User warning templates strawpoll |
|||
Line 547: | Line 547: | ||
:Have a look at [[WP:CPMV]]. I have tagged this as {{tl|db-histmerge}}, so it should be taken care of in due course. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&action=edit&section=new whine]</small> 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
:Have a look at [[WP:CPMV]]. I have tagged this as {{tl|db-histmerge}}, so it should be taken care of in due course. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&action=edit&section=new whine]</small> 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Ah, I see this probably wasn't the first place I should have gone. Sorry about that, and thanks for the help. --[[User:Maxamegalon2000|Maxamegalon2000]] 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
::Ah, I see this probably wasn't the first place I should have gone. Sorry about that, and thanks for the help. --[[User:Maxamegalon2000|Maxamegalon2000]] 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
== User warning templates strawpoll == |
|||
Most of you are aware of the work that was done over the previous 6 months by the user warnings project [[WP:UW]] and then when handed over [[WP:UTM]] to harmonise the multi level warnings. We'd now like to wrap up this project by completing the single issue templates and tidying up the {{cl|User warning templates}}. To achieve this, one of the areas that needs greater community involvement is the redirecting of the old templates to the new ones. This is not something we will undertake lightly as a few editors are still attached to the old templates, though the majority of warnings being issued now are with the new system. If you have an opinion on the user warnings templates old or new, we'd appreciate your thoughts [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings#Overview_-_Now_time_to_finish|here]] please. Regards <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 10:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:22, 14 March 2007
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism?
Several users are arguing about this issue. My opinion is that if a vandal removes warning from his page, then he is interfering with the process of keeping track of his vandalism so that appropriate warnings or blocks can be made. Thus his removal is vandalism; and we should revert it and give him another warning. MrDarcy (talk · contribs) (who is apparently an administrator), claims that such reversion and additional warning would itself be vandalism by the "enforcer". And he is threatening to give warnings and blocks to those who do that. What is the policy on this matter? Thanks for your help. JRSpriggs 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Up until recently there were specific warning templates advising vandals that removing legitimate warning templates was also vandalism. I agree that it is necessary for legitimate warnings to stay on vandals' pages, so others on vandal patrol can see the prior offenses without having to dig through the history. It is almost always the worst vandals who promptly remove the warnings, often doubling the workload for those of us trying to stop them. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Those templates were intentionally deleted because many people agree with MrDarcy (though perhaps with weaker language) that reverting vandalism warnings is generally inappropriate. While I understand your concern about tracking the worst vandals, allowing such reversions also encourages harassment of generally good users that simply make mistakes. The amount of problems they were creating was disproportionate to the amount of good a little extra tracking was doing since any admin worth his title ought to already be reviewing histories. Dragons flight 07:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. An archive of the deletion review regarding warning removal templates can be seen here. Dragons flight 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion here seems to me to show strong consensus that valid warnings need to stay on a vandal's page, and that removing them is wrong. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mine is far more recent. That poll (which I helped create) does not reflect current policy. As WP:VAND, "removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon" replaced the statements that removing warnings was vandalism. While removing warnings might be a cause for further dispute resolution, it is not presently considered a form of vandalism and should not be indiscriminately reverted. Dragons flight 08:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It's so easy to solve, just make sure your edit summary reflects the fact you gave them a warning. Then it will not matter if they remove it and the next person will just need to look at the history page and not go though several revisions. Wikipedia:Use common sense applies. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just chiming in as another admin strongly against edit-warring in an attempt to force the talk page display of material a user does not want. Talk pages exist to facilitate >communication< with the user. Not to serve as a perpetual 'wall of shame' for every condemnation that any random user chooses to place there. If you want to review past problems check the page history and/or the block log... that is their purpose, not the talk page's. --CBD 12:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with CBD, and would just like to point out that if vandalism comes from an IP, that IP could be used the next day by a completely different person who is adding useful content. If it comes from a registered user, I imagine that in most cases, the account should be blocked indefinitely. I'm basing that on my feeling that there would be very few registered users who add the word "poop" to the article about George W. Bush today and add useful content to the article on contact lenses tomorrow. But surely a user should not be forced to display warnings that annoy or embarrass him. If that were the case, we'd need to change the titles from "user warnings" to "user black marks". When I send a warning, I'm careful to put something like "uw-vandalism2" in the edit summary, so that an admin can look briefly at the history, without checking the diffs, and see that someone has been warned. I'd hope, in any case, that an admin would check for vandalism carried out by the vandal before blocking, rather than warnings issued to the vandal, as I'm sure there are some who might misuse the warning templates if they disagree with an edit or want to harass someone. Just my two cents. ElinorD (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Remember the point in the warnings is to get them to stop vandalising, if they just blank the warning and do nothing then it worked. If they continue just add the next warning if appropriate, most who are intent on vandalising will just continue and It'll get to a blockable level reasonably quickly. If it comes to an AIV report you can note that warnings were removed. The other side to consider is that of attention seeking, some of those involved in this are incapable of gaining attention for positive contributions and would rather gain attention from the negative, edit warring over warnings is just feeding that attention seeking. If they are replacing the warning with taunts, abuse etc. then keep cool and if need be ask for an admin to see about protecting the page/blocking. --pgk 12:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there is definitely some gray area here. Maybe there should be some sort of time period that warnings are expected to remain. If an editor is removing current (24 hours for logged in users, less for IPs) warnings and continuing the actions that led to the warning in the first place, I would consider the removal as an additional act of vandalism. /shrug. --Onorem 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- If they remove the template, then they have clearly seen it. The purpose of these templates is not to blackmark users, it is to ask (then urge, then tell, then warn) users not to vandalise (be incivil, edit war, etc). If they have seen the message, then the purpose of the template has been achieved. Reapplying such templates if the user has removed them is edit warring; it should not be done. Neil (not Proto ►) 14:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. I can revert a page without viewing the content. If someone has been doing something or engaging in inappropriate behaviour and sees my name as having just edited his talk page, he can easily revert it without actually reading what I wrote.--Crossmr 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the discussion could be narrowed to focus strictly on anonymous IP users as a starting point. The majority of vandalism comes from anonymous users. Since anonymous users do not generally have the same rights as account holders[1] and user talk pages are a community asset, not personal, it's reasonable that a pattern of vandalism should be required to stand on the talk page for a period of time. The removal of vandalism warnings slows down the enforcement process. I don't look at page history or edit summaries when placing vandalism warnings. It is a waste of time - and often time is valuable when trying to stop a rampant vandal (at least when you have to get the warnings documented before you can report to WP:AIV). What about those vandal patrollers who are using tools like VandalProof? They are likely to put a test1 on someone who has been blocked 3 times in the last month just because of a blanked page. If the user can be penalized for blanking the page, it will either act as a deterrent or demonstrate malice on the part of the user. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- No idea how VP works, but honestly, if the page has been blanked it's fairly obvious that one has to check the history to look for previous warnings. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about penalizing people, it's about preventing disruption, starting wars over user talk content is in itself disruptive. When dealing with a vandal you should always be checking their recent contributions anyway to revert any as yet undetected vandalism, this will tell you if they've blanked their page and if they have indeed been up to any other misdeeds recently. --pgk 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its also about civility. And while on a low-traffic talk page of an IP its easy to check for previous warnings, on a busy talk page of a long-time user (yes they can still make mistakes), it can be near impossible to dig through and find those. Warnings are no different than any other kind of talk. We consider it a civility issue if someone is constantly blanking talk on his talk page without responding to it. So why should valid warnings be any different? They're still communication. There is no reason valid warnings on a talk page should be treated differently than valid communication and they can both be archived as appropriate. We've established that users don't own their talk page, even though they're given some latitude with it, its a place where a record of communication with other users is kept.--Crossmr 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- If one has to scan the history of a page to find warnings (and talk pages can often have lengthy histories), figuring out who to block becomes a real chore. If the warnings are left on the talk page, it becomes much easier to find out what level the vandal is at, in turn making it easier to escalate the template level when appropriate. Users don't own their talk pages, and vandals, in my opinion, should have more restrictions because of their proven malicious intents (at least persistent vandals should). If a warning is unwarranted, because the user did not perform the edit in question (the warner made a mistake), they are welcome to remove it themselves, but some users (IPs and registered users) have simply blanked their talk pages, regardless of whether or not the warnings previously displayed had been valid or read. As far as I'm concerned, archiving to a page linked from the main page is OK; blanking/deletion is not OK. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It would also become an issue if, for instance, a long-time user had an issue with a certain subject which he only edited occasionally. If there were warnings in relation to it, and that person consistently blanked them, any future people leaving notices in regards to some inappropriate behaviour in regards to a certain subject might never be able to notice the pattern and realize it probably needed addressed more than a simple warning.--Crossmr 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Two additional comments on this; If a user does not have an account and is therefore showing up as an anonymous IP, it should just go with the territory that the user might have vandalism warnings sitting on the talk page from a previous user. The user doesn't own the talk page. We could just have a template that explains the situation very politely to the next user of the ip. On that same idea, the majority of anon ip's don't change from day to day or even month to month. It is reasonable that a user who is vandalizing on that ip will be back on the same ip to do it again (if they do it again). The second, and perhaps more important, is that I don't want to see vandal patrollers getting scolded by an admin who believes that blanking the talk page is not a bad thing. It makes us all look stupid if we can't agree on what the policy is and how it can be enforced. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- A template would be good. I think several exist, it would be a matter of ensuring that they get on all IP talk pages. I still can't find a "good" reason for blanking warnings when other communication is allowed to stay unless its an attempt to hide it. Thats assuming bad faith, but honestly I just cannot think of a good faith reason to blank valid warnings unless you're consistently blanking your entire talk page (which you shouldn't really be doing anyway).