| Revision as of 02:25, 24 May 2006 view sourceRuud Koot (talk | contribs)31,416 edits Roman military tactics← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:29, 24 May 2006 view source 152.163.100.200 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{db|nonsense crap, speedy G4 ts1}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Tasks == | |||
| <!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. --> | |||
| <div style="padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 1em 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #ffe3e3; text-align: center;"> | |||
| The following ''']''' require the attention of one or more editors. | |||
| <br> | |||
| ''], ] and ]'' | |||
| </div> | |||
| Administrators' noticeboard is the last surviving formula for toilet bowl cleaning and structuewthauirewthairewt ai 43ya6 y43y6 743y6 | |||
| = General = | |||
| <!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. --> | |||
| == Wiktionary user == | |||
| The ] (apparently corresponding to ] here) was indefinitely blocked this year on the English Wiktionary for '''massive, systemic copyright violations.''' His primary sources were ''Webster's third new international dictionary, unabridged'', by Merriam-Webster, Inc. and ''The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised)'' (using either the on-line edition or a CD-ROM version - the specific version remains unclear for a portion of his entries.) | |||
| The main Wiktionary discussion can be found here: ]. In his own defense, he relied on bizarre personal attacks, personal threats and repetitious flagrant lies (perhaps in the hope that repeating a certain lie over and over again would make it somehow become truth.) | |||
| For over a month now, he has used '''many''' sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary, confirmed by checkuser(!) request on ]. <small>Only the most recent batch of sockpuppets is listed on the meta page.</small> He has become ] single most assiduous vandal, recently prompting an automated '''block of some 6,000+ IP addresses''' used by the ]. | |||
| His signature vandalism patterns alternate between massive rudimentary copyright violations, and bombarding Wiktionary with massive quantites of unattested vulgar terminology. | |||
| His copyright-vandalism today on the English Wiktionary (via a new sockpuppet that he created some time ago, in preparation) was first traced to the Misplaced Pages entry for ], where has been steadily, incrementally adding content. It is apparent to me, that he is using a 'bot to upload material here on Misplaced Pages just as he used to on Wiktionary, as several tell-tale signs are in each of his entries. It is my personal theory that he is using 'bot technology to split apart his edits, so that no single edit triggers a VandalBot "copyright" warning on the anti-vandalism channels. | |||
| I hereby request assistance from '''''all''''' Misplaced Pages sysops in chasing down this prolific individual's copyright violations (here on Misplaced Pages, as well as on Wiktionary - as many entries on Wiktionary still have not been cleaned adequately.) I am somewhat unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies regarding copyright violation. But I cannot imagine that such systemic, wholesale copying is condoned here. | |||
| --] 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop; please leave messages on my talk page ].) | |||
| :Here is a bit of advice to anyone who reads this: check carefully everything Connel MacKenzie says. He has been known to exaggerate greatly at times. This is a very complex, personal dispute between him and I. Unfortunately, I do not possess the knowledge to use "bots". (And, what does this have to do with Misplaced Pages?) I don't know what you mean by "vandalism," either. I've had some ''content'' disputes with you. I admit I moved some material I wrote here to ''Wiktionary,'' all of which you apparently deleted on sight. The autoblocker blocked my IP for a short time, so I was able to get a new user name (something suggested to me by Tawker in a public discussion). I created about 5 vulgar entries on ''Wiktionary'' which Connel MacKenzie deleted on sight (even though ''Wiktionary'' is not censored--supposedly--and they all had citations). So, that's hardly the "massive quantites" you're describing. Really, this is not relevant to Misplaced Pages at all. The reason I remain blocked is very complex but can be boiled down to three factors: (1) personal attacks, (2) evading my block, and (3) alleged copyright violation. Now, Connel MacKenzie is going through everything I ever created on Wiktionary (I made about ) and reverting or deleting it on the unproven assumption that it's all copyvio material. Connel MacKenzie is a very bitter person. He's had more disputes on Wiktionary than any other user. Now he's the person who banned all of those accounts and he's the only one still complaining about me. The fact he is even bringing up such a matter here shows even greater malice on his part, in my opinion. If he were editing on Misplaced Pages, he would have been banned a while ago. However, there's no real formal dispute resolution process on Wiktionary, so he can just continue acting the way he does and no one can do anything about it.--] 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you Primetime! I could not have ''asked'' for a better demonstration of your immediate tactics of 1) resorting to invalid personal attacks, and 2) bold, flagrant lies. --] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find this dispute worrisome because it may have affected Wikpedia administration. I recently nominated "]" for AfD, due chiefly for its apparent violation of ] . ] argued eloquently, effectively, and somewhat duplicitously (as I've said to him) against its transwikification to Wiktionary. ] had said that Wiktionary editors were intolerant, and would not accept the material. This report describes additional aspects to the matter. I don't know if the claim by Connel MacKenzie has merit or not, but Wiktionary is a sister project and we should work in a coordinated fashion. -] 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please note that Primetime's indefinite block on Wiktionary was approved after a decision made by the community. It was not even issued by Connel MacKenzie . Now Connel is indeed a very active contributor and sysop on Wiktionary, probably among our best (if there's such a thing as "the best" on a wiki), who's not afraid of discussion, some arguments in which he is a party indeed evolving into what one might arguably call a "dispute". That is, however, of no relevance here, and has more to do with the argumentative nature of the English Wiktionary. Primetime, though, has never conformed to the rules that apply to Wiktionary, and he and his host of sockpuppets have been banned from Wiktionary '''by the community''', for the reasons given above by Connel. The majority of his former contributions have either been deleted (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel), or rephrased in order to eliminate the copyright violations originally entered by Primetime. New admissions from his part, once they have been identified as being Primetime's, are being deleted on sight (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel or me) due to his long-standing tradition of '''proven''' copyright violations. ] 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop). | |||
| ::::First, there was a discussion where the editors participating came upon agreement that my most-recent creations, created on three nights in March and January would be deleted. (See ]). Further, my most-recent contributions were already trying to be deleted or had already been deleted when some discovered that they were from me. Others no one ever found out were from me were deleted as well. Further, those didn't look anything like the single-phrase definitions they were complaining about for copyvios. When Connel MacKenzie did a checkuser on some accounts, he immediately deleted the remainder. He never did a checkuser on the accounts he blocked last night, though. Here's an explanation of why they were already trying to delete them:<p>Some editors have interpreted Wiktionary's ] as meaning that a single reliable source is enough to prove a word's usage. Others, however, say that only three quotations will suffice, despite the fact that the page states that "Usage in a well-known work" qualifies as proof. These same editors claim that other dictionaries do not count. To many Misplaced Pages users accustomed to citing disputed assertions with a single source, having to give three sources is upsetting and unwelcoming. Many entries have been deleted because they had only one or two sources.<p>Knowing the anarchic atmosphere of Wiktionary and the propensity of certain administrators to use these unusually-high standards to delete offensive terms, I created six entries with three quotes per sense and with full source information for each quote. (See ].) Then a user named Jonathan Webley nominated each of them for deletion saying "I can't find these terms anywhere else". Shortly afterward, Connel MacKenzie chimed in saying "This series of anonymous submissions seems intentionally disruptive, and pointlessly inflammatory. '''Delete all.''' These are certainly no more than the sum of their parts (each submission) with a clear intent to enter as many forms as can be dredged up, and to bypass the comparatively neutral, explanatory entry at ]." Then, another administrator deleted them and protected the pages. His assertion that they were the sum of their parts is an example of an exaggeration by MacKenzie as "Blue-eyed grass (genus ''Sisyrinchium''), especially California blue-eyed grass, S. bellum" was not the sum of the phrase "nigger baby". Another example is this: ]. I had three quotes and a dictionary reference for that one. Here's another one: ]. Editors there have a tendency to delete terms they don't like on sight (See that had a reference to a slang dictionary, but was deleted anyway the first time. When I recreated it, he nominated it for verification, then deleted it again when he found out it was from me.) As for "give me fin on the soul side" I had two quotes and a dictionary citation. They deleted it anyway, but I had it saved on my hard drive, so I recreated it. Then, they said two quotes and a dictionary references weren't enough, so I added more, for '''3 quotes''' and '''5 citations.''' Connel still wanted to delete it anyway, which shows his deceptive and bitter nature.<p>As everyone can tell, Vildicranius is good friends with Connel MacKenzie--even though Vildicranius is pretty new. However, Connel MacKenzie has been known to harass other users. On the Beer Parlour (their equivalent of the Village Pump) he had at least three discussion threads raised against him by Ncik: ], ] even though I had been there only since November. He went after Ncik, who he chased away apparently, Eclecticology, then me. I'm sure there were others, though.<p>In conlcusion, I'm a financial donor to Wikimedia, so if I believed that something would harm our wikis, I wouldn't do it. On Misplaced Pages, I fight vandalism (I have over 830 pages on my watchlist) and try to be civil. I've worked countless hours, and have on Misplaced Pages under this user name as well as 366 under others. I tend to use '''Show preview''' and focus on articles, so the tally doesn't tell much, either. However, on Wiktionary, it's harder to get along. Many Misplaced Pages policies, such as the ] and ] are not policies on Wiktionary. To some users from Misplaced Pages, this makes the site seem like it is ], and makes many administrator decisions seem arbitrary, as well. Everyone knows each other, so you either become good friends or ''really bad'' enemies.--] 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Interestingly, that last bit and sound quite alike. And your palaver about being a financial donor is also . ], Primetime. ] 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Absolutely. I've said it before, and I need to say it again. Everything I just said is all true. Everyone should read what I just wrote. As for my donation, go here: --I listed my user name in the comment column.--] 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied defintions from existing dictionaries? | |||
| :A quick look through your contributions here (at least ones highlighted on your user page) raise red flags, too. Take ], which you created with: | |||
| ::''(Born Whilton, Northants., Dec. 22, 1785; Died Versailles, Feb. 19, 1859). English organ builder. The son of a local ], he first learnt his father's trade. Against family opinion he was apprenticed while still in his youth to the organ builder James Davis and later joined in partnership with Hugh Russell...'' | |||
| :We have the idiosyncratic, non-Misplaced Pages style of beginning, the fully-formed sentences, and, most peculiarly for an American contributor, the British usage of "learnt" -- which you changed in subsequent edits over the next hour. My guess is Britannica, but I have a friend who owns a copy, so I"ve asked him to check. --] | ] 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sounds good. You can also search the introductions for each entry for free online. As you can see here: <nowiki><http://www.britannica.com/search?query=John+Abbey&ct=></nowiki>, there is no entry. As for formatting, I hate Misplaced Pages formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers. For example, above, I did not give the link as because I think it looks unintuitive and doesn't tell the reader where they're going.--] 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''I hate Misplaced Pages formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers.''' Really? What "style recommendations of writers" are you referring to? What possible applicability do these "style recommendations of writers" have for THIS project? And what about these "style recommendations of writers" gives you an exemption from the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style? --] | ] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is another debate, but I tend to follow styling guidelines of style manuals like ''Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors'' as well as Random-House's style guide. I also imitate for experimentation purposes several innovations, like enlarging the headword a point or two. I have had several disagreements and have explained myself in detail on why I don't always follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. Examples include pronunciation aids,<sup></sup> as well as links.<sup></sup>--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you clarify where the article came from? Is it all your own original writing or is copied from another source? -] 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To repeat, let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied definitions from existing dictionaries? Can you affirm that the text I quoted above is all your own? What was the source of your information? --] | ] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It is not copied from anywhere. I wrote most of my contributions. Many were written as school reports. Others are from the 1911 edition of the ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. Some are reports I wrote for my classes at school.--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This article, ] , also appears to be copied from another source. If it isn't then it is a severe violation of ] as it includes extensive literary criticism. -] 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Now that's strange: that list of articles on on ]'s page, which listed the articles he says he was principal contributer to? The one I browsed checking for copying? Primetime has suddenly removed them . Why would that be? --] | ] 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm tired of you guys going through each of my contributions and picking them apart. I don't have time for that.--] 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Man, I'm slow: that list I mentioned? One of the entries is for the '']'' -- and the article includes an external link to a site which provides short versions of some of the articles. Looking up ]...Hmm, do these look familiar? | |||
| :'''''Reinhard Johannes Sorge''' (January 29, 1892-July 20, 1916) is considered one of the earliest ] dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. '' (from | |||
| :''Reinhard Johannes Sorge is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime.'' From the | |||
| Busted. --] | ] 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK. I admit that it's from the ''DLB''. That doesn't mean that everything I've ever written is a copyvio, though. Most of the articles I've written aren't even about writers.--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Another quick check: ] ( versus )...do I need to continue? Your long-winded rationale is pure misdirection, and while it's, I'm sure, literally true that not EVERYTHING you've ever written is stolen, it's enough to presume it's true unless you provide evidence to the contrary. --] | ] 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::STOP! WHAT DO YOU MEAN? ARE YOU PROPOSING THE DELETION OF EVERYTHING I'VE EVER WRITTEN BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO ENTRIES??? WHAT PROOF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE '''NOT''' FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE! WHY ARE YOU GOING AFTER ME SO HARD?--] 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Those first two entries are what I found sitting at my desk, from my computer, after only a few minutes work and without breaking a sweat. Imagine what I could do if I went down to the local university library and actually search in their hard-copy of ''Britannica'', ''Grove's'', ''DLB'', ''Current Biography'', etc. --] | ] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A message on my talk page: ''...Also, why are you doing this? You know that Misplaced Pages isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this!'' This is perhaps the most pathetic rationale for copyright abuse I've seen in a long time -- but more to the point, we ''are'' aware now. You've been busted: deal with it. --] | ] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Throw ] ( versus on the list. Man, this may take a co-ordinated effort to root out. --] | ] 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Block of Primetime=== | |||
| I have blocked Primetime per the above developments, and the obvious rejection of any wrongdoing from him. Currently set to indef, but if there are objections, please someone take the initiative to unblock. This is only a precautionary measure from stopping him from creating any further articles for now. If there are no objections, then it'd be a community indef block. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 00:58 ] <small>(])</small> | |||
| :I would like to remind you that ] has now dozens of ''known'' sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary. He is very adept at finding open proxies. He is also very adept at finding the newest "tor" exit points. Again, I request assistance from ''all'' available Misplaced Pages sysops now, to 1) verify whatever portion of his edits you need to, are copyright violations and 2) keep a very sharp eye out for new sockpuppets. | |||
| :Despite everything he has said in the past six months or so, I do not believe his stated motives. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must, but I think he is being paid to insert copyright violations into Wikimedia projects. I cannot comprehend any other reason why he would have pursued his attacks on the English Wiktionary, for months after being blocked. For example, ] is still being actively vandalized. It obviously is not some desire to propogate "truth." It is instead, a very disturbing case. --] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given his insistence of innocence until '''proven''' to have violated copyright I have to agree that this user has forfeited all right to ]. Insertion of fragments to 'build up' a copyvio in pieces shows foreknowledge that they are not allowed and a deliberate effort to evade detection. He needs to provide an explanation for ''why'' he was deliberately sneaking in copyrighted material and list every instance of doing so under all accounts before we should even ''consider'' unblocking him. I'm usually the one saying 'blocks are bad and cause more problems than they solve', but '''this guy''' needs to be blocked indefinitely and his contributions sanitized. If in doubt assume it is a copyvio and remove or rewrite it. --] 13:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Given the extent of his damage, has anyone in Misplaced Pages requested a blanket Checkuser on his IP address, for his Misplaced Pages activities? Looking at policy #6 from ] it looks like such a check is permitted. But only for a couple days more. --] 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| FYI, a number of sock puppets of Primetime have been identifed and blocked. {{user|JakeT55}}, {{user|Britannica fan}}, {{user|Gmills22}}, {{user|Gtregf}}, and {{user|America's Sweetheart}}. -] 07:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :These seem to have been a panicked reaction to having some of his suspected plagiarism being deleted, with the sockpuppets used to try to add back the probable copyvios. | |||
| :I say "probable" copyvios, but I'm 95% certain they are, even absent hard evidence. For details on the frustrating saga, check his ]. At this point, confirming the other plagiarism is more an intellectual exercise than a necessity, as far as I'm concerned. --] | ] 08:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===The article ]=== | |||
| By sheer coincidence, I looked at this article about a week ago. I grew suspicious at the very atypical tone of the piece, and so I checked the history. What I found was something atypical of copyvios, namely a long series of edits to a section made by a registered user with a userpage, so I shrugged it off. In light of this, however, I've Google-tested some pieces, but found no hits; could anyone perhaps check a copy of ''EB'' and/or other likely reference works to see if it's stolen from there? —] (] • ]) 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I left a list (compiled by going through a list from his own user page) of likely copyvios on his ], with a request that he account for them. Let's see if his repentence is serious. --] | ] 07:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Compare histories of ] and ]. Also those of ], ] and ]. They have multiple Primetime or Primetime sockpuppet edits. There are probably more cross-project parallels. ] 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've received e-mail from Primetime, and it's apparent that he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's done wrong. Until he does, I strongly urge not unblocking him. --] | ] 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's perhaps a reason why he keeps doing it. However, I think he's cleverer than that. At Wiktionary, he has tricked various users into believing he was completely innocent, prior to his unmasking and the consequent indefinite block. ] 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have M-W Third on hold at my local library again, and will pick it up tomorrow afternoon. --] 07:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: It seems to be from the OED. The 20 volume set can't be checked out, but the next time I'm there I'll confirm that (halfway down the page) does in fact match the start of . --] 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) <small>edited</small> | |||
| :: By the way, it looks like this will be archived/deleted soon? Tracking down 1,700 entries is probably going to take quite a while. Are topics on the archive pages considered "active" or should this be moved somewhere else? --] 03:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::], the bot that archives this page, reports the date of the oldest response when it archives sections, so I think it will ignore this section as long as you keep posting here. But if you want to keep track of the reverting of Primetime's copyvios, it'd be better to make a subpage of your user page for that purpose. ]. 04:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I guess my question is now, who on Misplaced Pages (I'm not a sysop here) is going to start the effort of combing through all his entries, to indicate which have already been deleted/cleaned up? --] 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Been there, done that: admins {{Admin|Michael_Snow}} and {{Admin|Will_Beback}} have have already whacked the most obvious offenders. See ] for a blow-by-blow account. --] | ] 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Update=== | |||
| {{User|Primetime}} has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales hisownself (see ). Note also that Primetime has resorted to sockpuppets to add back what's been deleted (see ]) and has gone admin-shopping (see ) seeking to reverse deletions of his additions. --] | ] 05:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Backlog on WP:PAIN == | |||
| *The page says it is to "get administrator attention quickly," yet there have been issues there for 3 days now that no admins have addressed yet. On Misplaced Pages, I would think quickly means at most a few hours, not days. ] 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Perhaps it is because your argument has no merit. -- ] 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***I guess you didn't notice the other user reports on there. So none of those arguements have merit and admins won't remove issues with no merit? Seems to me you are just trying to create problems. But what I find funny is that you had said before "I am tired of dealing with this user" and yet you seem to be following my edits. Get lost Gnetwerker, stop following me around making snide comments. Or are you up for ruling cautioning you against being rude? ] 06:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I agree with ], who ''did'' in fact address your complaint, that Gnetwerker did not make personal attacks requiring immediate admin intervention. By claiming that admins oignored your complaint when Malber took the time to look into it, you do him a disservice. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***And you do me a disservice by claiming I said stuff I did not. I never said admins were ignoring my compaint. As for Malber, I can't find his name on the . He hasn't identified himself on his user page that he is an administrator either. Can you show me that he even is an administrator? ] 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::#I consider it fairly self-evident that your complaint here relates to the fact that your other complaint on ] was not dealt with the way you wanted. | |||
