Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:32, 10 January 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Another user has taken over my Userspace Talk page

Another user, Tb (talk) has taken over my Userspace Talk page. He keeps placing rude and offensive remarks there and has refused my polite but firm requests to leave. He also keeps reverting me -- on my own Talk page -- and has taken control over it. Since the vast majority of this user's edits are edit warring with others throughout Misplaced Pages and since he is edit warring in my own Userspace against my frequent requests to stop, I ask that he be banned. Thank you. Ad.minster (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted only to remove my own comments after they became the occasion for personal attacks on me, and when they no longer served any purpose. Since I did so, I have engaged in no further conversation with User:Ad.minster except for which was an attempt to resolve this very discussion directly. I have hardly "taken control" over anything. Any user can examine my own edit history and see that the statement made on that regard is incorrect. Tb (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I counted at least 6 instances of reverting me on my own Talk page in 12 hours, so at least you can block him based on the Misplaced Pages:3RR rules. And then there are the issues of taking over my pages and hounding me there after he was asked many times to leave, to justify banning. Thank you! Ad.minster (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The WP:3RR rules are explicit that they do not apply to an editor reverting his own edits. I have only reverted my own comments, and left the rest untouched. By contrast, your reversions are not reverts of your own edits, and likely do violate WP:3RR, though I think that's really beside the point here. Tb (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

At a casual glance, I see no justification for banning. How about you just stop squabbling? I see some pretty questionable behavior on your part here. Other people are allowed to leave you messages on your talk page- that's what your talk page is for. Friday (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked to stop squabbling, but he will not. Further, edit warring on my own pages is still against WP. These are not articles, over which I am the moderator. If he realizes that what he said was wrong, there is no need to conceal that. Ad.minster (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)He seems to be trying to remove his comments and withdraw from the conversation, which you are both edit warring over. This doesn't seem to be productive. I'd suggest you allow him to strike his comments, rather than remove, and both of you consider the matter finished. Dayewalker (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Other people are allowed to leave you messages on your talk page- that's what your talk page is for." A user talk page is for communicating about things to improve the encyclopedia or to leave non-harassing messages. If a message is left and removed by that user, the communication was already made. There's very little reason to put it back except to be harassing. And if a person says such edits are not helping, there's nothing to be gained to putting more of the same kind there, so the other person should respect those wishes. DreamGuy (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy, you may have misunderstood the situation. This is not a case where I left a message, he deleted it, and I keep readding it. It's the opposite. I left a message, he read it, he added a personal attack, and I deleted the original message I had left when it seemed to be pointless to keep it around and the occasion for personal attack. Tb (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

He is removing his comments, but not withdrawing from the conversation. Who controls your Userspace? Ad.minster (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop reverting and just leave it alone. I hope this will fix the immediate problem. No one editor has absolute control over your user talk page- this is a wiki, so it's a collaborative thing. Friday (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You do, to a limited extent anyway. Admins can put permanent notices on it in certain circumstances, or remove copyright violations or whatever. Certainly this other person doesn't own your talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a certain amount of control over your talk page, as you do over your comments. I've left him a message suggesting he strike the comments, which hopefully will end the discussion. Also, I've informed him of this thread. Dayewalker (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, I am permitted to revert my own changes according to WP:3RR. I may have misunderstood, since this situation seems rather unusual. Another editor suggests that I should strike through my comments, as a compromise, but I believe this is not sufficient. I believe that User:Ad.minster's comments constitute personal attacks. I note that he has now created User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing_with_difficult_people in which he thus identifies me as a "difficult person" by name--already not allowed--and continues the attack. As for whether I have withdrawn from the conversation, I believe I have. I have made only one edit other than to remove my comments, which was here . This was an attempt to discuss it directly, following upon the suggestion I received in response to an admin help request here . A satisfactory resolution for me would be for User:Ad.minster to agree to the removal of my comments from his pages (both User talk:Ad.minster and User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people, and he should feel free to edit or remove his comments however he wants provided he leaves me out of it. Tb (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ad.minster has now put the same comments in User:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people, labelled a "permanent record". ATM, User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people is only partial. Since the purpose of these pages is purely to continue to post the personal attack against me, I object to them. I would normally simply open a RfD on them, but it seems more productive to wait for some resolution of this complaint. Tb (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How about just stop squabbling? No one is attacking you, my friend. Since you started squabbling, I am obligated to maintain a record. Had you dropped it like I and everyone else asked, there would be no need for that. If you had behaved appropriately, you would not be worried about the record of your actions, good sir.

Please stop! Ad.minster (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit logs are a sufficient record if that's what you want. In accord with WP:Assume good faith, I take you at your word that all you want is a record (preserved in the edit log) and the comments removed (which you say was your goal all along). I ask that you now

* delete my comments from your page, which you say you wanted, and could always have done, and

* allow the edit logs to be a fully sufficient "record" of whatever you think needs recording. Tb (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for resolution. I am distressed by this whole matter, and I am particularly distressed that resolution is so slow to occur. I believe it is clear that Ad.minster insists that his pages with attacks against me be left in some way. He seems willing to push the bits around, but always provided it seems that there is some attack left. I would like the whole thing simply removed, and I insist that I believe that WP policy is perfectly clear that I am permitted to revert my own edit, and that he is not permitted to add comments under my name. I would be entirely satisfied by the removal of my edits and the agreement by him to drop the whole thing from his user page. No admin here has seen fit to object to my actions--though I readily confess that there must have been a better way for me to deal, I could not find it, and when I asked, I was simply pointed as WP:DR, and I'm doing that the best I know how, miserably perhaps though it may be. I believe it's transparent that his comments constitute personal attacks, and equally transparent that the comments I left on his page do not. I would like to hear some kind of approach to a resolution. I believe what I think is a fair resolution is clear. It is also perfectly clear that "hey, you two work it out" is not going to happen. I do not appreciate being attacked, or laughed at, or treated as an object of ridicule, and that is what Ad.minster is doing, in my opinion. Tb (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he has a "story" which purports to tell the tale of my horrific actions, again with a link to the edit log--still a personal attack. He says "you're not mentioned in it", and then all a user must do is click twice to see my name, and his attacks against me. I would like an administrator to help me understand what I can do to have the attacks removed rather than obfuscated, moved to sub-pages, linked-to-in-edit-log, or otherwise kept. Tb (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he is deleting my own comments, not his own!

Please stop. That is a very gracious story. Furthermore you are not named at all. The worst thing you could say is that I called you -- or someone -- my friend. Are you my friend?

Further it is not a personal attack to say here or in a talk page that you are a difficult person.

Several people have asked you to stop squabbling, please stop. Ad.minster (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No you are not my friend. The story contained a link to me. Without the link, I have no objection, but with a link saying, "oh, and this is the original", it is disingenuous to protest that I'm not mentioned. The story, which you find so gracious, labels me as ego-ridden and unable to get over myself. If you were genuinely willing to let the matter drop--that is, dropped without any commentary on your pages, I would be quite content. Failing that, commentary without my name, without pointers to my name, and without my words, is an acceptible compromise to me. Tb (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested what I thought was an easy way to get past this, neither party went for it. Just for Ad.minster's reference, I think what you've done is questionable in nature and shows very bad faith against this editor. Please don't take my suggestion as endorsing your side of the discussion. This is not an instance of one side being right or wrong, this entire situation is ridiculous. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Let's drop it as I have been asking from the beginning. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Ad.minster (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "you" you're referring to Dayewalker, can you clarify? The story in question labels me as ego-ridden. Tb (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read my silly story, the ego part of it is in the first person, thus taking the onus on me, not anyone else. At most it labels an anonymous person as "my friend." But since you say you are not a friend, can you drop it now? Ad.minster (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)To clarify, I was speaking to Ad.minster, since his above comments seemed to imply that editors were asking Tb to stop, and by inference denying his own involvement.

Ad.minster, I see no productive reason why you would want to keep a record of this incident, but if you want to keep it without directly referring to Tb (as the page stands now), I see nothing wrong with that. If you insist on keeping his comments after he has repeatedly tried to end the discussion and delete them, this may enter into the area of personal attacks and edit warring, and admin attention may be required.