--Crossmr 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- If this is an established editor with that much throughput on their talk page that a brief viewing of the page history won't make the issue obvious, I'd say that's all the more reason to not worry about them keeping warnings visible if they don't want them. We should be looking to the bigger picture in such cases not merely counting warnings. The warning templates aren't something to bash people with, if the issue has been resolved and moved on from (i.e. they've read it and "conformed") then we don't need chanting of "unclean". --pgk 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it is. Because its much easier for an established editor to cover up an issue that way. If someone doesn't seen any obvious warnings to this person they might just leave another civil1, and move on and think nothing of it. What they don't notice on this editors busy talk page is maybe he's had a half dozen of those over the last year, but its never involved the same editors, so no one picks up on it. That would be an indication that perhaps it should be taken to another level for input and possible handling of the situation. As I pointed out, there is no good reason to remove warnings if they were valid. Absolutely 100% none. And "feeling like it" isn't a good reason. If I ask you a question and you blank it, its considered uncivil. It should be no different with warnings. Its just communication. There is no reason it can't be archived in 7 days along with everything else, or whatever the regular archiving period is on that particular users talk page.--Crossmr 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well that fails WP:AGF, assuming it is done for "an established editor to cover an issue", doesn't cut it. Regardless of if you see it as uncivil is irrelevant, yes we want people to be civil, do we block people for being mildly uncivil, no. Which is more disruptive removing some warnings they've read and understood or Assumptions of bad faith concerning that warning and edit warring over the removal. --pgk 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't blindly assume good faith. And if you can't provide a "good" reason for the removal of the warnings before normal archiving, I'm not violating that. If a single good scenario can't be provided for their removal, yet bad scenarios can easily be though of, AGF doesn't apply. There also wouldn't be any edit warning if we established a policy on their removal. Hence why this discussion is here. We don't block people for being mildly uncivil no. But if someone is consistently uncivil in all dealings he has with a particular subject (Lets say historical figures from a certain state, it doesn't really matter what) If a keen eyed editor notices this while leaving the individual a warning, he may try and intervene and recommend that the editor not edit those kinds of articles or if the editor ignores that and continues to be uncivil in regards to those articles, it may go to a point where the editor is officially banned from editing those kinds of articles. There are also other kinds of sneaky vandalism that long time editors could get away with by being allowed to bury warnings. There is also no assumption of bad faith in my saying that they shouldn't be allowed to wipe the warning right away. I'm simply saying that it is communication and it shouldn't be treated any differently.--Crossmr 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes we do blindly assume good faith, when we have some evidence of bad faith in an action then that assumption evaporates. If someone removes a warning and doesn't continue the behaviour they were warned about that is not evidence of bad faith in removal of the warning. --pgk 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- So you're saying if I leave a NPA warning on someone's talk page, they blank and then repeat the behaviour, it is evidence and obviously the blanking of the warning is in bad faith? At that point then, since obviously the person was acting in bad faith by blanking the warning, that warning, and probably all others can be restored? What about future blankings? If those warnings were restored, and they're immediately blanked again, do we restore them since the user has demonstrated they're willing to ignore warnings? Are you willing to keep the tally sheet on which user is allowed to blank warnings because they haven't messed up again? Quite a tangled web. Its much easier to simply say that warnings are the same as any other communication and should be treated as such.--Crossmr 20:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you should restore warnings under any circumstances. I'm saying assuming that just removing of a warning is indicative of some "bad intent" goes against WP:AGF, if someone does remove a warning and then continues it seems go evidence of disruptive behaviour. Post a further warning for the fresh behaviour, if the disruption continues that's when we block. i.e. If I post a test2 template (or uw- whatever) on someones talk page and they remove it, and repeat the same action then any assumption that their original edit may have been a genuine mistake/test has gone out the window they certainly read the warning, there is no doubt they intend to be disruptive. "Its much easier to simply say that warnings are the same as any other communication and should be treated as such" - yep and I'm free to remove any other message I see fit from my talk page, as is any other editor, it's not vandalism, it's not something to edit war over. --pgk 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thats not the impression I've gotten from people. A talk page is a record of communication and you don't own your talk page. You're given some latitude with it, but in the end you don't own it. I've seen it mentioned more than once that removing messages on your talk page without responding can be seen as uncivil, and that your talk page should be archived in a useful manner (if blanked, diffs to various versions should be included) or via something like werdnabot. Editing others comments is frowned upon, regardless of the place (unless its formatting the position of the message), and blanking someone's comment, whether its a comment or a warning, would fall under that too. So while it may be your talk page, and I should assume good faith in your wanting to blank the warning right away, you should realize you don't own your talk page, and you shouldn't edit my comments. This isn't a one way street. And in the absence of any good reason for removing warnings right away, I don't see any kind of reason this should lean so heavily towards that side. The middle ground would be to allow an individual to blank warnings until they show bad faith, but I think I just covered what a gong show that would be. You assume that this would be something that would be edit warred over, but an official policy should hopefully nip a lot of that in the bud. As someone pointed out before the only policy was kind of vague.--Crossmr 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- So you're saying if I leave a NPA warning on someone's talk page, they blank and then repeat the behaviour, it is evidence and obviously the blanking of the warning is in bad faith? At that point then, since obviously the person was acting in bad faith by blanking the warning, that warning, and probably all others can be restored? What about future blankings? If those warnings were restored, and they're immediately blanked again, do we restore them since the user has demonstrated they're willing to ignore warnings? Are you willing to keep the tally sheet on which user is allowed to blank warnings because they haven't messed up again? Quite a tangled web. Its much easier to simply say that warnings are the same as any other communication and should be treated as such.--Crossmr 20:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes we do blindly assume good faith, when we have some evidence of bad faith in an action then that assumption evaporates. If someone removes a warning and doesn't continue the behaviour they were warned about that is not evidence of bad faith in removal of the warning. --pgk 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't blindly assume good faith. And if you can't provide a "good" reason for the removal of the warnings before normal archiving, I'm not violating that. If a single good scenario can't be provided for their removal, yet bad scenarios can easily be though of, AGF doesn't apply. There also wouldn't be any edit warning if we established a policy on their removal. Hence why this discussion is here. We don't block people for being mildly uncivil no. But if someone is consistently uncivil in all dealings he has with a particular subject (Lets say historical figures from a certain state, it doesn't really matter what) If a keen eyed editor notices this while leaving the individual a warning, he may try and intervene and recommend that the editor not edit those kinds of articles or if the editor ignores that and continues to be uncivil in regards to those articles, it may go to a point where the editor is officially banned from editing those kinds of articles. There are also other kinds of sneaky vandalism that long time editors could get away with by being allowed to bury warnings. There is also no assumption of bad faith in my saying that they shouldn't be allowed to wipe the warning right away. I'm simply saying that it is communication and it shouldn't be treated any differently.--Crossmr 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well that fails WP:AGF, assuming it is done for "an established editor to cover an issue", doesn't cut it. Regardless of if you see it as uncivil is irrelevant, yes we want people to be civil, do we block people for being mildly uncivil, no. Which is more disruptive removing some warnings they've read and understood or Assumptions of bad faith concerning that warning and edit warring over the removal. --pgk 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it is. Because its much easier for an established editor to cover up an issue that way. If someone doesn't seen any obvious warnings to this person they might just leave another civil1, and move on and think nothing of it. What they don't notice on this editors busy talk page is maybe he's had a half dozen of those over the last year, but its never involved the same editors, so no one picks up on it. That would be an indication that perhaps it should be taken to another level for input and possible handling of the situation. As I pointed out, there is no good reason to remove warnings if they were valid. Absolutely 100% none. And "feeling like it" isn't a good reason. If I ask you a question and you blank it, its considered uncivil. It should be no different with warnings. Its just communication. There is no reason it can't be archived in 7 days along with everything else, or whatever the regular archiving period is on that particular users talk page.--Crossmr 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Users are heavily discouraged from removing messages from their talk pages, unless the message to them is a personal attack. Blanking warnings is vandalism, whether the warning has been there for one day or one year. Acalamari 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong answer! Agathoclea 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- People can assert this as often as they want, fact is it is not consensus, and therefore not policy. And if you try to enforce it and edit-war about it, you will be in trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have a bot on the drawing board that makes archives retro-actively. Once I got a better caching routine done I will make it available. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong answer? What do you mean? This is a discussion about vandalism, not a quiz. Acalamari 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf., are you saying that I would be in trouble and considered a vandal if I suggested a new policy that said that blanking talk page warnings is vandalism? Why would I be in trouble for? I would just be suggesting a policy. Acalamari 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would support such a policy proposal. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would also support such a policy proposal. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would also support such a proposal. Recently I encountered a user who receives lots of warnings. He immediately blanks all warnings and block notices, even while the blocks are active. Raymond Arritt 04:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Answer to Acamalari: No, obviously not, not for suggesting a policy. (But I'd advise you that, given the strong opposition such proposals have had in the past, you have very little chance of seeing such a proposal through. It's almost like one of those "perennial proposals". The community is pretty much split over it.) What I was saying was, you seemed to be just unilaterally declaring it a policy, and you would be in trouble if you attempted to treat it as one in practice, for instance by edit-warring on another user's page to enforce it. I thought I'd expressed myself clearly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I always thought it was policy because several other users, including administrators, have said to me that talk page messages should not be removed without a very good reason (i.e. trolling) Acalamari 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are a lot of editors/admins who think this is a policy. I actually had to ask about it here about a week or so ago because I saw an editor get blocked for 3RR because they removed an old vandal warning and then removed the subsequent warnings they received for that action... because the admin thought he was enforcing policy. It's probably a good idea to have a more formal discussion on this. I'm not sure I want to see a hard policy on this, but a guideline may be helpful.--Isotope23 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I always thought it was policy because several other users, including administrators, have said to me that talk page messages should not be removed without a very good reason (i.e. trolling) Acalamari 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would also support such a policy proposal. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- We've had such a policy in the past. It doesn't work. It encourages edit warring over the presence of the warning messages and leads to escalating disruption that is far more troubling than the mere blanking of warnings. Sorry, but no thanks. Dragons flight 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- So then apply it appropriately? Very simply the scenario should look like this: Regular Joe User notices user X has blanked warnings, they restore them and reminds them that that is against policy and they can archive the warnings with their regular archives. If user X continues, they've been warned about the behaviour. Make a report to AIV, an administrator can restore them, provide a final warning (because honestly if this takes more than 2 warnings to get across, there is a malfunction in the junction) and then lock the talk page. This makes sure all talk is readily available. The warnings should provide links on how to archive a talk page and links to say the village pump if the individual feels a warning is unfair, or they need help understanding it. It can also include information saying "If this warning is patently false you can remove it, but explain why in the edit summary, i.e. I never edited the article in question".