| :::#No, Malber is not an administrator, but non-admins may deal with any 'administrative' task except those requiring administrative tools. Admins are not anything particularly special, they just have some extra buttons. | |||
| :::#If an admin declines to block someone on ], they won't necessarily announce it, especially if someone (even a non-admin) has adequately addressed the case. If no-one posts to disagree with the first person to reply, then that almost certainly indicates agreement. | |||
| :::#If you really want the voice of an administrator, here it is. Malber's analysis is correct. | |||
| :::#Your own comments are far from civil: for instance, saying that Malber has ''"been accused of making personal attacks yourself"'', then giving a which showed a user ''quoting'' an NPA warning by Malber, presenting it as if the quoter was issuing an NPA warning. That misrepresentation of the facts is then followed up by a healthy dose of well-poisoning with ''"I recommend admins taking this user's comments with a grain of salt"''. For your own good, I would recommend that you drop this. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::#Or maybe the fact that I did not get an administrator response on an administrator notice board. Would I be making my comments if I hadn't posted on PAIN? Obviously not. However not only were my notices not addressed by an administrator, no one else’s have been for four days now. That only compounds my point. Especially since I have brought this to your attention and other people's complaints are still waiting to be addressed. To the point of ] resorting to shouting! Is ''user has restored the material AGAIN! Help!'' not notice enough? My notice was never addressed by an administrator and I was simply saying "hey! look at all of us waiting for administrators!" Your blatant accusation that I am just doing this because I am not happy with the handling (or lack thereof) is just bad faith and incorrect. In short, the first line of the page says ''This page is intended to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks.'' If no administrators comment on issues lasting days you actually think the page is being properly monitored? | |||
| ::::#Pot meet kettle. Below you say that I was misrepresenting the facts (which I will address) yet you say ''By claiming that admins ignored your complaint when Malber took the time to look into it, you do him a disservice.'' Hmm... post on admin notice board, user comments, poster saying admins ignored him does said user disservice. Explain to me how that doesn't imply said user is an admin. At the very least show me how it could be reasonably interpreted that Malber wasn't an admin. ''non-admins may deal with any 'administrative' task except those requiring administrative tools.'' Really? Show me the Misplaced Pages policy that says non-admins may make rulings on admin notice boards, not comments, rulings. Show me the policy. | |||
| ::::#Do you actually expect me to believe that? That's just faulty logic plain and simple. If an admin removed the notices that would be an indication. But four days of users saying "is anyone reading this? help!" is hardly admins agreeing with comments. At the very least they would remove the notices or say something. | |||
| ::::#Now, now, did you really think that would be satisfactory after I asked Malber to justify his remarks? You haven't even shown any indication that you've even read the notice. So basically you are agree with a user that doesn't provide justification. In any case, the reason why I've been asking for justification is simple. Just for kicks (not really), in your own words, define ad hominem, because I have a strong suspicion you have no idea what it is. | |||
| ::::#And I will apologize for that, I read it over too quickly and though Malber was being warned, not quoted. But please, don't try to intimidate me with that "for your own good" crap. | |||
| :::::I expect all the other user' issues on ] to be addressed before or immediately after your reply to me, otherwise I would love to see how many words you have to write to even begin to show no hypocrisy. ] 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Let's see - taking the recent ones, H8 wasn't addressed because it was a throwaway account that had already been discarded, but just to please you I blocked it anyway. Gnetwerker had already been dealt with by Malber, EnthusiastFRANCE archived the personal attack warnings rather than removing them (he does not wish to have a talk page) and is trying to move on, so no administrative action would be productive, and RyanFreisling asked a difficult question in a perfectly civil way. Now that's over with, you don't bring up anything new. Non-admins may always offer comments (no-one makes 'rulings' around here, except the Arbcom), this is a generally accepted principle everywhere, and, if that doesn't satisfy you, has been formally accepted at ] . And it's very simple - if no admin posts, that means "no action necessary". If a non-admin posts, and no-one posts to disagree, that means "we agree". This is a wiki - "I agree +1 editcount" isn't as commonly seen around here as on Internet forums. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*This is ridiculous. How do you expect me to reach a consensus with you if you are going to pick and choose which points of mine you are going to address? You addressed most of my first point but not my points raised by Sophia's complaint. I can't see how you even attempted to address my third point, and you completely ignored my fourth point which is the cause for this debate. In addition to your comment of "If a non-admin posts, and no-one posts to disagree, that means "we agree"." Completely supports my point. I was the last responder to Malber. So since no one disagreed with my insisting he provide some justification for his views, according to your statement the admins agree that he didn't provide a good justification. | |||
| :::::::*''Non-admins may always offer comments (no-one makes 'rulings' around here, except the Arbcom), this is a generally accepted principle everywhere, and, if that doesn't satisfy you, has been formally accepted at WP:AIV .''. If it's been "formerly accepted", why is there no policy on it? At the very least there would be a guideline no? | |||
| :::::::*In any case, back to the point at hand, no one has even offered a measly sentence to try to explain how Gnetwerker's comments were not personal attacks. The fact that you have refused to offer an explanation that you even know what an ad hominem is even when you could have copy-pasted from Wikitionary makes me doubt your sincerity in trying to offer a balanced view. I handed that one to you and you still didn't bother to address it. | |||
| :::::::*I don't find it objectionable if someone disagrees with my views. However on every level of non-fallacious arguing and just plain honesty, picking and choosing points to address is indecent. ] 05:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*'''EDIT:''' oh, just so you know, Sophia has been waiting a week now for a response. Either she is being ignored or no one is bothering to maintain the page by removing out-dated comments (I was the one who removed a bunch yesturday.) "self-evident that your complaint here relates to the fact that your other complaint on ] was not dealt with the way you wanted" my ass. | |||
| Given Samuel's of this discussion and Alistair's removement of my complaint from ] without respect to the discussion here, I have to conclude that an end-run-around has been made in bad-faith to the dispute resolution process. No one from my opposing side has given a single response with justification and free of cherry picking. | |||
| In summation I feel the chain of events are as follows: | |||
| #Gnetwerker made personal attacks against me. | |||
| #I asked Gnetwerker to stop multiple times. | |||
| #Gnetwerk continued making personal attacks. | |||
| #I brought the attacks to the attention of ]. | |||
| #The user Malber commented that they were not personal attacks. | |||
| #I asked him to explain his views because he wasn't providing any justification, he did not. | |||
| #After a few days without any action being taken, I felt the page was being disregarded and brought it to the attention here. | |||
| #After the above discussions, Samuel's comments appear to be an ] which were full of unexplained and bad-faith remarks and cherry picking. | |||
| #Without respect to the discussion here, Alistair removed the comments from ]. | |||
| #Since I am not going to repost the complaint on ] and no serious attempt has been made to resolve the issue, I am going to request mediation. ] 02:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You missed something out of that chain of events. After Gnetwerker's first edit to ], you responded by reverting his edit with the comment ''rv fanboyism''. ] 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I responded to your accusation Alistair to which you ignored. Don't bring stuff that you are not willing to discuss. BTW, there is nothing incivil or offensive about what I said. ] 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You are complaining that Gnetwerker attacked you by accusing you of being a "Microsoft fanboy". You don't think it is relevant that you had just previously described one of his edits as "fanboyism"? In your initial post to WP:PAIN you quoted Wiktionary: 'a personal attack as any comment about the commenter inorder to discredit them'. You don't consider describing Gnetwerker's edit as "fanboyism" an attempt to discredit it?] 15:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please stop cherry picking, you still haven't addressed the fact that I previously addressed your point to which you ignored and that now, only after you brought it up again, are you seemingly willing to continue discussing it. | |||
| :Alistair, with all due civility, please read up on an ] is. ] says that saying someone is acting like something is not a personal attack. You seem to be cherry picking once again by ignoring that I already addressed why I made that comment and how the situation changed afterwards. ] 01:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Minimum age for wikipedia? == | |||
| Is there a minimum age for wikipedia? I'm a bit fuzzy on the subject, but I thought there was a minimum age required by law (COPPA)? I'm not sure if Misplaced Pages falls under this however. I ask because ] admits on his user page to being only 12. I don't know what should be done if anything. Could someone look into this? Thanks a bunch --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, there is no minimum age to edit Misplaced Pages. ] 01:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not minimum age to edit, but minimum age to create an account. He could have given his real name, as well as email address during the signup process. A few FTC links about COPPA: . I just wanted to make sure that Misplaced Pages is has its bases covered. --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::What about people not in America? --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is no minimum age for anything. Misplaced Pages is the "the 💕 that '''anyone can edit'''", so no matter who you are, as long as you follow the policies, you can edit. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I wasn't refuting the part that anyone can edit, just anyone can create an account and give their personal information. Although it would help if I read the text of COPPA better and saw "does not include any nonprofit entity that would otherwise be exempt from coverage under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)." Misplaced Pages is under the Wikimedia Foundation which is non-profit right? So I don't think we have to worry about this. --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 01:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think we are exempt because we are a nonprofit (although I saw no clause 5 in the FTC act), but COPPA is pretty clear on the matter: ''(1) IN GENERAL.—It is unlawful for an operator of a website or online service directed to children, or any operator that '''has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child''', to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under subsection'' - The only things we ask are for a username, password, and an optional email address. Thus, we do not knowingly collect information from children. ] 02:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Awesome, I'm glad. Thanks for your help Raul, Mark and Prodego! --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 02:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think there should be a maximum age of 22 years. — ] ] 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I guess I'll have to edit as much as I can in the next 11 months, just in case I become ineligible at that point via Knowledge Seeker's rule proposal. ;o) ]] | ] 02:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I think there should be a ''minimum'' age of 21 years. It seems to me that the younger users tend to either (1) use Misplaced Pages as their message board, sulking around pages like this, (2) vandalize pages randomly until they're blocked, or (3) write articles that only teenagers care about (e.g., non-notable bands or anime characters.) I find it disappointing that many of these younger users tend to become administrators simply because they're good at popularity contests. The older users never get praised because they aren't "cool" enough, I guess.--] 02:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A minimum age of 21?! NWIH. There are many <21 editors here (like me) who are constructive and non-vandals. Also see ], a very active vandalism reverter who is only 14. I can only hope that this is a joke proposal. ~] <nowiki>{</nowiki>]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]<nowiki>|</nowiki><font color="green">]</font><nowiki>|</nowiki>]<nowiki>}</nowiki> 23:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A minimum of 21 and a maximum of 22... this is starting to sound like the wikipedia triple crown where editors can work for a year and then either are bred or turned into glue :o) --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 02:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If this were true, we'd have a lot less vandals. Given the choice of a year of hard work and a lifetime of breeding, or a year of goofing around and a lifetime of being an adhesive, I think I know what most people would choose. :o) ]] | ] 02:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We're not going to geld any users, are we? I'd like to opt out of that. ] 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We'd have to rename the place ]. --] (]) 05:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I NEW someone was going to mention that!!!''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 06:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::If only Willy were 29... ] (]) 13:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This would be a sad thing (an age limitation on wikipedia)...as some of our best administrators are not exactly "old" perse. I really respect the diversity that we represent. ] 23:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree, Ilyanep is 14 and he is a great 'crat. Also I myself may get banned then.''']''' | ] 07:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] blocked for persistently flaunting a stupidly large and garish signature== | |||
| Enough is enough. I have blocked Nathanrdotcom for twelve hours for "Persistently flaunting a stupidly large signature with multiple image inclusions". --] 04:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think the block should be removed as soon as he removes the images from his sig (which he can demonstrate by posting to his talk page). --] 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this is an unnecessary escalation. I ask that you reconsider. There are better ways to handle this than blocking Nathan. -- ] 04:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Do you think you could do something about that monstrosity of a signature? --] 05:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've removed the image. But I think your behaviour and your current tone is less than civil -- ] <font face = "Arial Narrow"> <small>धर्म ]</small></font> 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This was a massive, massive abuse of power. Thankfully, Tawker overrode the block; however, Mr. Sidaway, blocking someone just because you don't like them '''is not a valid reason'''. Please, next time consider acting like a true Wikipedian instead of ''flaunting your stupidly large and garish power'' in front of others by attacking innocents (note for the sarcasm deprived; I'm not making any personal attacks. I'm just trying to outline that if you block someone because you don't like them... well. You know.) ]] 04:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::IANAA, but I concur entirely in MOP's comments. ] 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sadly Nathan does not come out of this looking too good, but frankly his stubborness is trivial, while Tony's overreaction is worrying. I don't see anything here that warrants a block. ]]] 05:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. The blocks are becoming a bit too agressive ... and blocking someone who has a signature with 3 small flags in them (as seen in ]) should not happen. Personally I don't find it too garish ... I've seen worse. Or was it some other signature from Nathan? In any case, the sig looks fine to me, and as long as the user is not breaking up anything, I don't see a reason to block him for that. Thanks. --] 05:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh I "don't come out of this looking too good", do I? Two admins ganging up on me and bullying me into changing my sig and ''I'm'' the guilty party? I thought as much. Ragib: I never used more than three images in my sig. ] 05:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{vandal|-Ril-}} was blocked for having a confusing signature... ] <sup >]]]</sup > 05:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd also like to add that interestingly enough, this is a pretty big violation of ]. I leave it to Nathan to decide if he'll pursue action or not. ]] 05:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Honestly, calm down. This is hardly a "massive, massive' abuse of power, nor was he blocked because Tony "didn't like him", nor was it a violation of ]. I don't have any particular opinion on this block, but Master of Puppets, please do not overreact to such an absurd degree. If you want to criticise someone's actions, do it politely instead of ranting incoherently.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 05:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How do you suggest I react to it? Calmly sit down and chat over tea? I mean, I'm sorry, but last time I heard blocking someone because you don't like their signature is an abuse of power. Maybe not massively massive, but massive. And this ties into ]; Nathan was blocked because Tony wanted to illustrate the point that he doesn't like long signatures. Clear enough? ]] 05:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The signature (the one with three tiny flags in it) was fine. There was nothing wrong with Cyde asking Nathanrdotcom to remove it, but the block by Tony Sidaway was uncalled for. ] 05:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I aggree with Master of Puppets. --<font size="1">] <sup>]·]</sup></font> 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, he wasn't disruptive and he wasn't breaking any rules. How could he have been rightfully blocked? --<font size="1">] <sup>]·]</sup></font> 05:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think it was a good block. I am confident that it could only have accelerated nathanrdotcom's urgent effort to achieve the Holy Grail: a signature significantly ''less'' than three quarters of a kilobyte in size. --] 05:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I disagree. Care to explain how your block was justified? I'm just curious. ]] 05:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm surprised that you have to ask. Have you seen it? The signature is unnecessarily large and garish. It is stupidly large, at about 730bytes. It contains several switches of font and mode and three included images,and it also breaks vertical spacing, It distracts the eye and thus makes discussion more difficult to follow,. Nathanrdotcom had been politely asked to change it, but persisted in flaunting it while complaining about those who had requested the change. The degree of disruption caused by this ongoing monstrosity easily merited a brief block to persuade the obviously reluctant editor to stop inflicting it on the shared environment of the wiki. --] 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I thank you for your insight. Yes, I have seen this "stupidly large" signature. So now we can cut to the chase; Nathan is <s>asked</s> ordered into changing his signature. Then, when he protests and simply asks for people to consider politely asking, this whole fuss comes about, and he ends up getting blocked. Why? Do I really have to ask? Yes, I do. You blocked him for bringing up a valid point, and then you have the guts to say that he was disrupting Misplaced Pages? Well, for future reference, trying to defend yourself politely isn't disruption. Just thought I'd let you know. Ironically, know what is disruption and violation of ] I know, blocking someone because you don't like what they're doing! So please, stop this conflict; try to apologise, as things are bad enough already. ]] 05:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And did any admin (or user) whatsoever come to my talk and explain this politely? No they did not. I had to hear it from another user (Charlie) after the fact. Oh and let me guess, two admins ganging up on me, bullying me and engaging in repeated incivility and personal attacks is perfectly fine, but when I respond to them, it's "disruption"? Riiight. I see how it is. | |||
| :My entire point is: Cyde or Kelly Martin could have rephrased their request into something a little more tactful like "Your signature contains images which are not against policy but discouraged. This is why they're discouraged: They're a strain on the servers, etc etc. Could you please change it?" '''instead of''' "Your sig is against policy. Change it now or else." My thanks go to Charlie. More admins should aspire to be as tactful and polite as he is. — <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Did you even read what I had to say to you? It seems to me that you must not have, if you think I was ordering you to change your sig. ] (]) 06:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| That block is one of the largest violations of ] that I've seen in quite some time. Three ''small images'' does not an "insanely long signature"" make. You can't block someone just because you don't like them, or don't like something they're doing. Follow process. For the record, I'm on Wikibreak and I've been trying to draft a new signature, as can be seen from some of my recent posts in my talk. I would like Mr Sidaway strongly cautioned on his use of power in the future. I will also not drop this matter until he is so cautioned. ] 05:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Personally, I'm for banning all fancy-ass signatures. Some of them aren't ''that'' bad I suppose, but when I got to post a reply to someone and am faced with 5 or 6 or 7 lines of gobbledygook á la <nowiki>;<sup>]·]</sup></font></nowiki> it's more than a little annoying. And having gone to his page to look at this user's sig, I'll add that it took some time to load. ] 05:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Here's an actual example: <nowiki>— <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC) </nowiki>, 4 lines, and that's just the user's sig. ] 05:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Once again, did anyone come to me and explain about signatures (the way it needed explaining, not making threats and accusations while doing it) before the fact? No, they didn't. — <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 05:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, I did. In my very first post to your talk page (apparently what started this off), I told you to look at ], which very clearly addresses the issue of images in sigs. --] 09:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Without taking sides here, I'd like to point out that the above signature actually intrudes into the text of your own post, making it hard to read. Quite apart from the fact that it can be annoying to scan all those lines of code when posting a reply, and aside from the fact that fancy signatures can be distracting, there are some contributors whose vision problems would make reading the above post near impossible. Just a thought. ] 06:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Personally, I'm for stripping admins who disobey policy of their sysop status. But hey, Misplaced Pages isn't governed by "personallies"; its the community that decides. Mr Sidaway should probably start fixing this by composing a nice, fat apology. Also, remember that ] is there for a reason; if the guidebook says, "Don't push the big shiny block button unless you have a good reason to do so," that doesn't mean push the button to annihalate all people you don't like just because you can. ]] 05:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree with Mopper. Tony Sideawy has not been desysopped for unjustly blocking a user, but Jimbo Wales desysopped a user for unblocking someone. Look at . Maybe we should get Jimbo to come and desysop Tony S. --<font size="1">] <sup>]·]</sup></font> 05:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think Gwernol hits the nail on the head supra; neither should Nathan have been blocked (or been coerced into changing his sig, even as such changing might have been decorous) nor should Tony be desysopped (though he certainly ought to apologize to Nathan in specific and the community in general, inasmuch as his block of Nathan surely disrupted Misplaced Pages more than did Nathan's using his sig). ] 05:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Tony, I'm sorry, but I also feel that blocking was uncalled for in this case. While the situation did get a bit out of hand, blocking for a 1.5KB signature size is uncalled for because if you want it to be fair, you would need to block everyone with a large signature. There are cases where 1 image is larger in bytesize that 3 are. I feel a user should be free to to express themselves (within reason) in their signature and on their user page. To be fair to nathanr: Samir, I'm not sure if you realized this, but the one image in your signature (as downloaded) is 7.2 KB in size, it would be awesome if you would consider removing or replacing it (see my comment in ] for reasoning) but again, it's only a humble request and observation. --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Charlie said it best here. The block was not warranted, not to mention that we have and have had dozens of other Wikipedians, administrators included, with equally large signatures. ] 05:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I see no good reason not to block users who persistently flaunt egregiously large and distracting signatures on discussion pages. It's not something to do often, but sometimes it is necessary. I suggest here that Nathan should be commended on his new signature, brief and uncluttered as it is. --] 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I see a reason; policy. Find somewhere where it says you're allowed to block just because you see no reason not to do so, and I will worship you and cover the earth you walk on with rose petals. However, the sad truth is that in order to be an administrator you should obey policy. And you should know this. Administrators are the face of Misplaced Pages; they represent us. But thanks for apologising, and I also suggest you look over ] and ] for some tips for the future. Also ] for those specific guidelines. Thanks, ]] 05:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It is ] that says that an administrator may block a disruptive editor who has been warned. If you believe that I have apologised, you have either misread something that I have written or misattributed something that someone else wrote. Please do read the documents you have cited, with a view to understanding them. --] 06:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And I think you should apologise to me and the community for such a blatant violation of ]. I will accept no commendations from you until you make such an apology and admit that the situation could've been handled ''a lot'' better. You don't block for an imaginary violation of policy. — <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 06:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Please do ''read'' ]. Please do ''read'' the blocking policy. --] 06:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please '''do''' read this: I'm not a n00b. I've read said policies several times. I'm not an idiot. Blocking me because of an imagined violation of policy (that doesn't exist) is a violation of ] - disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. And your point was: We will block those who disagree with us, whether we are right or not. Fact is, you broke WP:POINT. You had insufficient cause to block me. I deserve an apology. Will you admit to all of us that you made a mistake? — <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : If you have read ] and believe that it applies here, then you have not understood it. --] 06:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Without taking sides here, I'd like to point out that the above signature actually intrudes into the text of your own post, making it hard to read. Quite apart from the fact that it can be annoying to scan all those lines of code when posting a reply, and aside from the fact that fancy signatures can be distracting, there are some contributors whose vision problems would make reading the above post near impossible. Just a thought. ] 06:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In fact, you may want to consider changing your signature again, since the current one is obviously problematic. ] 06:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now that figures: I make the sig shorter as requested/demanded (depending on who you ask) and again someone complains about it... | |||