According to WP:3RR, you're both in your rights as to reverting what has already happened. However, not breaking WP:3RR does not mean that edit warring hasn't taken place. If you both can just say now that this is over and leave things as they are, that would be best. If an admin has to waste time sorting through this one, blocks may be handed out. It's best to handle this between the two of you. As I said, the way the page is now seems fine. Dayewalker (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We're back. :(: I thought we had reached resolution, in which User:Ad.minster would leave his little story up, but remove the references to me, including those via linking. He has apparently decided now that this is not ok, and restored the personal reference to me. I would appreciate advice about how to proceed next. I am not willing to simply ignore the personal attack. Particularly offensive is this: , but it is not the only present example. Is it appropriate for me to introduce a WP:RfC now? Is it appropriate for me to introduce a WP:MfD on User:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people now? Tb (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please consider waiting to see his response to my comments on his talk page. I'm hoping a word from an uninvolved person will be able to prevent the need for the hassle of RFC, MFD, etc. I know this is dragging out longer than you would like, but I'd still like to give it a chance. --barneca (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. I've given up any hope of speedy resolution. Perhaps my impatience is part of the original problem. Tb (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Better, but not done: An admin today removed the most offensive part of the personal attack, but I still object to being named in any context which is designed either to attack my behavior or ridicule me, and the pages still do that. Tb (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the entire page at User:Ad.minster/Dealing_with_difficult_people ought to be deleted. Even if technically it might not be suitable for a speedy deletion as an attack page, I don't think it is serving any constructive purpose, and my understanding is that we generally only allow users to make comments on (or store links that record) other users' behaviour when it's being done in preparation for some sort of dispute resolution. That does not seem to be the case here. This just looks like one user wants to create a permanent record of another user's behaviour, and to accompany it with their own commentary. And it most certainly is not what it claims to be, which is an example of how to use humour to defuse tension. In my experience, one has to make oneself the butt of the joke for such a tactic to work. Remarks like Did it ever occur to you that your pointless comments here are rude and offensive? You drip with anger and hate, like a fresh-fried squirrel in pecan batter. are more likely to be counterproductive. And Do I sense a whiff of intolerance? I pray God may the spirit of love soon fill your heart might seem innocuous enough - if you're an evangelical Christian - but if so, how would you feel if someone suggested, e.g. that you'd be less intolerant if you weren't crippled by your dogmatic religion, or that it'd all be okay if you just made a sacrifice to our lord Satan? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've courtesy blanked the page in the interim due to Ad.minster's tendency to edit sporadically. MFD may also be an option. –xeno (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad.minster???

I've never seen Ad.minster before, but I do have problems with his name and wanted to see what the rest of you thought. He is not an administer, but his name implies that he is. He has been established for about 3 months now, but wanted to see if others felt his name is problematic?---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is officially approved and edits go back to 2006!! Approval: and Establishment: Ad.minster (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it, I assumed it was less of a admin thing and more religious, since he seems prone to religious tracts on his talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The fact that it has been discussed previously, does not mean that the name is acceptable. It still implies that you are something you are not, which is IMO problematic. The reason I didn't bring it up at UAA is because you do have a history here.---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the name that the RfD board decided in the final resolution. It was Misplaced Pages's choice for me. Ad.minster (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the link you all are looking for is here . Note sure what the 2006 date is about; that was the old user name "Adminster". Tb (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend(?). And please laugh at me. Ad.minster (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I urge that he select a new name which does not contain the text string "admin" with or without a period in the middle. Regardless of what was decided sometime in the past, the Misplaced Pages:Username policy says "Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", "developer" or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator", or end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts." Thus "Ad.min.check.user.sys.op.bot" would also be an inappropriate username. Edison (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He changed to Ad.minster as a result of the previous queries, I really do feel that admins and editors could surely find better ways of wasting their time than picking on people because their name might, to a semi-literate person, cause momentary confusion. DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-visiting an indefinite block - Betacommand

Does using an image 700+ times count as "minimal" usage?

That's what a majority of editors at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos are asking us to accept.

The argument in a nutshell; Whether the use of non-free team logos on season, rivalry, and specific game articles in College football is acceptable under policy, guideline, mission and Foundation resolution. Example uses: . Rationales for use are for identification, not for critical commentary on the logos.

The RfC on this issue has been running for more than two weeks now. Early on, there was some attempt at assessment of where consensus stood. This resulted in no consensus. Now there's a straw poll running. This keeps going in circles with no sign of ending.

But regardless of the RfC, the bottom line here is whether the use of team's logo several hundred times across the project is acceptable minimal use of a fair use image. I demonstrated this number, and its no exaggeration. Prior to the RfC beginning, one of the logos was in use over 100 times, which I made note of.

Proponents of the usage have, using editing, prevented the removal of the images. They claim that there must be consensus to remove the images, yet policy says the burden of proof lies with the people wishing to use the content, not with those wishing to remove the content.

Opponents note the Foundation's stance on minimal use, policy and guideline and further note that major sports do not follow the pattern of using team logos on season articles, etc.

We are at an impasse

1. If we conclude the RfC as saying the usage is allowed, team logos on College sports could be used several hundred times per logo.
2. If we conclude the RfC as saying we must remove the usage, edit warring will erupt. It already has (example).

I'm not looking to start a new debate. I'm not forum shopping. What I am asking for is either support by administrators to place option (2) into effect, or advice on where to go next if option (1) comes out of the RfC. No rational argument can be made that using a logo more than a hundred times counts as minimal use. I don't think ArbCom is the appropriate route. They don't accept such disputes as a rule. Looking back to the dispute over per episode screen shots in episode lists, ArbCom didn't get involved. That use was deprecated essentially by brute force. The same happened with deprecating album covers from discographies.

Help? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of:

1. You calling my actions edit warring. I reverted twice in which YOU are edit warring: Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. You made the change when consensus does not support your conclusion, ergo, you are "warring". Stop intentionally miscontruing/distorting my contributions to Misplaced Pages.
2. you asserting that policy requires that images must be removed if there is no consensus to use them. This is not policy and is a distortion of policy be used to further your agenda. Please stop, slow down, and just talk it through on the RFC. Remember there is no deadline. — BQZip01 —  04:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the potential harm to either the logo owners or to wikipedia itself? Baseball Bugs 15:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Following from that thought, could we not just start contacting the rightsholders to get permission, via OTRS? // roux   15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Baseball, as I said I'm not looking to start a new debate. I already know your position, as everyone else on the RfC does. If you want to debate it more, take it to the RfC. This is not the place to debate it, yet again. Roux, obtaining free license rights for team logos (not just permission to use) for every college sport is impossible. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not understanding my question, though. The argument (i.e. the policy) against widespread use of a given fair use image in wikipedia primarily has to do with potential future harm to wikipedia. I want to know where you think the harm would come from in this case. Baseball Bugs 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I understand perfectly. Please use the appropriate forum. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're the one that raised the question. If you yourself don't know what the problem would be, then why are you raising the question? Baseball Bugs 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please use the appropriate forum. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are looking for the process outlined in closing_of_a_consensus_decision_making_procedure. I suspect the issue isn't as clear as "all or nothing", since it seems this is an interpretation of a policy; even Mike Godwin, the Foundation's lawyer, differs with various interpretations of image policy ; so there is quite a broad range of ground, akin to what is described in the_relationship_between_policy_and_consensus. Basically, it seems like you need to find an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion and decide how the community is interpreting whatever section of NFC is related to whatever content is under discussion at the RFC. Any uninvolved admins handy? MBisanz 15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about having one uninvolved administrator close such a huge discussion involving dozens of people with such a wide disparity of opinions. The likelihood of that decision being accepted, regardless of what it is, is rather low. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well that is how Arbcom said it should be done. I don't know of any other way to do it that follows past practice. MBisanz 15:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok so the best tool is a hammer and we're treating it like a nail when it's really a bolt :) Then next question; assuming an uninvolved administrator closes it, and wars erupt...what then? Block everyone that wars? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well first we warn, then we block, but yes, that is what the Arbcom decision says, people who are recalcitrant to the close may be stopped from disrupting it. MBisanz 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you get too much rebellion, you undercut wikipedia itself. Then you have to consider whether the policy itself is either wrong or is being misinterpreted - especially as "minimal" is a slippery term. 700 might indeed be "minimal", compared with 7,000. Baseball Bugs 15:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• I am also concerned that if the decision is to allow the usage, the problem scales rapidly to one of using fair use logos across more than 100,000 pages. I'm at a loss as to how this could be a rational close if it closed that way. So if someone wants to appeal that decision by the single administrator, then what should they do? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Point of an RFC is to find a consensus, otherwise each side would appeal endlessly. MBisanz 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Which I would concede probably does not qualify as "minimal". Then it comes back to the question of the reason for the policy. Which poses the greater potential harm to wikipedia: Letting wikipedia's version of the fair use rule slide? Or trying to stop everyone? Baseball Bugs 15:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am not going to debate harm issues in this forum. If you want to debate that (and it already has), then please use the appropriate forum. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ironically, you are being told the same thing that you're telling me. Thank you. Baseball Bugs 16:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was this posted to the administrators' noticeboard? If all you require is an informed opinion, then please post to one of the half-dozen or so venues more suitable than this one. ˉˉ╦╩ 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because it's an administrator issue. I asked for administrator support to place option (2) into effect, among other things. Asking across a half-dozen or so other venues that aren't specifically to administrators doesn't help. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you are looking for someone to close an RFC, this is the right place to find them; if you are looking for someone to close it a particular way, that is forum shopping and not helpful. MBisanz 15:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I said at the beginning I am not forum shopping. I was looking for support from administrators if option (2) were put into effect, and avenues for appeal if option (1) is put into effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Um, no. It's a policy issue and policies are determined by the reasoning and consensus of all users, regardless of the sysop bit. You shouldn't post here unless an issue can only be resolved by the intervention of an admin. If you have no objections, I'd like to move this thread to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). ˉˉ╦╩ 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (e/c)
    • • I do object. This is an administrator issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Why isn't this a Foundation issue? Isn't the worry about possible legal action? dougweller (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The proposed usage is well within the limits of what is generally considered fair use, if perhaps not in line with WP:NFC. If this was a foundation issue, I assure you that WMF council would not require an invite. ˉˉ╦╩ 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
      • (ec)Not really, the Foundation isn't legally responsible for content on Misplaced Pages under Sec. 230 immunity, and as long as community's have an wmf:EDP (ours is at WP:NFC), the Foundation leaves it to the communities to handle. MBisanz 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree it's not a legal issue for the Foundation, but it is a free content issue as part of the mission that really can only be addressed by members of the Foundation as per what their intent is for WP in regards to free and non-free content. There is no "middle" point for the logos on season pages - either they are or aren't acceptable across the tens of thousands of possible pages, and consensus (not !voting) is clearly split evenly, so there really is no compromise position to speak of. This isn't the type of case ArbCom takes up (though I'm exploring that) since it's content related. Really, this entire issue revolves around how the Foundation wants to see the extent of keeping WP about free content and how much non-free content is allowable to keep that goal going. --MASEM 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I should point out that 230 immunity doesn't apply to copyright infringement (guess who got that passed *facepalm*) Sceptre 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone posed the idea of asking the sports authorities or leagues for permission. That would be a reasonable thing to do, as it would probably settle it. They would either say, "Sure, go ahead," or they would say, "Sure, go ahead after you've sent us the following amount of money as a licensing fee." If it's the former, then no problem. If it's the latter, then we would have to fall back on the legal fair use rules - which would provide solid justification for deletions, warnings, and blocks in case of violations. Baseball Bugs 16:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that all those US universities are going to release their team logos under a free license. CIreland (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Do the individual schools own the logos, or does their conference own them. In any case, assuming a logo is being used in 700 articles, theoretically there should be 700 fair use arguments for it on its page, right? Enforcing that rule might slow them down. Baseball Bugs 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages used to host copyrighted images with permission from the copyright holder which did not extend to third parties. Sometime in 2006 those were all quickly deleted by rule of Jimbo. Permissions are no longer a factor in fair use rationales. Also the NFC are not impervious to common sense, each unique usage requires a separate fair use rationale, if anyone insists on 700 duplicate tags then they can be rightfully told to bugger off. ˉˉ╦╩ 16:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The non-free content criteria specifically require a specific rationale for each use of the image. I find no other way of reading that than that each use has to have a rationale. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugger off. ˉˉ╦╩ 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (no offense intended & to clarify: yes, each use, but no, not every instance when and if such instances number into the dozens or more ˉˉ╦╩ 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

It's only a proposed policy. Therefore I can safely ignore it until it does become policy and then I'll have to follow it to the letter of the law. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That RfC looks like a "no consensus" situation. I don't suppose anyone was actually convinced to change their mind during discussion?--Tznkai (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread has gone away from the title question you asked, but for the sake of representing a different side, I would consider your question irrelevant. I have always understand "minimal usage" as operating on a per page basis. In other words, non-free content on each page should be limited to what is necessary and appropriate for the topic at hand. If we have 700 pages closely identified with a single sports team, and each one individually and separately meets the non-free content criteria, then it would be appropriate to use a logo 700 times. So I consider this focus on total uses to be a red herring. For me the question is: do we really have 700 pages that individually meet the criteria (I would guess no), and why should we have 700 pages related to a single sports team anyway? Dragons flight (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The 700-plus has to do with the number of occurrences of the team in various season result pages and such stuff as that. The argument for using the logo in those situations is that it's a quick reference to the team. However, the name of the team is unambiguous, whereas the reader may or may not know anything about the team logo. In effect, the logo is merely a decoration - unlike on the team's own page, where it connects with the team's identity and reasonably fits the wikipedia fair use rules. National flags are used much the same way - as decorations. The only real difference is that the flags are considered "free content" and thus they are allowed. Baseball Bugs 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, and as someone totally uninvolved, I don't really see 700 uses as minimal (though I'm not certain as to what that figure refers to). But if people want to get permission to use the logos, they should just do so, as this instantly renders the argument moot - and then the logos with permission can be left in articles, and others can be removed. Ale_Jrb 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, referring to teams using logos when you could just use the name is ridiculous. What happens if you don't know the logo of some teams? You're stuck really... Why would logos ever be better than names in this regard? Ale_Jrb 18:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And you're not likely to know that many nations' flags, either. Logos on lists of games, and flags on lists of players - both decorations, and the only difference is that the flags are "free content", so they get to stay based on consensus. Baseball Bugs 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, my comment on their usefulness wasn't aimed towards the discussion at hand - the concept is just strange. And I know of most countries' flags, so meh. Ale_Jrb 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Those objections about them being decorative in certain cases is orthogonal to the total number of uses. That should be addressed, but it needs to be addressed regardless of whether they are used once or 1000 times. Again, the number of times being used strikes me as a red herring. Dragons flight (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly the best way of fixing this is to get permission from the copyright holders. In the absence of that, N uses does indeed require N non-free rationales, and in most cases N-1 of those will be invalid because the image is used on the parent article and further uses are clearly decorative. Black Kite 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, Black Kite. Very well put. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's another issue at play regarding the requirement of one rationale per use; the ability of the content to be machine readable. This is referred to at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. That was a driving reason behind the non-free templates all being renamed to begin with "non-free", for example. In the case of rationales, it's required to allow bots to scan the image description pages to determine if rationales exist (not whether they are good rationales; just exist) for each use. The idea that one rationale can exist to cover many uses is not supported anywhere in policy or guideline. We can go that route (though I doubt we'd get consensus to do so) and simply add a blanket rationale to all fair use images that covers the legal base, and have the text be the same for all fair use images. If that be the case we can eliminate many of the points in WP:NFCC and dramatically reduce the amount of arguments that are always taking place with regards to WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Um. You'd still need to explain *why* that image is *necessary* on that particular article, though. That couldn't be done through blanket text. Black Kite 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• As a historical note, some of the people writing the Foundation Licensing Policy did expect there would be broad justifications covering many uses at once with some substantial degree of blanket behavior. It was our community that decided each use would require a distinct rationale and rejected the idea of cookie-cutter templates (even though in practice many rationales are cut and pasted). Dragons flight (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is worth noting: what Dragons flight is saying is that just the copyright notices for particular types of media were seen as sufficient rationale for many blanket categories of use by the people who wrote the Foundation resolution. People who claim that it is the Foundation that demands an individual explanation for each and every use simply don't know the history (or perhaps don't care to accurately represent it).