--Crossmr 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- We've had such a policy in the past. It doesn't work. It encourages edit warring over the presence of the warning messages and leads to escalating disruption that is far more troubling than the mere blanking of warnings. Sorry, but no thanks. Dragons flight 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The standing official policy says that this activity is "frowned upon". What exactly does that mean? How does one enforce "frowned upon"? The ambiguity is what is so infuriating. This debate will go on forever until that is resolved. We need to establish policy in one direction or the other. Separately, if an edit war breaks out as a result of a policy, it would be a pretty short edit war - warning1, warning2, warning3, warning4, block. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- It means that people are discouraged from doing it, but it won't (in the absense of other factors) lead to any sanction. Disruptive user that also remove warnings are more likely to be seen as trolls though. Dragons flight 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus can change, just because did not find consensus in the past does not mean it will not now. I encourage the drafting of a proposal, it is clear there is much support for it. I don't see how it can encourage edit warring if the side removing the warnings is violating policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have provided a link to a proposal of mine. I provided the link further down this page, but I'll provide it here too: User: Acalamari/Warning Removals. Acalamari 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus can change, just because did not find consensus in the past does not mean it will not now. I encourage the drafting of a proposal, it is clear there is much support for it. I don't see how it can encourage edit warring if the side removing the warnings is violating policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that your proposal is specifically for IP addresses, but lots of others have said this should apply to registered talk pages as well. Here's the problem: Say I'm having a dispute with User X. I am being civil and refraining from personal attacks. User X leaves an npa-2 warning on my talk page, even though it is entirely unfounded. Is removing it vandalism? If yes, can others remove it? If so, will we need to set up a noticeboard for requests for independent editors to investigate whether the warning was warranted and if not, to remove it? Obviously this would be a bigger problem with registered user talk pages, but we also have some VERY good IP editors (one in particular, of course, comes to mind). Would this policy apply to him? Why or why not? It's really not that difficult to check the history page, especially if something about the user seems fishy to you. If they are vandalizing and they blank their talk page, block 'em. That's completely in line with present policy, in which blanking warnings can only be considered disruption in the presence of other disruption (such as vandalism). My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- My proposal is not just for IP addresses at all. Also, discussion of the proposal should take place on the proposal's talk page, not here. My apologies if this message sound slightly uncivil. Acalamari 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I must have misread. But I'm not talking specifically about your proposal, I'm talking about the idea in general, as have the above 30+ comments. Hence why I listed it here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, and I misunderstood. I saw the "your proposal" part, and assumed you meant my proposal. I'm surprised it hasn't generated any interest yet; from the messages above, everyone was saying it would be a highly-discussed topic. Acalamari 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I must have misread. But I'm not talking specifically about your proposal, I'm talking about the idea in general, as have the above 30+ comments. Hence why I listed it here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- If a warning message is placed on a users talk page and its completely unfounded then it can be removed. Removing it wouldn't be vandalism. The burden of proof would be on the individual who placed the warning to provide diffs where they felt the behaviour occurred. If they can't, the warning can be removed. If its patently false, i.e. a copyvio template left about the George bush article and you've never edited that article. Remove it, and indicate that in your edit summary. If the warning template has been left by someone you're in a disagreement with, post to the village pump (this link could be included in the warning templates) or post to the users talk page and ask them to provide diffs.--Crossmr 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since there is clearly going to be no change in policy on this issue, I guess we are left to simply "frown" heavily on the activity (maybe I'll create a template that says "I frown on what you did" -- sounds completely legit to me based on the policy WP:VAND). We that are addicted vandal fighters, just need to continue what we were doing (reverting the removals) while staying on the right side of WP:3RR. It is a shame that we can't come to a YES or NO answer on this but we'll just have to walk a thin line to keep ourselves from being labeled vandals. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Right, there isn't going to be a change in policy because the alternative is the massive instruction creep that Crossmr mentions: if someone on vandal patrol posts a warning, he/she needs to monitor the page because if the user removes the warning as unfounded, the vandal patroller has to go back and provide diffs, right? (Otherwise, you're conceding that the warning was false, presumably). And admins and other editors can get harassed: where they remove what they think is a bogus warning, and then get presented a irrelevant diff (say, a revert they did), then what - take it to the village pump? RFC?
- Since there is clearly going to be no change in policy on this issue, I guess we are left to simply "frown" heavily on the activity (maybe I'll create a template that says "I frown on what you did" -- sounds completely legit to me based on the policy WP:VAND). We that are addicted vandal fighters, just need to continue what we were doing (reverting the removals) while staying on the right side of WP:3RR. It is a shame that we can't come to a YES or NO answer on this but we'll just have to walk a thin line to keep ourselves from being labeled vandals. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The reality is that Wikipedia has no processes to resolve arguments over whether a specific warning is a valid or not, and it doesn't need such processes - admins evaluate such warnings when, and only when, it appear that a block may be warranted. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Suggestion: If you're given a false warning, respond to it with your side rather than remove it and look like you're trying to hide something. I reverted a user removing 2 {{npa}} warnings given to him on his talk page in the past 24 hrs and added a note that removing warnings was frowned upon. That user is now blocked, and rightfully so, but he would have continued attacking, edit warring, and being disruptive if I had not reverted his warnings and reported him on WP:AN/I. I don't know if we need a policy on this or if common sense suffices, but I'd prefer to not be blocked for making sure a disruptive editor gets reported and taken care of. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone erases a warning on their talk page, then before you accuse them of vandalizing Wikipedia you have a responsibility to make sure that the person erased the warning in bad faith. You'd have to double-check their contributions to see whether the warning they erased is valid or not. This easily eats up more time than we save by trying to discourage people from erasing messages. It does happen that people - often new users - are warned inappropriately and then erase the warning. I came across a case recently in which an article was vandalized, someone fixed most of the vandalism, and the vandalism-fixer got blamed for the original vandalism. The person rightly blanked the nonsensical nonsensical warning from his/her talk page, and got for that another vandalism warning. If we are going to warn people who erase warnings, the least we can do is say so politely and not use the word "vandalism." Kla'quot 05:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Mike Garcia
Through the usual vandalism that seems to hit the standard pages, I have indefinitely blocked Johnny89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is the source for all of the "Johnny the Vandal" activity in the past few months. By going through the user creation logs of the following, I was able to deduce that a user who originally claimed that he was not Mike Garcia to be Mike Garcia. The following is a full list of the users involved.
- AHephaestossucksatfreeq.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- John G. Hephaestos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- John Glover Robinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Johnny the Swedish Person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- John Arwel Hephaestos Parry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Jack Malakian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Johnny89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- John G. Tankian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Samuel Tankian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Trent Liles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- John G. Odadjian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- John G. Kernigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Robert Kernigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- John G. Mayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Charles Danell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Tommy G. Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Michael Ness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Charlie Danell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Jack Parry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Arwel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Johnny Michael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- A. Parry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Thomas G. Jackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Michael Kernigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User creation log)
- Jack Odadjian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
These are all that I have found by going through these logs. As such, I have indefinitely blocked the home-base IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- As a side note, I have fully protected User talk:Johnny89 as he pulled the same bullshit that he usually does when he gets blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ry, you should have filed a check user case to confirm these users are confirmed sockpuppets of a banned user, in order to lessen collateral damage. My 2 cents. Real96 08:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- All of these users were created from a single account. If you go from Johnny89 you can get to Jack Odadjian through the creation of other usernames by an account, not an IP. That is why I linked them all. And there were checkusers run that show that these come from a single IP that I blocked tonight that was only unblocked under good faith because Johnny89 claimed he was not Mike Garcia, which was a blatant lie.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ry, you should have filed a check user case to confirm these users are confirmed sockpuppets of a banned user, in order to lessen collateral damage. My 2 cents. Real96 08:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- This seems to demonstrate that updating a block to an IP only block should not be done lightly. I notice the IP in question was blocked via checkuser and had a block message indicating not to unblock without reference to the blocking admins, I would guess if this had been done they would have said not to believe the sob stories from that IP. The second part of this is that the IP only block takes precedence over any auto blocks, hence the ability to perpetuate this without being impacted by autoblocks. Don't think that changing to IP only is a low risk option, it isn't. It also shows another issue, but per WP:BEANS I won't reveal that just yet --pgk 16:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking action against this idiot. As one of those who he's been stalking for something like three years now, I'm getting fed up of his activities. He threw away no fewer than 27 named accounts last week alone attacking my talk page, in the latest upsurge in his activities after being quiet for a few months. All his accounts should be permanently blocked instantly they're noticed. -- Arwel (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Legal Concerns
In the Vintage Nude Photographs section on wikicommons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vintage_nude_photographs I am concerned about several photos that I believe consitute Child Pornography. I believe that these photos should be removed to avoid potential legal trouble for wikipedia. -Vcelloho 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Though I am no legal expert, I believe that child pornography is defined in American law as visual depictions of minors in explicit sexual acts (or similar wording). These do not resemble overt sexual depictions, and hence are not legally defined as child porn. I am in no way defending or lawyering on child porn, however. —210physicq (c) 02:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Acording to United States vs. Dost the six qualifiers are.
- whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genital, pubic or anal areas
- whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity
- whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child
- whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude
- whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity
- whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
I believe that qualifiers 1,2,3,4,in my opinion 5, and in my opinion 6. Due to this I belive that It constitues child pornography. I am meerly concerned about a potential legal issue that could be caused by three of the photos. -Vcelloho 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be discussed over at commons? They are more well-versed in image stuff than most of us here. PTO 02:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not very well versed on commons and I was much more familliar with wikipedia. -Vcelloho 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Has the WP:OFFICE been consulted on these issues? Newyorkbrad 02:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I didn't know about that. -Vcelloho 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help. I've looked for the Wikicommons administrators but I couldn't find them so I posted to the village pump. -Vcelloho 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are looking for commons:COM:AN. Prodego talk 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks -Vcelloho 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are looking for commons:COM:AN. Prodego talk 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help. I've looked for the Wikicommons administrators but I couldn't find them so I posted to the village pump. -Vcelloho 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Should I notify WP:OFFICE? -Vcelloho 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The folks at Commons may know whether the Office has already been consulted. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing was raised at the Commons yet, but since many of us who admin at the Commons also admin here (like myself), I think it would be best to ask for OFFICE support, since I am starting to agree on some of the points Vcelloho has discussed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The folks at Commons may know whether the Office has already been consulted. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I didn't know about that. -Vcelloho 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Since Vcelloho did not specify which photographs out of the large number in that category that he was speaking about, I assume he was talking about the works of Gaudenzio Marconi whom is a notable early photographer. Personally I think you'd have to be a quite a pervert to see anything sexual about his pictures of children. --Gmaxwell 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Calling people "perverted" or "(insert phobia here)-phobic" is absolutely inappropriate. Congratulations. You've stifled conversation by deeming somone to be unsound of mind, thereby creating a wall between that person and the other people who would engage in conversation but don't for fear of being labelled likewise. --Iamunknown 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- shrugs I don't know what else to call someone who thinks an image is sexual because it has nudity and children. --Gmaxwell 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- You had an opportunity there to withdraw or refactor your comment, and you chose instead to re-iterate it. I was disappointed that you called me and anyone else who disagrees with you a pervert. Now I am absolutely disgusted with you. Hesperian 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thats okay. I can cope with you being disgusted with me. Now you have an opportunity to cope with me suspecting that you might be a pervert because you're more willing to see images of children as sexual than I am. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I hope that one of the admins on this board takes a stand against this; you've made a very serious personal attack. Leaving that aside, I never said that "an image is sexual because it has nudity and children", nor do I think it. But I do think that one of these images sexualises its subject. Hesperian 04:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm surprised. In your conversations with User:Tony1 about fair use media, you seemed so civil; now, you seem so...not. --Iamunknown 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Geesh, I'm not trying to be rude. It's my view that folks who would view random images of naked kids as objects of sexual interest have issues. It was a general statement, don't blame me that Hesperian decided to jump in after the fact and turn it into something personal with his first comment on the subject. Take a step back and consider what I found here, ... enwikipedia going nuts and talking about urgently calling the office over some 130 year old photographs. You might not agree with me that it's ridiculous, but I hope you can understand why I might see it that way. --Gmaxwell 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, your original statement was "you'd have to be a quite a pervert to see anything sexual about his pictures of children." That's light years away from "folks who would view random images of naked kids as objects of sexual interest have issues". Its easy to accuse someone of over-reacting if you revise your brutal attack down to a perfectly reasonable statement.
- Secondly, sometimes I see these discussions and think "Gosh, that user is protesting way too much; maybe has some personal issues there" or whatnot... but that ain't nowhere near publicly declaring folks to be perverts. As for me "turning it into something personal", you don't get to claim the moral high ground just because your attack was originally aimed at anyone and everyone who is worried about these images. All I did was give your target a face by publicly declaring myself to be one of the people you're attacking.
- Hesperian 05:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe we are drifting further and further off the issue at hand... ~ UBeR 05:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't wikipedian's we have to wrry about being perverts but the courts. See Paul_Reubens#Arrests.Geni 16:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Geesh, I'm not trying to be rude. It's my view that folks who would view random images of naked kids as objects of sexual interest have issues. It was a general statement, don't blame me that Hesperian decided to jump in after the fact and turn it into something personal with his first comment on the subject. Take a step back and consider what I found here, ... enwikipedia going nuts and talking about urgently calling the office over some 130 year old photographs. You might not agree with me that it's ridiculous, but I hope you can understand why I might see it that way. --Gmaxwell 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thats okay. I can cope with you being disgusted with me. Now you have an opportunity to cope with me suspecting that you might be a pervert because you're more willing to see images of children as sexual than I am. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- You had an opportunity there to withdraw or refactor your comment, and you chose instead to re-iterate it. I was disappointed that you called me and anyone else who disagrees with you a pervert. Now I am absolutely disgusted with you. Hesperian 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- shrugs I don't know what else to call someone who thinks an image is sexual because it has nudity and children. --Gmaxwell 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think vintage black and white nude photography counts as child porn ... Cyde Weys 03:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have not looked at the pictures, however, if these are nude photos of actual children, I cannot see how it would not qualify. As far as I know, the controversy is about drawings of children, not photos of real children. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be important to note that these photos are well over 130 years old. That being said, the general purpose of the child pornography laws is to protect the children. These laws were created in the 1990's and given that the subjects of these photos would be at least 135 years old (and thus are long gone), I don't feel that this qualifies as "child pornography". Also since the works could be works of art and in the public domain only compounds the unlikeliness. Per the info above, in my opinion, I feel
onlymaybe number 3 (and obviously number 4) apply, but I still don't think it qualifies. Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer. --MPD T / C 04:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be important to note that these photos are well over 130 years old. That being said, the general purpose of the child pornography laws is to protect the children. These laws were created in the 1990's and given that the subjects of these photos would be at least 135 years old (and thus are long gone), I don't feel that this qualifies as "child pornography". Also since the works could be works of art and in the public domain only compounds the unlikeliness. Per the info above, in my opinion, I feel
Are you serious? I see them meeting the fourth criterion, but no reasonable person would say that these are sexually suggestive photos or are focused on the anal or genital area. —ptk✰fgs 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I really honestly don't see any big deal here. These pictures are 130 years old. Pick up any decent book on art history and start counting pictures, paintings, sculptures of naked children, going all the way back to antiquity. They're everywhere. Some of them even have wings. Antandrus (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! That was a funny comment in the middle of a hectic day. :D --Iamunknown 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Much ado about nothing. ~ UBeR 05:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hows this for stifling debate: Take this to commons. Wikipedia can not make policy decisions for wikicommons. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Per UBeR above, "I believe we are drifting further and further off the issue at hand," let's get back to actual thougths. I really appreciate the citation from United States vs. Dost. Unfortunately, criteria #2, #3, #5 and #6 are rather subjective. Arguably the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, but arguably it is not. Opinions can be tossed back and forth, but how is this defined objectively? Criterion #3 is a bit less subjective; personally, I feel that the children, who seem to be standing in somewhat natural poses, are not necessarily in unnatural poses. I consider criterion #5 kind of as a double standard: the children do seem coy, but not willing to or leading up to engagement in sexual activity. Criterion #6 is also subjective: I personally did not feel a sexual response to the images, but I can see that someone -- for whatever reason, or maybe simply not because of any particular reason -- could feel a sexual response. In general, I think that because these images are important artistically and historically, the Wikimedia Foundation or the uploaders of the photographs should not worry about pending litigation. Arguably the images are child pornography, but arguably they are not. It is inappropriate to enforce one's values on others -- and, as is apparent, some people consider these images pornographic and others do not -- and since these are not as blatant as children engaged in sexual activity, I consider it appropriate not to delete them. One last thing, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. --Iamunknown 05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- J.smith is right: Wikipedia.en does not have oversight over Commons. All we can do is refer the concern to three places: Commons, Meta, or the Foundation. DurovaCharge! 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- well there are the long standing potential worries on wikipeida. Fortunelty someone else would likely get into trouble before we did:
- Child_Bride#The_skinny_dipping_scene
- Virgin Killer
- Geni 16:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Geni, the two links your provided and the additional one above are interesting. I hope that no related controversy befalls the Wikimedia Foundation. I like to think that you're correct, however, that someone else would get into trouble before us. --Iamunknown 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If this a personal attack
I would like everyone to consider this. I have a content dispute over Politkovskaya article with user Biophys. I have inserted criticism of Politkovskaya which was constantly deleted by Biophys who claims that it violates BLP policies, although the source is respectable Russian newspaper published in English - Moscow News. Afterwards, article was rightly protected by Alex Bakharev who wrote that we should reach consensus.
