Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive46

User:C-c-c-c

Initial review

We have an ongoing problem with articles related to the Balkans, and some users from the Balkans. Details of problems with Bormalagurski are above and here, and I've just blocked User:C-c-c-c for a month, because of this. That might seem over the top, but it's the seventh block in a month, and part of a pattern of extreme pro-Serbian POV pushing from that particular user, and abuse of anyone who objects to it, or tries to deal with troublesome editors. I've also removed various "userboxes" from C-c-c-c's page, which promote various Serbian nationalist positions (including a huge one saying "Kosovo is Serbia" - for British editors, think of a huge box with a union jack in it, saying "Londonderry is British"). I'd welcome other admins looking at the situation, and comments on the possibility of a community ban for this user. I am not, before anyone starts, an Albanian. I have no strongly held opinions on any of the various Balkan nations. --ajn (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

His username is also the acronym for a fascist nationalist slogan. - FrancisTyers · 09:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava, "Only unity can save the Serbs" - FrancisTyers · 09:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the slogan, it is nationalist, but not that nationalist. It is central part of official coat of arms of Serbia, as can be seen here (central part contains 4 eses). Apart from that, I support Andrews actions fully. But I must warn everybody to act with extreme caution not to act like whole Serbian nation is fascist. We must focus on radical editors which disrupt Wikipedia with their actions. Regartless if they are Serbians, Albanians or Croatians. I do feel User:C-c-c-c is overy radical and should be delt with, but "Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava" is not the problem (for British editors, think of "God Save the Queen" ;-) ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijxtra (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 June 2006

And we all know the next line....  :)) - FrancisTyers · 14:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dijxtra. I am not for one moment suggesting that the whole Serbian nation supports this sort of extremism, or that Serbs are the only people who are editing Wikipedia to promote an extreme nationalist point of view. --ajn (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This has actually gone a bit too far... Even his unblock request was removed. He has been "good" lately, he wasn't even being nationalist at all. And I don't even know why anyone at all brings up extremism, when that's not the case. It seems as though this was a personal attack aimed at him. And now he is blocked indefinitely. Congrats. --Krytan talk 18:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Community ban

• In regard of your suggestion of a community ban, I support such an idea. - FrancisTyers · 11:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• I concur. --Dijxtra 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Me three. We really have sort of a war starting on Wikipedia, and I don't see much (or any) good faith coming from this user. We don't need users who, despite trying to reason with them, only come to wikipedia to push their POV and use it as a cheap political BBS. --dcabrilo 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Concur, there are a lot of editors making a battlefield out of our Serbia pages and blocking him would be a good start towards solving that problem. Ashibaka tock 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know if I can vote, but I agree. He made battlefield (in meat-puppet cooperation with user:Bormalagurski) of some croatian pages too (althoug not recently). I'm ready to help reduce vandalism on Serbian pages, if needed, but I hope we can deal with anti-croatian vandals afterwords. --Ante Perkovic 17:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• I object to a permanent ban and would suggest instead a probationary period with a self-imposed block on any Croatian-related articles. Though I cannot condone User:C-c-c-c's reaction and personal attack on User:Andrew Norman, I believe that a last chance should be given to this user. I would also like to remind you that there are many other users editing Balkan subjects with a far worse civility problem (eg. User:Hipi Zhdripi, who threatened to kill User:HolyRomanEmperor's family amongst other things, including systematic sockpuppetry) and have been still left off easily. Regarding the nationalist userboxes, me and another wikipedian have indeed brought to User:Andrew Norman's attention that this is a sadly very common problem. All I can just say that User:C-c-c-c's are certainly not the only ones out there. Maybe, linking the permanent removal of these userboxes to a probation could be a constructive solution. Best regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Would support an indef ban on User:Hipi Zhdripi, I don't understand why he was unbanned. Regarding nationalist userboxes, get community endorsement then be bold! :) - FrancisTyers · 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with that would be that a "self-imposed block on any Croatian-related articles" would mean a ban. He has hardly ever edited any article unrelated to the Balkans, apart from requests for people to do his Physics homework. That, to me, is one of the chief signs that he's here with an agenda (he is, lest we forget, a Canadian). Interiot's tool says he has 110 edits to articles, 105 to article talk, 431 to user/user talk, and 110 to the Wikipedia namespace. Again, not an indication to me that he's here for the right reasons - if he wants to chat to people, he can use IRC. --ajn (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Community bans" are not, despite repeated attempts by some people, imposed by a few of the more brutal admins putting their hand up and shouting "ban", "ban", "ban", and the section by then being 10 from the bottom and ignored. They grow from the fact that, once an editor is indefinitely blocked and (presumably) appeals said block that "not one of the 915[sic] administrators is prepared to unblock them". Generally, this manifests itself as a series of escalating blocks that do not teach the necessary lessons and the exhaustion of patience comes when it becomes clear that no length of block will remove the problem and no admin thinks the problem is either curable or live-with-able. They need not necessarily do so: some editors are removed and noone cares (or even notices), but clearly that's not the case in this type of situation. A community ban of this present kind does not spring forth fully formed; it comes into being when it turns out there is nothing else for there to be. They are sociological constructs borne of a fading hope of anything ever getting better, not the rejected Wikipedia:Quickpolls that these kinds of requests quite distinctly are. -Splash - tk 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with your definition of "community ban". If anyone wants to unblock him with probation, per Asterion's suggestion, I won't be troubled. Ashibaka tock 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • He is not, at the moment, community-banned. I banned blocked him for a month, as a result of a series of bans blocks by different admins for exactly the same behaviour (abuse, disruption, sockpuppetry, trolling, etc). There are various opinions about the method for community-banning, the ArbCom has ducked out of ruling on how to interpret the conflicting policies, and I feel the best way is to establish consensus here prior to a ban. I'm satisfied there's no such consensus. --ajn (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • No, you blocked him for a month. There is a key difference. A block is technical, a ban is sociological. A ban is implemented with a block. -Splash - tk 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • My mistake. --ajn (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Asterion - there should be a probation period. I might add to his note on User:Hipi Zhdirpi, that he would've been blocked eternally long ago if this case was used... (by the way, could someone assess him?) --HolyRomanEmperor 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll be looking into one or two of the other names suggested to me, when I have the time. --ajn (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want to impose probation on an unwilling victim, you cannot reasonably expect them to abide by it. Admins have no binding authority, and 'defying' an admin's fairly arbitrary decision is hardly grounds for a block, thus enforcing such decisions basically not possible. You need ArbCom if you want to restrict an editors editing without actually having them banned by acclamation. -Splash - tk 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• I am aware of that. This is why I asked for a self-block on Croatian-related articles. This will show whether C-c-c-c is truly willing to make an effort and will help him to gain experience on other areas. Obviously, it is not enforceable but it would be obvious there is a problem if he goes on edit-warring immediately after the block is lifted. That would be classed as disruption. Whatever is decided here, someone would need to inform the user or discuss the issue as, being currently blocked, he would be unable to comment here. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • • What can be done, however, is to insist on strict adherence to policy. There is normally a certain amount of latitude in behaviour given to anyone here, and if that latitude has been abused, what admins can do is insist that people behave absolutely according to the rules, and to back that up with protections and/or blocks, until the message sinks in. Admins do effectively have binding authority, if they are not behaving so egregiously that another admin objects. That's not the way I'd prefer things to be - I'd like clearer, quicker and more democratic processes for dealing with this sort of thing - but that's the way it is. --ajn (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is a serious problem with this guy's edits, but no consensus for a community ban, try Arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If we would go for an arbitration, I think we should go with one very broad case. Include other problematic Croatian, Kosovar and Serbian editors (most notably already mentioned User:Hipi Zhdripi, but i could think of 3-4 other names). And get rid of disruptive forms of radical and extremist nationalism, if ArbCom feels there are grounds for that. Just a thought. --Dijxtra 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support that too. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. - FrancisTyers · 13:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If I can add my opinion, I feel it would be a great idea. It seems clear that much of the worst damage is being done by a few editors, and their editing should be brought before the ArbCom.--Aldux 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be thinking of something even broader - a policy, rather than an ArbCom case, along the lines of preventing people from expressing opinions on any political/religious/ethnic/national group, or advocating or opposing independence for particular geographical areas or people. Identifying yourself as a member of a particular nationality or ethnic group is fair enough (not my taste, but I accept that other people want to do it and it isn't too harmful), but anything beyond that has nothing to do with creating an encyclopaedia, it's just about winding other people up. I'll think about putting together a first attempt at a policy proposal, if nobody else does in the meantime (I'm going to be very busy for a few days), and hopefully we can then put it forward. Jimbo has expressed similar sentiments on the mailing list [1] [2], so there may be support from that quarter. --ajn (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, not sure this would work. What exactly would you ban? Reverting the things you don't like? I think that's already not allowed. "Nationalist propaganda"? Well, I don't see how any kind of propaganda can be incorporated into Wikipedia by following current rules since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and you do not get to put propaganda in it since it is, well, unencyclopedic... or at least you are not supposed to (see [3] for instance). --Dijxtra I don't know how come I forget to sign only on WP:AN