| :::I see nothing wrong with it. It's short and sweet, uses a different font, has a few links, '''no images'''.... — <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 06:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree, it definately makes sense. Now that its not even touching any policy (] says use of images is discouraged; well, no images), you still complain? Hmm... ]] 06:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : ] actually isn't the relevant policy on sigs here (it's only a guideline). The policy principle, which is otherwise unwritten, was actually formulated in ]. ] was an editor who used an unsuitable signature and was required to change it. --] 06:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Look at it. See how it forces part of your text to superimpose itself on other parts? Getting rid of the <nowiki><sup></nowiki> part would probably fix that. ] 06:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Added: also, the post right below yours is tangled up with it too. ] 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thats your browser, I think; it looks ok in my browser. ]] 06:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've looked at it. I'm using ]. It looks fine. — <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 06:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's fine in my browser too. I have firefox at 1024 x 768. --<font size="1">] <sup>]·]</sup></font> 06:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I switched the rendering engine in Firefox to MSIE. It looks fine there too. — <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 06:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, but "that's your browser" is no excuse, is it. I'm sure a lot of people are using the same browser. And it ''doesn't'' look fine in my browser. Looking at the above exchange is making me crosseyed--why should I have to suffer so a few users can have a special signature? What's wrong with the standard sig anyway? Far better to distinguish yourself with your excellent edits than your awesome sig. ] 06:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Holy sweet mercy! That sig still eats up several lines! Seriously, Goodness. Back in the day, folks sometimes used blocks as a wake up call. Actually you're still only supposed to use them as a wake up call, not a punishment. | |||
| : Nathan, I'm seriously not talking with you until you drastically shorten that signature. Not because I don't like you, or because I don't want to talk with you, but ... right now it's like "Hi, my name is Nathan <insert several lines of gobbledygook here>" and I can hardly find what you actually said between all the markup crud, especially if you were to answer several times in a row. | |||
| : KISS: | |||
| :* Keep It Simple, Stupid | |||
| :* Keep It Simple | |||
| :* Stay Simple | |||
| :* Simple | |||
| : Make everything you do on wikipedia as ''simple'' as possible, not as complex as possible, else you're making a lot of work for yourself and others. | |||
| : ] 06:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well then suggest an alternative on my talk and we can talk about it there. I don't want the boring default. — <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 06:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I honestly don't see the issue. Provide a link to the userpage and one to talk. None of this link farm nonsense. -]<sup>]</sup> 06:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Current sig aside, I really do think Nathan is owed an apology for the block. ] didn't even contact him prior to blocking him. There are many interpretations to ]; in this case, I think there were avenues short of a block that were available to Tony to solve the dispute -- ] <small>]</small> 06:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A quick look at Nathan's contributions shows that he's made next to no edits to actual articles in the last week or so. Too much worrying about signatures=not enough editing an encyclopaedia. ] 06:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey Exploding boy. In fairness for Nathan, his user page says he is on wikibreak so he's only coming back in limited capacity (unless he's a wikiholic like myself). Out of curiosity, Might I ask which screen reader(s)/browser(s) are you using and would you be able to point us to compliance guides for them? I'm sorry that my viewpoint on signatures continues to be it's a way for wikipedians to establish their own identity and give first expressions of themselves. For example in mine, I include my talk page so it'd be easier for people to respond to me or something i've said, as well as a link to My Bio on my research lab's site (As it's important to me and also happens to be how I got into editing wikipedia (as I installed the MediaWiki software and loved it)). Kim... I'm sorry I also have to admit I'm still a bit confused by your arguments against his signature, are you referring to how much space it takes up in edit mode? Thanks --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 06:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Does absolutely no-one care that Nathan has posted on his talk page that he's having a bit of a hard time at the moment? Will wikipedia cease to function because a user has 3 images in their signature - I don't think so. Should shorter signatures be encouraged - maybe - but projects like ] positively encourage you to link them in your signature. They may not be visable but when you edit the text you get the same long text problem mentioned above. I have a long signature as there are a few things that are important to me that I want people to be able to link to. If the community has a real good reason for wanting this to end then fine - lets have that community wide conversation as was done over the user boxes. It is totally unacceptable in my view to make a ] by picking on someone who doesn't need it at this time. I think Nathan is owed an apology and maybe Tony should start a project to discuss the simplification of signatures. If the community wants or needs this I would comply immediately. ]]<font color = "purple">'''a'''</font>]] 06:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ridiculous signatures simply serve to discredit us as a serious enterprise. I support Sidaway on the block and see no reason, even with the change to the current signature, that the block should have been reverted. 12 hours is no biggie of a block it should have stood.--] 06:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think there has to be policy backing it. I see a block where the admin did not speak to the user in question about the issue and characterized his signature as "stupidly" large. Inappropriate in my eyes. -- ] <small>]</small> 06:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : The editor in question had been politely approached by several editors who asked him to change his signature. His response was to continue flaunting the stupidly large signature, and to make inappropriate complaints about the manner in which he was approached. This was an unacceptable response to a serious request. --] 07:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I know. I'm just trying to make the point that signatures should be the least of our concerns here, and that exotic signatures can actually cause problems for some users. | |||
| As to your questions about my browser, I'm using IE6 and that's about all I can tell you. ("Compliance guides"?) | |||
| In terms of my issues with signatures, they are, I suppose, threefold: first, all that extra code in edit mode is distracting and confusing; second, they cause problems in regular mode ranging from buggering up how text is displayed to making it confusing to identify a given user, to distracting the eye when you're reading; third, I just don't see why it's necessary to modify the basic signature at all. If I want to know about you, I'll click your user name and read your user page. If I want to talk to you I'll navigate from there to your talk page. What could be more simple? And actually, fourth: I agree with the above user; whimsical signatures do nothing to promote our image (to readers or potential users) as a serious enterprise; it's bad enough we get to edit anonymously... ] 06:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Large sigs distract when in edit mode, and if it is long in rendering length, are annoying and distrating when reading pages. This user ''may'' be too inclined to get into fights with "the oppressor admins" while not doing much editing, like many semi-trolls here, ''but'' he may also just have had a long silly sig and found him self making comments at the wrong time. A good talk comment supported by several (2-3) admins should be given, and then blocks may be handed out if a day goes by and no change. Nevertheless, lets avoid the next ''pediophile template'' level drama and let him stay unblocked. His sig still renders to large, so it ''really'' should be trimmed down.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually "A good talk comment supported by several (2-3) admins ...and then blocks may be handed out if a day goes by and no change " is precisely what happened here. --] 07:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Those were my general conditions for such a block. So if that is what happened, as it seems, then I don't have much of a problem with the block. Nevertheless, it is a contraversial block and was undone, so as I said I wouln't reblock (though I doubt many people are considering that).''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 14:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I was going to reply to Nathan here again, at the appropriate location, but I got lost in all the massive signatures. I think I can see the bias in this particular administrators noticeboard post quite clearly. ;-) Would some of the folks here please consider sanity and maybe re-adopt the "boring default". Thanks. Else I'm seriously going to support a ban on sig customisation :-P ] 08:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can we please calm down the vitriol? Anyone saying Tony needs to be blocked or desysopped is just making themselves out to be reactionary and unreasonable. Let us not forget that this whole thing would've been avoided in the first place if Nathan had simply modified his sig to conform with the established guidelines upon first being asked. It's not too unreasonable to expect that editors don't have sigs that take up five lines of code in the edit window. --] 08:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC | |||
| :Tony doesn't need to be blocked or desysopped; at least, not yet. Yes, this did start partly because of Nathan, but thats a point of view. For example, had you asked politely, this also could've been avoided. Not saying its your fault, but look what happened when Charlie asked; he suggested a compromise, and voila! A reaction. I realise you may think you didn't bully him or anything, but if you want someone to do something the best action to take is to try to be polite. So to sum up, lets forget the could've-been-avoided-if thing, as that won't help, and try to drop the conflict. Tony still hasn't apologised, by the way. ]] 08:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did ask politely. There was not a hint of malice in my initial contact. I simply explained that his sig was far beyond what is generally accepted on Misplaced Pages; this isn't an accusation against his person, it is a simple fact. He is the one who assumed bad faith and immediately responded in a negative manner. Don't try to pin this on me. --] 08:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not pinning this on you, but you shouldn't pin it on Nathan either. Alright then, they weren't negative; there are still ways of trying to calm someone down instead of continuing on the bad road. Again, something like "Hi, I just saw your signature and it seemed a little disruptive... I was just wondering if you could remove the images, as they can slow down load times, etc. I respect that it is your property however. Thanks, <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Something like that would've gone a long way. Again, comprimise is a gift. ]] 08:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "I respect that it is your property" ? Whatever gave you that idea? --] | |||
| Misplaced Pages isn't the property of any of us. Editing Misplaced Pages is a privilege, not a right. Userpages and custom signatures are privileges granted to encyclopedia editors as thanks for their work on the project. --] 08:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I assume ] was being ironic when he said fancy ''signatures'' call into question wikipedia as a serious enterprise. ]]<font color = "purple">'''a'''</font>]] 08:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I agree with Exploding Boy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a coloring book. Simple = Better. ] (]) 08:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Just to be a bit of a devils advocate in this segment of the discussion: according to ] the signature is a place to "own" your input on a discussion or vote. It's true that the content of wikipedia and even of this discussion is GPDL licenced, but like a regular signature the text signature here I feel is akin to a calling card. Hypothetically If i changed my signature to read "Jimbo Wales" with a link to his user page, that would get me banned for impersonating another user, likewise if I started forging others signatures on checks or illegitimate paintings I'd be thrown in jail. While I may find some signatures to possibly be in poor taste (l33t is just of my peeves), I recognize the fact that they are how that user has chosen to portray themselves in the community and barring impersonation, extreme bandwidth load, and breaking of other text and formatting on the page, I feel a signature should be how the user desires it to be. I do not understand the argument that over the top signatures reflect poorly on wikipedia, because I see it as a reflection of the individual. Someone reading this discussion could see that there is a pretty good balance between those with fancy and rather plain signatures, so I don't think large signatures reflect poorly on the community as a whole. --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 15:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way: Hey Exploding Boy, with respect to "compliance guides", I thought you were using a screen reader as you mentioned people with visibility problems and these screen readers usually have guides on how to program for them. --]<sup>( | ])</sup> 15:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'd just like to register my support for this block, and note that blocks do not mean that administrators hate you, nor do they mean that you're naughty children. It was a "wake-up call" for a signature that was too long and against our signature guidelines. It's perfectly within administrator's rights to block a user for disruption (even minor) where the user had been asked to stop and failed to. ] (]) 08:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Tony, like many of us here (including myself) has issues with civility and tact—his choice to involve himself in making user conduct blocks is a questionable decision given these facts. This block, whether justified or not, was unnecessary and caused more damage to the community than good. — ] (]) (]) 09:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Strike my last. Nathan was being a twat and I would have done the same thing. Good call, Tony. — ] (]) (]) 09:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Phil, you know better. Name-calling is unfair regardless of circumstances. It's heaping insults where some (including myself) think they are unwarranted -- ] <small>]</small> 09:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't help feeling if Nathan had said that about anyone else he would have been banned - am I wrong? ]]<font color = "purple">'''a'''</font>]] 09:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I humbly apologize. Nathan was '''acting like''' a twat. — ] (]) (]) 09:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This discussion didn't seem long enough ... I'm no fan of Nathan's (old) sig, or many other sigs I see, but was a block justified? IMO, no. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 12:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Tony's block seems fine to me. Posting a lot of useless, space-consuming crap on many talk pages seems to fit the definition of disruption. In this case, we even have a specific guideline on the issue, which means it's doubly bad. If you keep being disruptive after being warned, you'll be blocked. And if you keep doing it after that, you'll be blocked again. The lesson: don't disrupt Misplaced Pages. This doesn't seem very complicated. ] ] 19:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I also humbly disagree with the block of Nathan. Please try ] instead of blocking incoherently. If you were blocking him because of what it said on ] about images in users signatures, then one should read it again. It states that using images are discouraged, not banned. ''To Tony:'' Please try to be as ] as you can with situations. I read the heading of this section was already upset with the choice of words used by yourself. I think an apology to Nathan is in order. ]] 20:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The block was unnecessary. Cyde's original message was brusque and it's understandable that Nathan took offence. As soon as someone explained nicely to him why long signatures were a bad idea he shortened his. ] 20:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) Sorry I'm a little late to the discussion, but I feel that this block was also unnecessary given the circumstances. Blocks are supposed to be a last resort and are not supposed to be punitive; generally, you warn people that they will be blocked if they continue (i.e. the {{tl|test}} system, etc.). While I also frown upon images in signatures (I've also asked a few people in the past to modify their signatures), a block for having a heated discussion was uncalled for at the time; though I'm not condoning Nathan's actions here, the fact was that his signature and his actions were not disruptive enough to justify a block, given that he disagreed with the guideline and was talking about that with other people on his talk page. For what it's worth, I thank him for finally removing the images, and feel that the two people who initially talked to him were perfectly civil; Kelly Martin was especially tactful and correct. Finally, just a note: "persistently flaunting a stupidly large and garish signature" is an ''opinion'', and comparisons to Ril's signature aren't valid because Ril's signature was mimicking wiki-syntax (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), while Nathanrdotcom's was not. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If anyone would like to discuss imposing technical restrictions on signatures, I'd encourage you to respond to my proposal over at ]. ~]]] 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is a ] in this case. --] 18:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Only on Misplaced Pages can an argument over a signature spawn a block, 41KB of comments, and an RFC... ] (]) 13:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: T|N>K If there was a "best of wikipedia" page, this comment should go on it ;-) ] 14:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is funny how reactionary everyone has become. Totally unconstructive, but funny. I mean seriously why does a colorized signature harm anyone's ability to write an encyclopedia (which is supposedly the reason we're all here). Obviously the answer is, it doesn't. ] ] ] ] 00:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It doesn't. But it does look annoying when you edit a talk page and see <nowiki> User:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Green">'''JohnnyBGood'''</font>]] ] ] ] 00:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC) </nowiki>. And your signature is not even that big compared to some. ] ] 13:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Stifle's summary (TM): | |||
| :*The signature is long enough to be tiresome when editing. | |||
| :*Asking people to change signature in this case is a good thing. | |||
| :*Blocking was premature. | |||
| :*This isn't the first time that ] has been involved in a contentious block. | |||
| :In summary, I would strongly recommend that in future, Tony (and indeed other admins) should consult with other admins here before issuing a block that is liable to be contentious. The second-best thing, which is what happened, is to discuss after the fact. ] (]) 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Bah, let's just remove the option completely. It would remove a lot of crappy XHTML and stop people inserting random junk into our pages. ] (]) 23:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Pi == | |||
| Just out of curiosity is allowed? I quote: | |||
| :''The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| That seems like the admin is just interpreting the vote in a way he likes, but I'm not entirely familiar with policy in this matter, so I'm asking here. +] (]) ] 10:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :xfD discussions are ''not'' votes, and admins are not required to give a damn about the tally (I make a point of ''never'' knowing how many users "voted" one way or another when closing these sorts of discussions). Mackensen closed it with a solution that, he thought (based on how he read the discussion), would satisfy all participants. This was entirely appropriate behaviour on his part. | |||
