Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive29

Blocking self-identified pedophiles

The userbox Template:User pedophile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a great way of identifying those users who consider themselves to be pedophiles. I plan on indefinitely blocking any user who includes this template. I've already blocked the only user to include this template, Joeyramoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. If a someone has sexual thoughts about children, keep it to yourself and stay off Wikipedia. I can't even imagine the PR nightmare that the Wikimedia Foundation would face if articles were being written by self-identified pedophiles. Carbonite | Talk 14:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - children edit Wikipedia! We don't want Wikipedia to be the kind of place where things like this happen. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't we already have at least one article that was written by self-identified pedophiles? --cesarb 14:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Block on sight. No quarter. El_C 14:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this some strange attempt to test the limits of the 'all are welcome regardless of their views' policy which is one of the fundamental aspects of Wikipedia? Or can you actually point to the section in the blocking policy which justifies this? David | Talk 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an application of common sense. There is universal condemnation of pedophiles (and rightly so). Allowing known pedophiles to edit could also endanger younger users. I'd support adding language to the blocking policy to formally justify the blocking of self-identified pedophiles. Carbonite | Talk 14:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Only three small problems with that.

1. Allowing unknown pedophiles to edit (which we already do) is at least as dangerous as allowing known pedophiles to edit, and probably more so.
2. Allowing pedophiles to edit at all is not dangerous. Or perhaps the missing apostrophe added by a pedophile will cause harm to your children?
3. Having condemned pedophiles, will we next move onto terrorists? How about drug dealers? Islamic fundamentalists? Doctors who support euthanasia? WP:NOT a morality brigade. Stevage 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely the safety of young Wikipedians (from possible harm of the variety reported to have occured due to chatroom encounters) and Wikipedia's reputation as a safe for all website counts? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any private chat areas on Wikipedia, and we keep all edits. Have you considered the possibility that (a) people who include the template may not actually be paedophiles but just including it to inflame other people, (b) Wikipedia may have users who are paedophiles but don't want to include the template and identify themselves as such for fairly obvious reasons? If the problem is the template, then delete it. But Wikipedia does not ban people merely because they have committed crimes, not even if the crime was murder or treason. So I don't see that this blanket ban is justified. David | Talk 14:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the safety of the younger Wikipedians (as in the chatroom incidents), not the fact that a user is a criminal or not. I'm also thinking of Wikipedia's reputation - we don't want parents to forbid their children from editing when they see confessed paedophiles roaming about. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that Joeyramoney also indicates that he is a mutant, that his user page is BS, and that he is 16. Under the standard definition of the term he can't be a pedophile because he isn't an adult yet. Sex between minors is not typically considered 'pedophilia'. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Even at 16, I think he'd put a little thought into putting a "pedophilia" template on his user page. If he placed it there in error or as a joke, he can explain this on his talk page. If it is a joke, it's about as funny as identifying oneself as a member of the KKK or a Nazi. Carbonite | Talk 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we automatically block self-identified KKK or Nazis? Anyway, blocking for use of a template seems pointless — in this case, it's almost certainly a joke, and the kind of pedophiles that are actually going to be stalking children aren't going to advertise their problem on the userpage. —Cleared as filed. 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is a joke, then the user should be unblocked, with a warning to use better judgement in the future. I'm sure it will be a rare occasion when someone identifies themself as a pedophile, but should that happen, that person will be blocked. If another admin believes that pedophiles should be editing, they may unblock and I won't reblock. I'm not going to wheel war over this, but I do think it's just common sense. Carbonite | Talk 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, that analogy. Last I checked, people aren't blocked for being members of the KKK or being Nazis. Nor are they blocked for believing the Holocaust didn't happen, or being murderers, being rapists, being convicted fraudsters. They are blocked when they actually go and do something grossly inappropriate - like writing about how lynchings are a good way to keep the race pure, or how the Jewish conspiracy controls wikipedia, or threatening to hunt someone down and stab them - but, traditionally, we wait until they actually do that.

And, on a more pragmatic note, as many people have noted - I really doubt hunkering by {{User pedophile}} is going to be a productive way to actually find the people we might have to worry about... Shimgray | talk | 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all those hideously deviant views he has expressed about, er, obscure songs by the Who. To the best of my knowledge, we already do have self-identified (by actual words, and everything) paedophiles on wikipedia; I'm sure I remember someone screaming about it before. If you feel so strongly about this issue, dealing with them would surely be more productive than blocking someone who seems to be playing with userboxes. Shimgray | talk | 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Joeyramoney is a very silly boy troll, not a paedophile; I've no objection to blocking him for the former. But We don't block people for their sexual orientations. Condemnation of paedophile orientation (as opposed to activity) is certainly not something Wikipedia or its administrators should be engaging in. Mark^{your words} 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

He's neither. He is a typical teenage boy... and while I found that a loathesome breed even when I was one I doubt it ought to be a blockable offense. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad consensus seems to indicate that blocking people for their beliefs is unacceptable. -- Ec5618 15:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia is a belief in the same way that hating all blacks is a belief. We don't want either here on Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Racist users are welcome on Wikipedia but they must leave their prejudices out of their article editing. Likewise any editor who edits an article to express the opinion that sex with children is good is liable to be blocked. But those who include the template are not doing that. Carbonite, I think you should lift your block as it seems to be against consensus. David | Talk 15:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I will not lift it. As I stated above, I also won't reblock should another admin see fit to unblock. I will play no part in allowing pedophiles (or those identifying themselves as such) to edit Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There was an article about pedophiles on Wikipedia a couple of months ago: "Online Encyclopedia Is a Gathering for Internet Predators: Who Is Editing Your Children's Encyclopedia?". Apparently, one of the leaders of the movement for "pedophile rights" has an account and edits pedophilia-related articles (pedophilia, childlove movement) to ensure that they are NPOV (as in, take into account the pedophiles' rights POV). It's a typical piece of sensational journalism, but it's interesting that no news agency picked up the story and ran with it. It was right around the whole Seigenthaler thing, so it's possible that story acted a smokescreen. Who knows what would happen if it were a slow news day and someone at CNN or ABC discovered this now. — BrianSmithson 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

BAOU/"OfficialWire" is run by the same guy behind QuakeAID - and WikipediaClassAction.org - who would publish "WIKIPEDIANS EAT BABIES" if someone suggested it to him. Reading that article may give you some idea as to the veracity of his journalism... Shimgray | talk | 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We can't cower in the face of possible ignorant press reporting. The response to the Siegenthaler incident was not a complete ban on articles about living people, but a measured change about anons starting new articles. David | Talk 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

For those of the opinion that blocking pedophiles is wrong because it's blocking someone based on their belief, can anyone name another belief that is so universally condemned? Carbonite | Talk 15:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial. Don't think there's a snazzy userbox for it, but there's sure a lot of them on Wikipedia. Shimgray | talk | 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Or canibalism perhaps? Homosexuality, not too long ago? We mention sex, while not too long ago, that was strictly taboo.

Still, no matter what your personal feelings, or indeed, the personal feelings of everyone on the planet and in history, as long as an editor's feelings don't stand in the way of editing Wikipedia fairly, there is no problem. -- Ec5618 15:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that. There's a fair percentage of people that could be classified as "holocaust deniers" to some extent. There are even occasional insinuations of denail by rather prominent people. Can you imagine a person in a powerful position even hinting or joking that they liked 8 year-old girls? Carbonite | Talk 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Richard the Lionhearted, et cetera... and you miss the point. Once you get into saying 'unacceptable - ban on sight' you've got to deal with the people who say the same about homosexuality, inter-racial marriage, et cetera. These things were 'universally condemned' once too... and still reviled by many to this day. There was a time (centuries ago) when pedophilia was generally accepted. Views change. I'm not saying that pedophilia will (or should) become accepted again, but that it is inherently wrong to persecute people for their beliefs - no matter what those beliefs may be. And in this case the 'vile horrible monster' may simply have been implying that he likes to have sex with people his own age. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

People who beleive in/practice Holocaust denial, beastiality, eugenics, racism, murder, rape, vivisection, abortion, any religion you care to name, invading other nations, capital punishment, female circumcision, sexism, universal suffrage, slavery, counterfeiting, file sharing, terrorism, democracy, communism, lolicon, drinking alcohol, the KKK, homosexuality, gay marriage, evolution, etc, etc, etc, are or have all been villified and hounded to the same or greater extent by the majority of their society as peadophiles currently are. I am not aware of anyone who has been blocked for proclaiming support for any of these - as long as they do not violate NPOV or other Wikipedia policies. The same should be true about peadophilia - if we block paedophiles then we are violating the NPOV ourselves by proclaiming that one side is wrong. I will unblock anyone blocked solely for their beliefs. Thryduulf 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Because real paedophiles that are intent on grooming on Wikipedia will really place a siren on their user page to indicate that they are indeed paedophiles. The template should be deleted, and while it might be worthwhile blocking people because they are paedophiles doing so on the basis of this template is crazy. violet/riga (t) 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to unblock. The kid's page is perhaps a good argument for banning non-encyclopedic userboxes, and maybe a good argument for banning 16-year-olds, and possibly a good argument for banning twits, but we really need to differentiate between banning people for who they are and banning people for what they do. Much as I loathe (for example) Holocaust deniers, until they start putting their crap on article pages, they're just people with stupid ideas. Since most teenagers are pedophiles by definition (since the law considers adolescents to be children), as already pointed out, he can't be one. So, if I were the sort of admin willing to unilaterally start block/unblock wars rather than discussing the issue, the kid would already have been (a) unblocked and (b) told in no uncertain terms his user page makes him have zero credibility and destroys any possible assumption of good faith. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Per the objections above, I have unblocked. For all we know, we could have a convicted murderer editing Wikipedia from jail, and I see no reason to object to that. If people are using WP to "pick up" children they deserve a ban; but if they're nonactive pedos, presently in jail, or people with a sick sense of humor that's not for us to deal with. >Radiant< 15:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am worried by the wording "no obligation to permit deviants to edit". Am I going to be next to be blocked? Morwen - Talk 15:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably it's like "no obligation" in the same way nobody has a "right" to edit Wikipedia/how all editors are welcome to edit at Jimbo's whim. --AySz88^-^ 16:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Morwen. There will always be enough of us 'deviants' (so classified by some group or another for whatever reason) around that this kind of thing will never happen. Completely 'normal' people are so rare as to be the most deviant of all. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. Agreed, and for this reason I am blocking you because your philosophy deviates from the norm on Wikipedia. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO, if these editors have not violated any of our policies, especially the cornerstones like WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, etc. (and haven't preyed on minors like *gasp* me), they shouldn't be blocked. If they start pushing the child-sexing POV or coming on to minors, then give no quarter. But otherwise...well, it's not our problem if they get caught, right? (If Jimbo/the Foundation has decreed that these perverts go, then I'm all for it. But until then, there is no reason to block some people just for admitting they want to have sex with minors.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I will lift, on request or when I notice, blocks on people that are unrelated to their edits or other valid rasons for keeping people off of Wikipedia. If someone is on death row for murder, and is somehow on the internet and is making good edits, then they may edit here. --Improv 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Helloooooo, moral panic. We've had pedophiles on Wikipedia for over two years and nobody's gotten hurt. User:Zanthalon, User:LuxOfTKGL among others. We've also had a mailing list thread about this here: [1]. I will work with Improv to unblock anyone who is being blocked for reasons unrelated to their contributions. Ashibaka tock 17:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Improv above. I have to add that whilst I find the block to have been made in good faith, I would ask that no-one issue a block on the basis of a user box displayed on a user page, but rather discuss the issue here first, for starters. Also, anyone with any concerns regarding someones paedophilic tendencies should ask themselves:

• Am I concerned enough to notify the police? If yes, then don't issue a ban, contact the police, a ban may disturb a police investigation. If no, don't issue a block, your concerns are probably groundless; otherwise you would have notified the police. Hiding talk 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well said. And in any case, bans are supposed to be reactive, based on blockable offenses? Beliefs aren't blockable offenses, so why assume guilty until proven innocent? Thoughts aren't inherently wrong, but actions can be. ~MDD4696 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm thinking now that it probably was wrong to block Joeyramoney merely for using that template - considering that it makes no difference, and Ashibaka's just proved that. Also, that block was not permitted by the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• We have people of all ages editing, we do not want or need those who have an inclination or even pretension towards paedophilia. Those that state even in jest that this is their orientation should be banned permanently. Our talk pages may be public, but contact can lead to email contact and then God knows what. It's just not worth the risk. Ban them. Giano | talk 17:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is like discussing abortion, there are legitimate concerns both for and against. First thing, that template must go, the TfD seems to be going in that direction so far. Also, to address your concern Giano, if a user has such motives, using that template will be the last thing he'll do. The users you are worried about are impossible to identify; banning the users who do use the template are probaly the harmless users without intention to harm anyone. Many'll probably use it as a joke! --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Calm down everyone. The user in question was just trolling. Even if he did put that box up there to be serious, we would not know if he just was attracted to children (of some young or very young age, who knows...) or if he also tries to trick them into getting into his grasp. Also note that attraction to younger aged people was tolerated long ago, so an attraction alone is not strictly immoral, like Nazism. Although a serious age difference and the possible connotations of such a template do disturb me greatly. I don't mind if a racist or a zoophile or a person who is attracted to girls edits articles constructively. As long as they do not actually try to do anything. And as someone pointed out, active Pedos will likely act like normal people until it is too late. I do consider the context of such templates to be questionable, and like most userbox templates that get people angry, it was just an inflamatory, uncontructive peice of garbage. Nevertheless, it does not warrant an indef. block. Let us at least hear the voice of all before stripping it away on sight just because we reject someone's ideas or invuluntary attractions (such as perhaps homosexuality).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• What I'm worried about is the wheel warring. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. DO NOT DELETE. Obviously, if other admins challenge it, then it is not as Speedy. It looks like a well colored pretty little template; not bold red or inflammatory threats. It is TfDed yes? Then go there and vote delete, that is what I am going to do (as opposed to unilateral deletion after it was challenged).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Less than a generation ago homosexuals were persecuted in small towns because it was assumed they were after little boys - which was rubbish. So you cannot equate homosexuality and paedophilia - the paedophile is after children no question. If someone claims to be that way, even in jest, get rid of them. Fast. Giano | talk 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is "equating" them...whatever that means. I am saying that "everyone HATES it" is a weak ad populum argument that sets a bad precedent here, if allowed as justification to indef. block.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, I sure am glad I live in such a wonderfully rational world where people who want to kill jews and blacks en masse are held in obviously higher regard than people who have sexual thoughts about children (i.e. doubleplusungood crimethink). // paroxysm (n) 18:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed...While agree with TfD'ing the template, I do not agree with over the top comparisons like "If it is a joke, it's about as funny as identifying oneself as a member of the KKK or a Nazi". Having an attraction is not the same as actually doing anything. I can not stress these points enough. It seems as if there is little sense of moral priority here: some of the comments here seem to suggest that people think that either you are a Pedo and the Nazis or good person. I see quite a gap between mass-murder and thoughts.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in the Wikipedia namespace regarding things like moral panics? --AySz88^-^ 21:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I now understand how deeply stupid (in the best of faith) ideas grow in the depths of Wikipedia: anyone with half a clue runs screaming in case their brain melts and falls out their head, and the stupid discussion grows feeding on itself. Anyone who thinks this template was put there as anything other than a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks has judgement too grossly defective (in the best of faith) to take seriously - David Gerard 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's try assuming good faith, please. Your comments on this issue have been condescending, inflammatory, and not at all helpful. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Could not have said it better. Thanks for deleting and creating blank. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this fall under WP:NOT, specifically the censorship for minors section? If anything identifiying themselves would allow us to atleast monitor their actions? If we ban them they will just come back, under anon IP, or another username. Mike _{(T C)} 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I created it because I thought it might be useful, not as a "vehicle for trolling and personal attacks." // paroxysm (n) 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

... - David Gerard 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconding DG's comments. But the idea of blocking people for using controversial templates is stupid. The Land 21:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And not allowed, please read WP:BLOCK, this would not be a valid reason for blocking. Prodego ^talk 22:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether Carbonite was genuinely trolling for pedophiles, as he claims or simply trolling for gullible admininstrators. By the very nature of the troll, he was bound to find one or the other. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So, someone creates a stupid template. Then stupid people use the template. Then we get into this stupid discusion. So, I say we all go and do something less stupid. Wheee!.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am seriously going to lobby Brion to allow us to block 0.0.0.0/0. Sometimes it would be a great deed to the encyclopedia. Think of all the sockpuppets, pagemove vandals, and other terrible people that have been located on that range. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur. All of our bad and stupid edits come from within 0.0.0.0/0. This cannot be allowed to continue. Indeed, I think we would see a significant drop in server load if we were sensible enough to block this range - David Gerard 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But it would cause so many autoblocks! Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And we should stop friends of gays from editing, as well. The Land 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's already policy - David Gerard 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would hate to see this turn into a witch hunt. I think the template was a bad joke, nothing more. I don't think it should be that big a deal. Unless a user actually shows signs, meaning actually being a pedophile, then he/she shouldn't be blocked. I think I misread something too. Above my comment here it says:

we should stop friends of gays from editing

and the response:

That's already policy

You are all making it sound like you want to block anyone who has an original thought in their head. I think unless someone's actually vandalizing, I don't think they should be blocked for thier beliefs. — Moe ε 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The imidately proceeding part of the conversation was a joke.Geni 23:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, convicted paedophiles should be blocked on sight from editing Wikipedia. I believe in the rights of people irrespective of class, creed, orientation, gender, etc but morally I draw the line at criminal acts, and potentially criminal acts, involving the sexual exploitation of young people. Many Wikipedia users are themselves children. Many registered users are children. The claim that everything is above board and open is patent nonsense. Paedophiles groom children for exploitation. A paedophile here would have no difficulty in doing that. All they need to do is to target people they know are underage children here through dishonest friendships on talk pages, then use the private emails to make direct contact and use their status as a registered user, or even an admin, to gain the trust of the young user. We already have claims of users tracing private telephone numbers of other users. One user was subject to verbal abuse from someone who stalked them through tracing their whereabouts. In those cases both the victim and the stalker were adults. The idea of what could have happened if one of them was a child and one a paedohile who used Wikipedia to get in contact with them is too horrifying to contemplate. One such scandal if it happened and became public in the media or a court case would destroy's WP's reputation and lead to boycotts by schools, bans by parents, media condemnation, and a host of other problems.