Then, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Biophys&oldid=114456838#Other_important_edits, Biophys wrote that Politkovskaya article "(***) Articles currently vandalized by a wikistalker. Please help!".
Moreover, Biophys has a long history of bad relations with me. His friend Colchicum filed the RfC on me here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov, but it failed, since their third collegue had withdrawn his signature, after administrators wrote comments not supporting their allegations.
Could anyone stop this witchhunt waged by Biophys? When I add something to the article he deletes it and writes it violates BLP policy, or writes it is unreliable source. It's really stupid, my sources are awlays wrong and unreliable, according to Biophys. And everything I do here - he's calling vandalism, just see his edit comments where he adds comments like "rv vandalism by Vlad fedorov" and etc. Vlad fedorov 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- diff-links that support your allegations would be much appreciated. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Biophys&diff=prev&oldid=111852221. Vlad fedorov 05:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- O'K, this is all removed. Note that I did not say in this message who I am talking about. It was Vlad who decided that he is the "wikistalker" because Colchicum and me indeed complained about his behavior: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#New_episodes_of_wikistalking_by_Vlad Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Statement_of_the_disputeBiophys 15:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Two week 3RR block on Pigsonthewing wholly invalid - but not reversed - why?
This block Pigsonthewing_reported_by_SlimVirgin is invalid. The 2nd and 4th so-called reverts are not reverts at all. Pigsonthwing has been blocked for 2 weeks for a crime he did not commit. And yet the two people who were instrumental in imposing the block using false data, User:SlimVirgin and User:Heimstern, have not acted to unblock him. I call foul. Jooler 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note there is conversation to be found at User talk:Heimstern. —— Eagle101 Need help? 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd really like someone with experience giving advice about the Gillian McKeith article, especially the Legal Threat to Google.co.uk, and whether chillingeffects.org is a usable source. DanBeale 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- From http://www.chillingeffects.org/ "Chilling Effects is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and clinics at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center, Stanford Law School's Center for Internet & Society, Boalt Hall's Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic, and other law schools across the country". From http://www.elpub.org/base02t0056.htm - "Called Chilling Effects in reference to the way legal threats can freeze out free expression, the project invites Internet users to add their cease-and-desist letters to an online clearinghouse at ChillingEffects.org. Students at the participating law school clinics will review the letters and annotate them with links to explain applicable legal rules." - what makes you think there's any reason why it couldn't be used!? Jooler 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd really like someone with experience giving advice about the Gillian McKeith article, especially the Legal Threat to Google.co.uk, and whether chillingeffects.org is a usable source. DanBeale 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing is relevant here, I think. Repeat offender blocked for repeating their repeated offence repeatedly. Nothing to see here, move along please... Guy (Help!) 11:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Is it right to hang a man for a crime he did not commit because he has form? Jooler 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no, it's completely relevant. Pigsonthewing has a long history of disruption, especially disruptive reversion. Pick another user to champion, this one has exhausted our tolerance for nonsense. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Er. Do you not understand that Pigsonthewing didn't actually breach the 3RR? Are you saying that in principle you would hang a man for a crime he did not commit because of past form. Well done. Or do you mean only in this case? Am I been over-dramatic? Hell no. Jooler 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Andy Mabbett, who is a prodigious editor and a good contributor who has an unfortunate ability to rile people, came off a year-long block in January. He's tried to improve his behaviour but issuing lengthy blocks for a questionable breach of a disputed rule is not going to help him - especially if his past form from more than a year ago is held against him. The block was not only excessive, it's likely to be counterproductive. How about cutting him some slack? How about giving him an even break for once? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- You say it's a questionable rule, but what you actually mean there is it's a rule you were blocked for breaking. Many (most?) of us find WP:3RR to be an unalloyed good, as it acts as an electric fence of which even seasoned edit warriors fight shy. And Pigs is an edit-warrior, the problem is edit-warring, and edit warring is what he was doing. Jooler seems not to have noticed the bit about "three reverts is a limit, not an entitlement" and "you may be blocked after fewer than three reverts". Efforts to improve? For sure. We can celebrate an alcoholic who turns up every week at AA, but it's still going to be a problem if he falls off the wagon. Carrot, stick. Pigs got the stick. No idea of people are feeding him carrots as well, perhaps you should do so. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- From a very superficial scanning of Pigsonthewing's edits since his return, it appears that he has made some effort to improve. However it is also true that he has a lot of past form. A one-week block might not be incorrect, depending on the circumstances. Administrators should also be aware that under his probation, which is permanent, he may be banned for good cause by an uninvolved administrator from any article he disrupts. --Tony Sidaway 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know why people are saying this is a questionable block; I'll take a look at the 3RR report again. However, in general, Pigsonthewing has been edit warring very aggressively at Gillian McKeith, fighting to add or retain anything negative about her he can find, regardless of BLP, as has Jooler. So this business of him being a good editor punished unfairly because of past wrongs is a wrong-headed way of looking at it. Between the two of them, Pigsonthewing and Jooler have been blocked 29 times. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You have repeated this many times - but the evidence clearly shows that what you called the 2nd and 4th revert were no such thing. Past behaviour is irrelevant, a smokescreen, to the fact that your block was based on faulty evidence. It is beside the point bu as you brought it up I will say here that including this occasion I have been blocked 7 times and on 5 occasions the block has been reversed because the administrator who blocked did so blocked me without valid justification. you can see this clearly from the block log. Jooler 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute#3RR is not an entitlement; WP:3RR: "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period." WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". Are you done Wikilawyering yet? Guy (Help!) 07:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The material concerned was not a breach of BLP it was properly sourced. There was no breach of 3RR. So a 2 weeks is excessive in the extreme. Pigsonthewing has now been unblocked and rightly so, but it is unlikely that he would been unblocked it I hadn't brought this up here. So my work is done yes. Jooler 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- What part of Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period were you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I understand the context of that quote. Which it appears is more than you do. It does not stand in isolation so that it can be applied in any situation. Jooler 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You have repeated this many times - but the evidence clearly shows that what you called the 2nd and 4th revert were no such thing. Past behaviour is irrelevant, a smokescreen, to the fact that your block was based on faulty evidence. It is beside the point bu as you brought it up I will say here that including this occasion I have been blocked 7 times and on 5 occasions the block has been reversed because the administrator who blocked did so blocked me without valid justification. you can see this clearly from the block log. Jooler 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Community noticeboard
ongoing edit war over inclusion of a category
I'm not sure where to post this. For the past two weeks (since February 28 as far as I can tell) an edit war over the Category:Anti-Islam sentiment has been ongoing on the Vlaams Belang article. The first few edits declared inclusion of that category was biased (category was nominated for deletion till today, no consensus either way was found) respectively not biased. But now for several days it's simply a game of reversions. No one has yet broken the triple revert rule but the continual reverting seems disruptive. It might even involve other problems (stalking and sock puppetry). I have so far not been involved, just watching from the sidelines (except for placing a vote against deletion in the category vote). yesterday I decided to ask on the Talk:Vlaams Belang page that the waring parties try and explain why the category would be biased, or why it would not be biased in this particular case. But the article has been reverted six times since then. I have not tried to contact editors as I'd prefer not to get too involved in this issue (I won't claim to be neutral, but I don't feel strongly enough about this particular issue to wish to be drawn into that fight). At this point I don't see what else I could do and hope that maybe an administrator's intervention, or just any editor with more experience could improve matters. As a last resort the page could be fully protected (one of the edit waring parties is an annon, but semi protection would seem like taking sides in this issue) for a time to see whether the issue can be debated on the talk page.--Caranorn 15:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The anon is the blocked User:BhaiSaab. Arrow740 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Attention please
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kittybrewster/VK_rfc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Lauder (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- What on earth is your purpose in posting that here? It appears to be someone putting together an Rfc in their namespace, a very good idea, as one can organize, edit, and consider whether or not to proceed while doing so. In many cases editors decide not to file and simply blank or delete these "draft" Rfc's. As it is not yours, you cannot be asking for assistance in how to write an Rfc. I sincerely hope you are not trying to aggravate the situation by drawing attention to this before it is filed. In short, I am perpexed as to what possible purpose this post could serve. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Magonaritus and sockpuppetry
The person who registered the Magonaritus (talk · contribs) account has been causing disruptions, on and off, at Upper Canada College and the relevant talk page for over a year. He/she has used a series of both IP and registered sockpuppets to influence the outcome of discussions on article content and format at talk, generally in an abrasive, uncooperative manner; all-together violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:VAND, WP:POINT, and, of course, WP:SOCK, leading to edit wars and the page being locked. Evidence strongly points to sockpuppetry; such evidence and connections have been outlined here. A request for checkuser was already deemed unnecessary. Could an admin please look at this case and decide whether the relevant accounts should be blocked? --G2bambino 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Noticeboard Proposal.
I am well aware that AN is not the place for listing proposals, but I believe that listing this one here is more legitimate than my listing here of my previous proposal. My new proposal is called User: Acalamari/IWN, and is designed to help reduce certain cases on other noticeboards, including this one. Acalamari 17:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think we have too many noticeboards already. -- Renesis (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- We could have a noticeboard for every little thing, lets not. Inappropriate warnings can be handled through WP:DR. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I propose creating a new noticeboard where people can propose new noticeboards. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion for that would go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Noticeboards/Meta/Recursive. Or its talk page, but only if you wanted to discuss restructuring the process for proposing recursive meta-noticeboards, not if you simply want to make a proposal for a new recursive meta-noticeboard. --tjstrf talk 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- o_O. I sarcastically proposed exactly this as an example of the massive creep that would occur with attempting to sanction users for removing warnings from their talk page... and now it's an actual proposal. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have said that discussion on this proposal should take place on it's talk page; but if all it's going to generate is nothing at all, then I should have the page speedy deleted in a couple of days time (that's an ironic statement in that last bit). Acalamari 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The Kate McAuliffe person is back
The user creation log is starting to get clogged up with Kate McAuliffe socks again - someone with blocking powers may want to keep an eye on it for a while. Natalie 19:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- That kid is definitely persistent. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strange users.
I posted the following message to Natalie Erin's talk page:
:This isn't the only weird case I've been looking at; Abbopa left this weird message on my talk page. I looked at this user's contributions, and was led to a strange user/user talk page, as well as three other odd things: Tsubasa wings, Weird Wetland and the user Aboppa mentioned: Jimmy's bananooz (look at their talk pages). Do you think these are odd or not? I plan to take this to AN so some other users can take a look. Acalamari 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What do other users think about this? Aboppa also posted a message on Pschemp's talk page just before posting that other message on mine. Aboppa's edits are odd too. I'm not assuming bad faith here, it's just that this is a strange situation. Acalamari 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely strange... but if they're keeping it in the user & user talk namespaces, I'm not as concerned. It may be a problem if they start seriously bothering other users, although it doesn't sounds as if there are any complaints at this point. --Ginkgo100talk 21:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll still keep an eye on it though. Acalamari 22:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely strange... but if they're keeping it in the user & user talk namespaces, I'm not as concerned. It may be a problem if they start seriously bothering other users, although it doesn't sounds as if there are any complaints at this point. --Ginkgo100talk 21:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Reposting from Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard
I've been doing my best to raise some significant issues proactively and the lack of response is frustrating. Reposting the following here so more eyes will see it (and, I hope, address matters before they become serious problems). DurovaCharge! 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
<rant>When this board first opened I started threads both here and at WP:AN requesting discussion and improvement for the header. Nobody paid attention. Finally I dug in and did something myself. It wasn't perfect, but frankly the way this whole situation has been unfolding has me quite disappointed because those threads I started got ignored, then people tried rash and unilateral action because the community hadn't addressed those issues in an appropriate manner.
There's a similar propose discussion...ignore...fester... dynamic happening again at this board, at WP:RFAR, and Wikipedia talk:Banning policy: developing precedents and needed refinements aren't getting discussed and written into WP:BAN and WP:DE the way they ought to be. Two proproposed cases now before ArbCom seek to appeal their community bans in part because the community banned editors were already indef blocked when the community ban discussion opened and weren't notified while the relevant ban discussion was ongoing. Hence, they were effectively denied the means of defense. Yet the current policy language actually instructs sysops to ban first and ask questions later. We ought to address these matters on the community level because one of those requests for arbitration is on the verge of acceptance and if the community abandons its collective obligation to discuss and refine procedures in a timely and appropriate manner the Committee might make those decisions for us. Yet no one has made a topical response to my two threads on the subject - and the thread I initiated to this noticeboard got deleted without making it into the archives. Neither the policy nor the guideline has been updated to reflect this important precedent that establishes the community's right to topic ban or to reflect other valid concerns are showing up at ArbCom's doorstep. Community banning was meant to lighten their workload, not add to it.
If it seems like I'm getting testy about this, I am. I've been thinking far enough ahead to ask the arbitration clerks to archive rejected community ban discussions, and doing more than my share to initiate discussion in a timely manner, yet it's my userpage that gets vandalized repeatedly because a disgruntled editor chooses target me after the community sticks its head in the sand while I do my best to raise these issues. At this point I'm tempted per WP:BOLD to update the policy myself. I can reasonably argue that discussion has been open long enough and no one has disagreed. Yet instead of topical discussion the knee jerk action - in the embarrassing WP:PAIN and WP:RFI tradition - is blame the noticeboard. This is not the way to handle things.</rant> DurovaCharge! 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
More Mike Church
(originally posted at WP:AN/I, but this seems to be the more appropriate place, as it isn't an isolated incident)
Mike Church (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is more than one admin can handle, but apparently I'm the only one still doing anything about his vandalism after two years. I'd like to get others to be able to identify him so they can revert and block his sockpuppets.
Mike has never forgiven Wikipedia for not letting him self-promote his card game, and for years he's been engaging in admitted sneaky vandalism, which got him indefinitely blocked.
He has since created approximately a gazillion sockpuppets. A very old list of sockpuppets is at User:Jerzy/Church & Supporters or Socks, and watching that page (which Mike occasionally tries to blank or modify) is a way of identifying some of his new sockpuppets.
Three of his recent sockpuppets are named User:PWnsivander the Great, User:Rspeer drinks the haterade, and User:Rv this and get DOSpwn3d. The "DOSpwn" part presumably means he's about to increase his rate of vandalism.
Some patterns of editing that point to Mike Church:
- Use of the word "pwn", especially when stating that admins have been "pwn3d"
- Spreading memes from the AutoAdmit board, particularly about "prestige"
- Altering information about himself in Wikipedia space to try to confuse the issues (he'll probably alter this entry, so watch the history)
- Altering articles such as Prestige (sociology) and Careerism to reflect his unique worldview
- Bringing WP disputes off of Wikipedia, such as when he created the entry wikt:loser-fucker containing names of users who reverted him
- Self-promotion of his own ideas; once these focused on his card game "Ambition", but he's given up on that. Another example would be adding his own scoring system to the Gin rummy article.
If you watch some of these pages I've linked, or presumably even the edit history of this exact section, you'll be able to find more sockpuppets. I appreciate any help. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm a bit worried about this user. A quick perusal of their contributions shows that all edits have been done concerning things with the New York Times; what's more, they all seem to be trying to put the Times in a better light. I'm quite worried this is a roll account. I would say more, but I really gtg. Someone please look into this. I know we've had some major bruhahas in the past over roll accounts, and this one reeks pretty badly, especially given the username seems to say as much - unfortunately, it is a registered user, so we can't see via the IP if it's a roll account or not. This is particularly harmful becuase the user has frequently changed the New York Times article to take out any suggestions that something might be wrong (e.g., frequent removal of liberal bias comments and a move of the Jason Blair scandal from modern to historical scandals). Part Deux 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppets
I just blocked Ziwhtam (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Wikipedian64 (talk · contribs) based on this followed by this. Yesterday Wikipedian64 created Lucky 6.9, Talk:Lucky 6.9 and recreated User:Lucky 6.9 and User talk:Lucky 6.9 all of which I deleted. Today I get this on my talk page followed by this. Just posting this for a review as to the block and a heads up to what looks like a odd situation. By the way, it's not at all true that I blocked Ziwhtam for calling me a woman, I only do that on Thursdays. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
How can we fix the AMA? It's a noble and probably necessary idea: users who are banned or blocked or just don't get it need people who can hold their hand and help them through the processes of dispute resolution and mediation. Yup. What they don't need is someone who mistakes their role for that of a legal advocate. I have to say that my view of AMA is strongly coloured by the fact that user:CyclePat is an Advocate. Pat is a lovely guy, passionate about what he does, but has a positive gift for escalating disputes and rubbing people up the wrong way. There are many great uses of Pat's talents but this is not one of them. Other advocates are similarly problematic: I have seen one take a case and do nothing, leaving it there as a cesspit of argument for months, for example. We definitely need a help and support process, but this does not seem to be it. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- We could stop calling it advocacy, for starters. The role of people helping out in this way should essentially be to provide information about the processes involved in dispute resolution, but there seems to be the expectation from at least some quarters that these people are available to run their case for them, as it were. --bainer (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Association for Member Assistance? But what title would the Advocates call themselves, given that "Assistant" would probably be non-starter? --Calton | Talk 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- In its current incarnation, we should probably get rid of it. The very idea of advocacy encourages wikilawyering. It seems that what the advocates are intended to do matches reasonably well with what mediators do. >Radiant< 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Association for Member Assistance? But what title would the Advocates call themselves, given that "Assistant" would probably be non-starter? --Calton | Talk 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree that "advocates" implies lawyering. Association for Members' Advisors rings better for me. Not sure ditching the baby with the bathwater is a good idea. --Dweller 10:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like "advisors" much better, that's much more the role that it should take. "Advocate" implies a lawyer-type relationship, where the advocate is required to defend you no matter what you pull. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Do we need anything even faintly along these lines? From my own experience I have never seen advocacy, even when well intentioned, do anything good, and when it comes to Arbitration advocacy is, and has consistently been, a walking disaster zone. We certainly don't need any more wikilawyering than we already have: surely just letting the trolls stew in their own juice is a good idea? Moreschi Request a recording? 13:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I said above, we don't need advocacy, but there's great benefit in some organised system for dispensing advice. Good advice as to how to make dispute resolution work can make all the difference in helping people resolve issues before they become serious problems. Sure, there are places to bring up queries about the dispute resolution process, but having someone offer advice one-on-one can be particularly valuable in certain circumstances, and there is benefit in organising a group of people who feel qualified and motivated enough to give such advice. --bainer (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
How about Association of Member's Counsellors? I like the idea that your advocate is on "your side," even if that boils down to telling someone, in the nicest possible way: "I'd like to see you keep editing, so cool it so that you don't get banned." "Counsellor" gets the idea that AM? members should be giving advice, not wikilawyering. (For some more thoughts on what I think is wrong with AMA, see here). TheronJ 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
If we just need an organisation to dispense advice, why not just create a new "advice" branch of the help desk? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed with Dev: at the moment this organization is a long way off being some benign dispenser of advice. I don't like "Association of Member's Counsellors": "Counsellors" implies some sort of authority. Personally, I think this is the MfD that got away. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we should create the Information Point (or something like that - sounds better than "advice"), promote it, get it active, and then MfD WP:AMA? Their system is far too complicated for what is, in essence, usually no more than "Post it on AN/I". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think MfD is the solution. AMA doesn't do much harm, or much good, but it's a worthy goal, and they might be able to work something out given time and the right volunteers. TheronJ 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- No comment overall on this, since I've no real experience of them but your sentence "doesn't do much harm, or much good..and they might be able to work something out given time and the right volunteers" seems to be becoming a common sentiment of late, when left to get on with it so far those things have failed to move forward. --pgk 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough -- I guess I'm something of an eventualist, and your mileage may certainly vary. If we could do it with enough precision, the best solution might be to define some clear success metrics for WP:AMA and some of the other controversial projects, and delete them in 6 months if they can't show that they're doing some good. Like any volunteer project, however, it probably depends on the motivation and talent of the leader (or !leader or whatever) and the group volunteers. TheronJ 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "problem" with the AMA is the cnnotations given by the name. A persistant troll may come to the AMA expecting them to get them off the hook. Likewise, people expect that advocates can help them to win disputes by stepping in and making a decision, which is absolute crap (of course). The best way to resolve this would be to rename the group, look through and check the members list (or abolish it), remove much of the bureaucracy (meetings every month..) and make sure that users requesting the services of the AMA know what they can reasonably get. Personally (as an AMA deputy co-ordinator), I feel that Arbitration advocacy will never work, given the bad reputation the AMA already has, and the fact that an advocate will rarely be able to give more insight into a dispute than a clued up disputant. The job of the AMA should not be to actively fight cases - it should be to clue up these (frequently) new users on the ins and outs of policy. Martinp23 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess what I was thinking, agrees with that to a certain degree. It just strikes me that if an organisation isn't already conscious of its issues and trying to move them forward, it seems unlikely that the ability to do so will magically appear. 6 months however seems a long time in wiki terms, to be actively moving in the right direction shouldn't take that long. --pgk 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "problem" with the AMA is the cnnotations given by the name. A persistant troll may come to the AMA expecting them to get them off the hook. Likewise, people expect that advocates can help them to win disputes by stepping in and making a decision, which is absolute crap (of course). The best way to resolve this would be to rename the group, look through and check the members list (or abolish it), remove much of the bureaucracy (meetings every month..) and make sure that users requesting the services of the AMA know what they can reasonably get. Personally (as an AMA deputy co-ordinator), I feel that Arbitration advocacy will never work, given the bad reputation the AMA already has, and the fact that an advocate will rarely be able to give more insight into a dispute than a clued up disputant. The job of the AMA should not be to actively fight cases - it should be to clue up these (frequently) new users on the ins and outs of policy. Martinp23 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough -- I guess I'm something of an eventualist, and your mileage may certainly vary. If we could do it with enough precision, the best solution might be to define some clear success metrics for WP:AMA and some of the other controversial projects, and delete them in 6 months if they can't show that they're doing some good. Like any volunteer project, however, it probably depends on the motivation and talent of the leader (or !leader or whatever) and the group volunteers. TheronJ 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- No comment overall on this, since I've no real experience of them but your sentence "doesn't do much harm, or much good..and they might be able to work something out given time and the right volunteers" seems to be becoming a common sentiment of late, when left to get on with it so far those things have failed to move forward. --pgk 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think MfD is the solution. AMA doesn't do much harm, or much good, but it's a worthy goal, and they might be able to work something out given time and the right volunteers. TheronJ 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we should create the Information Point (or something like that - sounds better than "advice"), promote it, get it active, and then MfD WP:AMA? Their system is far too complicated for what is, in essence, usually no more than "Post it on AN/I". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Help please
Urgent Administrator assistance is required in the case of User:Vintagekits who is causing grief. Please see: User:Kittybrewster/VK rfc. David Lauder 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive my directness, but which is it? Is it urgent administrator assistance, or is it a request for comment? If it is the former, I think you need to specify the disruption being caused and request a specific action. If it is the latter, then just file the RFC according to the rubric on the index page and see what comments come in. Sam Blacketer 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Please note that David Lauder has since been blocked for a personal attack on Vintagekits, so is now unable to respond. Sam Blacketer 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
Clearing WP:AIV
As a non-admin in good standing, may I remove reports at WP:AIV if the report does not appear to warrant a block and I otherwise was not involved in the dispute? —dgiestc 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah you can, WP:ADMIN states that anyone can act in a way befitting of an admin as long as they don't claim to be one Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- More than "you may", we will thank you warmly for your efforts. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please do, thank you. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I very recently removed a listing placed by a vandal. I later found out that the vandal saw their own name there and replaced it with the person who had listed them. Acalamari 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome to our world. :-D --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome to hell. Veinor (talk to me) 22:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome to our world. :-D --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Repeated incivility by Overlord
Overlord has repeatedly been incivil in his edit summaries. Examples include the following:
- "Tennis Expert, I suggest you learn some basic english grammar before you edit articles in english. You vandalise again, you will be banned. Take this as a warning."[2]
- "This statement is unclear and should be altered in formulation. Perhaps some immigrant with limited English ability decided to include this very unclear statement."[3]
- "If you make ONE more contradictory edit on this article and delete somebody else's for no good reason (records are also stated in intro), I will have you banned."[4]
- "Zaheen, go back to bangladesh and clean up your dirty city. Stop editing the article you illiterate buffoon. This date should be mentioned at top. Now go away."[5]
- "The purpose of the remark not only concludes the assertion 'Einstein was not a poor student' but also adds to flow of paragraph. Compromising this for vanity's sake is act of Senility. Even for Admins"[6]
Tennis expert 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wow those edit summaries are nasty. By the way, Tennis expert, User:Overlord should probably know that you've posted about him here. Please consider notifying him. --Iamunknown 02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done.[7] Tennis expert 05:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Overlord's response to Tennis expert's report can be read here [8]. - Justin (Authalic) 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Where is the accusation of you having been banned several times coming from? I thought he got "blocked" and "banned" mixed up, since that happens quite a bit, but I only saw one block in the block log, and that was reversed as unfounded... Natalie 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Possible problem AfD
Terry Shannon has been nominated again in this AfD. The first one was a trainwreck, and the nomination's already been completely deleted from AfD once (diff) by an editor who was involved in canvassing on the first AfD (I've warned). Might be worth keeping an eye on. EliminatorJR Talk 02:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Straw poll on credentials and identification in wake of Essjay scandal
There is at straw poll on numerous credentials and identification proposals in the wake of the Essjay scandal at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. The paragraph descriptions are not all there so wait to vote until they are if you don't want to actually go the many individual proposal pages to understand the proposals involved. Thank you. WAS 4.250 06:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically, this is an attempt to have a dozen or so policy/guideline proposals pass by voting upon them. That doesn't strike me as particularly useful. m:voting is evil. >Radiant< 09:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea behind this straw poll is that perhaps we have had enough of idea gathering and now it is time to specify the ideas in a yes/no form so a straw poll can tell us where we stand. Perhaps there will be a concensus on some of the proposals. Once the field is narrowed down we can discuss the detals. A week should be long for this straw poll so people can ask and answer questions about each proposal and everyone who wants to can have an informed !vote. The poll's instructions are to vote yes to any or all that seem similar to what is needed; and no to any or all that that are fundamentally unsound. We are weeding out stuff more than selecting a winner. Identify specific details you like or don't like if you wish. Feel free to change or add a comment to your vote at any time. Vote both yes and no with appropriate comments if that works for you. WAS 4.250 10:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CON with respect to what consensus is. It is not a headcount. >Radiant< 10:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why would I want to count the number of times I get head? WAS 4.250 11:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It depends. Is there a queue of people waiting to perform this useful function for you? You might want to at least keep notes in case you succumb to exhaustion... 〈REDVEЯS〉 13:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or worse, asphyxiation. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Guys...ouch! Moreschi Request a recording? 13:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Covert edit war in progress
There is currently an edit war in progress on Rudolf Höß, where a user called User:Trueblood is blanking and re-blanking material about Hoess's dates of rank in the SS and his Nazi awards. Trueblood has been approached about this blanking by at least three people, and has indicated strong anti-nazi feelings with hints that he simply feels that an article about a Nazi should not be so detailed. He spreads these blankings out over several days, trying to hide them and making them appear as "cleaning up" the article of "shortening material" when it is in fact just blatant blanking. He also sometimes pretends to compromise, but in the end just keeps reblanking the same material over and over again. I teach history and think this mateiral absolutely should be in the article. It is well referenced and informative. Someone with anti-nazi feelings should not simply keep reblanking it because they don't like it being in there. As this has been going on for at least a month, and as Trueblood has ignored requests both on the article talk-page and his own talk-page to stop this, I'm asking for admin assistance. -195.229.236.214 11:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on complaints that the deletion policies were too lengthy, complex and convoluted, several people have revised the deletion policy page, to clarify it, remove redundancy, and incorporate material from a few related policies, in particular WP:PROD, WP:UNDEL and WP:CBLANK. This is not a change in policy, just a reworking of the relevant pages. The draft can be found at the link above; unless there are big objections, the intent is to move this over the present deletion policy as a new version; the second step would be to verify that it contains all relevant material from the related policies mentioned above, and complete the merge with a redirect. Please comment on the draft's talk page rather than here. >Radiant< 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Bios of banned people, contributions from them
Just FYI, there is a discussion here on whether people who are banned from Wikipedia (Brandt, Schwartz, etc.) should be allowed to post/participate in discussions about their own articles despite the bans/blocking policy. - Denny 12:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Snake bgd created an article (Kaminari) which falls into CSD A3. I put a {{db-nocontent}} on the page, and it was removed by Snake bgd. I put it back, with the edit summary don't remove the deletion tag yourself, and the user did anyway. I left him a message on his talk page and then restored the tag, and he removed it again. Eli Falk 13:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've just deletedthe article for having no content, so hopefully that will sort it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Eli Falk 13:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Possible serious copyright/policy violation
I was checking the icon Image:Vista-file-manager.png. It's saying that the image is released under GPL, and a reference to a source at http://sa-ki.deviantart.com. Why they have been specified as GPL here (and on countless other wiki-projects, including commons), is probably because that on http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=28352 it's specified as GPL.