Well, I think that WP:SOAP is pretty clear about this point as it already stands. The thing is more complicated with another kind of POV pushing wikipedians who, though being civil, are clearly trying to promote their own agenda (even if some of them genuinely don't realise their POV is blurring their vision). Where do you set the limit on specialisation on a particular subject and POV-pushing is a tricky business, as we all know. In that sense, I did actually think a while back about putting together some sort of "Code of Practice" for users engaged on this sort of controversial issues but I could not figure out how to start it. I would appreciate any comments on this (I have no problem proposing this to Esperanza and/or Concordia people too). On a separate issue, it seems C-c-c has written an {{unblock}} notice. Any admin willing to take action?--E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• I added {{indefblocked}} to his user page. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• I want to make clear that I am still against a community ban against this user unless any real action is taken to solve the wider problem. There have been at least two other opinions against this ban. I believe it was rushed through in just a few hours. I cannot consider this consensus. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 11:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The wider problem

I agree entirely with Andrew that we have a wider problem across a range of Balkans-related articles. There are a number of other problematic users - User:Kubura (Croatian), User:WuBaja (Serbian) and User:Vergina (Greek) come to mind - who act without any regard for Wikipedia's fundamental policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V etc). I've taken action on a number of disputed Croatian articles, such as Battle of Vukovar and Operation Medak Pocket, to enforce those policies. I posted a message to the talk pages of those articles and others reminding people of the following:

• Don't add partisan commentary, and ensure that your contributions are written in a neutral tone. We're here to write an encyclopedic article, not a partisan screed. (WP:NPOV).

• Any additions must be sourced, cited and verifiable. (WP:CITE, WP:V).

• Any sources must be reliable. Newspaper reports, government documents, books and reports from well-known international organisations are generally regarded as good sources. Commentary on personal websites or the personal views of individual editors are not. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR).

I reverted any changes, pro- or anti-, that didn't meet these standards, and explained to the users in question why I'd done so. In one instance (that of User:Bormalagurski) this resulted in personal abuse and the deliberate copying-and-pasting into the article of large chunks of plagiarised text; I blocked the user in question. (He has since departed the English Wikipedia although, I think disgracefully, he is still an administrator on the Serbian Wikipedia.)

I think there's more than one category of user in question here, though. The first is the hopeless cases - the people who are only interested in POV-pushing, don't make any useful contributions and have no interest at all in NPOV, RS etc. User:Vergina falls into this category - I don't think he's ever made a positive contribution to Wikipedia, and we wouldn't lose anything by banning him or his ilk. (Check out his contributions - you'll see what I mean.)

The second is the bad-faith cases - people who are strong POV-pushers and try to subvert or sneakily ignore NPOV, but who do make some useful contributions to other articles. User:Bormalagurski is a good example of this, as is User:C-c-c-c. They've both made some good edits, as well as some very bad edits. There is a judgment call to be made here: do such users' positive contributions outweight the damage they do elsewhere?