I'll be quite blunt: if I find a paedophile on Wikipedia who in any way abuses their position for sexual reasons with another user, I will block them indefinitely immediately and report them immediately to the police. IMHO paedophiles have no place on this encyclopaedia and should leave or be banned. Criminals who are child rapists don't belong on an encyclopaedia frequented by children. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt you'll find any opposition to this. —bbatsell ¿? 01:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I will happily oppose Jtdirl's comment. You can't be "convicted" of pedophilia; that's nonsensical. You're making gross generalizations and generally equating all pedophiles with child molesters, which is a claim you'll have to back up with facts. Ashibaka tock 01:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the following statement, which I should have made clear: "I'll be quite blunt: if I find a paedophile on Wikipedia who in any way abuses their position for sexual reasons with another user, I will block them indefinitely immediately and report them immediately to the police." I absolutely agree with your statements. —bbatsell ¿? 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I agree with that too. If I saw anyone using the encyclopedia to make sexual advances I would probably give them {{bv}}. Ashibaka tock 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We should not be blocking any user based solely on self-incriminating statements about themselves, particular statements that are tangential at best to their purpose here. If someone is luring children for illicit purposes on Wikipedia, that's quite a good reason to block them. If someone is adding highly POV information to articles about pedophilia, and refuse to stop, the dispute should be sent to the usual channels. However, if a pedophile, or even a convicted sex offender, decides to add content about Alexander Hamilton or the Pacific Ocean, why should we care about what they've done in the past? No preemptive blocking. Deco 11:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we also create {{user murderer}} to identify individuals who are murderers. Then we can simply block on sight. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-6 05:59

Or {{user troll}}. 87.122.16.1

Ease of editing section break

Before I start I want to say that I've not bothered to read the entire discussion. I don't understand why a self-identified paedophile would be unable to edit an encyclopaedia or engage in a community. Since someone has already used the dubious term "deviant", I think it is important to distinguish firstly between child molesters/rapists and paedophiles. It is not against the law to be a paedophile (that is, having a sexual preference for minors), it is against the law to rape and sexually harass (the physical expression of paedophilia).

Secondly, why is it sensible to block according to peoples' non-voluntary sexual preferences. As was said early on, we wouldn't block someone because they held racist views - we would block a user if they inserted racist POV into an article. Also, we have, and do have, plenty of users who are paedophiles and who edit Wikipedia but do not put a box on their user page. In the 1960s homosexuality, like paedophilia and bestiality, was considered a mental illness. Would it therefore have been justified to succumb to a sensational hysteria and block all homosexuals (being that deviants are unable to edit rationally)?

Finally, I don't use userboxes myself. I don't personally elect to express myself through a combination of templates. Whether it is a good idea to have an infobox stating a sexual preference for minors is another issue. It is something that should be discussed by the community, not acted upon by those users who are undefiable and unquestionable. --Oldak Quill 19:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC) PS. I almost forgot to reiterate that there are no provisos in our blocking policy to allow such blockings.

Your statement is somewhat inflammatory, since many people believe pedophilia is not "involuntary" (in fact, many people even believe homosexuality is voluntary), but this doesn't change the thrust of the idea, that the ability of a user to contribute usefully to Wikipedia does not depend on their sexual preference, morality, or even past criminal history (not to equate this things with pedophilia). Hell, a while ago we heard of a project where inmates were contributing from prison as part of a rehabilitation program, and it was received quite positively! As long as their contributions are positive and they do not threaten other users, I think we should accept anyone. Also, we wouldn't necessarily block if a user inserted racist POV - eventually, maybe, but assuming the edits were in good faith we'd first go through the less drastic channels of revert, discussion, RFC, etc. Deco 19:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing against WP policy in blocking someone who posts a userbox like that because it's intrinsically disruptive. Same for a Holocaust denier, not because they have any particular belief, but because throwing up a user box with an assertion like that is disruptive. However, I'd suggest that any block be preceded by a warning to remove the userbox. Wyss 21:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly legitimate to block SIPs without adopting a specific policy. They are not good for Wikipedia. Block them. Brainhell 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious to the rationale of those who wish to ban an entire class of people (who haven't necessarily done anything wrong in wikipedia) to protect kids, but then claim we don't censor wikipedia for the protection of minors. (That isn't to say I'm fond of pedos, just playing devil's advocate... well I guess pedo's advocate, but I digress). -- Jbamb 17:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't judge book by its cover everyone should have right tto come here!!

Indefinite blocks

I have blocked User:Carbonite, User:El C, and User:Giano indefinitely for hate speech and inciting attacks on other users in regards to their statements on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles --Carnildo 22:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? I looked at Giano's contribs already: [2] and [3]. Both advocate banning self-professed pedophiles from Wikipedia. That's the hate speech you're talking about? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Look here--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a special, advanced form of satire, involving actual indefinite blocks. 9.2 degree of difficulty, if that's satire. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, yes, that's too much. I had assumed that he wouldn'thave done something quite so ridiculous.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Replace "pedophile" with "homosexual", and would you still say it's not hate speech? Banning someone on the grounds of their beliefs or inclinations is not acceptable. Banning someone for their actions is. --Carnildo 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't find hate speach on the list of things admins can block for. The block button is not a toy. Useing is without good reason is not acceptable.Geni 23:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. No call whatsoever for a community-imposed ban, particularly not without prior discussion. The Land 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Carnildo gets a slap on the wrist for violating WP:POINT.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Aww that's it? — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No. User:El C blocked Carnildo. I undid that one as well. Really, wheel warring is bad form. The Land

User:The Land, please sign your comment using four tildes. In response to your comment, I have never wheel warred. My block of Carnildo (who I never met prior to a few minutes ago) was designed to give him a timeout and to prevent other users from being blocked indefinitely. El_C 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, blocking someone does not switch off their admin powers, including rollback and unblocking. That's why admins aren't supposed to unblock themselves - because they can unblock themselves - David Gerard 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

IIRC a recent change in the code makes it so people who are blocked can't rollback, etc. The only thing I believe they still have access to is blocking/unblocking. You might want to ask Rob Church about it. (This was one of the changes that was necessary before we could go to polling on WP:RFR (requests for rollback privileges). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So, remember when I said we should be doing things that are less stupid, like, say, working on the encyclopedia? Yeah.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Noo...that's definately not what members of Wikipedia(R) would be doing! — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo also blocked several other editors along with El C, for publishing so called "hate speech". Hamster Sandwich 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo: minus several thousand for kneejerk reaction and, sorry to say it, stupid call. El_C: minus several thousand for wheel warring. Community: minus several million for letting it become this way. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak: minus <insert favored figure or a crapload of here> points for useless finger-waggling and undiscriminating hosing-down of the entire community. We need to get more specific here. For El C to block Carnildo to stop other good contributors from getting blocked indefinitely (sheesh!) for hate speech seems reasonable enough damage control to me. An RfC on Carnildo for misuse of admin tools would be better, but the amount of time people have to spend on that kind of thing when they could have been editing the encyclopedia is a bit ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

Slap on the wrist for both users. RfA should ask questions like this-- "9. Would you violate WP:POINT if it were a really, really good point?" "10. Would you ignore all rules if you felt really strongly about something, even if other people disagreed?" Ashibaka tock 23:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(In fact, my own opinions aside, the latter is a really good question to ask RfA candidates and I will go add it to some of the open requests. Ashibaka tock 23:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

• Carnildo is not fit to be an administrator he is clearly misguided or plain stupid. Its about time people woke up here and either trained these incompetents or got rid of them. Giano | talk 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hey hey woah woah calm down. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• What... the... hell...! >Radiant< 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think I am going to go and unplug the servers now. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Conclusion: Don't block users for identifying as pedophiles. Don't block users for saying that they support the blocking of users identifying as pedophiles. If this was trolling, it was artful trolling, but let's get back to editing that encyclopedia thing, eh? — Matt Crypto 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• This is absurd. The handing out of indefinite blocks has gone way too far. The only way someone should ever be blocked indefinitely without going through Arbcom is if their only "contributions" consist of blatant vandalism. We're in danger of changing the de facto standard to anything that pisses off an administrator, unless you can get other administrators to defend you. Shame on Carnildo for pulling this nonsense, and shame on the others who have set the precedent for it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It would help if people took a pretty damn blatantly overboard admin a fraction more seriously. Go snigger up your sleeves somewhere else, Linuxbeak, in particular. It is plainly entirely unreasonable for Carnildo to have effected a single one of those blocks, and for someone, nay some people, to talk about it here is entirely reasonable. It's what the page is for. -Splash^talk 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone here needs to take two big, deep breaths and remain calm. Everyone, please mind WP:NPA. — Moe ε 23:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't start with the patronising bluelinks already. -Splash^talk 00:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Knock it off, Splash. Moe Epsilon has said the only thing here worth mentioning, so come off it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all endorsing this action, but how were these blocks more unreasonable than the block that spawned this whole incident? —bbatsell ¿? 00:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So... we have blocks of two people (El C and Carbonite) who are admins and one person (Giano) who (IMHO) should be an admin, all for something that should have - at the very most - resulted in a minor ticking off and reversion. Carnildo's action - at best - can be seen as WP:POINT of a fairly extreme form requiring equal (if not greater) ticking off. Personally, it sounds like RFAr material. I don't agree with the initial blocking that led to this situation - people are entitled to their beliefs and inclinations, no matter how objectionable they may seem to us (actually carrying them out is, of course, another matter) - but the response from Carnildo was equally, if not more, inappropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In Carnildo's defense, I agree that attacking pedophiles is as objectionable as attacking homosexuals, women, etc. Don't suggest they weren't using hate speech, because from several points of view, that is exactly what they were doing. -- Ec5618 00:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference though. Engaging in pedophilia is almost universally criminal in the modern world, whereas most sensible nations are tolerant of homosexuals and women. A better analogy would be attacking murders or rapists. Now, maybe pedophilia desires are not something they can control, and maybe we should be tolerant towards them, but someone that acts on those desires is often destructive and criminal in a way that your examples are not. Dragons flight 00:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Criminal, yes, objectionable, certainly. But under no circumstances is attacking an editor for his or her personal beliefs appropriate. I'm not saying Carnildo was right in blocking these people without propor discussion, but I cannot believe that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to discriminate against anyone. -- Ec5618 00:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

wiktionary:pedophilia <-- Read this. It is impossible to "engage in pedophilia" because that doesn't mean anything. Equating pedophilia to child molestation is scaring people away from discussing a legitimate mental illness. Ashibaka tock 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ec5618 on this one. Blocking those 3 users without proper discussion is objectionable. But attacks are not permitable by any means. At the most those 3 should have got was a warning to not make personal attacks, not indefinitly blocked. Discrimination against anyone is not acceptable. — Moe ε 01:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks for 3 admins for some sort of hazy "hate speech"? This is completely unreasonable! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Giano isn't an admin, at least in the technical sense. But otherwise, yeah.--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems clear that Carnildo is concerned about a very real risk which we have seen played out in many human societies: Moral panic driven hysteria. It is unacceptable to block users who make quality edits and whos behavior is without question simply because of their beliefs or conditions. We already can, and must cope with POV content, so there is no risk in allowing well behaved deviants to edit, and no resulting need for us to pass a moral judgment on their condition be it homosexuality or whatnot, even if such a judgment would be easy to make and easy to justify. It is utterly unacceptable for anyone to abuse our fear of amoral and harmful people and our desire to protect our children to silence people they disagree with. At first I thought Carnildo's response was less than optimum, and that reasoned discussion would be better... But after seeing responses like this, I have to agree with Carnildo's act. McCarthy style attacks are a poison we can not tolerate, and must be stopped in any way necessary. So go ahead, El_C, call me a pedophile just because I don't support a paranoid witch hunt against pedophiles, it will only serve to justify Carnildo's action more. --Gmaxwell 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: So go ahead, El_C, call me a pedophile — A less personalized tone would greatly benefit, GMaxwell's approach to civil discourse, I think. At any rate, my response has already been submitted here, and that is all I will say on the subject at this time. El_C 04:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there some special rule that says you must have the last word? If so, I missed it. :) --Gmaxwell 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That rhetorical device is not "special" (& otherwise extraordinary to me) and remains at one's discretion as per right to leave. El_C 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo showed very poor judgement and lack of self-disipline, without so much as a Mea Culpa. Such actions cannot, nor should not, be tolerated in an admin. However disagreeable someone may be, they should never be indefinately blocked or banned for merely expressing their opinions.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But do you think it is correct for admins to block nondisruptive users purely due to their moral outrage? What about stiring up fear in Wikipedia users in attempt to accomplish the same? In my view that too is not to be tolerated. So what we're left with is mistakes made all around. But the worst of which, wheel warring and false accusations were made not by Carnildo but by those who oppose him. --Gmaxwell 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a hypothetical to consider-What If, instead of pedophiles, the users in question advocated banning, Software pirates or Copyright violators, would you still consider Carnildo's actions justified? Fear of one witch hunt does not justify carrying out another.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd support banning people who user their userpages to advocate software piracy or anything else that would hurt the project, if they refuse to quit. But we must be sure that our actions are based on objectivity and not moral outrage. If someone values their ability to use wikipedia as a platform to advocate something over the goals of our project, then they are not our friends. --Gmaxwell 06:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"I'd support banning people who user their userpages to advocate software piracy or anything else that would hurt the project" So would I. And that's what these pedophile userboxes are basically doing. The only difference-it is a moral hotbutton to most, not all. But irregadless, it is an ILLEGAL activity and could hurt the project. Moral issues aside, this should be the primary consideration.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone is using Wikipedia to violate copyright, or to pirate software, then I'm all in favor of blocking. Likewise, I'm all in favor of banning a pedophile for using Wikipedia to troll for children. These are all actions. But banning someone for being something, whether it is a being a pedophile, or being a Muslim, or being a software pirate is not acceptable: these are things that someone is, and have no direct effect on their contributions to Wikipedia. --Carnildo 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the only reason to perminately ban ANYONE is for their ACTIONS, not their opinions or their advocacy (which is what the pedophile user boxes amount to). I personally think pedophila is more of a choice than a sexual orientation. And advocating it, even if not acted upon it here, is not good for the project or the community. We can always find others willing to contribute who don't pose the same legal risks. Irregardless, your actions were clearly WRONG and show extreamly POOR JUDGEMENT. Do you acknowledge this?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong in blocking Giano. He did not present an immediate threat to the Wikipedia project or to other users. --Carnildo 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you were wrong in all three cases. NONE of them did. The proper course of action now would be for you to offer an apology and your resignation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

None of these actions were acceptable. The whole sequence of events surrounding this ridiculous box are a disgrace. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The blocks where so Horrendously out of policy, that such admins should be blocked or desysoped, this is just ridiculous.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, you're still a loser. But look, haha, all the people follow you like lemmings off a cliff. Boy, is this debate sure headed downhill. Joeyramoney2 08:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for being a block-evading sock. Shall we increase the block length to Joeyramoney? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Joeyramoney2 could be any old troll trying to stir up trouble, not necessarily the same person as Joeyramoney the first. FreplySpang (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey trolls...don't feed em (now where is that cute lil sign..:) I'm not part of the "Cult of Jimbo" here. I don't think his every word is some holy pronouncement. But in this case he did the right thing. Most of the time he does. As for the rest, well, I'm willing to cut the man some slack.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Love and Sunshine on a rainy day

I've desysopped Carnildo for tonight, and leave it to the ArbCom to engage in careful thinking and discussion about what should be done in the longer term. In the meantime, no wheel warring please, and everyone please try to relax and let's write the encyclopedia, eh?

This is a rather historic moment. I believe with some degree of certainty that I have never personally desysopped anyone. On a Sunday night, too.

And a pedophile userbox prank? Please. David was right to speedy it as a blatant disruption. If people want to argue that we should have it, they can do so at their leisure. --Jimbo Wales 01:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sunday night? ... we should be watching the Super Bowl! Ashibaka tock 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it was half-time at 1:18 (UTC). — TheKMan^talk 04:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just stumble across this whole discussion. Sometimes I'm thinking that this whole project would simply fall apart and/or explode without you Jimbo, so thank you very much for your existance. --Conti|✉ 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say something has been happening in the last few days. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but I'd say the overall level of civility around here seems to have decreased sharply. I know correlation is not causation, but perhaps the sysops are a bit more stressed than usual due to the current events? --cesarb 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I Agree 100% that Carnildo should be desysopped, which for tonight, he has. I also agree that Civility on WP has dropped fast. Admins lately have been leaving, wheel warring, and plain just being uncivil. All this is going to turn into is one big RFC. I HATE to disagree with Jimbo but a "pedophile userbox prank" is very possible. — Moe ε 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on Jimbo's talk page. I fear that the Great Userbox War of 2006 will either turn Wikipedia into a closed community or destroy it entirely. I, for one, would not want to be a part of a community that found "This user thinks that the SNES was the last great game console" to be an unacceptable statement on my user page, just as I would not want to work for a company that told me I couldn't put pictures on my cubicle walls. (Companies in the tech field that try to do this kind of thing often don't have very good results with it.) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume Carnildo was desysopped primarily for indefinitely blocking three users without consensus. If so, perhaps Carbonite should also be temporarily desysopped for the indefinite block of a self-identified pedophile that started this incident. Superm401 - Talk 02:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct link (I believe): [4] —bbatsell ¿? 02:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, of course. I have now corrected the link in my original post. However, you beat me to it with this post. I had been going through all the block logs to clear things up for myself, and I copied the wrong one. Superm401 - Talk 02:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, we don't need an RFC about this. Both sides of recent debates about censorship, userboxes, etc. are understandable and don't need to escalate into wheel wars. What we do need is a resolution to the userbox debate specifically, because it is much too stressful. Ashibaka tock 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it all dates back to Kelly's mishandling of the userbox issue, along with Neo's behaviour over templates. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the issues, their mishandling of the incidents created such a breakdown in community trust that everyone seems to mistrust everyone else. It had been unravelling before then but their actions led to a firestorm of anger that is still raging, except that it is now directed elsewhere. So issues that could have been handled (reasonably) calmly are now mired in mistrust and a fear that someone else is going to try to bulldoze something through. As the fiasco over the Mohammad cartoons shows in the Middle East shows, a small issue can ignite an underlying unhappiness, impacting far beyond the original issue. So instead of community trust, we seem to have a lot of "I'll do it to you before you do it to me". But I don't know how we stop it. As WP gets bigger it becomes less manageable, less governable and less of a small community. Organic societies like ours can go one of two ways: they can work or they can implode. WP could go either way. It needs management to avoid implosion, but the problem is that its lack of rules at the start means that some will see that management as controlling and react against it. (Examples: if we had had a policy on userboxes to start off with, we wouldn't have got into the mess that has resulted, leading to Kelly's unilateral mishandling of the situation, in turn producing a negative reaction. If we had from the start a cohesive strategy for photo use we wouldn't have all the bad feeling caused by poorly judged deletions.) It is a complex problem. I expect theses will be written in the future not merely on Wikipedia but with titles such as "WIKIPEDIA: THE ORGANIC EVOLUTION OF A COMMUNITY", "MANAGING DIVERSE COMMUNITIES: THE WIKIPEDIA EXPERIENCE" and "CENTRALISING POWER IN ORGANICALLY EVOLVING ORGANISATIONS: THE WIKIPEDIA EXAMPLE". And the stuff on this page on on for example paedophiles will be analysed in academic papers and books. (Maybe I should write one of my own on WP! lol. But only when I finish the two I am currently writing.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove polemical things from Template: and Category: space, but let people subst: them first, and otherwise let users state rather inflamatory things on their user pages. That is, make it clear such things aren't officially endorsed, and they're discouraged from spreading, but that it's not censorship because people can say (almost) whatever they want on their user page. --Interiot 02:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the proper place to discuss that, use Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes (although I have given up on there because there are too many different opinions). I agree with Jtdirl that Wikipedia's community is becoming big enough to merit sociological studies; LambdaMOO was a hundredth of this size when they started getting into debates about democracy and freedom of speech. In case you're interested, in the end deciding policies by vote became just too stressful and the God-Kings took back their powers. Ashibaka tock 02:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Use of userboxes. This isn't exactly ready to announce, but the gist is there. The proposal is essentially "put the userboxes into the user namespace and treat them like any other user page." --bainer (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not create a separate namespace (Userboxes:) for them? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Same problem as the current template space: we'd have to define rules for it, and nobody would be accountable for creating them. Ashibaka tock 03:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much of the blame just on Kelly. There are a number of long-timers who have taken the stance that their personal ideas of what is best for the encyclopedia are so important and urgent that there is no civil way to approach the issues. The rhetoric seems to be, "If I'm right, I don't have to be civil." And I think the community has somewhat unwittingly encouraged this behavior by making it pay off—the most expedient way to get attention for one's pet issue lately seems to be taking rash action that is bound to raise a ruckus. Allowing "ignore all rules" to be misused in this way with impunity has helped this kind of culture take root. --Tabor 02:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another reason why it's time to take WP:IAR and flush it down the toilet. And to finally get a working de-sysopping procedure in place. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither ignore all rules nor process is important is an overriding philosophy on Wikipedia, what ever the most extremest editors might wish. There is also, may I add, WP:POINT, among many others. Physchim62 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since we're doing novelty today, I'll put on my ruleslawyer hat. Ha! I bet you didn't know I had one!