Still, at least we have templates like {{logo fur}} providing standard blanket community-approved quality-controlled rationale text for some blanket community-approved usages. Jheald (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• That template has been badly, badly abused all over the project. Characterizing it as a good thing is far from accurate. It was created at time when there was heavy pressure on fair use images to have rationales, and all it did was delay the inevitable because it made it far harder to identify what images are seriously lacking legitimate rationales. That template is a net detraction to the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Requiring people to hand-write a fair-use rationale for each case doesn't do anything to improve rationales because only a small minority of contributors has the ability to write good rationales and those who can distinguish good ones from bad ones are too few and have too many other things to do to patrol them. In practice what we get is just a bunch of copy-pasted sentence fragments with no references to the individual case at hand. We'd have better rationales with generic templates. Of course, one of the main goals of the fair use policy is to make the use of fair-use images difficult and requiring the pretense of an individualized fair-use rationale is an extra hoop to jump through. So it's useful in that sense. Haukur (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the "legal" issue and the "permission" issue

Because an administrator who is heretofore uninvolved with the subject may come directly from here and close the RfC, I want to ensure that this forum is crystal clear on two things:

1. Misplaced Pages's non-free content policy is derived from the foundation goal of building a 💕 and as such is considerably more restrictive than the most conservative reading of US fair use law. Don't assume that images in violation of our fair use guidelines (or alleged violation) automatically expose the foundation to legal trouble. Further, do not assume that being arbitrarily more conservative on the legal subject is better. You may be a lawyer. I'm not. Neither one of us is the foundation's lawyer. But it is just as detrimental to the encyclopedia to chart a course too cautiously as it is to skirt the boundaries of our non-free content policy. Again, unless your username is User:MGodwin, don't assume that you are doing the foundation any legal favors closing this either way.
2. Permission from the copyright holder (at least permission we are liable to secure) will not eliminate the fair use consideration. Parallel to my point above, the issue here is our goal to be a 💕, not the legal exposure from hosting 700 transclusions of a logo. Since these logos are trademarked and copyrighted (the latter where possible) and serve to make millions of dollars for their owner, release into the public domain is a vanishingly small possiblity. At best, we will receive permission to display the image only on wikipedia, like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. That permission is a non-binding constraint to the encyclopedia as we assert fair-use anyway. More importantly, that permission does nothing to our fair use policies. They still apply. We limit images to minimal use not due to lack of permission but due to out desire to remain free (and Free).

I don't want to push anyone in a single direction, but I did want to ensure those two points are clear. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Food

Could some one please unlock this so I can make some fixes/changes? I know the admin who locked it, but he is unavailable right now. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it was protected for being difficult to edit. Not really. Anyone with experience in featured portals, like myself, could easily figure out what goes where. I recommend not reprotecting it.--King Bedford I 03:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell was this protected for? --NE2 03:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection downgraded by original protecting admin --Stephen 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good, but does it even need to be semiprotected? --NE2 05:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why, and the reason given in the protection log is not provided for in the protection policy. I suppose the intent is to prophylactically prevent damage, but as this is a mere portal rather than a high-use template that doesn't really apply. I'll go an unprotect it all the way now. Splash - tk 13:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Right decisions there. I didn't even notice that the portal got protected. The only ones that merit protection of any kind are the high-traffic ones (which have links directly from main page). Since Food is not there, no need to protect. OhanaUnited 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/213.198.225.221

Seems to be a pattern of anti-czech and generally unhelpful edits- probably worth keeping an eye on. Exxolon (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have warned the user -- specifically for this gem. In the future, if you see objectionable conduct from a new/anon editor, be bold and take it upon yourself to warn the user. That's why we have these. Thanks, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional info - questionable edit on Slivovitz has been repeated by User:Camanic. Exxolon (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Complaint against User:Domer48 for disruptive editing, etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wish to make a complaint about User:Domer48 as a disruptive editor , based on varied evidence. Each piece of evidence in its own right may perhaps be within the letter of Misplaced Pages guidelines but – taken together – I believe they can be construed as a pattern of disruptive editing. The various elements include – edit-warring, breach of NPOV, tag-teaming, bullying.

I admit that I have personally been in edit wars and personal conflict with this editor on many occasions on many articles over many months, and have been sanctioned for this (as has Domer48, although he has removed the notices from his talk page). I have also been the subject of complaints by Domer48, who has also left messages on my talk page, e.g. here, here, here and here, which generally I choose to ignore. I consider these to be a form of harassment. I have not posted such "warnings" on his user page, despite having equally valid reasons so to do. On 24th December he followed me to various pages to make complaints about me here, here and here.

The cumulation of these edit-wars, personal conflict and reporting has, on some occasions, caused me great frustration and I have considered leaving Misplaced Pages as a result. Up until now, I have not had the patience to attempt to put together a case against this user, which is a dfficult task, given his adeptness at staying within (just about) the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.

• I don’t have the time to provide evidence of all the edit wars which Domer48 has been involved in, but rather I will draw attention to one particular article – Sinn Féin – in respect of which I was banned for edit-warring, yet Domer48 was not. This article is a good example, as I think it encapsulates many of the disruptive characteristics of this editor:
  • POV – as you will see from this editor’s user page and political slogan on his talk page, he has strong political views in support of Irish republicanism. You can see from his edit history that much of his time is spent editing articles which are relevant to Irish republicanism. One of these articles is Sinn Féin, in which his behaviour indicates that he feels he has ownership of the article.
  • A content dispute arose in this article – before my involvement, and including several editors – in which many editors believed that the content of the article was skewed towards a “Provisional” SF (i.e. that part of SF which split in 1970 and which is now known simply as “Sinn Féin”) POV, by including pre-1970 history of SF, thus giving the impression that the current SF party was the sole legitimate inheritor of the pre-1970 history of the party: something which is disputed and which most of the editors believed should be rectified by removing the pre-1970 material to History of Sinn Fein.
  • Domer48 was opposed to the proposed changes.
  • Thus far, there has been failure to make any changes due to the persistent opposition of Domer48. Most other editors have given up attempting to change it, presumably through frustration or boredom.
  • This wider dispute also included a dispute about the actual term “Provisional”, which Domer48 resisted being included in the article. You can see the discussion about this particular dispute, which began on 29 September 2008 – here, and you will note that – true to the spirit of Misplaced Pages – consensus was achieved on 7 October 2008.
  • However, at 21:21 on 7 December, User:Gailimh reverted the consensus text, which was then restored at 21:32 by User:Valenciano.
  • At 21:47 on the same day, Domer48 – having previously agreed to the consensus text – now reverted it. This appears to demonstrate that Domer48’s commitment to consensus was merely expedient, and that once he detected an allied editor, he preferred instead to edit-war in order to restore the previously-disputed text.
  • There followed an edit-war, including myself, User:Gailimh and User:Big Dunc (a regular ally of Domer48) on 8 and 9 December, when each of my two attempts to restore the consensus text were reverted.
  • At 20:06 on 11 December, I restored the consensus text again, and a one-on-one edit-war resulted with Domer48, who “won” the war after three reverts at 10:37 on 16 December, after which I gave up.
  • During this time – Domer48 refused to engage properly in discussion – he simply accepted and then defended the Gailimh without acknowledging that the previous text was the result of consensus-building – see here.
  • This appears to me to be a case of edit-warring in order to impose a particular POV on the article. I was punished for my part in the edit-war, but Domer48 was not.
  • You will note that Domer48 has most recently been involved in an edit war in relation to the translation of Sinn Féin.

• I see from here that “disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia” – I also think Domer48’s behaviour on Sinn Féin is caught by this definition.

• Other articles/tag-teaming/other editors/bullying
• I have come across Domer48’s edit wars on other articles, but, not being able to muster the patience, have not become involved in particularly nasty ones at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment – note that these are articles relevant to the POV noted on his user page, and have also involved User:BigDunc. He engaged – along with erstwhile ally User:BigDunc in a long series of edit wars with User:The Thunderer, which frustrated the latter user so much that he was eventually driven off Misplaced Pages – see here. The Thunderer had put in a lot of work and made significant contributions to these articles – and is a major loss. You will see from the edit histories that, having driven the Thunderer away, Domer48 has proceeded to set about editing the article freely, with no other editors having the patience to intervene. A mediation case was also closed when the Thunderer left. I don’t have the time to go into the actual content disputes on these article, but you can see from the edit history that, now that the Thunderer has left, Domer48 has been free to edit the article as he pleases, with no opposition from other editors. Personally, I lack the patience even to get involved in either of those articles.
• Behaviour with Big Dunc on http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Olympic_Council_of_Ireland#RfC:_Olympic_Council_of_Ireland looks a bit like tag-teaming. Also here.

• User:The Thunderer felt that he was the subject of bullying on these articles.