| :Of course, the magic word "delete" appeared and so, regardless of the ''practical'' effect of the TfD close, we now have a swarm of userbox fans on DRV saying "you're deleting our userbox even though we had a majority of votes to keep!". And people say AfD is bad! ] (]) 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::20+ people voted keep, 12 of whom said in no uncertain terms that they were talking about the template itself. In the ensuing discussion on ], I added up the votes from the TFD. 12 people said unambiguously keep, meaning keep the template itself. 6 people said unambiguously delete the template itself. 11 said keep and didn't specify what they meant by "keep". This is a real problem we have here. If anti-userbox administrators are just going to delete userboxes, in clear defiance of a supermajority or they are going to speedy userboxes they don't like for no particular reason, why are we even having a discussion? They're doing the same thing whether the vote is keep or delete. Regardless of your opinion on userboxes, out of process deletions are dead wrong and need to stop. To delete userboxes out of process or, in this case, flying in the face of overwhelming consensus, is arguably an abuse of administrative powers. ] 12:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::One thing I should add here, since not everyone reads DRV and elsewhere, ] said on ], "I'm halting all further administrative action on my part regarding userboxes" and agreed on ] with a statement of mine about out-of-process deletions ending as a part of the policy discussion, so as far as I'm concerned, there is no longer an administrative issue to be dealt with - it's not in danger of happening again, so there's no incident to be dealt with. ] 12:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It ''is'' in danger of happening again since, as Tony said, it was perfectly consistent with the practices of many xfD closers. I'd rather not see a "but he didn't count votes!" issue blow up ever again, even if on a subpage divorced from the userbox issue. ] (]) 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : This close was in line with current closing practice on xFD; needless to say, all closes are subject to review. I like it for its solomonic quality, keeping the content (which is perfectly acceptable for a user page) and disposing of the problematic template. --] 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: But that's the problem - this "current closing practice" is inventing a new policy that doesn't exist and is reading into the votes something that isn't there. Rather than assuming good faith, the administrators are assuming that everyone voting is a mindless robot who will vote keep arbitrarilly on every userbox. ] 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: As one of several admins who have been known to spend far too many hours of our lives closing xfD discussions, I take exception to your characterisation. Perhaps you'd like to review all my closings in the past six months, on AfD and elsewhere, and provide me a list of cases where I've acted in bad faith or violated policy and accepted community norms? ] (]) 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So what you are saying is if the admin closeing it thinks it should be deleted then it doesn't matter whether or not the consensus was to delete? <font color="red">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="limegreen">]</font>] <sup>(</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>)</sup> 19:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Instantnood== | |||
| ===Instantnood--a case for a temporary ban from Misplaced Pages under his General Probation?=== | |||
| {{vandal|Instantnood}} has been a frequent client of the Arbitration Committee and the administrators who voluntarily enforce their remedies: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Unfortunately the scope of the specific remedies in his cases do not yet seem to match the scale and inventiveness of his disruption. Typically he will choose a dozen or so articles, edit war on them over some detail of nomenclature, get banned and move on to another set of articles where he'll edit war on the same point. | |||
| This absorbs an appreciable amount of administrator time and it can be rather demoralizing to realise, a couple of weeks later, that one has only succeeded in moving the venue of the disruption. It has also become all but impossible to track the articles from which Instantnood has been banned as a result of remedies in those of his arbitration cases that reached completion (2 and 3). | |||
| A General Probation applies in Instantnood's case. I propose to use it in the hope of convincing Instantnood that he cannot continue in this way. | |||
| The probation reads as follows: | |||
| : ''Instantnood is placed on general probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site. All bans to be logged at ].'' | |||
| I open this to general discussion. My own thoughts are that a two week ban from Misplaced Pages might serve to convince Instantnood, a certified Wikipediholic, that he cannot continue to edit war indefinitely. But I'm not set on this. Perhaps there is a better way of handling this. --] 01:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| By the way, as this is an arbitration-related proposal and I happen to be an Arbitration Committee clerk, I think I should point out that unless I sign an edit here "For the arbitration committee" or something similar, I am ''not'' acting as a clerk or on the instructions of the Committee. This is just me, a Wikipedian with a mop and bucket, trying to work out how to keep Misplaced Pages running. --] 01:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm not sure that there's a better way to handle it. I will say that I would support a two-week ban on Instantnood, but I agree that if there is a better way to handle it, we should do it. I'm just not sure what. ] (]) 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Stop wasting administrators' time. Instantnood is clearly just gaming the system. Being able to move to a new set of articles when the disruption gets to be too much on previous articles to violate his probation is absurd. --] 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' makes three - blocking for two weeks presently. | |||
| ;my non-admin comment as his foil. | |||
| :I've said before I don't like the idea of a permanent ban. He's been banned for two weeks before without any change and immediately resumed the same behavior - so I'm not convinced it would change if done again. The page bans work, sort of, but are becoming too numerous to track. And he still filibusters on the talk pages. There really does need to be some behavioral tweaks to his sanctions. | |||
| :I proposed before the idea that he be prohibited from doing the same revert twice. So if he makes a change, and someone reverts it, he should be allowed one revert (with a talk page note), and then be forced to drop it. It would force him to seek other editors to form consensus. | |||
| :Otherwise, the deal with moving the same edit war to different articles has to have some force behind it. If there is a style change, (eg from today: parentheses, flag images, or the spelling of Macao) that he's known to obsess over it should be said to him in some authorative way: "Someone else needs to make these changes if you feel they need to be made. Don't make this same edit in a different article." | |||
| :I also worry that a general, permanent ban would result in sock puppetry. In a previous ban of a week or so, it was so important to vote in a poll somewhere that he created a sock to do it. ] 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''I proposed before the idea that he be prohibited from doing the same revert twice. So if he makes a change, and someone reverts it, he should be allowed one revert (with a talk page note), and then be forced to drop it.'' Not likely to be effective for determined edit warriors. We can propose all sorts of "soft" limitations and if they continue to be ignored, what'll be the last available resort, other than the block button? '''Support''' long-term block, perhaps not indefinite, but something like 6 months to 1 year. This is a textbook case of edit warring. ]. 02:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''I also worry that a general, permanent ban would result in sock puppetry.'' He won't be the first, or the last, banned user to resort to sockpuppetry. They'll be blocked as they come. ]. 02:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Actually the idea of a limitation on reverts (a revert parole) sounds pretty good. I wonder if it would be a good idea to put the idea of a revert parole remedy in this case to the Commmittee. | |||
| Examples of revert paroles in other cases: | |||
| * ]: "TDC is hereby limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year. He may be briefly blocked for up to a week for violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block time increases to a year." | |||
| * ]: "Lou franklin shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page." | |||
| * ]: "Leyasu is placed on standard revert parole. He is hereby limited to a maximum of one content revert per page per day for one year. Each revert must be explicitly marked as such." | |||
| A revert parole can only be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, but any arbitrator can propose a motion in a previous case. If on discussion this emerges as a possibility, it should be easy to persuade the arbitrators to consider such a remedy. --] 02:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion of whether Instantnood's conduct is disruptive=== | |||
| : ''I have moved this to its own separate section for reasons given below. --] 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| Tony, I have seen no evidence to support this. Could you supply diffs? I checked at random 7 of his edits of 16 May. Six were fine (one was beyond my technical ability). A theme of his editing is applying accurately the differences between ], ], ] and ] in relation to "Chinese territories". As I said on 7 May I had checked his edits on ], ], and ] (some of the articles I believe he has been unfairly banned from). His edits endeavoring to use correctly the various terms for "country" were fine and no one has said they were not. I doubt the issue will be resolved until it is acknowledged that his use of the terms is well informed.] 03:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''His edits endeavoring to use correctly the various terms for "country" were fine and no one has said they were not.'' Flatly untrue, as a quick glance at the edit histories and summaries would show. Take a look (especially at ), and see if you'd like to amend that statement. --] | ] 04:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks Calton, the link you provided gives ''Misplaced Pages does not recognize the action specified by the URL.''. Yes I am happy to rephrase: ''no one has satisfactorily demonstrated his use of various terms for "country" is inaccurate.'' If other wikipedians could take the time to check this we would be moving forward. Mere gainsaying doesn't help - we need to analyse particular edits. ] 04:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps you missed the point of his ArbCom restrictions. Hint: "Correcting Instantnood"? Not one of them. Suggesting "accuracy" has a thing to do with it is just as mistaken as your claim that no one objected to his edits. And given your track record on ], I can see why you're misunderstanding consensus or collaborative editing. --] | ] 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The links works for me -- in both senses. After you've gone to ], reviewed the history, and noted the repeated removals of Macau and Hong Kong from under the heading "China, People's Republic of", perhaps you'll explain how this falls under the themes you identify. ] 05:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Even if the statement "Hong Kong is <Whatever Instantnood defines it is>" is etched in stone by the hand of Almighty God, that will still not excuse the fact that he is edit warring to insist on the placement of The Truth. Edit warring over ''anything'' is Bad. Period. ]. 05:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks Guys, my comments are about whether he uses the terms correctly. I think we as a community owe him a judgement on this. I say he uses them correctly. No one has posted a diff showing and arguing an incorrect usage.] 05:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We do not owe any edit warriors a "judgement" for whether their preferred version is correct. The question we are to look at, which all your replies have neatly sidestepped so far, is not whether he is reverting to the "correct" version (whatever that may mean), but ''Has Instantnood been disruptive in spite of specific remedies imposed in his prior Arbcom cases?'' And to that question (which is the only question that matters here) the answer has to be an emphematic '''yes''', necessitating the invocation of the general remedy. ]. 05:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm happy to rephrase: ''I think a good resolution of the issue depends on a judgement by the community that he has used the terms correctly.'' I have to disagree with you Kimchi - on the evidence I have examined in detail, and I restrict myself to that alone, his edits have been correct. If we avoid the meaning of correct why are we trying to create an encyclopedia? If someone could post a diff where he was incorrect I'd be happy to look at it. I make no comment on edit warring except to say I disagree again - it is not the only question that matters here. We do the project a disservice if we don't examine carefully what appears to be the root of the problem - his usage of terms like state, nation, country, nation state, sovereign nation, sovereign state, etc. and his objection to others who use the terms loosely or inaccurately. ] 06:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Correct information can be added by people other than Instantnood, and through ways more polite than that which he has used to date. Since you insist on dragging the "correctness factor" in, I will comment no more on this. ]. 06:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The revert restriction has a lot of attraction, since excessive, often-trivial reversion is a large proportion of the problem -- such as a stub tag being reverted back to a redirect ''to the same template'' (the mind boggles). The "filibustering" can be vexing, but less out and out disruptive. Rather than throw this back straight at the ArbCom, I think there would be some merit in sounding IN out to see if he'd be prepared to agree to ''voluntarily'' restrict his revert activity in the manner described, as a means of addressing people's reasonable concerns as expressed here and elsewhere. ] 04:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with ]. I've not formed a good impression of Instantnood, based on his frequent vexatious posts to ] - ], for example. And I'm not a big fan of people who get obsessive about the difference between a state and a country (Instantnood's hobby-horse), or the status of the "traditional English counties", or the "correct" name for the ]. It seems to me that half the problems on Misplaced Pages are caused by nationalists who won't let things go. Having said that, Instantnood is not an outright troll - I think he's getting worked up to a ridiculous extent over trivia, but so are some of the people who are opposing him. He does seem to make some good changes and additions to articles. I'm pessimistic about the effect of asking him to voluntarily curb his aggressiveness, but it's worth a try. I don't think the time is right yet for a long ban, but I'd support a short (week or two) ban as a shot across the bows. --] (]) 06:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not an Admin, and I just strayed over here following a Talk page comment on Alai's Talk, but for what its worth: Where are the diffs? I find it amazing that an Admin can come on here and just make serious, sweeping allegations about a User without a single example of their alleged disruptive behaviour. And even more amazing that other Admins (I assume that you are Admins) just pile in with more 100% opinion and 0% evidence. | |||
| :I know very little about Instantnood, although I do recognise the name, in fact I feel certain that I have seen it on hundreds of edits, but I must say that it has not stuck in my mind, which I can only assume means that I have never had a problem with the guy. Given that he is allegedly a big "traditional counties" fan then I find this remarkable, because I have had to deal with several such trolls, but Instantnood ain't one of them. | |||
| :In my few visits to this notice board I have seen this trend before: Admins firing a massive broadside at Users without a shred of evidence. This is thoroughly unsatisfactory: please remedy the situation. --] 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Please read the arbitration cases at the links below, with particular attention to the findings of fact, the remedies, the enforcement provisions and (above all) the logs of blocks and bans. See also numerous recent complaints about Instantnood's ongoing disruption at ]. | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| :: --] 16:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::To repeat what I wrote above, take a quick glance at the edit histories and summaries, especially at ), and see if you'd like to amend that statement. | |||
| ::''Given that he is allegedly a big "traditional counties" fan..'' He's not, as far I know: that was merely an example of a type of intransigent edit warrior, perhaps one you already know about. | |||
| ::''I can only assume means that I have never had a problem with the guy'' Taking specifics and applying them generally is not sound logic. --] | ] 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think we should be fighting the arbitration case again. There are ongoing complaints about Instantnood's edits, and it isn't as if his actions, where valid, couldn't be performed by someone else. The problem is that his ''behavior'' is disruptive. That is a given. The question is how to deal with it. --] 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : To this end, I am inserting a new section head before Macready's "Tony, I have seen no evidence to support this." Should there be doubt that Instantnood's behavior is problematic, then the cases should be appealed to the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales. It is in general the job of administrators to ''enforce'' remedies, not to discuss their appropriateness. --] 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''<small>Moved below 2 comments from previous section. ]. 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| Tony, could you provide a couple of diffs where Instantnood has been disruptive? Thanks. ] 02:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Please refer to the copious details provided in the arbitration cases detailing Instantnood's disruptive behavior. --] 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I assume he means edits that "violate" his probation, not the ones that led to it being imposed. Though the examples cited to date seem pertinent enough to me, and highly similar to the earlier AC'd behaviour; I'm not clear what more McC is looking for. ] 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::A fight. --] | ] 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The arbitration cases detail, in the records of blocks and bans, behavior by Instantnood that was disruptive ''after'' each of the two cases that ran to completion. I assume that Macready hadn't known to look there, and so suggested that he do so. --] 04:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, the block-ban-log, yes. I was forgetting they were on the same page, though it's a tad confusing to refer to them as "the cases", given that the cases per se are long since closed. ] 04:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Tony, my previous request has been moved. Could you supply ''recent''(perhaps 13-16 May) diffs you feel are disruptive, so that the community can examine the request for a temporary ban. Thanks] 04:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : As I suggested to Mais Oui, look on ], specifically . --] 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| By the way, this was ''not'' a request for a temporary community ban. It was a community discussion concerning a temporary ban to be passed under the terms of Instantnood's General Probation. As such, it had passed the "three administrators" threshold by 1655 UTC yesterday, and Phil Sandifer implemented the ban. --] 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I agree that a revert parole would be the way to deal with Instantnood's revert warring, better than simply blocking him. Meanwhile, ]'s anti-social behavior and extensive edit warring needs to be dealt with, since there are multiple sides to the problem. --] 10:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't looked at that users' contribs, but I've asked him to modify his userpage, as likely to add fuel to the fire. (It's practically a declaration of revert-war, and an unduly personalised one to boot.) But Instantnood is a distinct case, in that his arbcom ruling expressly puts him in the "last chance saloon" (or temporarily evicted from it, given the above), and we won't be at that point with other users until other steps are taken first. If you'd be willing to approach him with regard to a voluntary revert limitation with a view to avoiding future such agro, you'd be doing us all a favour (himself included). ] 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have again spent a good deal of time on this and have tracked down the following diffs from about 16 May (they weren’t diffs in the 16 May report) . | |||
| I didn’t understand the first, but the remainder are examples of Instantnood’s endeavors to use correctly various terms for the assemblage "country, state, nation". I think the issue will be better handled if it is acknowledged that his use of the terms is well informed. | |||
| My research also uncovered this going back to February 2005. Instantnood’s arguments are persuasive. ] 12:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :To repeat: Perhaps you missed the point of his ArbCom restrictions. Hint: "Correcting Instantnood"? Not one of them. Suggesting "accuracy" has a thing to do with it is just as mistaken as your claim that no one objected to his edits. And given your track record on ], I can see why you're misunderstanding consensus or collaborative editing. --] | ] 02:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Calton, ad hominem attacks don't advance the discussion here. Which edit on Animal Rights (apart from the one error I have acknowledged) did you have a problem with? Please reply civilly on my talkpage if wish.] 07:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's nice. And Mccready, did you know that ] in ] was transported to its current location by the largest landslide ever discovered, approximately 50 million years ago? Which is a statement as completely relevant here as your blather about "ad homs". To repeat, you ''do'' understand the point of Instantnood's ArbCom restrictions, right? You ''do'' understand that "correct usage" has nothing to do with that, right? You ''do'' understand that unilateral declarations of "correctness" do ''not'' trump collaborative editing, right? You ''do'' understand that the issue is Instanood's '''conduct''', right? You ''do'' understand that your claim that "no one objected to his edits" is flatly wrong, right? | |||
| :::''Which edit on Animal Rights ... did you have a problem with?'' "You"? Way to reframe a question. I refer, of course, to your constantly reverted -- by more than one editor -- rewrite of the intro. --] | ] 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This isn't about whether his use of terms is correct. It's whether his conduct on the wiki continues to disrupt. --] 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If his edits are correct I would say that reverting them is the disruption. I would say his conduct doesn't amount to disruption. It amounts to trying to correct misuse of the terms. ] 07:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::"If..." A multitude of sins is covered by that simple word. --] | ] 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This appears to bear so little resemblance to problematic edits, and general pattern of behaviour, being discussed as to be strongly suggestive of deliberately missing the point. ] 15:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I just came to notice this discussion following a link on a talk page. | |||
| :Instantnood's actions are no doubt distruptive for me, for example, he insisted on some styling (e.g. comma vs bracket) issues, which others find it incorrect. Like in , , other editors are against his edits, yet he never give up reverting them to his own version. And on the image of Hong Kong, the old HK Image, which is in png format, ] is rendered redundant by ]. Though Instantnood still try to reinstate the old flag (like in ] ), which was retired, in various articles, citing something incorrect about the new flag which he himself couldn't tell what that is. These are just few of his recent examples of causing disruptions in Misplaced Pages. His continuous disruptive actions is requiring a few editors to constant monitor his edits (sort the construtive ones from the disruptive ones) and fix them by reverting those pages.] 11:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] - Vandalism== | |||
| {{vandal|64.142.89.105}} constantly changes articles about bands that have peoper nouns for names. For instance, a passage in the ] article said "Guns N' Roses is" (correct) and he changed it to "Guns N' Roses are" (incorrect). The vandal suggested we discuss it on the Guns N' Roses talk page. We did so and concluded with proper evidence that "Guns N' Roses is" is the correct wording. However, when we go back to revert the changes 64.142.89.105 has made, he reverts back immediately and calls us vandals that should discuss the situation further. He then threatens to report us to Misplaced Pages, despite the fact that he has been blocked and banned from Misplaced Pages numerous times for doing the exact same thing. Please prevent him from further trolling and vandalizing Misplaced Pages. ] 15:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please report further things like this to ]. Thanks, ] ] 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually "Guns N' Roses are" IS correct. I was mearly trying to correct what I saw (and still do believe is) misinformation, which is "Guns N' Roses is". The name sounds like the band is talking about more than one gun and rose. TheNewMinistry (or other users) doesn't stop changing "are" back to "is", I will report him (or her) for vandalism. '''FOR THE LAST TIME: "Guns N' Roses are" IS correct and "Guns N' Roses is" IS NOT correct.''' ] 03:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is, in fact, a local linguistic variation. British English commonly uses "Group are adjective"; American English uses "Group is adjective". It's mostly a matter of style, not "correct" or "incorrect". See ] | |||
| :::(That said, "Guns N'Roses" is a proper noun which is plural in form, so that suggests "are" would probably be preferred over "is" in both dialects) ] | ] | 00:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Napster Links (copied from village pump news section)== | |||