So actually Ignore All rules, if taken together with together with don't be a dick and neutral point of view, actually does a pretty good job of handeling the encyclopedia. There's no similar trifecta including process is important, at this point in time. Kim Bruning 07:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually there is; Wikipedia:Process is Important, Wikipedia:Snowball clause and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whilst process is important, the latter indicate reasons not to follow them; if an article is deleted through process but through process there isn't a snowball's hell in chance of it remaining deleted, one is simply making a WP:POINT. Hiding talk 11:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you give the example derivations for some of the other wikipedia guidelines, based on those three? Kim Bruning 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that people here were ignoring all rules without the requisite common sense or duty to the encyclopedia, so they could in fact be punished for IARvio ;-). But wait for it! They also violated Don't be a dick. And forget NPOV, they weren't even anywhere NEAR the article namespace. In short, they broke all three rules in the trifecta, and thus should probably be blocked if not deadminned, which oh, by the way they were.

Sooooo you folks were saying we should flush those rules through the toilet, and get some new ones that may or may not have a similar outcome? Hmmm, odd logic! Kim Bruning 07:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Say someone comes along and says "I say Carnildo was not being a dick, but who disagree with him are and should be banned" (I don't think that, but regardless). How do we decide who is right? Evil saltine 08:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We can establish that somewhat objectively by checking diffs. Kim Bruning 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But who makes the final decision? You talk about "deriving guidelines" from your three rules, but what do we do when two people derive things differently? Aren't rules necessary to codify how these conflicts will be dealt with? Evil saltine 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! A quick related note, I've noticed that there has been frequent allusion to moral panic during this discussion. I'd like to propose a wikipedia namespace'd guideline for identifying and avoiding these brushfires in the future. I don't think it's necessarily a silver bullet, but I hope that it might be a useful tool. User:Chairboy/Panic is where I've stored it for now, and I'd like some thoughts on the matter. I'm hoping it'll help, and hope to get some feedback on whether or not it's a dumb idea. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oi... I leave for a month and wiki-admins descend into madness! I'm never leaving again...Sasquatch t|c 07:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Desysoppings

After several hours of deliberations and discussions with a variety of people, including several ArbCom members, I have temporarily desysopped everyone who in any way was 'wheel warring' tonight over the stupid trolling template. The ArbCom will be considering the whole thing and handing out a more permanent ruling on the whole thing very soon.

I am desirous that we have peace until morning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 06:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ashibaka (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)
• BorgHunter (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)
• El C (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)
• Karmafist (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)
• Carnildo (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

For the record. See block log of User:Joeyramoney and logs of Template:User paedophile. -- Netoholic @ 06:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good move. Hopefully it doesn't escalate further after everyone's had some sleep. NSLE _(T+C) 06:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that the issue of whether pedophiles should be blocked won't/cannot be decided by the ArbCom case? ArbCom can't end up establishing some sort of policy on blocking pedophiles if, for example, it considers the block of Joeyramoney made by Carbonite, right? (I'm a little afraid ArbCom might assume there's a consensus some way where there isn't one, which would be bad.) --AySz88^-^ 07:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the ArbCom is looking into issues of administrator conduct, not the actual pedophilia case. Either way, it is idle speculation on my part, and that's for the ArbCom to decide. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot at this time say whether or not we will be addressing the issue of admitted pedophiles editing Wikipedia. One excellent suggestion for a guideline we will be considering is "Don't put anything on your userpage that could bring the project into disrepute". Raul654 07:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I see where El_C was wheel warring. TacoDeposit 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was his block of User:Carnildo. -- Netoholic @ 07:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct - El C was included in the list of desysopped people because he blocked Carnildo shortly after Carnildo blocked him (which, on its face, is an abuse of admin powers). Raul654 07:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your loss, Wikipedia. El_C 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: El C has blanked his talk page with an edit summary that indicates he's leaving/on an indefinite wikibreak. NSLE _(T+C) 07:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Persuant to Jimbo's comment, I have started Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Due to the nature of this case, I believe the arbitration committee will be giving this top priority, so anyone who wishes to participate would be well advised not to delay. Raul654 08:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

hmmm way not to handle things.Geni 09:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. I don't know what to make of it at this stage. I'm just glad that this seems to be provoking some action on the wheel warring issues. Raven4x4x 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, you missed one. While 'temporarily desysopping' would be pointless in this case, you yourself were clearly 'wheel-warring' as well. If nothing else I think that shows how easy a trap it is to fall into and why discussion should generally take place before controversial admin actions. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the logs you also gave David Gerard a pass, even though he was clearly 'wheel-warring' also. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what's up with the second bit? He's right there in the deletion log. Ashibaka tock 12:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I hereby declare that User:Jimbo Wales is not a sockpuppet of mine - David Gerard 13:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he's mine. ;-) Rob Church (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Jimbo can't wheel war, because edict from him trumps all community process. Secondly: Ashibaka, I can see why you feel hard done-by, but would observe that all parties involved in this affair, including David Gerard (and me!), are being looked at by ArbCom: so there will be a fair hearing and one hopes a proportionate outcome for everybody. The Land 12:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Edict from jimbo does not trump the community unless he can show he has board backing.Geni 13:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In deference to your apparent intelligence, I shall assume that statement was intended as high comedy - David Gerard 13:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No as far as they exist this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the foundation rules. Of course in this case the point is moot because there is not community consensus (that we know of) because people chose to slug it out with admin tools rather than waiting for consensus to form.Geni 13:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess that he wins by default unless the rest of the board shows up and says otherwise. --cesarb 13:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true. And Jimbo technically still has the power to completely override the findings of ArbCom and everyone else to set his own ruling, though, as he himself as pointed out, he doesn't plan to do that at all. --Deathphoenix 13:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really becuase that clearly doesn't apply to arbcom members. In reality the odds of the board going against a jimbo descision are so small they can be safely ignored.Geni 13:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• With all the desysoping going on lately, wikipedia is going to need some new leadership, someone stronger, and less likely to bow down the demands of vandals, trolls, and POV pushers, less likely to create/provoke scandals--I-2-d2 12:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not that I'm suggesting that I should be nominated, but I certianly wouldn't turn it down if I was--I-2-d2 12:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And out of the post-pedophile-wheel-war desolation, when all hope appeared lost, a hero emerged...Babajobu 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Since a significant percentage of our current problems can be traced to people not knowing when to walk away I think not.Geni 13:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I don't know when to walk away?--I-2-d2 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well you did respond to that comment... "stronger, and less likely to bow down the demands of vandals, trolls, and POV pushers" does not strike me as the kind of person who would find it easy to walk away.Geni 22:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

..I just have to ask, WTF were these people thinking? How did they see this as the proper thing to do in this situation? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In so far as Karmafist's unblocking, I think he did the right thing. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well unblocking without agreement from the blocking admin usually is to be avoided, especially in a wheel-waring environment. However, I no longer agree with the 1 week block. The newbie in question was mainly adding good faith edits (albiet he has a short edit history), and the Pedofile thing was a joke as he was 16 (not a funny joke though). Also, people need realize that "pedophile", by definition, is not a inherently "rapists" just like heterosexuals are not inherent rapist of the opposite sex...Yes, the template could easily be interpreted to refer to "rape", but it at least deserved some minimal discussion, such as the TfD. I wish people would actually know the definitions of words they through around and start using to bash other people. People just love any excuse to bash criminals, most likely to fluff up their own ego while ignoring their own faults. If people put reason, common sense, and process over emotion and blind, incorrect, and uncivil statements...none of this would have happened. Jimbo appears to not even have researched the newbie's edit history. I acted to hastely earlier by supporting the block.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

<offtopic> Under-age sex is (generally) considered rape, even if 'consenting', because people under the age of consent are not (generally) considered capable of giving informed consent. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

While I don't agree with everything else in Voice of All's note, I agree that a one-week block is quite excessive. An otherwise decent new user who makes one stupid userbox should have been let off with a warning not to create sophomoric templates. He shouldn't be punished for the fact that admins weren't mature enough to handle the situation without wheel warring, multiple desysoppings, wikidepartures, et cetera. That reflects on us more so than on anything he did. Babajobu 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Three-egg omelette and an auto-desysopping protest

All the three indefinitely blocked "miscreants" Carbonite, El C, and Giano are now taking wikibreaks. :-( The de-sysopping of El C is most unfair IMO. If that's what he gets for being a great admin and indefatiguable peacemaker on contentious pages, I won't be using my own admin buttons either (until his are restored). Bishonen | talk 14:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, is there something I missed? What I see is that El C blocked Carnildo after Carnildo blocked El C, which looks like a blatant abuse to me. If I missed something, Jimbo probably did too.. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 15:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Though Carnildo did infef block for no reason. How in hell's bathroom did he become an admin in the first place?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. Maybe the rest of us can discuss this calmly now. There is no need for emotive language. -- Ec5618 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo is the true villian of the peace here. I call upon him to do the right thing and resign as admin. The rest, if they have not already, should be reinstated.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, there is no need for emotive language. Grammatically correct language would be nice though. -- Ec5618 12:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

ElC and Karmafist are outstanding admins. Carnildo, on the other hand, clearly lacks good judgement and temperment. It would save Arbcomm a LOT of trouble if he simply admitted this and resigned. Or don't admit it and resign. I'm not being emotive...simply stating the facts from my perspective and what should be done about them. There's also no need for snide comments about grammar.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My Reply To This

It's an unfortunate symptom of leaders these days, both with Dubya, and apparently with Jimbo... the ends justify the means. You've likely already seen the contribs, so I won't bother with that.

The Pedophilia Userbox issue has shown just how dysfunctional, hotheaded and lawless our community has become.

Here's what I saw...

• Carbonite said he'd block any Pedophiles, basically just for being Pedophiles rather than any rule or guideline.[5]

The only person who fit this was Joeyramoney (talk · contribs), who had less than 100 edits, making Carbonite a WP:BITE/WP:AGF violator, putting Ashibaka in the right here, trying to stem a huge knee jerk reaction.

• After being unblocked, Joeyramoney voted on the TFD regarding the userbox, in a fairly repentent tone, likely from a self Victim blaming after his treatment from Carbonite. [6]
• Jimbo, likely wanting to sweep this under the rug before any major media got wind of it, but forgetting that these things seem to happen just about once a month or so now (Kelly Martin, The No Ads Project, Wikipedians for Decency, Siegenthaler, Fair Use, etc.), IARed and Wheel Warred to block Joeyramoney for a week, like Carbonite, violating WP:BITE and WP:AGF, but that's no big deal since he's violated WP:AUTO multiple times, despite the fact that he said it was a faux pas to do so.
• Me, wanting desperately to believe that there is some rule of law on Wikipedia, unblocked Joeyramoney since he hadn't really done anything wrong other than being a silly teenager (which we have to AGF since that's what he says on his talk page) and wandering into this mine field.

Like i've tried to say, at the top of my lungs, for the past several months, this is a slippery slope. If we block people just for being pedophiles, a perception will arise that we are biased against them, and Pedophilia, as well as any other related article will be seen as automatically POV by outsiders since the people "running" Wikipedia don't allow Pedophiles to add their side. Today it's Pedophilia, what will be next tomorrow?

Hell, Jimbo Wales is about as POV as Bill Gates is on Encarta[7], if someone were to add a "criticisms" section, let me ask you, how quickly would that be reverted? Even if it was NPOV and properly referenced, I could almost guarantee you that given the current state of things here, an accolyte, if not Jimbo himself, would get rid of it almost immediately.

Where We Can Go From Here

I had hoped that the community would eventually address this, and it seems to be slowly creeping towards it, but there are two roads we can take from here.

The High Road
Everyone, even Jimbo and the Arbcom, is bound by the laws of Wikipedia, because the laws are the only thing holding in place the ideals of Wikipedia -- an encyclopedic collection of all human knowledge.

The Low Road
Wikipedia becomes an autocracy, and eventually, one of the people hurt by the autocracy will strike back, likely in a smear campaign(see Swift Vets and POWs for Truth), or in something even bigger. Remember, we've blocked all of the IPs of Congress before, and we are quickly becoming the top source of information on the internet, and we become discredited as an encyclopedic collection of human knowledge that fits a certain point of view that benefits the Wikimedia Foundation's public persona.

It's up to you all to choose which way we go, I hope you take the high road, but if you do take the low road, i'll still be around welcoming people(at the current rate, I will hit 2000 around mid month)until that autocracy gets rid of me(likely with no real justification under rules and guidelines), sitting back and laughing at the next crisis to come down the pike, and likely being someone those who want to discredit Wikipedia will come to. I have a clear conscience either way, i've done nothing wrong. Karmafist 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If we would all remember to avoid hysteria and take short breaks when angry, we could let things cool down instead of escalating. If I was the troll who'd created the template, I would be very pleased with myself seeing the uproar it has caused. "Slippery slope" arguments are almost always fallacious. Penguin is not edited by penguins, so why should it be desireable that Pedophilia is edited by pedophiles? That said, chill out, take breaks and help the community regain its balance and friendly atmosphere. dab (ᛏ) 18:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is a strength to having a final arbiter of content and policy (that being Jimbo in this case), in that it means that at the top, instead of rules, there is common sense, and that can be used to put an end to people gaming the rules. We are fortunate to have someone who has proven to be both disinclined to get involved in every small dispute and has exercised overall good judgement when he does get involved. The system works because it is pretty open, and because we have had good people at the top (that being Arbcom, Bureaucrats, Jimbo, etc). Wikipedia has never been simply a democracy, nor has it been a pure autocracy -- it mixes elements of both. So long as one doesn't feel the need to be a purist about either, one can deal with the mess of a mixed system and find it to be pretty good at avoiding the faults of both. Jimbo has a lot tied up in Wikipedia, including time, reputation, and presumably finances. Given these things and that he's been around longer than almost anyone else here, I think we can learn to trust his judgement as to what's needed for the good of the project (even if it ruffles a few feathers in the meantime). --Improv 19:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Also... remember who started this damn project. It's his... Jimbo is in charge, and if you don't agree with his decisions, then you have the right to fork and/or the right to leave. Plain and simple. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's status isn't revered because he founded Wikipedia; it's because he's taken a position of common sense on every issue presented to him, and thus made himself a good leader for the project. But even so, he is still human and can make mistakes, and people should be allowed to point out those mistakes. Ashibaka tock 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Takeing a position of common sense is meaningless. It is takeing the right one that is important.Geni 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We're not doing maths here. There isn't always a "right" solution. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The one that causes the greatest good for the geatest number of articles for the greatest length of time.Geni 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Like grm_wnr said, this isn't maths. Your "greatest good" is not remotely well-defined, and pretending that you can proceed from that as an axiom is dangerous. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's better defined than "common sense" as it at least gives us a structure within which to frame our arguments.Geni 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a purely legalistic approach is that users cannot decide on the rules which are the most important. Further up the page we had one admin suggest WP:IAR, WP:DICK and WP:NPOV as the trifecta, another chose WP:PI, WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. I'm left feeling old-fashioned: I always thought it was WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Physchim62 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You can get around this one by useing a varation of the falsificationist position.Geni 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:TRI has been around since last April and it's always been WP:IAR, WP:DICK and WP:NPOV. --Wgfinley 06:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So you think if someone is boylover they are monster of some kind boy you people got lot learn than. There different between boylover or girllover and child molester. The differents is boylover or girllover will never hurt a child in any way! Child molester will hurt a child there only after one thing and they are very sick people!!

What is Desysopping & Wheel-Warring?

In an effort to learn all I can about "revert warring" and all kinds of warring on Wikipedia to avoid it totally - what is Desysopping, and Wheel-Warring, may I ask?Theo 05:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

De-sysopping is removing admin ("sysop") status from someone. Wheel warring is warring with abuse of admin powers (blocks, etc.).

(Shouldn't this be at the bottom?) --AySz88^-^ 05:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Pinktulip and User:Fplay

A quick glance at the userpages indicates this is the same person. Looking at contrib's, Fplay appears to be a bot (I'm no expert on identifying one). This may well be an interested person who didn't know what a sockpuppet is (or the extent to which they're frowned upon) and decided to set up a couple of accounts and I wouldn't normally care... But...

Pinktulip ("the person" I've dealt with) is extremely troublesome. Not trolling (insofar as disruption doesn't appear to be the main goal) but a really bad pattern of talk posts. I've noticed (on Terri Schiavo, God help us):

• "Why do not just cry "rape" while you are at it? (sic)" amongst other things: [8]
• Rambling attack idiocy in general (don't know how else to describe it): [9]

So, click on his talk contributions (as I did having been put off on one talk page). It's a pile of conceited, assume-bad-faith crap. I don't know what to do with this editor. I'm hoping a truly disinterested third-party might offer to mentor. He obviously wants to edit articles but he appears absolutely unable to do so while dealing with others constructively. Cheers, Marskell 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Marskell. Pinktulip does some good writing, but can come across as hostile and belligerent on talk pages, to the point of causing disruption.[10] I am not aware that he has misused his multiple accounts to violate policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Whilst not wanting to disagree too much with Marskell, who I firmly believe is some kind of superhero (he nommed me for RFA after all), I feel the need to poke my nose in. Whilst Pinktulip can be obstreporous, rambling, and too quick to refer to his own work elsewhere (back to the Terri Schiavo talk page again), his intentions are good, he doesn't edit war, and he is willing to participate in attempts to find compromise. Probably his main offense is using rather colorful and (occasionally) misjudged similies, synonyms and metaphors to try and make his point. I think this is more a case of the guy need to have his sharp edges rubbed off, rather than telling him he doesn't fit in the community and singling him out. I always think formal mentoring is a backwards step, and suggests that the person is either incompetent, or incapable of applying good judgement. This is sometimes the case, but is usually only a suitable solution following some kind of request for mediation/arbitration. I don't think mentorship would be the best route to go down; being civil and polite with Pinktulip has worked for me so far, and he's done nothing but respond in the same manner - if his views on what an article should be differ greatly from yours, then that's what a talk page is for. He's obviously more than willing to use them. I don't know anything about the User:Fplay thing though. A quick look suggests that Marskell is right about the user being a sock of Pinktulip. Perhaps someone wiser and, um, sager could confirm this and have a quiet word with Pinktulip on his talk page about sockpuppets? Proto||type 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, Emact (talk · contribs) is Fplay (talk · contribs), and I'm reasonably certain they are Pinktulip (talk · contribs) as well. There was a bit of a dust-up about a month ago with Zoe blocking Fplay for running an unauthorized bot, and Emact came to ANI to "defend" the Fplay. I don't have time to dig up diffs ATM, but I will later. This is not a comment on the behavior of any of these usernames; using a sockpuppet to defend the block of another account is clearly bad form, but I have nothing to say ATM about any other disputed behavior. android79 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

An old note on User:Emact indicates that User:Fplay is an alternate account: [11]. android79 14:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Even more interesting, "Emact" appears to be an abbreviation of Elizabeth Morgan Act, as indicated here: [12], which seems to be a favorite subject of banned Amorrow (talk · contribs). Emact has made several edits to User:Amorrow. android79 15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Emact has a severe case of misogyny, as well, although he only refers to women as "a certain demographic". User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I KNEW I could count on dear, sweet Zoe to never forget a slight. You go girl!