Some of this editor's behaviour appears to fit in with the descriptions on the Misplaced Pages guidelines about disruptive editing:

• tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Does not engage in consensus building (As can be seen from Sinn Féin, once an allied editor appears on the scene, he is quick to ditch previous consensus
• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility,Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Signs that may point to tag-teaming include:

• Working together to circumvent the three revert rule
• Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article.

Mooretwin (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Given that these articles fall under the Troubles ArbCom ruling, this complaint should really be at Arbitration Enforcement. Black Kite 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This was already brought up at AE, and decided it had no substance. ENOUGH, Mooretwin. SirFozzie (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I'd missed that. Yes, in that case, stop forum shopping please. I've struck my comment and will archive this. Black Kite 00:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Larry C. Johnson

There's a user editing the article purporting to be the subject of the article. Just a heads up. Lcjohnson (talk · contribs · email) is the user in question. Enigma 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Crapyourpants

Hi. This idiot tried to out an admin with personal info. Needs speedy deletion ASAP and I've tagged it as such. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This idiot? JPG-GR (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He's undoubtedly referring to the citizens in The Wizard of Id. Baseball Bugs 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Page FAIL.

Hi. Sorry about my impatience, but ITN should have been updated two days ago and it hasn't been. The template is red now. Please also see Misplaced Pages talk:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. ~AH1 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping. It's not a big deal, and stories are slow at present. --Stephen 08:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

this user is being VERY rude, impatient, and is snapping towards me, and causing edit conflicts constantly on articles attempting to get worked on. example of him being rude: "No. You're not improving these pages. They are actually worse than the old versions. Stop using time as an excuse. You're not going to add anything worthwhile or you would have already"

please do something, this guy clearly needs to chill out Jeremie Belpois (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are having an on-going issue, you might want to take it to WP:ANI, more eyeballs and that is where most of the incidents go. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 9, 2009 @ 02:21

Advice on a user who doesn't follow Misplaced Pages policies

I've been having some long-standing problems with User:EuroHistoryTeacher relating to WP:V, WP:OR and generally what might be described as his attitude here. The problem is that he edits low traffic articles so there is not enough of a community to keep him in check. His modus operandi seems to be editing articles related to Spanish colonial history, and primarily making maps of the Spanish Empire. As the areas shaded as Spanish end up being on the generous side, I ask him for sources to show it is not original research. However, he feels he is above providing references when I challenge material because he has studied this at university.

He clearly displayed his attitude towards Misplaced Pages here:

• "h c'mon ! stop the bs, nobody cares about these "Imperial" articles except us history lovers, the rest of the pop. dont ever read this"
• "ok lol pero hay alguien (y tu sabes quien es) que es un "jihadista" en wikipedia lol" (referring to me, using Spanish but not realising that I speak a little; translation: "OK LOL but there is someone (you know who) who is a jihadist in Misplaced Pages LOL)"

Three examples of unwillingness to follow WP:V:

• "he is always asking me (WHY ME everytime?!) to give him sources as if he wants to make my experience here in wikipedia miserable"
• "i suggest you go to an institution and study Spanish history and politics before trying to shoot other people). Im not going to look a source for you, i already know it, but im sure somebody else can around here, i just dont have the time to satisfy your every doubts"
• An edit today to British Empire, which got FA status a couple of weeks ago: he takes a section from another article and simply pastes it in there, no references, no nothing, even though I have already asked him to provide references using the British Empire article as a properly referenced example .

I can provide many more examples, including other users' comments in a Wikiquette alert that I filed . Countless times I have asked him to learn how to provide inline references, and in three months of editing, not once has he done so.

As someone who invests a lot of time and effort in trying to improve Misplaced Pages (not to mention money, given all the books I have purchased to help with editing articles in the colonial history space), I am seriously at the end of my tether here.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Would this require administrator intervention, except for maybe topic blocks/temporary blocks? Request for Comment/Editor Assistance would be better for this as it is a content dispute more or less with ignoring policies attached, on the other hand, you have every right to remove material not sourced, and he/she might violate 3RR. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:EuroHistoryTeacher seems to be POV pushing in questioning that an article on the German Army in World War II, with the Holocaust and all that, should mention any war crimes and shows bad behavior or vandalism in posting a spurious "New message" notice . He/she might become a useful contributor if the bad behavior were held in check, because he/she seems intelligent and articulate. This also holds the potential for considerable mischief. It is up to the user.My advice is to caution the user then to apply progressive discipline per Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, to avoid the damage to Misplaced Pages which can result from unchecked POV pushing and vandalism/mischief. Edison (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Have we seen this before? Protonk (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  Have you seen similar edits in the past? Edison (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  Don't be cute. Has a report similar to this been raised at AN or AN/I in the past? Protonk (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a report about his general behaviour that was raised by myself which can be seen on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive179#EuroHistoryTeacher, though the responses were a bit disappointing as they concentrated on the perceived problem of me issuing him with a strong template as an established user, rather than his behaviour, which, having read through his talk page archives, seemed to be a constant problem that others had experienced. His subsequent responses on his talk page to me, which I think could be described as perhaps "gloating" and being unduly combative (see User talk:EuroHistoryTeacher#December 2008) merely strengthened my sense that a strong warning (such as the one I issued) was justified, and that he would continue his troublesome behaviour rather than cool down, as was advised. I see this report as merely confirming this.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(I didn't realise that others are having an issue. I really do think that the only thing which will get him to change his behaviour is a temporary block. It has honestly been non-stop with him since he joined the project in October or November, and it shows no sign of letting up. (reply to Noian: The content issue is one aspect of the matter, but how can you solve content disputes when the other side is completely unwilling to follow policies?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 11:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher had a false banner at the top of his page which duplicated the Misplaced Pages "New message" notice. I removed it, and he replaced in on the page telling me to "go away."(edited to add: with the added "please.") It seems like vandalism. Is a new removal followed by a block warning appropriate, or does an editor have a right to place on his own user page or talk page a false notice that the viewer has new messages? Edison (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a thread about this roughly a year ago, and ISTR the consensus was that UI spoofing is unhelpful and may become disruptive editing and blockable. link. --Rodhullandemu 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is now deprecated per this guideline --Rodhullandemu 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Does "is now deprecated" mean it is allowed on one's talk page, or that it is considered disruptive, and refusal to remove it is ultimately blockable?? Is it in the category of "frowned upon but permissable?" Edison (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He has now, after my apology for the prior removal and a polite request, removed the prank "New messages" banner from his talk page. That resolves the immediate issue. Edison (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So is the upshot that Request for Comment/Editor Assistance is the right way to proceed here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for review and unblock of User:67.159.50.130

The IP User:67.159.50.130 has been blocked for 5 years as an open proxy. It was used only once in April of last year. I have email permission from Tomascastelazo, a talented Wikimedia Commons photographer, to disclose that it is his underlying IP address. He already has one FP on this site and several on the sister site, and I have been trying to set up a featured picture nomination here for him (English is not his native language). IPs can change and we rarely block any for such a long time. Please review. Durova 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we can change the settings to a softblock. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I told User:Spellcast since it was his block so he can review. If something has changed, he would know if others may be blocked for similar reasons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) Durova 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is no longer an open proxy, there's no need to keep it blocked at all :) (I can't nmap from here) -- lucasbfr 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's still open, but I'm no expert with nmap, so I'll leave that decision to someone else. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The above IP is within this range: 67.159.0.0/18 owned by FDCservers. Currently the range is blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Kanonkas (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Yorkshirian

Not sure where to raise this case to get the best out of it, but here goes:

User:Yorkshirian, a banned user (possibly double-banned by suspicion of being User:Daddy Kindsoul), has requested to be unbanned and unblocked on his user page. I understand that only the Arbitration dept. can make such a call, but I think more input is needed on the talk page eitherway. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Special delivery: unblock for Mr Yorkshirian, by Porcine Air Express. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What sort of edit summary is "oink flap"? I was expecting a sort of piggy cat flap. :-/ dave souza, talk 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Manhattan_Samurai

//roux   16:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello: I have been threatened on my talk page by an administrator who is threatening to indefinitely block my account. Can someone unrelated to this matter address this? I would like to stay out of it. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the thread at WP:ANI, and understand this user has a long history of trolling and disruptive behavior hidden by a series of moved and deleted talk page coontributions. I am not set on blocking him but need some answers. Chrislk02 15:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move help

Hi, could someone please move English LGBT slang back to LGBT slang. I attempt to but was unable. -- Banjeboi 17:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! -- Banjeboi 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Monosodium glutamate, Chinese restaurant syndrome