The third category is the users who honestly don't know better. I've found that explaining Wikipedia's rules on their talk pages can have a positive effect here, and I strongly recommend this course of action. If they ignore your advice then I think you would have good cause to start warning them and building up to blocking them if they don't change their ways. -- ChrisO 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In this sense, I think we are about to have problems with User:Ferick and User:Ilir pz. It may be time to resuscitate the idea of a general course of action. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Shared IP?

I don't know the nitty gritty technical deatils, but it appears I was blocked because this user was a vandal. My ISP in Canada is shaw, and I've been told they use a shared IP proxy. Therefore, blocking User:C-c-c-c for long periods of time is going to prevent a lot of people from editing! --geekyßroad^{. meow?} 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Community ban review

C-c-c-c has put up an unblock tag with an apology for a personal attack. [4]

I raise this here for formal review.

My own opinion is that, due to his history, the community should not waste further time on this editor. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This user has apologised and requested a second chance. Considering this has been granted before to users exponentially more disruptive than c-c-c-c, I believe it would be the right thing to do. I am also unhappy with the community ban process. This was rushed through in a few hours time (there was no need to speed up process as C-c-c-c was already blocked at the time). At least two other bona fide users have expressed their concerns regarding a community ban. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see User talk:C-c-c-c and the last comment here. When Dijxtra gets back to me, I'll be making a RFCU request to clarify who is pretending to be whom. --ajn (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, someone requested this before and the checkuser concluded that C-c-c-c is not Bormalagurski as you seem to imply on the former's talk page. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User claiming his contributions aren't GFDL, veiled legal threats.

User:Brian G. Wilson has stated this his contributions to "music-related topics" are not under the GFDL and claims that he's going to remove them, telling people not to revert [5]. This isn't a possibility of the GFDL.

On being told this, he makes thinly veiled threats of legal action as a means to an end on his statement: [6] [7] (note that theres heavy comment reformatting in the first link; the second one also includes some comments being moved and theres been serious refactoring of text but not threat or tone since).

He also, strangely, threatens to "destroy" Wikipedia and Google. [8], although I'm not sure whats meant by that.

Theres also quite serious WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL breaches as well as quite constant accusations that people are "pretending" to be someone else when he believes they are in fact related to him, work for his ISP, live in Italy and a whole host of other apparent things the Wikipedia userbase is covering up... --Kiand 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

here is him actually removing content under his claims that he's not licenced it under the GFDL. --Kiand 13:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've indef blocked with the reason "legal threats, personal attacks, threats to 'destroy Wikipedia'". The diffs above and this one seem to be reason enough for me. Others please review. Petros471 13:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

GFDL, once granted, cannot be revoked. In addition, no matter what one may claim, making a contribution to Wikipedia constitutes an agreement to grant GFDL rights to those edits, so Brian's GFDL revocation is invalid. As for threatening to bring down Wikipedia, that might be grounds for an indef block, yes, but I'm more interested in knowing why Brian's feeling this way. Did he get involved in a dispute with someone? I'm more interested in trying to resolve this dispute that's making him feel this way in the first place. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He got involved in disputes with lots of people (I'm one of the people he doesn't like for example). To be short: He has HIS own idea about musical genres, and he strongly dislike modern electronic dance music (see Talk:Psybient). (I don't either, but that's no reason to push away and steer this articles in a way that suits your POV) Moreover, he doesn't like the term "electronic" music being used, except for his own strict definitions. His definitions aren't that wrong, he's just too narrow-minded regarding the subject and he fails to accept that thousands and thousand of people are using the english language, give names to genres and that music evolves, so his strict definitions are the single real "truth". Since a few weeks/months, he has gradually been reshaping articles to his ideas. He has been reverted many times. People tried to talk with him... some tried really hard... eg see Talk:Club_music, there are really long comments by User:mjb , I respect the way mjb tried to reason in a very calm way. But nothing helped: all Brian G Wilson does is getting angry, posting incomprehensible comments multiple times on different people/article talk pages. You MIGHT try conflict resolution, however, I guess about ten people have tried it already in a calm way, the only result being this user starting insults and posting comments no-one understands (the sort of weird texts people believing in alien conspiracies etc... write) --LimoWreck 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a classic case of one user vs. many. Well, if he resorts to making legal threats, the indef block is certainly valid, at least until he stops making these threats. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for vanishing straight after the above, my computer crashed before I even had chance to post a blocked note on his talk page. I am quite willing to consider an unblock if his behaviour shows sign of change, however I'm not sure how likely this is considering the latest [9] [10]. Petros471 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

God save the Queen… Regardless of the flipped lid, since licensing is implied with each edit, if a user openly denies the GFDL, can it simply and safely be ignored? Or does it automatically make them unfit to continue contributing? Femto 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be safely ignored, but no, it doesn't make them unfit to continue contributing. I think it just means the user needs to be educated about how GFDL is implied. It's only if the user starts making legal threats that they need to be banned, and not because it's a punishment. I don't remember the exact wording, but it has something to do with how someone going through legal proceedings should not also be involved with the entity in which they are pursuing such legal proceedings. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that he's now claiming that the entire Wikipedia user base are minor members of the British royal family in disguise using it to promote the use of drugs suggests to me that he -is- unfit to continue contributing. Anyway, must go to get my ermine robes fitted... dammit, didn't mean to give away my disguise! --Kiand 15:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a full moon tonight? - this one's obsessed with electric pianos. --ajn (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This has come up before; the case that I know of off the top of my head is Pioneer-12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He wanted to avoid licensing his talk contributions under the GFDL, and refused to accept that the GFDL was a condition of participation in Wikipedia. In order to avoid unecessary complications and legal disputes, editors who no longer wish to contribute under the GFDL are no longer welcome to contribute. If they change their minds, then they are more than welcome to return. Petros471's block is reasonable, and in line with how we've handled these cases in the past. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to take a peek at his talk page and see if his saying he'll "destroy Wikipedia" and other comments make it worth protecting the page. Amusing, but bothersome. Tony Fox (speak) 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said before: this guy's incomprehensible nonsense keeps comming; this seems some sort of guy who sees government and alien conspiracies everywhere like I said in my remark above... well, his latest comments about the royal familly are exactly what I meant ;-) That's the reason another attempt at dispute resolution won't really work, different people have tried, this is the result ;-) --LimoWreck 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I'll just have to polish my crown and carry on. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like Mr. Treason to me. Scienceman123 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of User:Brian G. Wilson