I have never denied that Amorrow=Fplay=Emact=Pinktulip=A_bunch_of_anonymous_work . However, I have mostly tried to avoid the cesspool of the Wikipeia "talk" pages which always degenerate into popularity contests. I am SO sorry for chosing to work on Articles that are "difficult" and usualy deal with real events and living people and current Law and getting the fact straight and getting the details. I am sure that you would prefer that I work on something REALLY important, like the exact and correct categorization of musical garage bands or something relaly important like that.

User:Marskell's exact words when he detected that I had added some new articles to the "Terri Schiavo" category were:

• I'll be expunging most of these. Marskell 14:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on that, who really thinks that he has the Judgement and Charater to undo my work (which is what he is doing right now) in a fair and balance manner? Would you like him to work on what YOU have created? Any of you?

Terri Shiavo is a big story about laws and people with power. If you have bothered to look at the infomation in Category:Terri Schiavo you will see that relationship are not so trivial as parent-child. While a big powerful politician does a little thing about Terri Schiavo, it matters. OK, Triple H merely got converage on national television about his parodies of TS. I can conceed that one, despite the fact that he went on and on about it and millions and millions of people saw him do it. But does it really ruin the rest of the information browsing value by just throwing him in anyway. I did include Dubya or Jeb becuase they are in too many categories already. But oooh... Marskell really, really does not LIKE Triple H now, does he? Oooh.. he trivializes Terri and makes fun of her. Now tell me: does having Triple H in there, despite the fact that he is an entertainment imbecile, really destroy all of the rest of the information that category? I am not going to fight to keep Triple H in the category because he does not matter much. He is much more like a canary in mine: If he is not notable by going on national TV, who else is not notable? Powerful politicians? Huh?

What is the percentage? How deeply does somebody have to be involved in TS before it sticks them? I am not going to fight with "Terri's defenders" to trying and shove all of the power players (and there are dozens of them) into her page or a subpage. I say: if the powerful politician was stupid enough to open his mouth even a little bit about Terri, he gets to join the club. Take a look at Bill Frist. Board-certified physician. Does he know enough not to try and publicly diagnose Terri Schiavo, effectively invoking his valid medical license, based on a video provided by her parents? He does not. That is worth remembering. It is not trivial. Do you want a man of so little judgement to be operating on YOU? Should a man of so little judgement remain Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate. We cannot answer these questions here, but we can do our best to provide the information and make it easy to find. But Marskell, choising to live a coutnry that has NEVER known Democrary, wants it all covered up. He likes it that way it was a few days ago. All hidden away. All that mess and fuss out of the way so that he can defend his precious Terri and keep her pre-1990 pretty, slender young face as the ONLY face you will have to think about. Now, run along children, and do not think about anything but that very pretty (and entirely irrelevant, except for its propaganda value) face.

I see. This is now more than 10 items up from the end of the current noticeboard. You have all "moved on", so to speak because you have all already had your turn in the character-assassination shooting gallery that went on behind my back. None of you even tried to suggest that this was happening to me. How thoughtful and communicative of you all. -- Pinktulip 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my remarks above. Nothing in the subsequent discussion has changed my mind, your own comments least of all. I do wonder if "Marskell, choosing to live a country that has NEVER known Democrary, wants it all covered up" is a sufficiently nasty personnal attack that blocking is required. Since we've had editing disagreements of our own recently, I'm not going to be the judge of that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. This person, under whatever User name he edits, has long outlived his usefulness. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Another IP, for them what are keeping track and all: [[User|68.122.117.175}} posted this on my talk page. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pedo

After all the bitterness, wheel warring and wikistress caused by the User:paedophile template in the last few days, it has been recreated, this time by Dschor. Considering the story that has gone with said template and it tremendous side effects, I personally consider it an enormous error to recreate it; not only for its highly questionable contents, but also because of the atrocious timing. It may be a WP:POINT at best, if not a delliberate disruption. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the template and blocking Dschor. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Throw in a CheckUser too, if you can. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't have checkuser, sorry. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not exactly the same. Likely a WP:POINT vio though. Trurly annoying now. Looks like more desysopping might come.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he is not an admin...good.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If he was an admin that'd be a baaaad sign. Ashibaka tock 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've just about had it. Dschor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come close to trolling before, e.g. when he created list of reasons George W. Bush is an asshole. Today, he also re-created Template:User ego, which I had previously speedied as an attack page. While the new version is no longer an attack, he's on some WP:POINT mission. I'll support a block. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Update: Got User:Dschor confused with User:D-Day. The characterization of User:Dschor acting in violation of WP:POINT still stands. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically, by definition, the old one was not an attack. It was however used to troll and was to devisive and its connotations were not well recieved. I am against any such boxes. I support a longer block.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to go too far off topic here, but did you see what the "deluded egomaniac" link pointed to in the version I speedied? If that's not an attack, I don't know what is. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I second the move for a longer block. This is Dschor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s fifth block in total. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked for three hours because I didn't know whether he had a history of this sort of disruption. Feel free to extend if you think it's warranted. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(5 ecs)I've previously blocked Dschor for trolling on a simmilar issue and for personal attacks- and this is the final straw. I'd support a lot longer. Oh, and for the record he is not an admin, and the day he is - I leave. --Doc ^ask? 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I extended the block. Maybe he will get it this time. Maybe...Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If he doesn't and continues with whatever it is he's doing, I'll call for a ban. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

He also previously created {{user oppose Kelly Martin}} after previously being blocked for creating attack templates (I blocked him for that). — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A block of a longer duration is not unreasonable, under the present circumstances, and with his block history. He was aware of what happened, and appears to have intentionally created the template to make his point. He also placed it on his userpage after creating it. Should be added to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war. ENCEPHALON 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if I correctly interpreted the missing subject of "should be added". I just posted a request on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Please correct if my interpretation of your proposal is wrong. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Per a request, I have added Dschor to the arbitratino case. Raul654 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess this means that he should now be temporarily unblocked, so that he can tell his side of the story. It would be best if the last admin to block him undid that block, so as to avoid even the appearance of wheel warring. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We seem to all still be quivering on our boots...:). Unblocking...(sigh). It would be nice if someone could keep the attack templates of his page.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is unwise, this guy has been angling to be a 'martyr for free speech' for weeks. Arbcomming him, he will just love. I'd have blocked him for a week and ignored him. --Doc ^ask? 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...I kind of agree...but it is in arbcom's hands now.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I see everyone is having a good time in my honor. Good to see you again, Doc. I understand that there is some concern that I created this template in an effort to make a point. This appears to be a failure to assume good faith. The template was created for my personal use, and was not added to any other pages. I did not recreate a deleted template, and intentionally crafted the template to not be offensive or disruptive. Unfortunately, I have been drawn into a tar pit here, and it seems unlikely that a fair hearing is possible given the prejudice voiced above. I have been blocked before, but I consider myself to have been unfairly targeted due to my unpopular opinions and outspoken nature. I have to say, I am beginning to think that Doc is on a personal crusade against me, based on his comments above, and his previous interactions with me. I hope that this is not the case. --Dschor 13:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor, being the user who gave notice of the creation of the template in question by you after seeing it at RC, and without any previous contact with you prior to this very message, I must tell you that your assertion of being targeted for your previous activities is completely out of the question, at least when it comes to my public denounce. As I try my best to AGF on your part, your comments immediately previous to the creation of the Template:User pedo give me pause in said assumption. Yet, not my personal opinion, or anyone else's here matter anyway, as the whole issue is now in the hands of the ArbCom. I sincerely wish you good luck explaining your case there, and I'm confident that, if you indeed created it in GF, the ArbCom will be happy to clear your name. Regards, Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 14:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope that you are correct, but the vote appears to be going badly. I will AGF, and expect the ArbComm to find in my favor - but there is a strong chance I will be blocked. It would have been much more WP:CIVIL to try some other form of dispute resolution before submitting directly to ArbComm. I am reasonable. --Dschor 10:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Benjamin Gatti

His arbitration case concluded today. He was placed on both probation and general probation. Here is the final decision. I'm posting this here because he's been rather active on nuclear power lately and we need as many admins as possible watch his actions on that page...similar with Price-Anderson Act. I'm involved so I can't block or ban him myself. So any help in monitoring his edits on those 2 articles especially would be appreciated. He has also hit Hubbert_peak_theory hard in the past. Thanks for everyone's help. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, what is the difference between "Probation" and "General probation"? Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't they the same thing? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Probation allows blocking Gatti from editing any article or talk page. General probation, with three administrators' support, allows blocking Gatti from anything they want to, up to a general ban of up to one year. Ral315 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep and the terms are different. Probation is year to year in case Ben improves. General is indefinite. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pedophile project

I have restored this template. It is not stating that someone is a pedophile, it is stating they are part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia. I don't see the problem with this. Incidently, you should also all note that I see no discussion of the deletion, it appears to have been made on #wikipedia-en-admins. I may not have given Doc_Glasgow much time to do this, however. Anyway, take this through AfD. It's not an attack template. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And what, pray tell does the Pedophile project hope to accomplish? Is this percieved as a benefit or detriment to the Wikipedia project? Seems inflamatory on the face of it, and perhaps a WP:Point violation, just like all the other paedo-centric user boxes. Hamster Sandwich 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question. How about when we decide that then we remove the userbox? Seems that we have everything arse-about. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. It seems that this project has only been started in reply to the recent hullabaloo. NSLE _(T+C) 02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be the case, but arguably there is a place for articles related to pedophilia on this project. enochlau (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was started in late January as User:Herostratus/Pedophilia (edit | [[Talk:User:Herostratus/Pedophilia|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It may not be an attack template but it is blatant trolling and 'divisive and inflammetory'. It was created by User:Dschor (23:39, 7 February 2006 Dschor) and was unused. It was listed on TfD, but givn that Dschor (currently under arbcom interdict) has done nothing but troll on this issue, and given all that happened yesterday, I followed Jimbo's lead in deleting this. I am very disapointed that Ta-bu-shi-du-ya immediately undeleted this (we were bothon IRC, and he undeleted before discussion was concluded), but I will not wheel war with him. I leave it for others to decided whether we need to go through the sham of process or common sense will prevail. --Doc ^ask? 02:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And this is why admin only IRC is a bad idea. How about discussing this a TFD with everyone else? 7 Days is not that long to wait.Geni 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

An IRC-only discussion empowers those on IRC at that particular time, and disempowers everyone else. If you make up policy by yourselves with no input from anyone else I don't think you can expect other people to follow it. Secretlondon 11:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This has little to do with IRC, the question is do we speedy trolling and disruption, violating WP:POINT and WP:DICK or do we use the process of TfD? --Doc ^ask? 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Which I was only made aware of when I went into the IRC channel. Had I not been able to go in, at exactly this time (like the vast majority of editors who are NOT admins) then I never would have known. I was originally told that the IRC channel was for "sensitive" issues that needed to remain confidential. Explain to me again how this was such a sensitive issue that the admin decision was made behind closed doors? Perhaps now people see my concern over the IRC channel? It's not being used to discuss sensitive issues such as defamation. It's being used to decide on ordinary admin decisions. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what the new CSD T1 is for? ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain how giveing admins even more subjective powers is logical when we have just had one of our more major wheel wars? I mean "clearly divisive" logicaly that would cover every userbox (bable boxes devide between those who can speak something other than english and those who can't). Is there a reason why these need to be speedied rather than being left to TFD to sort out? Can't TFD handle the load or something?Geni 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's quite sensible, actually: wide powers to delete divisive userboxes + absolute ban on wheel-warring = a significant decrease in the number of divisive userboxes (note that this is true regardless of what definition of divisive is used, since undeletion is verboten) ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 03:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The bit where large numbers of people get blocked for template recreation is not an acceptable side effect.Geni 03:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Something to consider: the most controversial userboxes seem to be created by users with no intention of adding them to their own userpages (note that this one, for instance, isn't used by any users). —Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's subst-ed in User:Herostratus. — TheKMan^talk 02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough (although, if it's subst'ed, there's no real reason for its continued existence). —Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying it was discussed on IRC counts for nothing, discussions are to be done on the wiki as per the meta IRC page. Mike _{(T C)} 04:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

From Proposed decision#Dschor: "Dschor's recreation of an almost-verbatim copy of the pedophile userbox was extremely foolish..." I wish the latest re-creator would reconsider and delete this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the same person as before, incidentally. —Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh now just let this quitely flow through TDF and away end of problem with the minium level of effort and shouting.Geni 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And the Pedophilia WikiProject is now on MFD... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't even believe that there is 4 members in the Pedophilia WikiProject. It might be a little extreme but maybe a 24 hour block should be made to people joining the project for WP:POINT violation. — Moe ε 03:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ignore them and they will go away.Geni 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, on second review on who was actually in the project, there was an admin. Not sure if we want to block any of them. Just going to assume good faith. — Moe ε 03:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably not necessary, given this; most of them seem to have joined prior to this whole mess. —Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Dschor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. He was only unblocked so he could participate in his arbitration. He can do that on his user talk page. Fred Bauder 04:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There are not quite enough votes at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#Dschor_banned_from_editing_outside_RfAr to support this yet. But we all need a rest. Fred Bauder 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where the hell do these moral panics come from? The media where you are - or do we need to close down the IRC channel to stop you whipping yourselves up? In no sense is any of this to the benefit of the project - been targetting paediatricians yet? Secretlondon 12:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but could you rephrase that? I can't work out what you are trying to say. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Moral panics over paedophiles. There was an actual case in the UK of a bunch of yobs targeting a paediatrician thinking that was the same as a paedophile - David Gerard 16:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This particular moral panic came from the very top. --Aaron 16:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I was on the channel at the time (Sunday evening UTC). It wasn't a policy decision made on IRC - it was a pile of us discussing the {user pedophile} template and finding others to sanity-check our initial "wtf. DIE." reactions to it. (IRC is very good for really quick sanity-checks.) I should note that IRC was very good for calming the forest fire as it occurred - specifically The Land running around various talk pages and IRC trying to calm people down. I was unspeakably pissed off by the whole incident and he did a great job calming me down too ;-)

Anyway, using IRC for sanity-checking is IMO quite different from 'making up policy on IRC'. Of course, waiting would be more ideal. Mind you, I still don't see why a blatant trolling disruption template like that wouldn't warrant speedy deletion on sight and why anyone would think keeping it on TFD for seven days was actually a better idea. c.f. CSD versus AFD - David Gerard 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm trying to work out where the hysteria comes from. It seems to appear at random and escalate. Secretlondon 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Editors are human, I think - David Gerard 16:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Now this hamfisted MFD and "wtf? DIE!" method of making decisions has managed to drive two good contributors out of editing pædophilia articles - a place where we sorely need solid unbiased editors. [13] [14] - Haukur 16:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. If the name was changed to Wikiproject:Pedophilia it would be an improvement, but autodeleting and speedy banning people smacks of hysteria. Exploding Boy 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject:Paedophilia I joined after the furore started because I was not aware of it before. This is not a WP:POINT violation as I actually intend to contribute to this Wikiproject if it survives its MfD (which appears to me to consists of supports giving long point-by-point explanations as to why it should stay being shouted at by people who are apparently beleive "paedophilia is bad therefore anything related to it or mentioning it must be bad" and hysterically shouting this to try and get their point accross. (note I am not neutral in this). I am not a paedophile but I beleive that it is possible and indeed desirable to have high quality, NPOV articles and discussions relating to it. Thryduulf 13:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Shared IP blocks

I'm getting rather annoyed at 217.33.74.20 being blocked continually - I have to unblock it in order to edit while I'm using these computers. Problem is, the vast majority of the edits from that IP is vandalism, and it deserves a block. We can't just say that the user has to create an account as that is simple enough, but we shouldn't keep preventing legitimate registered users from contributing simply because they share an IP with a bunch of kids.

What solutions, if any, can we come up with? Perhaps it could block users with less than 50 edits, or something. violet/riga (t) 11:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're suggesting that some IP ranges could be somehow marked as badlands? Not completely banned, but less trusted than most? Eg, can't create new accounts, no anon-editing from those addresses? It'd be subject to the same sort of scope creep that semi-protect is, but it's a real problem and absent any better ideas, I'd be inclined to look on something like that as a necessary evil. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a bug to prevent IP blocks from affecting logged-in users. If fire is lit under it, then the devs might implement it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 14:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Bug 550. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 14:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to plug again bug 3706, which is a different solution to the problem. --cesarb 15:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

550 is pretty much as above - a flag on IP blocks to say if they block everything, block anon editing, or block anon editing and account creation. 3706 is different, but not all that different. It proposes a flag on accounts to allow them to edit through IP blocks. More discussion (arguably more heat than light) may be found at Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal. I think that Tony Sidaway says it best

"this isn't a magic bullet, it doesn't solve all vandalism and it doesn't totally eliminate collateral damage, it isn't any *worse* than the situation at present. It does permit us to deal with a widespread class of vandalism, by non-logged-in editors, in a manner that causes less disruption to other editors than at present. And there is no instance in which an editor who would not find himself wrongly blocked in the current scheme, would find himself blocked"

It seems the only obstacle is getting someone to do it. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal Threat???