We need some wider input and help on monosodium glutamate about this dispute: Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Migraine_Headaches. A group of single purpose accounts (probably sockpuppets of the same user) are continuously re-adding that monosodium glutamate is a migraine trigger when in fact all recent scientific review articles come to the conclusion that it is not. The user is very prolific on the talk page but does not address the raised concerns, reinserts his content without discussion and edit summaries as repeatedly requested, and starts to extend this behaviour to related articles . Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Looie496 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute. I see good faith discussion on the talk page. Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't see any reason for administrator involvement here. Nandesuka (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is something you're missing. Monosodium glutamate was listed on Fringe noticeboard also; I went and was immediately thoroughly insulted. Apparently there is a conspiracy of editors trying to censor Misplaced Pages, and I am part of that conspiracy. I'm only there to gang up on this editor and prevent The Truth from being put in the article. Adding a sectionheader to split an incredibly long thread I didn't even post in was "Your obvious attempt to highlight your own post with a new section" - mind you, I state again, I didn't even post there! I didn't know about Chinese restaurant syndrome, sigh. No, this editor is on a crusade to get a Fringe view inserted and is busily insulting and edit warring to do so. The "discussion" is anything but constructive. I requested a cite which met certain parameters; he told me to go find it myself. To support his desired edit, mind you. Meh. KillerChihuahua 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for a Content Committee?

Well, happy new year y'all, and since I'm here anyway, allow me to bounce an idea off a few heads.

The Ireland ArbCom case recently came to my attention. This strikes me as a dispute that is extremely important to 1% of our userbase, who are more-or-less evenly divided between the two sides, and mostly irrelevant to the remaining 99%. It also strikes me that we have a whole gallery of this kind of disputes, and that they tend to rage on for months and cause serious burnout in involved people.

We need a way for resolving these issues. I believe that an option may be to create a Content Committee, and have suggested as such on the Village Pump. Just notifying the people here to get more attention over there (so kindly respond on the VP rather than here, thank you very much). >Radiant< 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI... The essay Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Committees. -- FayssalF - 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User moving pages

A user is moving pages citing capitalization as the reason. I don't have time to do it right now, can someone else get to it? See his contribs. iMatthew // talk // 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Perhaps if you post on User Talk:Fram and discuss it? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me; List of Events in Baton Rouge was improperly capitalized, as "events" isn't a proper noun. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fram is an admin as well... Mr.Z-man 22:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

protection of indef template

I've protected {{indef}}, which redirects to the protected template {{indefblockeduser}}. I reasoned that it ought to continue to do so, and it is potentially in use on a large number of user pages - and not just nice users. Hoping this ruffles no feathers, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Completely reasonable. — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering the template itself looks to be fully protected, doing the same for redirects is quite sensible. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

request for unblock

15:45, 15 October 2006 Gurch (talk · contribs) blocked 刻意 (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (username) .That's another name of mine. Now, I request for unblock. A lot of non-Latin names(e.g. User:에멜무지로) existing in wikipedia, I unified all the names, but was blocked indefinite here!--Keyi 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC) The name policy did not say non-Latin names were forbiden.(even on October 2006)--Keyi 01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the best way to proceed is probably to make a request to be unblocked on the talk page of the blocked account. Given the new potential to unify accounts originating from Wikis that don't use the Latin alphabet, I don't see why the account wouldn't be unblocked here. Lankiveil 02:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

In 2006, non-Latin names were forbidden. That's no longer the case now (obviously) and Lankiveil is correct - log in from that account and make a request for unblock from its talk page. --B (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

GoRight community ban

GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

GoRight, is a single-purpose account who last August was the subject of an RFC, which led to community sanction here on AN. Since that time, he has persisted in disrupting Misplaced Pages - revert warring, making false/inflammatory edits that are likely to cause edit wars, making personal attacks, using talk pages as soap boxes, making false claims about policy says and then using those false claims for wikilawyering, etc.

He recently returned from several weeks on hiatus and resumed his disruptive ways, leading me to warn him that any further disruption would not be tolerated. He continued revert warring (in violation of the 1rr he promised to adhere to the last time his behavior was discussed on AN), so I blocked him. GoRight posted an unblock request template on his talk page, and unfortunately he found an admin who fell for the trick. Aitias unblocked him, claiming falsely that I was involved in the matter (I was not; I issued my warning to GoRight before ever reverting him) and that no valid reasons for the block had been provided (when in fact they had been provided in abundance. ). To wit, since his return, GoRight has - literally - not made one single productive edit. Instead, he has been using talk pages as soap boxes for personal attacks, revert warring, removing relevant sourced information from articles - all in all, disruptive editing.

I think it's time to re-consider the GoRight community ban. Raul654 (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in his January contributions to justify a community ban, but don't really care enough to have a strong opinion either way. The one thing I do care about and think is important to say here is that Aitias acted correctly in unblocking this user. You were obviously a heavily involved admin. In addition to your reverting with him in that article, you were in a discussion with him on Talk:Global warming and were obviously involved in August. Aitias acted correctly - if you want to propose a community ban, fine, but you don't have to do it by criticizing the actions of an admin who was pretty unquestionably in the right. --B (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you bring up no particular edits here. You say that all of them are terrible, but I'm not seeing it.

• One of his edits (edit-warring) was on adding a closing statement to a RfC on his behavior. Perhaps technically not permissible, but certainly not a terrible banworthy action. One can understand why he would want to clarify something in that sort of page.
• In another case he wanted to trim a long quote to the basic gist: the guy said he was not a global warming denier. This is perfectly reasonable given summary style.
• Edits like this and this are more troubling. It's disruptive to make inflammatory, unsourced statements on the talk page. And he apparently did edit-war to keep it in .

I'm not ready to say he should be banned, but if he keeps up with those kinds of comments, I could see a ban in his future. II | (t - c) 04:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, in my above summary, I certainly discussed individual edits. Specifically, I linked to this edit of mine, where I broke down all of GoRight's edits for the last week into three categories - the inflammatory edits to talk:global warming you mentioned (and subsequent revert warring and wikilawyering on his talk page about it), the attempts to rewrite his history on the RFC, and the disruptive editing on The Deniers.

GoRight's edits to The Deniers were certainly disruptive. The quote in question was not overly long, and GoRight's edit substantially whitewashed meaning of the cited sentence (GoRight's "I am not a denier" version is substantially weaker than the previous version, which, to paraphrase, said "Solomon's newspaper columns were misleading. I am not a denier. There is overwhelming evidence for global warming. Solomon misquoted other people too") The latter is an accurate representation of what was said; the former is a watered down and less informative, which was GoRight's goal from the beginning. GoRight's other edit there, was to insert original researchy commentary from Solomon, as WMC explained on the talk page. In short - GoRight's edits to the article made it worse, and predictably, caused an edit war.

As to the third set of edits - the soapboxy personal attacks on the talk page, I'm glad you agree that are "troubling". But what do you mean, "if he keeps up with these"? He has a 2 year history of disruption here, including a prior block for personal attacks last summer. Even prior to the last August's RFC and community sanction, he had already been sanctioned for violating BLP with regard to William M. Connelly's biography, and making personal attack against WMC. It's not as if these behaviors are new or unexpected - they are par for the course with him. Raul654 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm seeing evidence of disruptive bahaviour, has anyone any diffs of positive contributions since GoRight's return, or indeed at any time? . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked that question on my talk page, and the answer I got was a resounding silence. I think we can safely say the answer is "No" - by any reasonable standard, he has not made a single positive contribution since his return. Raul654 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has at least one, here. Has there an RFC on this user? rootology (C)(T) 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was revered by consensus it appears, so it probably wasn't that good, and the general language is good enough probably for NPOV. rootology (C)(T) 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between "criticism from climate scientists" and "criticism from some climate scientists". The latter leads one of think that the criticism comes from a relatively small number of scientists, or that there is dissent, when in fact none exists. GoRight's edit distorts the reality of the situation, which is something common to much of his article editing. And, as you said, it was reverted. So that's still 0 good edits from GoRight.