| Napster has an ad on its site recommending people place Napster Links on Misplaced Pages. These are links to songs that only play after (free) user registration. Napster imposes a limit of 5 plays and requires a paid subscription for further plays, or to download the song. The purpose of the links is obviously advertising. Thus, they seem to clearly violate ]. I've sent them an email asking that they take the ad down. Either way, I think people should remove these links on sight. Anyone disagree? ] - ] 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, there is an option to include an affiliate ID in the link so people can get 5% of resulting <s>sign-ups</s> purchases and a commission on sign-ups <small>(corrected ] - ] 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC))</small>. This provides motivation for deliberate spammers. ] - ] 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::If it gets bad we should add them to the blacklist. ]] 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good thinking. I had forgotten about that. We should only use it if necessary, though. ] - ] 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Preemptive blacklisting sounds good to me. --] 03:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's okay with me, but people can always work around technical rules (proxies etc.) so social solutions are better. I'll let everyone know if/when Napster responds to my email; their removing the ad would definitely help the most. ] - ] 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::...they have an ad up ''asking people to spam us for them''? Sheesh. ] | ] | 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, but not just us. They also recommend people spam Myspace, other blogs, and through email and chat. You can for yourself. It's still running as of now. ] - ] 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's nuts - it goes to show how a company can degenerate. They were purchased by a larger corporation, no? It might be useful to focus communications on the larger entity. This is just plain bad media relations. <font color="3300FF">] (]) (]) (])</font> 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I believe they're a public company. I still haven't received a response, despite them saying they would probably send one within 48 hours. I sent a followup email to another (less appropriate) address. ] - ] 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::They have an advertisement asking people to spam Misplaced Pages? ASKING people? To SPAM WIKIPEDIA? Well, I'm certainly not using their site. I encourage you to do the same. Meh, somebody do an indefinite IP block on Napster staff – ] 17:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Although I condone Napster for this ridculousness, I also see it as flattery of possibly the highest kind for Misplaced Pages. --] 00:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you mean "condemn". ;) —] (] • ]) 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nope. I did however, mean because instead of although. --] 21:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I just requested that this part of Napster's site be added to the ]. --] (]) 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If anyone wants to actually see it, here's the link: (click on "Ways to use napsterlinks.") The say "wiki" not "wikipedia", but this may have been recently changed. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: When I saw it this afternoon it was "Misplaced Pages." There response to our complaint is to make it more general and only refer to us indirectly? To be blunt, the vast majority of people think of Misplaced Pages when they think of a Wiki anyways. *snort*] 04:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The ad someone mentioned earlier is still out there () and there probably are other ads. I don't know if ] has had a response back yet. --] (]) 04:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It still says "Misplaced Pages". And even if they aren't explicitly talking about Misplaced Pages, encouraing wiki spamming is still ''wrong''. Placing them on the blacklist sounds like a great idea. --] 04:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : They don't refer to Misplaced Pages on the site above- that banner that's been linked to has been taken down. It now says "wiki-based websites." I still support a spam blacklist addition- not only for Misplaced Pages, but for all other wikis that use the SpamBlacklist addition, and don't deserve the spamming. ] (]) 04:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Was just about to do it myself when I noticed Raul654 . <span style="font-family:Sans serif">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 07:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It has not been taken down. The text always said wiki, not Misplaced Pages. However, the ''ad'' (with Misplaced Pages), is still showing occasionally. I haven't seen the banner version recently, but playing a track results in an ad as well; I saw it yesterday there. ] - ] 13:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Did anyone get a response by email? -- ] 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Apparently yes, discussion is still ongoin on ]. ] 02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked user using talk page as attack page == | |||
| ] is now being developed into an attack page, which includes several false statements and deliberate lies. (True, the user he's attacking, he doesn't name, but that only makes it less bad, not acceptable.) Example: | |||
| : The admininstrator A admitted he was guilty of a 3RR violation, stated he was going to voluntarily boot himself, then three minutes later unbooted himself, stating he "changed his mind" Another administrator B then unbooted him. | |||
| This is a statement that Travb has acknowledged to be false under ] above. | |||
| : Statements between myself, Administrator A, and Administrator B were erased on his user page. They are no longer in the history of Administrator A talk page. | |||
| Just as Travb has demonstrated an inability to check block logs before making false statements about what they contain, he also has an inability to check before making false statements as well. | |||
| This all stems, not only from his obsession with me stemming from a recent dispute, but also from his repeated insistence to use a fair-use image on his user and talk pages, even after repeated admin intervention. Given my past with this editor, it would be inappropriate for me to intervene, but something must be done. — ] (]) (]) 16:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Update: the second false statement has since . — ] (]) (]) 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Attack blanked, page protected. --] 17:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Complaining about (what they see as) unfairness isn't the same as making a personal attack. I've been watching this too, and while I don't see that his complaining is helpful, I'm struggling to see how it's harmful. If someone thinks they're being treated unfairly, we only escalate the problem by blocking them for complaining about the unfairness. If he were spamming this stuff onto other's talk pages, that would be a problem, but as it is? Why not just leave it alone? ] ] 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it helping build the encyclopedia? · ]]] <sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 17:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Certainly not. But, unneccessary drama doesn't help build the encyclopedia, either. ] ] 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm glad you've come around to agreeing with me on this. After all, the only unnecessary drama here was recently deleted from Travb's talk page by Tony. — ] (]) (]) 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your comments ] and ]. I agree with you both that this behavior does not helping build the encyclopedia. Deleting thousands of images from user pages with little understanding of copyright law, with the users own interpretation of copyright, with no consensus at all, does not help build an encyclopedia, and causes a lot of ill feelings and bad will between dozens, maybe hundreds of people. I also agree that ignoring a <nowiki>{{inuse}} tag </nowiki> and causing a page to be reverted 3 times also does not help build an encyclopedia. Applying the rules in what I see as an arbitrary way, also does not help build an encyclopedia, and creates a lot of bad will toward others. Please keep in mind that '''I did not start either of these arguments.''' Phil did, and the other user did, as I wrote above. If anyone misses this point, I will repeat is as many times as needed to drill this point home, I will also provide all pages and all information to back up '''any''' claim which I make.] 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As I understand, the image deletion was not due to copyright law, but rather due to Misplaced Pages's more-restrictive copyright '''policy'''. Yes, one can argue that posting that image in your userspace didn't violate copyright '''law'''. But it does violate Misplaced Pages '''policy'''. — ] (]) (]) 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is another debate, at another time, another place.] 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Complaining about unfairness is perfectly fine. Making false statements about other people's actions isn't, especially when one has already acknowledged those statements to be false. That's something we call '''lying''' out in the "real world". Bizarre obsessions with me are also rather unwelcome. — ] (]) (]) 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :So what would you call this statment Phil, in the "real world": ''I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before.'' | |||
| :13:55, 15 May 2006 Philwelch blocked "Philwelch (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (I broke the 3RR and can own up to it myself.) Signed: 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Further, I did not "lie". I was mislead. By your own statments: That you would boot yourself, then you changed your mind, then you actually booted yourself, then, not 5 minutes later, jareth unboots you. (See above for the entire series of events) I apologize for assuming good faith, and believing the statments out of your own mouth. | |||
| :Please assume good faith and not call my statments "lies". After my repeated admonisions for you to stop, I am already going to report you for your continual deragatory statements. | |||
| :'''If you are really sorry for breaking 3RR, as I believe because I assume good faith, block yourself for 24 hours.''' ] 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would call that an accidental misstatement, much like the multiple misstatements you have made in (for instance) confusing Admin B with Admin C. As you can see, I have corrected myself. I suggest you accept it as an honest mistake, just as I have accepted your honest mistakes as such. You have had ample opportunity to read my block log. You stated at one point that I didn't unblock myself. And then you repeat this allegation you know to be false. That is lying. And I've already blocked myself for 24 hours—I had no idea Jaroth would unblock me, and I don't even know him. — ] (]) (]) 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is your last warning: if you said that I lied one more time, I will report you to the verbal abuse page. I have repeatedly asked you to stop. Further, you do not "know" what I am thinking, so please stop assuming that you do. | |||
| :::AGAIN: I RELIED ON YOUR STATMENTS instead of ''"... read(ing)(your) block log."'': that you would voluntary block yourself, and then that you "changed your mind" 33 minutes later you blocked yourself, then 5 minutes later Jareth unblocked you. Relying on your statments is not a lie. It is called assuming GOOD FAITH. Assuming good faith is not calling people liars, and it is not assuming that you know what the other person thinks. | |||
| :::That is the facts, I would post those facts here again. If you state that I lie, then why would you write: ''You have had ample opportunity to read my block log?'' This statment shows that you are entertaining the idea that I did not read your block log, and it was my own neglegence which caused me to beleive your statments. This is similar to your response when I told you to stop editing my section which had a <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> tag. | |||
| ::::I suggest you invest in a text editor, learn to merge edits after an edit conflict, or simply override edit conflicts and reintegrate any interim changes later. I've used all of these tactics successfully for years. | |||
| :::In otherwords, instead of admitting a mistake, and aplogoizing, you blame me. I should have investigated into a "text editor" I should have read the "block log".] 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Travb's response=== | |||
| This all stems from Phil ignoring a <nowiki>{{inuse}} tag</nowiki>, and beginning a revert war, and violating 3RR, which he admitted he did, blocking himself, unblocking himself 6 minutes later citing that he "changed his mind, then blocking himself again(?) and being unblocked by Jareth after a few minutes. | |||
| Umm Phil, the creator of that image: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Uncyclopedia_logo.png has just given the permission as the creator to allow it as a free use. If the other user would have simply asked the creator premission, instead of deleting the image from many pages (I don't know how many) this intrusive and unproductive argument between myself and another user would have never started. | |||
| So the other user who interprets fair use so strickly, cause a huge, huge, huge scandal, similar to the Time magazine fair use scandal, not only with my but with dozens, maybe hundreds of users. | |||
| I may point out, that none of these people who are deleting these images citing fair use, to my knowledge, have any legal training. Further, they (mis)interpret the words of Jimbo in the strictest possible way, and cause a lot of contention and bitter feelings by their unilateral approaches. Further, there is no comprise with these people, none at all, despite me mentioning appelate court cases on point, which interpret fair use quite differently, they ignore these posts, and are quite agressive when dissent is pointed out. See my protected user talk page for examples.] 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Per me unblocking myself: that's a goddamn lie and I don't appreciate you repeating it. Read my block log. '''I have never unblocked myself.''' Per fair use: We're here to enforce Misplaced Pages policy, not the law. — ] (]) (]) 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please assume good faith and do not call my accusations "lies". Thank you. I have asked you repeatedly to stop, and you have ignored this. | |||
| :::I did not "lie". I was mislead. By your own statments: That you would boot yourself, then you changed your mind, then you actually booted yourself, then, not 5 minutes later, jareth unboots you. (See above for the entire series of events) I apologize for assuming good faith, and believing the statments out of your own mouth. Despite your statment above:''I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before.'' you actually did block yourself at 13:55, 15 May 2006. ] 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] wrote: ''This is a statement that Travb has acknowledged to be false under ] above.'' | |||
| I was incorrect, after checking my own user page, I assumed good faith with the other person's stmt, I was wrong, Philwelch did state he was going to voluntarily boot himself, then "changed his mind". I will correct this now. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Travb&diff=prev&oldid=53310941 ] message: (→Apology - change mind) ] 17:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ultimately, as you know, I did block myself. For reasons outside my control, I was unblocked. — ] (]) (]) 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''Statements between myself, Administrator A, and Administrator B were erased on his user page. They are no longer in the history of Administrator A talk page.'' | |||
| Thanks for correcting this incorrect statment (below), pointing out that I did, in future edits change this, when I realized my mistake.] 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Everything I state is correct: | |||
| # At 13:16, 15 May 2006 ] admitted he was guilty of a 3RR violation, '''stated''' he was going to voluntarily boot himself, ''(...I also apologize for repeatedly reverting you. As per ], I shall block myself for 24 hours, which is the standard remedy. See you in 24.)'' | |||
| # At 13:22, 15 May 2006 ] six minutes later <s>unbooted himself stating he </s> "changed his mind", making me assume, mistakenly based on his own statments, that he had first booted himself, then unbooted himself, without checking the block log. | |||
| # 13:55, 15 May 2006 ] blocked himself. | |||
| # 14:00, 15 May 2006 Jareth then unblocked him. | |||
| Why did you boot yourself 33 minutes after you said you "changed" your mind? Did you email or contact Jareth before you booted yourself for real the second time? | |||
| The bottom line is that you broke the 3RR rules, and should be booted, as the average user is booted. | |||
| Please assume good faith and do not call my accusations "lies" further do not say that you will use my RfC as "toilet paper", further do not call my inquires an "obsession", which you have done twice, and finally, please do not call my a "tempremental child". Thank you.] 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You are completely unable to let go of a dispute that has been long over and that I have already apologized and blocked myself for. Do not blame me for the fact that another administrator chose to unblock me. Furthermore, I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before. — ] (]) (]) 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Allow me to correct myself: I have never '''unblocked''' myself and you know it. I mistyped. Since you accused me of unblocking myself (as we both agree that I did block myself), this was in fact a more relevant question. — ] (]) (]) 22:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::''I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before.'' | |||
| :::13:55, 15 May 2006 Philwelch blocked "Philwelch (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (I broke the 3RR and can own up to it myself.) Signed: 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Phil, I dependend on your statment: | |||
| ::::# At 13:16, 15 May 2006 ] admitted he was guilty of a 3RR violation, '''stated''' he was going to voluntarily boot himself, ''(...I also apologize for repeatedly reverting you. As per ], I shall block myself for 24 hours, which is the standard remedy. See you in 24.)'' | |||
| ::::# At 13:22, 15 May 2006 ] six minutes later <s>unbooted himself stating he </s> "changed his mind", making me assume, mistakenly based on his own statments, that he had first booted himself, then unbooted himself, without checking the block log. | |||
| ::::I did not check the block log, because I believed what you said. '''30 minutes later''', you actually blocked yourself, and then 5 minutes later Jareth unblocked you. | |||
| ::::I am interested: | |||
| ::::#Why did you boot yourself 33 minutes after you said you "changed your mind"? | |||
| ::::#Did you email or contact Jareth before you booted yourself for real the second time? | |||
| ::::The bottom line is that you broke the 3RR rules, and should be booted, as the average user is booted. | |||
| ::::If you apology is truly sincere, then block yourself for 24 hours, like everyone else has.] 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Full table=== | |||
| The offensive table, minus the title. If this is not okay to post here, please remove. The entire table is also found here: | |||
| {| border=1 style="background:#CCFFFF;" align=center | |||
| |width= 600px| | |||
| <center>'''CORRECTION:''' </center> | |||
| I incorrectly stated that: "I was blocked by Administrator B for WP:POINT. I never "vandalize pages (user or otherwise) to make a point again." | |||
| I apologize for Administrator B , I meant Administrator C. I have since corrected this mistake. | |||
| Sorry Jareth. ] 22:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| : ''Deleted as suggested. This thing is way too big and there's the link. --] 18:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| :This table is incorrect. I am Admin A and I have never unblocked myself '''and Travb knows this'''. — ] (]) (]) 22:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I relied on your words, stating that you would block yourself, then that you changed your mind. Thank you for not calling me a liar again.] 17:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comments=== | |||
| Please keep in mind that both ] and the other User '''instigated these disagreements.''' | |||
| ] started a revert war, which he admitted guilt for, he also repeatedly ignored a <nowiki>{{inuse}} tag</nowiki>. | |||
| The other user began to delete hundreds of images from user pages. Instead of asking the creator of unencyclopedia for permission, he simply began to delete them. I reverted, he deleted it again, I deleted, he reverted again. | |||
| Tony, who protected my own userpage, is a strict copyright violation person, who interprets the law strictly. He was involved in some other copyright violation disputes involving Time magazine covers, which were promenent here. He is one of the admins that I emailed, who never responded to my message. He had been involved on the same side as me in the ] arbitration. I felt that, dispite our minor disagreement about copyright, that he would be a fair and impartial judge of me being blocked today. For whatever reason, him, and another admin who did not punish phil for starting a revert war and a 3RR, never responded to my emails. (Tony was never directly involved in the revert war of my blocking, I felt he was an imparial third party) | |||
| The admin who blocked me, despite my apologies, felt like I should "cool down". Despite 4 emails, he refused to remove the block. So: there is one admin who starts a revert war, ignores an <nowiki>{{inuse}} tag</nowiki>. and has been banned twice before for 3RR reverts, and also has told other users to , and gets off scot free. I was shocked at some of the behavior of Phil above, but yet many admins come to his defense, stating he may have had a bad day, etc. Myself, on the other hand, get the full 24 hours. | |||
| Favortism? You decide. | |||
| I would also like to mention the repeated deletions of what I write on this page by certain admins. | |||
| Or, you can just prove my point and try to silence me, as user ] pointed out above, making the situation worse, and proving your own blatant hyprocricy. | |||
| Signed:] 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As I explained at ], I think Travb to have been exceedingly decorous in his postings here, and I think, irrespective of one's differences with him apropos of Misplaced Pages's fair use guidelines (which he seems to have come to appreciate are stricter than those Misplaced Pages would otherwise or by law be required to implement), one must concede that he has attempted, on the whole, to make his case through logical argument, rather than through vituperation. The substance, IMHO, of his subpage, talk page, and post supra is Wikirelevant, and his criticisms seem to be directed at the actions of various editors, rather than at those editors themselves. From his posts here, I infer a genuine desire to help to grow the encyclopedia; these are neither the posts we typically get from those intent on disrupting nor the posts we typically get from disgruntled editors simply upset about having had images removed, for example, from their talk pages. I surely think that we ought to treat Travb in the fashion Friday sets out above, with the hope that he might better understand WP policy (and the reasons behind it), in order that he might then contribute productively. ] 18:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Decorous? Perhaps? Accurate? Not a snowball's chance. As the aforementioned "Administrator B", I have never blocked Travb, the unblocking of "Administrator A" was to reverse a punative block that Travb still cannot let go of and finally, I did respond to his email the moment I got online, it simply wasn't the answer he wanted. I have no problem with his discussion of policies, I do have a problem with the continued disruption, attacks and lying. You might find a deeper look at his history educational. .:.].:. <sup>]</sup> 18:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here is a response to ], on my talk page, and an additional two lines: | |||
| :::I never said that you blocked me. I said admin C did. You are admin B. Please reread the table, it is confusing at times, and I attempt to keep admin A admin B admin C and admin D seperate. | |||
| :::''Secondly, I did not "forgive" anyone for a 3RR violation as many people have tried fruitlessly to explain to you. '' | |||
| :::What word would you like to use instead: "dismissed"? What is a correct verb which we both could agree on.] 19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::''claiming I did not respond is certainly false at this point'' You did not respond. I did not accuse you of ignoring my email, I only stated that you did not respond. I have not gotten your email yet, so I will check me email.] 19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::UPDATE: Hi, I got your email. It was in the bulk mail folder. I dont know why. Thanks for the email.] 19:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::] Please assume good faith, and don't call my statments a lie. | |||
| :::Have a cup of tea, or a hot bath and come back feeling refreshed; as you said, its the internet and just not worth getting so worked up over. ] 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You may wish to review your above table; it current states "I was blocked by Administrator B for WP:POINT. I never "vandalize pages (user or otherwise) to make a point" again." Apparently you got which admin you were accusing of what by which fake name confused while writing it since you used B for me everywhere else. As for the 3RR incident, as before, blocks are not used as punishment, they are to stop disruption. Since the disruption was long past, blocking was completely uneccessary and your continued rallying for such and continued whining is frankly rather silly at this point. Had you been willing to consider that your current conduct might be disruptive and stop the behavior, I would have been happy to unblock you. I'm glad you were able to find the email -- junk filters can be bizarre at times. And I'm having white tea with pear; rather refreshing actually. .:.].:. <sup> ]</sup> 19:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''"I was blocked by Administrator B for WP:POINT. I never "vandalize pages (user or otherwise) to make a point" again."'' | |||
| :::::My mistake, I try to be 100% accurate, because I know that I will others will point this out quickly. MY APOLOGIES: ] HAS NEVER BLOCKED ME. I WAS WRONG. ] HAS NEVER BLOCKED ME. I can add this apology anywhere you would like. | |||
| :::::''As for the 3RR incident, as before, blocks are not used as punishment, they are to stop disruption.'' | |||
| :::::As mentioned before, I gave in to Phil, and stopped the revert war, which he started, and reported him to 3RR, hoping that, since he obvoiously broke 3RR, which he later admmited readily, his actions would be punished. That is the entire reason why the disruption stopped completly. So because I had the good sense to stop the 3RR, and report it to 3RR, Phil gets off, scot free, and is not punished for his actions. | |||