In reference to my sockpuppet tags, here is what he replaced them with: To User User:Onthost, this is a warning. One more harassment from you and I am submiting you as a wiki stocker on wikipedia. Leave me alone. Your contribution logs prove it. Remagine 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Last Warning Mike Kenpo 05:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike _{(T C)} 18:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat- possibly a threat to submit a WP:RFC about you. It doesn't mention outside agencies or the law. Secretlondon 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He can go ahead and open a RFC, I AFD'd his article because it was an advertisment, reverted his spam, and exposed his socks, I haven't done anything wrong. Mike _{(T C)} 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; not a legal threat, but if it escalates, could turn into personal attacks. Who is he a sock of, anyway, and do we have a checkuser to back it up? (If we do, then it's time to block and protect.) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a need for checkuser, look at his talk pages. He admits all 3 accounts are the same person. I first crossed his path when I nominated his article for AFD, then he started blanking the AFD page. Mike _{(T C)} 19:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What is a "wiki stocker"? Enquiring minds would like to know... -- ChrisO 19:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he meant a wikistockinger. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a typo. I'm sure he meant a Wiki socker, or maybe Wiki soccer (or maybe Wiki football in some places). --Deathphoenix 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikistockers make sure there's enough inventory of wikis for the holiday sale season. howcheng {chat} 22:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL thanks for all your humor, sure made me smile =). Seriously though should I restore the tags (since they are sockpuppets, and probably put the guy over the edge), or not restore them? Mike _{(T C)} 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Block, then retag. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving a page with links

I posted this on Village pump (assistance) but got no reply, so I guess it's either a dumb question or the wrong place to post. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

"Had a look at Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages but it doesn't seem to cover this. When you move a page, the old page is replaced with a redirect so that links to the page still work. Is there any way of getting all the linking pages updated with the new page name automatically, or do I have to update them all by hand. Hope someone can help :)" SilentC 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but I think that some programs, such as WP:AYB, can help with this task. Otherwise, it's purely manual replacing. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, is that what WP:AYB is meant to link to? Weird... Oh well, I guess it will up my edit counts :) Thanks SilentC 00:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, slight typo - maybe next time I should check what I link to? :-) Anyways, what I meant was WP:AWB, a semi-automated browser that may help you. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Looks like a handy thing to have. Cheers. SilentC 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Amorrow/Pinktulip

I've just received an aggrieved email from an ordinary editor who is this >< close to leaving Wikipedia because of this fellow. Please do feel free to deal with him conclusively in the proper manner - we can really do without this - David Gerard 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

David, my good man. I think of you often and the admin bit that is set on your corresponding user record in the MySQL database that Wikipedia is based upon. You know that I like to highlight the subtle differences between our two countries, especially the rather dull legal differences which, it seems to me quite conclusively, esacpe you attention. I do this because I know how much it annoys you to face the reality of the tragically Lost Empire that you live within, but I am just doing it for your own good and to enhance your grasp of that same reality. Please also keep trying to diagnose my mental illness from your little island. You might want to ask for a few pointers from Bill Frist. Go contact him. I find that he is a likable guy. If he files an effective restaining order against me someday, well, maybe I will change my mind about that. But until then, go for it! (You might getting a nicer reception from him if you did NOT mention my name, but do as you see fit) I breathe the fresh clean air and walk in the sunshine of my beloved native land, marveling at my good fortune to be born here and also at how far it is away from where you are. Have a most excellent day on your little island. -- Pinktulip 01:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud. Having seen what he's been up to, we really don't need to keep someone around who is harassing users through Wikipedia like this. I have blocked him indefinitely. Someone might like to keep an eye out for socks. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

He's used at least four socks already (Amorrow, Fplay, Emact and Pinktulip), so he will surely be back, if he doesn't have a sock already in use. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

add User:Andysocky to that list. Last I knew he was useing earthlink so removeing him is going to be trickly.Geni 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh. That should be "tricky" Geni, not "trickly". Just trying to help you obtain a more complete mastery of your native toungue. You see, "trickly" is an adverb and in the grammaticall construction and context of your sentence, an adjective would have been more appropriate. But rather than boss you around, I will let you correct the sentence on your own. Good luck in the endevor! -- 67.127.58.57 08:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedantic spelling corrections containing multiple spelling errors: always funny! --Calton | Talk 08:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not coming in from Earthlink this time; but this is certainly material for an ISP complaint. I dropped a note to the AC list suggesting someone with checkuser write a nice one. (Lots of AC and former AC have a remarkable collection of remarkably email from this fellow.) - David Gerard 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The person being stalked (and I received an email from the person as well) may want to contact Amorrow's ISP, and possibly the police, as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

we know he uses proxies. One of the emails I got contained what the indivial claims is his real name. I don't know if you already know this.Geni 18:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes I see he used the name on his user page at some point.Geni 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Folks: Please get a grip on yourselves. That man is so far away from you Brits. You are in the U.K. and he has only concerned himself about strcitly internal affairs of the United States of American which, after killing a whole bunch of you, threw you royalist British people out over 200 years ago. Really, you are attempting to meddle with the internal affairs of a foriegn country. That does not make diplomatic sense. I have always heard such fine things about you British people and your high sense of diplomacy! He has only concerned himself with the Laws of the USA and your attempts to tell the USA what to do via your remote control is very inappropriate. Please: just go back to concerning yourselves with U.K.-specific matters of which you have some expertise and things will be so much more simple and quite and copacetic. You know what I mean: You Brits concern yourself with private bill and us Americans will concern ourselves with bill of attainder. But you Brits who used to rule the world when the sun never sat on Britsh Empire and have now you have watched your sun set finally and fotever on your so-called Empire. Again: you Brits just concern yourselves with your internal affairs, and we Americans (and few meddlesome and highly disgruntled Canadians) will concern ourselves with our internal affaris. Always, always remember: Good fences make good neighbors. Even a whole Atlantic Ocean is not quite good enough for you Brits. I will strive to construct a more substantial barrier for you silly English persons real soon now. -- 67.127.58.57 06:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I presume your heart would glow at the thought of a good, upstanding, patriotic American blocking you forever then. I'm sure someone will oblige. Secretlondon 12:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh! My goodness! Some unnamed person this >< close to making a decision! That simply shows indecisiveness. You know, Limbo is actually a very terrible place, what with all of those aborted babies and stuff. Knock 'em around some! Make 'em decide one way or the other and get them out of that terrible Limbo place. -- 67.127.58.57 06:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:67.127.58.57 as an obvious impostor of Pinktulip, as evidenced by his imitation of pinktulip's opaque and incomprehensible style of writing. Nandesuka 12:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:199.33.32.40 and User:71.141.241.33 as IPs being used by Pinktulip to circumvent a block. Other adminstrators, please review, and reverse if necessary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed the comments placed here in circumvention of a ban. Not much sense in the ban otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's deletion and protection from recreation of User:SPUI

I looked at this page and it appeared to me to be undergoing some kind of project to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, in connection with the recent pedophile userbox affair. I checked the deletion log; nothing recent. I deleted and protected with {{deletedpage}}

Please review and, if necessary, reverse. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job. The Land 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to note for the record that I deleted User:SPUI/pedo, the pedophile box that he was recreating, and replaced it with {{deletedpage}} and protected it. Ral315 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

... which was a recreation of {{User paedo}}. There were a large number of WP:POINTs being made, I can't imagine some sort of response wasn't expected. --Interiot 00:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and Uninvited Company blocked him for vandalism when he reverted the blanking of his own page -- man, you guys sure do good work keeping Wikipedia "reputable!" // paroxysm (n) 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, we have a policy saying Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Can't think why. The Land 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe UC's blanking would be justified if all other wikisillyness that didn't help the encyclopedia was deleted. // paroxysm (n) 00:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. Nonsense has to stop somewhere. By the way, Paroxysm's user subpage which contained the same content as SPUI's userpage was just deleted by Doc Glasgow, and I recreated and protected it as a deletedpage as well. The Land 00:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

*facepalm* SPUI, you're a great and productive editor, but you really don't do yourself any favours sometimes. THERE'S A TIME NOT TO MAKE A WP:POINT - David Gerard 00:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And all the administrators are behaving themselves. Looks like the userbox case has already had a salutory effect. The bit is now worth more when you know the cost of abusing it. --Tony Sidaway 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite correct Tony, although maybe just a tad patronising ;) --Doc ^ask? 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete the whole history? If your so concerned about the damage a satirical template is going to do to Wikipedia's reputation, take it to the last non-pedo version. // paroxysm (n) 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet again another GNAA troll finally revealing his true self. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not really fair - see User talk:SPUI - David Gerard 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We have no mandate to issue damnatio memoriae rulings. Unless someone tells me a good reason why I shouldn't in the next two hours I will restore the history of the page. I will then leave it in an innocuous state and protected until the people editing it can work out their differences. If any of my actions are undone I will not redo them. - Haukur 12:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anything more to that page, but I don't think the whole thing should be restored. Certain edits were placed there solely for the purpose of trolling, and as such have no place on Wikipedia. Others constitute an open invitation to vandalism.

You say "We have no mandate to issue damnatio memoriae rulings." Of course we have. We can delete any and all material that damages Wikipedia. That is not only something we can do, it's a very important part of our job. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll rephrase my position. I think it is cruel and unnecessary to delete the userpage of a long-time contributor who has done excellent work with a "do not recreate" banner. Specific items on his userpage which are out of bounds can be removed separately. - Haukur 12:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Haukurth. I have listed the page on WP:VFU. I don't find the deletion very helpful, even though SPUI clearly violated WP:POINT. Why wouldn't reverting and protecting have done the job just as well? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

...There was absolutely no reason to delete this page. I undeleted it and reverted to the last version, with some junk removed, and Haukurth made his edit at almost the same time as me, replacing the page with a duck. I replaced the duck with a huge duckpram. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Phroziac and I restored it the very same minute and now I had an edit conflict with him here too :) My guess would be that WP:MFD would be a better forum than WP:VFU if someone still wants this gone. - Haukur 14:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The deletion was unneccessary, and the restoration was the right thing to do. Removing the offending content was all that needed done; removing the page and history accomplished nothing useful. Guys, try using the smallest tool that will get the job done, not the biggest. Friday (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

At least they didn't use nukePage on it. Rob Church (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that satire of this seemingly unstoppable moral panic must be confined to IRC then? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:50, Feb. 9, 2006

• I think some people have found a way to make Wikipedia act in a hasty, potentially irrational manner. Utter the word "Pedophilia" now and you're just as likely to be attacked as not. --Durin 16:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think people got in a huff about SPUI's satire and sarcasm and went on a rampage. As usual, blame isn't 100% one side or the other. SPUI acted foolishly in some cases, but so did some of the people responding to his actions. I decry the recent trend towards deleting entire pages rather than the troublesome content. This is hardly a defensible action. We don't delete entire articles for having vandalism on them, or copyrighted images. Similarly, we should not be deleting entire user pages because of an aspect of it that is objectionable. SPUI reverting blanking of his own userpage was not vandalism. --Durin 16:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There are some hasty statements in the above. Nobody went on a rampage, and this had nothing to do with moral panic. I deleted the page and protected it from recreation, then submitted this action to review. The reason was that the page, as a whole, was deliberately and avowedly being used for purposes incompatible with the project. There were several personal attacks in the history, many incivil edit summaries, as well as incitements to vandalism and attacks on the project. I strongly disagree with the resurrection of the page's entire history and suggest that a more sensible approach would be to selectively delete revisions, so as to discourage SPUI from further activities incompatible with the project to produce a high quality encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Bobbydoop

I've been having some trouble with the user Bobbydoop over the past week or so, with him insisting upon reverting to a previous version of the page that contains a link he insist on keeping in the page, but which also contains a number of grammatical and typographical errors. After a number of reversions by myself and some others, he began reverting from several anon IPs, apparently to try to avoid 3RR. Eventually, it came to my attention this this user (and his IPs) have been engaging in this form of disruption - and worse - in school articles since his first edit about two months ago, and has been warned and blocked for it in the past. I placed this text on his talk page and that of his primary anon IP address, indicating that I blocked both accounts for a period of a week, for the reasons detailed therein:

You and your aliases (User:Bobbydoop, User:205.188.116.135, and a number of AOL mirrors) have performed a number of edits that are clearly in bad faith, including many instances of misleading edit summaries, repeated reversions that remove good edits that are effectively blanking vandalism, and personal attacks. Combined with your obvious tendency to rotate IP's to skirt the 3RR rules, it is clear that you are what may be referred to as a problem user. For that reason, I'm blocking your user name and your known static IP's for one week. After consultation with other administrators, the duration of this block may be adjusted up or down as deemed appropriate. If you choose to evade your block, all of your changes will be reverted without prejudice, and your block will be extended, perhaps indefinitely.

I'm thinking that a ban may be in order, but due to my involvement, I thought it would be inappropriate for me to unilaterally make such a judgement, and for that reason I ask that others take a look into this user's activities. – ClockworkSoul 00:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN

someone seems to have deleted this page--Helllo 00:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• This can't be good--Helllo 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• has somebody hacked us or something?--Helllo 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log. Evil saltine 00:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• So it was willy again?--Helllo 00:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The deletion log indicates that Sean Black deleted the page to remove personal information in an edit summary (mighty long time to load, too). Could I remind people that for pages with long histories (like this and George W. Bush) a developer should be contacted to remove the edit, in order to reduce the server strain of deleting and restoring the page? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I immediately thought that it probably did the same thing as AfD's deletion long time ago. Plus it's kind of annoying when you lose an entire page of discussions even temporarily. — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I have requested that Tim Starling, a developer take a look at this and see if he can rectify it. I'm sure restoring the page is taking a huge strain on the server (viewing it sure was); in the future, please don't delete pages with long histories. Instead, contact a developer, who can easily remove the edit from the database. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Fortunately, it's back to normal now :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Yup, thanks to Ral for restoring it. (My computer wasn't able to handle it...) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm honestly curious how mine did :) Ral315 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• So you're sure we weren' hax0red?--205.188.116.200 01:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm sure.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for causing a hassle. I was urgent to remove this information, and I was evidently too urgent :). Anyways, I hope that it gets removed in due course. Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• No real harm done. – ClockworkSoul 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I apologize also if I caused any hax0ring to happen. It was actually really strange; I tried deleting the page, got a timeout error, checked the log to see if it was deleted. That indicated that nothing happened, so I left the computer, and went away. Apparently, it was deleted. Thanks to all for rectifying this. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board

I have asked Tim Starling to look into this. Just adding a signed comment seems to remove other contributors content. This is not my way of editing an article. So once again I apologize for a result that I never would have intended nor contemplated in my life. Dieter Simon 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

AOL

Do admins know they're not supposed to give long term blocks to AOL IP ranges? It seems like most admins don't know--152.163.100.200 01:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Zanimum is "most editors"? When did that happen? Why did no one post here? Seriously, I imagine it was a case of misreading the IP, and is easily recitified. First step would be to contact the blocking admin on their talk, or via email, explain the IP issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I tried, didn't help, didn't seem to believe me about AOL, hence me asking if admins actually know about AOL--152.163.100.200 02:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • We know. See MediaWiki:Blockiptext. Uncle G 02:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And that isn't a range-block, it's just a block of one IP. Although even then 48 hours is a bit long... NSLE _(T+C) 02:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• somebody mind explaining why I can't delete my own question?--152.163.100.200 03:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On Wikipedia, we very rarely remove conversations, even completed ones, from pages. In a way, our talk pages are part of our history, and to remove them is to remove some small part of that history. – ClockworkSoul 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are a lot of AOL proxy blocks going on. Just about every other night, I find that I'm "blocked" because this or that vandal had used the IP. The reason, just so everyone passing by knows, that you don't block for longer than :15 is that AOL proxies aren't just dynamic: they're shifting. Hence, :15 is about as long as a person is at a given IP. Blocking for longer than that doesn't block the vandal. It blocks the next poor schmo who gets the address. This is why blocking AOL (and therefore my own poison: Netscape ISP) IP's is very bad juju. Geogre 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

DATABASE TROUBLE???

Does anyone know what's going on here? are you positive we aren't being hax0red? --152.163.100.200 02:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• nevermind, database seems to be fixed--152.163.100.200 02:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• LOL

  File:Help weve been hax0red.jpg

  LOL - database hax0rs

  --Helllo 02:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we're sure we aren't being hax0red :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've had a few "Bad something or other" error messages when going to some user's talk pages/userpages tonight. Its happened atleast 5 times. Refreshing the page usually fixes it. Mike _{(T C)} 03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that I'm not being hax0red? – ClockworkSoul 05:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia: Sorry to Waste Administrators' Time

NOTE: From Theodore7: My experience as a newcomer to Wikipedia has been horrible. Recently, I lost a good friend in a car accident and had to bury him. My heart is broken. That is why I was away. When I returned, I was surprised to find out that I had been blocked for a week. I did not know this, so had to wait until today to write. After careful consideration due to the bad experiences I've had since joining Wikipedia in December: I am leaving Wikipedia. I apologize to all who have had to spend considerable time on what I believe has been attempts at censorship and a witch-hunt. I also apologize to anyone who has taken offense to me. I did not join Wikipedia to be mean, spiteful, nor to fight with anyone. However, I apologize for my mistakes, and for my comments. They were not meant to do harm to anyone. I thought with my experience, and knowledge that I could be a positive member of the Wikipedia community. I cannot say my experience as a newcomer has been positive, it has not. I don't know why I was attacked, but having seen a good friend suddenly lose his life so horribly, I'm sorry, my heart is just so broken. Please forgive me. I am an experienced journalist & editor, and above all, a kind human being. I do know, however, when I am not wanted. So, I will leave Wikipedia. I am sorry for taking the time of others who have had to spend so much time on the RFC and Arbitration. I did not intend to be such trouble for anyone. I am so sorry.Theo 06:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed conversations pasted verbatim from user talk pages FreplySpang (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your friend, Theo :( It makes it harder to say this, but judging from your talk page, it appears that many, many editors have tried to explain how this site works, and yet there were still too many reverts occuring. Again, however, my condolences about your friend. Ta bu shi da yu 15:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. From my experience, what seems to be the problem is that some Wikipedians think a revert is an "attack" on them. How is this possible since all pages are saved after adding information, sources, and common editing? As a professional writer & editor it seems that some Wikipedia members have a problem thinking that anyone's edit is some kind of attack on them. Others have "claimed" particular topics as their own, and act violently through words, threats, etc. Moreover, Wikipedia is going to have to make some rather serious changes to stop the accusations of, and the real "revert wars" which seem to orignate from the confusion that a editor working on any Wikipedia topic is "reverting" - thus, threatening another. How is this so? When the "Save" button is clicked after a Wikipedia editor completes an edit, or addition on any Wiki topic - it automatically reverts. Now, how is this an attack on anyone? Wikipedia has some serious issues to deal with here since this problem affects all users - especially newcomers who are urged by Jimbo Wales to "be bold." There are many Wikipedians who do not take this advice, and rather, claim topics to the point of being hostile to other Wikipedians. These "wars" threaten Wikipedia's reputation. I know. In fact, my newspaper editors refuse to cite Wikipediabecause of their own experiences, and advise reporters to use great caution in using Wikipedia as a honest resource because of the actions, words, and behaviors of administrators who seem not to follow Wales' principles except when it suits them to enforce matters on Wikipedia editors they don't like, or those who add information that they personally disagree with. Newcomers often arrive at Wikipedia with fresh eyes, so it would not be wise to discount their wisdom. It could help to save Wikipedia, and its reputation in the near future. I joined to see if what newspaper editors were saying was true, and sadly, I discovered that it was. I am a fan of Wikipedia, and Jimbo Wales. However, I state that if Wikipedia's leaders don't get their act together soon, and fix these internal issues with some Wikipedia members and administrators, ArbCom, RFCs, etc., that the problem will become larger, and much more difficult to resolve. Already, there are newcomers with some experience on Wikipedia really citing true problems that are similiar - yet, the "biting of newcomers" continues. I would suggest that more "bite" be put into enforcing not "biting the newcomers" because Wikipedia wants to grow - not contract. And, right now, like in my arbitration case (I've been a Wikipedian only since December) as a newcomer, there really isn't much help for us, and there is a "gang-mentality" in Wikipedia that is not a community. There are too many misconceptions about the Wikipedia "community" that is not positive at all, but hostile:- what I have found: personal attacks, and not much good faith taking place, and an Inquisition-like mentality that borders on censorship. This is not positive for Wikipedia whatsoever, and the word is spreading fast - particularly over the Internet and within professional newsrooms, schools, and universities. There is a serious problem with administrators, Arbitration Coms, etc., and their judgements are turning many newcomers off Wikipedia. This is not good. Not at all. One of the key reasons for this is that many consider a "revert" - which is automatic to any edit - to be an attack on another. This is going to ruin Wikipedia, from my perspective as a newcomer. It has to be fixed. Many longer-term Wikipedians think a newcomer is a "threat" - when they are not. This is going to destroy Wikipedia if things are not changed, and order restored - especially on the subject of what a "revert" really is, and that it should not be taken as an attack on another Wikipedian. Just my two cents, but sometimes, even two shiny pennies can show some wisdom of their own.Theo 12:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

It appears a blog showing up at http://www.democrats.com/ is encouraging users to add what appears to be libelous statements to the article on Norm Coleman. The original anon was blocked, but appears to be evading it. It looks like democrats.com is a frequented website, so please keep an eye on the article if possible. — TheKMan^talk 07:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The anon also appears to be making legal threats. — TheKMan^talk 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the second IP address for continued vandalism, evading the original block, and making legal threats. —Cleared as filed. 08:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've put a commented-out paragraph in the appropriate section to hopefully prevent some vandalism. --AySz88^-^ 09:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like time for semi-protect. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected for now. The reason is that the main culprit was using a static IP and he has now been blocked. Easier to do that than to semi protect, but I'm watching it. Another flare up and we can try SP. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Woohookitty, if you look closer, you can see that that culprit is probably not at a static IP and has already switched IP once, but I suspect that he/she doesn't know the mechanism well enough to be constantly shifting IPs. I understand your reason for unprotecting, but I think a semi-protect would be warranted. --Nlu (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I tried to reason with them on their site and help explain what happened and why to stop, but someone deleted my post (or posts, I'm not sure whether I managed to post the second one) and blocked me (trying to access the site redirects me to http://www.democrats.com/modules/troll/blocked.html ). *shrug* Oh well. I didn't think I made any trollish comments; I went in my history and saved what I wrote at User:AySz88/Notepad, if anyone else wants to try to reason with them with anything along the same lines. --AySz88^-^ 04:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, what's the deal with that. He also forgot all the other thousands of articles on Wikipedia about politicians. He's speaks like Norm Coleman is the only one. — TheKMan^talk 04:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the guy saw a local TV news report (and we know how detailed, nuanced, and factual THEY can be) and immediately jumped to some conclusions -- though perhaps I should say "jump" in he Evel Knievel sense.