I think we should consider him community banned. Anyone think it's too early for that? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If he decides he wants to start licensing his contributions under the GFDL again, we should let him come back. --Carnildo 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The community doesn't really come into it, and community bans are not implemented by a straw poll for a few hours on this noticeboard. They are implemented when noone is willing to unblock anymore for whatever (usually cumulative) reason. Anyway, if he is unwilling to release his edits under the GFDL then i)he must not contribute any and ii)by precedent, accounts that refuse to allow the GFDL are blocked until they agree to it. As soon as he is happy with that, there is no reason not to unblock him. So an indefinite block pending 'resolution', certainly. But a permanent ban by some kind of acclamation, no. And also, he can't retract GFDL permission as has already been observed, but that in itself is no reason to blindly revert him since his edits may hypothetically not be wanted anyway (and, being aware of the GFDL and continuing to edit is probably licensing his edits under the GFDL anyway. The notice is on every page.). -Splash - tk 23:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be a rule about being auto-blocked for being a complete nutjob whacko --mboverload@ 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And now he's back again using his previous account User:sky-surfer (check both account histories, first skysurfer; his edits stopped at the moment Wilson start, and now Wilson is blocked sky-surfer returns)... also check the edits: same topics, same wordings, ... --LimoWreck 22:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User VB bof

A new user User:VB bof is making in rapid tempo many seemingly random reversions to sometimes much older versions using popups. --Lambiam^Talk 01:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm convinced that these edits were all vandalism, so I'll go through and revert them (and probably indef block User:VB bof also). Andy _t 01:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Xaosflux the issue has been taken care of. --Lambiam^Talk 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He came back as VBandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and was indef blocked by both Cyde and GraemeL. Kimchi.sg 06:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Add Fic-in (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list of users with similar behaviour. --ais523 10:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this an abuse of block and violation of block policy?

As a consequence of this [11] edit User:MONGO took the decision to block me for 24 hours. His motivation are explained here where he says that "my POV pushing days are numbered" and conclude the discussion threating to block me for a week if I will ever dare to revert him again. Now let's fix some points:

1. User:MONGO was not an "independent observer": he was already taking part to a content dispute on the opportunity of describing the "controlled demolition theorists" as "conspiracists";
2. the dispute involved several people in both the party as you can see looking at [12] and keeping pressing "newer edit";
3. User: MONGO was supporting a change to the old version of the article (so he needed the consensus) while I was supporting the old version;
4. In the block policy you can read the following paragraph:

Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

So I think it's clear that User: MONGO did violate the block policy realizing an abuse of power. Isn't it? What can I do to defend myself from this kind of abuses? Is there an authority that can prevent User: MONGO from behaving in this way? --Pokipsy76 06:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say your POV-pushing days are numbered, myself. Take it to talk and achieve consensus for the change, rather than unilaterally reverting. Just zis Guy you know? 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what you are speaking about:

1. I was not changing the article, I was keeping it
2. I was not the only one trying to keep the article as it was
3. MONGO didn't had the consensus for his changes and for his reverts
4. Even if what you have said was right (and it is not) it would be not sufficient to justify a block when involved in the content dispute.

--Pokipsy76 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people were fighting for the change, it is contentious. Like I say, take it to talk. You appear to be under the common misapprehension tat pushing a POV is when other people assert their viewpoints. Pushing is pushing. Just zis Guy you know? 15:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the admin should have found another admin to do the block if he beleived it was reasonable. Even if one assumes that User:MONGO was not trying to use his powers to win a debate, it certainly creates the perception that this is happening. Admins need to be kept to a higher standard and should never take action against a person they are currently in a content dispute with. This is my opinion and to my knowledge is compatable with wikipedia guidelines Block_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. HighInBC 18:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Some inappropriate usernames

Here are a few likely inappropriate usernames that were registered recently but not blocked:

• penisdaddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Capn Crack is a perverted sicko! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• pissenlit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xbox360sucks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thirteenstepsx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You also might consider looking at Oral caress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and As I drink nectar from thy fair bosom... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The names don't seem very harmful to me but may still violate the policy of alluding to sexual acts.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 06:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

All above in the list are now username blocked -- Tawker 06:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more:

• horselover00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Delicate lesbian kiss... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 06:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delicate blocked, Horselover is not an inappropriate username. I mean, I'm not overly keen on horses myself, but I wouldn't say liking them merits an indefinite block.--Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sam, but a point of note for people posting here when using the vandal template: please make sure the username has the first letter capitalised, otherwise using the block user link from this page will not work. I had to re-block User:Penisdaddy and User:Pissenlit because no block was in effect. Maybe the Special:Blockip page should be fixed so that registered usernames are automatically capitalised in the relevant textbox, anyone experienced in filing Bugzilla requests? --Cactus.man ✍ 09:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Template fixed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

French definition of pissenlit] (a dandelion)moink 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more:

• Negrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moderator.Seraphim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Captaincrappyjacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Poo601 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Moderator blocked. Prodego ^talk 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• 百家姓之四 (talk · contribs)

Please hold off blocking this guy, he appears to be making good faith contributions, is responding to his talk page messages, and I have asked him to make a change of username request. Kimchi.sg 05:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet more usernames...

Sigh...