| :::::Further, he '''states''' that he will block himself, he changes his mind, then 30 minutes later he blocks himself, and 5 minutes later you unblock him. Despite this confusing change of heart, you take his sincerity at face value, yet you state that in regards to my own apology: "It does appear, however, that your apology was less than sincere".] 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi. Please stop using your userspace to create malformed ]s. This is the second example of this in a week. If you think an issue or behaviour is worth bringing additional community attention to, please create a proper RFC. ] 18:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi--I assume you are talking to Phil, who brought this up on this page today? I am simply defending the accusations of the opposing parties here. Phil said he would use my RfC as "toilet paper", so I don't know how effective it will be. I like the RfC discussion, but what should the RfC entail? We are covering a lot of issues here: | |||
| ::*'''possible''' admin favoritism in applying the rules even handly, | |||
| ::*copyright and fair use issues, etc. | |||
| :::Pretty broad topic. What do you suggest? ] 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, not a single RFC on both concerns that you have, that's for sure. See ] for how to file an RFC on an admin. I suppose ] would be the right place for the other one. Do read all of ] first, however. I understand that a "toilet paper" comment doesn't inspire confidence, but the point of an RFC is get feedback from community members who aren't an involved party; to guage how that broader community feels about an issue. Having said all that, my guess would be that lots of users would wish for less crankiness, less ] and more civility, and it may not be worth the effort of an RFC to establish that. Don't, however, decide that a real RFC isn't worth the time and then put up a malformed one in your userspace and thereby feel that you get to ] its content. ] 19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for your comments. I think my debate with Phil will die. In fact, I will not report him to the page for abusive comments. I will pursue a RfC about general fair use rules in the future. But I want to build my case first, so it may be some time in coming. I have also calmed down a lot, so the urgency of doing this has subsided.] 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd still like to see where I told anyone to fuck off. Please give me a link to the precise diff. ] is a good place to start looking. — ] (]) (]) 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am relying on this statment above: | |||
| :::''If you visit Philwelch's talk page you will understand the whole sequence of events. User:Samir asks him "Phil, please don't call him names. Thanks." for whichhe replied "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby". At this point I put a no personal attack warning on Philwelch's talk page and I was blocked and asked by him to "Leave me the hell alone! ". On posting a noblock template on my talk page I was further blocked for 3 hours. - 203.88.151.10 10:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| ::I will assume good faith and trust that you never said: "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby" My apologies for believing user:203.88.151.10.] 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course I said that. But I never told anyone to fuck off. I'm sorry you can't see the distinction. — ] (]) (]) 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Uh huh. I see. Sorry, from now on I will state that ] said: "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby" I am glad that we are clear on that point.] 22:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Isn't this the same garbage that was deleted from your Talk page? Why are you importing it here? Why does it matter? Go write an article. ]|] 01:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks Zoe, for your vote of support (I am being cynical, if you didn't catch that). ] began this argument here. I am defending myself from his allegations. I can defend myself from ] allegations, can't I, even if you may personally disagree with my view, and call my views "garbage"?] 16:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Leaving the subject be and engaging in some article construction sounds like a fine idea. Boy, I just finished making three: ], ] and ]. Gets you busy and alleviates quite a bit of stress. I've never felt better. -]<sup>]</sup> 17:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == can't find ] who send request == | |||
| I have been contacted by a user who say his name is ], however I can't seem to find him? He says that he been blocked from editing even though he was not at fault? Am I doing something wrong in the search, is it possible to search for a user account with an email address, which I have since he contacted me directly? this is kinda odd... thank you for your help. ] 17:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There is a user Kirkham (see ). I would guess that (s)he has been hit by an autoblock or an IP block. Either way unblocking the IP will unblock the user. Do you have the user's IP address? ] <sup>]</sup> 17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for pointing that out. No I don't unfortunately. Should I ask (doubt the user will know it though). Or should I just recommend the user to start with a different account? ] 00:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Restoring ] == | |||
| I don't know if this is the right place for this request, and if not would appreciate a pointer to what would be the right place. | |||
| I'd like to put in a good word for restoring ]'s account. He was banned for being a sockpuppet of ], but he pretty clearly is not the Communism vandal, mainly because he hasn't been following the modus operandi: ''vandalizes with references to communism and/or the hammer and sickle''. He's had a noticeable tenure here at Misplaced Pages, so would have had plenty of chances to do that if he was tCv. His only connection to the Communism vandal is that he ]. He hasn't vandalized following the tCv model. | |||
| He is a well meaning, if somewhat rash and hot-tempered editor, which has earned him a few temporary blocks. However blocking his account forever for that plus mentioning tCV is like convicting a jaywalker wearing a ] tshirt of homicide, and will dilute the impact of blocking real sock-puppets of tCv. | |||
| He's been blocked for quite a few days now. That should be sufficient punishment. His ] reinstated is accompanied with promises of better behaviour and moderation. Given that he was convicted of a false charge, I recommend giving him that chance. If he is punished, it should be for something he genuinely did, not for guilt by association. | |||
| ] <small>]</small> 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm inclined to think the sockpuppet allegation to be, although not unfounded, unpersuasive. Dzoni may eventually exhaust the community's patience and merit an indefinite block (his talk page is replete with warnings and short blocks for disruption ], which I think, on the whole, to be minimally disruptive]), but I don't think such a block is in order now, and so I'd concur in the assessment that he should be unblocked. Of course, if his intemperate behavior proves disruptive, either in mainspace or at the sundry AfDs in which he participates, we'd do well to rethink that; I'll hope, of course, that disruption won't occur, and I'll surely ] and genuinely to want to contribute productively. ] 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If I get another admin's support, I'd consider unblocking Dzoni. I agree that he doesn't look like the communism vandal, and if he is fooling us and vandalizes like communism we'll just reblock. Not like WiC is subtle. ] 18:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll go along with that ... we should all try and assume good faith. And vandals have been rehabilitated (is that the right term?) before. He needs tp be kept an eye on, though. But he needs to have it made perfectly clear that any further asshattery may result in a long-term / infinite ban. ]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 14:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll go enact that, and email the user just in case they aren't monitoring their page. ] 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::User does not have email enabled. ] 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Thank you both. ] <small>]</small> 15:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I agree,I was blocked for no reason,and now Im unblocked because I should have never been blocked(off course,I wasnt blocked for being sockupuppet in the first place,it is clear that administrator tried to block me few times and he was just waiting for a right time,although he knew I am no sockpuppet).Anyways,you made a right decision and I accept apology] 17:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(1) The administrator who blocked you doesn't appear to have had any interactions with you before (at least on your Talk page). (2) I trust the judgement of the admins who have blocked you before for 3rr, etc. One thing you can be sure of: we have plenty of admins who '''will''' block you without attempting to cobble together a reason to block you, so please don't assume a conspiracy. ] 17:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == deleting talk pages of users who have left the project == | |||
| Is this done or no? I always understood that users who were leaving could blank their talk pages and have their user pages deleted, but that talk page histories were generally preserved for "historical interest." But I've seen lately that ] and ] have been deleted, so perhaps I'm mistaken. This doesn't seem to be covered in the ]. –] 18:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Even if a page is deleted, its history is still extant for admins to view. ] 18:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Blank the page and protect it, but do not delete it. ]|] 01:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree with Zoe, just blank the page but never delete the user talk page. Only delete the userpage and personal subpages but the talk part has some valued history of the users. The only exception is cases of stalking like what sadly happened to ]. Other than that, don't. Thanks ] ] 02:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that they should never be deleted, and actually I don't know why we don't say the same thing of everything in user space, for that matter. Some of this stuff contains a useful record of past events. ] ] 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's kind of a gray area. Some admins prefer to delete the pages, particularly when there are personal attacks or other inflammatory content on the page or in the history, and some just blank them or blank them and protect them so that all users are able to see the history. Cases like this have been brought to the administrators' noticeboard before and when there is a lot of participation in the discussion, the page is usually restored and blanked (in my possibly faulty perception). However, some longtime admins and Jimbo have deleted user talk pages. I think a good policy would be to blank them in most cases, with or without protecting them, and delete them only when necessary, especially considering that pages deleted before the database crash on June 8, 2004 cannot be viewed or restored by admins. -- ] 02:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree with Zoe on this one: blank and protect, but don't delete. However, be aware that there for the deletion of talk pages, although I personally disagree with that. ] ] 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was once, it was an extenuating circumstance, and it won't be repeated very often. --] ] 03:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reporting Philwelch== | |||
| Philwelch is moving around my comments on this board, and refuses to stop, this behavior here is exactly what cause the first 3RR: | |||
| 19:56, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page - fixing fmt--just as Travb's responses shouldn't intersperse with mine, mine shouldn't intereperse with his) | |||
| (cur) (last) 19:53, 18 May 2006 Philwelch m (Reverted edits by Travb (talk) to last version by Philwelch) | |||
| (cur) (last) 19:53, 18 May 2006 Travb (please do not move around my comments, I am attempting to add back your comments after you deleted/moved mine along with Jkelly Once again, you initiated this, just as the 3RR.) | |||
| (cur) (last) 19:53, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page) | |||
| (cur) (last) 19:52, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page - rearrange) | |||
| (cur) (last) 19:49, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (rv--Travb is deleting my comments, I am not deleting his, I am rearranging them.) | |||
| (cur) (last) 19:47, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page) | |||
| (cur) (last) 19:46, 18 May 2006 Travb (Phil, do not delete my comments--or I will start another 3RR) | |||
| The previous revert war: | |||
| * Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! --> | |||
| * 1st revert: | |||
| * 2nd revert: | |||
| * 3rd revert: | |||
| * 4th revert: | |||
| In which I allowed Philwelch to delete my graph, despite the revert war he started, and the ignored <nowiki>{{inuse}} tag</nowiki> | |||
| Once again, I am going to let Philwelch "win" and Jareth can come along and forgive Philwelch because no controversy still exists.] 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's standard practice on talk pages not to intersperse your replies with the original post, as it gets confusing. In the edit on top there, I'm actually rearranging *my own reply* to conform to this rule. It's also standard practice to post replies in chronological order—i.e. not to post your reply before an earlier reply, which is what you were doing. The formatting was getting confusing and I was fixing it. Furthermore, you removed my comments—I never removed yours. Once again, your obsession with me and compulsive need to pick a fight is somewhat disturbing. — ] (]) (]) 20:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Incidentally, the graph you were working on on the NSA page is ] so you can work on it without (a) interfering with other edits to a topical and heavily-edited article and (b) subjecting readers to what is now a disorganized work-in-process. I moved your graph there in order to help resolve our dispute. I have seen no such productive problem-solving from you, although I hope this changes. — ] (]) (]) 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::(After edit conflict) Phil's certainly correct here (btw, Travb, for future reference, if you meant this as a specific 3RR complaint and not a general admin conduct complaint, you ought to have noted it instead at ]); remember also that 3RR blocks are imposed to prevent disruption, not to "punish" perpetrators, and Phil's reverts seem to be neither disruptive nor improper. By continuing to clutter AN and AN/I, you make it ever harder for those of us who have found the treatment afforded you by some others to have been, at times, undeservedly harsh, to defend some of your actions and certainly to impute good faith to them. You might do well to ] and focus on behaviors that concern you and that also harm the encyclopedia. A debate over what WP's policy w/r/to fair use ought to be (even if the debate stems simply from your wanting to use certain images on your talk page) or over how poll data ought to be represented at ] is useful; relatively petty carping about hypertechnicalities, especially where your interpretation is likely inconsistent with that for which a consensus exists, is not. ] 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am sorry Phil, I am going to report you to the page for verbal abuse, dispite reported calls for you to stop, you continue to say such things as: "our obsession with me and compulsive need to pick a fight is somewhat disturbing." | |||
| ::You began moving around my comments, just as you started a revert war on the other page. | |||
| ::Please site the rule which you are stating above. I remember getting chastized for moving other users comments around. Is it really the best policy, in the middle of a heated debate, to start arbitrally moving another users words around? Add your comments, but add them under mine. using ":". | |||
| ::You began this entire argument. I cannot emphasize this enough. | |||
| ::Do not move my comments around again. ] 20:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It's standard practice. It's something I and many Wikipedians before me have agreed on, and it's something you learn from experience. Misplaced Pages isn't run according to precise rules and regulations that govern every small aspect of what we do here. — ] (]) (]) 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've had two other editors (one here, one on your talk page) come out to say that my refactoring is perfectly acceptable, while your actions here are counterproductive. Is that enough for you to stop? — ] (]) (]) 20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have no dog in this fight, so all I can say is this: | |||
| :'''''Nobody cares!'''''. Get back to creating an encyclopedia. ]|] 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the words of the great philosopher -- ] -- "I couldn't have said it better myself". ] <sup>]</sup> 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==who do you call== | |||
| ...to report personal attacks? I see them by the score as I read Misplaced Pages, but usually I shrug and remember a free press is a nice for those who own one. But it eventually does get tiresome reading the leavings of people so confident of their own rightness they attack the sanity of others instead of responding to the subject at hand. | |||
| ] 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You report them to ], the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard. — ] (]) (]) 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sony Betamax Case == | |||
| This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc. | |||
| contains this text: | |||
| "Blackmun's Rape | |||
| Justice Harry Blackmun dissented, and, joined by Justices, raped Sony Corporation's Pamela Njaie, saying afterwards, "We didn't mean to.. We all just had hard-ons and we needed to ejaculate Somewhere!" | |||
| I hope someone can fix this. | |||
| J. | |||
| :Fixed . ] ] 03:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == *.pru.in.ua spam == | |||
| Re these and presumably many more edits, would a meta-admin please consider putting ''pru.in.ua'' on the spam blacklist? ] 12:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm, I tossed that url up on the meta "to be added" yesterday...but I guess it hasn't been added yet. ] 12:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also note that they keep changing the sub-domain. Have you requested to blacklist the base address? It should be safe (that is, would not affect a whole webhost); no googlehits for site:pru.in.ua, and http://pru.in.ua/ is an empty page. ] 12:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well I only listed pointy-chested-blondes.XXX (whatever it was), but the blacklist folks typically put *.XXX anyhow. Its pretty common that they change the subdomain. ] 13:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've been blocking IPs that edit like this for 48 hours on sight. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The IPs that edit like this are open proxies should be reported on ] to be blocked indefinately. ] 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rouge Admin== | |||
| Has anyone seen the ? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 09:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- --> | |||
| :"Jimbo Wales - mostly just wanders around :)" My God, it's ''exactly like real life''. Excellent! No highscore chart though? --]<sup>]</sup> 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There ought to be a ] version of this. Oh wait... --<span style="font-family:monospace"> ] </span>] 19:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've always wondered about this: if we have "rouge" admins, do we also have foundation admins? Eyeliner admins? Eye shadow admins? Mascara admins? <span class="small">'''*ducks under barrage of rotten tomatoes*'''</span> ;) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 21:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The Foundation admins are sysops at http://wikimediafoundation.org. — ] (]) (]) 13:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I knew '''someone''' was going to mention that... ;) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| We should use this to train new admins. ''']''' ]|] 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hmm, no stewards in the game. :] ]. 13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| For what it's worth I underwent my rouge training in Nethack, having Ascended ... five or six different classes, I kind of lost track. --] 14:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == out of process deletion of userboxes == | |||
| ] was deleted with absolutly no recourse given to appeal the decsion, this unilateral userbox edit warring must stop--] 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It looked like an attack on Cyde. ] (]) 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Above user ConcernedObo has been indefblocked, strongly suspect its the same user who has been vandalizing Cyde's pages (see RFCU) ] 17:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| God forbid we shouldn't be allowed to delete vandalism so long as the vandalism is prefaced with User. --] 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm probably going to go insane after I say this, but in this case the deletion was justified as it was true vandalism. ] ] ] ] 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Missing Protestor == | |||
| The article ] was deleted by ]. I cannot fid it in the 'history' page to revert it. No discussion has ever took place with regrads to content, the article has not been listed in Speedy Deletion, it never had an AfD, it has been unillaterally removed by this user in such a way as I cannot revert the vandalism. This blanking is an act of vandailism because ] disagrees with my edits in the article ] and has taken it upon themselves to revert my contributions. --] 17:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Article was deleted after being prod'ed. I've blocked the above user for their username. ] 17:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Shouldn't the article have had a tag placed on it for five days? It does seem to have been deleted out of process. | |||
| Will Beback deleted it as a hoax. The only sources were some silly blogs. --] 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I have to admit, I've never heard of ] being described as a 'silly blog before' . | |||
| == To whoever is deleting prod's today == | |||
| ] had 106 articles after it was checked by one of the prod patrollers (see ] but it now has 107 articles. This means there's at least one article in there that has been re-prodded. Just a heads-up. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Never mind! I think I found it: ]. Technically, Wompy deprodded it and added a speedy tag, but I'm sure no one will mind. Actually, I'm sure no one will mind, as the author of that article gave me that impression on my talk page. Cheers! You should be good to go. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Brewing edit war at ] == | |||
| Just wanted to give people a heads up that there is a brewing edit war (again) at ] over national issues that could escalate unless headed off and unfortunately I have to get going soon or I'd do it myself. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Several of the parties involved have been in previous edit wars and unfortunately have something of a record of inflammatory POV-pushing. I've warned a number of users and given out a couple of short blocks for tag-team edit-warring. Hopefully it'll encourage them to be more cautious about making deliberately contentious edits. Having said that, since I've received a message in response saying "] IS ABUSING HIS POWERS, HE'S THE HITLER OF WIKIPEDIA !!!!!! HE'S WORSE THAN HITLER, HE'S GOT GOEBBELS PROPANGADA SCHEMING ABILITIES!!!!" I have my doubts... (Does this mean I can claim my Rouge Admin title?). -- ] 23:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::<nowiki>*</nowiki>cough*]*cough* ;) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now tell him that his ] is in the post. :-P --] ] 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::LOL! Anyway, either there's a running joke of which I'm not aware, or no one knows any more how to spell "rogue". :) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Take a look at ]. Wear the badge with pride! :D -- ] 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Aha! Thank you. Is there a similar page for "tounge"? ;) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 23:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm absolutely ''not'' going to speculate on what actions would qualify one as a "tounge admin"... But returning ever-so-briefly to the matter in hand, this seems to have progressed to outright sockpuppetry, though I can't immediately shorten the list of suspects to fewer than two. I've filed a RCU, someone might want to check there's no recurrence in the meantime. ] 00:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Certainly some sock- and/or meatpuppetry is likely, given the users and their edits. Beyond keeping out that which is not ], and your RCU request, I'm short of suggestions at the moment. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 00:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm assuming tag-teaming, perhaps rising to meat-puppetry ''between'' the two long-standing accounts, and sockery ''by'' one of them: it's just not at all clear which. I suppose a block of the anon and the one-edit account might not be amiss in any case. ] 00:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Per ], I've blocked ] and ] for 48 hours each, ] for three hours, and ] indefinitely. If anyone is able to untangle these antics better than I, please review. Note that tag-teaming at the article seems to be escalating in the meantime. ] 02:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* Unfortunately it's not just that article: it's a whole range of articles, e.g. ], ], ], ], ] etc. We seem to have a systematic problem of edit warring and POV-pushing by a clique of editors who plainly don't want to follow the rules (see comments at ). -- ] 08:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| An efficient way to stop rever warring I would encourage you to observe the time ], ] and ] are active, and the documents they are active in (i.e. revert). Furthermore they are from the same country, and a recent investigation by an admin revealed significant similarities between the first two. This could be another indication that these alleged users could be actually one user. The abovementioned users are being involved in rever wars, and are disrespectful of Misplaced Pages rules, something they proved in the near past. Additionally, they have been blocked several times, sometimes even offending administrators that carried out that action. Furthermore, some of the "users" are recruiting meatpuppets to wage their revert war. Taking any action would be appreciated, for the sake of stopping revert-warriors and users that are sworn to work against Misplaced Pages. Best regards, ] 23:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for someone to review my actions == | |||
| I blocked ] yesterday for 3RR on a help page, and I'd just like someone to check it over and see if I acted correctly. | |||
| Here are the four reverts: | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| Points to consider: | |||
| *] says that people are entitled to copy the ] at any time. | |||
| *It also says "don't edit this copy" with respect to the ] here. | |||
| *The user claims to have been reverting vandalism, but I feel that it is definitely not reverting simple vandalism (which is the only thing the 3RR excludes other than self-reverts), and may not be vandalism reverting at all. | |||
| Opinions, please. ] (]) 23:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Definitely a dispute over content, that certainly wasn't vandalism by any definition. Good block. .:.].:. <sup>]</sup> 00:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've collected the evidence at ], because it involves '''four''' pages. Check the first diff, it's IMO no '''rv''' at all, it integrated the included page. -- ] 00:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's an odd case. There ''were'' four 'removals of one or more words' (the most restrictive definition of 'revert'), but Omniplex was following standard procedure in editing the meta page and copying it down... the other user was incorrectly editing the local page directly without updating the meta page. Omniplex did repeatedly cite the proper procedure to follow... and the template does say that the main meta page may be copied down 'at any time'. Given the conflicting instructions and technicality (I've had '''admins''' tell me they ''didn't'' violate 3RR when the first was a 'new edit' like the above) I'd probably have given it a pass. Wouldn't say you acted '''in'''correctly though. --] 14:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Inappropriate username? (If you don't "get it", read it aloud after reading his user page.) | |||
| Reported by: ] 00:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Worse, the user jumped straight into GFDL issues at . (Meantime, a Google search of "Issac Dick" turns up no obvious links to anything other than slang terminology.) <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 00:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've blocked it. ] - ] 02:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == GCSEs == | |||
| Currently, Year 11s in the ] are doing their ] ]s. I'm one of them. The problem is that with Misplaced Pages, I (and I'm sure many others) can't bring myself to ]. Would it be possible to close down Misplaced Pages for a week or so to let me revise? If not, then I emplore people to remind me that I should be revising, should they see me editing. Thank you and kind regards, --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 07:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You can always block (and try not to unblock) yourself if you need to stay away completely. --] 08:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Nope - that's not allowed per ]. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 09:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Gosh man, you're making me feel so old! :( (I was in the "guinea pig year" for GCSEs). Anyway, here's an idea - vandalise my user page and I'll block you for a week :P --] 10:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, it is allowed if you have a static IP. --] (]) 10:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Weird, I never knew you Brits said "revise" instead of "review". Anyway, use ]. —] 08:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: LOL! I never knew the Americans used "review" not reise" :P. {{tl|Exams}} wouldn't help - I just can't stay away :P. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 09:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's it, enough editing for now, CP, go straight to your room (]) and get revising! Oh and the very best of luck in the exams :) --] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 10:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's £200 in the UK monopoly. ] (]) 11:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The price of inflation these days (sheesh) --] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 12:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There's something you can add in your monobook which actually enforces a wikibreak, I guess that might work nicely for you :) --]<font color="green">]</font>] 10:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Better solution: modify your local ] file and forward *.wikipedia.org to 127.0.0.1. That should stop you from even seeing Misplaced Pages. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 03:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Wouldn't work for me. 127.0.0.1 is my local copy of Misplaced Pages. --] 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ]'s edits == | |||
| I've been reverting some of ]'s edits, which are large swaths of text he claims are his own work (, , , multiple others), from . He has been asked multiple times to provide proof of who he is, but he has not responded. ] even started an RFC, but that failed to get his attention. I just messaged Futureobservatory that if he continues to copy text into articles, he will be banned. --]]] <sup>]</sup> 16:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If he persists, it should be noted that an email address and phone number appear on as well as on the site hosted by the matching ip. A quick phone call or note could determine if he is in fact the wikipedian in question. --]<font color="green">]</font><sup>( | ] | ] )</sup> 15:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mel Etitis== | |||
| This looks like a misfiled 3RR. Taking it to the right subpage . --] 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I suspect that this is a problem that's not going to be easily soluble; help and advice would be appreciated. | |||
| I discovered that <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • ] • )</span> had unilaterally moved ] to ], and made a string of substantial changes (all without edit summaries or other explanartions, most misleadingly marked '''m'''inor). After correcting all this, I checked his other edits, as his English was very poor, and I suspected that he might have created similar problems elsewhere. Sure enough, i found a few pages with poor English (to which I added {{tl|copyedit}} templates, an unsourced/uncited change to another article, and a dab page in very non-MoS style. | |||
| Eiorgiomugini immediately reverted my changes, removing the templates, etc. After some attempt to explain to him that this wasn't acceptable, I realised that he was just goijng to remove the templates, etc., come what may (his English is too poor for him to see the problems, but he seems not to believe or understand this). I applied a 15-minute block in order to get him to cool down, and asked him, when the block expired, to discuss the issues. instead he immediately reverted everything again. I applied a one-hour block, and made the same request. | |||
| It's pretty obvious, though, that this won't get through to him. Although I'm not involved at most of the articles in question, I'm reluctant to apply a longer block — and in any case I don't think that blocking is the solution. If there's anything else that I could do (or should have done differently), I'd be glad to get advice. If anyone else thinks that they might get through to him where I've failed, I'd be glad of the help. --] (]) 16:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Is this largely a comprehension problem? Do we know what languages the user is fluent in? ] 16:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Chinese, I think. My impression is that he's familiar with the Chinese Misplaced Pages, and is simply trying to apply its conventions and customs here. The trouble is that he seems unwilling or unable to understand that they might be different. He certainly seems more familiar with Misplaced Pages than his short time here would suggest. --] (]) 18:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The user's English is strong enough to make nasty personal attacks in edit summaries . I wonder if someone from ] would be willing to start some mentorship here. ] 18:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What about ]? --] 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I agree that some of his contributions have been unuseful, you must remember yourself to never block when you are involved, to only use the admin rollback in the case of vandalism, and to stay within the ]. ] (]) 23:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, please. Mel is only involved insofar as trying to get the User to understand what the problem is. This is not a content dispute, and Mel is perfectly in the right to block as needed. ]|] 03:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with Zoe. Mel was not '''''"involved"''''' in the sense of being in a content dispute. I doubt if the article is one he has a strong POV about, and it wasn't a case of his having a longstanding grudge against a user because of past disagreements. Admins do block for disruption when they're involved in trying to stop the disruption. ] ] 10:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks Zoe and AnnH — that's how I saw it. Others didn't and I was blocked for 24 hours (worryingly, ] saw fit to leave what looks like a sneering message about this at Eiorgiomugini's Talk page ). The problem with Eiorgiomugini remains. Other editors at ] have seen his edit and reverted, but he's not giving up; he also still clearly believes (perhaps encouraged by Sasquatch) that he's in the right concerning the copyedit templates. I'm going to try explaining the issues to him again, but I don't know how much success I'll have. --] (]) 08:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == MediaWiki == | |||
| Another proposal for script addition .''']'''<sup>]</sup> 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Template:Economies== | |||
| I created ] for use on ] after a lot of fighting over what if any template should go there: socialism, progressism, liberalism. It seemed '''actual economies''' had no template. Only templates for ideologies about economies existed. The problem that I am here about is that an anon insists on adding ideologies to the "actual economies" template. Can someone check the situation out and do whatever is called for? ] 20:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The user has been warned for 3rr rule but has not been blocked. Please try to engage him through discussions on the talk page. The robot edit summary has me a bit worried. I reverted to an earlier version to test something. Please do not continue reverting yourself or you will probably be blocked for 3RR. ] (]) 20:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for attention at ] == | |||
| Could an experienced editor look at dealing with the ] nomination and the ] deletion? I wouldn't trust myself with these (an neither for the crapload of userboxes currently on the page either, but that is another thing completely). ] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This arbitration case is closed. | |||
| Messhermit is banned for one year from editing articles which relate to the conflict between Peru and Ecuador. Messhermit and Andres C. are placed on ]. | |||
| Full details of the final decision are at the case page at the above link. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee. --] 02:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| The conclusion of the ArbCom case (ZAROVE) has removed one of the principal figures in the struggle over page content there. However edit warring has continued, and almost everyone involved can be said to be partisan and on the line of infraction of policy. I have handed out one 3RR block recently of 24 hours, and have just blocked an IP number editor ] (signs as el Lobo) for talk page comments saying I'm biased by Christian beliefs. (I have never discussed religion on WP and don't intend to start now.) Another participant ] is technically unblocked (but is mailing me saying not). | |||
| The page itself seems about as good as it may be, given the paucity of first-rate sources. There is a fair amount of off-site commentary about the dispute. ] 11:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The continuous slow-motion revert warring is rather wearing, however. Looking at the history of {{article|Acharya S}}, the users {{user|A.J.A.}} and {{user|^^James^^}} in particular seem bent on reverting each other until the ice caps melt and the oceans flood out Misplaced Pages's servers. | |||
| :I was involved in a brief attempt to clean up the article about three weeks ago, so I don't have 'clean hands' to do admin-type things here. Warnings to editors about their conduct, where appropriate, might help. I fear that another ArbCom case may be necessary. ](]) 13:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::With all due respect, that sounds entirely premature to me. Has there been an attempt to RfC or RfM over the content? ] 18:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would like to quickly note that I have little choice but to revert AJA if he refuses to participate on the talk page. ] 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, you ''do'' have one other choice, which is to file a ] violation report so as to get them blocked for a day or so. However, you should not do this unless you can go in with clean hands. ] 18:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would like to ask why Charles Matthews felt a weeks block was justifed for failing to AGF with him and yet felt someone calling two other editors "vandals" did not require any comment? This editor has shown bad faith on other occasions as james notes above and also . I would also ask whether it is appropriate for Charles Matthews to place the ban himself as being an involved admin he should recuse himself, log the incident here, and seek outside assistance. ] 18:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| An IP number editor trolling, after warning? I think this is a block out of hand. There is some chance of getting a compromise version accepted. This provocative stuff on the talk page is just obstructing things. (Anyone with the stomach can go through the dozen archives and note the pretty much daily posts from el Lobo. These have not helped at all.) | |||
| By the way, both sides in this have attacked the 'referee'. ] 19:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please address directly the points I made above. ] 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| OK then. I don't feel that my one recent edit to ], attempting to broker a compromise, puts me in a false position if I then enforce policy. It is standard practice to regard non-logged in editors with less tolerance than those editing here under a user name. If the complaint is that I have not blocked ] for infractions under 3RR, or for the v-word, then I would say that I want his input on the compromise version. I'm not obliged to block anyone, by the way. Discretion is the whole issue in admin action. | |||
| Since there is a huge amount of past history and back-story to this page, I doubt whether an admin coming fresh to it would quickly get it all. Brokering an end to the constant edit warring is substantially more useful in this context, than point-scoring and box-ticking exercises. I would defend the approach taken, as likely to lead to results. ] 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been looking into the page since last year, and Charles have been extremely neutral in keeping peace between the warring parties. I have full confidence in his mediation. Apparently, the pro-acharya group also had the same confidence when their opponent ZAROVE was being sent to Arbitration. The whole article is a quagmire ... whoever tries to bring any sanity gets pummeled by both parties, and a whole is out there lambasting any editor not liked by the subject. Similarly, before he was banned, ZAROVE filled page after page of gibberish into the talk page, making any fruitful discussion impossible. I think Charles have been more than fair in handling the page, and has not shown any bias in editing the page. Therefore ]'s comment on Charles being an "involved" admin is misdirected. He is involved in mediation, not active in taking sides, and his placement of 3RR bans is therefore entirely within policy. Thanks. --] 20:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was refering to the fact that he was the object of the supposed insult and therefore ''is'' directly involved. It is never a good idea for the insulted party to act unilaterally as it is possible they have responded emotively. A.J.A. has made it plain that he will not work with the other editors on this page. How is banning them, unless it is permanent, going to help? If this is the objective then it should be made plain and this can then be discussed. ] 21:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I said a few days ago that I was calling the discussion to order. That I intend to do. I want to get comments on what is wrong with the current article version, and stop the warring. I'm not particularly worried about having my actions scrutinised. I never said 'insult': it was a classic ''ad hominem'' argument that I had acted in a biased way. As such it was both fallacious and contrary to basic policy. I'm surprised anyone should think that making full public disclosure of what I think about the situation would actually help, in one of the most intractable disputes in en-WP. ] 21:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Charles, you just blocked someone for accusing you of being biased. Isn't that more than just a bit ironic? In fact, isn't it a direct violation of ]? | |||
| :At this point, your claims of neutrality are no longer credible. The best thing you can do is move on and let others take over. I suggest that you remove the block, recuse yourself, and pass the hot potato. We'll all be better off when the reasonable perception of admin bias is removed, don't do you think? ] 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Slight shortage of admins who might get involved.] 22:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think anyone familiar with the page, edited continuously now since April 2005 at an average of two edits per day, would conclude that I am 'trying to gain advantage in a content dispute'; if that is what you meant about ]. I am neutral, but I will invoke ] if I get wikilawyered about this. If I was that worried about the procedural side, I would have backed down months ago; and got on with something more rewarding. I'm grateful for the vote of confidence of ], who is well briefed. And I agree with ], also. ] 22:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm familiar with the page and with the incident, and yet it does look like you're violating ] by using admin powers against someone who accused you of bias (which, ironically, makes their accusations look true). As for invoking ], that would be a gross abuse. | |||
| :Fact is, you should have backed down long ago, just as you said. We can't undo the past, but you can still back down now and avoid causing harm in the future. If so many admins agree, as you claim, then your involvement is unnecessary. Just recuse yourself and let them take over. This will remove any appearance of impropriety. ] 08:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Here is the issue as I see it. On the 15th Charles banned me for reverting ] 4 times in 27 hours, depsite the fact that AJA openly refused to discuss his continuous reverts. He also gave a general warning. AJA ignored the warning and continued to revert without discussion, at one point making 5 reverts in 30 hours. Charles made no comment. Yesterday, AJA accused other editors of bad faith and called them vandals. El Lobo asked Charles if his personal beliefs were influencing his apparent selective use of admin powers described above. Charles responded by removing both messages (but leaving AJA's accusation of bad faith), and blocking El Lobo for a week for "''implying'' bad faith". He made no comment regarding AJAs more blatant personal attacks. ] 08:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow, that does seem biased. Given the amount of power admins have and the general lack of recourse available when an admin does something wrong, it seems particularly harmful for admins to block people who question their neutrality. | |||
| :Thank you for clarifying some details. You've changed my mind. Initially, I suspected that the block might be sound but Charles was the wrong person to make it. Now it looks like the whole thing is Charles' error. | |||
| :Once again, I request that he remove the block and recuse himself. He is clearly not unbiased here. ] 08:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 'Recuse' is the wrong word here. I'll gladly take the page off my watchlist, where it has been since a couple of hours after its creation, any time I feel I'm the wrong person for the (completely thankless) job. | |||
| I was offline for nearly all Thursday and half of Friday, which is why I wasn't tracking edits to the article. That's it. The 'el Lobo' edits could have been blocked many times in the past, for disruptive intent, soapboxing and so on. Have a look and see how few are actually discussing the page content, with a view to resolving the issues. However, they rarely stepped over the line, into obvious policy violation. | |||
| Also have a look at how the actual article content has been gradually brought towards NPOV, and better conformity with the guidelines on biographies of living people. I honestly think my stewardship, if I could call it that, has been of benefit to the article. I'm quite happy to have other admins operate there: I got ] involved in the past, to protect the page, when things were really bad. I accept no claim of bias against me. I think ] has a partisan but rational approach to the content, and I consider that most of the points he has raised in the past have been met. I don't see that he has much to war for, on the article as it now stands. I think most of ]'s concerns have been met, with the inclusion of an account of critical reviews (these should be there, the question has only been in what way). I suppose he still may think the page too 'promotional' in tone. I don't want that, either, and I hope he will specify what he sees as necessary changes. ] 09:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Charles, I choose my words carefully, so when I chose "recuse", I did so quite consciously. According to m-w.com, to recuse is to "to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest". | |||
| :I'm saying that there is an apparent conflict of interest here, which is why you should remove yourself. As others have pointed out, there is the clear and reasonable perception of unequal treatment of participants. I'm not asking you to drop the article from your watch list. However, if you're going to participate in its ongoing construction, I think you need to decide whether your role will be that of editor or admin, and stick to it. | |||
| :If you're an editor, you can't wave your sysop bit around; and if you're an admin, you can't act in any way that suggests you care who wins out in the content dispute. Right now, there is at least the appearance of admin rights being used to support editorial goals, and that is bad for everyone. The cure is simple, and I've suggested it repeatedly. It surprises me that you're so resistant to it. | |||
| :The relevant cliche is "if you love somebody, let them go". I urge you to show your love for ] by letting go. ] 15:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe you when you say that you have no bias on the article, but I do think some of your actions ''appear'' unequal. You blocked '^^James^^' for edit warring when he reverted four times in a little over 24 hours. That's alright... he just missed a technical 3RR violation, but we '''do''' also block for edit warring in general and he'd done so on prior days (and indeed again since the block expired) as well. But... you '''didn't''' block 'A.J.A.' - who was also guilty of edit warring that and previous days (and indeed has ''also'' continued to do so). Likewise you removed the comment by 'El Lobo' which implied that you were being biased and blocked him for the personal attack, but at the same time ''only'' removed 'A.J.A.' calling '^^James^^' and 'El Lobo' "vandals" and "trolls" ''without'' blocking her for the personal attack. Now, there may well be reasons for a judgement call that the two blocked individuals have ignored more prior warnings or been more consistently disruptive or whatever, but that is always going to be a subjective assessment and in any case is not going to be apparent to sympathetic partisans or even someone looking in from outside. When there is a dispute and you make a judgement call that 'A will get a warning' but 'B will be blocked' everyone who agrees with 'B' is inevitably going to suspect bias... and the closer the actions of 'A' and 'B' to each other the louder the howls about unfairness will be. As such I'd suggest: '''don't''' make judgement calls in such cases. Even if personal views ''don't'' color the assessment it will absolutely be perceived that way and generate further disruption. Warn 'em both or block 'em both unless there is some '''absolutely clear''' non-subjective difference (e.g. both edit warred, but one violated 3RR and the other did not). --] 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Equally bad editing styles deserve equal treatment. I can see what Charles Mattews is trying to do and do not want him to think I'm wikilawyering - it's just that in tricky situations the opposing sides will grab onto any incident of supposed unfair treatment to distract from the business at hand. ] 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I suggest people update themselves at ]: el Lobo circumventing the block with a dynamic IP, and going on at length about my supposed bad faith. Well, I would say this proves my point (ironically and naturally enough, el Lobo feels the block proves el Lobo's point). Take your pick. I have asked another admin to deal with all that, of course. ] 15:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :All that shows is that he was provoked by apparent mistreatment. To harm people, then complain when they react to it negatively, is unfair and amounts to nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. To use the archetypical example by Desmond Morris, you can't prove that green-haired people are violent by pre-emptively beating them up, then pointing out how they use violence in self-defense. ] 15:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Suit yourself. ] has blocked the IP used. ] 16:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Enough is enough. I've notified A.J.A. and ^^James^^ that I will block them if ''either'' of them reverts the article again. Participating in a month-long revert war is disruptive and unproductive. I'm hoping that both of them will be encouraged to sit down, discuss, and edit productively—because they've been given no choice. If someone wants to call me a ], so be it. ](]) 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, as a matter of fact I consider threatening me with a ban for someone else's actions '''highly abusive'''. ] 20:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Er, there seems to be some confusion here. To be clear, I would only block the party that reverted the article. I have no intention of holding one party responsible for the other's behaviour. ](]) 22:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Improper Username== | |||