My long post on the subject -- which includes links to WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:NLT, User:TheKMan's government IP round-up page, and (in the hopes of recruiting the productive) Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias -- seems to have survived. The main instigator still seems self-righteously clueless, but maybe other people with better reading comprehension skills will pick up on how things really work. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In the words of Jon Stewart, Why can't Republicans and Democrats just get along? Sasquatch t|c 05:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding copyright

I've always thought that one cannot take a copyrighted or trademarked logo, modify it, and release it as public domain or free, as has been done here. I removed the image from the userbox template and nominated it for deletion as a copyright violation. User:Nrcprm2026 immediately grilled me with a list of question at my talk page (User talk:Rebelguys2) insinuating that my nomination was done in bad faith. He removed all deletion tags and struck my comments on the Images and media for deletion page, the latter of which isn't good Wiki etiquette.

The policy at Wikipedia:Logo states that: "Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. Parodies of logos can be used in under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign against some aspect of the operations of the company, but in an article about the company itself, a parody is less likely to be as important or likely to be fair use." This parody has been released as public domain and is used solely in user pages and templates.

I'm not concerned with the content of the userbox, nor am I concerned with his incivility. However, does this image need to be deleted as a copyright violation? I'm leaning towards yes, but I hesitate to revert my changes and have this degrade into an edit war. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Related pages are linked below:

• Template:User former BSA
• Template talk:User former BSA
• Image:Former BSA.jpg
• Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#February_9

Copyrighted fair use images shouldn't be modified and released under public domain. It does seem like a copyvio to me. — TheKMan^talk 08:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

From the Boy Scouts Website: The 1916 act specifically gives the Boy Scouts of America the sole and exclusive right to use its "emblems, badges, descriptive and designating marks" in connection with carrying out its purposes. To me that means it is copyrighted, no? Mike _{(T C)} 13:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even parts of fair use images cannot be used and realised into the public domain (that was, for example, one of the reasons why a few Scouts-related barnstars cannot be used: because they feature the copyrighted Scouts logos).

U.S. trademark law

The 1916 Act of congress did not create any copyright interests because the Constitution specifies that copyrights may only be granted for "limited times," and the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) do not claim any copyrights, using the registered trademark (R) symbol alone in conjunction with their logo, and not the (C) symbol.

U.S. law protects the use of trademarks by nonowners for purposes of criticism and commentary. First Amendment considerations override any expressive, noncommercial use of trademarks. "The Constitution is not offended when the [Maine] antidilution statute is applied to prevent a defendant from using a trademark without permission in order to merchandise dissimilar products or services. ... The Constitution does not, however, permit the range of the antidilution statute to encompass the unauthorized use of a trademark in a noncommercial setting such as an editorial or artistic context." (emphasis added) L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Pubs., Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1987).

Similarly, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 does not apply to the "noncommercial use" of a famous mark. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(4)(B). The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "commercial speech" as "speech which ... propose[s] a commercial transaction." Virginia Pharmacy Ed. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976).

The only limit on that right is whether someone might think that the commentary was produced by the trademark owner, and this limit is explicity defined in reference to Boy Scouts. "[A]n author certainly would have a First Amendment right to write about the subject of the Boy Scouts and/or Girl Scouts. However, this right is diluted by trademark law insofar as that author cannot present her subject in a manner that confuses or misleads the public into believing, through the use of one or more trademarks, that those organizations have produced or sponsored the work in question." Girl Scouts of the United States v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1112 at 1121, n. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 1992.) --James S. 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Also any copyright registered in 1916 in the U.S. is expired. Rmhermen 15:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

James S. has introduced some good, new evidence, and the issue is now resolved. Thanks for everyone's input. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So does this mean that by analogy, one could create a public domain image that is a Scout logo contained within a green circle? NThurston 19:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:82.43.198.133

I have blocked 82.43.198.133 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) twice for repeatedly linking to a site he owns and writing vanity articles about himself (he confirms in e-mail that he is Philip Wilkinson). Since this user has been e-mailing me and complaining about the blocks, I thought I'd ask other admins to take a look and make sure I've blocked him appropriately. He feels that if other commercial links are allowed in articles, he should be allowed to link to his sites. Rhobite 14:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would keep the block, but inform the user that links should only be done in the "External links" area, and only when relevant. Give a few examples of what it should be- for example, Mozilla Firefox has a relatively short links area, with really no unofficial sites, apart from a few third-party builds. We provide links when necessary, but we are not a link clearinghouse. That's my two cents. Ral315 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Talk!) 17:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WP in BBC News

"Congress changed Wikipedia" [15] - is this something for the front page? Greetings, --Janke | Talk 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. We've been aware of this for some time - in fact, they got this info from us, not the other way around. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. It seems the news has caught on across the pond. I was talking to Jimbo in Wikinews IRC, and he was asking for UK Parliament IPs to add to their stories (and he seemed disappointed when I gave him only 3 that were found editing Wikipedia, and in good faith =) ). — TheKMan^talk 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the BBC, we blocked the Congressional IP "for brief periods on a number of occasions". There's a kind of poetry in that. – ClockworkSoul 04:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Errant password requests

After I blocked him, 156.63.242.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) repeatedly tried to have new passwords sent to me. I don't know if this was an attempt to harass or an attempt to break into my account, but regardless, should I simply ignore, or is there something else that can be done? --Nlu (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There's not much you can do but ignore the emails. This happened to me awhile ago, and fixing this problem would require developer intervention, which is at a premium these days. android79 15:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I had this happen to me as well. I left a notice on their talk page, letting them know I was aware they were responsible, and that if they didn't cut it out, I'd extend their block. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New essay

I've written an essay, Wikipedia:How userboxes help build the encyclopedia, distilling a number of my thoughts on the userbox matter. Any comments, support, criticism, etc. are appreciated. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So, your main point is that banning userboxes will create unrest? Perhaps, but this is not so much an argument in favour of userboxes, as it is an argument against agressively removing them. If we can reach consensus over their merit, or if we can establish some guidelines, perhaps many of the disagreements will go away.

You analogy doesn't take into account that many/most/all offices have a dresscode. Perhaps something similar will develop here. -- Ec5618 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think userbox policy is already set by WP:NOT, which is in fact policy. From WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_free_host.2C_blog.2C_or_webspace_provider:

User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

So your user page is about you, but in the context of your work on the project. I think this also captures what upset quite a lot of people about the spate of wiki games last year — it was Wikipedians doing it, but it was clearly nothing to do even slightly tangentially with writing an encyclopedia, so people got upset.

I think this is a good principle for userboxes too. I posted to wikien-l on the subject as well, using this test:

• Babel boxes: yep.
• Location boxes: yep.
• Nationality boxes: probably. (I live in the UK but I can give an Australian perspective, at least as of 2002.)
• Firefox/Opera/IE boxes: possibly (good for browser issues).
• "du-1: This user does not wish to speak or hear dumbass, but is resigned to the necessity of at least understanding it in an environment of massive collaboration." - probably not as a template, which is why the one on my page is substed. But I put it there as a restatement of what I say a lot, that on Wikipedia working effectively with people you think are complete idiots is not optional.
• "This user is a critic of Scientology." I probably wouldn't use this myself. It indicates an area of knowledge but also indicates a strong POV in a way that may unduly alienate other editors.
• "This user is Catholic." I don't think this passes the test. It states a POV but doesn't actually indicate a depth of knowledge.
• "This user is a Jesuit priest." This might be useful - indicates a depth of knowledge as well as a belief - but would probably go better in article text.
• "This user is a pedophile" - um, no.

- David Gerard 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My Wikipedia user page has some biographical information about me that says nothing about the project. For example, that I live in Bloomington Indiana, and that I enjoy Mixed martial arts. No one has ever said a word to me about this. Suppose I had a userbox that says "This user enjoys Mixed martial arts". Apparently, that would be a WP:NOT violation. But just stating the fact on my userpage isn't. Do you see where I am going with this? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? That states an area of interest which you might therefore be knowledgeable of. Also, location is useful, as above. I have no idea how you read the above and reach the conclusions you have - David Gerard 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Doc glasgow/box Because sometimes boxes speak louder than words ;) --Doc ^ask? 02:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

rofl! very nice. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we put these essays in the userspace instead of giving the illusion that they are anything more than pompous vanity on the part of their creators? Phil Sandifer 04:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, keep them off template space.--Alhutch 04:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

An oddity awhile back...

File:Crazymerit.JPG

Yes, I'm a moron, and my fingers went too fast for me... Anywho, back to the subject at hand... earlier today, I tried editing a page and was sent to this page when I clicked save:

The link leads to Special:Captcha/help, but obviously this page does not exist. Is this something that is going to be introduced in the future to stop spambots? Why did this happen? Any ideas? It was confirmed by another person too. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The captcha was briefly enabled sitewide while investigating a vandalbot attack. This may happen from time to time. --Brion 20:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fun. What page is shown to editors? Perhaps someone should add a brief explanation. -- Ec5618 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Brion! I was a little confused, especially the next time I tried editing a page and it wasn't there. Thanks again. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the captcha when correcting a 404'd link at Wikinews. However, it didn't retain the edit summary I had, which I didn't realize until after submit. I typed it into the article talk page, but is there a way to retain edit summaries when the captcha appears? 65.33.156.96 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian people reverts

Revert war going on at Talk:Assyrian people by Benne, Pylambert, and possibly Sargonious, hard to tell as I looked at this briefly from recent changes. KI 21:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Nicodemus75

I may have acted under a conflict of interests with regard to this user, so I am listing the details here for review.

• Nicodemus had a long history of aggression an incivility on afd's. The result was an RfC filed against him in November 2005. Although I didn't file the RfC, (and Nicodemus has never been uncivil to me), I certified it, as I had reproached him for his incivility [16] and one various occasions and he had refused to mend his ways [17]. Nicodemus refused to respond to the RfC, and indicated that he had left Wikipedia and no longer wished to correspond with any wikipedians [18]. I said at the time, his decision was a loss, as civility issues aside, he was good contrubutor - and we had actually got on personally.

• Nicodemus, however, returned this week to oppose Brennemans's RfA (having previously done the same for Phroziac’s Arbcom nomination). I felt this was wrong, since he was longer a contributor, and his talk page declined any interaction. I left a note inviting the closing 'crat to consider the vote, and at the same time I removed the 'don't leave messages' note from his talk page, and substituted a welcome back greeting [19]. His response was a blatant 'eat shit' personal attack on myself and Brenneman [20]. (There has been continued incivility and personal attacks on his talk page.)

Feeling that it was unacceptable for a non-contributor, who was indicating a continued unwillingness to communicate with any wikipedians, to return at will to oppose community elections and abuse other wikipedians, I blocked him indefinitely. Although I stand by my belief that he should be blocked, I realise that I should probably not have been the once to do it. I apologise for this. I am thus removing the block, and requesting other admins to decide what action should be taken.--Doc ^ask? 21:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I'd agree with a block (for the "eat shit" comment), but, then again, I was the one who filed the RfC in question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, but I also endorsed the RfC. Someone less involved should take a look. android79 22:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that if we ever had every single admin endorse an RfC on some user, no one would be able to block that user? Jkelly 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, since he's accusing everyone of ganging up on and conspiring against him, it might be best if someone who wasn't previously involved intervened, to make it more clear that the problem is his conduct and not some personal clash. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Done! :D — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:42, Feb. 9, 2006

If everyone would re-read the blocking policy, there's actually nothing in it preventing a necessary block by an involved admin. It's just not a good idea in case your judgement in clouded, and someone else can always do it. But point is, there's no problem where a user can't be blocked because everyone's involved. But from the description above I don't see under what criteria the user was blocked for. One personal attack and a couple bad faith votes barely accounts for disruption, but even then, it's not all that disruptive, just make a note by the votes and that can be taken into account. Done deal, walk away happy. - Taxman ^Talk 03:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that he's been chronically uncivil, and his latest responses are completely unacceptable. However up to December he did make useful contributions, and given the recentness of his latest editing activity (less than two months) I cannot but think that Doc's actions here were needlessly provocative.

The block is merited, but I'd prefer to see a fixed term block in case he should choose to resume his editing. If he comes back and engages in further attacks, the nature of his targets (nearly all administrators) means that we're quite capable of dealing with him at that date, and if necessary we can get the arbitration committee to put him on an official personal attack parole, which would stil enable him to do useful work.

Duration of the block? Oh perhaps one calendar month. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've examined the situation here, and it appears that if the operator of this account has any continued interest in editing wikipedia, he is most likely doing so from a new account and retaining the Nicodemus75 account as an abusive sockpuppet. The former is within his discretion, the latter is clearly unacceptable. Please, please... look at the timespan shown for Special:Contributions/Nicodemus75 and reconsider. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:16, Feb. 12, 2006

Admin buttons

Following Bishonen's lead ([21]), I'm not using my admin powers until El C's are restored, which will hopefully be at the closing of the ArbCom case. I encourage others to do the same. Thanks. Oh, and yes, I'm probably just drawing attention to myself, but blame Bishonen- it was her idea :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Going on strike is going cripple the place. enochlau (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous to want to support El C.--Alhutch 01:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Never said it was ridiculous to support another admin. It's before ArbCom currently, and it'll be resolved soon, so let them deal with them deal with it without a rash of irrational actions. enochlau (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a nice act of protest and solidarity with El C, but I don't see how it will help anything.--Alhutch 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, how does this help? Do you think it will influence the ArbCom? Does it make you feel better? I doubt if it would make El C (or anyone else) feel better. Let the ArbCom determine his innocence or guilt (myself, I don't really know what should be done). BrokenSegue 01:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing the point. El C should never have been desysopped, in my opinion, and this is my way of expressing that. It doesn't actively harm anything, and yes, it makes me feel better.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that El C was "wronged" (whether or not he was) has nothing to do with whether you should continue to use your admin powers. Who are you expressing your opinion to and why? These kinds of actions, in my opinion, raise the stress level of the project. It's not that important. If everyone just calmed down, we'd all be better off. Of course, it is entirely your choice. BrokenSegue 01:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My own protest wasn't especially meant to be "nice", and I don't see why I shouldn't share my view of Jimbo's desysopping of El C merely because the ArbCom is arbitrating the case. That's what the ArbCom does, that's fine, we've elected them for it; deciding what I or Sean or anybody else should think or say about innocence or guilt is not what the ArbCom is for. Bishonen | talk 01:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

I would suggest a different act of solidarity: No wheelwarring until wheelwarring no longer exists. (Not to suggest anyone involved in the protest, or El C for that matter, was or ever has wheel warred; I do my best not to have views on such.) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically, I'm doing that too :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you can do that and still help out with the vandals, come on now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Us plain vanilla editors can still undo various forms of vandalism naughtiness. Ruby 01:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I hardly ever do anti-vandalism stuff anyway, this will be no great loss in that area.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point, Ruby, however I was thinking of blocking blatant vandals, protecting pages, and the like. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the other 700 of us can handle it. NSLE _(T+C) 02:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried about pile-ons. What if there are only 699 of us? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OMG Wikipedia is going to collapse!!! Someone please call Jimbo, 699 admins can't do the job!!!! =) Mike _{(T C)} 02:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, minus Sean Black and Bishonen, there are 802 of us :-) Alhutch 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

accourding to Wikipedia:List of administrators 673 active ones and based on past trends maybe at most 300 active as admins on any real scale.Geni 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (obscure Davy Crockett reference). Anyways, good point, I didn't take that into account.--Alhutch 03:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's your prerogative to do what you think is best, but this does really seem like a childish way of registering disagreement. In a sense it's also a bit arrogant to presume that one's own presence is so integral to the operation of the wiki that one's departure (or abstention from administrating) will have any effect on unrelated processes. This may, of course, just be a reflection of my bias against excessive drama, which I realize is not universal, though I have little respect for those who would rather make a point than get on with encyclopedia-building. — Dan | talk 03:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for detailing so amply your disrespect for Sean and myself for acting on our convictions, RDSmith. Your defense of authority against our breath of criticism is presumably not arrogant, and does help build the encyclopedia? You're doing a fine job of building a congenial community climate, too. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

I managed to deal with vandalism for my first three years without using admin powers -- in fact nobody had admin powers until 2002 so up till that time we all dealt with vandalism without the admin buttons. I'm sure that you will cope, Sean. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me that think that this whole pedophile userbox thing is getting blown WAY out of proportion? I await the trumpets to annouce Wiki War I... Sasquatch t|c 05:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not using my admin buttons either. They never work anyway... --Aaron 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• If everyone could agree on a solid userbox policy then stuff like this wouldn't happen.--God of War 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Solid userbox policy == anything goes? ;-) Well, that was the original starting point, but it would be nieve to say that all those who wheel-warred didn't have a choice. No-one compelled them to. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "Anything goes" works for me, as long as a given userbox isn't in violation of WP:NPA or somehow libelous. People's userpages should be left alone; without the ability to have some sort of "home page", it would be almost impossible for many people here to feel even the slightest sense of community. We're not drones. --Aaron 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I fully respect that opinion. I was only commenting on God of War's oblique reference. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Wjhonson