• Corn-hole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eros St. Voyeur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Erotic lust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BREASTS! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CUT13W1TBUTTY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lesbian courtesan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sorry, I couldn't think of a username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And also, there's a not recently registered user with the name This user has left wikipedia that I warned earlier about his username.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, This user has left wikipedia had his username changed to that as part of m:right to vanish. No reason to block. --Rory096 07:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see Corn-hole as sexually suggestive or offensive. I indef blocked Eros St. Voyeur and Erotic lust. BREASTS! already indef blocked earlier. For the last one I don't think it's suggestive or offensive, though others may disagree. Kimchi.sg 07:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Cornhole" is a word that refers to the anus, similar to asshole.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 07:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It can also refer to the game. See Cornhole. --Rory096 07:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

(Two edit conflicts) By Wikipedia's standards, I think corn-hole would be considered offensive. "Sorry, I couldn't think of a username" is not offensive, but it is unwieldy and my cause confusion. If the person becomes a regular contributor, perhaps he or she should be asked to change names. -- Kjkolb 07:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF says we have to assume that he means the game. The other isn't really bad, and certainly not worth a block. --Rory096 07:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF has nothing to do with it. The username policy is quite clear that it is not if the creating user finds the name offesnsive, but if others do, thus a name created in good faith but offensive to others is still unacceptable. --pgk^(talk) 08:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would you find the name of a game offensive? --Rory096 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And your point is? I haven't said the name is offensive, I have pointed out that WP:AGF has nothing to do with if a name is offensive of not. We block the name, not the user. --pgk^(talk) 14:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's technically possible that a user named "Corn-hole" is only interested a game, just like it's possible that a user named "Ass-wipe" just likes cleaning donkeys. I wouldn't put any money on either one, though... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone will want to block Lesbian courtesan, no ambiguity about that one. My school's proxy server filters URLs with certain words so I can't block. Kimchi.sg 07:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And that someone is me. Blocked as of now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A trivial matter I need help with

[13] WAS 4.250 20:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What action do you want admins to take? -- Finlay McWalter 20:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe the trivial matter of you removing links has been handled already. - Nunh-huh 20:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If Nunh-huh's spam is OK then no action at all is needed. WAS 4.250 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And if you'd stop calling a legitimate link spam, you'd be less insulting. If you object to a link, you remove it, and it's replaced, you need to detail why you feel it's inappropriate on the article's talk page, not merely call it "spam" in an edit summary. - Nunh-huh 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as the H5N1 and Flu articles are spread over two suites Flu (Flu, Flu season, Flu vaccine, Flu treatment, Avian flu, H5N1 flu, Flu research) - H5N1 (H5N1, H5N1 genetic structure, Transmission and infection of H5N1, Global spread of H5N1, Social impact of H5N1, Influenza Pandemic)); so too should the links be placed in the most appropriate article, not in as many articles as someone thinks they can get away with. Your links do not belong at H5N1. The exact location you added your links recommends Global spread of H5N1 as a proper place for good and useful links about H5N1 in the category of News and General information. The comment with my latest deletion of your two links said take to talk page. You should have. You didn't so in lieu of an edit war, I brought it here. Links spamming is affecting all of wikipedia and so I was also hoping for this episode to either benefit from or add an example to the general wikipedia wide effort concerning spamming. WAS 4.250 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And you still haven't taken your concerns to the appropriate talk page. - Nunh-huh 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked IE users no longer lose edits

Today, I submitted a patch for bugzilla:4990, which Rob Church applied with some modifications. Thus, the page shown to blocked users now has a textbox that contains the source of the page, or, if they were already editing when the block was applied, the content they were trying to save. This has two major effects:

1. Blocked users can now view the source of a page without resorting to odd tricks like Special:Export.
2. Internet Explorer users no longer lose their edits if their IP is blocked while they are editing.

The latter should reduce the severity of the collateral damage from blocking shared IPs (either directly or through the autoblocker) quite a bit. I'm sure a lot of AOL users will be thankful. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How come IE users lost their edits? Iolakana|^T 16:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pressing "back" in IE doesn't preserve form content, whereas it does in Firefox/Opera. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:PoolGuy

PoolGuy was recently the subject of an Arbitration case, which decided that after major sockpuppetry he should be put on probation, and limited to using one account. In the two days since the arbitration case closed, he has made two formal requests (on WP:RPP) and several other requests on his and others' talk pages for User:GoldToeMarionette (a sockpuppet) to be unblocked/unprotected, on the specious grounds that since the ArbCom didn't specifically find that the account should have been blocked, they implicitly decided that the account should not be blocked. This sort of sophistry and barrack-room law is typical.

PoolGuy has made no edits to articles, as opposed to talk pages and the WP namespace, since March [14]. His edit history prior to March is not extensive (about 50 edits to articles in the last year, mainly typos and capitalisation correction, and eleven edits since November). He has caused a great deal of disruption since then, but contributed absolutely nothing to Wikipedia. I suggest we're way past the stage of exhausting the community's patience. Does anyone have any objections to a permanent block? --ajn (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree, his pointless wikilawyering got old months ago at this point I cannot see it as anything other than trolling. --pgk^(talk) 14:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've permanently blocked the account. If any other admin feels he's worth unblocking, go ahead. --ajn (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No problems here, he keeps abusing unblock claiming that ArbCom had no basis for it's ruling, if he keeps it up a protect is in order -- Tawker 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a permanent IP block is necessary since IP autoblock is only around 1 week.--Bonafide.hustla 21:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre userpage chain

Hello. I have found a series of user accounts that are apparently being used for some kind of personal game project. User accounts User:Drama freak, User:Modella, User:Pressure Resilient, and User:Big Brother Teen are hosting content in userspace for what appears to be an imaginary game show. Nearly all of the edits for these accounts are to their own userpages. I don't know what the policy is on this kind of thing, so I'll leave it in your hands. -Joshuapaquin 10:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