For your other question, here's a short history of GoRight: GoRight caused much disruption in 2007, then left for several months, returning in mid-2008 and picking up where he left off - he started 9 simultaneous edit wars. He was brought to AN last June for BLP violations and making personal attacks. Then in July there was an RFC where a plurality of folks endorsed the idea that he contributes nothing to the encyclopedia, followed by an ANI discussion in August which resulted in community sanctions. During that ANI discussion, GoRight promised to turn over a new leaf - to be less disruptive, adhere to BLP, adhere to 1rr. I knew this was a lie (As R. Baley said, "GoRight can be exceptionally polite when at a noticeboard"), so I began keeping track of his edits here. GoRight caused more disruption from September-November, then left for two months. He returned last week, and again resumed his disruption. Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on all this he falls into that cheeful polite POV pusher side of things. Or mostly polite. Either way, he's playing games with the articles and we can do without him, I agree on that. rootology (C)(T) 18:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also support a community ban on GoRight. After reviewing the evidence, that is the only option left for dealing with this editor.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Community review of User:Raul654's block of User:GoRight

As long as we're going to discuss GoRight here, I think the community should assess whether Raul's block of GoRight was appropriate given their history. The two have an excessively nasty history to the point where Raul keeps a list of GoRight's so-called "disruption" and has attempted on multiple occasions to have GoRight community banned. To me, it seems rather obvious that Raul should not personally exercise a block on GoRight (except in a clear-cut case of policy violation or a violation of his topic ban, neither of which seem to be the case here as two uninvolved admins disagreed with the block here and he was subsequently unblocked). In my opinion, there is no way that Raul could have considered himself an uninvolved admin here and therefore he clearly should have asked someone else to perform the block or presented the behavior to the community. I'm far from being an uninvolved party in this whole mess as well so I'd ask the community to review this block and decide whether it was appropriate. Oren0 (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user--and without any comment on the value of either GoRight or Raul's contributions--blocking a user you're in a nasty, long-term dispute with is blatantly not okay. It takes 10 seconds to find an uninvolved admin, and if the user warrants a block as much as you say they do, they get it. There is no ambiguity in the policy, and as a longtime admin Raul should know better. I suggest we review this further. Bullzeye 12:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we use a little common sense here? There is a difference between "a nasty, long-term dispute" and "a nasty, long-term disruptive editor whom one admin has been trying to get to Straighten up and Fly right". Don't conflate I've blocked you, warned you, and tried to get you to follow policy with I'm involved. This trend is not helping the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua 12:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think maintaining a userspace list of perceived problems for many months (I have just sent it to MfD) does make an admin involved. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To save others the trouble, the Mfd and the page. That is "involved" in watching a formerly banned user, yes? KillerChihuahua 13:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding: DuncanHill must not have read Raul's talk page, where immediately above the section for this Mfd, Raul states the page is in case GoRight goes to another Rfc or to Arbitration. KillerChihuahua 13:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I had not seen that, but I must say coming up with a "it's just in case there is another case" justification 5 months after starting such a page rings a little hollow to me. Other editors are not allowed to maintain such pages over such a long time "just in case", so I do not see why Raul should be. I assume he has access to a computer, so it should not be too hard for him to maintain such a list if he wishes off-wiki. If KC is going to copy his responses to the MfD here, so shall I.DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

During the ANI discussion in August, I had no doubt in my mind whatsoever that GoRight was lying when he said he intended to improve his behavior, and that it would inevitably wind up back at ANI/RFC/Arbcom. I started that page so I would be prepared when it happened. (That's why "evidence" has been the first word on that page since day 1) Raul654 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

KC, I realize you tend to support Raul almost universally, but the rule's real simple: don't block people you've had personal conflicts with. Get an uninvolved admin to do it. It's real, real, real simple, costs nothing, and eliminates drama. Wikilawyering about intent is not helping the encyclopedia, and I'm a little disappointed (but unsurprised) that you're unwilling to even admit that Raul MIGHT have done wrong here. Bullzeye 13:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell are you? I don't support anyone universally. I support or disagree as my intelligence and conscience dictates. I suggest you back off, I am tired of slander and insult this particular day, and you are the last straw. KillerChihuahua 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Having looked into this a little, there's certainly been a resumption of disruptive editing by GoRight and in light of past disruption a block seems reasonable. Whether it will lead to an improvement in behaviour is something to watch. The suggestion that any admin with past experience of a disruptive editor should therefore leave them to continue disruption to "eliminate drama" is a recipe for more disruption, and probably more drama. Vague allegations and what appears to be a personal attack on KC's motivations are not the way to improve the encyclopedia. . . dave souza, talk 13:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is more than just "past experience". If it's a topic area that you have strong opinions about, don't block a good faith user, particularly if you are actively arguing with them on a talk page. WP:BLOCK#Disputes says, "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." The proper course of action would be for Raul654 to recuse himself from blocking people for global warming-related issues except for obvious spam/vandalism and the like. This isn't the first time there has been a concern here with Raul's use of the tools in global warming articles. Usually criticism is just shouted down, and I'm not under any delusion that anything different will happen this time. One of the biggest failings of Misplaced Pages is its inability to deal with abuse of the administrative tools. --B (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is shouted down because there's nothing to it, just like this complaint here. You are saying, in essence, that only an admin who has never interacted with another user can block him, which is a recipe for problems if that user is disruptive in a non-obvious way. Hell, even the policy you cited doesn't support your interpretation (Policy says "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute"; you say "If it's a topic area that you have strong opinions about, don't block a good faith user". These are substantially different statements) Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, I'm in perfect agreement with B on this issue. The block constituted a blatant conflict of interest. — Aitias // discussion 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Raul654, you were involved in a particular (and current) content dispute with this user and have not just “interacted with” them at a random point of time. — Aitias // discussion 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Aitias here. To paint this as if you've just "interacted" with GoRight is disingenuous. If I had to pick a particularly heated conflict I'm aware of, the one between yourself, GoRight, and WMC would probably rate near or at the top of the list. There is a lot of history here and you are about as involved with GoRight as any user can be involved with any other user. Oren0 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with us debating whether there was a COI - but B, are you sure you want to say "abuse of the administrative tools"? Surely even if your view is that Raul was involved, this was a misjudgment? IOW, was the block itself bad, or merely who did it? KillerChihuahua 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If he was really under 1RR, then a block by an uninvolved admin could have been appropriate. I looked at the previous ban discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive466#Continued_baiting_and_harassment_by_User:GoRight and it looks like, among other things, GoRight agreed to "3. I have taken the RfC process to heart and have been voluntarily adopting a WP:1RR policy (although there may be rare exceptions) and I have been consistently WP:CIV in my edit summaries and talk page comments." Unless there is a community imposition of an absolute 1RR, all this says is "I will hold to 1RR unless I don't want to", which is not anything I would think enforceable by a block. In any event, Raul in part provoked the incident by using the admin rollback tool to revert GoRight's edits. Everyone knows that is considered to be an insult. If he were not an admin, it wouldn't even be controversial that his rollback privileges would be taken away. Blocking is to be used to prevent disruption, not to win a content dispute. Was there any real threat of imminent disruption here? I'm not seeing it and so no, the block was not a good block. --B (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He was not blocked for violating the 1rr he claims to adhere to. He was blocked for a continuing pattern of disruption, which is blockable, and for which there is a great deal of evidence, and not a single productive edit to balance it out. Raul654 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nor was I the one who provoked the incident. GoRight provoked it by making this series of inflammatory edits which were rightfully reverted by Kim as being disruptive. Goright reverted Kim . I warned GoRight against any further disruption on GW articles, and afterwards I reverted the article back to the version that has been there for weeks prior to GoRight's editing. Raul654 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing inflammatory about those edits - all three were in good faith and there is no way that an unbiased, uninvolved admin would consider them to be disruptive. --B (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. Raul654 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you posted the wrong diff? Are you really providing comments by yourself and WMC as evidence that an uninvolved admin would find GoRight's edits disruptive? Also, of those 3 diffs, only yours makes any hint of the edits being disruptive. Because other editors disagree with something or revert it does not mean that the original edit was disruptive, and it certainly doesn't make the edit blockable. Oren0 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is this another one of your "they should have used these these magic words" arguments? Kim, WMC, and I were the ones who responded to GoRight's edits, and no one else did. And all of us argued against them. Neither Kim or WMC called them disruptive in so many words, but if we were to ask them, I'm pretty sure they would call his edits disruptive.