Wjhonson has over the last few days been deleting negative comments from his talk page. User:KillerChihuahua is an admin who tried to correct him, and he responded by vandalizing KillerChihuahua's comments and deleting more stuff. He was reconciled by someone creating an archive for him and moving all the comments there, and now he just deleted a comment in his archive. I would put it back myself, but I am sure he will not keep it there. I'm not an admin and don't want to police him, but he is extremely active on pages I'm editing, and it's important that a record remains of his actions. Here is the most recent example of a deletion. You will have to look through history to find more extreme cases of what he's been doing. Cuñado - Talk 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

He's also been edit warring on Wikipedia:Vandalism, including breaking the 3RR with five reverts in less than two hours. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And now he's just changed a bunch of his own comments in the archive. See these edits. Is this allowed? Please do something Cuñado - Talk 08:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: List him on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he was just blocked for 24 hours [22] -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User:BushRules

Opinion requested: is "BushRules" an inappropriate user name -- inappropriate enough to warrant a user name block? --Nlu (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The user, incidentally, has since put up a personal-attack-filled user page, which I've blanked and warned him about. Another personal attack and I'll block him for 24 hours, but I still would like opinion on whether indefinite block is warranted based on name alone. --Nlu (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The username itself doesn't warrant a block, but I would be on the lookout for trolling. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There's been a lot of socklike activity at Police State lately - all trying to add the claim the USA is a police state. BushRules (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) strikes me as (rather sad) attempt to create a mindlessly over the top pro-bush voice to agree violently with anyone who agrees that the USA is not a police state. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, this account was created for no reason other than to disrupt Wikipedia. Perhaps we should consider a genuine ban? – ClockworkSoul 14:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was merely a reference to a type of football... ;) Physchim62 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

His (feigned?) ruralism is most amusing but probably intended to troll/trawl. The misspelling of "filthy" as "firthy" is way, way out of the way -- the kind of error that a non-native and regional person would not generally make. That's why I tentatively agree that this is a disruption account, or some attempt at satire. Geogre 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to be bold and block indefinitely. Feel free, of course, to modify/unblock as you see fit. – ClockworkSoul 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:R. fiend

Fiend deletes/moves pages in contradiction with Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Decisions_to_be_reviewed. This although he was specifically advised of this guideline [23]. -- User:Docu

Revert warring, disruption on Kwanzaa

I have blocked User:Karenga and range-blocked 70.85.195/24 for 48 hours for constant revert-warring and disruption on Kwanzaa. I did not bother asking for a checkuser because I believe (a) looking at the history [24], that their sockitude is extremely likely, and (b) even if they are not socks, they are revert warring and are not engaged in any discussion on the article's talk page. If other admins believe I'm being too harsh, feel free to review or reverse the blocks.Nandesuka 07:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I had asked for a checkuser the day before, but considering the backlog it is unlikely that will happen soon; considering the edit history of these users it is unlikely that these are not socks. Strongly agree Nandesuka took a reasonable course of action. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we know who that IP range belongs to? Secretlondon 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an ISP in Dallas. However, User:Karenga is my dear friend User:Justforasecond (see WP:RFCU). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Block length

I do not have time to look into this. Please make sure the correct block duration is given to User:Rhian_Leggett. --JWSchmidt 16:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked this user indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Friday (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User participant userbox war

This template was listed at WP:TFD. It was later tagged as a speedy, and as nobody removed the tag after quite a while, I took the liberty of following WP:SNOW and speedying it. The userbox has zero use whatsoever. You can defend a "Fuck George Bush" userbox as indicative of possible bias, but this has zero relevance WRT the encyclopedia and only encourages factionalism by defining TFD as a war and participants as warriors. Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, tagged it myself. Death to stupid crud. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100 percent. People seem very quick to ignore policy on TfD right now.--Alhutch 00:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

by policy, I mean the policy that says templates are supposed to be NPOV and encyclopedic.--Alhutch 00:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Username vio / vandalism account

WOWGeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created minutes ago, appears to violate Username. Seems to be continuing vandalism from 66.191.128.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No contributions from either for the last two hours. No opinion on the username, but it could be the word "wow" rather than our WP:WOW. Chick Bowen 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it violates username policy at all; WOW likely refers to World of Warcraft. They may warrant a block nonetheless, but we don't block everyone with 'WOW' in their name. Ral315 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible WP:3RR violation

User:199.29.6.2...at Biblical inerrancy.

20:13, 10 February 2006

20:18, 10 February 2006

20:26, 10 February 2006

20:27, 10 February 2006

20:29, 10 February 2006

20:36, 10 February 2006

20:37, 10 February 2006

20:38, 10 February 2006

20:39, 10 February 2006

KHM03 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the user is a possible sockpuppet of User:192.135.227.163 and User:Kdbuffalo. KHM03 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I placed this notice here because of the nature of the reverts not being "precise". KHM03 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary

• 09:51, 09 February: User:Kdbuffalo adds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
• 10:48, 09 February: User:KHM03 removes said links
• 10:34, 10 February: User:192.135.227.163 removes 3 links: "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki"
• 10:36, 10 February: User:192.135.227.163 readds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
• 11:50, 10 February: User:KHM03 removes "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links and readds "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
• 12:13, 10 February: User:199.29.6.2 removes "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
• 12:18, 10 February: User:199.29.6.2 readds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
• 12:22, 10 February: User:KHM03 removes "Christian Thinktank" link
• 12:25, 10 February: User:KHM03 readds "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
• 12:26, 10 February: User:199.29.6.2 readds "Christian Thinktank" link
• 12:29, 10 February: User:199.29.6.2 removes "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
• 12:32, 10 February: User:KHM03 removes "CreationWiki on Biblical inerrancy", "Inerrancy.org", and "Christian Thinktank" links
• 12:36 - 12:38, 10 February: User:199.29.6.2 readds "CreationWiki on Biblical inerrancy", "Inerrancy.org", and "Christian Thinktank" links (3 revs)

- Evil saltine 23:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Data Loss Bug ?!

What is going on here ? Martial Law 22:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this site undergoing another meltdown ? Martial Law 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --cesarb 23:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The bug that gives you a notice that says "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again in a few moments, or if that doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in." or something to that effect. I got that three times in a row earlier. Just keep hitting "submit". Hermione1980 00:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Just log out, delete your Wikipedia cookies, purge your cache, reload your browser and log back in. That should fix it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Titoxd. This kind of error is almost always cured by simply removing the cookies used by Wikipedia. --cesarb 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this something new? I never saw this error (for two years) before today, and today I got it several times. --Samuel Wantman 07:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes a session gets broken for no known reason. You were just lucky before. Killing the cookies makes the server generate another session. --cesarb 14:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually get this fairly often. I just hit the back button and resubmit, the vast majority of the time it goes through with no problems on the second try. Once in a grea while I have to copy my changes, go back to the article, hit edit again, and put the changes back in. I've never had to purge cookies/reload browser/restart computer etc. to get it working again. Simpler solutions are better. DreamGuy 18:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism

Recently, The Wikipedia Signpost received information that parts of an article published by The Scotsman, a Scottish newspaper, may have been plagarized from Wikipedia without attribution. The user emailed us because of the reports we published on Tim Ryan, who also plagarized from Wikipedia and has now since been dismissed from the Hawaii newspaper where he worked. The article in question was published on October 8, 2005 and can be viewed here. The second to last bullet pointed paragraph states:

In 1792, Lady Almeria Braddock and Mrs Elphinstone held a "petticoat duel" in London's Hyde Park after their conversation turned to the subject of Lady Almeria's true age. The ladies first exchanged pistol shots in which Lady Almeria's hat was damaged. They continued with swords until Mrs Elphinstone received a wound to her arm and agreed to write Lady Almeria an apology.

The article List of famous duels contains the following paragraph:

1792: Lady Almeria Braddock and Mrs Elphinstone; so called "petticoat duel"; Lady Almeria Braddock felt insulted by Mrs Elphinstone and challenged her to a duel in London's Hyde Park after their genteel conversation turned to the subject of Lady Almeria's true age. The ladies first exchanged pistol shots in which Lady Almeria's hat was damaged. They then continued with swords until Mrs. Elphinstone received a wound to her arm and agreed to write Lady Almeria an apology.

The paragraph in question was first started in March of 2004, and most of that paragraph was written on April 7, 2004, by Mintguy, who appears to have left Wikipedia, over a year before the Scotsman article was published. In addition, parts of the section "The traditions of duelling" in the Scotsman article also appear to be paraphrased from our article, duel.

It would be really appreciated if other people could take a look at this situation. Let's not jump to conclusions, though; remember that there is an (albeit slim) chance that the wording was copied from a common source or that there is some other explanation. Thoughts on this? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bullet points 1 and 3-6 - similar to paragraphs in article Duel:

• 1 - Etymology - added by User:Dbachmann as part of a series of edits.
• 3 - Social class - added on 19 May 2004 by User:MathyGuy23 as part of a series of extensive edits.
• 4-6 - Rules of dueling - added on 28 July 2004 by User:80.58.3.239. One day after this, User:209.2.149.161 added "the graver the insult, the fewer the paces".

Bullet point 7 - similar to paragraph in article List of famous duels: added on 17 July 2003 (initial revision) by User:Mintguy; more added on 7 April 2004 by the same user.

Bullet point 8 - similar to paragraph in article The Scotsman: added to Wikipedia on 12 July 2004 by User:Palnu. Likely copyvio on WP's part; see [25] .

- Evil saltine 00:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Searching on Google for short phrases from the paragraph in question finds only Wikipedia forks and irrelevant links (besides the news article itself): "Lady Almeria's true" -"list of famous duels", "petticoat duel" -"list of famous duels". Evil saltine 00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting: http://archive.scotsman.com/scotsman.cfm ; it appears to have similar text to "The Scotsman", but it's unclear who copied from who. (in regard to the "duel" para.) Evil saltine 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I found this: http://web.archive.org/web/20010502165056/http://www.heritage.scotsman.com/cfm/thescotsman/index.cfm ; it's older than the WP addition, so that paragraph (and maybe more) is a copyvio on our part. Evil saltine 02:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I'm a bit confused now: are you saying that only the Wikipedia article on The Scotsman may be copied from the newspaper website, or that all of it is copied? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Only the "The Scotsman" article text appears to have been copied from the website as far as I can tell. The others may have been copied, but I haven't found any evidence of that. Evil saltine 10:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision in the pedophilia userbox wheel war

Having given this case top priority, the Arbitration Committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case. Raul654 00:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've restored El C's sysop rights, but the rest of the decision remains to be implimented. Raul654 00:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented remedies 6.2 and 10.1, the blocks of Dschor for 2 months and SPUI for 10 days. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And blocked Paroxysm for 3 days per remedy 3.0. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a delay built into the meta rights log? It's not showing El C's restoration. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not going to show up at the meta rights log, it should be at the bureaucrats log here, just like any other promotion. Raul's a bureaucrat, not a steward, too, so it couldn't. :) Dmcdevit·t 00:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Aha. How... asymmetrical. :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a "Log of blocks and bans" section to the decision. Please use this to record such enforcement details that come out of the probation remedies in this case. --Tony Sidaway 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo's and Karmafist's remedies are worded differently, but is there any substantive difference between them? Both are desysopped and may apply to RFA in no less than two weeks, yes? Chick Bowen 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks that way. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an inevitable difference in wording because they were arrived at with different reasoning based on different actions. The remedies are the same, however. Dmcdevit·t 07:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice that User:Carbonite seems still to be a sysop - is this intentional? He seems to have been re-sysopped on 09:24, 6 February 2006 UTC by User:Raul654 Secretlondon 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Voluntarily desysoped. See request 1 request 2 and rights log. Carbonite 21:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User:HowardDean

Should he/she be blocked as an inappropriate user name? --Nlu (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that it's an anappropriate username. People with the names of politicians are more likely to become trolls than other, though, so it may be wise to keep an eye on him for a bit. – ClockworkSoul 00:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• From WP:U: No harassing or defamatory usernames: Harassment and defamation is in any case inappropriate on Wikipedia. Further, your username is not a vehicle to attack other users with whom you have a disagreement. Your username should not be used to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. Additionally, a username should not be used to defame other people, companies or groups, regardless of whether they edit Wikipedia. Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name. Given that this user is engaged exclusively in the editing of articles about U.S. politics, I think the real Howard Dean might consider some of this user's edits to be defamatory. I think the user should be gently guided to pick a different moniker. --Aaron 00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But HowardDean has been around since July 7, 2005. Shouldn't this have been raised earlier? At this point, I think the user should be judged on the merits of his/her contributions. If they violate WP:NPOV, then I'd say deal with the user on those grounds. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:UN recommends users avoid "names of politicians." I believe this counts. Just because he's gone unnoticed for so long doesn't mean he's not subject to policy. howcheng {chat} 00:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm aware of that. And, I agree about users not choosing such usernames, but it's just a "recommendation". Maybe it should be made more than just a "recommendation". --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment recent blocked user Howard Bean (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)--152.163.100.200 00:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Howard Bean's user page also read "I'm a wackjob, truely", and his sig redirected to Communism. Not the same thing. – ClockworkSoul 04:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone asked this user if his name is actually Howard Dean? It's not like it's necessarily such an odd name. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's not unknown for members of Congress to take part in the Wikipedia fun. <speculation>For all we know, it could be Howard Dean himself.</speculation> – ClockworkSoul 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• This is ridiculous I should be able to have whatever username I want as long as its not already taken. Did anyone stop to consider that maybe Howard Dean is actually my real name. The former governor of Vermont doesn't own the names Howard and Dean. But if this is indeed some kind of wikipedia rule...then fine I'll simply choose a new username. -- HowardDean 05:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If you read most of this text, you'll see that most of the comments are along the lines of "he's an upright editor, so no big deal". Nobody's asking anybody to change names. – ClockworkSoul 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would have no problem allowing the user to keep his/her name, so long as they put something on their User page saying they're not the former Governor. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We once had a very good editor with the username DickCheney (or something like that). He left in 2004 for unknown reasons. So I think there's precedent for accepting editors with usernames resembling politicians' real names if they make good edits. Johnleemk | Talk 09:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• That is true. Indeed, I think no such notice is necessary. If he decides to stick with us, such a note will likely go up there when he decides to create a proper user page. – ClockworkSoul 15:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nipping boxen in the bud

I've just removed speedy tags from Template:User UN useless and Template:User Antipope not because I think that the templates are doing anything for the encyclopedia but because they were stretching the new CSD as well an not actually going towards solving the underlying problem.

Note 1 - A quick look shows that about 2% of existing boxen are actually useful. About .001% appear to cleanly fall under "clearly divisive". The vast majority are humorous, attempt to be humorous, or are Dada-esque.

Note 2 - Every other speedy deletion criteria is for things that would have no chance at passing their respective XfD. The new one is being used for things that would probably pass TfD in the current climate. We've had a few examples of gaming the system by deleting things "out of process" and then taking them to deletion review because DRV is conservative in restoration. This simply codifies said gaming into the rules.

Unless it's only applied to the .001% using this CSD is never going to work. You can't change behavior with rules, you can only enforce it. Especially not when those rules are applied arbitrarily, and without communication to those affected.

The big problem is that it's dead easy for new users to find and place boxen. Some of them have ten boxes before they've made ten article edits, because we've got massive menu for them to choose from. Rather than throwing our weight around and playing gnomic we'd be better served by doing a bit more thought and a bit less action.

brenneman^{T}{L} 01:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The line between what is truly "divisive and inflammatory" and what is not is blurred.--Alhutch 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends what we mean by 'divisive'. One ready could see all political POV boxes as divisive, and that has pretty good authority [26]. Jimbos's comments on the new CSD T1 [27] seem to imply that many existing userboxes could eventualy be deleted be deleted under it. The problem, as Aaron rightly recognises, is that if two admins disagree on a speedy on any other criteria, the sollution is to send to xfd, as the criteria are designed to delete those thing that would always be shot after a debate. T1, however, seems designed to give a different result to TfD, and so there is no mechanism to solve any admin disputes. --Doc ^ask? 01:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to ignore userboxes as much as I can but everwhere I go they turn up. I'm cleaning up WP:CSD and I get hit by Template:User against Iraq War which Tony Sidaway has tagged for speedy deletion. The text reads "This user opposes the Iraq War and advocates immediate troop withdrawal." I think you would have no chance of getting this deleted in a TfD. I'm not going to touch it, neither to delete it nor to remove the speedy tag. Haukur 01:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Are userboxes in the template space exempted from rules governing templates? I'm pretty sure they aren't, but correct me if I'm wrong. If they are subject to template rules, WP:TFD says that templates have to be NPOV and encyclopedic. That's policy. People voting in TfD are voting to keep because they want to keep their pretty userboxes, but they're completely ignoring existing policy.--Alhutch 04:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I cannot and have not disagreed with this. I think that userboxen are a total waste of time and effort and every method available to us should be taken to root them out and destroy them. Even the ones that are "harmless" are taking up space, and when the first thing new users do is hang curtains on their user page it starts them off on totally the wrong track. They are here to support the encyclopedia, not the other way around.
• The thing is that we've tried the brute force approach, and that was a complete failure. In fact, trying the brute force approach first is why TfD is a no fly zone right now when it comes to "harmless" user boxen. I'm simply suggeting that we attempt to use less bullying, more tact.

brenneman^{T}{L} 05:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just a humble observation: it seems to me that the people wasting the most time and effort are those that are raging against userboxen. – ClockworkSoul 05:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's funny, I've come to exactly the opposite conclusion: the time-wasters on the pedo userbox debacle weren't the anit-troll-bait people.
• For a particularly over-the-top example of userbox-ititis, check out User:Vargher: compare all edits with article edits: Time and edits enough to create/install 79 or so user boxes, and only enough time for 5 article edits. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The we love userboxen crowd on TFD have gone overboard. Seriously. It's one thing to support keeping, say, User anti-UN. It's another to support keeping {{User participant userbox war}}. That's just plain factionalist idiocy. Johnleemk | Talk 09:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The new T1 speedy seems to work reasonably well. It's easy to get the wrong impression of the prevalence of userboxes--in my sampling of over 200 active editors, only around 10% had political, polemical or religious boxes, but the reason you often see lots of votes on TfD is that a small number of editors pay a lot of attention to their user pages and will notice if a template is listed for deletion. Outrage and freedom of speech rhetoric do the rest. So a TfD debate about userboxes cannot be taken as representative of Wikipedia consensus.

I think Jimbo has made statements about userboxes with which I'm sure the vast majority can agree. We shouldn't feel afraid to get rid of rubbish that a few people, many of whom are evidently not interested in using Wikipedia to produce a high quality encyclopedia, want to keep. --Tony Sidaway 09:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a small but vocal set of users who monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts and then go to WP:TFD to voice out-of-process opinions such as "STRONG Speedy Keep" without following the TfD instructions. Contrary to what Aaron Brenneman has stated above, the new CSD rule for templates does not contradict WP:TFD, which says that biased templates ("not NPOV") can be deleted. CSD T.1 is simply a special case of the existing deletion policy for templates, since it's hard to imagine how a template can be divisive/inflammatory, yet neutral ("NPOV"). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As niether of the above statements appear to address the issues I've raised, I'd ask the contributors to re-read my statements. Template:User UN useless is pretty innocuous, and highly unlikely to either be deleted in TfD or to cause any rift in the community. If we're going to appeal to a higher authority, also note that JW has said "don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist".- brenneman^{T}{L} 11:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If all applicable policies are followed, they don't stand a chance. WP:TFD states clearly that biased templates can be deleted; WP:NOT requires people to get off their soapboxes and do their blogging elsewhere; and WP:JIMBO has spoken out against userboxes expressing a political or religious point of view. If you think that it's likely that these templates would survive TfD, it's only an indication that something is wrong with TfD, since the policies couldn't be clearer. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to rethink your opinion on "User UN useless", I think. I certainly don't find it in the least innocuous; we must not provide this kind of inflammatory statement as a ready-made bumper-sticker for user pages on this encyclopedia project. I don't think we're seeing any sprees here, either, just a few very bad templates being speedied. Let's stop pretending that this trash has any place here. --Tony Sidaway 11:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• It would be ridiculous for me to expect that all editors will remove any mention of the political, religious biases, sexual orientation and what not from their userpages...but there is no reason to continue to support the use of much more obtusive userboxes that clearly violate the NPOV.--MONGO 11:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we, just for once, be pragmatic: the top down "admin-powers" approach simply is not working. I haven't checked in a few hours, but nominating a whole swag of things for TfD doesn't seem to have worked, repeatedly deleting and re-deleting things like GWB2 doesn't seem to have worked, and stretching the new CSD isn't going to work either. This whole "us against them" pissing contest is severly disruptive not because of the boxen but because of the continued quasi-hysterical heavy-handed response to the userboxen. Part of being an admin is supposed to be the ability to resolve disputes, not cause them. Quit playing with the buttons, get off the "stupid newbies" high horse and start talking to people. Shave a monkey and call him dad, the second person I asked nicely to remove a boxen did so.
brenneman^{T}{L} 11:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have the wrong impression here. The problem is that there is a very small group of users who have created userboxes which violate existing policies, and who continue to air their grievances and political views through the vehicle of userboxes. This is entirely inappropriate. I'm all in favor of educating newbies who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy, but in some cases we're dealing with willful ignorance or outright filibusters by people who keep arguing about "free speech" (which was countered with Wikipedia:free speech), "censorship", etc. instead of actual Wikipedia policy. Among this problematic minority are people who will argue in favor of process some of the time, but will argue against process whenever that's more convenient. We should not let ourselves be bullied around by a minority, just because they happen to have an astroturfing campaign going on. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree that it hasn't worked, when the results show the opposite. We're slowly but surely building a consensus for the deletion of offensive userboxes. I'm all in favor of your attempts to reason with the perpetrators of these silly things, Aaron, but do please stop removing validly placed speedy tags. --Tony Sidaway 12:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that Aaron did so in an attempt to spark discussion — which seems to be working — and that he notified everyone that he did so, I think his actions were fine.

I'll stake out an extreme position, just for the purposes of discussion: no wiki-markup, other than wikilinks, on User: pages. None. Nada. Zero. No markup, no images, no templates. Wikipedia is not a blog, and not a personal website. Whether or not such a proposal is technically doable, I have no idea. But it gets us out of the business of making subtle distinctions about politics and divisiveness in templates, which frankly many admins seem to be doing a poor job at. Nandesuka 13:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As you say, this is extreme. I think we should allow things like the Babel boxes, since they actually help building an encyclopedia. That is the criterium I would use anyway, when formulating a "policy" for the User: space. Awolf002 13:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that I can't, for the life of me, understand why people are so worked up over (for example) a template that says "This user is against peanut butter sandwiches" but not text on a user page that says "This user is against peanut butter sandwiches." I don't see anything particularly special about the template. Can someone explain this? Nandesuka 13:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because people are allowed to do what they want with their user space, but there are rules (outlined at WP:TFD) governing template space. Templates must be both NPOV and encyclopedic.--Alhutch 15:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the word you're looking for is "hysteria" (though "mob psychology" might fit better).

As for your suggestion, I think that it ignores the fact that Wikipedia is meant to be a community engaged in building an encyclopædia, hence the constsnt emphasis on community consensus. People's User and Talk pages are relevant to that aspect of what we do here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This argument goes around and around so often, we may want to consider a creating a series of templates for it. Something like {{whatsthebigdeal}} to which one may reply {{becauseitmakesittooeasy}}. The number of questions/responses being finite, it may make a reasonable wikiproject. The questions remains, however: would that project have a corresponding userbox template? – ClockworkSoul 16:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The arguments against (and in favor of) having inflammatory and divisive statements available in userbox form have been discussed on the appropriate policy pages, where they may be read by those interested. --Tony Sidaway 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony, can you provide links, for the rushed and lazy? Personally I think the antipope template is clearly harmless, and the UN one I would probably count for myself in the 'inflammatory and divisive' category. If there are people who are on this website who are here to make userboxes, rather than an encyclopedia, then I am very worried indeed. However, I would point out that some newbies will find playing with userboxes a fun way to learn how to work the wiki while they are stil finding their feet with articles: we have to watch out about WP:BITE. The Land 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, look at Larix (talk · contribs). As of today, 836 edits total, 65 article-space edits, including Talk (about 7.5%), has created 80+ userboxes. Now, I'm not saying their edits to articles aren't welcome; they most certainly are. But somehow I can't help to think we have failed to convey the message that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:JarlaxleArtemis

This user has recently taken to reverting an article (Drow), which in itself is quite unproductive. I believe his reasons to be spurious, as I have tried to explain to him in a civil tone. He once reverted a grammatically correct edit with the edit summary "grammatically better", following it with another edit summary: "rv. Ec5618, please stop reverting this article on spurious grounds. Learn how to write".

He has now started to use foul language and to remove my comments from his talk page. Please see the history of his Talk page[28], which shows his removal of my comments using popups[29], and his use of foul language[30]. Perhaps someone should talk to this user. -- Ec5618 01:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the ArbCom page, this user is supposed to be permanently banned.

Case was closed after JarlaxleArtemis was banned permanently as a result of actions detailed at User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis. →Raul654 17:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.101.59.18 (talk • contribs) .

Linuxbeak brokered an agreement to enable him to return. You may want to contact him directly, as he is JarlaxleArtemis's mentor. Chick Bowen 03:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note on Linuxbeak's Talk page, requesting him to take a look. Am I to take it that JarlaxleArtemis is unofficially exempt from the rules until Linuxbeak has commented? Note that he has technically broken WP:3RR since my initial comment here. -- Ec5618 10:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Both users blocked for 24hrs for 3RR violations, and overall WP:DICKheaded edit warring.  ALKIVAR™ 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont see where Ec5618 violated 3RR, am I missing something or did you miscount? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am unblocking. If there is evidence of a 3RR, please post diffs and reblock. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

He reverted at 06:55, February 10, 2006, 01:17, February 11, 2006 and 01:41, February 11, 2006. That is three reversions in less than 24 hours, but he didn't violate 3RR by reverting again. -- Kjkolb 17:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I will back Ec5618 up on this. Attempts at engaging in a civil dialogue with User:JarlaxleArtemis in regard to editing disagreements have been unproductive.Robbstrd 16:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In Jarlaxle's defense, his version IS grammatically more correct than Ec's as per the current reversion. Furthermore, Ec's original comments on his talk page appear to be in response to his "Learn to write" edit summary, which, while not exactly appropriate, isn't offensive to anyone except the thinnest skins around. Jarlaxle told him it wasn't meant to be offensive, and from my view, appeared to be done with the matter, but Ec apparently kept talking about it on Jarlaxle's talk. If I were him, I'd be a little pissed about that too, and delete those comments. Jarlaxle has every right to delete them, as none of them are a warning. I think it all sums up in this, Ec's comment "Please consider discussing this matter. Please consider changing your stance too. and your attitude, perhaps. I have tried to reason with you, please don't force me to file an official complaint.". Ec feels he'd been trying to reason, but Jarlaxle feels that he's an unwelcome presence on the talk page. As an outside observer, I can't say I disagree with Jarlaxle about that. Now I'm not saying Jarlaxle isn't to blame, he obviously violated 3RR. But what I AM saying is that I think there's been far less attempt at engaging him in dialogue to reason with him than there is mentioned here.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I came across as a little agressive, without meaning to. And perhaps JarlaxleArtemis came across as obstinate and offensive, without meaning to. But the fact is that this user has been reverting this article, without ever bothering to Talk to me, or anyone else involved. I have tried to reason with him, and have tried to engage in discussion after virtually every reversion.

As for Swatjester's comment: "there's been far less attempt at engaging him in dialogue". To be honest, I'm not sure on what you're basing that conclusion. As JarlaxleArtemis' Talk page shows, I have tried to get him to discuss the issue, but in turn, I have had to deduce his reasoning from reading his edit summaries. -- Ec5618 18:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'm saying your attempts at discussion weren't necessarily well done on his talk page. He answered you, multiple times. You kept pressing the issue. I fail to see where there was a "failure to bother to talk to you or anyone else involved". Look back at the history, he answered you multiple times. Just cause you don't agree his response doesn't mean that he never actually made one.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

So help me understand this, Swatjester. The complaint is simultanously that people attempt discussion ("kept talking about it on Jarlaxle's talk", "he's an unwelcome presence on the talk page") and that people do not attempt discussion ("I think there's been far less attempt at engaging him in dialogue to reason with him")? 66.101.59.18 19:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, and please don't build a strawman. The complaint is that he had every right to delete comments on his talk page, especially if he felt annoyed by the unwelcome presence. AND, that the attempts to "reason" with him were not very well done, and more aggressive than they should have been. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is quite an odd thing to say. His 'responses' (the ones I didn't agree with, or tried to discuss) were, in order:

• Following the assertion that 'my version' was grammatically incorrect: "there isn't anything grammatically wrong. My version is just grammatically better."
• In response to a suggestion to refer to the Manual of Style, and the relevant Style subpage: "Anyway, I already have looked at it, but I don't agree with it."
• In response, again, to the assertion of grammatical incorrectness: "Sorry, but I can't explain intuition."
• Following a comment regarding his own verbal skills: "Whatever." He went on to remove one of my comments.

Following these were another number of attempts at communication, none of which were acknowledged. Note that his responses were brief, at best, and wholly useless at times. I'm sorry, but I tried. I don't see how there was anything I could have done to induce discussion. -- Ec5618 10:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2

This request for arbitration is closed. The Arbitration Committee has imposed the following remedies:

1. Reddi 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.
2. Reddi is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. He may be banned from any article by any administrator for good cause. Each ban shall be recorded together with the reason at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. A notice shall be placed on the talk page of the article and Reddi shall be notified.
3. Any three administrators, for good cause, may extend either Reddi's ban or probation in one year increments. Any extension shall be documented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Violations of the remedies imposed on Reddi shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks are automatically recorded at Reddi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but should also be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committe, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Stable

Shall we protect Wikipedia/Stable (38860953) for a Wikipedia:Stable versions experiment? [31] -- Zondor 15:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POV_Cleanup

I've been trying to keep on top of POV disputes to whittle them down. Even with my efforts, the number of disputes is growing about 300 a month or about 50% in 2 months. Either we need to come up with some way to make POV disputes from being used as knee-jerk reponses or I could use more people to help me clean it up. Or I support we can let POV tags become a key feature on every article on wikipedia. :) -- Jbamb 17:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Google giving Wikipedia 1st-place: no wonder things are so slow

File:Google-wp.gif

I'm probably not the only one who noticed that things have been particularly slow today, much more so than ever before.

Well, perhaps this is why: Google is returning 1st-position search results from Wikipedia on a variety of queries. An example is shown to the right. I've been able to get a few more, but I can't figure out the rationalle.

Time to double the servers and squids? --James S. 18:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not the reason for todays slowness (I'm not sure what is). We've gotten first place results for a long time. violet/riga (t) 18:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes...just as violetriga said (and I was going to) we've been up on top for at least a year. Something with the servers is going on today. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

These are a different kind of links, though; not typical Google results -- has anyone seen those "According to...." links before? --James S. 18:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes introduced maybe 6 mounths ago. Pulls info from a number of places but wikipedia tends to be the most common.Geni 18:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Same with define: on google, wikipedia is returned as the first result 99% of the time. Shows how much the wiki is trusted eh! Mike _{(T C)} 18:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User : TheDoctor10

I recieved the following via e-mail from User:TheDoctor10 :

---

I've been mistakenly blocked by Ed g2s, please unblock me.

TheDoctor10

---

I informed him that I am not an administrator and cannot unblock but that I would pass his request along. I do not know the nature of the ban.

Thanks - Damicatz 19:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The block is already expired. [32] Rd232 ^talk 20:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Olympics on ITN

At Template talk:In the news I've suggested reusing Template:Olympic news, as was done in 2004; however, this would require the help of administrators who are knowledgeable about the Olympics and willing to keep it updated. This, then, is a recruiting call; if you're interested in helping, please comment at Template talk:In the news. Thanks. — Dan | talk 19:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I view deleted page "Colonel Xu?"

Hello, and thanks in advance for your reply(ies). My classmates created a page on WP called "Colonel Xu." It was mocking our Mandarin teacher. She took it in stride, being the cool person she is. However, they didn't preserve any copies of it, and knowing I was a WP junkie, requested that I help them try to get a copy of it. Could an administrator please let me view it, and then print it out, or to move the "article" to my userspace? I'll be checking here and on my Talk page every couple mins. THanks! -Copysan 22:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please ask it on WP:DRV. --cesarb 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Copysan 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:SPUI

SPUI, banned for a few days by the arbitration committee for placing an unsuitable userbox on his user page, placed a copy on his talk page. Reverted and protected. --Tony Sidaway 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but I've changed the tag from {{vprotected}} to {{usertalk-sprotect}}, which I think is more appropriate (except for the fact that it's not semi-protected but fully protected...) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I adapted that tag to Template:usertalk-vprotect. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected, since other users were trying to leave comments there. If there's a persistent problem with that page being vandalized, it might need reprotection. +sj + 06:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please protect {{Current sport}}

The template, {{Current sport}}, is on top of numerous articles related to and including the 2006 Winter Olympics. It was recently vandalized with penis photos. I really recommend this get protection, to help avoid such vandalism while the olympics are going on. Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I am going to protect the template. I will check back here to see if anyone has objected. Johntex\^talk 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Though, willing to hear any objections. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not realise it has not been protected before. {{current}} has been protected since October. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

t-man, and his userpage

t-mans user page [33], the user has been banned by shanel and whilst banned has continued to introduce, at best questionable statments, at worst highly libellous perosnal attack. can an admin please protect his user page for the duration of the block shanel has issued, thanks Benon 02:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected; block lengthened. NSLE _(T+C) 02:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks please post a small summary here, thanks [34]Benon 02:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks nsle Benon 16:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Can This be explained ?

Can this be explained ? Found this while on my way to this site. This link is:

Wikipedia Class Action Lawsuit. Should I run this by the boss as well, or is this nothing to be concerned about at all ? Martial Law 03:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone is trying to find people to nail this site. Martial Law 03:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Old news. Really old news. So old I can't say I'm surprised it's coming up again. --Carnildo 03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the assisstance. Is this another attack on Wikipedia ? Martial Law 03:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They've been "currently gathering complaints" for ages now, it's nothing to be worried about atm. In the meantime, entertain yourself with http://www.wikipediaclassaction.com/. --bainer (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

can't we just coutersue them for claiming Jimbo got rejected from the porn business as libel? We all know he did more than fine ;-) (okay, i'm gonna get yelled at now for making fun of m:GodKing) Sasquatch t|c 07:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Made link invalid so that we aren't linking to this crap from a PR6 page. -- Pakaran 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mini moved to Mini (BMC)

User:Schrei has moved the article that was at Mini to Mini (BMC) to make way for moving the former "other uses" disambig page to Mini. I do not believe this is the best solution as the car the Mini is by far the most common usage of the term (for reference see the dismabig page) and as I have described at Talk:Mini (BMC) and User Talk:Schrei the article on the car contains more information than just the BMC mini anyway, as it has a seciton (albeit short) on the new mini. I would appreciate it if an amdin could look at reverting the moves to the way it was before. Thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 03:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mcfly85

Sound familiar? *Sigh* He returned recently and has started creating more sockpuppets to vandalize my user page.

Look at the contributions of these users:

• Warrierknog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koollid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blinded_By (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The_last_time_I_saw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Compassio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Back2buk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Teenage_wedding_and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rolston910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guesswho05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piece_10_cough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BK_Fish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nippy432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Godd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Does the last edit of each of them look similar or is it just me? Almost all of the users' last edit summary is "I quit" or something like that. Aren't abusive sockpuppets supposed to be blocked? — Moe ε 03:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

He just created another account: Maklocel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Moe ε 03:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Curps blocked them all. Do you want me or someone else familiar with the scenario to reopen a RfAr? --Nlu (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he should have the RfAr against him reopened. A periodic CheckUser to see if he's making accounts will help. — Moe ε 13:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start with a CheckUser request, although I think we know what the result would be. We'll take it from there. --Nlu (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser results

Edits on Jan 19 as Macnme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edits on Jan 26 as McFly85 and as Koollid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edits on Jan 27 as Blinded By (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fthepostingquota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edits on Feb 3 as Fthepostingquota and creation of Arniepieski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), creation and edits on Feb 8 as Guesswho05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and creation and edits on Feb 12 as Maklocel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Fred Bauder 23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is incomplete but as he was the only one editing I have blocked the range. Fred Bauder 23:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be sued in Trenton, New Jersey?!

Honestly, I don't know what's happened, other than I was auto-blocked and banned for two days. The user Beowulph suggested I get an official account after noting I'd made good edits for a while under my anonymous IP of 24.162.17.96, so I created Voice of Treason. Now I don't know if it was a previously banned account or what happened, but after leaving a messaqge on my old talk page and going to my new I get the messsage that I'm blocked until the 13th and "I'll be sued in Trenton, New Jersey". Now, I do seem to be able to edit and not be read-only now (though I haven't done anything yet) but can anyone explain what the heck just happened?!? Voice of Treason 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Basically, what happened is that your nickname was too similar to one of an infamous banned user, Mr. Treason, which used to utter those words, "I'll sue you in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey!". One administrator blocked you, and another one unblocked you. Everything should be all right now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I had a feeling that might of been what it was.Voice of Treason 04:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:OceanSplash

This user was indefinitely blocked by Jtkiefer a little over a month ago. OceanSplash recently contacted me via e-mail and asked to have his block lifted. We discussed some of his problematic behavior, and he agreed to a sort of informal "mentoring" arrangement whereby I would try to coach him should I see signs of that behavior resuming. I asked Jtkiefer for his thoughts on this, and he said he had no objections to my unblocking OceanSplash so long as I tried to help him avoid the sort of behavior that led to his block. I'm going to give it a crack, and we'll see how it goes. Babajobu 06:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As Babajobu has summarized above I have no issues with this but as I have told him, I have no qualms about reblocking if OceanSplash continues his previous behavior though hopefully OceanSplash will take advantage of having someone to mentor him. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)