The problem arise when looking on the authors own page about these icons http://www.iconsdesigns.com/?page_id=44. There it's a notice saying:
These free icons are provided to be used as a replacement icon theme for your operating system only. You can also use them on your open source projects. For non open source projects such as commercial ones, products website, personal website, blog, commercial or personal applications, documentation, etc. asking a permission to use them is mandatory and you will have to give credit for them. Thank you!
If this hold, then the icons is not compatible with the rules for images used on the projects. →AzaToth 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct anyone know a commons admin to zap it. You will want to rip it out of the relivant templates first.Geni 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If a replacement image is needed, Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png should do the trick. WjBscribe 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm no law-talking person. However, the user uploaded the icon set under the GPL, and the package itself contains a copy of the license, even if he states in another location and seemingly at a later time that it is under a more restrictive license. Isn't this somewhat like the Wikipedia disclaimer that "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."? What's relevant are the conditions when he originally released the file; you can't "take back" licenses. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Problem is we can't prove he every did release under pure GPL.Geni 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Except that GNOME-Look says that (the uploader sets the license there), and if you download the package from there you'll note that it does contain a copy of the GPL with no added restrictions. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- but who was the uploader?Geni 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- saki. The same person who has the deviantART page, and the IconsDesigns.com page. He links directly to and from the various websites. The one and only download address is at GNOME-Looks, and that package has a copy of the GPL inside of it and is stated as being GPL-licensed on the download page. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- but who was the uploader?Geni 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Except that GNOME-Look says that (the uploader sets the license there), and if you download the package from there you'll note that it does contain a copy of the GPL with no added restrictions. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's a great alternative. Might as well give the filing cabinet a coat of paint anyway. :) GarrettTalk 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eef. Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png makes me weep, it really does. I know it's a matter of taste, but can I offer Image:Replacement filing cabinet.svg as a stopgap until this is resolved? I'm a complete novice at Inkscape, but that's my own ham-fisted attempt at a filing cabinet icon (completely from scratch), and you can have it for nothing. — mholland 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- As a derivative work, it wouldn't have any affect on the copyright status. That is, if it's a violation it's still a violation. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- My image isn't a derivative work: I drew it from scratch from brown polygons. It looks the same, but then so would a lot of images at 40px. — mholland 15:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- See the definition at [10]. Redrawing an image doesn't create a new copyright, regardless of the method in which you did it, or even if there are minute differences. You therefore shouldn't be claiming it as public domain either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have read and understand the definition of a derivative work. I remain confident that the image I drew is not based upon Image:Vista-file-manager.png in any way which attracts copyright rights. No part of the original image is reproduced, dimensions or colours. I had, however, looked at Vista-file-manager before I started drawing. It is my understanding that you can't copyright the idea of a square, brown, two drawer filing cabinet, drawn in perspective with a shadow beneath it; however, my experience in this field is limited to UK copyright law, and I gladly and humbly apologise if my understanding of US law is faulty.
- I have removed the image from this page and from Template:Archive box. I have not removed the PD claim from the image's summary, but I'll gladly do so (or endorse another's doing so) if someone would like to confirm that the image is derivative under US law, and for simplicity's sake (given that the original image is of uncertain copyright status) request its deletion myself. — mholland 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- See the definition at [10]. Redrawing an image doesn't create a new copyright, regardless of the method in which you did it, or even if there are minute differences. You therefore shouldn't be claiming it as public domain either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- My image isn't a derivative work: I drew it from scratch from brown polygons. It looks the same, but then so would a lot of images at 40px. — mholland 15:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- As a derivative work, it wouldn't have any affect on the copyright status. That is, if it's a violation it's still a violation. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eef. Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png makes me weep, it really does. I know it's a matter of taste, but can I offer Image:Replacement filing cabinet.svg as a stopgap until this is resolved? I'm a complete novice at Inkscape, but that's my own ham-fisted attempt at a filing cabinet icon (completely from scratch), and you can have it for nothing. — mholland 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone tried to contact the author? --Random832 19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have sent an email via the Gnome-Look interface, havn't got any replies. →AzaToth 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Was looking up the crystal icons also, and it seems that they are allowed by the author to be used on wikipedia commons:Template talk:Crystal clear, simlar here, as the "author" have posted them as LGPL on kde-looks. →AzaToth 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Readding the conversation to gain more information on the matter, and how to procedure. →AzaToth 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are two counter issues: (1) You can release works under multiple licenses, which may be incompatible with each other; in that case a recipient may use whichever licenses they received. In case of copyleft licenses like the GPL, if the images are released under GPL and some other license, then anyone can use them under GPL if they choose. (2) It's not 100% clear in case law, but in general you can't "rescind" something you previously properly released under GPL, though what typically happens when a software author wants to use a more restrictive license is they release newer versions under a different license. Here there's no reason to believe that the author has wanted to rescind the GPL anyway, only that he has released it under a vague non-commercial/by-permission-only license in addition to GPL. Conclusion: We're fine, you can use new icons if you want (e.g. since SVG is preferred to non-SVG), but there's no pressing need to delete the old ones. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 10:08Z
Request for deletion of an image revision containing accidental personal data
Hi, I accidentally posted an image to Wikipedia which accidentally included some personal info... I've replaced the image but the old one remains there in the revision history. Here's the image page: [[11]] (links to current version, the one containing inappropriate data is in the rev. history). Sorry if this is not the right place to put it - I couldn't see anywhere else where it would be appropriate. Thanks a lot, --Christopher 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You want to go here to make this request. --ElKevbo 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The easiest might be to upload the image under a slightly different name, and just tag the old one for speedy {{db|uploader request}}? The JPStalk to me 20:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi - Thanks very much... I was rather worried and panicked and didn't think straight or look very thoroughly for the right place to post it! I'll remember it in future. Thanks again, --Christopher 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the image outright. You can go ahead and upload a safe version. Newyorkbrad 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... I think the safe image was already uploaded, and you deleted it too :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Undeleted the non-personal revision. All fixed now. — Dan | talk 04:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Gordon Watts...
... has seen fit to start complaining on his talk page again. I have reset the block to one month, under the view that it is a community ban for one month, not just a block. If my interpretation is wrong, undo and note it here. No need to over discuss this either, folks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- And I've protected his talk page for a month. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Smallbones is banned indefinitely from editing articles that relate to Robert Prechter, including talk pages. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Incivility and assuming bad faith from User:SmokeyJoe
Even after warning, this user has continued to be uncivil and accuse me of ulterior motives for an AfD. The discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Later-no-harm_criterion I request the assistance of an administrator.--Fahrenheit451 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Page move issue
Hi. Straight Outta Lynwood was moved to Straight outta Lynwood earlier today, and then redirected back to the original (and correct) title. This solution, of course, does not move the page history back to the original title. Could an admin please fix this? --Maxamegalon2000 02:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Have a look at WP:CPMV. I have tagged this as {{db-histmerge}}, so it should be taken care of in due course. Chris cheese 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see this probably wasn't the first place I should have gone. Sorry about that, and thanks for the help. --Maxamegalon2000 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
User warning templates strawpoll
Most of you are aware of the work that was done over the previous 6 months by the user warnings project WP:UW and then when handed over WP:UTM to harmonise the multi level warnings. We'd now like to wrap up this project by completing the single issue templates and tidying up the Category:User warning templates. To achieve this, one of the areas that needs greater community involvement is the redirecting of the old templates to the new ones. This is not something we will undertake lightly as a few editors are still attached to the old templates, though the majority of warnings being issued now are with the new system. If you have an opinion on the user warnings templates old or new, we'd appreciate your thoughts here please. Regards Khukri 10:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)