And you're right, that reverting an edit is not, by itself, evidence of disruption. On the other hand, 94% (34 out of 36, according to the RFC) of GoRight's edits are revert warring. That's a pretty conclusive sign of disruption. Raul654 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh...especially when I remember one of my comments from the past: "I don't think it's advisable for a block to be imposed by an admin who is considered involved - none of us want a very avoidable controversy and drama to follow...Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)" Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From a past interaction with Raul654 over a similar issue, I feel safe in saying that anyone who feels as User:B does would be wasting their time posting further here in the hope of persuading Raul654 to do anything differently in the future. Whether other avenues are likely to lead to other results is dubious, of course, but the method of behavioral modification by noticeboard harangue is even less likely to work here than for other admins. Thatcher 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What could Thatcher be referring to? Mike R (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Raul654 per our standards "involved" on global warming articles?

That is the standard of whether or not he's allowed to act as anything but a regular editor on these, same as for any other admin, arb, checkuser, or whatever else. Same rules apply to every admin, of course. So, is Raul an "involved editor" on global warming, or has he just been acting as an admin? If the former, he shouldn't even block any GW-related things beyond blatant vandals. If the latter, he can block, Checkuser, etc. Which is it? rootology (C)(T) 21:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Using the edit counter, here are his most-edited articles:

Edits	Article
528	Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
290	Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
287	Battle of Dien Bien Phu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
207	Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
188	Free speech zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
133	Akutan Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
128	Parallel computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
115	Jim Inhofe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
96	Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
81	The Swimming Hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
77	The Great Global Warming Swindle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
77	Operation Downfall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
76	AIDS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
70	Yahya Ayyash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
69	Cat gap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Raul654&site=en.wikipedia.org

I certainly would not consider him uninvolved in the topic area. In THIS PARTICULAR CASE, he was in a discussion with GoRight at Talk:Global_warming#More_recognition_of_dismissive_reports_and_data, so even if you don't accept that Raul should never use his admin tools controversially in the global warming topic area, in this particular case it's pretty unquestionable that there was an active dispute with this particular user. --B (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For discussion purposes, I looked up all the Global Warming related blocks he's done (excluding the hundreds of User:Scibaby and Scibaby Checkuser blocks:

• October 2008 block of Logicus, 24 hours for "Disruption on the global warming article"
• September 2008 block of Dalej78, 24 hours for "Repeated disruption on global warming related articles; numerous talk page warnings (mostly blanked)"
• November 2007 block of Obedium, 1 week for Nov 16 vandalism of global warming article, and this edit was his only November 16 edit to Global Warming. Later indeffed by Raul as a sock of someone.
• October 2007 199.82.243.71 block for 1 week for Edits to Great Global Warming Swindle; overturned by Ryan Postlewaite. That would be these edits: . The IP has no other edits to anything even related to Global Warming.
• July 2007 block of 70.144.68.148, 1 week for "POV pushing on Great Global Warming Swindle". Were the edits pushing a POV? Sure, but there wasn't even a warning (note his talk page doesn't even exist).
• July 2007 block of Brittania for edit warring on Global Warming. The edit warring was three total reverts on June 30 2007, July 3 2007, and July 4 2007.
• June 2007 block of 68.145.124.154 for 1 week for POV pushing on a global warming article. These edits: the third of which was undoing Raul's undoing of the IP's edit
• Nov 2006 block of JonMosely twice, first 24 hours for POV pushing global warming, then 2 days later indefinitely for the same thing. His edits on his last day:
• September 2006 block of 82.42.236.106 for 1 week for POV pushing on global warming article. These edits: , this one was clearly pushing actually unsourced POV content.
• September 2006 1 week block of 24.82.193.125 for POV pushing global warming.

For context. rootology (C)(T) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-Identified Minor Young Adult

Can someone check User talk:Cutepiku and oversight as necessary. Child giving way too much personal info, IMHO, including name, birthday, height, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the DOB is accurate, she is 18. At that age, she has the right to post whether she likes, in my opinion, though it is fair to warn her about the potential negative consequences. Dragons flight (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking further, it seems the account has probably been abandoned more than a year ago. If you want to blank it, I wouldn't object. Dragons flight (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I typed roughly the same and got caught in an edit conflict. Themfromspace (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I did my math wrong and put her at 17. As such I deleted the usertalk page. I left the user a message, and will leave her another one giving her the option to have the deleted content restored. She may actually want it deleted after learning of the reason for the deletion. But, like you I agree that at 18 she is old enough to make that choice for herself. Tiptoety 05:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay...note to self, no doing math after 10 pm. She does still edit occasionally using her IP, and my brain was still thinking 2008 and miscalculating. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I did. I still thought it was 2008. :P Tiptoety 05:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry: Ohconfucius

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone check on Ohconfucius. This user is continually getting into conflict and persists in a narrow application of editing style. The user has been suspended / banned in the past and still is a disruption. Ohconfucius is also embroiled in a delinking snafu as well. Leadingonward (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: this account was created 24 hours ago.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and one that seems to have only one purpose... either way (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything specifically you think needs to be looked at? So far, looking at the edits you've made, I don't see anything that's alarming about Ohconfucius' actions that require admin intervention. either way (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Any user not blind or partial only has to go back in Ohconfucius' archives to discover abuse. Goodmorningworld, did you read about this user's activities? Alerts have failed, other actions have not curbed the problems. Leadingonward (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins may want to consider WP:RFCU, which provides that "disruptive 'throwaway' account used only for a few edits" may be "lock, no checkuser needed." --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have some information about the identity of this account, but am not fully up to speed yet. I recommend applying an extension of WP:DOLT. Let's check the contributions of Ohconfucious and see if there is any merit to the complaint. Then we can decide where to go. The editor in hiding apparently is concerned about retaliation for filing this complaint. That concern may be valid or not, but we should gather the facts before jumping to conclusions. Jehochman 14:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Leadingonward, could you provide a few diffs of problematic behavior? I have noted that Ohconfusius was blocked recently for edit warring and exceptional incivility. What else is going on? Jehochman 14:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a request for arbitration pending. I recommend anybody who has something to add to this discussion makes a statement at WP:RFAR. It seems that there may be deeper behavioral issues that are preventing the resolution of whatever content disagreements are present. Editors are getting very upset, apparently. Jehochman 14:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing recent which is harmful. Pointers to specific problems would be good, and not just "any user not blind or partial" pseudo-allegations. Be specific. At the same time, it is rather disturbing that the complaint is made from a single purpose account. Leadingonward, have you previously edited wikipedia under another name? Tb (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, leadingonward seems to have tried to delete an RfC by ohconfucious, which is, AIUI, not allowed. Tb (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, this is the second SPA attack on me in recent weeks. The last one was from User:Comingattractions just two days ago. I do not believe I have victimised anybody for them to fear 'retaliation' from me. I may be blunt at times, but that's where it ends. Today, the sockpuppet created solely with the intention of harassment and vandalism (as seen here(1) and here(2) is well beyond what could be considered a reasonable breach of policy, and should stop forthwith. What's more, the garbled messages left on my talk page bordered on the incoherent, so I took the first on to be from a troll and deleted it immediately. If these actions continue from this or any other user which I suspect to be the same person, I will request these to be investigated. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• This same editor has now contacted me twice on the telephone, and I have very strongly encouraged them to keep all further discussions on wiki, or via email. I was not able to understand the nature of their complaint, but suggested that I would look at this thread with an open mind. We may be dealing with somebody who is assuming bad faith, perhaps not intentionally, but the effect may be highly disruptive. Registering multiple accounts to continue past disputes is not a good idea. Thoughts? Jehochman 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User: Pé de Chinelo'S RfC

Hi

Can a mod/admin please close it off officially, the 30 days passed on 30th december and he has been banned due to continuous EW&vand and hasn't bothered to comment on the RfC.

Cheers, chocobogamer mine 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

talk:Soggy biscuit

This article is back from DRV to AfD, could someone please undelete the talkpage? Thanks! -- Banjeboi 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of SPA template

Users brewcrewer and Ryan4314 are repeatedly slapping the Single Purpose Account template on my vote even though I don't have an account. With this template, they are claiming that I have made few edits and I have only a single purpose. However, anyone with half a brain knows that IP addresses changes and are resigned, so the history that appears when clicking on my user contributions doesn't show all the edits I have made in the past years. The users are doing this to make my vote not legitimate. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably meant "half a brain", not "have". This edit does not support your claim of being a long-time editor. In any case, this might be another incentive to create a username. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because the user you are targeting isn't the ideal wikipedian doesn't mean you have the green light to misuse and abuse Wiki policies without consquences. Yes anyone with half a brain would know an IP address is not a user account and thus doesn't record all their edits. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards