the blacklist. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's the blacklist? It doesn't match anything on either the local or global blacklists. If you try to create the page manually, exactly what error message do you get? --Carnildo (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really bizarre: it's being blocked by a regex that isn't on the blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using my non-admin account, the regex given is .*Rschen7754.* # for non-account pages., which appears on the global blacklist (despite it clearly saying it was blocked locally). Mr.Z-man 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]