They fail WP:USER and WP:NOT... NSLE 10:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That I figured, but what happens? Do the accounts get zapped? -Joshuapaquin 10:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the pages and left a note. I don't think the accounts should be blocked right now, as they have had little or no warning about what they were doing. If they continue now, that will be another matter of course. --JoanneB 10:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Woops, I just blocked them all for a week. I don't wish to revert only because my gut tells me thay all knew exactly what they were doing, and had almost no encyclopedia edits or community interaction aside from whateverthefuck they were doing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, my reasoning was (but perhaps that was a bit of too much good faith?): they find this place they can edit and see it as a most convenient place for their games. They don't encounter any policy pages, as they're just sticking to their own userpage. No one is telling them not to, so why would they stop? I won't revert your block though, I see your reasoning as well. --JoanneB 10:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the histories, they even edited anonymously, and the IPs I checked didn't come back to any other edits. They knew exactly what Wikipedia is and they knew exactly what they were doing. However, if someone were to unblock, I'd be cool with it (mostly because I'll be offline for the next day or so and can't follow up as exstensively as I want). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Woops, I just blocked them all for a week. Man, I hope I never get on your bad side :) -Joshuapaquin 10:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Time for Geogre the scold, I suppose. We should warn them first, but I also think they have to know they're doing something wrong, even if they haven't read any of our policies. They know this isn't MySpace, whatever else they know. It's very likely school chum message boarding. So, I'd say we should warn first, but then we don't need to give more than 2 unpurposed edits before slapping down with a block. Kids sitting in their IT class or library have used article talk pages to chat with each other, in the past, so these are at least polite enough to do it in talk pages. (Then again, awareness of talk pages takes some knowledge of how Wikipedia works and, arguably, knowledge of what it isn't.) Geogre 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Incase you are interested - this User:Pressure Resilient looks like Deal or No Deal. Ian¹³/t 18:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:KymeSnake2 is self-admitted role/"public" account

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iasson. Here's a diff of it. This account seems to not be allowed on wikipedia, as in m:Role account and Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#.22Public.22_accounts for being an account intentionally shared by multiple users. Kevin_b_er 16:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have indef blocked this self-admitted public account. If Iasson's friends want to edit Wikipedia, they should each get an account. Kimchi.sg 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack by Eep²

SecondLife Edit History. This user has a long history of disruptive behaviour. Upon attempting to clean up the SL article I found that in May he had overlinked the entire article. Investigated revealed a total of about 20 articles he's overlinked. I've cleaned up all but 8. He went through and linked just about every word (or part of a word) he could find on wikipedia, and those he couldn't he linked to wiktionary. He marks every edit as minor, even when he removes and or adds entire sections to an article. --Crossmr 16:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

12.34.238.243

He's vandalizing random user's talk pages, and he is editing even though he has been blocked. He has also been repeatedly warned. Bot? (I doubt it, though.) Freddie _Message? 19:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Iolakana|^T 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

copy of Half-life computations

I need to obtain a copy of the last version of the Half-life computation article prior to deletion for personal reference and was referred here to leave a message to that effect to which any administrator can respond. Thanks. ...IMHO (Talk) 23:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

CAT:CSD header information.

A discussion regarding the design of the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion page is ongoing at: Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Category_Header_Information. If you use this page, please stop by and contribute. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, Reporting myself here.

HawkerTyphoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am really rather sorry, chaps. In an attempt to stop a flame war, I have done this. In doing so all the old notes have been archived, and I have deleted a few user's messages. Please accept my apologies, I have apolgised to the users concerned, but I was concerned that the talk page was getting a bit heated, and it seemed like a drastic solution to keep everyone quiet over the hoo-hah with User:Wiki-star. Block me if you must, I'm confessing 100%, and I know it's vandalism, but I hope you're lenient. HawkerTyphoon 03:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Prbbt! Unless you'd gotten a vandalism warning or something like that, you could have been rude and just deleted. Since you archived, there probably isn't a problem. You didn't have a bunch of warnings from admins, did you? Geogre 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Go read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not, in particular the "Bold Edits" part. --cesarb 13:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Block links on history pages

Is it just me or do these new links seem a bit unecessary to have for every user that edits a page. They just clutter up the history page and make the summaries go over to the next line more (kind of messy). I'd rather have it back to the way it was before. Rarely can I just know enough to block a user right from the history page.Voice-of-All 06:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was new! I actually find it quite helpful, but that's just me (perhaps because I'm not an admin, so I don't have all the special tools you often have, at least I think you have special tools, I'm not really all that sure). The Ungovernable Force 07:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

HOTR

This extremely biased 'administrator' consistantly attacks articles on individuals and groups on the UK traditional conservative Right. He rubbishes and demonises them, and he is currently running around sneakily flagging them up for deletion. He is largely responsible for a legal dispute on one of them. He needs disciplining. 213.122.50.183 09:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, seriously. Nobody is fooled by this. Give it up. (Just for reference in service of the curious, this is about the perma-block of User:Sussexman for legal threats). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Authorship of A Course In Miracles article, nominated twice for deletion

The article Authorship of A Course in Miracles has been nominated twice for deletion. It passed the first deletion attempt, obviously (or else it wouldn't be around to be nominated a second time). The current vote demonstrates by great majority that consensus is that the article should be kept. However, why should we have to vote on this again when we just settled it two months ago? And having settled this matter two months ago, what if the consensus once again is to keep the article (which will likely be the case), and then someone comes along in two more months and nominates it again? It will just go on and on and on.... Is there anyone who can put a stop to this? This is a waste of everyone's time. -- Andrew Parodi 09:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no binding decisions (either way) on Wikipedia. Just as multiple AfDs resulting in Keep indicates that the content is probably encyclopaedic, it also indicates that there is something about the article which inspires scepticism. In this case, despite the presence of references, it looks so much like original research that I can see why it would get nominated. I am not sure how that can be fixed, other than by citing more reliable authorities. At present the dispute which the article documents looks rather like The People's Front of Judea vs. The Judean People's Front - a dispute between two groups of no evident significance, over a document whose significance outside those groups is also open to question. I guess you could start by making the case in the article for why anyone should actually care? Just zis Guy you know? 11:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG is, to be sure, correct (and two months is a good period of time during which more evidence might arise or during which an article might change substantially); in any event, for articles that have incurred an exorbitant amount of AfDs, see Gay Nigger Association of America (18 noms, of which many were substantive) and Daniel Brandt (at least 8, I think). Joe 22:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Vision Thing

When people reduce detail of minority POV in an article, as per WP:NPOV, Vision Thing reverts them without discussion.

• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]

As well as engaging in minority POV pushing, he engages in provocative commenting repeating that his own view is significant. [19] (WickedWanda is a suspected sockpuppet of blocked user Hogeye). Anyone who is familiar with the subject matter would realise the falsehood in this statement. I request that he be blocked for disruption and failure to comply with WP:NPOV. -- infinity0 13:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. This is not an isolated incident. He makes edits like this all the time. See [20] for details. -- infinity0 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Article ownership on Slovakia

I ask other admins to keep an eye on the Slovakia article. A user known as User:Juro is reverting and blanking almost all edits not his own. When a new section of the article was opened on tourism, the user blanked it twice without explanation. When approached about this, the user proceeded to write a very nasty talk page message, bordering on a personal attack, calling the recent edits "uppermost stupidty" [21]. I am not that active on the site anymore, but this kind of bullying and article ownership attitude is highly uncalled for. -Husnock 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be primarily about whether to include Husnock's couple of sentences on tourism in Slovakia. While Juro's talk page message mentioned above was not the epitome of civility, Husnock's material in dispute is at best stub-like and at worst rather naively unencyclopedic. Juro's other contributions to the Slovakia page have been very worthwhile. The solution there earlier today - to put Husnock's sentences in a separate stub at History of Slovakia, referred to from the main article and available to be improved by others, was perhaps a good one, though one which now seems to have been edit warred away from. Maybe someone with more time than me can mediate... Martinp 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise, the material was moved into a new article Tourism in Slovakia. User:Juro promptly blanked the article again and has twice reverted information which he does not personally agree with. Other admins should keep on certianly eye on this. -Husnock 02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Update to this. User:Juro was blocked for violation of the three revert rule after 4 reverts to the article. A quick look at the user contributions shows heavy POV pushing and personal attacks against other users. This might become an edit war problem if the user returns. As for me, I'm done for the night. -Husnock 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Disappearing Categories

A iterim 'management' revision in speedy deletion of categories seems to be in order as three 'maps' categories pages interwikied from the commons (See: tagging example) top-down heirarchial reorganization were deleted here despite several correctly showing reflected images of content in the commons. See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion#Disappearing_categories for detail and request to check for the templates (Example at right) being used in the interwiki category reorganization.

Commons logo

Main Article: Example article title

Wikimedia Commons has image media such as pictures and maps related to:

Category link on the commons

Note also, any pages which should be exempted, by you all, from speedy deletion will be showing the auto-category: Category:Wikipedia categories equalized with Wikimedia Commons categories (Which long winded name resulted from the Cfd, mine was shorter! <g>). Questions or suggestions on how to reconcile the project with the speedy deletion criteria to user talk:fabartus or below. Thanks // FrankB 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

How to edit / view source

eh, way too wordy, could someone change it back to just view source? fully protected, so only a sysop or higher can edit it, thanks--64.12.116.200 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I do slightly dislike it myself - I think its a software setting, unless it's under [[Mediawiki:]]. Ian¹³/t 20:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion which caused the change is here. It's been changed since, but I don't think the current version is much better (something like "Edit page (read only)"). In general to hunt down the relevant Mediawiki: entry, try Special:Allmessages --pgk^(talk) 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I was fine with view source, but apparently that confused some people who were looking for the "edit" button. How to edit makes no sense to me, so I changed it to edit this page (read only), which seems more intuitive. —Keenan Pepper 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"view source (editing disabled)" appealing? ~ PseudoSudo 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, I like that one. It has the time-tested view source but also includes the word edit, and it's not too long. —Keenan Pepper 04:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I like "edit?" or "edit mode (read only)". In any case the word edit should be prominent because people will expect to find some sort of edit button, this being a wiki. Haukur 09:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I should add that what prompted me to change this tab is that people keep removing all text from Template:Sprotected, leaving either nothing or a tiny icon. I think this is confusing to newbies who don't get any explanation why they can't edit pages like George W. Bush. Giving them a button with the word "edit" on it is at least something, though I would still prefer having a short visible text at Template:Sprotected. Haukur 09:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• How about just making the tab say protected, protected page, or protected from editing?--64.12.116.200 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Protecting to prevent requests for unblock

Recently I have started seeing a couple of admins protecting user talk pages specifically to prevent users from placing an {{unblock}} request. As I understand things, policy allows protection of user talk pages only in the case of persistent vandalism so I'd like to get some comments on what others think of this practice. --CBD 01:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people re-insert the template after their first request is denied, to the point of disruption. If anyone (for example) kept inserting the template every 5 minutes after their first {{unblock}} is denied, I'd consider protecting due to {{unblockabuse}}. But if they haven't made their first request yet, the user talk page shouldn't be protected. Kimchi.sg 01:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what actually is an unblockabuse? Once an admin (whoever he/she is) has removed the block template any reinsertion is an abuse? What if one disagree with the reason given by the admin or the lack reasons or with the right of that specific admin to remove the unblock request (considering that any other attempt to ask for help is impossible due to the block)?--Pokipsy76 11:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Per Kimchi.sg's remark, it's appropriate to do this in cases where an editor has a history of abusing the {{unblock}} template, particularly if they've received multiple confirmations from different admins that a given block is reasonable. The idea is to prevent CAT:UNBLOCK from filling up with spurious requests, so that admins can actually find and address actionable unblock requests. I hope that admins aren't preemptively applying protection, except where there is a long history of abuse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The uses I had seen did not seem appropriate to me (protection after the 'unblock' request was placed only once or twice... and both the original blocks and unblock request removals made by admins who had been actively edit warring with the users), but the intended use you describe is more acceptable so I'll worry about the specific case still open (it's on an indefinite block) rather than the process in general. --CBD 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why call efforts to revert items that sometimes fail to meet WP:RS and WP:NOR, edit warring?--MONGO 03:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is... when you do those things more than once. And that's even assuming you are correct about them being 'RS' / 'NOR' issues. --CBD 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no it isn't...if misinformation posted uses websites that are not peer reviewed and are in the hands of but a few or solitary webmaster, they control the content. And that's because I can read if the source material constitutes WP:RS and WP:NOR. Or are we now insinuating that I am possibly mistaken about what is a reliable source.--MONGO 04:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry for the lack of clarity. I was saying that it doesn't matter whether you are correct about the hypothetical being a reliable source or not. If someone adds a reference they honestly believe provides 'evidence that snails control our thoughts' from the webzine of the 'Divine Union of Moonbat Believers', you revert it, they re-add it, and you revert it again... that's edit warring. No ifs, no ands, no buts. It just is. 'Being right' is not an excuse for edit warring and does not make it stop being edit warring. You still are supposed to go to the talk page and discuss it and try to get agreement and then if that doesn't work go to dispute resolution... rather than switching the contents of the page back and forth a few times and then blocking the person. --CBD 10:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If the source is unreliable as a reference, and they have been told this by numerous editors and they continue to put the information in the articles, then removing this unreliable information is not edit warring. At what point do you get the picture. These editors have primarily one focus...spam the articles with info they have gleemed from unreliable websites...these websites do not have a peer review process...they are controlled by a small number of webmasters...they do not pass the mustard as WP:RS. I would do my best, if I were you to not post insulting edit summaries such as this again.--MONGO 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I honestly believe that you are very mistaken about the intended definitions of terms like 'edit warring', 'vandalism', and 'NPOV' on Wikipedia. I thought that these were fundamental 'bedrock' principles of Wikipedia and thus am non-plussed by the seeming controversy. You have called this series of edits >[22] [23] [24] [25] [26]< 'reverting vandalism followed by a justified vandalism block'. I have called it 'edit warring followed by an improper block over a content dispute'. Presumably, one of us must have an incorrect understanding of the intent of Wikipedia policy. If you are certain it is me why not review the policies and cite some sections you think justify your position? I have previously done so for my views here. --CBD 12:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm very worried that MONGO has his own definitions of NPOV, edit-warring, and vandalism that are different than what the rest of us use and are biased to support his position. If MONGO were just a normal user the damage would be limited, but he's an admin, and we've seen him using his buttons to block users he's in content disputes with. And now it doesn't appear that he's admitting to doing any wrong, and he seems intent on continuing. So, what do we do? --Cyde↔Weys 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that more experienced people are following the 9/11 pages, I'm sure we will soon reach a consensus on how to handle the persistent attempts of conspiracists to add their pseudo-scientific nonsense to the articles. I will respect whatever that consensus is, although I personally might stop short of telling them to fuck off, except in the most extreme cases. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

While I obviously don't agree with MONGO on these definitional issues I also don't think he can be significantly faulted for them given the simple fact that a majority (though not 'consensus') at the RfC on the issue support him. I don't think that means he's right... the policies and dozens of ArbCom rulings still say what they say, but I would argue that it's hard to fault him for having these ideas when most people seem to share them. So, 'what do we do'? My, less than popular, approach has been to say, 'look policy 4 sub-section 3.1 clearly establishes the precedent of being nice... and that is sound policy because not being nice is un-nice'... which I concede is never very pleasant to be on the receiving end of, as I think you (Cyde), Tony, Kelly, MONGO, Tom, Huey, Duey, Luey, Karmafist, Locke Cole, Netoholic, the ArbCom in general (and the prior one), Moe, Larry, Curly, Mark, Jimbo, and perhaps one or two other people might agree. Possibly. If you don't all get together and stone me first.

We're all trying to 'make things better' and don't like to have our methods of doing so challenged... so I'm open to suggestions on better ways to challenge people's methods. :] --CBD 15:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker

The Deathrocker arbitration case has been closed and the results are published in full at the link above.

Deathrocker is placed on revert parole. Leyasu's revert parole is modified. Leyasu was already, in a prior case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu) on personal attack parole, revert parole, and probation.

This report is made in my capacity as a clerk of the Arbitration Committee. I took no part in making these decisions, I just report them. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo Wii article

The Wii article is essentialy FUBAR, with the article being moved to Wii WITH ANAL JUICE! and being a Wikipedia newbie, I screwed up attempting to fix it, so an Admin will have to step in to fix the mess. My apologies. --TheHeadSage 08:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed and page move vandal indef blocked-- Samir धर्म 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Page has also been semi protected. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mywayyy

User:Mywayyy was blocked for 24 hours for violating the WP:3RR on Greco-Turkish relations. He insists on evading the block with (seemingly endless) IPs. I have been blocking each IP as it comes up for 24 hours and then incrementing the block on User:Mywayyy for 24 hours. So far the block stands at 96 hours. The IPs in question are: 88.218.38.182 (talk · contribs), 88.218.54.203 (talk · contribs), 88.218.35.125 (talk · contribs). Another one has come up, 88.218.47.30 (talk · contribs) and I have yet to take action. I now realise that I have acted against Wikipedia:Banning policy, as that states that the ban should be "reset" rather than incremented. My question is as follows, would it be reasonable to ban the user for 1 week for constant disruption or should I reset the ban to 24 hours? - FrancisTyers · 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Francis. I'm not sure the Banning policy is the most relevant reference here (he's not banned, he's just being blocked for disruption). I think in similar cases escalation of blocks to much longer periods has been pretty common, hasn't it? In view of the fact that almost all his activity on Wikipedia for the last weeks has been in making petty reverts over deleting or inserting Turkish and Greek placenames in geography articles, and that he has openly announced that he will "keep reverting forever" ([27]), a good long block, perhaps soon even a community ban (at least on that particular issue) would well be in order. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, you may be right. I'm usually pretty leniant in these matters, but if people agree I don't have a problem extending his block to a month. It really is getting a bit tedious... - FrancisTyers · 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A longer block is unlikely to help much as long as he has access to more IP numbers. I'd also s-protect the relevant pages. -- Hoary 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, it's actually quite a large number of pages. Every article on Greek and Turkish placenames is a candidate. He must have been doing this on at least a dozen of them during the last two or three days alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really much need for sprotection I don't think, there is only one user and he's fairly consistent, I think Fut.Perf. is doing a good job of reverting and I also think that there are some new users who want to work on the articles in question seriously. - FrancisTyers · 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list for unblock requests, pt. 2

As proposed [[28]] on AN previously, unblock-en-l for unblock requests is now live. It's not being advertised as an avenue for blocked users to appeal yet until there are more admins manning it; please consider signing up if you would like to help with this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)