| I understand that this user's username, ], is not allowed under our rules, since s/he's apparently not a bot. I am not sure what the remedy is - so I am simply submitting this issue to the sysops' attentions. I have not warned him about it. Thanks. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 12:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A quick note, pointing out that "bot" is best left to actual bots, and pointing the user to ] would be fine. I'll take care of it. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit needed on protected template == | |||
| Just need an admin to make ] to {{tl|tlp}}. <b>]]]</b><sup>(TheJabberwock)</sup> 14:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Misuse of userpages? == | |||
| I have listed at ] ] a userpage by a user with no edits except to it. I think this is an interesting test case for precedent, and would urge people to stop by and comment. ] 16:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Unquestionably MySpace-style self-promotion, especially given that she created this some 2.5 months ago and hasn't made an edit since. She's been of what ] and, apparently, hasn't been around to see it. Absent her involvement in remedying the situation, I would support the deletion. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 17:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Unisouth == | |||
| Despite multiple warnings and previous blocks, ] continues to blank articles, upload copyrighted images that he does not own (claiming them to be his own work), removing "adverse" comments from his Talk page, and other such vandalism. -- ] 17:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Copyvio images deleted (I got one, someone else got the other). <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandal swarm == | |||
| I've been targeted by the nice folks from ] because of my involvement with an AfD of ] earlier today; thanks to lots of folks keeping an eye on it, the vandals have been getting reverted quickly, but this suggests I'm going to be targeted for a while. Any chance of semi-protection for a while? It's getting annoying. ] 02:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Your user page has been semi-protected. Please let me know when you would like it removed. ] 02:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** Much appreciated. ] 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Urine/Piss Feces/Shit == | |||
| ] (] • ]) has decided to move a number of articles to make them more vulgar instead of using the correct (medical) terms. Unfortunately, I don't have the mop so I'm posting here to see if an admin could help. Thanks --]<font color="green">]</font><sup>( | ] | ] )</sup> 02:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Done. ] 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed, actually; the repairing user forgot to close the opening comment within ] and Firefox rendered the page blank. Also, I've given the user a short block to prevent immediate recurrences. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 02:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! --]<font color="green">]</font><sup>( | ] | ] )</sup> 03:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Easter egg linkspammer == | |||
| All of ]'s ] consist of adding links to an easter eggs site to various video game articles. They have been warned previously, and some of the spam was reverted, but they have since done it again. There are way too many to practically revert manually.--] <small>(])</small> 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked for 1 day. — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Blocked indefinitely. --] 04:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Little help? == | |||
| It would be great if someone (or several someones) could help me clear out the backlog at ] and ]. (It would also be great if someone could explain to me why we have two separate categories for this.) Thanks! ] (] • ]) 09:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :They are two seperate cat's because one is for images with no tag, and the other is for editors who are unsure of the copyright status. Will try and help out a bit. --<b><font color="666666">]</font><font color="#000000">]</font></b><sup> (])</sup> 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::But adding <nowiki>{{subst:nld}}</nowiki> to an image adds a tag saying "This image does not have information on its copyright status" but puts it into ], so that category is also for images with no tag. ] (] • ]) 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm doing a few now. ]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! ] (] • ]) 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The two are slightly different: ] is for images that simply don't have a tag: they may have license information in some other form, such as a statement of "I release this under the GFDL". ] is for images where someone has actively determined that there is not enough information to apply a license tag to the image. Most, but not all, of the images in the first category belong in the second. --] 02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] edits and uploads == | |||
| If someone would look into ] (]) edits and image uploads. People on the ] article keep warning this user and he keeps uploading all his images as ''I, the creator of this work'', as they pretty sure are not (note the pattern of Copyright problems a week ago). For example a recent image ] was one of those claims of his creations while it was a copyvio. ] 16:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ive caught a bunch, but this user gives me the impression his image searches have been in some Brasilian language with which I'm unfamiliar. There are more to go. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] self-promotion== | |||
| His only work is the article ]. Self-promotion, but well, I don't care for now. He also contributes under a number of IP's, check for those. As long as the self-promotion would be limited to this single article: no problem, however, from time to time he inserts his name into other articles, mostly unnoticed; causing real factual errors, like listing himself als BBC World Music Awards nominee on ] etc.... I don't really know how to handle this , I've put some user warning templates on his talk page (or those of his ip's) as I came across restoring his POV spamming, but he has removed warnings before, and I suppose he'll just continue his personal vanity article and small unnoticed additions in some other articles... --] 18:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I put one of those notices on the talk page notifying readers that he is engaging in autobiography.''']''' | ] 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Netscott blocked == | |||
| I have blocked {{user|Netscott}} (24 hours) for disruption, trolling and WP:POINT violating in creating ] with the edit summary 'another one to delete'. --] ] 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've unblocked him per his own request. I've warned him not to violate WP:POINT again. One reason I've unblocked him is so his ] can move forward. <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 22:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Did you discuss this with Doc first? ] ] 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure if there is any sort of a standard policy on whether a blocking admin watches a blocked user's talk page but after my blocking I ] to the block and did not recieve a single response. This is is one of the reasons why I requested an <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> some hours later. ] 07:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I was watching the page. But I was not on-line. The reason I posted here was so that other admins could take the matter up. If Netscott has learned his leason, then I'm content with the unblock. --] ] 20:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Cyde and ] == | |||
| ] tried to join CAUBXD, and as most of us know, he is a userbox deletionist. When ] tried to remove his name from the list, he came up with the following threat in the edit summary: | |||
| ''You have no right to deny me membership. If you do I will block you, and delete this page and all of your userboxes.'' () | |||
| ''']]]]'''] 20:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I originally thought Cyde was trying to be disruptive, so I removed his name. However, he explained to me later that he just meant it in light-hearted humor. So, in ], I accepted that explanation; I don't think he was ''really'' trying to block us all, at least. The statement was a bit too aggressive though, in my humble opinion. ] ] 20:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What part of me saying "Goddamn that Cyde he's gone waaaay too far. We need to organize, mobilize, and stop him." doesn't indicate ''joke'' to you? --] 20:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Any organisation the limits or accepts people for "personal reasons" can't be good... ''']''' ]|] 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Definitely occurs to be humor to me. In fact I'm certain about it. The attacks on Cyde, on the other hand ("list of enemies"?!?). Come on people...let's get back to building an encyclopedia, not myspace. ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 20:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What is this ]? Combative, inflammatory attitudes - not to mention votestacking - are not welcome at Misplaced Pages. I strongly recommend reconsidering the group's mission. ] 20:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Anyone else seen ] particularly this edit "Please delete the messages from your talk pages once this page is deleted. Thank you (for covering everything up)." --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow, just wow. So now it's a covert vote-stacking campaign? I guess they don't realize how page histories work ... --] 20:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Or ], or apparently the whole Wiki idea, either - ] 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've ]. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think a collective RfC (or even an RfAr) would not be out of line at this point. I mean, this is high school crap. ] ] 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It's a damn good thing I'm not ] around here, or else I'd be inclined to CheckUser the organizers of this; why do I think some of our banished Userboxen Activists are back??? -- ] <i><sub>]</sub></i> 00:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry that you think that my good intentions were in fact a conspiracy by the underground --]] 00:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: How does good intentions square with requests to cover this up and act in secret? --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 07:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : If you were ] you wouldn't need to use checkuser...] 02:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::If he were God Emperor he would have instigated the whole thing to force wikipedia to evolve. ] 20:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Balkan articles being Balkan articles, we're predictably enough in the midst of another round of charming edit-warring using broken English and unsourced statements. One side wants us to believe that ] is consigned to history instantly, while another is fixated on claiming electoral fraud. A neutral eye and willingness to keep things on the level would be appreciated, particularly because this is a high-profile article at present. I've worked on the article too much contentwise to serve as a 100% above-board referee, so I'm reluctant to push 3RR myself. ] 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I'm not sure if it has any relevence on Misplaced Pages, but Avillia was blocked indefinantly as an page move vandal on another wiki. I know he's not vandalizing this Wiki or anything, but Avillia doesn't have the cleanest record here (4-5 blocks in the last month). Does things that happen in other wiki's apply at Misplaced Pages? ]] 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you confirm that it is indeed the same person on both languages/wiki? Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 00:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here is on the other wiki. The indef blocked template isn't exactly the nicest thing I ever read, but he is blocked for being a page move vandal none the less. Here are from that wiki also. Nothing 100% there to link the two together but thier names. ]] 00:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It doesn't look like they are the same users; the only blocks are about 3rr, disruption, nothing about vandalism. (well in fact, just read the ], the contributions also show vandal-fighting) '']'' <sub>]</sub> 01:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just because it says that on his userpage, that doesn't mean that automatically disqualifies him from being the vandal on the other wiki. I know I should ] here, but it's getting pretty hard. ]] 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think we can take action for here for something that happened at another wiki (particularly one that's not a Wikimedia project). If he straightens himself out here, we should respect that. On the other hand, two admins have already tried to indef block him and been overturned, and if he continues in the direction he's been going sooner or later one will stick. ] 01:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I asked him and he SAYS it's not him, FWIW. ] 01:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Their talk styles are similar but not so similar as to make them clearly the same editor. For now, we shouldn't take any action because even if they are the same editor, this is very off-wiki. ] 02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Not me. Also, note the word ''overturned''. Also, what direction ''am'' I going in? Also, fancy ''italic'' words. --] ] 02:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh yeah? Well, I'll see your fancy ''italic'' words and raise you '''boldface''' words. How do you like '''them''' apples? --] | ] 02:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''''Boldface italic'''''. I'm raking 'em in here. ] 02:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I find it ironic that as soon as I mentioned the Avillia vandal on the other wiki here, that a appear on the other wiki even after the Avillia's have been missing on that wiki since April. Oh well, I guess it's just a coincidence. I will assume good faith with this Wiki's Avillia. ]] 03:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In fancy list form. | |||
| :::::*YTMNDWiki's structure (ANI, CSD, STUBS) and it's similarity to Misplaced Pages easily suggest that those who got the Wiki created have a fair grasp of Misplaced Pages's ] bureaucracy. | |||
| :::::*My userpage comes up first in a Google search for Avillia, a search query which mostly contains references which are mine, by the way. | |||
| :::::*I'm at least somewhat known on the YTMND forums, for my direct involvement there once apon a time and my involvement in a break-off forum. | |||
| :::::*And, just for the sake of Tinfoil Hattery, do you really think I would go on YTMNDWiki with the name Avillia and blatantly vandalise ''again'' '''''knowing''''' that YTMNDWiki was under watch by Misplaced Pages? Compare to the IRC exploitation just before the second attempt to indefinite block me. | |||
| ::::Food for thought. --] ] 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just to be clear: just because someone on another wiki has the same username as someone here doesn't mean that they're the same person. Anyone can register an account name on that wiki; it's a known vandal technique, especially on other Wikimedia projects. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know, thats why I already said I would assume good faith with ] as long as I don't find conclusive evidence he's the same person as . ]] 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Napster Update== | |||
| I've posted an update to ] at ]. In short, they said they've stopped but they haven't; I reminded them. Please post only at VP. ] - ] 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == I've caused a problem at ] == | |||
| To make a long story short, I think I forgot to include "noinclude" when nominating ] for speedy deletion. It's been deleted, so I would have guessed that the user pages would no longer be listed as candidates for speedy deletion and that the problem would now be moot. There are still 4 user pages up for deletion, though (oddly enough, ], who has the said template transcluded, is ''not'' up for deletion). I've tried a variety of refreshes and purges, but nothing has worked. ] 05:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm not an admin, but null edits (via the ]) seemed to work. --]]]] 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I thought the need for null edits went away when they fixed some problem or problems recently, but I guess not. ] 06:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It appears to depend on exactly what kind of null edit is needed. A change to the category on a template that is transcluded will repopulate the category very quickly. I've noticed however that if something is deleted with the category still intact, the article will continue to show up in the category for a while (forever? I haven't gone back to look) and may need a null edit if its a concern. ] 11:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That would explain a few other, unrelated, things that I've been wondering about. Thanks! ] 23:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Vote stacking? == | |||
| I apologize for the vagueness, but I don't want to be making unfounded accusations. If I were to come across a list (on someone's user page) of people who have shown up together in several situations, including to comment on deletion discussions, should I mention it here (or somewhere else)? ] 09:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == move request == | |||
| Hi. I'm trying to move ]-->], albeit talk page, yet because of the existence of the target page I can't. please help. thank you.--]<sup>]</sup> 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You need to go to ]. Cheers! ] 13:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{User|J.Smith}}== | |||
| Hello, i am an anonymous role account of another wikipedian, my password is ''swordfish''. please inspect my account to confirm that i am a benign role account and am not hiding anything malicious--] 13:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've blocked the account permanently, as you've just compromised it. ]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 13:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Recent page move to ]== | |||
| There was a recent page move that was put into effect from ] to the above page. The result was that the edit history of the above page was wiped out - which was a mistake. The page move should have been a simple redirect, but the admin who put it in didn't read the discussion page carefully. As a result, 4 months worth of edit histories were wiped out, and a previously protected page (]) was replaced with a mock-up that was thrown together on the redirect page ]. I'm requesting that the edit history of the Yogiraj page be restored so that the full record of 4 months worth of edit history not be lost. ] 14:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] is being a bit misleading here. The consensus (4-1) was specifically for a page move, with only himself calling for a redirect, as can be seen at ]. There are, I believe, no objections to merging the page histories, provided that the intent is not to resurrect old disputed content. However, a look at ] might be in order before determining whether restoration of the old edit history would be a wise idea. Most of the complaints in this RfC involve ]'s attempts to subvert consensus and moderation through edit warring involving this specific article. —] 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Linkspammer == | |||
| All but one edit by ] from April 20 onwards has been to add review links to the same site to various game articles. The only exception is the English cricket clubs edit.--] <small>(])</small> 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Reverted and warned. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Jesus On Wheels isn't Willy on Wheels == | |||
| Please take a look at <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • ] • )</span>. A look at his user page, talk page, and contributions shows that he's just someone who's gone by this name before, and is unfortunately associated with Willy on Wheels. | |||
| Looks like he's been indef banned by an admin who isn't currently online (]). I'd like to unblock him, but I'm not sure if this constitutes wheel warring, and as I have yet to unblock a user blocked by someone els, I thought I'd run it by here first. --] ] 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I am currently online. The block isn't based directly on the willy on wheels connection but as per ], "Names of religious figures such as "God" or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs". "Mohammed on wheels", "Allah on wheels" etc. would be similarly offensive. The fact that he is known under that name elsewhere makes it no less offsensive, if we got someone here saying they had always been known as "fuck you" (to choose an extreme example) we'd still block as an inappropriate username. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, okay. I'm assuming you're not going to reconsider even after the comments in your talk page by other people? --] ] 17:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dunno if that's so cut-and-dried—millions of people are named Jesus. The user certainly '''should''', however, pick another username merely for the "*oW" connection, intended or not. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 17:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| He should certainly change his username. Any of us who sees 'Jesus on Wheels' in their watchlist will be automatically reaching for the banhammer. It's unfortunate that he's had it for so long, but this is because he hasn't made many edits and few of them have been in articlespace. Now that he's been noticed, the name needs to be changed. Although it's an old account, WoW is a year older than him. I don't believe ] has a statute of limitations. (after edit conflict: plus what Pgk pointed out about religious names). --]<sup>]</sup> 17:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is it just me or does ]'s signature read ''Myrtone@Jesus On Wheels.com.au''? ]] 17:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| After some discussion, I've decided to unblock as I've seen his edits and they seem fine. If someone can convince him that he should change his name, that'll be even better, but judging by his comments on his user page and talk page, that seems unlikely (but I tried anyway). --] ] 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| He will probably get blocked over and over again, that's just the way things are, because of our experiences with WoW. He can either accept that and change his username, or not accept that and accept getting blocked everytime an admin sees his name come by. It might be his username in other places, but on Misplaced Pages, it just won't work. --]<font color="green">]</font>] 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Christian views of Hanukkah== | |||
| Hi guys, I would very much appreciate it if someone went over my closing of ]. This has gone to something of an argumentative Deletion Review and I would welcome some experienced eyes having a look. I am fairly sure that I made the right decision but, rather unsurprisingly, some people are very upset with the result and are highjacking the review to this end. I do not wish to appear to be vote chasing, but the existence of the process implies that I have made a pretty major error of judgement, something I take very seriously, and I would like some neutral eyes to evaluate it. Thanks for reading. ] 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Could someone take a look at this article? Is this "license" Misplaced Pages-compatible? If it is, should it? —'']'' 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:29, 24 May 2006
| This project page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion because: nonsense crap, speedy G4 ts1. For valid criteria, see CSD. nonsense+crap%2C+speedy+G4+ts1NA
If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message. Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
Note to administrators: this page has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.This page was last edited by 152.163.100.200 (contribs | logs) at 04:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (18 years ago) |
Administrators' noticeboard is the last surviving formula for toilet bowl cleaning and structuewthauirewthairewt ai 43ya6 y43y6 743y6